Offering, Sacrifice and Gift

Offering, Sacrifice and Gift
Author(s): J. van Baal

Source: Numen, Vol. 23, Fasc. 3 (Dec., 1976), pp. 161-178
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3269590 .
Accessed: 24/09/2014 06:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Numen.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 79.13.48.228 on Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:22:06 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Numen,Vol. XXIII, Fasc. 3
OFFERING, SACRIFICE AND GIFT

BY
J. VAN BAAL
Utrecht,Holland
In thispaper 1) I call an offeringany act of presentingsomething

to a supernaturalbeing,a sacrificean offeringaccompaniedby the
ritualkillingof the object of the offering.This definitiondoes not
permitthe use of the termsacrificefor killingrituals (a termintroduced by Jensen,1951) thatare neitherprecedednor followedby the
presentationof the object of the riteto a supernaturalbeing.
Among the distinctivefeaturesof offeringand sacrificeI do not
includetheirsacred nature,consideredto be theirmost essentialcharacteristicby Hubertand Mauss, theauthorsof theEssai sur la Nature
et la Fonction sociale du Sacrifice (1899). Founding their argument
on data derivedfromHebrew and Vedic sources,theyconcludedthat
the confrontation
with the sacred is the awe-inspiringheart and core
of the sacrificialact. However, the authors of these sources were
nativetheologians,representing
the views held by a priestlyelite caste
in a fairlyhighlydevelopedsociety.Modern ethnographicresearchin
simplersocietiesgives evidencethathere the victimsof a sacrificeare
relativelyrarelyheld to be sacred. Under certaincircumstancesthey
may,indeed,be tabooed but the rule is thatthesevictimsare primarily
appreciatedas meat. Even the parts more specificallydedicatedto the
gods are so littlesacred that sometimesthe childrenare condonedto
snatchup the (mostlysmall) portionsset aside for divine use. The
sacred natureof the victimis too accidentala featureto be used as
the foundationfor the constructionof a theoryon the origin and
developmentof sacrifice.To thatend we have to turnto thatgeneral
characteristic
thatsacrificeand offeringhave in common,thatof being
It
is
all
themoredesirableto concentrateon thiscommonfeature
gifts.
I) Originallyread at the 13th Congress of the Int. Association for the
Historyof Religions,Lancaster,August 1975.
II

162
J. van Baal
because a sacrificeis not necessarilya more deeplyreligiousceremony

than an offering.Some of the reallyelaborateEast Indonesiansacrifices are more typicallysocial than religiousaffairs as is well borne
character.Reversely,an offering
out by theirmarkedlypotlatch-like
can be a highlyimpressivereligious ceremonywithoutincludinga
sacrifice.Quite a varietyof Balinese templefeastsdo not includean)
formof ritualkilling,the decorateddishes (the meat included) being
preparedat home,afterwardsto be carriedby the assembledvillagers
in a colourfulceremonialprocessionto the templewheretheydevoutly
place the offeringsat the foot of one of the shrines,to be dedicated
by the priestwho, on a raised platform,says his prayersand mantras
and ringshis bell. Of course,thecombinationof the ritewitha killing
ceremonymay add to the grandeurof the eventbut, when all is said
and done, the possibilityto stage such a killing ceremonyis not
primarilya matterof greaterreligiousdevotion,but of wealth,a form
of ceremonythat only livestock-breeding
peoples can afford. Apart
fromhumanbeingsthe only animalsthatlet themselvesbe sacrificed,
i.e. killedon the spot chosen forthe celebration,are domesticanimals.
The ritualkillingof game is necessarilyrestrictedto veryexceptional
circumstancesand occasions.
of ofThe problemis whetherthis emphasison the gift-character
their
to
understand
us
better
can
and
sacrifice
help
anyway
fering
such
tried
before
with
has
been
It
results,
decidedlypoor
meaning.
of offeringsas implementsin a cunninggame
as the interpretation
of do-ut-deswith deitiesand ancestorsdull enough to let themselves
occasionallybe cheatedby the presentationof small titbits,or even
of symbolicgiftssuch as that of a chickenfor a real bull. However,
do not derive fromundue stresson the fact that
such interpretations
offeringsare gifts, but from a fundamentalmisconceptionof the
propernatureof the gift.
The confusionstartedwith Tylor's definitionof sacrifice (to him
synonymouswith offering): "As prayeris a requestmade to a deity
as if we herea man,so sacrificeis a giftmade to a deityas if he were
a man. The humantypesof bothmay be studiedunchangedin social
life to this day. The suppliantwho bows before his chief,laying a
giftat his feetand makinghis humblepetition,displaysthe anthropomorphicmodel and originat once of sacrificeand prayer" (1871 II
p. 375). The metaphoris thoroughlymisleading,as appears when

andgift
sacrifice
Offering,
163
Tylor's humantypesare transposedto more modernconditions.The

