TRADITIONAL COMMUNICATION AND SYMBOLISM IN CONTEMPORARYAFRICAN DRAMA: A SEMIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF KALU UKA’S HARVESTOF ANTS

By Ofonime Inyang, PhD, Department of Drama & Film, TshwaneUniversity of Technology, Private Bag X680, Pretoria, SouthAfrica. foninyang@yahoo.com

&

Idaresit Inyang, Department of Theatre Arts, University ofUyo, PMB 1017, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria.Idaraesit.inyang@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

A Harvest for Ants is a dramatic recreation of Chinua Achebe’sArrow of God. Though the novel enjoys widespread literary andmedia adaptation, Kalu Uka’s adaptation stands out because ofthe systematic and creative reduction of prose to drama withample justice to its originality, worldview and perspective.Given the serious position that Achebe and his works occupy inworld literary reckoning, the key challenge of any adaptationof the work rests on the capacity of the adapter to do justiceto the quintessential Achebe as well as convincingly exhibitthe unique African flavour that characterizes the environmentand people represented in the prose version. How does anadapter create the environment, the local aesthetics andpolitics that surround the traditional Igbo milieu captured inUmuaro? How is it possible to reinvent Achebe’s archetypalcharacters and their idiosyncrasies in context and medium(drama) that thrives on “economy of words”? These are theobvious challenges that one envisages when contemplating anyassignment in the direction of the adaptation of such amonumental literary product. Kalu Uka, himself a prosefictionist appears to have had full understanding of this taskand the unusual demands it will extract from his years ofartistic engagement. This understanding is what has given riseto a dramatisation that captures the original work in a

1

freshness that comtemporarizes and bestows added relevance tothe original. This chapter is inspired by this development anddirects attention to the analysis of the features andconstants of cultural symbolism as semiotic signification andcommunication in the play.

INTRODUCTION

Incidentally, for a long time, the discourse and intellectualexposition of the African cultural experience had sufferedstifling blows from the intellectual colonialism of theWestern critical establishment until the “natives” were ableto “write back” and establish the viability and relevance ofthe indigenous cultural and literary enterprise. This came inthe form of the massive development of what has come torepresent modern African literature and the rise of a criticalbrigade whose advocacy projected interest in the literatureand performances of Africa. Chinua Achebe incidentally retainsthe honour of being a pioneering voice in the crusade for theemergence of African literature of a modern dimension hencedonning the oft contested appellation of the father of Africanliterature. While it is not the focus of this discourse tojoin issues with any opinion against his stand as a pioneeringfigure in the emergence of modern African literature, thecentrality of Achebe’s literary voice and its commandingpresence in the universe of African nay world literaturecannot be dismissed or overlooked by any sentiment no matterwhich quarter it emanates from. The pivotal significance ofhis works, especially the early works, a notable trilogy ofthree connecting stories viz Things Fall Apart (1958), No Longer atEase (1960) Arrow of God (1974)cannot be waved away by any formof literary “bad belle.” These three novels practicallyrepresent a cardinal collection in African literature andmodern fiction and attract immense recognition and attentionfrom the literary establishment all over the world. That theyhave also enjoyed the special privilege of cross-genricadaptation of various kinds, by different persons in variouslanguages is a testament to their importance in modern

2

literary consideration. Against the background of theseadaptations, Kalu Uka’s adaption of Arrow of God into A Harvest ofAnts stands out for many reasons. One of it is that it is anadaptation that was specially packaged for FESTAC’77, alandmark cultural fiesta that showcased the best of African(and the Diaspora) arts and culture. Second, it was anadaptation that was authorised by the original author, ProfAchebe Chinua, in his life time, while they both worked at theUniversity of Nigeria, Nsukka in the 70s. Third, it is also anadaption that was handled by a seasoned theatre scholar,practitioner and prose fiction writer himself and an Aro manwho is better positioned to interpret the nuances oftraditional Igbo life and symbolism as portrayed in the novel.These various dynamics bestow on the adaptation a specialquality and particular tonality that evidences the uniquecharacter of African traditional signages and symbolisms andits implication for a semiological understanding of the play.A look at this mixed media of aesthetics and semiotics iscritical at this juncture.

OVERVIEW OF COMMUNICATION AND SEMIOTICS

Communication and semiotics belong to the same field andcomplement each other in manifestation. Any discourse ofsemiotics and their relevance to theatre is naturally anexercise in context as theatre traditionally thrives incommunication driven by signification. Again, scholarlyinquiry into communication through theatre has attracted lotsof attention over the years producing positions and contextsthat enrich the disciplines in the field. This is because whenartists work on the stage or the screen medium they areengaged in communication with an available or imaginedaudience. They engage a bridge building initiative that aimsto foster ideas or information exchange. This is becausecommunication is trusted over the years for its potentials tobridge all kinds of gap especially within the human community.The theatre’s pivotal role in this direction is reinforced bythe many successful engagements that take place between

3

artists and the community via the movies, soap operas, stageproductions and other avenues of creative theatricalexpression. Close as theatre is to semiotic andnotwithstanding the various attempts to explain the dynamicsof such a relationship, semiotics to a great extent retains alevel of obscurity outside the core confines of the artisticand philosophical realms. The appropriate question thereforeis what is semiotics?

