THE SEARCH FOR ORIGINS IN THE STUDY OF RELIGION AND

OF HUMAN SOCIETIES

By

George Gaitanos

The definition of religion, of its origins and

the explanation of its characteristics, and the

description of the human societies in which appears,

constituted a process that engaged the researchers

when the need and the demand for the scientific study

of religion were appeared. So, there was a will by

the scientific world from the beginning of the

academic study of religion until now to define

religion1. From time to time, there have been

formulated several definitions and there have been

studied specific characteristics of religion

depending on the methodology and the ideology that

each researcher believed in, but also depending on

the school that represented2.

1 Morris Jastrow was the first, who in his study “The Study ofReligion” (1901), highlighted the need and the importance of a methodfor the study of religion (S. Cain, “Study of Religion”, pp. 64). 2 W. E Arnal., “Orismos”, pp. 54-72. S. Guthrie, “Religion: What isit?”, pp. 412-419. H. Kishimoto, “An Operational definition ofreligion”, pp. 236-240. W. Braun, “Thriskeia”, pp. 28-51. S. Cain,“Study of Religion”, pp. 64-83. G. Ziakas, Thriskeia kai Politismos tonProistorikon koinonion kai ton arxaion laon, pp. 37-39. W. L. King, “Religion”,pp. 282-292.

1

According to Jonathan Z. Smith, “not that

religion cannot be defined, but that it can be

defined, with greater or lesser success, more than

fifty ways”3. So anyone can realize that we refer to

a cultural phenomenon, which is attached and is

examined with several characteristics depending on

the researcher. Substantially, religion is a

category, which is constituted and constructed by the

researchers4; it is their creation, so it was and is

used for the west world’s interest (colonialism –

missions), as means of separation and taxonomy of the

people5. Indeed, the fact that the Christianity

through the missions was used as the ultimate model

of religion so as to compare, to judge and to

categorize the rest of the religions, shows the

researchers’ of religion and the first

anthropologists’ goal and ideological orientation6.

So, the dominion of the European civilization was

enforced in academic and scientific level against the

3 J. Z. Smith, “Religion, Religions, Religious”, pp. 281. 4 J. Z. Smith, “Religion, Religions, Religious”, pp. 281. R. T.McCutcheon, Kataskeuazontas ti thriskeia, 2003. 5 L. H. Martin, “Sygkrisi”, pp. 93-94. J. Z. Smith, “Taxinomisi”, pp.73-91. ----“Religion, Religions, Religious”, pp. 269-281. P. Altieri,“Close Encounters of the Smith Kind”, pp. 64. J. S. Jensen, “WhyMagic? It’s just Comparison”, pp. 46, 49. D. M. Freidenreich,“Comparisons Compared: A Methological Survey of Comparisons ofReligion from “A Magic Dwells” to A Magic Still Dwells”, pp. 86. D. M.Juschka, “Cane Toads, Taxonomies, Boundaries, and the ComparativeStudy of Religion”, pp. 14. H. B. Urban, “Power still Dwells: TheEthics and Politics of Comparison in A Magic Still Dwells”, pp. 24, 25. 6 Social and cultural anthropologists.

2

others, the wild, the barbarians, in order to be

promoted a “Great Big White World”7.

Religion always was a taxonomic term and a

comparative category that declares the difference

between the “us” and the “others”8, because there is

setting bars and it is implied that the side of “us”

is the exquisite9. For sure, the borders that “us –

others” sets declares a political construction and

the fear for the other, the unknown, who is usually

judged with the concept of our culture and of our

taxonomies. “The European explorers, travelers,

mercenaries, colonists and commanders wrote their

troves about the native religions around the world.

With admirable coherence, in a period of five

centuries, the same European observers reported that

have discovered people that didn’t show any sign of

religiosity, in America, in Africa and in the islands

of the Pacific Ocean”. The term religion was used

more as a symbol of separation, segregation and

apologetic movement10. So, “our religion” is the real

one, though the others’ is false, it is magic and

superstition11.

7 Marilyn Manson, song: “Great Big White World”, album: “MechanicalAnimals”, 1998. 8 W. Braun, “Thriskeia”, pp. 35. A. Kuriakidou – Nestoros, H Theoria tisellinikis laografias: Kritiki analisi, pp. 18-21. 9 M. Detienne, Sigkrinontas ta mi sigkrisima, pp. 13. 10 David Chidester (W. Braun, “Thriskeia”, pp. 35). 11 As above, pp. 36.

3

In any case, comparison is a self – evident

human function. Human always refer to comparisons, as

he/ she sets and categorize anything that faces

depending on its own criteria. So, comparison show us

the way that the human mind apprehends the world, as

comparison is congenital with taxonomy. It is a basic

cognitive process, but also a socio – cultural

process, because the system of taxonomy is based on

the cultural system12. Therefore, it is totally normal

comparison to be a part of the scientific process. In

particular, in the Comparative Study of Religion

comparison was used as a taxonomic process for the

accession of religions in specific categories – by

the rules of biology (genre – specie) – and for the

delimitation of people13.

