Anthropology Of Religion Research Articles

Society for the Anthropology of Religion

Anthropology NewsVolume 44, Issue 2 p. 48-48 Society for the Anthropology of Religion Anthro among the Religionists Simon Coleman, Corresponding Author Simon Coleman Contributing Editor Dept of Anthropology, Durham U, 43 Old Elvet, Durham DHl 3HN; s.m.coleman@durham.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this authorAnn Grodzins Gold, Ann Grodzins Gold Syracuse USearch for more papers by this author Simon Coleman, Corresponding Author Simon Coleman Contributing Editor Dept of Anthropology, Durham U, 43 Old Elvet, Durham DHl 3HN; s.m.coleman@durham.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this authorAnn Grodzins Gold, Ann Grodzins Gold Syracuse USearch for more papers by this author First published: 07 July 2009 https://doi.org/10.1111/an.2003.44.2.48.1AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume44, Issue2February 2003Pages 48-48 RelatedInformation

Belief Ascription and the Anthropology of Religion

Belief Ascription and the Anthropology of Religion

Signaling, solidarity, and the sacred: The evolution of religious behavior

AbstractAnthropologists have repeatedly noted that there has been little theoretical progress in the anthropology of religion over the past fifty years.1–7By the 1960s, Geertz2had pronounced the field dead. Recently, however, evolutionary researchers have turned their attention toward understanding the selective pressures that have shaped the human capacity for religious thoughts and behaviors, and appear to be resurrecting this long‐dormant but important area of research.8–19This work, which focuses on ultimate evolutionary explanations, is being complemented by advances in neuropsychology and a growing interest among neuroscientists in how ritual, trance, meditation, and other altered states affect brain functioning and development.20–26This latter research is providing critical insights into the evolution of the proximate mechanisms responsible for religious behavior. Here we review these literatures and examine both the proximate mechanisms and ultimate evolutionary processes essential for developing a comprehensive evolutionary explanation of religion.

Society for the Anthropology of Religion

Anthropology NewsVolume 44, Issue 1 p. 49-49 Society for the Anthropology of Religion SSSR Conference Report Simon Coleman, Corresponding Author Simon Coleman Contributing Editor Dept of Anthropology, Durham U, 43 Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HN; s.m.coleman@durham.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this authorJ Shawn Landres, J Shawn Landres UC, Santa BarbaraSearch for more papers by this author Simon Coleman, Corresponding Author Simon Coleman Contributing Editor Dept of Anthropology, Durham U, 43 Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HN; s.m.coleman@durham.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this authorJ Shawn Landres, J Shawn Landres UC, Santa BarbaraSearch for more papers by this author First published: 07 July 2009 https://doi.org/10.1111/an.2003.44.1.49.1AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume44, Issue1January 2003Pages 49-49 RelatedInformation

Commentary: Problems with Categories in the Anthropology of Religion

Commentary: Problems with Categories in the Anthropology of Religion

Society for the Anthropology of Religion

Society for the Anthropology of Religion

Society for the Anthropology of Religion

Society for the Anthropology of Religion

Society for the Anthropology of Religion

Society for the Anthropology of Religion

Herbert C. Kraft (1927-2000)

American AnthropologistVolume 104, Issue 2 p. 640-641 Herbert C. Kraft (1927-2000) Charles A. Bello, Charles A. Bello Archaeological Society of New JerseySearch for more papers by this authorRichard Veit, Richard Veit Monmouth UniversitySearch for more papers by this author Charles A. Bello, Charles A. Bello Archaeological Society of New JerseySearch for more papers by this authorRichard Veit, Richard Veit Monmouth UniversitySearch for more papers by this author First published: June 2002 https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2002.104.2.640AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume104, Issue2June 2002Pages 640-641 RelatedInformation

Summary

In the 22nd issue of the Bulletin “Ukrainian Religious Studies” in the rubric “Philosophy and Anthropology of Religion” there are in particular the following papers: “Problem of classification of religions in Religious Studies” by V.Soloviyev, “The myth and mythology” by V.Harin, “Metaphysical measurements of transition process from myth to folk-tale” by V.Yatchenko, “Anthropological aspects modern Protestant preaching (content-analysis consequent)” by A.Zhalovaha.