Semiotics basically deals with the study of communication andsignology. It concerns itself with the study of signs and itsapplication in the society. It place in theatrical engagementshould rightly anticipated. Mark Fortier (1997) underscoresthis assertion:

Semiotics is an important and trenchant place to begin anintroduction to theory and theatre for a number ofreasons. At least two are especially noteworthy. First,the study of signs and meaning, especially with itsemphasis on linguistic or language-like character of allsignification, has been as important as any movement intwentieth-century cultural theory, informing developmentsin perhaps all subsequent areas of theoretical endeavour(18).

Beyond its capacity for “informing development” in theoreticaldiscourses in the sciences and humanities, Fortier furtheradds that: “Second, because of its emphasis on language overall else, and on signification over more visceral activities,semiotics as much as any theoretical movement has aproblematic relationship to theatre and the understanding oftheatre (Fortier 1997, 18).

Fortier’s position, noted in the quotations above givesimpetus for this discourse, considering the continuousrelevance of semiotics to the development of greateropportunities for understanding theatre. For theatre, as acomposite art sometime suffer the misfortune ofmisinterpretation. According to Keir Elam (1997):

4

Semiotics can best be defined as a science dedicated tothe study of the production of meaning in the society. Assuch it is equally concerned with processes ofsignification and with those of communication, i.e. themeans whereby meanings are both generated and exchanged(1).

Keir Elam by this definition agrees with Fortier’s assertionthat: “Semiotics, semiology, is the study of signs: words,images, behaviour, human and animal, arrangements of manykinds, in which meaning is relayed by a corresponding outwardmanifestation (Fortier 1997, 18). Terence Hawkes (1985) quotesSassure who defines semiotics as a ‘science that studies thelife of signs within the society’ (123). All the definitionsassume a common position and project the place of semioticsand its interconnectedness to signs and how it is applied tolife.

THEORY AND BACKGROUND TO SEMIOTICS

Early research into semiotics or semiology is credited toFerdinand de Sassure (1857-1913). In his Course on GeneralLinguistics, Sassure describes ‘the sign as two parts: thesignifier, which is the material phenomenon we are able toperceive (the sound of a word, the wave of a hand), and thesignified, which is the concept involved by the signifier”(Fortier 1997, 18). Sassure’s study of language was anchoredon the understanding of the internal character of linguisticsas a medium for interpreting the communication patterns of thesociety. For Sassure therefore, “language is the mostcharacteristic semiotic system in as much as the relationbetween signifier and signified is most arbitrary” (Fortier1997, 18). He thus submitted that the signified should beregarded as a concept not as a referent in the world. Sassurewas also interested in language not only as a closed semioticsystem but also as an abstract system rather than a systemused in a changing world. The work of 20th Century researchersand scholars in semiotics owe their origin to the pioneeringwork of Ferdinand de Sassure.

5

Charles S. Peirce, an American logician and philosopher isanother major voice in the development of the theory of signand signage. He is credited with labelling his field of studysemiotics. Peirce elaborated on Sassure’s division of signinto signifier and the signified by identifying three modes ofsignification namely symbol, index and icon. In his analysis,a symbol-a word posses an arbitrary relation to its object,index-a finger pointing to an object enforces closer relationto the object while icon-a photograph of a person has a strongresemblance of that person. The extract of Peirce’s “CollectedPapers” published in the book Performance Analysis: An IntroductoryCourse Book by Colin Counsel and Laurie Wolf (2001) clearlystates the Peircean perspective of sign analysis or semiotics:

There are three kinds of signs which are all indispensable inall reasoning: the first is the diagrammatic sign or icon,which exhibits a similarity or analogy to the subject ofdiscourse; the second is the index which, like a pronoundemonstrative or relative, forces the attention to theparticular object intended without describing it; the third[the symbol] is the general name or description whichsignifies its object by means of an association of ideas orhabitual connection between the name and the charactersignified (10).

Roland Bathes’ contribution to semiotics stems from “hisapplication of semiotic analysis to specific culturalactivities and for his application of semiotic analysis tonon-verbal as well as verbal signification” (Fortier 1997,20). Barthes’ study of cultural activities throughsemiological analysis originates from his structuralistorientation because his work was to say the least anorchestration of a structuralist viewpoint. He particularlystudied myth as a cultural material that signifies thecommunication orientation of a given society. Counsel and Wolf(2001) agree with him by positing that “myth is a system ofcommunication” (12). Significantly, Barthes’ perspective ofsemiotics driven by cultural communication, in verbal or non-

6

verbal terms and the Peircean concept of symbolism is wherethe sacred realms of African traditional signage and symbolismbelong and provides the context for this analysis.

