Crystallized Belief Objects of Tradition in Folklife Research in the Inter-War Years By Åmund Norum Resløkken In 1934, the first number of the journal Ord Institute for Comparative Research in Hu- og sed (“Word and Custom”) was issued to man Culture (IFSK), established in 1922, informants and interested public in Norway. was of particular importance for Ord og The journal consisted in its entirety of ques- sed. It became a central institution in the tionnaires, collecting the first 22 of what in development of European theories on cul- the end would be over 150 questionnaires tural development in this period collecting information on Norwegian folk (Kyllingstad 2008). These efforts in com- customs and the words used to describe parative cultural research necessitated a them (“ORD OG SED” 2018). The last standardization, not only of the research issue of Ord og sed that was issued as a theories, but also of the research objects. journal was in 1947, collecting all the ques- Effective comparison necessitated that the tionnaires written in the last years of the research objects had to be constructed in a war. The journal then turned into Norveg, way that made them comparable (Kvern- which had a much larger focus on articles. dokk 2011:82–85). How this was done with Some questionnaires in the “Word and Cus- regard to research objects for “folk culture”, tom” series were still published here, the we can see in the “Word and Custom” ques- last one in 1958. The Ord og sed journal is tionnaires. In them we can see a focus on a central publication for understanding the “objects” of tradition that was gaining Norwegian research on folk culture in the popularity in the inter-war years. It repre- inter-war years. sented a new line of research in Norwegian In this article I will explore what kind of folkloristics, a focus leading to the estab- research objects these questionnaires sought lishment of ethnology or “folklife research” to collect and how the concept of “tradi- as an independent discipline in Norway. tion” was understood in relation to them. Folklife research was a way of describing a By doing this, I hope to give a better under- folkloristic research that studied the tradi- standing of how early ethnology understood tion of the people in holistic terms, as tradi- the relationship between material and im- tion as it occurred in the everyday life of material elements of tradition in their col- the people. If research objects could be lection practices. As I will show, these col- gathered with this context intact, they could lection practices formed a reading of arte- later be read comparatively, so that broader facts, words and actions as historical and patterns of history and culture became visi- cultural sources that all hinged on a specific ble. Folklife research in Norway had a close way of contextualizing “belief”. Since these connection to, but also had marked differ- ideas were embedded in the source material ences from, the folklife research of Sigurd itself, they still play a part in our present Erixon and the circle around him in Swe- day conceptualizing of material and imma- den. The Norwegian version had stronger terial cultural heritage and how beliefs are historical aspirations, seeking to make his- negotiated in and with heritage. torical research objects. The most important Many of the important institutions of man behind this development was also the Norwegian folklore and folklife collecting editor of Ord og sed, the philologist, and were established in the early 1900s. The later ethnologist, Nils Lid (1890‒1958). Ethnologia Scandinavica, Vol. 50, 2020 2 Åmund Norum Resløkken, Crystallized Belief Other prominent exponents of this method large quantities of agricultural customs. were Svale Solheim, Rigmor Frimannslund Although questionnaires had been em- (Holmsen) and Kjell Bondevik, all of them ployed as a method of collection prior to active in Ord og sed in their early academic Mannhardt’s use, his pan-European focus careers,1 and Solheim and Frimannslund and the standardization of questions neces- were both central to the later development sary for organizing the answers to this mul- of folklore and ethnology, respectively. In tilingual questionnaire was unique for its this article, however, I will focus on Nils time. The survey resulted in Mannhardt’s Lid, who held the first professorship in two-volume work Wald- und Feldkulte folklife research at the University of Oslo, (Mannhardt 1963a, 1963b). In this work, he and who to a large degree formed the prem- argued that the origin of mythology could ises for this early period. be found in agricultural customs designed The idea of “folk belief” was of the ut- to ensure and extend fertility.2 He further most importance for Lid’s and his col- argued that customs were more temporally leagues’ framing of folk culture and the stable than myths, so