8/12/2019 Shamanism & Shamanology

1/2

Shamanism and ShamanologyAuthor(s): ke HultkrantzSource: Anthropos, Bd. 89, H. 1./3. (1994), p. 325Published by: Anthropos InstituteStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40463922.Accessed: 29/11/2013 20:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Anthropos Instituteis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAnthropos.

http://www.jstor.org

Thi t t d l d d f 200 26 133 57 F i 29 N 2013 20 17 30 PM

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthroposinsthttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40463922?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40463922?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthroposinst

8/12/2019 Shamanism & Shamanology

2/2

RezensionenRejoinder 325an sicha schon inForschungsgegenstandeinknnte.Im interdisziplinrenialog,hier um ThemaEssen,darfs nichtmLegitimierunger inen or er nderenWissenschaftehen.Das immerhinxakt500 Seiten tarke uch hateinestarkiteraturwissenschaftlicheusrichtung,assichwohl us denHerkunftsdisziplinenerHerausgebererklrtzwei Germanisten,in Historiker).ielleichtstammtieraus uchdie oft eduzierteicht uf For-schungsleistungenn nderen,iewohl erwandtenis-ziplinen. as fallt nsbesonderenNeumannschlu-beitraguf s. vor allem390ff.),wo er offensichtlichbersieht,adieEthnologieund ch meine ier ns-besondereie sog. europische)ichschon echtan-gemitAlltag ndLebens eitenuseinandersetztz.B.

I.-M.Greverus,ultur ndAlltagswelt.nchen978).Doch letztlich hren olche Diskussionen urzumStreit berdas Primatinzelner isziplinenei einembestimmtenhema. as Kulturthemassenedoch oll-te sich als deutlichnterdisziplinrntwickeln,obeiNatur- ndKulturwissenschaftenleichmigusam-menwirken.u wnschenliebe reilich,a hier ichtnur uropischeichtweiseneplizierterdenwieesauch mSchlubeitrageider ehr eutlich ird), on-dernvlligneueundbisher ngekannteichtweisenmglichwerden. ssen undSexualitt ind doch diebeiden roen hemen es Homo apiens, obei rste-resbisher och elativ nterbelichtetst.Bleibt ur, erweiterennterdisziplinrenusammenarbeitielErfolgzu wnschen. Katarina reifeid

ShamanismndShamanology. RejoinderoGill.- InAnthropos8.1993: 96-597, heAmericancholarSamGill, pecialistnNorth mericanndian eligions,has fired diatribegainstmy atest ook, ShamanicHealing ndRitual rama 1992).He claims hat hisbook'sprincipalalue s ingiving briefntroductorydescriptionf ritualracticesndreligiousonceptionsrelated o health ndhealing. He adds, Hultkrantzoffersittlenalysis runderstandingeyondhose fhis ources. e advances o new heory.This criticisms so obviouslyresentedelowthemark f intellectualecency hat haveto commentupon t.First f ll,Gill sblind o he ntentionsfmy ook.It s not nacademicreatisen he ense hattdiscussesnewmodels ftheoryr the heoreticalmplicationfmethodsnd heories,t s, s onereviewerCh.Vecsey)pointsut, distillationfmyknowledgeor ducatedreaders.hisdoes notmean hatt s devoid f deas;the ame eviewerbserveshemany atternsfdiseaseandreligionhat have dentified.ast butnot east,I haveunderlinedhe mportancef shamanismor heunderstandingf NativeAmericanolkmedicine indistinctiono folkmedical racticesn,for nstance,EuropendAfrica.havenot uggested,s Gillthinks,that llAmericanndianmedical racticesave sha-manisticackground;erbalmedicineasoftenothingto dowith hamanism.

The troubles, however,hat am Gill,who hasneverwrittenbout hamanism,pparentlys unsureabout ts import.Whenhe discussesmyobservationofa shamanisticackgroundf ndigenous edicinehe assertshat hismeans,nmyuse, ittlemore hanthat t is religiousn character.e has evidentlyotunderstoodyprecizationf shamanismn thebook(1992:18f.).His ownbewilderedtricturesnmyuseof shaman nd truehamanismhows ow ittle eisfamiliarith his omineeringhase fNative mer-icanreligions.havemyself orked ith he onceptof hamanismnd hamanistichenomenaontinuouslyduringhe ast iftyears. recommendill o tudyheselectionfmy apers n shamanismistednthis ook

(1992: 181f.)orthe rticle n the copeofshamanismwhich wrote, s honoraryresidentf the SecondConferencefthe nternationalociety or hamanisticResearch eld nBudapestn1993, or he irstumberof the ociety'sournal,haman1/1, udapest 993).On thewhole,Gill's argumentivesevidence fconfusion.e criticizes efor ever iscussinghe ermtraditionaleligion, lthougheverywellunderstandswhat tmeansnthe eginningfhis article. e thinks,erroneously,hat make valuatingistinctionetweenthegolden raofNativemedicinendthemodernde-graded resentfmixedWhite ndNativemedicine;tis difficultomake uthowGill's maginationasrunawayhere.He blamesme for sing hegender-limitedtermmedicine anwhen here re lso medicine om-en; have xplained hyngeneral haveused medi-cineman np.169 Introduction,ote ).Althougheacceptsmy urveys generallyorrect e accusesmeof eaving ut nformationn what ndians nderstandbyhealth, ealing,ickness,ndbody. havehoweverdealtwith uch ubjectsothe xtent ehave dequateknowledgefthese deas. He finallyhargesme withnotunderstandingeligious onceptionsfhealing ina deeperndmore rofound ay. supposet s onlyDr. Gill that as this nderstanding.keHultkrantz

Zu ParkinsKritik. Die profiliertestenutorenzumThema VerwandtschaftnSdasien ,arnett,ar-ter ndDumont,indkrzlichrheblich ritisiertor-den.R.ParkinTerminologyndAlliancen ndia. rib-al Systemsnd heNorth-Southroblem.ontributionsto ndian ociology 4.1990:61-76) warfhnen .a.eine uniformeliance n slendernd uspectvidence(70) vor.Nachmeiner ufnahmendiesenKreis sieheR. Parkin, iddle ndianKinship ystems. CritiqueofGeorgPfeffer'snterpretation.nthropos8.1993:323-336)will ichwie die anderen utoren ufeineffentlicherdigunger Kritik erzichten,ber lleAnfragenu fachlicheninzelheitenern riefliche-antworten. Georg fefferAnthropos9.1994

This content downloaded from 200.26.133.57 on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 20:17:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp