Journal of The Royal Anthropological Institute vol 14 n1 (2008 : !

"
10#
$e%nitive evi&ence' fro( )u*an go&s
+artin ,ol*raa&
1


1
-niversity )ollege .on&on
)orrespon&ence to $epart(ent of /ocial Anthropology' -niversity
)ollege .on&on' 0o1er /treet' .on&on 2)13 45T' -67
(7hol*raa&8ucl7ac7u9
ABSTRACT
5ase& on evi&ence collecte& &uring %el&1or9 a(ong practitioners of
Afro")u*an religion in ,avana' this paper see9s :recursively: to
re&e%ne the notion of anthropological evi&ence itself7 It &oes so *y
e;a(ining ethnographically practitioners: concern 1ith the :evi&ence:
&eities give (e7g7 successful &ivinations' &ivine cures' etc7#' *y virtue
of 1hich people:s relationships 1ith &eities are ce(ente&7 To the
e;tent that this in&igenous concept of evi&ence is &i<erent fro(
notions of evi&ence anthropologists ta9e for grante& in their o1n
1or9' it occasions the opportunity to transfor( those very
assu(ptions7 5ut such a proce&ure is itself evi&ential = pertaining to
the relationship *et1een ethnography an& theory7 The paper sets out
the virtues' *oth ethnographic an& theoretical' of this circularity7
Rsum
/ur la *ase &es preuves recueillies au cours &:un travail &e terrain
par(i les praticiens &:une religion afro"cu*aine > .a ,avane' le
pr?sent article cherche' &e (ani@re A r?cursive BB' > re&?%nir la
notion &e preuve anthropologiCue elle"(D(e7 Eour cela' il
ethnographie l:attention apport?e par les praticiens au; A preuves BB
Cue leur envoient les &ivinit?s (par e;e(ple &es &ivinations r?ussies'
&es gu?risons &ivines' etc7#' grFce au;Cuelles la relation entre
hu(ains et &?it?s est consoli&?e7 $ans la (esure oG ce concept
autochtone &e preuve est &i<?rent &e la notion &e preuve Cue les
anthropologues tiennent pour acCuise &ans leur propre travail' il
&onne l:occasion &e transfor(er ces hypoth@ses (D(e7 )ette
proc?&ure a toutefois valeur &e preuve par elle"(D(e' puisCu:elle est
li?e > la relation entre l:ethnographie et la th?orie7 .:auteur e;pose ici
les vertus' ethnographiCues aussi *ien Cue th?oriCues' &e cette
relation circulaire7