SEMIOTICS AND THEATRICAL COMMUNICATION

In addition to the theoretical positions of these earlyresearchers into semiotics, Keir Elam’s The Semiotics of Drama andTheatre (1980) is significant in its place as one of theearliest direct study of the role of semiotics in theatrecommunication. Fortier notes that:

Elam displays the strong structuralist bent of much ofsemiological analysis, attempting to provide a coherentsystem capable of accounting for all significant activityof theatre and drama: smiles, gestures, tones of voice,blocking, music, light, character development and soforth (22).

Elam therefore positions theatre in semiotics and semioticsin theatre and drives the point that semiotics is betterexpressed and perhaps understood in its daily broad expressionin the theatrical experience. In saying this, he also drawstheatre practitioners’ attention to semiotics as a ready toolthat enables theatre to become more understandable, analysableand readable. The imperative of the various studies ofsemiotics clearly underscores its relevance to theatrepractice and by extension its implication to communicationexpressing traditional signage and symbolism in contemporarydrama as we will discover sooner in Uka’s A Harvest for Ants.

Understood from this perspective, theatre as a communicationmedium aims all the time to foster better access to itscommunication by the recipients of such communication. Manyscholars assert that it is always the aim of theatre toadvance understanding and assimilation of the messages itssends out to its various publics (Okoh 2007, 21; Nda 2002,94). In further support of this position, Kalu Uka (1980)writing in Approaches to Theatre Reviewing as Art Education affirms that‘Theatre is a tripartite sharing of experience among an

7

audience, an actor and an author” (2). The act of “sharingexperience” between the artists and the various components ofthe society speaks of communication in the clearest terms.This communication and interactivity thrives on images, signs,indexes and icons that send out appropriate meanings to thebeholders. Again, Elam (1980) supports this position when heidentifies the interlinking role of semiotics and theatricalcommunication. In his words, semiotics is:

A multidisciplinary science whose precise methodologicalcharacteristics will necessarily vary from field butwhich is united by a common global concern, the betterunderstanding of our meaning-bearing behaviour.

Here “meaning bearing” or “meaning sharing” or “experiencesharing “becomes the primary focus of every communicative artsand that is what theatre is primarily about. However, theparamount place of meaning sharing can best be understood whennoting that theatre employs various elements to communicate itmessage. The theatre relies on signification for itscommunication and builds structures to bring thatsignification into memorable icons that speak directly to theaudience (Akpan 1987, 20). The various elements of a dramatictext, costume, properties, lighting, sound, animation and non-verbal communication apparatuses are employed in a giventheatre production to create meaning. Beyond the spoken wordsor speech or the dialogue that characters speak in a play, agiven theatre production is also an assemblage of differentinformation and communication sources which are intelligentlynetworked into a single unit of communication (Esekong 2002,7). We can therefore see that communication in the theatregoes beyond the speech of the characters to embrace otherconstituent materials that make up the entire production.

Semiotics has also structured theatre or performance as aculturally-oriented event given the ethos and norms that theyexpress. Counsel and Wolf (2002) opine that “Performance is acultural practice, a practice of representation, and soinevitably enters the arena of ideology” (31). Such

8

understanding of theatre presents an amplified view of thecommunication potentials of theatre as a holistic, correctingthe misconceived perception of it as just the art of acting byactors. Theatre and Performance carry a larger context inapplication than it is often perceived and semiotics enablesthem to assume the right perspective in the publicimagination. Therefore one can say that semiotics or thesemiological analysis of theatre create a broad place for itsunderstanding and expression. Susan Melrose (1994)consolidates this view by stating that, “The concept of a‘theatre sign’ seems to have no strict parameters, but to bedetermined phenomenologically, by the onlooker” (15). BertoltBrecht’s Epic Theatre is a very handy example in this regard.Fortier states in agreement:

Although Brecht’s theory is not explicitly or directlyinfluenced by semiotics, it is fairly easy to see whatBarthes is getting at. Brecht’s theatre is primarilyconcerned with meaning and understanding. Throughout histheoretical work, he stresses this aspect in a number ofways: his theatre is philosophical, scientific,intellectual, and pedagogical (23).

From the forgoing, the cardinal imperative of communicationdriven by semiotics in theatre is captured succinctly inElam’s (1980:36) model of transmission from a source to areceiver. The model simply explained sees the dramatist as thesource of the theatrical information (play text), thetransmitters are the bodies and voices of the actors, thecostume, lighting, sound, props, and the signals aremovements, sounds and electrical impulses while theperformance becomes the ultimate goal of the communication,the message. The audience or the destination directs all theirattention to the message and will form the basis of theirreaction or feedback through their perception of the message.The reaction can come in the form of applause, boos and otherforms of feedbacks.

A SEMIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF A HARVEST FOR ANTS

9

A Harvest for Ants is a p lay rooted in the culture of the Igbosociety as its prose precursor Arrow of God. The African societyand its unique ways and methods of communication are displayedin the play in an obvious indication of the piquant aestheticsand semiotics of its source. A synopsis of the story canusefully unveil the play and its cultural nuances.

Synopsis of the Play

The play is a dramatic adaptation of Chinua Achebe’s novelArrow of God. The story captures the tendentious conflictsbrewed by the early contact of Africans with Westerncivilization via colonialism. The major character of this playis Ezeulu, a priest-king of Umuaro, an Igbo community caughtin the grip of European incursion and imposition of foreignvalues, religion, education and governance system. Ezeulu, atypical African clan head, married to three wives and fatherof many children sits as a major defining figure in thecommunity. He performs the role of daily administration of thesix villages that make up Umuaro clan as well as act as thespiritual intermediary between the local deity Ulu and thepeople to ensure societal stability and their spiritual wellbeing. He performs the core monthly rituals of transitionsinto new moons and harvest seasons and commands enormousinfluence as the preeminent voice of reason and moral sanctityin the community. He envisions himself as the arrow in thehand of the local deity, Ulu and one that is firmly planted onthe divine authority of a dated being. His authority andrelevance is fostered by the divine awe that surrounds theworship of Ulu by the Umuaro people. The perceived benevolenceof the god and the uncontested competence of its priest setEzeulu a world apart from his contemporaries as well as rivalslike Nwaka.

However, the test of his continued relevance in the scheme ofthis communal nation state ensues when Umuaro goes into warwith Okperi, a neighbouring community and Ezeulu againstpopular expectation testified against his people to the

10

admiration and respect of the white district officer MrWinterbottom. By this single action, he utterly disappointmenthis people but more so draw more flaks from his antagonistsfor dancing too close to the rhythm of new compositions fromundefined sources. Should he be for the gods or for thepeople? What guarantees does he have for taking unilateraldecisions that pits his personal ego with the changing tidesin community? Driven by a new found friendship with the whiteman and the rapid institutionalization of indirect rule,Christianity’s incursion into the hinterland and changingdynamics in local situations, Ezeulu soon grapples with achallenging need to sustain his traditional authority whilealso interacting and relating with the new ways of doingthings which he has surreptiously embraced by sending one ofhis sons (Oduche) to “be his eyes there.” Several eventsunravel in quick succession and invent scenarios that appeartoo tough for Ezeulu to still eat his monthly ritual yam andhave it, to borrow a popular English expression. The ensuingaftermath presents a society caught at the cross-roads ofchanging times and dynamics.

TRADITIONAL SIGNAGES AND SYMBOLISM AND THEIR SEMIOLOGICALCONNOTATIONS IN THE PLAY

The play A Harvest of Ants is straddled with many traditionalAfrican signage and symbolisms that speaks volumes to theindigenes but may challenge the perception of the alien. Thesesignage and symbolisms capture essences that do not onlyemblemtize the spiritual universe but also the aestheticparticulars that describe the daily experience in thecommunity. These aesthetic particulars embody semiologicalattributes that make up the nuances of communication in thesociety. They constitute what Brockett & Ball (2004) refer toas ‘emphasizing the essential qualities of each character’(65) thereby fostering the indisputable interlinkingrelationship between communication and characterisationespecially from a theatrical context. It also expands thespace for interrogating the African society where

11

communication is so often dominated by signs, codes, ethos,mythos, symbols, mnemonic devices, anecdotal expression,stylization and norms. In buttressing this position, Brockett& Ball (2004) perceptively observes that:

In indigenous performance, words are often the leastimportant element. Other “languages,” especially those ofdrumming and dance, often communicate more to Africanaudiences than words do. To these can be added visualimagery, symbolism, gesture, mask, costume (274).

This Africanist context of communication dominated by other“languages” appears in both Arrow of God and A Harvest for Ants, itsdramatic adaptations. There are therefore many references tophenomena and matter which goes beyond the physical, immediateor temporal meanings. Words are not spoken in their literarycontext but in proverbial contexts with underpinnings thatsurpass the contextual. Seasons are named after naturalresources, the environment is deified and its constituentssometime worshipped, animals are treated as totems andidolized, worship centres such as communal and family shrinesassume very important place in the psycho-cosmic state of thecommunity, the moon is treated with absolute respect anddrives the entire structure of life in the community, mattersare seen in symbolic rather than literal terms and life seemto rotate around an extraordinary fondness for spiritualexplanations for almost all things. These and many othersignage and symbolizations connote semiotics and haveimplication in the way and manner communication takes place inthe universe of the play and by extension the society itemanates from. A more sustained analysis of these issuesbecomes necessary at this point.