suppliantthenchangesintothe petitionerstanding,not beforea chief,
underhandpushbut beforethe window-countre
of the licence-office,
ing a banknoteacross the desk to the clerk whom he wishes to hand
him the licence he desires.Tylor's human types did not offera gift,
but a bribe. His do-ut-destheoryof sacrificeis its necessaryconsequence. The bribe is given to induce the deities to go out of their
way to meetthe 'suppliant's'desires.To ensure thisthe offeringmust
be substantial,and if it is not (as in the case of a titbitor a symbolic
offering)Tylor accuses the sacrificerof cheating.Of course he does;
havingfoundedhis notionsof giftand sacrificeon corruption,he has
to persistto the veryend.
Tylor's theoryof sacrificehas been rejected(and rightlyso) on the
groundthatit is incompatiblewiththe spiritand meaningof religion.
Tylor's adversaries did not find fault with Tylor's
Unfortunately,
notionof the gift but with the gift as such. Even the appearance in
1924 of Marcel Mauss's Essai sur le Don failed to lead to more than
at best a partial reappraisalof the gift as the foundingnotionof offeringand sacrifice.Typical in this respectis the positiontaken by
der Religion (? 50). AdVan der Leeuw in his Phaenomnenologie
the 'magical' effect
a
he
is
an
that
emphasizes
gift,
offering
mitting
of the gift and thus succeeds in combiningsome aspects of the gift
as describedby Mauss withold conceptsborrowedfromthe do-ut-des
theoryand more recent notions stressingthe magical and mystical
implicationsof sacrificeand offering.The theoryis too mucha mixture of everythingto be convincing,but we cannot blame Van der
Leeuw for stressingthe magical aspects. It was Mauss himselfwho
had kepthim on thistrack.
The problemunderlyingthe Essai sur le Don is the Durkheimian
to fulfilone's
problemof the originof the moralobligationfaithfully
part in a contractualagreement.Historicallythe gift is older than the
contractfromwhichit differsprimarilyby the absence of any explicit
agreementstipulatingthe nature,timeor formof the returngift.Gift
and returngift are not the free and voluntaryacts they seem to be.
There are no really free gifts. The analysis undertakenby Mauss
disclosedthatthe giftinvolvesthreedistinctobligations,thoseto give,
to accept (one cannotrefusea gift) and to reciprocate.The obligation
to reciprocate,the gift has in commonwith the contract,and it is to

164
J. van Baal
thisaspectof the giftthatMauss paid specificattention.Why reciprotheory(the Essai

city?Althoughhe did not formulatea comprehensive
and
is primarilya phenomenological
description analysis) he did make
a few suggestions,the most importantamong them being that somethingpertainingto the personalityof the giver adheres to the object
given away as a present,inducingthe receiverto give somethingin
return.A case in point is the Maori belief that a sizable gift has a
hau, a kind of mana, compellingthe donee to reciprocatelest the hau
make him fall ill and die (Mauss 1950 pp. 158 f.).
It is evidentthat this Maori belief simplyreflectsthe compulsive
power of the obligationas experiencedby a Maori. It is a secondary
of the obligationwithoutany explanatoryvalue because
interpretation
is
reciprocity as strictlymandatorywhere such beliefs are unknown
(cf. also Cl. Levi-Strauss in Mauss 1950 p. XXXIX). To Van der
Leeuw, however,the beliefwas preciselywhat suited his own preferences for 'magical' explanationsand encouragedhim to apply themin
his theoryof sacrifice.
Mauss had still anotherproblem,one thathe did not solve but that
he analyzed beautifully.The reciprocityof the gift is anythingbut
mechanical.It is deeply affectedby status differencesbetweenexchange partners.The superiorgives more than the inferior.A man
of low statuswho gives lavishlyis braggish,a rich man who fails in
magnificenceis mean. Thereforethe returngift of the man of low
status is small, of a man of high status big. This has importantimplicationson the practiceof sacrificeand offering.The sacrificeris
by definitionalways the lesser of the deitieswhomhe offershis gift.
His offeringis , naturally,small,and Mauss drylyremarks:"Car ces
dieux qui donnentet rendentsont lI pour donner une grande chose
a la place d'une petite" (I950 p. 169). Mauss did not comment any
furtheron mattersof sacrificeand so his remarkdid not get theattention it deserves.Yet, it once and for all disprovedTylor's disdainful
commentson small offerings.Offeringsare small naturally,and the
real problemof sacrificeis not the small but the big offering.We
shall have to returnto this later; for the momentour concern is
primarilywith the absence of a theoryexplainingthe characteristics
of the gift. Mauss raised the problemswithoutsolvingthem.
A major problemof the gift is that of the inconsistenciesof its
reciprocity.Reciprocityitself had been recognizedas a principleof

Offering,sacrificeand gift
165
universalsignificanceeven before Mauss. Malinowskiexpounded its