J. Smith highlights that comparison was based on

the collection of similar elements and there was not

any importance in differences14. The movement that

presented the similarities of cultures was condemned.

That attempt constitutes an unhistorical process. He

12 L. H. Martin, “Sigkrisi”, pp. 94. J. S. Jensen, “Why Magic? It’sjust Comparison”, pp. 50-51. M. Detienne, Sigkrinontas ta mi sigkrisima, pp.11. J. Carter, “Comparison in the History of Religions: Reflectionsand Critiques”, pp. 5.13 J. S. Jensen, “Why Magic? It’s just Comparison”, pp. 51. D. M.Freidenreich, “Comparisons Compared: A Methological Survey ofComparisons of Religion from “A Magic Dwells” to A Magic Still Dwells”, pp.88. D. M. Juschka, “Cane Toads, Taxonomies, Boundaries, and theComparative Study of Religion”, pp. 12-13, 16-17. M. Detienne,Sigkrinontas ta mi sigkrisima, pp. 12. 14 J. Z. Smith, “In Comparison a Magic Dwells”, pp. 21.

4

prefers to focus on differences, as the acceptance of

the difference is more interesting15. Of course, he

chooses the analogy from the homology, because

homology shows evolutionary origin16. Certainly, his

most concussive thesis is that the anthropologists of

the Victorian Era were “magicians”, because they

followed the goal of magic, which tries to make the

unfamiliar, familiar. As good as, they imagined the

world again constructing their own categories without

attempting any sort of explanation17.

Coming back to the study of religion and of the

search of its origins, only theology was the ideal

solution for its study; moreover, it is clear that

the religion or the model of religion that is used

generally and specially as a model for the study of

the religious phenomenon is the Christianity.

The terms that are in use during the course of

the research, like feeling, substance, religious

evolutionism, superior – low religion, primitive,

wild, refer to the supporters of the Phenomenology of

15 D. M. Freidenreich, “Comparisons Compared: A Methological Survey ofComparisons of Religion from “A Magic Dwells” to A Magic Still Dwells”, pp.82. P. Altieri, “Close Encounters of the Smith Kind”, pp. 61. 16 D. M. Juschka, “Cane Toads, Taxonomies, Boundaries, and theComparative Study of Religion”, pp. 18. L. H. Martin, “Sigkrisi”, pp.105-106. 17 L. H. Martin, “ “Disenchanting” the Comparative Study of Religion”,pp. 36. P. Altieri, “Close Encounters of the Smith Kind”, pp. 62. J.Z. Smith, “In Comparison a Magic Dwells”, pp. 22.

5

Religion (Gerardus van der Leeuw18, Nathan

Söderblom19, Rudolf Otto20, Joachim Wach21, Mircea

Eliade22), the supporters of Romanticism (Friedrich

Schleiermacher23), and the anthropologists who

supported the evolution of cultures and of religion

18 J. Waardenburg, “Gerardus van der Leeuw's Biography”, pp. 493-495.D. Allen, “Phenomenology of Religion”, pp. 272-284. D. Wiebe, ThePolitics of Religious studies, pp. 173-204. H. G. Kippenberg, Discovering ReligiousHistory in the Modern Age, pp. 184-186. S. Cain, “Study of Religion”, pp.75. 19 C. J. Adams, “Nathan Soderblom’s Biography”, pp. 403-404. D. Allen,“Phenomenology of Religion”, pp. 272-284. H. G. Kippenberg, DiscoveringReligious History in the Modern Age, pp. 182-183. S. Cain, “Study ofReligion”, pp. 74. 20 T. M. Ludwig, “Rudolf Otto’s Biography”, pp. 139-141. H. G.Kippenberg, Discovering Religious History in the Modern Age, pp. 179-182. S.Cain, “Study of Religion”, pp. 74. D. Allen, “Phenomenology ofReligion”, pp. 272-284. 21 J. M. Kitagawa, “Joachim Wach’s Biography”, pp. 311-313. D. Allen,“Phenomenology of Religion”, pp. 272-284. S. Cain, “Study ofReligion”, pp. 75-76. 22 W. Ch. Beane, “Methodological, Pedagogical Reflections on MirceaEliade as Historian of Religion”, pp. 165-189. U. Bianchi,‘Concluding remarks: The History of religions, Today”, pp. 919-921.----, “History of Religions”, pp. 399-407. G. S. Gasparro, “Historyof Religions: A Retrospective and Prospective view”, pp. 913-917. E.O. James, “The History, science and comparative study of religion”,pp. 91-105. J. M. Kitagawa, “Mircea Eliade’s Biography”, pp. 85-89.R. T. McCutcheon, “Methods, Theories, and the Terrors of History.Closing the Eliadean Era with Some Dignity”, pp. 11-25. -----,Kataskeuazontas ti thriskeia, pp. 82-83, 94. W. E. Paden, “The Concept OfWorld Habitation: Eliadean Linkages with a New Comparativism”, pp.249-259. R. Permenter, “Romantic Postmodernism and the literaryEliade”, pp. 95-116. D. Allen, “Phenomenology of Religion”, pp. 272-284. R. A. Segal, “Reductionism in the study of religion”, pp. 4-14.E. J. Sharpe, “Comparative Religion”, σελ. 578-580. ----,“Methodological Issues”, pp. 83-88. N. Smart, “Comparative -Historical Method”, σελ. 571-574. ----, “Retrospect and prospect: TheHistory of religion”, pp. 901-903. J. Z. Smith, “The Wobbling Pivot”,pp. 88-103. 23 B. A. Gerrish, “Friedrich Schleiermacher’s Biography”, pp. 108-112.J. A. Martin, JR, “Philosophical Aesthetics”, pp. 44. R. J. ZwiWerblowsky, “Anthropomorphism”, pp. 319-320. P. Bernabeo,“Apologetics”, pp. 351-352. C. E. Curran, “Christian Ethics”, pp.

6

(Edward Burner Tylor24, James George Frazer25, L.

Morgan26, Robert Ranuph Marett27). The permanent quest

is the essence of religion with the jostle of

historical data. On the other hand, it is developed a

contradictable movement of constructing a historical

diagram that would affirm the theory of the evolution

of the cultures from the barbarian and the primitive

people to superior one, the European. They attempt to

explain the religious phenomenon creating a priori

categories, which are combined either with any

Christian dogma or with old “universal myths”.

During the Colonialism there is a promotion of a

movement for the search of the original religion or

being more precise for the search of the original

expression of the human’s religious consciousness.

That necessity is being affirmed by the indication

schemes that present the historical evolution from

346-348. Van A. Harvey, “Hermeneutics”, pp. 281-282, 284. W.Proudfoot, “Philosophy of Religion”, pp. 309-311. S. Cain, “Study ofReligion”, pp. 65-66. H. H. Penner, “Ermineia”, pp. 113-114. MartinL. H., “Secular Theory and the Academic Study of Religion”, pp. 5. 24 E. J. Sharpe, “Edward Tylor’s Biography”, pp. 107-108. S. Cain,“Study of Religion”, pp. 70. D. L. Pals, “Noisi”, pp. 257-259. K. W.Bolle, “Animism and Animatism”, pp. 296-302. J. Waller and M.Edwardsen, “Evolutionism”, pp. 215-216. H. G. Kippenberg, DiscoveringReligious History in the Modern Age, pp. 51-64. S. Guthrie, “On Animism”, pp.106-107. I. Wunn, “The Evolution of Religions”, pp. 387-415. 25 R. Ackerman, “James Frazer’s Biography”, pp. 414-416. D. L. Pals,“Noisi”, pp. 261-262. S. Cain, “Study of Religion”, pp. 71. H. G.Kippenberg, Discovering Religious History in the Modern Age, pp. 90-97. 26 J. Beattie, Other Cultures, pp. 1-5. 27 E. J. Sharpe, “Robert Marett’s Biography”, pp. 202. S. Cain, “Studyof Religion”, pp. 71. H. G. Kippenberg, Discovering Religious History in theModern Age, pp. 125-126.

7

the original religion to its last form, which is with

no surprise Christianity28. Moreover, the societies

that appear the “original type of religiosity” are

being examined like antiquities or exhibits, because

it is thought that are lost in time and have not

changed a bit. So, the concept of that kind of

research can be called “romantic folklorism”; this is

a search of the offspring of a nation, of a people or

even of the whole human kind29.

As it was mentioned above, that concept begins

during colonialism and the period of the Victorian

Anthropology. Edward B. Tylor mentioned that “the

Science of Culture”, as he called it, “is congenital

comparable and is impatient to compare among the new

nations, their customs and their vivid symbols.

Therefore, a cognitive sector, which adopts as object

the comparison of cultural formations and after that

the nuptial customs with mythological narrations”30.28 Such an evolutionary form seeks to categorize people, as the oneswho do not believe in superior forms of religiosity, but in theoldest temporally, inevitably are considered uncivilized andbarbarians. Such an evolutionary form, which appears the developmentof cultures per periods until it reaches the superior culture that ofthe European populations constitutes the attaché: embryonic cultures→inferior cultures→ mediocre cultures→ superior cultures→ completedcultures. Thus, it is stressed permanently the inferiority of the“other” and the superiority of the European and concretely of theancient Greek and Christian culture, as the populations are separatedin wild, semi - barbarian and civilized. Each religious or any othercultural event are accompanied by phrases, as inferior, superior,wild, primitive, barbarian, heretic. 29 A. Kuriakidou – Nestoros, H Theoria tis Ellinikis Laografias: Kritiki analisi,19974. 30 M. Detienne, Sigkrinontas ta mi sigkrisima, pp. 24.