THE MOON AND CYCLIC RESONANCES

African cosmology is dominated by different archetypalpersonalities and materials. Its core structure thrives oncyclic resonances with strong connections to the celestial andarboreal templates. The elements play a very significant role

12

in this spiritual arrangement. The sky, the air, moon, starsand the other celestial matters feature prominently in theAfrican spiritual universe is in other parts of the world. Themoon (which symbolizes Budha) for example is also dominant inJapanese theatre and drama especially in the Noh theatretradition (Brockett & Ball 2004, 268). This is the contextunder which the moon becomes a semiological umbrella throughwhich life is sustained in the Igbo community of Umuarorepresented in A Harvest for Ants. The play is creatively wovenaround the life of Ezeulu, priest of Ulu, traditional god ofUmuaro people. Ezeulu’s duties amongst others are theobservation of the moon to know when it is time to offersacrifice to the god. The stage direction in Act I in theearly part of the play reveals this occupation:

(Then Ezeulu has emerged from his Obi...From there, hepeers straight ahead up, towards the evening sky. He istotally absorbed in that hard upward gaze, winking fromtime to time, straining for the moon.) (3).

The moon from this description is not just a naturalphenomenon that comes in its season to brighten the earth. Inthis community, it assumes a spiritual role that is tied tothe entire cosmic calendar of the community. Life is sustainedand destroyed by the moon or by the way the moon isapproached. Obika, Ezeulu’s second son enthuses in aninteraction with the father:

OBIKA No doubt. Yet my grandfather died blind. The moonsucked out his eyes (3).

Though this reference is to the daily demands of observing andsighting the moon to ascertain the right season of sacrificeand the stress associated with straining the eye sight to spotthe moon, the allusion to death from the moon clearly showsthe state of its importance in the cyclic universe of thecommunity. Ugoye, one of Ezeulu’s wive’s also alludes to themoon as possible cause of death of Okuata, Ezeulu’s firstwife:

13

UGOYE It seems evil to me; crooked, like the moon underwhich Okuata died. Its legs are in the air; its bellydrawn in, like a masquerade on stilts (8).

Again the influence of the moon on life is expressed in thecommunity. The community appears driven by the disposition andpositioning of the moon. Certain positioning is deemed goodwhile certain ones considered not appropriate may result inthe death of someone or some other dimension of misfortune. Toforestall the ugly side of the moon from happening to anyone,periodic sacrifices are offered to Ulu while individuals maketheir own personal supplications entreating the moon to treatthem fairly. Matefi illustrates this existing belief:

MATEFI (Kneels). Moon, may many more bright reflectionsof your face meet mine! (Tosses water flakes up) (7).

The moon and cyclic resonances in the community are signageand symbolizations with semiological underpinnings becausethey communicate to the people in different ways. While itholds promises of better life for some, it presents obviousthreats of dear life to others. Ezeulu warns his son, Obika tobe careful anchoring his admonitions on spiritualinterpretations alluding to the moon:

EZEULU Yes, fly off. Like an arrow in the wind. Obika,take care. I have seen spirits. Ogbazulobodo, in mydreams. The moon is delaying. The delay of a moon, thedirection of an arrow, spirits in dreams – are like actsof god. They have their peculiar patterns. Be careful(6).

It is therefore treated as both an icon and object ofsignificant value and exudes a certain aura once it appears inthe atmosphere of the community. It value as a communicationdevice resonates its semiotic properties and how that enhancesthe understanding of the universe expressed in the play. Thistherefore fosters Barthes’ assertion that myth and culturalpractices of a particular society constitutes semiotics andsources of communication.

14

SHRINES AND ALTARS

The play is also dotted with shrines, altars and sacred placesof worship. There are sacred locations and arenas like thevillage square whose huge Ugili tree “dominates the centrelike fetish” (1). Ezeulu’s compound is described as a placesurrounded by shrines. The opening stage direction indicates:

A good distance to the right of the tree is Ezeulu’simposing hut with a low oak-panelled veranda three-fourths of the way round it. Farther down left, by theouter edge of a road leading out of the village, stands acommunal shrine, with an “ikenga” mask on its low root(Ulu’s shrine)...

Farther down right by the outer edge of road leading intothe village stands another shrine, a family type (1).

Shrines and altars represents power centres where importantlife’s issues are treated hence its dominance in thecommunity. They also embody the collective aesthetics,philosophy and artistic aspirations of the community. Apartfrom the common or communal one, families also have shrinesdevoted to ancestral worship and sundry gods. These shrinesand the priests who act as their custodians control thereligious life and spiritual wellbeing of the community. Dailyor periodic communication takes place at the shrines in theform of sacrifices and other rituals meant to appease thegods. Role playing takes place too as the priest ascends intoa state of ethereal communication that is not onlyaesthetically inviting but functionally viable. Ezeulu, as thepriest and custodian of the Ulu shrine engages in symbolicactions and activities which are generally believed to fosterthe wellbeing of the Umuaro clan. He is expected to offerprayer on behalf of the people, present sacrificial items tothe gods at the shrine and also eat the ritual yam on behalfof the gods as their representative on earth. His life iscritical to the development of the community as he seeshimself as a symbol of Ulu’s sovereignty and powers. To a

15

great extent, he sees himself as the arrow in the hands of thegods.