Ethnographic evidence
In )u*a people see( concerne& 1ith the evi&ence go&s give7 +uch
ethnographic evi&ence coul& *e a&&uce& to sho1 this' though' 1ith
that intention' I ta9e a &etaile& vignette (see also the Intro&uction to
this volu(e#7 This is Jorge' a 1ell"esta*lishe& actor an& tango singer
in his H0s' spea9ing to (e in his Iat in the Jl& )ity of ,avana in 200H
a*out Afro")u*an religion' an& particularly a*out 1hat he calls
prue*as' or' in rough 3nglish' :proofs::
I love this religion an& I love all the &eities (santos#' *ecause they:ve
given (e a lot of prue*as7 /hall I tell you the storyK I:& *een 1anting
to (ove here to the centre for (any years = too (any *uses to 1or9 =
*ut it 1asn:t easy Lreferring to the legal *an on house purchases in
)u*a' 1hich prevents people fro( (oving ho(e unless they can
persua&e so(eone to s1ap their o1n 1ith the(M7 /o four years ago'
1hen I 1as on tour in /antiago 1ith the troupe' I 1ent to see the
Nirgen &e la )ari&a& &el )o*re Lthe patron saint of )u*a 1hose
sanctuary outsi&e /antiago &e )u*a is the focus of pilgri(s: &evotion'
an& 1ho is often i&enti%e& 1ith JchOn' the Afro")u*an &eity of se;ual
love an& riversM7 2e 1ere stan&ing there 1ith t1o pals of (ine = I
1asn:t really into it at that ti(e7 Jne of the( goes to (e' :as9 her for
1hat you 1ant' as9 her:' an& I thought all I 1ant is to (ove house' so
I &i& as9 her' an& I sai& that if she helpe& (e I 1oul& co(e *ac9 an&
*ring her her Io1ers Lthe )ari&a& &el )o*re particularly li9es o<erings
of sunIo1ersM7 2hen I get *ac9 ho(e to ,avana (y neigh*our tells
(e that a (an ha& *een *y (y ho(e an& ha& (a&e enCuiries a*out
a house"s1ap (per(uta#7 An& really' I:( not Po9ing' ten &ays later
here I 1as in (y ne1 apart(ent an&' 1ell' here 1e all are an& here is
JchOn 1ith her Io1ers7
Jorge 1as pointing at the cere(onial pot insi&e of 1hich JchOn is
place&' in the for( of a *eautiful river stone' as part of consecration
cere(onies in /anterQa = the (ost 1i&esprea& Afro")u*an religious
tra&ition in ,avana' on 1hich this paper focuses7 Jorge:s JchOn = the
&ecorous pot 1ith its consecrate& contents = 1as on &isplay alongsi&e
a nu(*er of other santos ()hangR' Se(ayT' JyT' J*atalT' etc7#' each
1ith his or her ritual insignia an& paraphernalia' to for( 1hat is calle&
a :throne: (trono#' a cere(onial &isplay that /anterQa initiates
(santeros# (ount for special occasions (5ro1n 200!#7 The occasion in
this case 1as Jorge:s thir& anniversary of initiation = his thir&
:*irth&ay:' as santeros put it' to e(phasiUe that /anterQa initiation is
a*out :giving *irth: to the neophyte an& to the &eities he or she
:receives: as part of the cere(ony: the ones Jorge is no1 &isplaying in
his trono7 In fact' the occasion of his thir& *irth&ay an& the story of
JchOn:s prue*a are not unrelate&7 Jorge continue&:
I:ve ha& so (any prue*as it:s har&ly 1orth counting7 A fe1 (onths
after (oving into this house I starte& getting hea&aches all the ti(e'
the light 1oul& *other (e 777 a lot of pain7 I tol& a frien& of (ine 1ho
is a spiritist an& she sai& that I shoul& chec9 to see if there:s a &ea&
spirit ((uerto# *othering (e in the house 777 /o I 1ent to see a 1o(an
1ho ha& atten&e& (e *efore in these (atters' a santera' an& she
ca(e here an& cleane& (e up an& the house too Lna(ely a ritual
cleansing referre& to as li(pieUaM an& everything 1as %ne after
that 777 It 1as these things that *rought (e closer to the 1hole story
of /anterQa an& the spirits' so I &eci&e& that it 1oul& *e goo& for (e
to &o it Lto :(a9e hi(self santo:' na(ely to get initiate& into
/anterQaM7
Jorge:s story is one of persuasion = conversion even7 Vour years ago'
on tour 1ith his troupe' he 1as :not really into: /anterQa7 Then' 1ith
the prue*as (ounting' three years ago he &eci&e& to *e initiate&
hi(self7 An& no1' surroun&e& *y his go&s on his *irth&ay' he tells (e
of their prue*as7
Arguing with evidence
To intro&uce the argu(ent of this paper' 1e (ay *egin *y noting that
recounting Jorge:s story at the outset is suppose& to &o t1o things at
once' *oth of 1hich are characteristic of anthropological 1ays of
arguing7 Virst' suita*ly conte;tualiUe&' Jorge:s story is suppose& to
provi&e :ethnographic evi&ence:' in this case of religious practice in
conte(porary )u*a' an& particularly of the role of prue*as in the
practice of /anterQa7 To the rea&er unverse& in Afro")u*an religion'
Jorge:s story is (eant to serve as a &escriptive entry into a set of
i&eas an& practices that are to a &egree unfa(iliar' an& to provi&e
so(e of the &ata that the rea&er 1ill have to *ear in (in& in or&er to
un&erstan& the argu(ent that is :*uilt upon the &ata:' as 1e (ight
say' an& to Pu&ge its (erits7
/econ&ly' as 1ell as provi&ing ethnographic evi&ence' Jorge:s story
serves to set up an :ethnographic pro*le(:7 Vor 1hile the &egree to
1hich 1hat Jorge ha& to say (ay appear unfa(iliar to the rea&er
1oul& &epen& on 1hat the rea&er happens to 9no1 a*out prue*as'
/anterQa' or si(ilar pheno(ena in other parts of the 1orl&'
1
Jorge:s
story' presente& as an ethnographic vignette' is also (eant to *e
unfa(iliar in a (ore &eli*erate or principle& sense7 +uch li9e the
classical :pro*le(s: of cross"cousin (arriage' (agic' or gift e;change'
Jorge:s account of prue*as is anthropologically interesting at least
partly *ecause it conIicts 1ith assu(ptions the anthropologist (ay
fairly &ee(' for the sa9e of argu(ent' to share 1ith his rea&ers (e7g7
that pro(ises to a saint are not an eWcient 1ay of securing a Iat'
that hea&aches are not &ue to spirits an& cannot *e cure& *y ritual
cleansings' an& that none of this is evi&ence of the santos: po1ers#7
,ere unfa(iliarity is not a (atter of a rea&er:s psychological state or
cultural *ac9groun& *ut rather an analytical con&ition that resi&es in
the &i<erence *et1een a set of assu(ptions' on the one han&' an&'
on the other' ethnographic &ata that appear to contra&ict the(7 Vor
all I care (anthropologically#' you' or I' (ay actually thin9 spirits give
hea&aches an& so on = in&ee&' you (ay happen to *e Jorge7 The point
is that such notions are anthropologically interesting = they constitute
a :pro*le(:= insofar as they are entertaine& :critically:' 1hich is to say
in relation to their alternatives7 5y 1ay of convention' 1e (ay call the
constitutive unfa(iliarity of ethnographic &ata :alterity:7
It is (y contention in this paper that the i&ea that ethnography can
*oth constitute :evi&ence: an& *e an in&e; of :alterity: is in a crucial
sense incoherent' an& that (uch anthropological argu(ent is hostage
to this (u&&le7 /ince I ta9e it that a concern 1ith alterity as outline&
a*ove lies at the heart of anthropological thin9ing (although (y
argu(ent &oes not &epen& on the stronger clai( that alterity (ust *e
the only concern of anthropology#' it 1oul& follo1 that the notion of
ethnographic evi&ence reCuires revision7 In the (ain *o&y of the
paper this is &one 1ith reference to prue*as an& 1hat Jorge ha& to
say a*out the(7 As 1ill *e e;plaine&' notions of prue*as are *oth
close enough to anthropological i&eas a*out evi&ence to 1arrant
co(parison' an& &i<erent enough fro( the( to occasion a revision7
5efore getting to this' ho1ever' it is necessary to (a9e clear 1hy
anthropologists: Point concern 1ith evi&ence an& alterity is incoherent7
The issue' I argue' turns on ho1 one interprets the notion of alterity7
As 1e sa1' alterity can *e articulate& in for(al ter(s (rather than
cultural or psychological ones# as an apparent &ivergence *et1een
ethnographic &ata an& the assu(ptions that are ta9en as initial for
purposes of analysis7 Vor e;a(ple' Jorge:s story is :alter: since' as 1e
shall see in (ore &etail' it appears to negate a nu(*er of co((on
assu(ptions a*out the nature of evi&ence' (uch li9e' say' for +auss
the ethnography of +aori e;change see(e& to negate co((on
assu(ptions a*out the (ar9et' or for 3vans"Eritchar& Xan&e
1itchcraft see(e& to negate co((on assu(ptions a*out causation7
2
5ut 1hat &o these apparent negations a(ount toK .ogically spea9ing'
there are t1o possi*ilities7 Jne is that the apparent negations are
in&ee& genuine7 Vor e;a(ple' the reason for 1hich Jorge:s story
appears to contra&ict' say' the assu(ption that hea&aches are not
cause& *y spirits (ay *e that Jorge is in fact asserting that hea&aches
are cause& *y spirits7 There is' ho1ever' an alternative possi*ility7 The
appearance of contra&iction *et1een Jorge:s co((ents an& our initial
assu(ptions (ay Pust as 1ell *e &ue to (isun&erstan&ing7 Jorge (ay
appear to *e asserting that hea&aches are cause& *y spirits *ut (ay
in fact *e saying so(ething Cuite &i<erent = so(ething 1e fail to
grasp' not *ecause it contra&icts our assu(ptions' *ut rather *ecause
it goes *eyon& the(7 .i9e ha((ers to 1hich everything loo9s li9e
nails' 1e (ay *e thin9ing that Jorge is tal9ing a*out 1hat 1e
un&erstan& as :hea&aches:' :causation:' :spirits:' an& so on' 1hile he
(ay in fact *e attaching Cuite a &i<erent (eaning to such notions = a
(eaning that is unavaila*le to us fro( 1ithin the fra(e1or9 of our
o1n assu(ptions7 Jorge (ay' in other 1or&s' *e tal9ing not against us
*ut rather past us7
In vie1 of the &istinction *et1een the alterity of genuine negation an&
that of (isun&erstan&ing' it is plain to see that the notion of
ethnographic :evi&ence: is co(pati*le only 1ith the for(er7 Ill"
un&erstoo& &ata can har&ly serve as evi&ence that (ay :infor(: (let
alone :support:# an argu(ent7 It follo1s that if ethnography is to serve
as evi&ence' as anthropologists ha*itually assu(e' then its alterity
(ust ta9e the for( of a genuine (an& therefore straightfor1ar&#
negation of the analytical assu(ptions anthropologists ta9e for
grante& for the purposes of their argu(ents7
2hile such a for(al &e%nition of alterity (ay see( so(e1hat
technical' the strategy it &escri*es is argua*ly a very fa(iliar one in
anthropology7 Vor e;a(ple' if I 1ere to say that in this paper (y
o*Pective is to un&erstan& 1hy Jorge (ight thin9 spirits cause
hea&aches' I &ou*t (any anthropologists 1oul& *at an eyeli&7
-niversalists a(ong the( 1oul& perhaps e;pect (e to go on to
i&entify the processes (e;istential' psychological' evolutionary' or
1hat have you# that e;plain ho1 Jorge (ay have co(e to hol& such a
vie17 Relativists' on the other han&' 1oul& ten& to e;pect an ans1er
1ith reference to other local i&eas an& practices 1ith 1hich Jorge:s
vie1s (ay *e sho1n to cohere7 In either case it is assu(e& that
Jorge:s vie1s are un&erstoo& as such' so that the anthropological
pro*le( they pose is 1hy he (ight hol& the(7
I suggest that this assu(ption is *oth un1arrante& an& pernicious7 It
is un1arrante& *ecause' as 1e have seen' there is an alternative to
assu(ing that the content of ethnography is un&erstoo&' na(ely that
it is not7 In fact' the i&ea that the alterity of ethnography (ust lie in
its negation of our o1n assu(ptions s(ac9s of a cri(e (ost
anthropologists = universalists an& relativists ali9e = proclai( as
capital' na(ely ethnocentris(7 If the fallacy of ethnocentris( turns
on rea&ing onto another :ethnos: (or :culture:# assu(ptions &ra1n
fro( one:s o1n' at issue here is a si(ilar proPection7 The ethnographic
&og' i(agine& as the locus of alterity' is in fact 1agge& *y the tail of
the analyst:s o1n assu(ptions' al*eit *y negation7 +oreover' 1hat
(a9es this fallacy of :negative proPection: particularly pernicious is
that 1hat it proPects onto ethnography = i7e7 onto people li9e Jorge = is
essentially falsehoo&7 Jn this vie1' after all' ethnography poses
analytical pro*le(s Pust *ecause it negates 1hat 1e' for 1hatever
analytical reason' ta9e to *e true (e7g7 1hy (ight Jorge thin9 that
hea&aches are cause& *y spirits' given that' as 1e assu(e' they &o
notK#7 /(arter"than"thou chauvinis(' fairly ta9en as the *runt of
ethnocentric sin' here e(erges as a constitutive principle of
anthropological reasoning7
!
/o' provi&e& one 1ishes to avoi& the un1arrante& assu(ption that
1hat (a9es the people 1e stu&y interesting is that they get things
1rong' 1e are left 1ith the i&ea that' far fro( constituting evi&ence'
ethnographic &ata consist in (isun&erstan&ings7 The Po* of
anthropological analysis' then' is not to account for 1hy ethnographic
&ata are as they are' *ut rather to un&erstan& 1hat they are = instea&
of e;planation or interpretation' 1hat is calle& for is
conceptualiUation7 An& note that such a tas9 e<ectively inverts the
very proPect of anthropological analysis7 Rather than using our o1n
analytical concepts to (a9e sense of a given ethnography
(e;planation' interpretation#' 1e use the ethnography to rethin9 our
analytical concepts (see also )orsQn Ji(?neU Y 2illerslev 200Z[
,enare' ,ol*raa& Y 2astell 200Z[ Niveiros &e )astro 200!#7 This
follo1s &irectly fro( the for(al &e%nition of the pro*le( of alterity7 If
our (isun&erstan&ings of ethnography ste( fro( the fact that it is
incongruous 1ith the assu(ptions 1e ta9e as initial' then it (ust *e
those assu(ptions that reCuire analytical attention7
Vurther(ore' the fact that these initial assu(ptions lea& us to
(isrepresent ethnographic &ata as a series of falsehoo&s (i7e7
negations of assu(ptions 1e ta9e to *e true# suggests an appropriate
(etho& for the 1or9 of conceptualiUation' na(ely that of altering
those assu(ptions in such a 1ay as to arrive at the position of *eing
a*le to represent the ethnographic &ata as truths7 If' for e;a(ple' the
assu(ption that spirits &o not cause hea&aches lea&s (e to
(isrepresent Jorge as clai(ing the opposite' then the onus is on (e
to rethin9 (y assu(ptions a*out spirits' causation' hea&aches (an&
their relevant corollaries# in a 1ay that 1oul& allo1 (e to for(ulate
Jorge:s vie1s as state(ents of truth7 /o the Cuestion 1oul& *e: 1hat
(ust 1e ta9e :spirits:' :causation:' an& :hea&aches: to *e in or&er to
*e a*le to assert truly that spirits cause hea&achesK 3lse1here I have
calle& this approach :ontographic: (,ol*raa& 200!#' to in&icate that'
*y contrast to so(e ha*itual anthropological strategies' it a&&resses
alterity in ontological ter(s (e7g7 1hat is a spiritK# rather than
episte(ic ones (e7g7 1hat &o )u*ans = or 1hoever = thin9 a*out
spiritsK#7
The rest of this paper illustrates an& further e;plores such an
approach 1ith reference to the ethnography of prue*as7 Its argu(ent
serves as an e;a(ple inas(uch as prue*as present the pro*le( of
alterity in the ter(s alrea&y outline&7 As 1e shall see' 1hile the *est
translation of prue*as is :evi&ence:' Jorge:s co((ents on prue*as
(an& other relevant ethnography# conIict 1ith our co((on
un&erstan&ing of the notion of evi&ence to such an e;tent that they
appear a*sur&7 Illustrating the approach I have outline&' the latter
half of the paper see9s to reconceptualiUe the i&ea of evi&ence in
such a 1ay as to re(ove this apparent a*sur&ity7
It 1ill *e note&' ho1ever' that *y a&&ressing an ethnography of
evi&ence' the paper a&opts a strategy that coul& *e &escri*e& as
:recursive: (see also ,enare et al7 200Z: 1H#7 -nli9e other concepts
one (ight see9 to conceptualiUe anthropologically (:spirit:' :person:'
:gift:' or 1hat have you#' the concept of evi&ence pertains to the very
process of anthropological analysis' as alrea&y sho1n7 Vor' as 1ill *e
&etaile&' the assu(ptions 1ith 1hich the ethnography of prue*as
conIicts (an& 1hich ren&er the i&ea of prue*as a*sur&# are integral to
ha*itual 1ays of thin9ing a*out the role of evi&ence in anthropology7
It follo1s that if the present analysis uses the ethnography of prue*as
to rethin9 the concept of evi&ence' it also uses it' e<ectively' to
rethin9 itself= or at least its o1n evi&ential proce&ures7

Indefnite evidence
+y &ictionary translates the )astellan prue*a as :proof:' an& that is
ho1 people in )u*a often use it7 5ut Jorge' spea9ing of his prue*as'
see(s to *e &escri*ing evi&ence = the evi&ence go&s gave hi(7 If' as
1e or&inarily un&erstan& it' proof is (eant to *e an incontroverti*le
&e(onstration of a hypothesis' then Jorge:s plural usage of prue*as
(proofs# as a succession of events (:har&ly 1orth counting:# that
cu(ulatively :*rought hi( closer: to /anterQa an& the spirits see(s
re&un&ant7 In his rec9oning' go&s are not proven once an& for all = li9e
a theore( (ight *e in (athe(atics' or li9e 0o& (ight have *een for
so(e scholastic theologians = *ut rather slo1ly' as if *y a process of
in&uction' or perhaps' to s1itch fro( logical analogies to legal ones'
*y &eposition (see 0oo&' this volu(e#7 In either case (in&uction or
&eposition#' 1hat is at issue is not proof *ut evi&ence' un&erstoo& as
facts that len& a hypothesis support (see' e7g7' ,o1son 2000#7 Jorge'
one (ight sur(ise' is spea9ing loosely' (uch li9e I &o 1hen I say that
(y 9ettle :proves: that 1ater *oils at 100\' or that our ina*ility to %n&
1eapons of (ass &estruction in IraC :prove&: that /a&&a( &i& not
have the( an& therefore = (ore loosely = that the 1ar in IraC 1as
illegal7
The i(pulse that (a9es us thin9 of Jorge:s (in& as a 9in& of la* or
courtroo( allo1s us to assu(e the sa(e of anthropology7 In&ee&' the
scienti%c analogy is particularly intuitive to anthropologists' as the
institute& aggran&ise(ent of the &iscipline as a :social science:
in&icates = hac9neye& o*Pections not1ithstan&ing (e7g7 0eertU 2000[
/per*er 18H' for critical co((ent see /trathern 200H: !!"4#7 Jur
notion of evi&ence is integral to the intuition7 Anthropology is
scienti%c (ainly inas(uch as it a&(its ethnographic evi&ence that
(ay o<er support for theoretical hypotheses7 2hen 3rnest 0ellner
1rote' fro( the *or&ers of anthropology an& philosophy' of the
:legiti(ation of *elief:' he also ha& in (in& the (erits of ethnographic
legiti(ation for theoretical *elief (0ellner 1Z4: 14"4Z#7 In &oing so'
he 1as fortifying a connection (self"evi&ent to hi(# *et1een
anthropologists: interest in ethnographic particulars an& philosophers:
concern 1ith the rigours of evi&ence in science = concerns 1ith
veri%cation' falsi%cation' pre&iction' an& so forth7
4
/o' on this pre(ise'
if Jorge:s prue*as can *e translate& as :evi&ence: *y analogy to
9ettles an& *oiling"points' it can &o so *y analogy to anthropology
too7
It 1oul& see(' then' that Jorge:s interest in the evi&ence the go&s
give hi( is *asically si(ilar to the evi&ence he an& other :infor(ants:
(ay give to us a*out' say (an& this is 1here (y argu(ent turns
recursive#' the concept of evi&ence itself7 2e hypothesiUe that Jorge:s
notion of prue*as concerns the relationship *et1een a hypothesis an&
its evi&ence7 Jur hypothesis to this e<ect is suppose& to *e
supporte& *y (y ethnographic vignettes a*out Jorge on prue*as7 Vor
is he not &oing the sa(e thingK In his case the hypothesis in Cuestion
regar&s the eWcacy of the go&s at the %rst instance an& (ay*e' *y
i(plication' their e;istence7 The evi&ence' cu(ulative in character' is
the prue*as: JchOn:s help 1ith the house s1ap' the hea&aches
cause& *y spirits an& the santera:s cure' an& all the help the santos
have given Jorge since his initiation7 If' as I(re .a9atos put it' :the
hall(ar9 of scienti%c *ehaviour is a certain scepticis( even to1ar&s
one:s (ost cherishe& theories: (1Z8: 1#' then Jorge:s approach to his
go&s has so(ething of science a*out it7
Vor .a9atos' ho1ever' such a co(parison' though apposite' &oes not
serve to elevate Jorge:s concerns 1ith prue*as as scienti%c' *ut only
to &enigrate scientists: concerns 1ith evi&ence as superstitious7 In the
fa(ous lecture fro( 1hich the Cuotation is ta9en' title& :/cience an&
pseu&oscience:' .a9atos (a9es a point of refuting the i&ea that
1illingness to provi&e evi&ence for hypotheses (ay in itself Cualify as
the 9in& of :scepticis(: he consi&ers the hall(ar9 of science7
Eertinently' the &iscussion is set up 1ith 1itchcraft in (in&: :If 1e loo9
at the vast seventeenth"century literature on 1itchcraft' it is full of
reports of careful o*servations an& s1orn evi&ence = even of
e;peri(ents7 0lanvill' the house philosopher of the Royal /ociety'
regar&e& 1itchcraft as the para&ig( of e;peri(ental reasoning:
(.a9atos 1Z8: 2#7 5astar& sisters spring to (in&: as for VraUer'
.a9atos:s assu(ption is that 0lanvill:s concern 1ith evi&ence coul&
only ever *e pseu&oscienti%c (cf7 VraUer 111#7 5ut 1hile for VraUer
1hat (a&e the co(parison *et1een science an& 1itchcraft via*le
1as partly their co((on appeal to evi&ence' for .a9atos appeals to
evi&ence 1ere e;actly 1hat (a&e 1itchcraft suspicious fro( 1hat he
1oul& 1ant to &ee( a properly scienti%c point of vie17 In&ee&' 1hat is
so interesting a*out .a9atos:s argu(ent is the 1ay it attri*utes the
concern 1ith evi&ence not to a har&"nose& scienti%c outloo9' *ut
rather to an essentially theological (in&set = science as *astar& sister
of (agic' so to spea97 I Cuote hi( at length:
Jne can to&ay easily &e(onstrate that there can *e no vali&
&erivation of a la1 of nature fro( any %nite nu(*er of facts[ *ut 1e
still 9eep rea&ing a*out scienti%c theories *eing prove& fro( facts7
2hy this stu**orn resistance to ele(entary logicK There is a very
plausi*le e;planation7 /cientists 1ant to (a9e their theories
respecta*le' &eserving of the title :science:' that is' genuine
9no1le&ge7 ]o1 the (ost relevant 9no1le&ge in the seventeenth
century' 1hen science 1as *orn' concerne& 0o&' the $evil' ,eaven
an& ,ell7 If one got one:s conPectures a*out (atters of &ivinity 1rong'
the conseCuence of one:s (ista9e 1as no less than eternal
&a(nation7 Theological 9no1le&ge cannot *e falli*le: it (ust *e
*eyon& &ou*t7 ]o1 the 3nlighten(ent thought that 1e 1ere falli*le
an& ignorant a*out (atters theological7 There is no scienti%c theology
an&' therefore' no theological 9no1le&ge7 6no1le&ge can only *e
a*out ]ature' *ut this ne1 type of 9no1le&ge ha& to *e Pu&ge& *y the
stan&ar&s they too9 over straight fro( theology: it ha& to *e proven
*eyon& &ou*t7 /cience ha& to achieve the very certainty 1hich ha&
escape& theology7 A scientist' 1orthy of the na(e' 1as not allo1e& to
guess: he ha& to prove each sentence he uttere& fro( facts7 (.a9atos
1Z8: 2#
There are t1o stran&s of argu(ent here' *oth of 1hich are relevant to
Jorge:s prue*as' though for present purposes one is (ore interesting
than the other7 The less interesting point regar&s the socio"historical
psychology of persuasion' as it 1ere: caught up in the transition to
3nlighten(ent' seventeenth"century scientists: naturalis( coul& *e
(a&e respecta*le *y &ra1ing on alrea&y esta*lishe& theological
concerns 1ith proof7 A converse argu(ent coul& *e (a&e a*out
)u*ans li9e Jorge7 Insofar as the i&io( of evi&ence is peculiarly salient
in the case of Afro")u*an religion (an& this is an open ethnographic
Cuestion#' one (ay 1ish to argue that in a +ar;ist conte;t =
inci&entally' .a9atos:s conte(porary *ug*ear of :pseu&oscience:
(1Z8: !# = 1here religions li9e /anterQa have *een represse& until
recently' santeros: religiosity (ay *e a*le to curry (ore favour *y
&ra1ing on &o(inant scientistic concerns 1ith evi&ence (cf7 Eal(i?
2002#7 Vor e;a(ple' the popularity a(ong santeros &uring (y
%el&1or9 of a *oo9 1ritten *efore oWcial openings to1ar&s /anterQa
in )u*a' title& +aterialis( e;plains spiritis( an& /anterQa' *y an
author so(eti(es assu(e& to have *een a santero hi(self (0aston
Aguero 141#' (ay len& cre&ence to such a hypothesis7 An& certainly
there is no &enying the enthusias( 1ith 1hich (y infor(ants
recounte& their prue*as to (e in particular' ta9ing (e not only as a
lucrative potential neophyte (cf7 ,ol*raa& 2004#' *ut also for a
:scientist:7
,o1ever' in line 1ith .a9atos' this is not the 9in& of evi&ence in 1hich
1e can a<or& to *e intereste& here' for .a9atos:s point a*out the
theological roots of proof fro( evi&ence argua*ly has (ore
i(plications than he ha& foreseen' pointing to1ar&s a &i<erent
concept of evi&ence' an& thus leaving the &oor open for an
alternative conceptualiUation' as outline& a*ove7 In particular' 1e (ay
ta9e up his suggestion that scientists: concern 1ith evi&ential proof is
(otivate& *y &ivine stan&ar&s of in&u*ita*ility7 Vor .a9atos' the
apparent para&o; of this position is a (atter of historical contingency7
/cientists are caught *et1een t1o 1orl&s' using the te(plate of a
theological past to articulate the aspirations of a scienti%c future'
:stu**ornly resisting ele(entary logic:7 5ut leaving the historical
argu(ent to one si&e' .a9atos:s logical point relies on a clear"cut
nor(ative &istinction *et1een proof as a theological concern an&
evi&ence as scienti%c one7 ,o1ever' 1hile it (ay *e fair to charge
scientists 1ith stra&&ling that &ivi&e o;y(oronically' it certainly is not
fair to Jorge (an& presu(ing the sa(e to9en' nor is it to 0lanvill an&
the alche(ists#7 ,is interest in evi&ence is unapologetically
theological7 Var fro( see9ing to prove that unprova*le' to .a9atos:s
lights Jorge:s concern 1oul& e(erge as that of provi&ing evi&ence for
the in&u*ita*le7 5ut then Jorge:s thin9ing loo9s not (erely fallacious
*ut altogether a*sur&7 Jne can see 1hy one (ight aspire to &erive a
proof fro( evi&ence = .a9atos hi(self gives a plausi*le account7 5ut
as to 1hy one (ight conspire to provi&e evi&ence for a hypothesis
that is alrea&y &e%ne& as *eing *eyon& &ou*t' 1e are in the &ar97 If
theological 9no1le&ge is in&u*ita*le' then 1hy *other to provi&e it
1ith evi&enceK There are t1o 1ays out of this re&uctio7 3ither
theological 9no1le&ge is not in&u*ita*le or evi&ence is not 1hat is at
issue7 Jr' li(iting the argu(ent to the case in han&' either in /anterQa
the inIuence of the santos is not *eyon& &ou*t' or :evi&ence: is in
so(e crucial respect a (islea&ing translation of prue*as7 I shall argue
for the latter option7


Infnitive evidence
That the Cuestion of in&u*ita*ility is at the heart of /anterQa *eco(es
clear 1hen one consi&ers the a*i&ing role of &ivination in the life of
the cult7 Eractically all aspects of 1orship' fro( inci&ental appeals to
the santos to help solve every&ay pro*le(s (li9e Jorge:s hea&aches#
to soliciting &ivine sanction for the perfor(ance of i(portant
cere(onies (such as the consecration of neophytes' as in Jorge:s
:*irth: as a santero# reCuire the &isclosure of the santos: 1ill through
&ivination (,ol*raa& 200H[ in press#7 In&ee&' 1orshippers: ascent
through a series of initiatory steps is largely (easure& against a scale
of &ivinatory e;pertise' starting 1ith 9no1le&ge of the ru&i(entary
coconut"shell oracle (los cocos# that all 1orshippers are free to use for
their o1n *ene%t' through the co1ry oracle (los caracoles' &iluggOn#
that only fully initiate& santeros are taught to use for the(selves or
for clients' an& up to the (ost prestigious oracle' that of IfT' 1hich
reCuires a special initiation reserve& for heterose;ual (en 1ho are
chosen as :fathers of secrets: (*a*ala1os# *y Jrula' the patron &eity
of &ivination' through the oracle of IfT itself7
That &ivination shoul& *e so i(portant in the life of 1orshippers
in&icates the essentially :prag(atic: character of /anterQa7 As is often
re(ar9e& in the literature' /anterQa has al(ost no eschatology' its
i(peratives are &eci&e&ly practical rather than categorical' an& even
its re(ar9a*ly rich (ythology is interesting to 1orshippers (ainly as
a gui&e for the perfor(ance of 1hat they call :1or9s: (tra*aPos# =
often glosse& as 1itchcraft (*ruPerQa# (see' e7g7' .achata^ere 141
contra JrtQU 104' cf7 0ol&(an 200H#7 $ivination is integral to this
here"an&"no1 orientation' since it provi&es the principal (eans *y
1hich 1orshippers can gauge the 1ill of the santos regar&ing their
particular concerns' fro( house (oves an& hea&aches to initiations
an& funerary rites7 In fact' it is precisely the pertinence of the santos:
&ivinatory pronounce(ents that 1orshippers (ost typically have in
(in& 1hen' li9e Jorge' they spea9 so enthusiastically a*out the
prue*as they have ha&7 Inas(uch as it is through &ivination that the
go&s typically spea9' it follo1s that evi&ence that 1hat they say
co(es to pass is evi&ence for the eWcacy of the oracles7 $ivination
posits hypotheses' it 1oul& see(' an& prue*as con%r( the(7
]otice' ho1ever' ho1 peculiar these :hypotheses: are7 As &iviners
the(selves e(phasiUe' oracles are reCuire& to ar*itrate on so (any
aspects of 1orshippers: lives precisely *ecause their pronounce(ents
are *eyon& &ou*t7 In &ivination' they often say' the santos:never lie:
an& they :never (a9e (ista9es:7 $iviners the(selves (ay certainly
&o so = since they are :i(perfect hu(ans:' as one practitioner put it =
*ut not the santos 1ho spea9 through the(7 5ut if in /anterQa false
&ivinations are logical o;y(orons' it follo1s that &ivination here is
&e%ne& as in&u*ita*le7 To &ou*t the truth of a &ivination is to &ou*t
1hether it is really a proper &ivination' since proper &ivinations
cannot *ut *e true (see also ,ol*raa& 200!#7
/o 1e are left 1ith the Cuestion: 1hy the santeros: apparently
re&un&ant interest in prue*asK 0iven that' as 1e sa1' provi&ing
evi&ence for the in&u*ita*le is a*sur&' a possi*le suggestion 1oul& *e
that prue*as are relevant to the one Cuestion that &oes a&(it of
&ou*t in these (atters' na(ely 1hether any particular &ivination is a
genuine one7 Jn such a vie1' the (ore truth one %n&s = accu(ulating
prue*as li9e Jorge' 1ho has :ha& so (any:= the (ore groun&s one has
for *elieving that its origin is &ivine' the tra&e(ar9 of &ivinity *eing'
precisely' truth7 That such a solution to the conun&ru( co((its
1orshippers li9e Jorge to the in&uctive fallacy (> la .a9atos' piling up
the evi&ence as if it prove& so(ething# is perhaps e;cusa*le7 The real
pro*le( is that the clai( is ethnographically untena*le7 As Jorge
in&icates at the very outset of his story' his prue*as fuel his love of
the santos' not of the santeros_ In&ee& in his %rst story' a*out the
house (ove' &ou*tful hu(an (e&iation &oes not feature at all[ it is
JchOn:s &ivine po1er that the prue*as are (eant to &e(onstrate7
2e are left 1ith the a*sur&ity of evi&ence7 In line 1ith the
intro&uctory co((ents to this paper' the onus is upon us to
reconsi&er the pre(ises of such a notion' changing our
conceptualiUation of evi&ence in light of the ethnography of prue*as7
The 9ey for &oing so' I argue' lies in the relationship *et1een prue*as
an& &ivination' since it is in this connection that the a*sur&ity of
provi&ing evi&ence for in&u*ita*le truth e(erges7 In&ee&' the nee& to
reconceptualiUe evi&ence in this conte;t is o1e& to the fact that the
concept of truth itself in /anterQa &ivination &eparts ra&ically fro(
co((on"sense assu(ptions a*out truth7
As I have argue& in (ore &etail else1here' &ivinatory truths present a
pro*le( (that of alterity# *ecause' although practitioners &e%ne the(
as in&u*ita*le' they see( to ta9e the for( of or&inary state(ents of
fact = i7e7 state(ents that can *e &ou*te& 1ith reference to facts
(,ol*raa& 200!#7 Vor e;a(ple' the truth of the santera:s
pronounce(ent that Jorge:s ho(e 1as occupie& *y spirits appears to
&epen& on 1hether Jorge:s Iat 1as in fact occupie& *y spirits = a
&ou*tful (atter' to say the least7
H
,o1ever' this apparent
contra&iction &epen&s on our assu(ption that the santera is (a9ing
1hat philosophers call a :pre&icative: state(ent' that is' that 1hat she
is &oing is :ascri*ing a property: to his house (the property of *eing
occupie& *y spirits#' in the sense 6night an& Astuti &iscuss in their
contri*ution to this volu(e7 -n&er such an interpretation' the i&ea
that &ivinatory pronounce(ents are in&u*ita*le appears &og(atic =
as if' *y cultural %at' 1hat (a9es such pronounce(ents in&u*ita*le is
the fact that they are pronounce& *y a &iviner7
4
5ut 1hat 9in& of truth
is this that can *e *rought a*out *y a (ere speech"actK
To avoi& the i(putation of native &og(atis(' I have argue&' 1e nee&
to (ove a1ay fro( the assu(ption that the truth of &ivinatory
state(ents is (eant to *e pre&icative' for an alternative 1oul& *e to
treat the( not as state(ents of fact *ut rather as &e%nitions7 Jn such
a vie1' the truths of &ivination are to *e un&erstoo& not in episte(ic
ter(s' as :representations: that (a9e clai(s :a*out: the 1orl&' *ut
rather as ontological operations7 /o' for e;a(ple' 1hen the santera
says that Jorge:s Iat is occupie& *y spirits' she is not (a9ing a clai(
a*out an alrea&y e;isting state of a<airs7 /he is *ringing such a state
of a<airs a*out' pronouncing a change in :the 1orl&:s furniture:' to use
the ontologists: e;pression: Jorge:s ho(e is re&e%ne& as one occupie&
*y (alevolent spirits' his hea&aches are re&e%ne& as cause& *y the
spirits' the spirits the(selves are re&e%ne& as vulnera*le to the
santera:s e;pert cleansing' an& so on7 $ivinatory po1er' then' resi&es
in the possi*ility of inventing entities through acts of &e%nition7
Vollo1ing a suggestion *y 3&uar&o Niveiros &e )astro (pers7 co((7#' I
propose to call these acts of inventive &e%nition :in%nitions:7
/horthan& for :inventive &e%nition: (cf7 ,ol*raa& in press#' the ter(
1oul& also in&icate that such acts presuppose that entities are in%nite
in their potential for transfor(ation through re&e%nition
Z
= their only
constancy is that they are un&er per(anent ontological
reconstruction7
Eositing &ivinatory pronounce(ents as in%nitions gets us out of
i(puting &og(atis( to the santeros7 In%nitions are in&u*ita*le
*ecause they are true *y &e%nition' rather li9e the state(ents
philosophers call :analytic: (e7g7 :*achelors are un(arrie& (en:#7
]evertheless' the i&ea that in%nitions ((ere speech"acts li9e :your
ho(e has spirits in it:# can have properly ontological e<ects (ay
soun& (ystical or' 1orse' :constructivist:7 Is it really cre&i*le to say
that Jorge:s ho(e can *e *rought forth as a ne1 entity (one that is
occupie& *y spirits# Pust on a santera:s say"soK Is this not (erely to
elevate the very a*sur&ity of &ivination as an analytical principleK 5y
1ay of &efence' I propose to &e(onstrate that the i&ea of :in%nition: is
not as logically a*horrent as it perhaps soun&s7 As 1e shall see'
&elving into the logic of in%nition also *rings us closer to
conceptualiUing prue*as7
)onsi&er 1hat I a( &oing right no17 /tringing (eanings together
(:&e%nition:' :ontology:' :e<ect:' etc7#' I a( proposing that you ta9e on
*oar& a ne1 concept' appropriately christene& 1ith a ne1 na(e
=:in%nition:7 3ven if you see no sense in this ne1 concept' surely you
can accept that it is at least conceiva*le that it (ay (a9e sense as
such (unless you are a Elatonist' in 1hich case you see any sense the
concept (a9es as proof of its prior e;istence as an i((uta*le Vor(#7
In (non"Elatonic# principle' then' you accept the possi*ility of
conceptual novelty7 Sou (ay even agree that the history of i&eas is
(a&e of such instances of conceptual invention = e7g7 1ho ha&
thought of a Vor( *efore ElatoK In&ee&' those philosophers 1ho have
follo1e& ]ietUsche in thin9ing of philosophy as an :unti(ely:
enterprise have sought to theoriUe this possi*ility of conceptual
invention (e7g7 $eleuUe 14[ ,ei&egger 148[ cf7 ]ietUsche 1Z#7
An& so have anthropologists 1ho see the creation of ne1 (eanings
not Pust as a philosophical prerogative' *ut as an irre&uci*le aspect of
social living (e7g7 Ar&ener 18[ .atour 1[ /trathern 1[ Niveiros
&e )astro 2002[ 2agner 181#7
]o1' 1hy clai( that in%nitions (ust ipso facto have ontological
e<ects' *ringing forth the o*Pects they &e%ne as e;isting entitiesK
8
2ell' consi&er the alternatives7 Jne 1oul& *e to clai( that 1hen I'
say' &e%ne in%nitions as inventions of ne1 concepts' I a( (erely
giving a na(e to a pheno(enon that alrea&y e;ists = in&ee&' ho1
else coul& I appeal to Elato an& his Vor(s as a convincing prece&ent
of 1hat I have in (in&K 5ut this is contra&ictory7 If in%nitions alrea&y
e;ist' then they &o not e;ist as ne1 concepts' 1hich is 1hat they are
&e%ne& as7 In%nitions (ay *e logically Cuir9y' *ut not as Cuir9y as
having the capacity to pre"e;ist the(selves7
The other alternative 1oul& *e to clai( that the concepts that
in%nitions inaugurate (ay 1ell *e Pust that' (ere concepts7 Jn this
vie1' in%nitions are treate& on a par 1ith :unicorn:' :the gol&en
(ountain: ' or :the current 6ing of Vrance:' as at (ost senses 1ith no
reference' in philosophical parlance (e7g7 Vrege 180#' an& hence their
purporte& ontological e<ects are' Cuite literally' fanciful7 5ut
appealing as it (ay *e to a co((on"sense vie1point that 1oul&
&ee( &iviners: in%nitions as unicorn"li9e psyche&elia' such a (ove is
a thro1*ac9 to the episte(ic fra(e' 1hich insists on treating
concepts as :representations: (here rea& :sense:# to *e contraste& to
:the 1orl&: (here rea& :reference:#7 Apart fro( the Cuestion"*egging'
the pro*le( here is that treating in%nitions as representations
i(plicitly pastes over their putative novelty7 If one assu(es that the
ontological e<ects of in%nitions (ust *e (easure& against the 1orl&
of :evi&ence: that gives the( their episte(ic purchase' then one
preclu&es novelty on t1o counts7 Vor one thing' the 1orl& to 1hich
in%nitions (ight refer is presu(e& to *e alrea&y given (as an
evi&ential *ench(ar9' so to spea9#' so any Cuestion of their
ontological e<ects upon such a :1orl&: is alrea&y foreclose&7 5ut (ore
to the point' such episte(ic lit(us tests (:&oes the ne1 concept refer
to an e;isting entity or notK:# also i(plicitly &eny the novelty of the
concepts they purport to (easure against the 1orl&7 The suggestion
that an in%nition (ight not' as it turns out' have a referent gives
logical priority to the putatively ne1 concept (rea& :representation:#
over the 1orl& to 1hich it (ay or (ay not refer a posteriori7 Thus for
the Cuestion of an in%nition:s reference even to *e raise&' the
suppose& novel concept (ust *e ta9en as alrea&y given' that is' its
novelty' Cua in%nition' (ust *e e<ace&7
Erovi&e& this re&uctio of the alternatives is fair an& the alternatives
are e;haustive' it follo1s that *y accepting the notion of a ne1
concept 1e 1illy"nilly accept that such ne1 concepts (ust have
ontological e<ects = they (ust *ring forth' into e;istence' the entities
they in%ne7 ]o1 I 1ant to argue that such a (ove allo1s us to (a9e
sense not only of the santeros: clai( that 1hat their go&s say is
in&u*ita*le' as 1e have seen' *ut also of their apparently para&o;ical
insistence that these in&u*ita*le truths nevertheless a&(it of a 9in&
of con%r(ation = I 1ill not say evi&ence_ = *y prue*as7
A chief reason' perhaps' for 1hich one is te(pte& to %n& the i&ea of
in%nition psyche&elic is 1hat one (ight call its hyper"no(inalis(7

