The Problem of Ritual

The Problem of Ritual Edited by Tore Ahlbäck Cover: Tove Ahlbäck SCRIPTA INSTITUTI DONNERIANI ABOENSIS XV THE PROBLEM OF RITUAL Based on Papers Read at the Symposium on Religious Rites Held at Åbo, Finland on the 13th-16th of August 1991 Edited by TORE AHLBÄCK Distributed by ALMQVIST & WIKSELL INTERNATIONAL STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN The Problem of Ritual The Problem of Ritual Based on Papers Read at the Symposium on Religious Rites Held at Åbo, Finland, on the 13th-16th of August 1991 Edited by Tore Ahlbäck Published by The Donner Institute for Research in Religious and Cultural History Åbo, Finland Distributed by Almqvist & Wiksell International Stockholm, Sweden ISSN 0582-3226 ISBN 951-650-196-6 Printed in Finland by Sisälähetysseuran kirjapaino Raamattutalo Pieksämäki 1993 Contents Editorial Note 7 JØRGEN PODEMANN SØRENSEN Ritualistics: a New Discipline in the History of Religions 9 TOVE TYBJERG Wilhelm Mannhardt — A Pioneer in the Study of Rituals 27 JONATHAN HORWITZ Shamanic Rites Seen from a Shamanic Perspective 39 ANTOON GEELS A Note on the Psychology of Dhikr. The Halveti-Jerrahi Order of Dervishes in Istanbul 53 OWE WIKSTRÖM Liturgy as Experience — the Psychology of Worship. A Theoretical and Empirical Lacuna 83 RENÉ GOTHÓNI Pilgrimage = Transformation Journey 101 NORA AHLBERG Forced Migration and Muslim Rituals: An Area of Cultural Psychology? 117 THOMAS MCELWAIN Ritual Change in a Turkish Alevi Village 131 J. PETER SÖDERGÅRD The Ritualized Bodies of Cybele's Galli and the Methodological Problem of the Plurality of Explanations 169 LILIAN PORTEFAIX Ancient Ephesus: Processions as Media of Religious and Secular Propaganda 195 MORTEN LUND WARMIND The Cult of the Roman Emperor before and after Christianity 211 ANDERS HULTGÅRD Altskandinavische Opferrituale und das Problem der Quellen 221 JENS PETER SCHJØDT The Relation between the two Phenomenological Categories Initiation and Sacrifice as Exemplified by the Norse Myth of (Ódinn on the Tree 261 MARIANNE GÖRMAN Influences from the Huns on Scandinavian Sacrificial Customs during 300-500 AD 275 MIKAEL ROTHSTEIN Rituals and Religious Innovation. The Meaning of Rituals in Shan the Rising Light 299 PETER BUCHHOLZ Religious Foundations of Group Identity in Prehistoric Europe: The Germanic Peoples 321 ALVAPPILLAI VELUPPILLAI The Hindu Confrontation with the Jaina and the Buddhist. Saint Tiruñanacampantar's Polemical Writings 335 Biographical Notes 365 Editorial Note Since 1962 the Donner Institute for Research in Religious and Cultural History in Åbo/Turku, Finland has regularly organised Nordic symposia in comparative religion and published the symposium papers in its own series Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis. The topic of the first symposium in 1962 was Shamanism; this was followed by Fatalistic Beliefs in Religion, Folklore and Literature (1964), Syncretism (1966), Mysticism (1968), The Myth of the State (1971), New Religions (1974), Dynamics and Institution (1976), Religious Symbols and Their Functions (1978) and Religious Ecstasy (1982). All these topics were of a comprehensive nature. In 1984 a series of three symposia was begun in which the topic was of a regional nature, namely Saami Religion (1984), Old Norse and Finnish Religions and Cultic Place-Names (1987) and The Saami Shaman Drum (1988). The reason for introducing these regional topics on pre- Christian Norse and Saami religion was that the Donner Institute wished to stimulate research in this field. The theme of the symposium, Religious Rites, of which the papers are published in this work is a broad one, being of the same type as those during the years 1962-81. The advantage of a regional theme is that the volume of papers from the congress tends to be uniform and homogeneous. The disadvantage is that only Nordic scholars of religion specialising in the area covered by the symposium consider it of benefit to attend. On the other hand, a broad theme means that the symposium can attract scholars interested in many different religions; this means that the symposium can be a truly pan-Nordic meeting of scholars of religion. However, the result is that the published papers are then often marked by a certain heterogeneity as far as content is concerned. The theme of this symposium, Religious Rites, is justified by the key role played by ritual in religion. Rites as the focus of research have the 8 EDITORIAL NOTE advantage that they can be studied to a large degree empirically. This, in turn, means that it is easier to compare the research results of different scholars; at the same time it opens up greater possibilities for cumulative research. Unfortunately this is not the case with all research topics in comparative religion. That the topic for the symposium was well