MASK, MASKING AND MASQUERADING

Mask, masking and masquerade constitute dominant aestheticsand semiotics in African communities even to the present day.The mask in African cosmology is communication devices and nota mere craft for entertainment or amusement as in the Westerncontext. Mask have and express life as incarnation of deifiedpersonalities. The masking process is the sacred expression ofthe communication that exists between the living and the deadwho are considered higher beings and active participants inthe affairs of the living. The masquerade is therefore adramatic orchestration of that essence. It is characterisationdriven by a semiotics of existence. In this play, this Africanworldview is boldly expressed. Mask carving is spotted inEzeulu’s household. His eldest son is a carver of differenttypes of masks including ancestral masks. Matefi inconversation with Ugoye and the other members of Ezeulu’shousehold makes reference to “one of Edogo’s carvings” (7).The art of carving in modern disciplinary terms is categorizedas fine or applied art which according to Okeke (1977) trains“keepers of the people’s aesthetics/moral conscience” (66). Bythis description, the indisputable role of arts in societalcommunication is established giving vent to its semiologicalpotentialities. There are various masquerades mentioned in theArrow of God and A Harvest of Ants, its drama version. Ogwugwustands out. It is a mask described as possessing a uniquefeature and aesthetics that defines its peculiar semiotics.

FESTIVALS AND CELEBRATIVE LORES

Traditional African societies are built on the foundation ofancestral worship and celebrative myth which give rise to theobservance of many festivals in communities. The festival is acore artistic cum spiritual event and constitutes the largestexpression of the collective credo of the community. They arealso veritable avenues of recreating the dynamics of the16

society, recapturing the history of the people and expressingappreciation to those considered benevolent gods sustainers ofthe community. In this play, festivals and celebrative lorefill the atmosphere. The play opens in Act 1 Scene 1 withAnosi, a storyteller/diviner who introduces the audience tothe character of the Umuaro community. In this introductoryremark about the locale of the play, festival is givenprominence as one of the active indicators of the typicalUmuaro life.

This is our clan, Umuaro. We are an easy going people.Not a soft people. A trusting people. Nothing seems tomany issues. Whether they are big or small, suddenly,they become real. Winta Bota, Ogbuefi Nwaka. Eze mmuo,Ezidemili. To take just a few of the personalities. Alsoour crops. Our farmlands. Even a war with Okperi over whoowned a farmland. Yes, the issues are usually real,usually big: our heavy rains. Our families. Ourfestivals: the New Yam: the Cleansing. Circumcision. Ourmarriage custom. (2).

This statement captures the Umuaro society as it exposes thethings that matter to the people one of which is festivals.The other activities mentioned along with festivals allconnote a celebrative dimension of some sort as it will belater seen in the various situations in the play. Thereforefestivals are key to the expression and communication of theuniqueness of the Umuaro cosmo-vison. The common language ofthe people is expressed through festivals creating an enablingenvironment for communal communication and interactivity.Again it must be emphasized that semiotics and communicationgo hand in hand and the creative arts continuously retains oneof the best platforms for its realization especially in atraditional context like the one cited in this play.

FOLKTALES, PROVERBS AND ANECDOTAL EXPRESSIONS

Folktales, story narration, wise and proverbial sayingsdistinguish African communication from other parts of theworld. Chinua Achebe, the writer of Arrow of God, adapted into

17

this play by Kalu Uka is often quoted for saying in Things FallApart that proverbs are the palm oil with which words areeaten. This is true in the larger African context as it isalso true in the context of this play. Not only are proverbsand tales presented but inside they play some of them haveactually developed into a play within a play. Proverbs featuremore prominently in the interaction and daily communication ofthe elderly members of the community. Nwaka’s address to theelders of Umuaro is undoubtedly eloquent and commandsattention because of his use of proverbs to illustrate hispoint. He also does not hide is rivalry with Ezeulu at anygiven opportunity. He affirms this position by stating that,‘Wisdom is like a goatskin bag; everyman carries his own” (12)meaning that the community should not give only to Ezeulu’sposition regarding the dispute with Okperi. Ezeulu is quick torespond that: “When an adult is in the house, the she-goat isnot left to suffer the pains of labour on its tether,” (13)implying that Nwaka’s eloquence should not be allowed tocajole the community into a wrong decision. He and the otherolder men in the community is the adult that should not sitback while the land is embroiled in unnecessary conflict withits neighbour.