importanceforall formsof exchangein his Argonautsof the Western
Pacific in 1922. In 1926 he gave furthersubstanceto the thesis that
reciprocityis a principleof universalvalidityby applyingit to the
rules of civil and penal law (Crime and Customin Savage Society).
Later (1949) Levi-Strauss called reciprocityone of the fundamental
structuresof the human mind (1967 p. 98), a principlealways and
everywherespontaneouslyrecognized and applied in social instituas a principleof unitions.Yet, the strongerthe stresson reciprocity
versal validity,the more urgentthe problemscreatedby deviatinginstitutionsand customs.An absorbingdiscussionof the ins and outs
of disbalancedreciprocitywas presentedby Marshall Sahlins in his
essay On the Sociology of PrimitiveExchange (1965). It is not only
that reciprocityis sometimesunbalancedas in gift-exchangebetween
can also be muddled,unclear,
partnersof unequal status,but reciprocity
a principleheld in latencyas a weapon in reserveagainstpersonswho
fail to complywith reasonableexpectations.Muddled reciprocityprethe interactionbetweenmemvails in the give-and-takecharacterizing
bers of the small group. Here every membercontributesto capacity,
the strongand the cleverproducingthe bulk of the group's material
necessities,whereasthe weak and the infirmhave littlemore to offer
thantheirgood intentions.Up to an extentthe relationis of a similar
and low-statusgivers,but it differs
natureas thatbetweenhigh-status
in that it is perfectlyinformal.However, though reciprocityis not
It is implicit.When a member
explicitlymentioned,it is not forgotten.
failsto cooperateto thedegreehe is expectedto do, he will immediately
be remindedof the rule of reciprocityand its implications.
I shall not enter into a discussionof the theoreticalexplanations
forwardedby Sahlins and others.A major weakness of all of them
is the lack of distinctionbetweenthe divergingformsof exchange,
an astonishingomissionbecause some of thedifferencesare so obvious.
is not
To give an example: the reciprocity
obligatoryin gift-exchange
in
contracts
and
incurred
trade
the
but
law,
protectedby
obligations
a
must
be
but
a
another
are.
Or
example: gift
accepted
agreements
commercialoffer not. Considerationsof this kind induced me to a
renewedreviewof the relevantfactsby groupingtheminto two pairs
of opposites,viz. gift-exchangeversus trade, and punishmentversus
revenge,the latterin connectionwith reciprocityin succ. penal and

166
J. van Baal
civillaw. The resultsconcerninggift-exchange

and tradeI summarized
in the followingtable (from Van Baal 1975
p. 50):
TRADE
Traders functionallyeach
other's equals
Social relations weak, exhausted by
completed exchange
Aims at the other one's goods
Goods exchanged often lowly valued
Strict reciprocity,balanced
No obligation to trade or to accept
an offer
Contracts (trade-relations) protected
by law
Trade does not bind participants
GIFT-EXCHANGE
Participants not always equals
Social relations strong, strengthened
by completed exchange
Aims at the other one's person
Goods exchanged often highly valued
Reciprocity not always balanced
Obligation to give and to accept a gift
Gift-exchange not protectedby law
Gifts bind, turn participants into
partners
With regard to punishmentand revengeI note thatboth involvea

harm inflictedon the wrongdoer,but inflictedfor radicallydifferent
purposes.A punishmentaims at restoringthe delinquentto his proper
place in thegroupby his atonementand his acceptanceof theharmdeliveredto him.To thecontraryrevengesees at thepersonalsatisfaction
and the restorationof the damaged status of the delinquent'svictim
by theseveranceand denialof social tiesbetweenthepartiesconcerned.
Punishmentand revengehave in commonthat theynormallyare incommensurateto the crime but theyare this in differentways. In
tends to be muddled,less severe than a strict
punishmentreciprocity
balancerequires.In revengeit is clearlydisbalanced.A thrashingmust
be repaid with a superiorreturn-gift
of blows to restorethe initial
victim'sstatus.2) In general, revengesees at the eliminationof the
at his personand its salvationforsociety.This
delinquent,punishment
is why, in penal law-suits,the administeringof justice tends to be
characterizedby muddled reciprocity,whereas in the settlementof
civil law-suits dealing with goods and materialinterests,reciprocity
is carefullybalanced.The parallelism(mostlya parallelismin reverse)
betweenthese differencesand some of those betweengift-exchange
and trade,is striking.
2) A special form of revenge is capital punishment. Formally it is not a
punishmentbecause it does not begin with its execution, but ends with it. And
materially it aims at the convict's elimination from society (cf. Van Baal 1975
pp. 58 ff.).

167
The principaldifferencebetween the two categoriesof exchange

of goods is that in gift-exchangeparticipantsaim at the other one's
person,in trade at the otherone's goods. The gift holds a message
to the donee, that of 'I, donor, regard you as a partner,appreciate
you as a friend,as one who belongs to us.' The gift transfersthis
messagenot with emptywords but with the unshakablefactualityof
its materialpresence.Thus the gift is an answer to the fundamental
about himproblemof the humancondition,thatof man's uncertainty
self as a part of his universefromwhich,as a subject,he differsand
is perenniallyseparate.
I argued that the dialecticsof the
In Symbols for communication
humancondition,the combinationof being a part and yet a subject,
a subject and yet a part of one's universe,make communicationan
however,thatis not merelyan exurgentnecessity,a communication
change of messages, but a communicationwhich implies that whole
awareness of the reality
worldof feelingthat conveysthe comforting
of one's participationand 'Zuhausesein',being at home,in one's universe. I shall not repeat the argumentand confinemyselfto stating
thatthegifthas thepowerto persuadea homesickwaif or a suspicious
soul thathe is countedin, that he belongs to the group. Who could
refusea gift or fail to reciprocate?The gift is a godsend.
In all this thereis no magic at all and yet it explains a lot. It even
explains why the gift can be misused and taken advantage of for
selfishpurposes. The gift is an attractiveand persuasive form for
establishingcontacts and amelioratingrelations. It can be used to
persuadea donee to do thingshe would not thinkof doing otherwise.
of gifts
We thenspeak of a bribe.Anothermisuse is the distribution
as a means to enhance one's status, a possibilityexploited in the
Kwakiutlpotlatchto such an extremethat in some cases gift-giving
is turnedintoa formof controlledwarfareinsteadof a friendlygame.
All this should not divertus fromappreciatingwhat and how a gift
reallyis.
The gift is directedat the other one's person. Consequently,the
latter'sstatusand accidentalcircumstancesmust be taken accountof.
The giftspresentedto a man in mourningdifferfromthose given to
a bridegroom.The gift must be adapted to social conditions.When
thereis a feast or a public crisis ostentatiousgivingis called for,but
when thingsare runningsmoothly,as usually is the case in the small

