ritual

George James Frazer (1854-1941), the spiritual father of myth-ritual school, was bred up in the British tradition of empiricism. Believing in the evolutionary process of culture, Frazer mainly focused his attention on explaining such epistemic forms of thought as magic, religion and science. Accordingly, while interpreting the processes through which magic leads to religion and finally evolves into science, Frazer noticed the importance of myth and ritual and their position in this process. However, most researchers regard his reasoning in this regard as incoherent and variable. Thus, in this article, the author tries to reconsider the methodology and axioms on which Frazer relies as well as to make clear the position of myth in his anthropological system. The author believes that Frazer’s dual viewpoint about myth’s position results in no way from the attributed incoherency of his thoughts, but in fact his contemplations on intermediate levels, which make possible going from one stage to the other, provides him with an adequate explanation of the position of myth and its relation to ritual. In the end, it is revealed that Frazer thinks of myth as posterior to ritual in the first intermediate level, while prior to ritual in the second intermediate level. Accordingly, analyzing the validity of Frazer’s reasoning as well as his methodological and epistemic viewpoints, the author has put forth a couple of critical suggestion

Islamic and Iranian cities, both, East and West, know the physical monuments of Islamic culture1 based on one of the features of the Islamic cities. Meanwhile, other religious centers, including Tkaya, Hosseiniyehiyeh and hospice is not the case to considerate, while these elements cause to shape group behavior, strengthen social ties and strengthening of cultural integration, have always played a major role. These reasons reflect the role of the religious and their religious mission to, Imam Hussein: have been lasting and eternal ever. On the other hand, religious buildings, including mosques, Hosseiniyehiyeh, the convent, the grave and so for various reasons such as “governing their spirituality,” “Historical Background”,“architectural style” and “cultural works - social among people of the past had been of special aspects “sanctity”. Materials and Methods, “descriptors” and “analytic” in addition, with reference to theories and models of sustainability and sustainable urban spaces using “argument” and “analog” to review these theories and extend them to Hosseiniyehiyeh and Tkaya discussed and some results in this direction are mentioned. Research findings show the survival of Tkaya and Hosseiniyehiyeh beliefs, beliefs, customs and religion of citizens, especially their integration with the components is related to religious values and reflecting the traditional city is based on the formation of beliefs is that survival, Protection and maintenance Hosseiniyehiyeh paid actor and in which viewers of this show and passionate Hosseiniyehi mourning single entity to have formed; If due to the impact of beliefs and opinions of people throughout history has been a Hosseiniyehiyeh as a phenomenon of religious values and that its inclusion has been persistent throughout history and reflect the beliefs of religious people and the world towards Imam Ali, Imam Hussein: future date will remain the eternal.

One of the most complex issues in understanding the evolution of human society is religion. However, religion in this sense is not the spiritual dimension of confessional or rhetorical form; rather it is a social phenomenon that has long been considered as one of the fundamental components of human society. Archaeological excavations often lead to the unearthing of movable and immovable objects that bear an obvious symbolic insignia; this is suggestive of the roles of beliefs and convictions in the formation of these objects. For instance, during the Neolithic period in some archeological sites such as Catalhoyuk in Anatolia, Sheikhiabad in Kermanshah and a number of other sites in the Near East, some objects were found that can be considered as symbolic made for specific purposes according to humans’ rituals and beliefs. In the present article, we study the views and theories of anthropologists and sociologists about religions, and the views of archaeologists about symbolism and religion in the contemporary world and in the beginning of the Neolithic period. Employing an interpretive approach, we examine and analyze possible intentions behind construction and functions of these symbolic objects.

Neolithic and food production from domesticated species has been one of the most important topics discussed and studied about prehistoric archaeology. Since the 1920s, or even much earlier, archaeologists tried to explain this great event that changed human life after millions of years of hunting-gathering. During these years, various theories based on technological, environmental, economic and sustenance, demographic, social, and evolutionary and, in recent decades, ideological, have been proposed by researchers. Some believe that Neolithic and food production is not an absolute and sudden process, but a long-term process, from knowing and choosing of species, management, and domestication of interdependence; this process is called Neolithization. The Neolithization process is not just the adoption of a new way of life due to environmental and demographic changes, but the beginning of human mental and worldviews changes. In this period, human manifests new behaviors, including rituals, which can be seen in burials, handicrafts, and architecture. Placing animal horns (domestic/wild) in the architectural space is one of these ritual behaviors. This symbolic behavior has been found in Fertile Crescent sites, from the Levant in the westernmost to Iran’s easternmost borders. Some researchers believe that this behavior is to gain authority, while some believe that humans tried to use these ways to control the wild in their inner domestic world. In this research, the authors have tried to analyze this type of behavior from the perspective of Neolithization ideological theories.