宗教民族志的视角、理论范式和方法——现代人类学研究诠释

对现代人类学创始以来的理论和方法潮流进行了简要整理,探讨了中国宗教民族志研究的现状及可能性.认为人类学宗教研究的学科基础是宗教民族志的开发和创新.人类学有关宗教信仰的综合性定义和分类决定了该学科的整体性研究视角,同时也决定了宗教民族志研究中个人与集体、观念与行为并重的立体型理论范式.     

多样化的现代性:全球化时代中的基督教、伊斯兰教和印度教

20世纪晚期 ,作为跨地域文化系统的世界宗教发生了影响深远的变化。本文旨在考察基督教、伊斯兰教和印度教三大宗教最近之变迁的政治性和意义。文章重点讨论那些重构宗教意义和权威的诸多力量的本质、推动归信和标准化的过程以及这些宗教重构对我们理解后期现代性本身的启发。本文认为 ,尽管现代性是多样化的 ,每个传统也都是独特的 ,但由于大众社会的全球化和晚期现代性的多元主义的缘故 ,所有这些宗教都面临着一个相似的困境     

宗教文学与民间文学的比较研究——从刘守华先生《佛经故事与中国民间故事演变》谈起

中国民间故事的源头纷繁复杂,宗教文化在其间起了重要作用。刘守华先生在民间文学研究领域较早关注宗教文化与民间故事的关系,在近三十年时间里,以系列论文和专著形式,以跨学科研究的视角,对道教传说、佛经故事等宗教文学与民间故事之间同源异流、不约而同、交流影响等复杂的关系进行资料翔实的比较、剖析与论证。《道教与中国民间文学》和《佛经故事与中国民间故事演变》在出版后,产生广泛影响,屡获荣誉,也表明民间文学与宗教文学领域的交叉研究还大有可为。     

城市个体化新移民与一个跨族界教会的宗教实践——一项应用并反思宗教市场论的教会拓殖过程研究

文章通过对一个位于中国东北S市的由朝鲜族教士带领的朝、汉混搭基督教会跨越族界发展过程的描述,呈现了这一教会凭借为城市个体化移民(主要是年青人)提供归属感,来发展教会的实践过程.在运用宗教市场论对这一跨族界宗教形式教会的成因进行解释的同时,文章也通过对当下中国社会宗教市场发展的归因、中国本土条件下小教派与大教会的关系,以及宗教资本与信众的委身问题的思考反思了宗教市场论的相关结论.认为在宏观层次社会结构因素是与国家行政因素等量的宗教市场形塑因素、在中观上中国本土条件下小教会(派)与大教会(派)的关系既非充分联合也非完全独立、在微观的宗教资本与信众的关系问题上宗教市场论的结论也有待商榷.     

泰缅边境达拉昂人的迁移、族群裂变与跨国民族治理

民族的跨国分布是当今世界多民族国家形成的历史过程、现代国家建构与实践的结果。面对日益多元的动因促使下的跨国民族迁移与流动,跨国民族的研究必须直面民族的感性生活和现实问题,从本质论转向实践论、过程论的角度来分析跨国民族的内涵及其生成过程。文章通过对泰缅边境Nor Lae（诺雷）村Dara-ang（达拉昂）人(1)的跨国流动及其族别身份的获得过程的研究,试图提出族群裂变与人口治理是促成跨国民族形成的内生与外在动力,而民族跨国迁移的社会过程、现代民族国家整合与治理的需求以及国家的治理差异、族群的身份认同意识的差别则是跨国民族形成的动力机制的社会情境。     

人口较少民族的扶贫与发展——以布朗族(莽人)为个案

布朗族(莽人)是我国少数民族中人口最少的民族,他们的生存状况极为困难.为扶持他们脱贫与发展,金平县2008年开始实施莽人扶贫工程.以此为研究对象,对比实施前后的成效,讨论其得失,尤其需做到四个“相结合”,即政府主导与莽人参与相结合、文化教育与科技培训相结合、扶贫和开发相结合、传统文化的“保护”与“革新”相结合.     

