INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming, nnile the most advanced technology has beer, used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking ficu. die document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. UniversiV /Viicfonlms Internationa! 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 830S318 Dobbin, Jay D. "DO’EN DEE DANCE": DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE JOMBEE DANCE OF MONTSERRAT The Ohio State University PaD. 1982 University Microfilms International3«N.zeebR(sii.AiiiAiint.Mi«i(H Copyright 1%3 by Dobbin, Jay D. All Rights Reserved "EX)‘EN DEE DANCE" DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE JOMBEE DANCE OF MONTSERRAT DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jay D. Dobbin, A.B.,M.A., S.Th.L., S.Th.D. ***** The Ohio State University 1982 Reading Committee: Approved by Dr. Erika Bourguignon Dr. Daniel Hughes Dr. John Messenger _________________ Advi sor Department of Anthropology TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages VITA........................................................................................................ IV PREFACE................................................................................................... V INTRODUCTION: THE SCOPE OF THIS DISSERTATION................... 1 Chapter I. RELIGION ON MONTSERRAT................................................... 6 First Impressions ............................................. 6 The Folk Religion............................................. 11 The Participants ............................................. 15 Worldview o f the Montserratian Folk R e lig io n............................................. 19 Where Expression of th is Worldview is Found .......................................................... 26 The Jombees.......................................................... 49 Jombee Dances ..................................................... 54 Concluding Question ........................................ 69 II. A CASE STUDY OF ONE JOMBEE DANCE............................... 71 Introduction ................................................................. 71 Events Leading to This D ance ................... 72 The Third Dance in D etail ........................... 76 III. ANALYTICAL MODELS FOR INTERPRETING THE DANCE . 114 Introduction .................................................................. 114 Turner's Processual Symbolic Analysis. 114 Douglas and Natural Symbols ....................... 124 Simpson's Neo-African Religions and Ancestral Cults of the Caribbean...... 126 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE JOMBEE DANCE........................... 130 Introduction ................................................................. 130 The Jombee Dance as Social Drama ...................... 130 The Jombees: Dominant Symbol of the Social Drama........................................ 133 The Jombee Dance as Liminal Ritual .................. 136 The Dance as Sharing in Characteristics of both Tribal and Historical Religions. 152 The Entranced Dancers as a Social Microcosm. 155 The Jombee Dance as Neo-African Ritual . 160 n Pages V. CONCLUSIONS.................................. 177 Introduction .......................................................................... 177 Results of the Theoretical Analysis .............................. 177 The Value of This Study ..................................................... 182 Why the Decline of the Dance ........................................ 188 Concluding Statement ......................................................... 199 APPENDIX: METHODOLOGY...................................................................... 201 BIBLIOGRAPHY. ....................................................................................... 213 m VITA 21 August 1937................................................ Born - Glasgow, Montana 1960......................................................................A.B., St. Edward's College Kenmore, Washington 1964. ..................................................... M.Div., St. Thomas' Seminary Kenmore, Washington 1964-1966 Instructor, Department of Religious Studies, College of Great Falls, Great Falls, Montana 1957. .... ................................................. S.Th.L., Pontifical Insti­ tu te Anselmianum, Rome, Italy 1970 ...................................................................... S.Th.D. (Honors), Pontifical University of St. Thomas, Rome, Ita ly . 1970-1972 ........................................................... Assistant Professor, Reli­ gious Studies, College of Great Falls 1974 ...................................................................... M.A., Anthropology, The Ohio State University 1975-1980 ........................................................... Associate Professor, Anthropology and Comparative Religion, College of Great Falls 1980- ............................................................. Lecturer, European and Asian Divisions University of Maryland. iv PREFACE Data for this study were collected during seven field trips to Montserrat between 1975 and 1980. Some of the data were checked during a 1982 visit, but most of the materials are from those earlier trips. After a one week exploratory visit in the Spring of 1975, all subsequent trip s were between one and four months in length. The one month trip during December and January of 1975-1976 was p articu larly valuable because it allowed me to see much of the Christmas season ritual. Sub­ sequently I returned each Summer, with the exception of 1981. I have no evidence that there is an annual cycle of folk ritual; consequently I am reasonably certain th a t I have not missed ritu al th a t would have taken place only during the months when I have not been on Montserrat. Some travel to the island was made possible by grants from the Anthropology Department of The Ohio State University and the College of Great Falls, which are here gratefully acknowledged. I also wish to acknowledge the many who provided the data for this study, in this dissertation, I propose that the Montserratian folk religion functions as a receptacle for the traditional culture. But in a more real sense, the Montserratians themselves are the living recepta­ cles of that traditional culture. Without their generosity and willing­ ness to share with me a precious cultural heritage, my study would have been impossible. Yet because of the sensitivity of certain materials. I have promised anonimity to my interviewees. And so I must simply but gratefully acknowledge the unnamed many. I had the pleasure of conducting my limited archival research during the terms of three governors of the colony, all of whom showed a keen interest in the preservation of Montserratian cultural and histor­ ical materials. I am particularly endebted to His Excellency, D.K.H. Dale, the present governor, and to the Ministry of Educaton for per­ mitting me to begin a microfilming project of the local archives. The Montserrat Public Library under Ms. Jane Grell has always served as a friendly clearing house for both published and typescript copies of works about Montserrat. And Father Donal Broderick, pastor of the island's Roman Catholic parish, has been my constant morale booster when energy failed, equipment malfunctioned, and information was slow in surfacing. In many ways I have had an ideal coiranittee fo r th is d issertatio n . Dr. John C. Messenger introduced me to the island and his many friends there. As I note in the methodology appendix, my work builds on his pioneering research. It is a distinct honor to have been invited to probe deeper into areas where he had already worked. Dr. Erika Bourguignon's correspondence was invaluable in suggesting new questions and developing clearer answers. Dr. Daniel Hughes again and again