|
|
x | |
Preface |
|
xiii | |
Acknowledgments |
|
xv | |
Credits |
|
xviii | |
Authors |
|
xix | |
|
1 Introduction: competitive sharing of religious sites in Europe, the Middle East, South Asia and Latin America |
|
|
1 | (24) |
|
A cautionary tale: the mosques and churches of Sarajevo |
|
|
2 | (3) |
|
|
5 | (1) |
|
Tolerance: passive and active |
|
|
6 | (3) |
|
Comparison as self-reflexive reciprocal illumination |
|
|
9 | (1) |
|
Antagonistic Tolerance: competitive sharing, dominance and intertemporal violence |
|
|
10 | (3) |
|
A general model and empirical indicators |
|
|
13 | (2) |
|
Analyzing trajectories of interaction rather than conditions of multicultural ism |
|
|
15 | (2) |
|
|
17 | (1) |
|
The Antagonistic Tolerance project |
|
|
18 | (1) |
|
|
19 | (6) |
|
2 Religioscape: concept, indicators and scales of competitive sharing through time |
|
|
25 | (25) |
|
Shared space and intersecting religious networks |
|
|
25 | (3) |
|
The concept of the religioscape |
|
|
28 | (3) |
|
Religioscapes as markers ofpatterns of dominance through time |
|
|
31 | (3) |
|
Measuring indicators of dominance |
|
|
34 | (3) |
|
Centrality, verticality, audibility |
|
|
37 | (1) |
|
Directionality, decentering, recentering |
|
|
38 | (6) |
|
Trajectories of competitive sharing on varying spatial scales |
|
|
44 | (1) |
|
Cities contested, divided, reunited and "cleansed": pathways of violence as indicated by trajectories of intersecting religioscapes |
|
|
44 | (2) |
|
Connections between divided cities and wider religioscapes |
|
|
46 | (2) |
|
Limitations and opportunities for comparison: the examples of god capture in ancient India and the pre-conquest Americas |
|
|
48 | (2) |
|
3 Seeing things hidden in plain sight: overcoming the self-limiting features of scholarly disciplines and area studies literatures |
|
|
50 | (19) |
|
"Haci [ Hajji] Augustus": a Roman temple intersecting an Ottoman mosque and a Muslim saint's tomb in Ankara |
|
|
51 | (6) |
|
What is (not) interesting to scholarship |
|
|
57 | (3) |
|
|
60 | (4) |
|
Emphasizing social processes rather than static conditions |
|
|
64 | (2) |
|
Systematizing serendipity |
|
|
66 | (3) |
|
4 Situating ethnography in trajectories of dominance |
|
|
69 | (32) |
|
From ethnographic presence to intertemporal analysis |
|
|
69 | (2) |
|
Syncretism and intertemporality |
|
|
71 | (1) |
|
A case study: the shrine at Madhi, Maharashtra |
|
|
72 | (16) |
|
Trajectories of dominance as necessary for understanding conjunctural ethnographic presents |
|
|
88 | (3) |
|
Analyzing changes in overlapping religioscapes |
|
|
91 | (4) |
|
The physical traces of hidden religioscapes |
|
|
95 | (1) |
|
Reanalyzing Others `sites in terms of religioscapes and Antagonistic Tolerance |
|
|
96 | (5) |
|
5 Techniques of domination: conquest and destruction, displacement or transformation of sacred sites |
|
|
101 | (30) |
|
The mosque-church at Mertola, Portugal: from Roman pagans to (paleo-)Christians to Muslims to Roman Catholics |
|
|
102 | (11) |
|
Transformations of sites in a city: a brief history of the conversion, destruction and construction of religious structures in Belgrade 1521--1867 |
|
|
113 | (4) |
|
Domination with accommodation |
|
|
117 | (1) |
|
Attaining dominance by expanding an urban religioscape: early Ottoman Bursa, Turkey |
|
|
118 | (2) |
|
Decentering and recentering after conquest: Chinchero, Peru |
|
|
120 | (6) |
|
Strategic sight lines and marking domination of a larger region: prominent church and fortress sites in colonial Goa |
|
|
126 | (5) |
|
6 God capture and antagonistic inclusion |
|
|
131 | (20) |
|
|
131 | (4) |
|
|
135 | (1) |
|
|
136 | (3) |
|
|
139 | (1) |
|
|
139 | (1) |
|
Deity mobility facilitating strategizing and resistance to domination in Goa |
|
|
140 | (6) |
|
Modernity: state atheism and secularism |
|
|
146 | (5) |
|
7 Religio-, secular- and archaeoscapes |
|
|
151 | (23) |
|
Post-secularist competitions: Russia |
|
|
151 | (1) |
|
The Republic of Turkey: state secularism versus politicized Sunni Islam |
|
|
152 | (13) |
|
Museumification as false religioscape: Castelo de Vide, Portugal |
|
|
165 | (4) |
|
Secular artifacts or sacred religious objects? The practical consequences of bureaucratic politics |
|
|
169 | (3) |
|
Archaeoscapes versus religioscapes: secularized pasts versus current religious practices |
|
|
172 | (2) |
|
8 Re-establishing relations after even violent changes |
|
|
174 | (9) |
|
Re-establishing sites without returning: Surp Giragos Armenian church, Diyarbahr, Turkey |
|
|
175 | (2) |
|
Re-establishing sites and regular contacts: the tomb of St. Barnabas, Famagusta and St. Mamas Church, Morphou, Cyprus |
|
|
177 | (1) |
|
Re-establishing sites of returning religious minorities: Ferhadija mosque, Banja Luka and Kondzilo, near Teslic, Bosnia and Herzegovina |
|
|
178 | (2) |
|
The reallocation of rights after conflict: Ayodhya High Court decision |
|
|
180 | (1) |
|
Acknowledging dominance: the mixed blessing in Goa |
|
|
181 | (2) |
References |
|
183 | (18) |
Index |
|
201 | |