168
f. van Baal
group that is a closelyknit unit, it takes the unobtrusiveformof a

purelyinformalgive-and-takewith no other book-keepingof everyone's contributions
thanthe sincerityof his intentions.It is the intentions thatcount in actionsdirectedat the otherone's person.
The many formsof offeringand sacrificecould, like those of the
gift,be grouped in ostentatiousand unobtrusiveforms.More meaningful,however,is a classificationaccordingto differencesin reliand high-intensity
gious situationby discerningbetweenlow-intensity
rites. I owe the use of this distinctionto the courtesyof Mr. J. G.
Platvoet of the Theological Faculty of UtrechtUniversitywho introducedit in an ineditedpaper in which he opposed low-intensity
communicationto high-intensity
communication.Low-intensitycomis
he
formfor man's relationswith the
the
ideal
munication, argued,
supernatural.When thingsrun smoothlyand anxietyis absent,simple
rites sufficeto keep up good relationswith the gods, inspiringconfidencein the persistenceof theirbenevolenceand protection.To the
or disasterpersuadethe faithfulthatthere
contrary,when misfortune
is somethingwrong with these relations,other rites are called for,
those of the high-intensity
type.
The oppositionas introducedby Mr. Platvoet is, of course,not an
absoluteone, but it certainlyis meaningful.It paves the way to due
attentionto what is so often neglectedin our discipline,the religious
practiceof the simplefaithfulwho is just pious withoutproblemsor
fuss. One mightcall it routinepietyprovidedit be understoodthat
this routineis a markof its sincerity.It is not a mean thingthat,in
some cultures,in everyhouseholdon every day a minusculegift of
food is set aside on the simplehouse-shrinededicatedto the ancestors.
Elsewheresuch customsare restrictedto special occasionslike festive
meals or the firstdish of the beans or corn of the new harvest.When
beer has been breweda few drops are spilled or a small gourd is set
aside under thanksgiving.
The offererdoes not mind who ultimately
eats or drinkshis offering.What countsis thathe expresseshis faith
in thenearnessof his gods and ancestorswho,because of thisnearness,
must be rememberedas co-residentsof the compound.Our western
cultureis a word-culture.Accordinglythe materialsharingof food
has been reducedto the thanksgivingof saying grace. Yet, it serves
the same purpose, the inner realization of the Lord's comforting

i69
presence.The impactof a food offeringis best illustratedby a remarkablecustomof an Australianpeople,the Murngin,as littlegiven
to prayingand offeringas any Australiantribe.Celebratingtheirrites
for the dead, theypubliclytake a meal of which nothingis set aside
for the deceased with the explicitaim that his spiritwill understand
that he does no longerbelong to the circle of the living and has to
leave (Warner 1957 p. 417). Sharing food is communicating.
rites we must include the sacrificesand
Among the low-intensity
on
occasion
celebramade
the
of ostentatious,potlatch-like
offerings
tions like those for the inaugurationof a new subclan or the commemorationof a deceased chiefin East Indonesia. When the Ngad'a
of Flores celebratesuch a feast scores of buffaloes are slaughtered
to the gods (for a summary
afterhavingbeen presentedceremonially
see Van Baal 1971 Pp. 250-258). It is a great social event because all
the meat must be distributedamong the numerousguests, the share
allottedto thegods and ancestorsbeingreallyminimal,a detailrationalized on the easternpart of the island by statingthatwhat littleis to
us, is much to the gods and reversely(Arndt 1951 pp. 2, 18, io6).
of the meat than
The guestsdisplaygreaterinterestin the distribution
in the religiouspart of the ceremony.Yet, the ancestorsare not really
ignored.Actually,theyparticipatein everyaspect of Ngad'a life. They
all have theirsanctuariesin the village,where the dead are buried in
the stone walls separatingthe terraceson which,in these mountainvillages,the houses are built.Every house has its special nicheswhere
of the inmatesabide and wheretheyreceivesmall food
the forefathers
offeringsevery time there is a festivedish. These small offerings
are broughtwithoutany ceremonial.We even do not know whether
the bringerof the food addresses the ancestorsor that he just puts
the food down at the intendedplace. But an officialceremonylike an
inaugurationcalls for an official invocation.One of the interesting
featuresof such an invocationis the emphasison the desirabilityof
the presence,the nearnesseven, of gods and ancestors.They are invited to descend to accept the beasts that shall be sacrificedin their
honour,but also to sit on theirpeople's shouldersand necks and to
protectthem like a stone wall against disaster and sickness.
The address to the gods invariablyincludes a prayer for health,
and a long life.Althoughsuch prayersare commonenough,
prosperity
the combinationwith an offeringshould surpriseus for the simple