8

Those that were interpreted and examined were the

subject of experimental of the study of Westerners

and no human beings. Indeed, were dispatched

missionaries in the new colonies, in order to they

realise if these people had any human soul31. Thus,

this new science tried to categorize the new and the

ancient cultures, and to include them in an axis,

beginning from the simplest and reaching in the most

complex, according to the evolutionary model32.

The Anthropology was developed scientifically in

the regions where the Colonialism expanded33. However,

it would be unfair to declare that Anthropology was

only encouraged by the Colonialism, as well as

Anthropology stood helper in the objectives and aims

of Colonialism. Anthropology, whenever existed any

need, supported ideologically, developing theories

and models of work, the initiatives of Colonialism

for the control of the countries, which dominated34.

31 M. Detienne, Sigkrinontas ta mi sigkrisima, pp. 23, 25. H. B. Urban,“Power still Dwells: The Ethics and Politics of Comparison in A MagicStill Dwells”, pp. 26. 32 M. Detienne, Sigkrinontas ta mi sigkrisima, pp. 26. 33 A. Kuper, Anthropologia kai Anthropologoi, pp. 177-178. T. Asad, “From theHistory of Colonial Anthropology to the Western Hegemony”, pp. 133. N. Skouteri –Didaskalou, “Ypo paratirisin: Keimena kai upokeimena anthropologikonpraktikon”, pp. 155. 34 A. Kuper, Anthropologia kai Anthropologoi, pp. 202-203. -----, “Ithagenisethografia, politiki euprepeia kai to sxedio mias kosmopolitikisanthropologies”, pp. 314. N. Skouteri – Didaskalou, “H anthropologiase krisi: Simeia kampis kai theoritika adiexoda”, pp. 28-30. T. Asad,“From the History of Colonial Anthropology to the Western Hegemony”, pp. 133-134.H. B. Urban, “Power still Dwells: The Ethics and Politics ofComparison in A Magic Still Dwells”, pp. 27.

9

First from all, we should say that Anthropology

as an aim had the study of the “wild”, the

“uncivilized”, the “primitive” in the fieldwork35. The

study of exotic populations from the anthropologists

would facilitate the colonialist administration, as

it would assemble information for these populations36.

It seems that the western culture came to enlighten

the other “races” and seek initially to meet them. In

the course, with the functionalism (B. Malinowski)

the anthropologists declared that they found

traditional cultures that do not change and have not

been influenced by the arrival of colonialists, as

culture exists for the cover of needs of society37.

This of course served the Colonialism for the

consolidation of its power. Afterwards, the

structuralists (E. E. Evans – Pritchard38, A. R.

Radcliffe - Brown39) decided to study only the

structures from certain institutions without again

35 R. Keesing, Cultural Anthropology. A Contemporary Perspective, pp. 8-14. 36 T. Asad, “From the History of Colonial Anthropology to the Western Hegemony”, pp.133-136. A. Kuper, Anthropologia kai Anthropologoi, pp. 178-193. N.Skouteri – Didaskalou, “H anthropologia se krisi: Simeia kampis kaitheoritika adiexoda”, pp. 25-26. 37 B. Malinowski, Argonauts of the Western Pacific, 1922. A. Kuper,Anthropologia kai Anthropologoi, pp. 33-82. Michael A. Baenen, “BronislawMalinowski’s Biography”, pp. 146-147. S. Cain, “Study of Religion”,p. 72. 38 John Middleton, “Evans – Pritchard’s Biography”, pp. 197-199. S.Cain, “Study of Religion”, p. 72-73. E. E. Evans – Pritchard,Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande and the Nuer, 1937. 39 A. Kuper, Anthropologia kai Anthropologoi, pp. 84-132, 209-239. A. R.Radcliffe – Brauwn, “H ennoia tis leitourgias stin koinonikiepistimi”, pp. 241-259. ----, “Joking Relations”, pp. 101-116.

10

approaching precisely these societies. This method

was applied when anymore the control of Colonialism

above the various countries had almost been removed40.

Therefore, it seems that the anthropologists

studied certain populations aiming at the promotion

of their academic career and the recognition from the

scientific community41. They did not observe the

changes that were realised in the societies that

dominated the Colonialism (for example Africa), as

the western culture imposed its institutions and

technology. This led to the creation of new

correlations, as the residents were forced to be

adapted in the new conditions and used in their

everyday routine significances of other culture42.

Therefore, it was considered by the anthropologists

of various theories and tendencies that the societies

that they studied corresponded in the fundamental and

formal model of human societies43.