再论藏汉民族的共同渊源——青藏高原古藏人之古象雄（古支那）、西女国中的“嘉”（夏）部落与中原夏王朝的亲属渊源关系

位于西藏的古象雄、苏毗女国是公元前10世纪以前至公元前6世纪之间,逐渐从今青海省的汉藏交界处迁徙到西藏的.古象雄是古轩辕国、古支那国、古昆仑;苏毗女国是西王母国.它们是我国夏王朝在西北地区的遗族和母国.青海玉树嘉二十五族、外象雄西藏丁青三十九族和川西北嘉绒,均是象雄和苏毗女国的"嘉(夏)部落",是我国古代夏王朝的同族.吐蕃亦是夏的部族.     

再论藏汉民族的共同渊源——青藏高原古藏人之古象雄（古支那）、西女国中的“嘉（夏）”部落与中原夏王朝的亲属渊源关系

位于西藏的古象雄、苏毗女国是公元前10世纪以前至公元前6世纪之间,逐渐从今青海省的汉藏交界处迁徙到西藏的.古象雄是古轩辕国、古支那国、古昆仑;苏毗女国是西王母国.它们是我国夏王朝在西北地区的遗族和母国.青海玉树嘉二十五族( )、外象雄西藏丁青三十九族和川西北嘉绒( ),均是象雄和苏毗女国的"嘉( )(夏)部落",是我国古代夏王朝的同族.吐蕃亦是夏的部族.     