170
J. van Baal
reason thatit is bad formfor the donor of a giftto requestanything

in return,let alone to specifyhis desires. This deviation from the
is all the more conspicuousbecause on
ordinarypatternof gift-giving
a feastof this size and magnificencethereis not the slightestreason
of the feastto pray forprosperity.
The wholefeastis a demonstration
giver'sundoubtedprosperity.If ever thereis a wrongmomentto ask
for it, it is on this day of abundance.And yettheypray for it as well
do
as for manyotherthingsabout whichthe assembledmerry-makers
not visiblyworry.What makes it all the more interestingis thatthis
is not a specificallyNgad'a ideosyncrasy:sacrificesare attendedby
whetherthereis reason for prayingor not. An
prayerseverywhere,
is
parallel presentedby the customof ProtestantChristians
interesting
is
to say grace beforemeals. Though dimlyaware thata thanksgiving
a poor occasion forasking favours,theystronglyfeel thatirrespective
of all rationalconsiderationssomethingoughtto be requestedanyhow.
They decide to ask for a blessing.Nobody knows exactly what this
stands for,and this apparentlymakes it easier to pray for it.
of the usage cautionsus not to look for its basic
The irrationality
in
aims overtlyand consciouslypursued, i.e. in the
the
motivations
thingsprayedfor,but in the structureof the prayersituationas such.
It is the address of a man offeringsomethingto his god, a discourse
between two beings separated by the maximal status difference
imaginable.Vis-a-vis the almightyhumilityis called for, not merely
in words but in deeds as well. Requestingis boththe mostsimpleand
the recognitionat once of
the most decisive act of self-humiliation,
therequestrant'sdependenceand of the addressee'spower. Confronted
to his god, askingis themosteffectiveconfessionof a man's beliefand
worship.What cannotbe done when offeringa giftto a fellow-man,
asking for something,must be done when offeringa gift to a god.
To do otherwisewould be braggish.And this is where a gift differs
froman offering.
situationsin which the relaAll this is pertinentto low-intensity
tionsbetweena man and his gods are normaland need nothingmore
or else thanbeing keptup. Such relationsare akin to those prevailing
in the small and closelyknitgroup with its continuousgive-and-take,
where intentionscount more and betterthan the physical contributions made by each memberindividually.The offeringsmade in this
situationare vehicles of intentions.Everyone knows that, just like

171
everyoneknowsthatthegods do not reallyeat theofferingspresented

to them,but thatthe mice and the ants do, or, as the case may be, the
children.No one minds; the givingis a symbolicact of communicationand so is the disappearanceof the food a symbolof the participation of the gods and credulouslyascribed to their acceptance.It is
the symbolthat counts.It is all very simpleand thereis no question
of magic.The notionthatofferingand sacrificeare sacral acts hardly
plays a role. Even in Hebrew religion,wherethe holinessof the Lord
and everythingpertainingto him is so stronglyemphasized in the
priestlyprecepts,the sacrificesof which the main part goes to the
sacrificerare less sacred thanthe others.Some of them(the offering
fora vow and the voluntaryofferingmentionedin Lev. 7) may even
be eaten on the day afterthe sacrifice,an exceptionallatitudein this
purityridden complexof regulations.
The picturechanges as soon as situationspresent themselvesrecommunication:illness, epidemics,
quiring action for high-intensity
calamitiesor mortalsin. The means applied may includesacrificeand
offering,but the schema of gift-exchangeis affectedby other considerationsto such an extent that it has to give way to wholly differentformssuch as those pertinentto penitenceand expiation,or
to communication
withthe gods by identification
with their mythical
activities.The sacrificialritualsthatmustanswer the requirementsof
situationsare of such extreme diversitythat I must
high-intensity
confinemyselfto a few cases to illustratemy point,beginningwith
those in which the schema of the gift is dominantand then turning
to thosein whichit has lost its relevance.
My firstcase is that of the paymentof vows. Vows are made in
prayerssent up by a barrenwoman desiringa child,by a familyfor
the recoveryof a sick fatheror son, by a dismissedofficialfor a new
job, etc. If the prayeris heard a sacrificeshall be broughtat a certain
sanctuaryon the day appointed for such occasions. The procedure
followedat the sanctuaryis a perfectlynormal one. The beast is
presentedto the deitywhom thanksare broughtfor his benevolence.
Then the victimis slaughtered,the meat divided among the guests,
and a small portionset aside for the deity if this is thoughtto be
properat all (it can fail to turnup, for example,if the blood flowing
away is regardedas the divineshare). The celebrationis a feastwhere
gratitudeand merrinessprevail.Yet, it is also a payment.Vows must