that in order to look objects that were the sources for it. This had for the origin of religion, it was better to important consequences for the kind of ob- look for survivals in customs than in myths jects they wanted to collect. The research (Lid 1931:15). This was also the rationale leading to the publishing of Ord og sed was for his questionnaire method. Scandinavian based on the premise that magical rituals folklore researchers who took these ideas as were the origin of religious development. It a methodological framework have in the was as sources for this premise that the re- subsequent period been, somewhat pejora- search objects constructed in most of the tively, named “Mannhardtians” (Hylland Ord og sed questionnaires were of interest. 2013:375–380; Nordberg 2013:308–338; But, if more or less ordinary objects were to Kjus 2013). It is important though, that the to say anything about the origin of religion, concerns of the Mannhardtians were formed some work had to be done. First, I want to by one of the early twentieth century’s most show the theoretical premises for this work popular books on the origin of religion, before I show some examples from the James George Frazer’s The Golden Bough questionnaires themselves of how it was (Nordberg 2013:312). This book, first pub- done. lished in 1890 as a two-volume explication of the custom of the golden bough in Nemi, Crystallized Notions and Beliefs Italy, soon grew into a twelve-volume The early folklife researchers based their work, compiling an array of examples from theories of cultural development on the different cultures underscoring the point theories of the German mythologist and that the origin of religion and folk belief librarian Wilhelm Mannhardt (1831‒1880). were originally magical fertility rites In the 1860s Mannhardt had started a col- (Ackerman 1991:46–48). Frazer’s work lecting folk customs in Europe. Using one became a rich sourcebook, but also of the large questionnaire, translated into many utmost importance was his theory of magic European languages, he managed to collect (Frazer 1925:11–20). It was this theory that Ethnologia Scandinavica, Vol. 50, 2020 Åmund Norum Resløkken, Crystallized Belief 3 served as a premise for Nils Lid and his particular view, sacralized. It likened the research into folk belief. crystallized objects to sacred artefacts. In 1935, Nils Lid defined folk belief in Thus, it bears some merit when the Ameri- the following way: can folklorist Dorothy Noyes comments that tradition was for the romantics a secu- Folk belief is the inherited magical and mythical larization of the Catholic defence of tradi- notions, as they are found in proper beliefs, and tion and that, following the romantics’ as they crystallize in folk customs and folk tales. view, the vehicle itself, “crystallized” tradi- The most constant of these elements are the tion, became sacred (Noyes 2009:236). This customs, which is the centre that the popular uneasy oscillation between the secular and notions revolves around. In contrast, the ideas the profane that is found in the idea of folk themselves change very easily. Hence, the tradition was important for the popularity of explanations people now have for their beliefs as folk belief in the inter-war years. Folk be- a rule are secondary. They are mostly new lief and folk poetry could tell about primi- inventions created to explain the tradition that has moved over time from its original soil (Lid tive spiritual life and the “destiny” of these 1935:1; my translation).3 notions. In this, folklore, religious history, archaeology and ethnography could meet As we can see, what Lid focused on was the and have a common goal, as Knut Liestøl magical and mythical beliefs that had “crys- put it in his inauguration speech for the tallized” in folk customs and folktales and folklore programme at the Institute for that the most constant of these sources was Comparative Research in Human Culture the customs. In this definition we can see (Stang et al. 1925:52–53). It was in this clear traces of Mannhardt, especially re- programme that Lid developed his early garding the crystallized customs, and from view of the importance of customs as Frazer concerning the magical notions. The sources for religious development. definition also sums up the basis for the Mannhardtians’ focus on folk belief and Reading Textual Objects how it related to folk traditions as a whole. In my reading of the Ord og sed series I And, going to the heart of what the Ord og have sought to capture this way of thinking sed questionnaires aimed to produce, there about the folkloristic archive material as was a focus on “crystallized” notions and “crystallizations”, as objects more than beliefs, the idea that in folk tradition, in folk primarily texts, which of course they are, customs and folk tales, one could find “ob- materially speaking.