If
no(inalis(' loosely' is the thesis that every thing is itself an& nothing
other than itself' then in%nitions are hyper"no(inalist inas(uch as
they are the(selves an& nothing other Cua ne1 concepts' an&
novelty' as 1e have seen' 1ears o< Cuic9ly7 ]o sooner has Jorge:s Iat
*een in%ne& as occupie& *y spirits than the in%nition *eco(es
unavaila*le for a posteriori testing' so to spea9' lest its novelty
&isappear7 In%nitions pertain to the (o(ent of 1hat Roy 2agner has
calle& :invention: (181#7 In&ee& they are such (o(ents7 This
te(poral hyper"no(inalis(' I 1oul& suggest' has &irect i(plications
for the Cuestion of 1hat (ay count as a :con%r(ation: of an in%nition'
that is' for the Cuestion of prue*as7
If 1hat a posteriori evi&ence tests is the episte(ic purchase of a
representation upon the 1orl&' then at issue for in%nitions (ust *e
so(ething li9e an :ontological purchase:7 Return to the e;a(ple7 As an
in%nition' the santera:s &ivination *rought Jorge:s spirit"infeste& ho(e
forth as a ne1 entity7 It follo1s that its con%r(ation is the e;istence of
Jorge:s ho(e as such an entity' for e;a(ple as one that can *e
cleanse& ritually so as to cure Jorge:s hea&aches7 ,o1ever' Jorge:s
cure& hea&aches cannot *e construe& as :evi&ence: for the e;istence
of his ne1ly &e%ne& house"of"spirits' since' as 1e sa1' in%nitions &o
not a&(it of evi&ence' at pain of evaporating into thin (episte(ic# air7
In&ee&' since an in%nition &oes not outlast its o1n novelty (na(ely it
&oes not outlast itself#' it 1oul& follo1 that the only 1ay to con%r( its
ontological purchase is to re"enact it: an in%nition:s :test: can only *e
a further in%nition7 In a logical universe 1here entities are un&er
per(anent ontological construction' as 1e have sai&' their e;istence
Cua constructions only has purchase inas(uch as they *eco(e
i(plicate& in further acts of construction7 An& such acts of further
construction = in%nitions in their o1n right =:con%r(: the e;istence of
the in%nitions they transfor( *y sho1ing that they can in&ee& *e
engage& as transfor(ations= ta9ing the(' as it 1ere' for an
ontological spin7 Eut in t1entieth"century pop science ter(s: 1ith
in%nitions' to 9no1 so(ething really is to change it7
That' then' is ho1 prue*as 1or97 The cure of Jorge:s hea&aches
con%r(e& the santera:s &ivination a*out the spirits not *ecause it
provi&e& evi&ence that it 1as :correct:' *ut *ecause it too9 the entity
in%ne& *y the &ivination = Jorge:s house"of"spirits = as the *aseline for
an act of further in%nition' na(ely that of the cure itself7 Vor' Pust li9e
the &ivination transfor(e& a see(ingly :or&inary: house into one
occupie& *y spirits' so its prue*a transfor(e& the alleviation of Jorge:s
pain into an event of spiritual signi%cance: not si(ply a
&isappearance of hea&aches *ut a :cure"of"spiritual"inIuence:7 The
ontological purchase of the latter in%nition (the e;istence of Jorge:s
cure of spiritual inIuence# con%r(s that of the for(er' since it is *y
appealing to the santera:s in%nition of his ho(e that Jorge is a*le to
in%ne his alleviation as a cure of spiritual proportions7 5ut note that
this con%r(ation is not a (atter of :coherence:' as it (ight *e
articulate& 1ere one to thin9 of the in%nitions episte(ically as
representations or' as it is sai&' :*eliefs: (e7g7 3vans"Eritchar& 1Z4[
see also 6eane' this volu(e#7 Jorge:s cure con%r(s the pernicious
spirits in his house not *y (erely presupposing their previous
e;istence' *ut *y actively transfor(ing it = in this case *y re(oving
the spirits fro( the house through the cleansing ritual7 ,is prue*a
ta9es the for( of an in%nition that is not Pust precipitate& *y the
in%nitions of the &ivination' *ut also (an& *y that virtue# acts to
transfor( the(7
In this sense the relationship *et1een &ivination an& prue*as' 1hich
so loo9e& li9e that *et1een :hypotheses: an& :evi&ence:' elevates the
afore(entione& :prag(atis(: of /anterQa to the level of logic7 The
logic of /anterQa practice' if you li9e' is that logic is practical' or even
:prag(atical:= to follo1 the 0ree9 association of actions (pra;es# 1ith
things (prag(ata#' as in%nitions &o7 The fact that /anterQa is so
orientate& to the here an& no1' ren&ering &octrinal or cos(ologically
speculative concerns su*servient to :1or9: (:1itchcraft:#' is not a
(atter of ar*itrary local convention7 /uch an orientation is a function
of its :in%nitive: logic7 In place of in&uction (rea& evi&ence#' &e&uction
(rea& proof#' a*&uction (rea& hypothesis#' or 1hat have you' the logic
of /anterQa posits pro&uction' un&erstoo& as the activity of ontological
transfor(ation that in%nition involves7 In&ee&' it is for this reason that
practitioners: interest in prue*as is far fro( a*sur&' as it 1oul& have
to *e if it 1ere glosse& as a (atter of provi&ing :evi&ence: for the
go&s: in&u*ita*le truths7 The pro*le( there' as 1e sa1' 1as that
evi&ence is logically re&un&ant in the face of in&u*ita*ility7
)ontrastingly' if prue*as are recogniUe& as in%nitions' far fro(
re&un&ant' they e(erge as an in&ispensa*le constituent of the logic
of 1orship' for' as 1e have seen' prue*as are e<ectively a
conco(itant of the te(poral hyper"no(inalis( of in%nition7 3ven if
provi&ing evi&ence for &ivinations 1ere not a*sur&' it 1oul& certainly
*e optional = representations &o not as such &epen& on the provision
of evi&ence for their e;istence7 In%nitions' on the other han&' e;ist *y
virtue of *eing i(plicate& in further acts of transfor(ation' an& that is
1hat (a9es prue*as not only logically sensi*le *ut also prag(atically
necessary7
The in%nitive logic of /anterQa has far"reaching i(plications' an&
charting these in &iverse areas of 1orshippers: lives is (y ongoing
proPect7 That such a proPect shoul& re(ain ongoing follo1s fro( its
o1n in%nitive character = a (eta"anthropological point raise& in the
conclusion of this paper7 5efore &oing so' ho1ever' 1e (ay note
so(e of the &ivi&en&s of such an analysis' %rst for Jorge:s story' an&
then a *it *eyon&7
Jorge:s account' 1e note&' can *e rea& as one of personal conversion7
Vro( a position of relative in&i<erence four years ago at the
sanctuary of the 3l )o*re in /antiago' his prue*as helpe& hi( get to
1here he is to&ay' a prou& initiate cele*rating his :*irth&ay:7 ]o1'
anthropological accounts often present conversion as a (atter of
:persuasion: or at least as so(e 9in& of change in people:s :*eliefs:=
an approach that ta9es o< fro( the 9in&s of :episte(ic: assu(ptions
1e have sought to &iscar& here' an& 1hich 1ere no &ou*t central to
Erotestant (issionaries: thin9ing on the (atter (cf7 2hitehouse 2000#7
,o1ever' the e(phasis Jorge places on the role of prue*as in
precipitating his initiation 1oul& suggest other1ise7 Vor if initiation
itself can fairly *e thought of as the apogee of ontological
transfor(ation = an& 1hat *etter (etaphor for *ringing forth ne1
entities than :*irth:' 1hich is ho1 santeros conceptualiUe neophytes:
initiation (see a*ove an& ,ol*raa& in press# = then Jorge:s notion that
his prue*as' in his 1or&s' :*rought Lhi(M closer to /anterQa an& the
spirits: (a9es perfect in%nitive sense7 As in%nitions in their o1n right'
prue*as *rought Jorge closer to initiation not *y :convincing: hi( that
it (ay *e a goo& i&ea' *ut *y i(plicating hi( into the 1orl& of the
santos through successive acts of ontological reconstruction7
Initiation' then' co(es as a consu((ation of a longer traPectory of
transfor(ation 1ith 1hich it is logically continuous7 In&ee&' in this
conte;t' the ostentation of the initiate:s cele*ratory trono &isplay'
1hich allo1e& Jorge in the intervie1 literally to point to his santos as
in&icators *oth of his prue*as an& of his conversion' illustrates (no'
constitutes# the ontological pro&uctivity of this traPectory in
appropriately :prag(atical: ter(s = pots' stones' an& other *eautiful
regalia *eing the prag(ata of the santos (see also ,ol*raa& 200Z#7
Jf course' Jorge:s story happens to *e a happy one7 In fact' (uch li9e
3vans"Eritchar& sho1e& for the AUan&e (1Z4: 1H4"4!#' in /anterQa
&issatisfaction 1ith &ivinations is far fro( unco((on7 ,orror stories
a*oun& in /anterQa pro*a*ly as (uch as those of prue*as' 1ith
people freCuently la(enting ho1 far &ivinations they 1ere given
&iverge& fro( ho1 things turne& out to *e7 )onsi&ering that oracles in
/anterQa are infalli*le' it (ay not *e surprising that such &ivergences
provo9e reactions ranging fro( confusion to in&ignation' an& can
so(eti(es cause consi&era*le &istress7 Vor e;a(ple' this is 1hat a
young 1o(an tol& (e after a long an& particularly i(portant
&ivinatory s?ance (itT#' con&ucte& for her as part of an initiatory
cere(ony:
It 1as terri*le7 LThe &ivinersM sai& (any things that have nothing to
&o 1ith (e 777 That I 1ill never prosper until I 9neel at (y (other:s
feet an& as9 for her forgiveness7 2hat is thatK I:ve spent the past
hour tal9ing an& crying 1ith (y (u(' trying to 1or9 out 1hat I:ve
&one to her7 I as9e& her for her forgiveness *ut she &i&n:t give it
*ecause I haven:t &one anything_ 2e:ve al1ays *een so close' an&
none of this is going to change that7
Tra&itionally' anthropologists 9een to (a9e sense of native :*elief
syste(s:' so calle&' have felt that such stories pose a pro*le(7
In&ee&' if one assu(es that the &iviners: state(ent is *est construe&
as a representation of the 1o(an:s relationship to her (other' then
her vehe(ent &enials are certainly pro*le(atic: the 1o(an appears
not to *elieve in the &ivination' so' inas(uch as &ivination is
construe& as part of the local syste( of *elief' such a case reCuires
e;planation7 Ingenious analytical foot1or9 such as 3vans"
Eritchar&:s:secon&ary ela*orations of *elief: is then pro&uce& (1Z4:
1HH#7
10
,o1ever' an analysis *ase& on :in%nitive: logic &issolves the pro*le(7
This is a point in its favour' I ta9e it' since the 1hole point is that for
the natives such cases' &istressing as they (ay *e' pose no
:pro*le(:= or not' at least' the 9in& of :crisis of representation: that
lur9s un&erneath anthropologists: 1orry that &ivination (ight *e
sho1n up as a sha( to the natives the(selves7 Jn an in%nitive
account' the 1o(an:s &ivinatory %asco is articulate& not as a (atter
of the 1orl& giving the lie to the &ivination' *ut rather as a refusal on
the 1o(an:s part to accept the oracle:s reinvention of her7 The notion
of :acceptance: is of course use& a&vise&ly here7 At issue is not so(e
9in& of &isagree(ent *et1een neophyte an& priest (:you (ay say I
o1e (y (other an apology' *ut I &on:t accept that:#' *ut rather a
(ore literal = or at least :prag(atical:= sense of :acceptance:7 The
1o(an &oes not :ta9e: the &iviner:s in%nition of her inas(uch as she
refuses to use it as the *asis for further acts of in%nition7 ]othing is
going to change her closeness 1ith her (other' she says7 /uch
stances pose no analytical pro*le( since they are alrea&y i(plicit in a
hyper"no(inalist characteriUation of &ivinations' 1hich pre(ises their
purchase not upon accurate &epiction' *ut upon ongoing acts of
transfor(ation7 In &ivinatory %ascos the oracle:s in%nitions are si(ply
allo1e& to &issipate out of e;istence7 /o in response to the classical
1orry a*out ho1 people can continue to practise &ivination in the
face of its (any failures' 1e (ay Pust note that there is no a*sur&ity
in allo1ing so(e in%nitions to &rop out of the 1orl&' 1hile *uil&ing
1hole lives on others7 In%nitions (a9e no :clai(: on the 1orl&' for
they parta9e of it7