172
J. van Baal
be paid and woe befalls him who fails to do so. But it is a payment
of a peculiar nature. Althoughthe vow resemblesa conditionin a
contract,it differsfroma contractualconditionin that it does not
oblige the other party to the deliveranceof any good, but only the
makerof the vow. The deityremainsperfectlyfree to hear or not to
hear the suppliant.The latterbinds onlyhimself.The stage set by the
vow is thatthe fulfilment
of the prayershall be seen as a gift,a comfree
of
the
gift
pletely
deity.If thatgiftbe made then,of course,the
a
owes
the countergift
beneficiary
countergift,
stipulatedin the vow.
The reciprocityof the gift is binding.That the whole procedureis
definedby theschemaof thegiftis confirmedby the factthatfeelings
of gratitudedefinethe spiritualatmosphereof the celebration.
A moreor less comparablecase is thatof the sacrificebroughtfor
a sick man whose illnessis ascribedto thewrathof neglectedancestors
who did not receiveall the sacrificesthata wise man shouldmake on
their behalf. The ancestors are nearby,often even inmates of the
house,and the rules of the giftimplythe obligationto give,primarily
to thosewho are kinsmen.The negligenceof the obligationhas to be
made good by a biggergiftthan usual. The do-ut-desof the transaction that must lead to the patient's recoveryis not contraryto the
schema of the giftanyway.The same holds true of sacrificesbrought
for the reconciliationof injuries committedagainst living persons,
injuries discoveredsince the delinquentfell ill. Reparationsare made
and social bonds restored.Payments,indeed,but paymentsmade in
the formof giftswithdeitieso~rancestorsas the ever presentparticipants in the celebration.Again, the prevalenceof the schema of the
gift is evident. It is confirmedby the fact that the victimof the
sacrificeis cut up and the meat distributedamong those present,as
usual. It is neithersacred nor taboo.
A sacrificefor the expiationof mortalsin is completelydifferent.
The relevantprocedurehas been elaboratelydiscussedby Hubert and
Mauss. The scene is wellknown:the sinnerputs his hand on the victim's back to express his intrinsicrelationwith the beast, and then,
after the dedication,followsthe completedestructionof the animal
by fire.The victimis God's, i.e. it is sacred. It is also the bearer of
the sacrificer'simpurityand sin whichare taken away by its destruction. That the victimis the vehicle of the sinner'simpurityis highlightedby the sacrificebroughton the Day of Atonement:one goat

I73
is burned,the otherbroughtto the desertand set free. It is the goat

for Azazel (Lev. 16: io), carryingthe people's impuritywith it, just
like the bird set free for the recoveredleper (Lev. 14:5 ff.) takes
the latter'simpuritywith it. In both cases the priestexplicitlytransfers the impurityto the beast by symbolicacts.
Althoughthereis not the slightestdoubt that after theirconsecration the victims,whetherburned or set free, are sacred, it is fully
justifiedto doubt the wisdom of stressingthis sacrednesstoo much,
i.e. beyondits functionof being a symbolof the proper meaningof
the ritual.In otherwords, I object against a reificationof the symbolic contentby interpreting
it as a magicalact. It is a misjudgement
of the fundamentalmeaningof the expiatorysacrificeas an act of
an act rulednot by magicbut by the schemaof thepunishatonement,
ment,namely,a public confessioncombinedwith the sufferingof a
penaltywhichmake the confessoracceptableto returnto his place in
societyand in the normalrelationshipsbetweengods and men. Earlier
in thispaper I referredto certainparallelsbetweenthe schemaof the
giftand thatof punishment.
They explain whya sacrifice,moreoften
a formof the gift,can be used also as a formof punishment.Because
a punishmentit is: the public confessionof a sin but also the loss of
a precious article of wealth that is not used for any good but for
the destructionof its owner's guilt.
destruction,
Expiatory sacrificesare reportedfrommany parts. In East Indonesia, whereholocaustsare rare,the SouthernToradja will bringone
in case a man has committedincestwithhis sisteror a fullcousin. It
is a mortalsin thatmakes theland hot so thatprolongeddroughtmust
be feared.A buffalois dedicatedto the supremebeing by the priest
who addresses the god with his face turnedwestward (the ordinary
postureis eastward). The beast is thenkilledand cut into pieces that
are burned.In one part of the area the offenderhimselfmust tether
the beast and address the god while holdingthe rope with his hand.
The act of atonementand the punishmentare clear. Yet, in this case
thereis moreto it thanthis alone. Justlike the sin has cosmic consequences,makingthe land hot,so has the holocaust.The smoke-clouds
thatgo up fromtheburningsacrificewill in timeturninto rain-clouds
that cool the earth.3)
3) I thank Dr. Hetty Nooy-Palm for this information.

174
J. vanBaal
Two thingsare here combined.On the one hand sin, punishment

and atonement,and on the otherhand the beliefthathumanacts can
have cosmic consequences.The belief makes part of a worldviewto
which the visible thingshold a mysteryof their own by whichthey
are more than theyare or seem to be. Althoughto the Toradja the
supremebeing is the ultimatesource and rulerof all hidden powers,
and power of theirown. One may
humanbeingshave a responsibility
call this magic but I thinkthat mysticknowledgeis a betterword,
doing more justice to the notionsof reverenceinherentlyimplied,as
well as to the fact that this belief refersto another formof communicationwith the universe,viz. thatby symbolicidentification.
Expiatory sacrificesare not always holocausts.The Nuer of the
East African Sudan have,other ways to deal with serious cases of
incest.An ox, dedicatedby a priest,is killed and divided fromnose
to tail into two halves,one for the priests,the otherfor the sacrificer
and his familywho will consume the meat of their half. But the
blood is for God and theycloselyobserve that it runs away into the
soil because it carriesthe delinquent'ssin with it and makes for complete atonementand purification.Up to an extent the sacrificeris
identicalwiththe victim;beforeit is killedhe rubs its back withashes,
expressing their togetherness(Evans-Pritchard 1956 pp. 189, 216,
of a man and his ox is a recurrentthemein
298). The identification
Nuer culture.In a sacrificeas here discussed it takes mysticdimensions in theidentification
of thesacrificer'ssin withthevictim'sblood,
in
and the bisectionof the carcass. If one prefersthatterm,one might
call it magic,providedit be recognizedthat the act is primarilyone
of punishmentand atonement:a publicconfessionof sin and the loss
of a highlyvalued animal,at the veryleast of the half of it thatgoes
to the priests.That the punishmentis not harderthanthis is because
the Nuer do not condemnincest as severelyas the Toradja do.
The Nuer celebrateholocaustsfor other purposes. When there is
impendingdanger of pest or murrainthey'go out to meet it.' They
slaughtera numberof oxen in the bush where the carcasses are left
behind'as a wall'. The sacrificeis made to God, but the dead beasts
are leftto the evil spiritsof illness.They may not be touchedby anyone and the idea seems to be "that the evil has enteredthemthrough
the sacrificialact" (Evans-Pritchard1956 p. 220). The magicaleffect
of the rite is obvious; somethingdedicated to God must stop the