chosen is shown by the fact that the number of papers submitted to the symposium was so large that a number of those participants submitting papers had to act as co-referees. However, it has also been possible to include papers by these participants in the symposium report. Finally, it should be added that the papers of Peter Buchholz and Alvappillai Veluppillai were included in the report volume at a later date. Tore Ahlbäck JØRGEN PODEMANN SØRENSEN Ritualistics: a New Discipline in the History of Religions What we are going to suggest on the following pages is not exactly a new method and still less a novel paradigm. And the new discipline to be outlined is not the science of ritual advocated by Frits Staal (1989) and not the cognitive, transformational approach of Lawson and McCauley (1990). It is in fact something much more traditional, and it will soon become apparent that ritualistics is a discipline to which many scholars have unwittingly contributed. The novel aim of the present paper is to define a discipline, i.e. an analytical level, analogous with the levels of analysis defined by such linguistic disciplines as phonetics, morphology, syntax and semantics. The history of Religions is in need of subdisciplines. Those that it has are mostly derived from other academic disciplines such as psychology, sociology, or, to mention a more recent invention, aesthetics. Interdisci- plinary studies are in many ways a characteristic, inherent feature of the humanities, and certainly not to be resented or mistrusted. It is, however, worth noticing that the History of Religions has only one discipline entirely of its own: a comparative, cross-cultural, religio-specific discipline some- times called the phenomenology of religion. The phenomenology of religion spans everything religious and is to the study of a single religion what general, comparative linguistics is to the study of a single language. It consists in the construction of analytic models for use in the study of single religions. The phenomenology of religion has been variously viewed and evaluated, and the fluctuations of its self-esteem seem to reflect the general trends in the modern history of the humanities. Considered a concluding discipline that collects evidence towards asserting certain transhistorical universals, the phenomenology of religion is not easily reconciled with elementary standards of scholarship. It may as well, however, be viewed as an analytic tool discipline with the aim of constructing theoretical 10 JØRGEN PODEMANN SØRENSEN models, based on comparative analysis of historical data. In the latter case the objections seem to shrink to mere anti-theoretical routines. If the idea of a comparative discipline in the history of religions is thus not in itself unsound, this does not solve all the problems that have been raised concerning the phenomenology of religion. There are still the endless discussions about its dependence on philosophical or Husserlian phenomenology, about the theoretical and even the religious basis of the works of van der Leeuw and Eliade, etc. etc. The present paper will not be contributing to the perpetuation of such discussions about individual approaches to the comparative project. The problem at issue is a much more fundamental one, inherent in the very idea of one broad comparative discipline in the history of religions. Even if we disregard the philosophical problem of a definition of religion, the idea of such an all-embracing discipline is not without its problems. Like the economists and anthropologists and many others, we are able to subsist without clearcut outer boundaries; but both practical and theoretical problems arise if we cannot inwardly structuralize our object. Many have probably seen the task of the phenomenology of religion as being an orderly construction of our object, and at least to some extent the traditional textbooks or treatises on the phenomenology of religion appear as lay-outs structuralizing the field of religion. It is, however, mainly a matter of chapter headings, and the lay-out differs so widely from book to book that one cannot perceive any consensus on essentials. Only van der Leeuw attempts a division into main levels: the object of religion, the subject of religion, and their interaction. But on the whole, what he does is to deal with a number of important and interesting themes, like everybody else. Comparative studies of interesting themes have been and will always be an important element in theory formation. But the task of constructing the object of a comparative discipline demands more conscious efforts. Linguistics has succeeded in structuralizing its object into a number of clearly defined levels. It does not content itself with the study of themes, but operates a number of sub-disciplines, each

Load more