Ezeulu’s cautious acceptance of the white man encountersregular chances of his disapproval of the District Officer’soverbearing disposition. He describes this as an act ofpleasantries exchange that has gone out of control: “When ahandshake passes the elbow, we know it has become a struggle”(52). This assertive disapproval using a proverb clearlyestablishes the level of conflict brewing with what appears asa cultural relationship. Folk story sessions are also regularfeature in the community. Ezeulu’s younger children re-enact anarrative that illustrates how the six villages that make upUmuaro came together to create a clan. These folk sessions arecommunal arenas of communication that illustrate the semioticscharacter of indigenous oral narrative and thereforecontribute to how meaning is shared and people perceive the

18

union of the villages. It is indicatively, a system ofknowledge distribution and historical recording for the futuregeneration.

MUSIC AND DANCES

Music and dances are all over the play and display in verygraphic terms the semiotics and kinetics of the body inperformance. The opening sequence of the play which describesthe setting affirms this:

Action starts with a promenade (dance) of jubilantvillagers chanting the poplar ballad,“Chinweude...Enenebe ejegh olu...” A sweet, mellow, youngsoprano voice is the lead. That voice is Obiageli’s.

As the lyric ends gradually, a drunken staccato sort ofsinging is heard approaching. Then, from centre a manemerges. He is ANOSI, the storyteller... (1).

Different occasions in the play involve dances and music asseparate activities or as a complement to another event. Musicand dances are perceived at various levels depending on theoccasion it occurs and the type of business being handled.That is to say that there is music and dances at the social orgeneral level where the entire community members irrespectiveof age and sex participate as well as music and dances thatare only for the elect and which is meant to satisfy higherfunctions. The semiotics of such music and dance differ intone, rhythm, pace and significance to the others. We are ableto encounter that sort of dance at the village square, wherethe whole community gathers to enact some ritual. In thisarena, Ezeulu is the chief protagonist of this dance. Thestage direction describes his measured movement and calculatedstylization:

{...Finally, the Chief Priest , Ezeulu appears. Hisappearance is greeted with tremendous applause. The bigogene souds four times. He is wearing smoked raffia whichdescends from his waist to his knees. Left half of hisbody is painted with white chalk (nzu), the right half is

19

charcoal. The ritual begins: Ezeulu takes a few strides,pausing on each foot. Then he runs forward again, as ifhe had seen a comrade in the vacant air.}

The dance that is described here is not one with extensivemovement and kinetic agility. It is a measured, transcendentcommunication in movement, stylization, gesture and silence.This is the semiotics of elevated communication within theAfrican traditional context which sometime might bemeaningless to the non-initiate. Communication within theAfrican performance space assumes a diversity of configurationand extrapolates meaning at different levels.

TOTEMS, SACRED SEASONS AND TABOOS

There are taboos, sacred seasons, totems and ritualisticobservances throughout the play. These practices are heldsacrosanct as the basis for sustainable development in thesociety. Embedded in the fabric of the society are long heldbeliefs surrounding these practices. Ezeulu is crafted an atotalistic embodiment of the dominant culture and religion inthe society therefore his seeming embrace of the Christianreligion through his son’s involvement and friendship with thewhite man prompts lots of suspicion especially by his rivalsin the community. He is being thought of as sell out to thenew ways encroaching into the community and there is goodreason for the people to think so, seen from anotherperspective, because this is a man that holds the power oflife and death in his hands. His actions have far reachingimplications on the outlook and state of the nation. He useshis own mouth to confirm the significance of his positioningin the community while explaining the meaning of the ritualyam to his inquisitive children:

EZEULU Good – what you see me eat, then, my children isnot food. It is life and death. The death and life ofUmuaro. The ceremony which Ulu orders me to carry out. Ifi do not eat that yam, or link my mind to Ulu’s thoughtthen, and divine his will for our people, there will beno more festivals. There will be no more life in the soul

20

of Umuaro. Ulu has given me great powers. The power todetermine when the sowing and reaping fall due. The powerto carry our people through the rhythms of living as thebeat of the heart carries human life. Now, another newmoon has come. We must do those duties (To shrine, with ‘IkengaMask’ – left of the stage). (18).

The self explanatory citation above clearly establishes theplace and importance of rituals, taboos and sacred practicesin the life of the community. Its presence does not justpromote spiritual values but also multi-dimensional andutilitarian communication. Sacred seasons like the New Yamfestival and the festival of New Pumpkin Leaves, cleansing andcircumcision are observed in the community. In Act 11, aspecial ritual of “Sacrifice of Burial at the Crossroads” isperformed by a medicine man for Okuata, Obika’s bride. Thisritual holds a special significance for her as it is her firsttime as a married woman. The medicine man enunciates thesignificance:

...Breath, and live with the spirits all the days of yourmarried life. Now people hear: Any evil which Okuata might haveseen with her eyes, or spoken with her mouth, or heard with her ears, ortrodded upon with her feet: whatever her father or mother might havebrought upon her, I cover them all here.” (As he speaks the last words hetakes the bowl of fired clay and places it face down-wards over the objects inthe hole. When he finishes, the curved back of the bowl shows a little abovethe surface of the road). (22).