Society for the Anthropology of Religion

Anthropology NewsVolume 43, Issue 5 p. 52-52 Society for the Anthropology of Religion Indonesian Muslims after 9–11 Robert W Hefner, Robert W Hefner Boston USearch for more papers by this authorSimon Coleman, Corresponding Author Simon Coleman Contributing Editor Dept of Anthropology, Durham V, 43 Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HN, UK; s.m.coleman@durham.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this author Robert W Hefner, Robert W Hefner Boston USearch for more papers by this authorSimon Coleman, Corresponding Author Simon Coleman Contributing Editor Dept of Anthropology, Durham V, 43 Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HN, UK; s.m.coleman@durham.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this author First published: 07 July 2009 https://doi.org/10.1111/an.2002.43.5.52AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume43, Issue5May 2002Pages 52-52 RelatedInformation

Religion, Belief and Action: The Case of Ngarrindjeri ‘Women's Business’ on Hindmarsh Island, South Australia, 1994–1996

The question of what role beliefs play in the description of a culture or a religious system, and whether beliefs as such can be ‘tested’, arose during a dramatic State Royal Commission into an Aboriginal sacred site claim in South Australia in 1995 focused on the proposed Hindmarsh Island‐Goolwa bridge. In this paper I examine some aspects of the legal and anthropological defence of the claim and suggest that insufficient distinction was made between belief as an interior subjective state, and as a gloss on a certain disposition to behave that is conventionally defined. Further, the issue of the social testing of belief statements was obscured by re‐phrasing the Royal Commission as an attack on the Aboriginal claimants' right to religious belief. Appealing to Needham, Sperber and Quine, and utilising comparative analysis of a similar court case in North America, I suggest an anthropological approach to belief that side‐steps some of the critical problems in the anthropology of religion created during the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Royal Commission.

Society for the Anthropology of Religion

Anthropology NewsVolume 43, Issue 4 p. 52-53 Society for the Anthropology of Religion Simon Coleman, Simon Coleman Dept. of Anthropology, Durham U, 43 Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HN, UK; s.m.coleman@durham.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this author Simon Coleman, Simon Coleman Dept. of Anthropology, Durham U, 43 Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HN, UK; s.m.coleman@durham.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this author First published: 24 August 2009 https://doi.org/10.1111/an.2002.43.4.52.2AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume43, Issue4April 2002Pages 52-53 RelatedInformation

Society for the Anthropology of Religion

Society for the Anthropology of Religion

Society for the Anthropology of Religion

Society for the Anthropology of Religion

Society for the Anthropology of Religion

Anthropology NewsVolume 43, Issue 1 p. 52-52 Society for the Anthropology of Religion Simon Coleman, Corresponding Author Simon Coleman Contributing Editor Dept of Anthropology, Durham U, 43 Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HN, UK; s.m.coleman@durham.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this author Simon Coleman, Corresponding Author Simon Coleman Contributing Editor Dept of Anthropology, Durham U, 43 Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HN, UK; s.m.coleman@durham.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this author First published: 07 July 2009 https://doi.org/10.1111/an.2002.43.1.52.1AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume43, Issue1January 2002Pages 52-52 RelatedInformation

Society for the Anthropology of Religion

Anthropology NewsVolume 42, Issue 9 p. 52-52 Society for the Anthropology of Religion Web News Simon Coleman, Corresponding Author Simon Coleman Contributing Editor Dept of Anthropology, Durham U, 43 Old Elvet, Durham DHI 3HN, UK; s.m.Coleman@durham.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this authorDeborah Shepherd, Deborah Shepherd Saint John's USearch for more papers by this author Simon Coleman, Corresponding Author Simon Coleman Contributing Editor Dept of Anthropology, Durham U, 43 Old Elvet, Durham DHI 3HN, UK; s.m.Coleman@durham.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this authorDeborah Shepherd, Deborah Shepherd Saint John's USearch for more papers by this author First published: 07 July 2009 https://doi.org/10.1111/an.2001.42.9.52.2AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume42, Issue9December 2001Pages 52-52 RelatedInformation

Revisiting “Magical Fright”

In 1948, John Gillin published the first sustained account of a ritual healing ceremony for soul loss as performed in the highlands of Guatemala. Reprinted in Lessa and Vogt's Reader in Comparative Religion (1958, 1965), this article played a foundational role for later work in ethnomedicine and the anthropology of religion. Gillin's analysis centered on the way relations between Indian and ladino populations were renegotiated within the ritual imaginary. Newly available archival materials show that Gillin underestimated the fear and animosity dividing these groups, misconstrued the political situation of the curandero (traditional healer), and effaced the extent to which gender and domestic violence were at issue in both illness and healing. These materials also afford glimpses into the system of power and knowledge in which Gillin participated and that helped shape his research agenda. An epilogue extends this discussion into the Cold War context, [ritual, susto, curanderismo, Mesoamerica, John Gillin, history of anthropology, Cold War]

Society for the Anthropology of Religion

Society for the Anthropology of Religion

Society for the Anthropology of Religion

Society for the Anthropology of Religion