Comment: Altar of Fire Author(s): Frits Staal Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 81, No. 2 (Jun.

, 1979), pp. 346-347 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/675672 . Accessed: 16/05/2013 09:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 151.100.161.185 on Thu, 16 May 2013 09:41:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

346

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[81, 1979]

responses on each of eight children. Five of these differences occurred in reaction to one child's behavior. This was particularly significant, since this child displayed by far the most intense verbal and physically active behavior of the group. It became clear that in classroom situations, the Navajo mothers have a lower tolerance for intense speech interactions and physical activity on the part of the child. The data from the open-ended questions confirmed this finding showing divergent cultural differences in the written comments. While the application given here is of special concern to those interested in child development, the methodology employed could be used in numerous other research contexts to elicit culturally divergent responses to a wide variety of behavior. Space does not permit a discussion of the known limitations of the technique. However, potential uses of this device suggest that a continuing discussionof the strengths and weaknessesof this and related techniques should be initiated.
Acknowledgments. I wish to thank L. L.

Osgood, E. E., W. H. May, and M. S. Miron 1975 Cross-CulturalUniversalsof Affective Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Osgood, C. E., G. J. Suci, and P. H. Tannenbaum 1964 The Measurement of Meaning. 2nd ed. Urbana: Universityof Illinois Press.
Submitted 30 August 1977 Accepted 8 February 1978

Comment: Altar of Fire

FRITS STAAL
University of Calhfornia, Berkeley

Langness, Ronald Gallimore, D. R. PriceWilliams, K. T. Kernan, and P. Z. Snyder for their assistance and encouragement during the preparation of this manuscript. I also wish to thank R. B. Edgerton, Coordinator of the Socio-Behavioral Group, Mental Retardation and Child Psychiatry Research Program, Neuropsychiatric Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, for making this research possible. Finally, I want to thank the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development for the Traineeship, U.S. Public Health Service Grant No. HD-04612 and HD-00345, which provided the necessary financial support.
References Cited

When the reviewer of a work is simply ignorant, no reply is necessary. But mind-boggling ignorance combined with allegations of dishonesty and bad faith imposes a duty to reply. Robert A. Paul, in his review of our film Altar of Fire (AA 80:197-199, 1978), claims that Robert Gardner and I staged the ritual- that it was, in fact, a media event, a circumstance that we allegedly "havegone to great lengths to try to deny and disguise." Mr. Paul unearthed that "fact" from certain passages in the brochure that accompanies the film. Thus, the reader of his review is asked to believe that the three-page brochure we prepared to accompany the film provides precisely the information we tried so hard to hide. This curious contradiction will alert his readers that he was on the wrong track, and should have alerted Mr. Paul himself. Had he read all three pages of our brochure, he would have noted that his allegations are hopelessly wrong. I shall quote from the brochure, adding some information in brackets:
Staal began studying Vedic recitation . . . in

Hammond, O. W. 1973 Cultural Learning and Complex Behavioral Stimuli, Ph.D. dissertation, Psychology Department, University of Hawaii. Guilmet, George M. 1976 The Nonverbal American Indian Child in the Urban Classroom. Ph.D. dissertation, Anthropology Department, University of California, Los Angeles. Osgood, C. E. 1964 Semantic Differential Technique in the ComparativeStudy of Cultures. American Anthropologist 66:171-200.

the 1950s. Later he discovered that the Nambudiri Brahmins... continued to perform some of the larger Vedic rituals, the largest of which, the Agnicayana, had never been witnessed by outsiders. [In 1961, I published a
book Nambudiri Veda Recitation, which

earned me the confidence of many Nambudiri Brahmins, who then told me that the Agnicayana had been performed in 1955 and 1956, and that there were plans to perform it
once more.] . . . The tradition is rapidly dy-

ing because young people no longer believe in the efficacy of the ritual. As some Nambu-

This content downloaded from 151.100.161.185 on Thu, 16 May 2013 09:41:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REPORTS AND COMMENTS diris became concerned about the disappearance of their tradition, Dr. Staal began to urge that the ceremony should be performed one last time so that it could be filmed and recorded. After years of intermittent discussion, the Nambudiris agreed. They asked only that in exchange for being given the privilege of attending, filming and recording the performance, the scholars help defray the
cost of the ritual .
. .

