Abstract
The present reply offers some reflections on Leonardo Ambasciano’s commentary entitled Shamanism Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow and included in this same issue of Journal of Cognitive Historiography. A particular point of contention is represented by the potential contribution that a post-structural approach could offer to a scientific re-description of shamanism as an analytical category in the contemporary academic field of Religious Studies.
Reference25 articles.
1. Alberts, T. K. 2015. Shamanism, Discourse, Modernity. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315608815
2. Ambasciano, L. 2019. An Unnatural History of Religions: Academia, Post-truth and the Quest for Scientific Knowledge. London and New York: Bloomsbury. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350062412
3. Bergunder, M. 2014. “What Is Religion? The Unexplained Subject Matter of Religious Studies.” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 26(3): 246–86. https://doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341320
4. Boekhoven, J. 2011. Genealogies of Shamanism. Struggles for Power, Charisma and Authority. Groningen: Barkhuis. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt22728fr
5. Botta, S. 2010. “La via storicista allo sciamanismo: prospettive archeologiche e storia delle religioni.” In Sciamani e sciamanesimi, ed. A. Saggioro, 59–86. Rome: Carocci.