The Anthropology substantially represented the

western culture that is imposed. The anthropologists

represented this oppression. The fact that they

studied the “natives” and then recorded their40 N. Skouteri – Didaskalou, “H anthropologia se krisi: Simeia kampiskai theoritika adiexoda”, pp. 32. 41 A. Kuper, Anthropologia kai Anthropologoi, pp.188-189, 207. 42 T. Asad, “From the History of Colonial Anthropology to the Western Hegemony”, pp.136-140. A. Kuper, Anthropologia kai Anthropologoi, pp. 193-196, 207. N.Skouteri – Didaskalou, “H anthropologia se krisi: Simeia kampis kaitheoritika adiexoda”, pp. 37-38. 43 C. Geertz, H Ermineia ton Politismon, pp. 33.

11

impressions expanded this distance. Also, the tactic

of interviews and questions to the natives gave the

impression that the anthropologist is powerful and

that finds himself/ herself in a superior social

place. The anthropologist portrayed the sovereignty

of western culture, something that led later to the

reaction of native people44.

This reaction was caused with a new tendency in

the research, which was the study of the natives by

natives. Substantially, natives can be considered the

residents of any region that constitute its

institutions and that can be studied by any

anthropologist. Therefore, it was considered that the

person who comes from a region, he/ she can attribute

better what his/ her compatriots or fellow-townsmen

think45.

At the same time with this opinion, during the

eighties it was proposed the thesis for enrolee

anthropology. Its role would be the protection of the

44 A. Kuper, Anthropologia kai Anthropologoi, pp. 207. M. Herzfeld, Hanthropologia mesa apo ton kathrefti: Kritiki ethnografia tis Elladas kai tis Europis, pp.18, 26, 33. A. Kuper, “Ithagenis ethografia, politiki euprepeia kaito sxedio mias kosmopolitikis anthropologies”, pp. 313. N. Skouteri –Didaskalou, “Ypo paratirisin: Keimena kai upokeimena anthropologikonpraktikon”, pp. 171-172. 45 A. Kuper, “Ithagenis ethografia, politiki euprepeia kai to sxediomias kosmopolitikis anthropologies”, pp. 312-313, 318, 323. K.Hastrup, “Ithagenis Anthropologia: Mia antifasi stous orous?”, pp.337, 339, 349, 353.

12

native cultures, the promotion of the natives’ voice

and the charge of colonialist tactic of the West46.

Anyhow, we should point out the erroneous tactic

of the description of a non western society through

the western way of thought and through a concrete way

of categorisations47. It reveals a not scientific

effort as for the study of religion, but also for

human societies generally. However, even the

presentation of a native society from a native person

might not have any successful results. The

Anthropology should constitute substantially the

exterior observer that tries to harmonize the

native’s narration and the comprehension of the third

person (the anthropologist) how a society is

structured. The daily action and the environment can

give better results and a more evident picture than

the discussions with the natives48. The anthropologist

substantially constitutes the translator of the

46 A. Kuper, “Ithagenis ethografia, politiki euprepeia kai to sxediomias kosmopolitikis anthropologies”, pp. 309-310. N. Skouteri –Didaskalou, “Ypo paratirisin: Keimena kai upokeimena anthropologikonpraktikon”, pp. 177-178. 47 N. Skouteri – Didaskalou, “Ypo paratirisin: Keimena kai upokeimenaanthropologikon praktikon”, pp. 171-173, 182-183. -----, “Hanthropologia se krisi: Simeia kampis kai theoritika adiexoda”, pp.28-29. 48 A. Kuper, “Ithagenis ethografia, politiki euprepeia kai to sxediomias kosmopolitikis anthropologies”, pp. 318. K. Hastrup, “IthagenisAnthropologia: Mia antifasi stous orous?”, pp. 349-352, 354-356, 359.N. Skouteri – Didaskalou, “Ypo paratirisin: Keimena kai upokeimenaanthropologikon praktikon”, pp. 190-191, 198. H. B. Urban, “Powerstill Dwells: The Ethics and Politics of Comparison in A Magic StillDwells”, pp. 31.

13

society49; he/ she interprets interpretations of the

others with as long as possible comprehensible way

for his/ her readers50. The presentation of data in

their environment engraves their relation with main

and present social - historical frames51.

A method that seeks to give impulse in the study

of religion is that of the cognitive anthropology. It

considers that having as a base the laws of physics

and biology, that is to say with clearly scientific

criteria, we can know and examine the different

cultural expressions52. However, the fact that the

human brain categorizes with a concrete way or

produces compulsively symbols53, does not explain by

itself why a group of people selected a concrete way

of life, a concrete categorisation or a concrete

cultural explanation of the environment in which it

lives. It should always be taken into consideration

the historical and social environment, and the

particular conditions that led to their choice. All

these theories will have a bigger value if they are

49 R. Keesing, “Anthropology as Interpretive Quest”, pp. 161-169. 50 C. Geertz, H Ermineia ton Politismon, pp. 15-41. A. Mpakalaki, “Ekdoxestis ennoia tou Politismou stin Anthropologia”, pp. 60. 51 P. Altieri, “Close Encounters of the Smith Kind”, pp. 66. D. M.Freidenreich, “Comparisons Compared: A Methological Survey ofComparisons of Religion from “A Magic Dwells” to A Magic Still Dwells”, pp.91-92, 93. 52 L. H. Martin, “ “Disenchanting” the Comparative Study of Religion”,pp. 38, 39, 41. ----, “Sigkrisi”, pp. 108-110. 53 Βλ. A. W. Geertz, Introduction to Cognitive Approaches to the Study of Religion,Aarhus: University of Aarhus, 2004.

