THE IMMORTAL KINGSHIP

Abstract

Western social thought has emphasized the importance of reason, law, and force in the evolution and maintenance of political institutions. Anthropologists, although not denying the role of these practical elements, focus on the crucial role of ritual for political integration. One anthropologist in particular, A. M. Hocart, stands out for his insistence on the primacy of the ritualized aspects of kingship in the development of early states (Needham 1970). Beginning with the striking suggestion that “the first kings must have been dead kings” (Hocart 1954), he went on in later works to outline the proposition that “modern” bureaucratic government actually began in a ritual organization and only later took on the administrative function (Hocart 1970). In Hocart's view, “government” formed around a ritual specialist involved in the propitiation of, as often as not, the ghosts of important men, and the evolution of the state is merely the unintentional by-product of the ritual attempt to secure life and well-being from supernatural powers. We are not here concerned with the issue of the evolution of the state. Regardless of the origins of kingship, the symbolism surrounding the dead king remains crucial in many political structures. In Chapter 6, we looked at several instances in which the treatment of the royal remains figures prominently in the drama of royal succession and dynastic expansion.