拱心石与神王——施鲁克人的nyikang神与神圣王权的研究

In his famous book The Golden Bough,James Frazer mentioned one special custom found along the shores of Lake Nemi in Italy. The forest king who lived beside Lake Nemi, was not only once a prisoner, but also the murderer of his predecessor. Why did the King have to be killed? How could he be killed? This was the very starting point of James Frazer’s divine kingship study. This was in contrast to the common idea held in many cultures, that kings, or even gods, would die. However, in the most primitive societies, kings and gods also had a symbolic duty. People be-lieved that their king took the responsibility to maintain the order of society and the natural world. In that case, it was obvious that if the king became old and weak, the society and order would be in danger. The way used by primitive people to solve this problem was to kill the king when he became weak, and to rebuild this symbol of order through the accession of a new king. This worry about the loss of order and fertility, Frazer explained, was the reason why they choose to kill their king, who was also a god to them. To prove his theory, Fra-zer used many examples. Among them, the exam-ple of the Shilluk of Nilotic Sudan was the only real case of a people killing their king. All the kings were possessed by the spirit of Nyikang, who was not only a hero and king in their history, but also the god who created the universe of the Shilluk people. In Shilluk, it was not the king who ruled the country, but the spirit who possessed him. For that reason, once the king showed his weakness and age, he had to be killed or commit a suicide so as to keep Nyikang in a healthy body. This case was mentioned by James Frazer, re-examined by Evans-Pritchard, and discussed by Henri Frank-fort and David Graeber. The Shilluk people lived in Sudan, in the Ni-lotic area alongside the Nile River. Their kingdom consisted of y many hamlets and occupied by linea-ges. But all these hamlets and lineages shared the same king, who was believed to be the descendant of their semi-divine hero and first king, Nyikang. Nyikang was believed to bring the fertility of men, of cattle, and of the crops. He lived among his people and blessed them. He was a mythological figure who represented a changeless moral order and the stable structure of the state. The Shilluk people believed that the king was the embodiment of Nyikang, and, thus, shared his divinity. All the Kings were believed to be descended from Nyi-kang. The king could be killed for two reasons:when he could no longer satisfy his wives, it was time for him to die and make room for a more vig-orous successor; or he would be killed by one of the prince who coveted the shrine at night. There were many graves of kings and of Nyikang all a-round the kingdom, but all the Shilluk people knew that Nyikang was not buried in any of them, he would never die. The king, however, was the container of the Nyikang’s spirit. Thus, after his death, he was no longer divine, so his funeral would be a clan affair rather than a national affair. In Frazer’s opinion, Shilluk kings confirmed their rule and power by maintaining their connec-tion with the god, Nyikang. And, he gained divin-ity from this connection. However, this divinity was not permanent. In the same way, the stability of the Shilluk social order was also not permanent, so the complete failure of that power would cause the danger to the entire society. When the new king ascended the throne, the social order would be re-established. So, to kill the old king when he could no longer take responsibility for the whole of society was the way for the Shilluk to release the tension and handle the danger which resulted from their king’s death and to keep the social order. Several decades after the publication of The Golden Bough, Evans - Pritchard gave a talk at The Frazer Lecture ( 1948 ) . He looked at the Shilluk custom of killing their king together with the social structure of the Shilluk kingdom, and pointed out some of the unreasonable explanations made by James Frazer. He believed that this cus-tom, which Frazer explained as the way the Shilluk maintained the divinity of kingship, had political reasons and social functions. Based on his field-work, Evans - Pritchard described the political structure of Shilluk as follows: Shilluk hamlets consisted of one to fifty different families. Each hamlet was occupied by members of an extended family or a small lineage. The headman of a hamlet was also the head of a lineage in the settlement. All the Shilluk settlements composed a common polity, i. e. the land belonging to the Kingdom of Shillukland. There were two chiefs in the hierarchy between the king and the settlements. These were the Ger, who represented northern Shillukland, and the Luak, who represented the southern shil-lukland. Those two chiefs each ritually represented half of the kingdom, and they played a very impor-tant role in the election of the new king. Evans-Prichard discovered that there were very close con-nections between the kings, the princes and their villages where they were born. The pregnant wives of the kings would be sent back to their natal villa-ges to bear their children, and the princes were brought up by the headmen of their natal villages. Except them, all of the princes had their royal cli-ents ( Ororo) in the villages. These were the com-panions of the prince, so they would live in the capital with the prince if he was chosen to be the king, and would return to their village to guard the king’s tomb. This information will help us to see and understand the social structure of Shilluk soci-ety. The dual balanced structure of Shilluk society was represented by the southern-northern opposi-tion. We find that the Shilluk kingdom had a double configuration—one that was politically re-flected in its territorial division, which was divided into northern and southern parts, and the other one was ritually reflected in the rituals related to the cult of Nyikang. The king and the capital specific-ally stayed in the center. As Evans - Pritchard said, Northern Shillukland and Southern Shil-lukland were the arches of the kingdom of Shilluk, and kingship was the keystone. This duality was clearly represented in the election system and in-vestiture. The investiture of the new king would take place about a year after his election. Since this ceremony was meant to rebuild the social or-der, all the hamlets would participate in it. After the old king’s death, the spirit of Nyikang would no longer stay in his body. Instead, it would move to an effigy of a hamlet which was in a far north dis-trict of Shillukland. The effigy would be sent by the army of north to the outskirts of the capital, where there would be a ceremonial war with the king’s army. Since Nyikang was in the northern army, it was obvious that the king would fail. Then, the ef-figy of Nyikang would be put on the king’s chair. Then, the king would sit on the chair, and, as a result, the spirit of Nyikang entered into the body of the new king. Now, there would be another war— because Nyikang had entered into the body of the new king, the northern army failed, and, they would then take the effigy back to the shrine. This ceremony not only illustrated the tension be-tween the north and the south of Shillukland, but also the tension between the god Nyikang and the human king. And all these tensions were resolved through a unified kingship. We find that Shilluk society, no matter whether within the vertical and horizontal structure of the southern -northern op-position, or among the different hamlets, they all had different objects to show their loyalty. Howev-er, all these differences would be reduced when they faced a unified national symbol— Nyikang or divine kingship. The king did not belong to any single tribe or hamlet after the ceremony. He be-came the symbol of the happiness and continuity of all the Shilluk people. From this ceremony, Evans -Pritchard re -explained the reason for the special custom of the Shilluk. He asserted that in Shilluk society, the king’s death would cause chaos and many dangers. The king had died in the way they described be-cause they were afraid of exposing the tensions hid-den within the social structure. So, this tradition was only a political myth hidden under the facts. The second kind of death of the king was that he was killed by a prince. Evans-Pritchard believed that all Shilluk princes received support from their natal villages. If all the tribes had their own king, the Shilluk kingdom would definitely be torn apart. So, they still needed a center from which to build the whole kingdom, i. e. the kingship. In a king-dom of this kind, if the king attached himself to one hamlet, other hamlets would fight for their own rights. So, because the kingship was permanent and ensured the unity of the whole kingdom, it should be emphasized. In contrast to Evans-Pritchard’ s structural-functionist explanation, the American archaeolo-gist, Henri Frankfort, made his analysis of the customs of the Shilluk based upon the methodology of mythology. He compared the divine kingship of Egypt and Shilluk in his book Kingship and the Gods. And, based upon the process of the combi-nation and separation of the king and the gods, he discussed the function of divine kingship. In E-gypt, the pharaoh was called “the Lord of Two Lands”. This title involved two gods who were en-emies:Horus and Seth. They were respectively the Kings of Upper and Lower Egypt. Even when Seth had been defeated by Horus, it did not mean that he totally disappeared. This is because he had his own function within the existing order. Horus was not only a mythological figure, but also was one which reflected on the pharaoh. The pharaoh was always regarded as Horus or his embodiment. This idea is quite similar to the connection of Nyikang with the Shilluk king. However, in Egypt, there was another god who had a close connection with the kingship, that is, Osiris. In Egypt, the dead king was believed to change into Osiris, and the king on the throne, just as Horus, was regarded as the son of Osiris. Beside this connection, in the myths, Osiris was said to be the “Ka ” of Horus, which was something like energy, and for the king, it was somewhat like a kind of ruling power. This kind of father-son relationship also ex-isted among the Shilluk people. When Evans -Pritchard described the ceremony, he mentioned that Dak, the son of Nyikang, was also honored. However, in Shilluk, Nyikang meant all the kings, no matter whether dead or alive. What was more important is that Shilluk kings themselves were not gods, they were just processed by Nyikang, and it was Nyikang who was the real ruler. That was the reason why the