Anthropological evidence
Anthropology' too' parta9es of the 1orl&7 Jr so the present (o&e of
analysis 1oul& see9 to &e(onstrate7 At the outset of this paper 1e
raise& the possi*ility that the ethnography of prue*as coul& serve as
a lever for transfor(ing anthropological assu(ptions a*out the nature
of ethnographic evi&ence7 The ho(ology *et1een anthropologists:
concept of evi&ence an& santeros: concept of prue*as suggeste& this
possi*ility' 1hile their &i<erence (a&e it 1orth pursuing7 0iven its
su*Pect (atter' it 1as propose&' such an approach 1oul& in this case
have to *e :recursive:7 /ince anthropologists 1oul& assu(e that the
relationship *et1een ethnographic (aterial (such as )u*an notions of
prue*as# an& anthropological analysis (such as the notion of
:evi&ence:# is itself evi&ential' the (erits of transfor(ing the latter in
light of the for(er 1oul& have to *e *orne out in the act7 An
evi&ential account of ho1 the notion of anthropological evi&ence
coul& *e cashe& in coul& har&ly reco((en& itself7
(RESUE! AR"UE!T#$/o the strategy of this paper instantiates
its argu(ent7 2e *egan *y testing evi&entially the hypothesis that
the notion of :evi&ence: captures Jorge:s concern 1ith prue*as7 This'
1e foun&' 1oul& ren&er Jorge:s concern a*sur&' since the in&u*ita*le
truths of the go&s &o not' logically' a&(it of evi&ence as this is
or&inarily conceive&7 0iven that evi&ence is 1hat prue*as
nevertheless loo9 li9e (certainly that is 1hat such concerns have
al1ays loo9e& li9e to classical anthropology#' an :e;traor&inary:
analysis of prue*as 1oul& *e reCuire&' 1hich 1oul& transfor( the
notion of :evi&ence: in a 1ay that coul& ren&er prue*as intelligi*le7 To
this en&' 1e foun& 1e ha& to &iscar& the episte(ic assu(ptions upon
1hich or&inary concepts of evi&ence are foun&e&' in favour of the
analytics of :in%nition:7 The a*sur&ity of provi&ing evi&ence for
in&u*ita*le &ivinations 1as thus re(ove&' since the role of in%nitions
is not to (a9e clai(s a*out the 1orl& that coul& *e &ou*te&' *ut
rather to populate the 1orl& 1ith entities through acts of conceptual
transfor(ation7 Erue*as &o not :test: these acts' *ut rather
consu((ate the( Cua transfor(ations *y prolonging the( as such'
that is' *y transfor(ing the( further7
(RECURSI%I&A&$5ut this is also 1hat 1e have *een &oing7 The
conceptual transfor(ation reCuire& to arrive at :in%nition: is' of
course' itself an in%nition7 In&ee&' the analytical strategy that I have
Pust su((ariUe& coul& *e tol& in the language of /anterQa7 Jur
:hea&ache: has *een the relationship *et1een ethnography an&
analysis7 Jut of an i(pulse that 1oul& appear no less e;otic than
Jorge:s love of the santos (it certainly &oes to non"anthropologists_#'
1e too9 our ail(ent to )u*a7 )oul& an ethnography of /anterQa cure
itK ]ot unless that act 1as itself un&erstoo& as part of the cure' 1as
the ethnographic oracle:s pronounce(ent = that is' not unless 1e
accepte& that 1hat 1e 1ere &oing 1as 1hat 1e 1ere %n&ing:
prue*as7 2e coul&' of course' &o li9e the young 1o(an an& si(ply
&rop the ethnographic pronounce(ent' stic9ing to our initial
assu(ption that ethnography:s role is to provi&e evi&ence7 5ut that
1oul& not re(ove the hea&ache7 /o 1e too9 the ethnographic
pronounce(ent' con%r(ing its ontological purchase *y transfor(ing it
into the analytics of in%nition7 ReconceptualiUing anthropological
analysis as reconceptualiUation' 1e transfor(e& ethnographic
prue*as into anthropological ones7 The upshot of the e;ercise is not
only a ne1 anthropological concept (in%nition#' *ut also a ne1
concept of anthropology (again' in%nition#7
To close' 1e (ay (erely note that the i&ea of anthropology as
in%nition e<ectively &ra1s a line un&er anthropologists: long"stan&ing
insecurities a*out their relationship to science (see a*ove#7 Jn the
assu(ption that the proPect of science is characteriUe& partly *y its
invest(ent in the notion of evi&ence (a contentious assu(ption
perhaps = cf7 .atour 1#' our esche1al of this i&ea here 1oul&
ren&er the atte(pt to (easure anthropology up to science a straight
category (ista9e7 5ut this is not to thro1 anthropology into the soft
ar(s of :interpretation: or :the arts:' as it is often assu(e&7 Rather'
the i&ea of in%nition argua*ly places anthropology (uch closer to
philosophy' inas(uch as philosophy can *e seen as a proPect of
conceptual pro&uction (see a*ove# *y (eans of 1hat Anglo"/a;on
philosophers so(eti(es call :conceptual analysis:7 5ut this is
contentious = though' again' recursively so' since &e%ning philosophy
is itself a philosophical pro*le(7



