Ecology and Conquest

Critical Notes on Kelly's Model of Nuer Expansion

Bibliographic Data

ID7768523
AuthorsJan J De Wolf (corresponding author)
Year1990
Volume29
Issue4
Pages341
Publication date1990-10-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueEthnology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0014-1828 • E-ISSN: 2160-3510
PublisherJSTOR (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/3773603
OpenAlexW192848974
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited10

Nilotic ethnography has become standard fare in contemporary social and cultural anthropology (Burton 1988:453). As a consequence many anthropologists who did not have extensive first-hand acquaintance with the Nuer and Dinka have tried to use the material collected by Evans-Pritchard and Lienhardt in arguments which are liable to remain inconclusive because empirical evidence supporting alternative interpretations is not available. The discussion on the Nuer expansion at the expense of the Dinka is a good example of such attempts. It is therefore particularly interesting that Kelly (1985), whose monograph on Nuer expansion is the last and most comprehensive study of this fascinating problem, used a hitherto very much neglected source of information. Apart from utilizing ethnographic sources and colonial archival records, Kelly also relied heavily on ecological and economic data collected in connection with the proposed construction of the Jonglei canal (Kelly 1985:3-4). The reports on this research were not well known nor easily available at the time that Kelly wrote his book (cf. Howell 1954b, 1954c, 1954d, 1954e, 1955; Payne and ElAmin 1977), but the rsults have now been comprehensively summarized and ably analyzed in The Jonglei Canal: Impact and Opportunity (Howell et al. 1988). The factual basis for a critical evaluation of the dynamic model of Nuer expansion that Kelly developed, and with the aid of which he explored its causes and claimed to have shown the reasons for its success, can now at least partly be evaluated and supplemented with alternative views. After presenting an outline of the model used by Kelly, with particular emphasis on those variables which can be quantified with the aid of statistical survey data, I shall compare the values predicted by the model with the actually available data. In my opinion these data are less supportive of Kelly's argument than is suggested in his book. Nonetheless, as the quality of the data may well be suspect, this does not in itself disprove the usefulness of Kelly's model. Its central hypothesis is that there is a positive correlation between size of bridewealth (paid in cattle) and the ratio of cattle per capita. However, on a priori grounds and in view of other studies not referred to by Kelly, this is implausible. An alternative explanation compatible with the same data Kelly uses is proposed. If difference in bridewealth customs between Dinka and Nuer cannot explain Nuer expansion and conquest of parts of the Dinka territory, it becomes necessary to reconsider the population pressure thesis discarded by Kelly in favor of his own (untenable) explanation. Kelly's model assumes the stability over time of certain ecological and demographic parameters, but evidence to the contrary is presented here. Finally, I will discuss the processes of social change among the Nuer in the newly conquered areas and suggest an alternative model for rapid expansion after overpopulation had caused their original migration

Ancient history · Biology · CONQUEST · Geography · Sociology · Anthropology · Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management · Ecology · History · Rangeland Management and Livestock Ecology · Wildlife Ecology and Conservation

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access