347

. The Agnicayana was

performed from April 12 to 24, 1975. [The Adhvaryu, the main priest, and several of the other priests who officiated in 1975 had earlier officiated in 1955 or 1956, or both.] And now listen to Mr. Paul: "The Nambudiris.. . had not performed it for a long time for the simple reason that it is vastly too expensive, and no one is interested any more." From which half-truth it is possible to infer (as did Mr. Paul without the least compunction) that we staged the whole thing. But such an inference is not only unwarranted; it smacks of ill will. I cannot fathom the reason, but find that Mr. Paul's moral sensibilities are stimulated even more when he reports that the filmmakers went "so far as to try to keep out" outsiders who entered the sacrificial enclosure. He opines that these outsiders took "the religious meaning of the ceremony seriously." Whence this sanctimony, which merely betrays ignorance of Vedic ritual? I can outrage or bewilder him further: toward the end of the ceremonies, the chief Nambudiri ritualist asked me to enter the enclosure and urge some of the outsiders to leave, because they hindered the priests in the performance of their tasks (I declined). At this point, Mr. Paul's ignorance has become fully apparent. Vedic ritual is Brahmin ritual, and a Brahmin ritual is a caste ritual-not, for example, a village or community ritual. This much is known to every beginning student of Indian anthropology. Mr. Paul simply seems to have forgotten that there are such things as caste and hierarchy in India. Perhaps moral scruples have clouded his view. Whether he likes it or not, a Brahmin ritual is generally not to be heard or witnessed by nonBrahmins, and the sacrificial enclosure of a Nambudiri ritual may not be entered by nonNambudiris (in fact, not even by certain subcastes of Nambudiris). The several Brahmin visitors from other parts of India expected (and were given) good spots to sit in - but not permission to enter the enclosure. Hence, when nonBrahmins entered, the rites were considered endangered; for the same reason, all our films and

recordings had to be made from the outside. Under such circumstances, without two decades of experience and several years of careful planning, it would not have been possible to film and record this event, which was quite possibly the last performance of the world'soldest surviving ritual (although Mr. Paul resents that supposition, calling it "romantic" and "melodramatic"). Mr. Paul keeps thinking of Vedic ritual as a village festival or a popular play, at any rate, something common, pedestrian, and dull. All those who were present realized that this was not a humdrum affair, but a historical event. I am tempted to say more about Mr. Paul's plea for alternative films highlighting either socio-economic context" or "Vedic cosmology." I desist because I think it is sad that he is so oblivious to the extreme care that went into making this film an authentic document. Let me assure those who are interested that 80 hours of tape are accessible to scholars through me, UCLA, or the School of Oriental and African Studies, London. Twenty hours of footage are with the Smithsonian, and videotape copies with me, the Netherlands Organization for Pure Research (Z.W.O.), and the Government of India. Thousands of color slides, taken by Adelaide de Menil, are with Robert Gardner at Harvard (although I am using them at present). Those who wish to know everything ("socio-economic context," "Vedic cosmology," and a great deal more) will before long be able to consult a two-volume illustrated work that I am preparing entitled: A GNI- The
Vedic Ritual of the Fire Altar. A final irony: the

patronizing and neocolonialist attitude imputed to me is scarcely borne out by its title page, which indicates that the book is written in collaboration with the chief Nambudiri ritualists, C. V. Somayajipad and M. Itti Ravi Nambudiri.
Submitted 5June 1978 Accepted 9 August 1978 Final revision submitted 16 August 1978

Reply to Staal's Comment

ROBERT A. PAUL Emory University My criticism of Altar of Fire (AA 80:97-199, 1978) was motivated by neither ill-will nor ignorance, but by concern about the ethical prob-

This content downloaded from 151.100.161.185 on Thu, 16 May 2013 09:41:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions