Being a god it may never be said of him that he is ill; and if serious illness overtook him he was quietly strangled, it being said that it would cause confusion among the people if the groans of the king in illness were overheard. . . . It is not proper to refer to his "body" or to imply that he has an ordinary human body. A special word (juwe) is used instead, with the significance of the kingly personality. This term has also the meaning of the royal fiat or ordained word, and approximates therefore to the "creative voice" of the Egyptian Pharaoh. The king’s body is believed to be charged with a divine dynamism which communicates itself to everything he touches. The most potent oath, therefore, that a Jukun can take is to swear by the couch, mat, or even slippers of the king. For in taking the oath the litigant or accused is required to place his hand on the mat or couch, and if he has falsely sworn it is believed that he will be struck dead as though killed by an electric shock. It is fatal for any Jukun to sit down on, or even accidentally to step on, the king’s mat. Clapperton records in 1827, that when he was visited by the daughter of the king of Kaiama she would not sit down on his carpet or mat, as her father had previously done so. . . . He lived a life of complete seclusion, in consonance with his character as a son of the gods. For the same reason also no Jukun king may smoke tobacco; nor may he look on a corpse, for he has no part in death. . . . He is not, and apparently never was, expected to be a leader of victorious armies, but he is expected to secure in his time a regular succession of rich harvests, and by his ability to do so is adjudged to be a true son of god. He is identified with the crops, and is addressed as azaiwo (our guinea corn), afyewo (our ground nuts) or asoiwo (our beans) just as in ancient Egypt the Pharaoh was addressed by the title of "our crop" and "our harvest." . . .

It is not possible to give full and accurate details of the ritual of the killing and burial of the king, as these are only known to a few officials; or it might be more correct to say that parts of the ritual are known to particular officials, and parts to other particular officials, it being tabu and dangerous for one official to breathe to another a single syllable of the secret duty pertaining to his office. Even the king himself is ignorant of some parts at least of the procedure. The following account is based partly on hearsay and partly on such details as were revealed by persons who had official or accidental knowledge of the ritual.

When the king became sick, or infirm, or broke any of the royal tabus, or proved himself unfortunate, he was secretly put to death. Whether any king was, in the olden days, permitted to die a natural death cannot now be known, but it is noteworthy that many Jukun kings are said to have reached a hoary old age, so that mere old age was not in itself considered a sufficient cause for the ritual murder of the king. The mode of killing was by strangulation with a string or piece of cloth. It is never suggested that the Jukun kings, like those of the Yoruba and of Meroe, were invited to commit suicide, but it is possible that the stories of Jukun kings calling on trees or the earth to open and swallow them is to be interpreted in this way. Those appointed to commit the murder entered the palace at night having previously suborned the Aku Nako, Kato and Iche to assist, if not to take the principal part in the murder. The two executioners tied a noose of cloth round the neck of the sleeping king, and going off in different directions pulled the cloth until the king was strangled. It is said that if the king woke up and attempted to summon assistance the executioners reminded him that they were but performing the ancestral custom and that it behooved the king to behave quietly, as his royal ancestors had done before him. Another method was for the conspirators to bore a hole in the wall of the king’s sleeping apartment and pass a noose through to the king’s wife, who fastened it round his neck, the conspirators then pulling on the noose from outside. The king could only be killed by strangulation for two reasons: (a) that the executioners might not look into the king’s eyes as he died, for if they did his departing soul would slay them; and (b) that the king’s blood might not be spilt. It is also said that no one who had a claim to the throne might be present at the king’s execution.¹

The fate of the king in these cases is comparable with that of the African rain makers, who were frequently killed when they failed to bring relief in times of drought, and it is probable that the pattern was transferred, with modifications, to the divine kings.

¹Meek, C.K.n/an/an/an/a, , 127, 129, 165–166 (K. Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co. By permission).