Finding a Place for Possession, Divination, and Trance within the Historical Perspective

A review of four publications from 2008–2010 examines how studies of possession, divination, and trance interact with historical method, focusing on historiography rather than anthropology or ethnography. It analyzes framing devices in an edition edited by Amar Annus and a monograph by Sarah Iles Johnston, then considers how seemingly ahistorical phenomena like divination, trance, and possession can be accounted for historically. The article agrees with commentators that anxiety over integrating history with such phenomena stems from a narrow scholarly mentality. It concludes that alternative historical approaches are needed for religious history to study these phenomena without bias or unease.

Study at a glance

Abstract

In this review article four publications from 2008–2010 are examined to assess the interplay between studies of possession, divination, and trance and historical method. The article avoids discussing the research in these works done from a purely anthropological or ethnographic stance, but focuses on the thematics of historiography. It does so by analysing the framing devices used in the predominantly historical research in the edition edited by Amar Annus and the monograph of Sarah Iles Johnston. Drawing these issues forward to the second set of texts, this article continues by looking at ways in which the seemingly a‐historical phenomena of divination, trance, and possession, can be accounted for historically. The article agrees with many of the commentators in these editions that the prevailing anxiety over the integration of history and divination and other “irregular” phenomena is generated by a narrow and sometimes ineffective scholarly mentality. This article concludes that alternative ways of making history must be considered if religious history seeks to claim an unbiased and less anxious approach to the study of phenomena that have hitherto eluded its processes.