!#TES
Viel&1or9 in 200H 1as fun&e& *y the 5ritish Aca&e(y7 I than9 Allen
A*ra(son' Niorel Anastasoaie' Eatric9 )urry' $iana 3spirito"/anto'
)arrie Jen9ins' Ja(es .ai&la1' +orten Ee&ersen' $avi&",illel Ru*en'
+arilyn /trathern' an& 3&uar&o Niveiros &e )astro for co((enting on
&rafts of this paper' an& participants in the .on&on /chool of
3cono(ics 1or9shop on evi&ence' especially +atthe1 3ngel9e'
3leonora +ontuschi' an& 2e** 6eane' for their (any suggestions7 I
a( (ost grateful to Jorge .uis &e )a*o for allo1ing (e to relay his
stories7

1
In fact' nothing is that unfa(iliar after a century of professional
anthropology an& other for(s of self"conscious travel7

2
2hile such :co((on"sense: assu(ptions are often (ost relevant
for gauging the alterity of ethnography' there is no principle& reason
for assu(ing they are the only ones7 As the anthropological tra&ition
of inter"regional co(parison &e(onstrates' one (ay set the
ethnography of any locality against assu(ptions prevalent in any
other = for an e;a(ple see ,ol*raa& Y 2illerslev (200Z#7 (I than9
)hloe ]ahu(")lau&el for thoughts on this (atter7# +oreover' since
the relation of alterity is to *e un&erstoo& at a logical rather than a
cultural level' there is no principle& reason even to :territorialiUe: geo"
culturally either ethnography or the assu(ptions fro( 1hich it (ay
&iverge (cf7 ,ol*raa& 2004#7

!
2ith respect to the in&elicacies of this chauvinis(' universalists
an& relativists part co(pany7 2hile the for(er ten& to *ite the *ullet'
ta9ing it as their tas9 to e;plain the con&itions for the occurrence of
native falsehoo&s' the latter (erely refuse to pass Pu&ge(ent'
clai(ing = *y li*eral &og(a = that native vie1s (ust hol& their o1n
:local: truth7 5ut relativist (agnani(ity = 1hat Nassos Argyrou calls
the stance of :re&e(ption: (2002: 28"H# = is Pust an a*sur& fu&ge: *y
la1 of e;clu&e& (i&&le' if the natives contra&ict our assu(ptions'
only one of us can actually *e right7

4
It (ay not *e acci&ental that the present volu(e shoul& *e
associate& 1ith the .on&on /chool of 3cono(ics an& Eolitical /cience'
1here 0ellner:s concerns 1ith scienti%c rigour 1ere for(e& in
(&isciplinarily li(inal# &ialogue 1ith such %gures as Eopper' .a9atos'
2at9ins' an& Veyera*en&7

H
In his story Jorge &i& not (ention the &ivinatory origin of the
santera:s conclusion7 5ut this is only *ecause he assu(e& that I 1oul&
9no1 that santeros use their co1ry oracles to &eter(ine (an& then to
resolve# such pro*le(s = &ivination is the pre(ise of santeros:
e;pertise7