175
peril.The 'wall' of dead beastshas a power derivedfromthe sacrifice,

in part perhapsalso fromthe notionthatoxen are so near to man. In
fact,thisholocaustis a deed of despair. The Nuer are a cattleloving
people and nothingbut the gravestdanger can persuade themto part
with theiroxen in this manner.It is impossibleto classifythis holocaust eitheras a gift or as a penitence.There are some elementsof
penitencein it, but certainlynot of the gift. Yet, if penitencehas
suggestedthe form,it still has a distinctcharacter,thatof comingto
termswithevil spiritswho mustbe propitiatedby a desperateact that
comes nearerto a bribethan anything.
We notedin passing thatcattleare so near to man. As a matterof
primarily
fact,cattleare extremelyinvitingvehiclesfor identification,
with the gods.
for identification
withman, but also for identification
Cattle are wealth,the most importantitem of wealth among many
peoples. They are tended with care and devotion. Among cattle
betweena man and his beasts
breedersstrongfeelingsof togetherness
of
the
is
that
An
case
Ngad'a of Flores. They hold
prevail.
interesting
the view thatDiva, the supremebeing,herdsmankindlike the Ngad'a
herd theirbuffaloes.Next to Diva thereare a host of minor diva,
of the greatone. Father Arndtnoteda statementto
particularisations
theeffectthat,whenthediva above killa buffaloa man dies on earth,
and when the people on earth slaughtera buffalo a diva dies in
heaven. The statementas such is no more than an intriguingcase of
pious speculation;it has no effectwhatsoeveron ritual.But the close
relationbetweendiva, man,and buffaloalso findsexpressionin myth.
All three are associated symbolicallywith the moon, and in a few
mythsa diva appearsin theshape of a buffalo(Van Baal 1971 p. 252).
of the sacrificed
From here it is only one step to the identification
is
this step is not
that
interest
of
buffalowith the deity.The point
taken,not by the Ngad'a, not by the Nuer, nor by any of the Indonesian and Africancattlebreedingpeoples I knowof. As I did not make
special enquiriesinto this matter,it would be rash to say that it does
not occur at all. The possibilitylying so near at hand, it would be
surprisingif it did not do somewhere.Nevertheless,the probability
of victimand deity is considerablysmallerthan
of an identification
it must seem in the lightof theoriessuch as those by Frazer or by
Hubert and Mauss on the god-victimof the agrarian sacrifice.These
or the revivalof
sacrifices,symbolizingthe death of the corn-mother

176
J. van Baal
derive froma radicallydifferentclimateof religious

the tree-spirit,
than
the
sacrifices associated with gift-exchangeor with
thinking
and
atonement.
The propercontentof the agrarian sacrifice
penalty
is the re-enactment
of
of the divine drama of death and resurrection,
life borneby death.The drama of the gods is the drama of natureas
well as thatof the main means of subsistence,the corn. Is is also the
drama of mankind.Re-enactingits major events the actors identify
themselveswith the gods like the Australianaboriginesdo when they
repeatthe deeds of theirancestorsby havingthese dream-time
beings
personifiedby men who are held to be physicallytheirreincarnations.
They thus give shape to the mysteriousintentionsthatare the hidden
essence of visible reality,identifyingthemselveswith them, and
throughthemwith that whole world of mysteriousintentionsthat is
withthatuniverse
the secretessence of theiruniverse.Communication
is realizedby acts of identification
withthe ancestors,the incarnations
of its mystery,by directparticipationin the mythicalevents and divine deeds. It is a formof communication
thatdiffersfundamentally
fromthe person-to-person
of
communication
throughdiscourse
type
or the exchangeof giftsbetweenman and his gods.
The sacrifice of the god-victimis an effort at communication
In this climateof thinkingthe questionarises
throughidentification.
whetherthe victimshould not more properlybe a man than a beast
symbolizingthe god. In Mexico a thoroughlypessimisticworldview
in the mostdiverse
inspireda violentrealismthat foundits fulfilment
human
formsof
sacrifice.To many historiansof religionthe barbarism of the New World formsof sacrificeheld a corroborantof
the veridityof the numerousaccountsof comparableatrocitiescommittedin the ancientcivilizationsof the Old World. I must raise a
researchsuggeststhatthe proper
caveat here. Modern anthropological
of
secret many secret rituals is not the supposedlyesotericmeaning
of the ritual,but, contrariwise,the techniquehow to operationalize
this esotericmeaning.A good case is that of the Marind-animof
South New Guinea (West-Irian). One sectionof thetribeperiodically
celebratedan initiationritualcalled ezam-uzum,husband-wife.Before
the beginningof the ritesa contraptionwas constructedconsistingof
a long tree-trunk,
restingon the groundwith one end, and with the
otherat man's heighton a simplescaffolding.Toward the end of the
ritesall theneophyteshad to copulateone afteranotherwitha certain