14

combined with a very good ethnography. What it should

be proposed is an interdisciplinary collaboration,

without selfishness, with good will, that will give a

new blow in the study of religion, but also of human

generally.

References

1. Ackerman R., “James Frazer’s Biography”, M.Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol.5,1987, 414-416.

2. Adams C. J., “Nathan Soderblom’s Biography”, M.Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol.13,1987, 403-404.

3. Allen D., “Phenomenology of Religion”, M. Eliade(ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 11, 1987,272-284.

4. Altieri P., “Close Encounters of the SmithKind”, Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 16 (2004),61-71.

5. Arnal W. E., “Orismos”, W. Braun – R. T.McCutcheon (eds.), in Egxeiridio Thriskeiologias(trans. in Greek D. Xigalatas, ed. P. Pachis),Thessaloniki: Banias, 2003, 54-72. (in Greek)

6. Asad T., “From the History of ColonialAnthropology to the Western Hegemony”, in JoanVincent (ed.), The Anthropology of Politics, Oxford:Blackwell, 2002, 133-141.

7. Baenen M. A., “Bronislaw Malinowski’sBiography”, M. Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia ofReligion, Vol.9, 1987, 146-147.

8. Beane W. Ch., “Methodological, PedagogicalReflections on Mircea Eliade as Historian ofReligion”, in: Br. Rennie (ed.), Changing Religious

15

Worlds. The Meaning and the End of Mircea Eliade, Albany,NY: State University of New York Press, 2001,165-189.

9. Beattie J., Other Cultures, London; New York:Routledge, 1964.

10. Beidelman T. O., “William Smith’sBiography“, M. Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia ofReligion, Vol.13, 1987, 366-367.

11. Bernabeo P., “Apologetics”, M. Eliade (ed.),in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol.1, 1987, 349-353.

12. Bianchi U., ‘Concluding remarks: The Historyof religions, Today”, in Ugo Bianchi (ed.), Thenotion of ‘Religion’ in Comparative research, Roma: Erma,1992, 919-921.

13. ---------, “History of Religions”, M. Eliade(ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 6, 1987, 399-407.

14. Bolle K. W., “Animism and Animatism”, M.Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol.1,1987, 296-302.

15. Braun W., “Thriskeia”, W. Braun – R. T.McCutcheon (eds.), in Egxeiridio Thriskeiologias(trans. in Greek D. Xigalatas, ed. P. Pachis),Thessaloniki: Banias, 2003, 28-51. (in Greek)

16. -------, “Editorial – Comparison: DemoniaKa!”, Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 16 (2004),1-2.

17. Cain S., “Study of Religion”, M. Eliade(ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 14, 1987, 64-83.

18. Carter J., “Comparison in the History ofReligions: Reflections and Critiques”, Method &Theory in the Study of Religion 16 (2004), 3-11.

19. Curran C. E., “Christian Ethics”, M. Eliade(ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol.3, 1987, 340-347.

20. Detienne M., Sigkrinontas ta mi sigkrisima, (trans.in Greek: P. Marketou), Athens: Metaixmio/Epistimes, 2000. (in Greek)

16

21. Evans – Pritchard E. E., Witchcraft, Oracles andMagic among the Azande, Oxford: Clarendon Press,1977 (reprinted) [1937].

22. Freidenreich D. M., “Comparisons Compared: AMethological Survey of Comparisons of Religionfrom “A Magic Dwells” to A Magic Still Dwells”, Method& Theory in the Study of Religion 16 (2004), 80-101.

23. Gasparro G. S., “History of Religions: ARetrospective and Prospective view”, in UgoBianchi (ed.), The notion of ‘Religion’ in Comparativeresearch, Roma: Erma, 1992, 913-917.

24. Geertz C., H ermineia ton politismon, Athens:Alexandeia, 2003 [1973]. (in Greek)

25. Gerrish B. A., “Friedrich Schleiermacher’sBiography”, M. Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia ofReligion, Vol.13, 1987, 108-112.

26. Guthrie S., “On Animism”, CurrentAnthropology, Vol. 41 (1), 2000, 106-107.

27. ----------, “Religion: What is it?”, Journalfor the Scientific Study of Religion, 35 (4),1996, 412-419.