accession ceremony of the king was so important. However, in the Egyptian view, the concept of kingship itself was more complicated than that of the Shilluk. All the Egyptian kings themselves were gods, and their orders, as god’s order, must be obeyed. So, although there was a stable kingship in the two societies, the roles played by the king were totally different. However, we can still find some basic elements of the divine kingship from these two cases. Because the king himself was a human being, he would definitely turn old and die. In order to resolve the social stress caused by the succession of the kingship, the kingship had to be stable. So, the king must have a relationship with the gods. It was the god and the kingship that maintained the unity of this structure. In 2011 , David Graeber published his paper titled The Divine Kingship of the Shilluk in which he used theories from political science to discuss the relationship between Nyikang and the Shilluk king . He tried to use this case to understand the e-mergence of the state and power. He compared the political status of Shilluk with their myth and cos-mology. He proposed three very important con-cepts:i) divine kingship which was absolutely dic-tatorial and had god-like authority—and was one in which this divine god went beyond the morality;ii) the sacred kingship which was ritualized and exemplary—this was a kind of prophetic and legis-lative king ; iii) violence and antagonism with no reason - the subject of the violence was the sover-eign and the people. All of these three concepts, David Graeber said, could be found in the Shilluk Kingdom. That was not because they were so -called primitive ethnic groups, but because this kingdom was a “Utopian State”. In other words, this kingdom, or the construction of its main cit-ies, was an imitation to the cosmic order, and, therefore, did not need a management institution to rule it. However, because this could never exist in the real world, violence appeared. David Graeber divided the kingship into two types: the divine and the sacred. In the former, the king was believed to be the god itself. And, in the latter, the kings were those who brought and created order. However, if order was set up by a king, it was asked whether or not the king himself still stayed within the order? So, the extreme type of sacred kingship would be the denial of the limi-tation of the king’s life. David Graeber suggested that the King of Shilluk did not have real power. The responsibility the Shilluk king undetook was the order of the whole cosmos. When he became weak, he could no longer judge and rule based on the cosmology. This is the reason why he had to be killed. We can see that the king who ruled the state according to the cosmology was more like a divine king, so his fate was that he must be killed by people. However, after he was killed, the for-mer “scapegoat” became the god and was wor-shiped by the people. The social order was rebuilt because of the king’s death, and in doing so he be-came the embodiment of the strength needed to re-build the social order. So, we can note that in Shilluk society, although people expect stability and order, they cannot allow the rule to become a central control and monopoly. The king should be in the center of order, but because the king would definitely become old, people tried to reduce the disorder through killing him. Due to the limitations of the king, he was trapped in the absolute authori-ty of the divine kingship, and the infinite order of the order. Hence, he was killed again and again. The appearance of the king was to resolve the dilemma within this society. He tried to build a U-topia, but was trapped in it because of his own limitations. Just like the kings were killed con-stantly, the conflict between sovereignty and the people would never stop. David Greaber pointed out that this constant opposition was the origin of state. This opinion totally refuted existing political theories, o matter whether they were that of Max Weber or of those who believe that it was through making law and rules to solve the conflict or the so-cial tensions in Africa, for their opinions were based on the perspective of nation state. However, in Africa, at least in Nilotic Sudan, they were u-sing this conflict to build their state. Graeber’s ar-ticle indicated that in the war between the sover-eign and the people, the sovereign is limited, and can never win truly. It reveals a new possibility for the construction of a nation state and political sys-tem. To sum up the discussions above, we have found that in those societies with divine kingship, the reason for the king’s divinity was because he undertook the people’s expectation of a stable soci-ety, and the fertility of crops, and livestock. Be-cause these expectations were not stable in them-selves, people either believed that their king him-self was a god, or tried to ensure that their king was in a healthy state. The similarity between them was that people had to keep the kingship stable and reduce the tension and chaos caused by the king’s death. From their fear of disorder and the fear of powerful order, we can even find a variety of ways of thinking about a perfect and eternal order, as well as on an imperfect and limited life. Thus the King always connected with a stone, for people al-ways expect a stable and changeless eternity.     