The sacrificial acts and the words that accompany them canalso be noted for their semiological values as they indicatethe power of spiritual communication and its implication inphysical human existence. That a ritual like that has to beconducted preparatory to a young woman settling in her maritalhome speaks of the relevance of myth and beliefs in the lifeof the community. They go a long way to establish the basisfor expanding the understanding of semiotics in localcommunication.

21

In addition to these, certain animals are treated withreverence as totems in the community. The python for exampleis considered a special figure in the worship of Idemili,another god in the community. Pythons are therefore allowed tomove freely in the community without being disturbed. Oduche’simprisonment of a python traced to Idemili is frowned upon asa taboo and sacrilegious acts that would have attracted severereprimand if he was not the son of Ezeulu however sacrificewill still be conducted on his behalf by the father to preventthe anger of the gods. Tabooing and totemization of certainanimals are also significations with semiological attributesbecause it is a communication that has been entrenched andaccepted by the entire community and carries signs and symbolsthat impacts understanding amongst the people.

CONCLUSION

The chapter’s major preoccupation had been a semiologicalanalysis of the incidental signage and symbolisms thatcommunicate a unique traditional essence in Kalu Uka’s A Harvestfor Ants, adapted from Chinua Achebe’s Arrow of God. The aim is tounravel the unique implication of semiotics in creativepractice cutting across different cultures and contexts. Fromidentified practices and methods of communication in the play,the success of Kalu Uka’s adaptation of a prose work into adrama piece can be established. A Harvest of Ants is not only asuccess in its adaptation but it is perhaps more successful inits capacity to situates traditional signs and their symbolismin a semiological context that broadens the understanding andapplication of the dynamics and communication potentials ofthe play as a unique story of Africa’s contact with the Westand the events that surrounded that initial contact.

It gives a fresh breath to the story by extracting andprojecting its filmic qualities in a time that evidences arapid rise of adaptation and archivatization of classicalworks in modern, technology-driven conservatories. It is theexpectation of these writers that cultural policy planners and

22

arts practitioners of modern times will see the need tofurther extend the boundaries of African literary imaginationby investing its documentation into the screen and new mediaplatforms. While using this opportunity to acknowledge earlyeffort in this regards by the practitioners who saw the needto translate this unique African story in the film medium, theonus rest on present day practitioners to exploits theincrease ascendancy of new media for story adaptation anddramatization. This will only provide larger public access forthese classics but will also reposition our continent,exposing the our societies to a global perspective that comesfrom us as against the subsisting practice of Africa seen andpresented from the perspective of other people.

REFERENCES

Achebe, Chinua (1974): Arrow of God. London: HeinemannEducational Books Ltd.

Achebe, Chinua (1958): Things Fall Apart. London: HeinemannEducational Books Ltd.

Achebe, Chinua (1960): No Longer at Ease. London: HeinemannEducational Books Ltd.

Akpan, Emmanuel (1987): Communication and Media Arts: A New Approach tothe Basics. Uyo: Modern Business Press.

Brockett, Oscar G. & Ball, Robert J. (2004): The Essential Theatre,8th Ed. California: Wadsworth.

Elam, Keir (1980): The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. London:Methuen & Co. Ltd.

Esekong, Andrew (2002): “The Semiotic Approach to ArtsCriticism”. A PhD Seminar Paper in the Course Approaches to ArtsCriticism, Department of Theatre Arts, University of Calabar,Nigeria.

Counsel, Colin & Wolf, Laurie (ed.) (2001): Performance Analysis: AnIntroductory Course Book. London: Routledge.

23

Fortier, Mark (1997): Theory/Theatre: An Introduction. London:Routledge.

Hawkes, Terence (1985): Structuralism and Semiotics. London:Routledge.

Melrose, Susan (1994): A Semiotics of the Dramatic Text. London:Macmillan Press Ltd.

Nda, Ubong (2002): Preservation and Promotion of IndigenousCultural Values through the Nigerian Television-Problems andProspects. Nigerian Theatre Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1, pgs 94-108.

Okeke, Uche (1977): The Search for a Theoretical Basis forContemporary Nigerian Art. Nigerian Journal of the Humanities, Vol. 1,No. 1, pgs 60-66.

Okoh, Juliana (2007): “Fundamentals of Drama.” In: Theatre inTheory and Practice for Beginners, Bell-Gam, Henry L. (ed.). PortHarcourt: University of Port Harcourt Press.

Uka, Kalu (1980): “Approaches to Theatre Reviewing as ArtEducation: Suggestions to Nigerian Reviewers.” Unpublishedpaper presented at the Department of Theatre Arts, Universityof Calabar,Nigeria.

Uka, Kalu (2006): A Harvest for Ants. Oron: Manson PublishingCompany.

24