4
Vor a fully 1or9e&"out theoriUation of this possi*ility' see 5oyer
(10#7

Z
An a&&e& connotation of the ter( relates to the philosophical
&istinction *et1een :intensional: an& :e;tensional: theories of
(eaning7 3;tensional theories &e%ne the (eaning of a given
e;pression in ter(s of its purchase on a 1orl& of referents (i7e7 in
:episte(ic: ter(s#7 Intensional theories &e%ne (eaning 1ith reference
to the con&itions that 1oul& &eter(ine such a reference (see' e7g7'
)hal(ers 2002#7 /o in &e%ning ;' the e;tensionist procee&s *y as9ing
:1hat things are ;K:' 1hile the intensionist as9s :1hat counts for a
thing to *e ;K: In%nitions transfor( intensions (a (atter of conceptual
&e%nition# rather than (erely changing e;tensions (an e(pirical
concern 1ith the :application: of a pre&eter(ine& concept#7

8
It 1ill *e clear that this argu(ent is closely relate& to :ontological
argu(ents: in theology7 As such it &eserves a (ore e;ten&e&
e;position' since such argu(ents are notoriously &iWcult to pin &o1n7
As 5ertran& Russell put it' :it is easier to feel convince& that
Lontological argu(entsM (ust *e fallacious than it is to %n& out
precisely 1here the fallacy lies: (144: 40' cf7 +illican 2004#7 +in&ful
of the pitfalls' I put this argu(ent up for consi&eration tentatively' in
the hope that criticis( (ight allo1 (e to sharpen it in the future7

I than9 Erofessor $avi& 6irsh for suggesting this7

10
)o(pelling as it (ay have *een (i&"t1entieth century as =
e<ectively = a precursor of Eopperian philosophy of science (e7g7
Eopper 1H[ cf7 ,orton 14Z#' the analytical ar(oury of :secon&ary
ela*oration: is Pust that: a secon&ary ela*oration of 3vans"Eritchar&:s
o1n' 1hich serves to preserve his gui&ing assu(ption that oracles
(a9e representational truth"clai(s that coul& *e veri%e& or falsi%e&
*y evi&ence7 The cost of such a (ove is charge& on the natives7 The
possi*ility of falsi%cation' live on 3vans"Eritchar&:s evi&ential account'
is *arre& only *y i(puting &og(atis( tout court: for every oracular
:error: another :(ystical *elief: (ust *e a&&e& to the natives: ta*' its
a*sur& integrity guar&e& cyclically *y its coherence 1ith others7


RE'ERE!CES
Ar&ener' 37 187 The voice of prophecy an& other essays (e&7
+7 )hap(an#7 J;for&: 5asil 5lac91ell7
Argyrou' N7 20027 Anthropology an& the 1ill to (eaning: a
postcolonial critiCue7 .on&on: Eluto Eress7
5oyer' E7 107 Tra&ition as truth an& co((unication7
)a(*ri&ge: -niversity Eress7
5ro1n' $7 200!7 /anterQa enthrone&: art' ritual' an& innovation
in an Afro")u*an religion7 )hicago: -niversity Eress7
)hal(ers' $7 20027 Jn sense an& intension7 In Ehilosophical
Eerspectives 14: .anguage an& (in& (e&7# J7 To(*erlin' 1!H"827
J;for&: 5lac91ell7
)orsQn Ji(?neU' A7 Y R7 2illerslev 200Z7 :An anthropological
concept of the concept:: reversi*ility a(ong the /i*erian
Su9hagirs7 Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (]7/7#
1!' H2Z"447 .in9s
$eleuUe' 07 147 $i<erence an& repetition (trans7 E7 Eatton#7
.on&on: Athlone Eress7
3vans"Eritchar&' 3737 1Z47 2itchcraft' oracles' an& (agic
a(ong the AUan&e (a*ri&ge& *y 37 0illies#7 J;for&: )laren&on
Eaper*ac9s7
VraUer' J7 1117 The 0ol&en 5ough: a stu&y in (agic an&
religion' part I' vol7 I: The (agic art an& the evolution of 9ings7
.on&on: +ac(illan7
Vrege' 07 1807 Jn sense an& (eaning7 In Translations fro( the
philosophical 1ritings of 0ottlo* Vrege (e&s# E7T7 0each Y +7
5lac9' H4"Z87 J;for&: 5asil 5lac91ell7
0aston Aguero' /7 1417 3l (aterialis(o e;plica el espiritis(o
y la /anterQa7 ,avana: Jr*e7
0eertU' )7 20007 Availa*le light: anthropological reIections on
philosophical topics7 Erinceton: -niversity Eress7
0ellner' 37 1Z47 .egiti(ation of *elief7 )a(*ri&ge: -niversity
Eress7
0ol&(an' +7 200H7 Vor(as &o sa*er e (o&os &o ser:
o*serva`aes so*re (ultiplici&a&e e ontologia no can&o(*l?7
Religibo Y /ocie&a&e 2H' 102"207 .in9s
,ei&egger' +7 1487 2hat is calle& thin9ingK (trans7 07 0ray#7
]e1 Sor9: ,arper Y Ro17
,enare' A7' +7 ,ol*raa& Y /7 2astell 200Z7 Intro&uction7 In
Thin9ing through things: theorising artefacts ethnographically
(e&s# A7 ,enare' +7 ,ol*raa& Y /7 2astell' 1"!17 .on&on:
Routle&ge7
,ol*raa&' +7 200!7 3sti(an&o a necessi&a&e: os orTculos &e ifT
e a ver&a&e e( ,avana7 +ana : 2' !"ZZ .in9s
,ol*raa&' +7 20047 Response to 5runo .atour:s :Thou shall not
freeUe"fra(e: (availa*le on"line:
http:cc1117a*aete71i9ia7co(c1i9icResponsedtod5runod.atour:sd
e22ThoudshalldnotdfreeUe"fra(ee22d(+artind,ol*raa&#'
accesse& ! January 2008#7
,ol*raa&' +7 200H7 3;pen&ing (ultiplicity: (oney in )u*an IfT
cults7 Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (]7/7# 11'
2!1"H47 .in9s
,ol*raa&' +7 200Z7 The po1er of po1&er: (ultiplicity an&
(otion in the &ivinatory cos(ology of )u*an IfT (or (ana'
again#7 In Thin9ing through things: theorising artefacts
ethnographically (e&s# A7 ,enare' +7 ,ol*raa& Y /7 2astell' 18"
22H7 .on&on: Routle&ge7
,ol*raa&' +7 in press7 Relationships in (otion: oracular
recruit(ent in )u*an IfT cults7 /yst@(es &e Eens?e en AfriCue
]oire7
,ol*raa&' +7 Y R7 2illerslev 200Z7 Transcen&ental
perspectivis(: anony(ous vie1points fro( Inner Asia7 Inner
Asia ' 11"20Z7 .in9s
,orton' R7 14Z7 African tra&itional thought an& 2estern
science7 Africa !Z' H0"Z1 an& 1HH"8Z7 .in9s
,o1son' )7 20007 3vi&ence an& con%r(ation7 In A co(panion
to the philosophy of science (e&7# 27,7 ]e1ton"/(ith' 108"147
J;for&: 5lac91ell Eu*lishers7
.achata^ere' R7 1417 .as creencias religiosas &e los
afrocu*anos y la falsa aplicaciRn &el t?r(ino *ruPerQa7 Actas &el
Vol9lore 1: H' 11"1H7 .in9s
.a9atos' I7 1Z87 The (etho&ology of scienti%c research
progra((es: philosophical papers volu(e 1 (e&s J7 2orrall Y 07
)urrie#7 )a(*ri&ge: -niversity Eress7
.atour' 57 17 Ean&ora:s hope: essays on the reality of
science stu&ies7 )a(*ri&ge' +ass7: ,arvar& -niversity Eress7
+illican' E7 20047 The one fatal Ia1 in Ansel(:s argu(ent7 +in&
11!' 4!Z"Z47 .in9s
]ietUsche' V7 1Z7 -nti(ely (e&itations (e&s7 $7 5reaUeale[
trans7 R7J7 ,olling&ale#7 )a(*ri&ge: -niversity Eress7
JrtQU' V7 1047 .os negros *ruPos7 +a&ri&: 3&itorial A(?rica7
Eal(i?' /7 20027 2iUar&s an& scientists: e;plorations in Afro"
)u*an (o&ernity an& tra&ition7 $urha(' ]7)7: $u9e -niversity
Eress7
Eopper' 67 1H7 The logic of scienti%c &iscovery7 ]e1 Sor9:
,arper Torch*oo9s7
Russell' 57 1447 ,istory of 2estern philosophy7 .on&on: Allen Y
-n1in7
/per*er' $7 18H7 Jn anthropological 9no1le&ge7 )a(*ri&ge:
-niversity Eress7
/trathern' +7 17 Eroperty' su*stance an& e<ect' .on&on:
Athlone Eress7
/trathern' +7 200H7 6inship' la1 an& the une;pecte&: relatives
are al1ays a surprise7 )a(*ri&ge: -niversity Eress7
Niveiros &e )astro' 37 20027 J nativo relativo7 +ana 8: 1' 11!"
487 .in9s
Niveiros &e )astro' 37 200!7 An&7 +anchester: +anchester
Eapers in /ocial Anthropology7
2agner' R7 1817 The invention of culture7 (Revise& an&
e;pan&e& e&ition#7 )hicago: -niversity Eress7
2hitehouse' ,7 20007 Argu(ents an& icons: &ivergent (o&es of
religiosity7 J;for&: -niversity Eress7

+artin ,ol*raa& 1or9s at the Anthropology $epart(ent of -niversity
)ollege .on&on7 ,e has con&ucte& %el&1or9 on Afro")u*an religion in
,avana since 187 ,is is co"e&itor (1ith A(iria ,enare an& /ari
2astell# of Thin9ing through things: theorising artefacts
ethnographically (Routle&ge' 200Z# an& his (onograph on )u*an
&ivination an& anthropological truth is in preparation7