献祭与古希腊的人、神、城邦社会——读韦尔南《古希腊的神话与宗教》之“从人到神——献祭”一章

<正>一、献祭的神话学来源——普罗米修斯与宙斯斗智在神学意义上,古希腊献祭仪式的发源是怎么样的呢?对这个问题的回答,关系到我们对古希腊献祭仪式的行为及其象征意义的理解。神话提供了一套关于献祭来源的完美说明。在宙斯统领神界的时代还未到来之前,人与神处在一种共栖的状态,那时候的人们与诸神在同一张桌子上吃饭。丰盛的食物从土地里自动长出来,人类完全没有劳动的必要,也不知道疾病、劳累、衰老、死亡和女人。当宙斯战胜自己的父亲和各种敌对势力而成为众神之王后,他赖以建立自身权威的功绩是建立和维持宇     

Initiation,Trance And Possession in an Afro-Brazilian Religion-The Narratives of a mineiro maranhense

This article presents the process of initiation to the Tambor de Mina, the mainreli-gious tradition in Maranh?o, a state in the north of Brazil .The Tambor de Mina designates an ec-static and inziatic ...     

正教与正学--从《正教真诠》看王岱舆的教道观

王岱舆所谓"正教",即伊斯兰教.所谓"正学",就是以伊斯兰教经训为内容和对象的学问.也就是说,有关伊斯兰教的宗教知识就是所谓"正学".明清之际的穆斯林学者从伊斯兰教立场出发,以弘扬伊斯兰教义为宗旨,在探讨"正教"与"正学"时,有时涉及对于儒释道各家思想学说的批评和议论,为我们提供了伊斯兰教关于该问题的一种学术思考.     

乡村话语与观念、记忆——以苏北倚宿村送活殡事件为例

与固定自足的文字记载相比,乡村口头话语具有开放的多样性解释空间。通过对近百年前基督徒送活殡事件的调查分析,本文认为在众多的口头叙述中,有可能存在一种主流的乡村话语,执着地绵延于当地的日常生活中。乡村社会与文化中的传统知识与观念以及在此语境下印刻的集体记忆,是凝结主流话语的根本力量。     

青海省同仁地区民间宗教考察报告

本篇考察报告以"六月会"现场观察和对法师及熟悉本教者的访 谈记录为主体,篇末对"六月会"和当地苯教的性质及渊源作了简要论述。     

文本、族群、叙事：作为一种民族志的《平闽十八洞》

作为广泛流行于闽台地区及东南亚闽籍华人社会的一部章回体小说,《平闽十八洞》曾经引起包括林语堂、叶国庆、李亦园等文史学家和人类学家的集体关注和研究,其背后呈现的是从“古史辨”学派到人类学视角的学术史脉络。《平闽十八洞》这类族群叙事文学,其背后蕴含的是代表中原移民的“汉”与代表越、畲等“非汉”之东南区域原来存在的原住族群历史上竞争与融合的过程,是理解历史上东南地区族群互动关系的重要民族志文本。对这类文本的深度考察,有助于推进东南民族史的研究。     

The Experience of Using Poverty Alleviation with Characteristic Industries in the Region of the Panzhihua-Xichang-Taking Miyi County of Panzhihua as a Case Study

Miyi county lies along the southeast edge of Qinghai - Tibetan plateau. It is in the southwest corner of Sichuan province,to the north￣east of Panzhihua,and lies at the intersection of the Yalong River...     

"台湾村":一个移民村落的想像、构建与认同--河南邓州高山族村落田野调查报告

根据第五次全国人口普查资料,18.61%的大陆高山族人口聚居在河南省邓州市。作为一个移民群体,邓州的高山族在近三百年的落籍垦邓期间经历了一个“闽营化”、“邓州化”乃至“大陆化”的多重本地化过程。这样一个深具涵化意义的历史过程使得邓州高山族在风俗习惯、宗教信仰等诸多方面日渐迷失民族的文化表征。它在1983年以来的族群性重建,又验证了一个弱势移民群体经由想像、认同而得以重新构建的图式。     

城市界面下的回族传统文化与现代化

本文以兰州、银川、西宁和西安的回族社区为个案,运用都市人类学和城市社会学的理论和方法,在城市的宏观生态背景下分析了西北城市回族社区的不同层面的变迁,提出面对城市的挑战,以文化自觉的方式实现自身传统的现代化是城市回族穆斯林发展的必由之路。     

现代化背景下的民族认同与民族关系--以海南三亚凤凰镇回族为例

在现代化进程中,各民族的政治、经济、社会和文化等都处于急剧变迁之中.在这样的背景下,海南省三亚市凤凰镇回族社区的民族认同和民族关系也呈现出一些新的情况,例如民族意识趋于强烈并带有市场经济的一些特点.而市场经济的发展也促进了民族间的相互理解与合作,政府的积极引导更是促进了民族关系的和谐发展.凤凰镇回族对异族通婚的普遍接受就是民族关系和谐发展的一个突出表现.     

The Construction of Islamic Social-Cultural Space in a Mixed Community of Hui and Han---the Case of Nagu,Yunnan Province

The cultural space of multi ethnic residential regions is always diverse and complicat-ed,and the conflicts and integration of multi cul-tures is the main driving force in the process of constructing c...