28. Harvey Van A., “Hermeneutics”, M. Eliade(ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol.6, 1987, 279-285.

29. Hastrup K., “Ithagenis Anthropologia: Miaantifasi stous orous?”, Dimitra Gkefou –Madianou (ed.), Anthropologiki Theoria kai Ethnografia,Athens: Ellinika Grammata, 1998, 337-364. (inGreek)

30. Herzfeld M., H anthropologia mesa apo ton kathrefti:Kritiki ethnografia tis Elladas kai tis Europis, Athens:Alexandreia, 1998. (in Greek)

31. James E. O., “The History, science andcomparative study of religion”, Numen 1 (2)1954, 91-105.

32. Jensen J. S., “Why Magic? It’s justComparison”, Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 16(2004), 45-60.

17

33. Juschka D. M., “Cane Toads, Taxonomies,Boundaries, and the Comparative Study ofReligion”, Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 16(2004), 12-23.

34. Keesing R., Cultural Anthropology. A ContemporaryPerspective, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976.

35. ----------, “Anthropology as InterpretiveQuest”, Current Anthropology 28 (1987), 161-169.

36. King W. L., “Religion”, M. Eliade (ed.), inEncyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 12, 1987, 282-292.

37. Kippenberg H. G., Discovering Religious History in theModern Age (translated from German by BarbaraHarshav), Princeton; Oxford: PrincetonUniversity Press, 2002.

38. Kishimoto H., “An Operational definition ofreligion”, Numen 8 (3) 1961, 236-240.

39. Kitagawa J. M., “Joachim Wach’s Biography”,M. Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol.15,1987, 311-313.

40. ----------, “Mircea Eliade’s Biography”, M.Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol.5,1987, 85-89.

41. Klimkeit H. J., “Max Müller’s Biography“, M.Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol.10,1987, 153-154.

42. Kuper A., Anthropologia kai Anthropologoi, Athens:Alexandreia, 1990. (in Greek)

43. -------, “Ithagenis ethnografia, politikieuprepeia kai to sxedio mias kosmopolitikisanthropologies”, Dimitra Gkefou – Madianou(ed.), Anthropologiki Theoria kai Ethnografia, Athens:Ellinika Grammata, 1998, 297-336. (in Greek)

44. Kuriakidou – Nestoros A., H Theoria tis ellinikislaografias. Kritiki analisi, Athens: Etaireia SpoudonNeoellinikou Politismou kai Genikis Paideias,1986. (in Greek)

45. Littleton C. S., “History of Study”, M.Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol.7,1987, 204-213.

18

46. Ludwig T. M., “Rudolf Otto’s Biography”, M.Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol.11,1987, 139-141.

47. Malinowski B., Argonauts of the Western Pacific,London: Routledge, 1978 [1922].

48. Martin J. A., JR, “PhilosophicalAesthetics”, M. Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia ofReligion, Vol.1, 1987, 39-46.

49. Martin L. H., “Secular Theory and theAcademic Study of Religion”, Forthcoming in SecularTheories on Religion. A Selection of Recent Academic Perspectives,Tim Jensen and Mikael Rothstein (eds.)(Copenhagen: The Museum Tusculanum Press).

50. ------------, “Sigkrisi”, W. Braun – R. T.McCutcheon (eds.), in Egxeiridio Thriskeiologias(trans. in Greek D. Xigalatas, ed. P. Pachis),Thessaloniki: Banias, 2003, 93-111. (in Greek)

51. McCutcheon R. T., “Methods, Theories, andthe Terrors of History. Closing the Eliadean Erawith Some Dignity”, in: Br. Rennie (ed.),Changing Religious Worlds. The Meaning and the End of MirceaEliade, Albany, NY: State University of New YorkPress, 2001, 11-25.

52. -------------, Kataskeuazontas ti Thriskeia(trans. in Greek D. Xigalatas, ed. P. Pachis),Thessaloniki: Banias, 2003. (in Greek)

53. Middleton J., “Evans – Pritchard’sBiography”, M. Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia ofReligion, Vol.5, 1987, 197 - 199.

54. Mpakalaki A., ‘Ekdoxes tis ennoias touPolitismou stin Anthropologia’, Sygxrona Themata62 (Ian – Mart 1997), 55-68. (in Greek)

55. Paden W. E., “The Concept of WorldHabitation: Eliadean Linkages with a NewComparativism”, in: Br. Rennie (ed.), ChangingReligious Worlds. The Meaning and the End of Mircea Eliade,Albany, NY: State University of New York Press,2001, 249-259.

