to a specific crime, thus warning the rest of the community of the wrongdoer’s past behavior.
Truth telling and oathing were common features of justice in the fo’s palace, just as they were at sacred sites. In both cases, individuals either declared their innocence aloud, by asking the gods to punish them promptly if they had committed a crime, or confessed their guilt and begged for leniency.47 These declarations reminded participants of the presence of divine administrators of justice and established the credibility of those performing the truth-telling ceremonies. If the accusations were unfounded, the accuser faced severe spiritual repercussions.48
When truth-telling ceremonies did not require the fo’s presence, they took place on sacred sites in the chieftaincy’s districts and family compounds. Matters such as disputes between families over property boundaries, payment or reimbursement of bridewealth, divorce, thefts, vandalism, or difficult marriage arrangements were treated at the district level. Notables and any elders available to serve as counselors and mediators presided over the “trial.” Matters judged at the district level were usually settled by reconciliation of the parties and fines or corporal punishment.
Family conflicts were resolved at the lineage chuep’si put in place at the time of each new compound’s establishment. According to Grassfields oral histories, after a founding fo conquered or annexed autochthonous populations, he distributed large sections of the territory to the nine cofounders of the village (members of the kamveu council), his mwala, and the lesser mfonte, or the leaders of the la’a, or districts. These privileged notables distributed the land within their own districts, in the fo’s name, dividing the land among lineage heads, who in turn redistributed it among wives (for cultivation) or sons (to establish their own compounds and become heads of dynasties).49 The new occupant of a plot of land provided the fonte or the fo with gifts, both when making the initial request for a parcel of land (a goat and palm oil) and after having settled it (salt).50
After being granted the plot of land, the founder (or lineage head) of the compound arranged a ceremony to “plant” a small sacred site, chuep’si mbem, in the presence of witnesses from the surrounding compounds.51 A ritual specialist planted a yam tree (Ficus aganophila Hutch.) and trees of peace, pfeukang (Dracaena deistelina), and placed a stone at their roots.52 The yam marked a family’s right to occupy and use the plot of land. The uprooting or destruction of the yam, especially by burning, desecrated the cheup’si and constituted an assault on the gods and on the fo’s authority as land distributor. The deliberate destruction of a yam was a crime dealt with at the chief’s palace, and a finding of guilt carried a sentence of forced labor in the service of the fo.53 The creation of a chuep’si within a compound legitimized the founding patriarch as the lineage head—the site’s primary sacrificer—and secured his offspring’s right to reside on the land.
The spirit protectors (mbem) of a lineage dwelt in the site around the altar. The chuep’si mbem ensured everyday access to spirit guardians who protected a particular lineage and interceded between them and a more distant being. The chuep’si mbem in family compounds personalized Si and established a permanent contact with the sacred through the land. The site was a visual, inviolable symbol of a lineage’s connection with the sacred. At the level of the lineage compound, the chuep’si was the place where family members settled their disputes.
In case of family conflict, the lineage head called a family gathering at the chuep’si, where each person involved had a chance to speak before the spirits of the site. This event represented a dramatic deviation from the daily norm, since each wife and her children usually led a semiautonomous existence centered around the maternal kitchen/hut.54 Each family member made his or her declaration of truth at the chuep’si and asked for divine punishment in case of falsehood within seven to nine days—by death, accident, or insanity.55 The sacred altar in the compound also served as a site for the reading of an elder lineage head’s final will and testament in the presence of witnesses and descendants from the compound. Those presiding over these ceremonies poured raffia wine on the sacred ground to seal the alliance between those speaking their truths and the living human and the unseen witnesses present.
The French administration introduced radical changes in the justice system for Grassfielders, but only in matters the French sought to legislate (see below). Throughout the period of foreign administration, truth-telling practices and conflict resolution continued on the sacred sites in chieftaincies throughout the Bamileke region. The presence of unseen witnesses was crucial to the administration of justice, and in the 1950s, Bamileke upécistes employed truth-telling ceremonies and oathing practices on sacred sites to ensure the loyalty of their members.56
The chieftaincy government could not monopolize the spiritual powers dwelling in the chuep’si. Sacred sites were accessible to anyone, rich or poor, titled notable or commoner. Even individuals accompanied by a spiritualist authorized to officiate at a given site could approach the chuep’si to offer a sacrifice to Si, make a confession or supplication, ask for protection from harm, or declare his or her own innocence in personal matters that for some reason could not be brought before family or community authorities. One could also take a vow before the sacred altar, establishing an alliance with Si. The spiritual punishments for lying at a sacred site were so severe—infertility, illness, or death—as to ensure that only those who knew themselves to be innocent spoke before the gods at the sacred sites. To Grassfielders a just man was one who could stand and affirm his truth before a chuep’si, one who walked a straight path (djie dandan).57
No one addressing the gods at a chuep’si came empty handed, although the quality of the gift depended on the supplicant’s material wealth. In the official chieftaincy ceremonies, officiates offered a domestic animal or fowl. People of lesser means brought palm oil, kola, salt, djem djem, or raffia wine—staples indigenous to the Grassfields region. Wild game or plants could not be offered, but only plants and animals dependent on humans for their care. Offerings were thus symbolic of the link between the world of the living cultivated and tamed by humans, and the wild, unregulated domain of nature, presided by spirits. These same elements—goats, hens, kola, raffia wine, and salt—also were used in legal and commercial transactions throughout the Grassfields, for any negotiated contract or alliance: pledges of loyalty to a fo, matters of trade, marriage, and justice.
In sum, the chuep’si symbolized a standard of justice, whether on an individual, family, or community level. They symbolized the community’s historic juridical norms, resolved conflict, and protected the group spiritually.58 They legitimized living settlers’ occupancy of the land, signified chieftaincy law, and were the locus of the negotiation of legal contracts.
They also served external purposes. As the material and spiritual location of the continuity of gung, in times of political crisis or war, community sacred sites preserved and protected a chieftaincy without a fo. For example, Kamdem Guemdjo, the eighth fo of Baham (whose rule began around 1890), went into exile for nine years to escape a plot arranged by members of his own family who reproached him for not having produced an heir since his enthronement. During his absence, guardians of sacred sites made sacrifices to implore the gods to bring back their fo.59 Also, during the period of mourning following the death of a reigning fo, the population prayed to the si la’a or si gung dwelling in the chuep’si to be with the successor, the new incarnation of power and authority.60 During the fight for independence from French rule, chuep’si became sites of supplication for the gods’ benevolence in the struggle for liberation from foreign rule, protection for freedom fighters evading arrest, and, after the violence, reconciliation.61
Certainly, the uses of major sacred sites, their role in Grassfields religious practice and political philosophy, and their significance to ordinary Grassfielders changed between the time of the chieftaincies’ founding and the time of Cameroon’s independence, as the inner workings of Grassfields governance adapted to European rule.62 Colonial rule complicated