177
girl lyingon a mat under the elevated end of the trunk.While the
last of theneophyteswas doinghis dutythe scaffoldingwas suddenly
torn down, and the trunk crashed the copulatingpair who were
roastedand eaten. Obviously,theypersonifiedezam and uzum, and a
more convincingcase of eating the deityis hardlyimaginable.Later
of the elevatedtreeresearchconfirmedthe truthof the construction
trunkand also thatat a certainmomentthescaffoldingwas torndown,
but not of the storyof the copulatingpair. All thatwas crashedwere
two coconuts,roughlydecoratedas a man's and a woman's head, and
thisdid not even happen underthe treebut a littleway off. The story
of the pair killed underthe tree is the storytold to the non-initiated.
That it contains esoteric truthis confirmedby the more elaborate
initiationritualsof the coastaldivisionsof thetribe.There,too, stories
were toldabout a pair or a womankilled and eaten at the end of the
rites. These storieswere veritablemythsgiving significantinformawere
tion on the cosmologicalmeaningof the rites.The non-initiated
allowedto know them,but not how the deathof the deitiesconcerned
was operationalizedby means of a perfectlyinnocentsymbolism(cf.
Van Baal 1966 pp. 540 f., Ch. X, XI).
There is ample reason to keep this in mind when studyingancient
recordsof human sacrifice.These sacrificesmighthave occurredless
frequentlythan these records suggest. But I shall not enter deeper
into this. Instead, another question must be raised. Are we really
justifiedto call these ritualssacrifices?If theygo combinedwith an
offeringor a dedicationto a deity,we certainlyare, but not if this
elementis lacking and the ritual is confinedto the re-enactmentof
a mythicaldrama. In thatcase we had betteruse a more appropriate
term,eitherthe one of drama,or the termonce proposedby Jensen,
thatof killingritual (195I). I have no preferencesin this matter,but
I do object against the use of the termsacrificefor ritualsin which
everyelementof the giftor of atonementis utterlyabsent. Giving is
important,far more importantthan our theoriesthus far have been
bribingfor giving.
willingto recognize,erroneouslysubstituting
in
True giving is participating,
participating the life and work of
in
member.
the donee,participating one's universeas a sympathizing
No one can participatewithoutgiving first.Giving is essential for
set aside for the
a meaningfulexistence.The simple food-offering
the
characterand
the
before
meals,
give-and-take
gods,
clumsyprayer
I2

178
J. van Baal
isticof mutualcare in the small group,are the mostreal and effective

means of communication,cementingtogethernessand confirming
security.All communication
begins with giving,offering.
REFERENCES
CITED
Arndt, Paul, s.v.d.

1951 Religion auf Ost Flores, Adonare und Solor. Studia InstitutiAnthropos
vol. I. Wien-Mbdling, Missionsdruckerei St. Gabriel.
Baal, J. van
1966 Dema. Description and Analysis of Marind-anim Culture. The Hague,
Nijhoff.
1971 Symbols for Communication.Assen, Van Gorcum.
1975 Reciprocity and the Position of Women. Anthropol. Papers. Assen, Van
Gorcum.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E.
1956 Nuer Religion. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Hubert, H. et M. Mauss
1899 Essai sur la Nature et la Fonction sociale du Sacrifice. Annie Sociologique II: 29-138 (Reprinted in Melanges d'Histoire des Religions:
1-130, Paris 19O9).
Jensen, A. E.
1951 Mythos und Kult bei Naturvalkern. Wiesbaden, Steiner Verlag.
Leeuw, G. van der
1933 Phaenomenologie der Religion. Tiibingen, Mohr. References to rev.
ed. 1956.
LUvi-Strauss, Claude
1949/67 Les Structures elmentaires de la Parente. Paris, Presses Univ. de
France. References to 2nd ed., La Haye, Mouton, 1967.
1950 Introductiona l'Oeuvre de Marcel Mauss. In: Mauss 1950: IX-LII.
Malinowski, Bronislaw
1922
Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New York, Dutton; London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
1926 Crime and Custom in Savage Society. London, Kegan Paul, French,
Trubner; New York, Harcourt, Brace.
Mauss, Marcel
1924 Essai sur le Don. In Annie Sociologique, nouv. serie I: 30-186. Reprint
in Mauss 1950.
1950 Sociologie et Anthropologie par M. Mauss.
Sahlins, Marshall D.
1965 On the Sociology of primitive Exchange. In: Michael Banton (ed.),
The Relevance of Models for Social Anthropology; A.S.A. Monographs
I. London, Tavistock.
Tylor, E. B.
1871 Primitive Culture, 2 vols. London, Murray. References to 4th ed.
Warner, W. Lloyd
1957 A black Civilization. Rev. ed. New York, Harper.


Offering, Sacrifice and Gift

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Offering, Sacrifice and Gift

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Offering, Sacrifice and Gift

Author(s): J. van Baal

This content downloaded from 79.13.48.228 on Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:22:06 AM

Numen,Vol. XXIII, Fasc. 3