19

56. Pals D. L., “Noisi”, W. Braun – R. T.McCutcheon (eds.), in Egxeiridio Thriskeiologias(trans. in Greek D. Xigalatas, ed. P. Pachis),Thessaloniki: Banias, 2003, 257-274. (in Greek)

57. Partin H. B., “Classification of Religions”,M. Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 3,1987, 527-531.

58. Penner H. H., “Ermineia”, W. Braun – R. T.McCutcheon (eds.), in Egxeiridio Thriskeiologias(trans. in Greek D. Xigalatas, ed. P. Pachis),Thessaloniki: Banias, 2003, 114-135. (in Greek)

59. Permenter R., “Romantic Postmodernism andthe literary Eliade”, in: Br. Rennie (ed.),Changing Religious Worlds. The Meaning and the End of MirceaEliade, Albany, NY: State University of New YorkPress, 2001, 95-116.

60. Proudfoot W., “Philosophy of Religion”, M.Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol.11,1987, 305-311.

61. Radcliffe – Brown A. R., “H ennoia tisleitourgias stin koinoniki epistimi”, Epopteia 65(1982), 241-259. (in Greek)

62. ---------, “Joking Relations”, Jack Goody(ed.), in Kinship: Selected Readings, London: Penguin,1971, 101-116.

63. Segal R. A., “Reductionism in the study ofreligion”, in T. A. Idinopoulos and E. A. Yonan(eds.), Religion and Reductionism, New York; Leiden;Koln: Brill, 1994, 4-14.

64. Sharpe E. J., “Comparative Religion”, M.Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 3,1987, 578-580.

65. -----------, “Edward Tylor’s Biography”, M.Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 15,1987, 107-108.

66. -----------, “Methodological Issues”, M.Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 14,1987, 83-88.

20

67. -----------, “Robert Marett’s Biography”, M.Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol.9,1987, 202.

68. Skouteri – Didaskalou Nora, “H anthropologiase krisi: Simeia kampis kai theoritikaadiexoda”, Politis 30 (1979), 20-35, 31: 31-38. (inGreek)

69. ----------, “Ypo paratirisin: Keimena kaiupokeimena anthropologikon praktikon”, DimitraGkefou – Madianou (ed.), Anthropologiki Theoria kaiEthnografia, Athens: Ellinika Grammata, 1998, 169-196. (in Greek)

70. Smart N., “Comparative - Historical Method”,M. Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 3,1987, 571-574.

71. ----------, “Retrospect and prospect: TheHistory of religion”, in Ugo Bianchi (ed.), Thenotion of ‘Religion’ in Comparative research, Roma: Erma,1992, 901-903.

72. Smith J. Z., “In Comparison a Magic Dwells”,in: idem, Imagining Religion. From Babylon to Jonestown,Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1982, 19-35.

73. -----------, “Religion, Religions,Religious”, in Mark C. Taylor (ed.), Critical Termsfor Religious Studies, Chicago; London: The Universityof Chicago Press, 1998, 269-284.

74. ----------, “The Wobbling Pivot”, in Map isnot a Territory, Chicago: Chicago University Press,1993, 88-103.

75. ----------, “Taxinomisi”, W. Braun – R. T.McCutcheon (eds.), in Egxeiridio Thriskeiologias(trans. in Greek D. Xigalatas, ed. P. Pachis),Thessaloniki: Banias, 2003, 73-91. (in Greek)

76. Sung – Hae K., “The History of religion:Retrospect and prospect”, in Ugo Bianchi (ed.),The notion of ‘Religion’ in Comparative research, Roma: Erma,1992, 897-899.

77. Urban H. B., “Power still Dwells: The Ethicsand Politics of Comparison in A Magic Still Dwells”,

21

Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 16 (2004), 24 –35.

78. Waardenburg J., “Gerardus van der Leeuw'sBiography”, M. Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia ofReligion, Vol.8, 1987, 493-495.

79. Waghorne J. P., “Moving Comparison out ofthe Scholar’s Laboratory”, Method & Theory in theStudy of Religion 16 (2004), 72-79.

80. Waller J. and Edwardsen M., “Evolutionism”,M. Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol.5,1987, 214-218.

81. Wiebe D., “Transcending religious language:Towards the recovery of an academic agenda”, inUgo Bianchi (ed.), The notion of ‘Religion’ in Comparativeresearch, Roma: Erma, 1992, 905-912.

82. ---------, The Politics of Religious studies, NewYork, 1999.

83. Wunn I., “The Evolution of Religions”, Numen50 (2003), 387-415.

84. Ziakas G., Thriskeia kai Politismos ton Proistorikonkoinonion kai ton arxaion laon, Thessaloniki: KornikiaSfakianaki, 2002. (in Greek)

85. Zwi Werblowsky R. J., “Anthropomorphism”, M.Eliade (ed.), in Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol.1,1987, 316-320.

DATA BASE CORPORA

1. M. Eliade (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987 (cd -rom).

2. Presentations (PowerPoint) from ProfessorPachis’s lectures about “Religions of theancient world”.

3. Megali Elliniki Egkiklopaideia – data base(Access). (in Greek)

4. Marilyn Manson, album Mechanical Animals, 1998.

22

23