The Sun睪od King and the Divine Resources of Society

Guo Xijin

（Department of Sociology， Peking University， Beijing， China）

JOURNAL OF ETHNOLOGY， VOL. 7， NO.2， 30-38， 2016 （CN51-1731/C， in Chinese）

DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1674-9391.2016.02.04

Abstract：

In the early 20th century， A.M. Hocart undertook several decades of fieldwork in the South Pacific. He found that Fijian society was constructed by kingship， and through this he constructed his sociological theory on kingship. In his opinion， kingship in Fiji combines the Egyptian Sun King model with that of the Indian Sacrificial King model. The coronation ceremony transforms the king from mortal to divine. The sacrifice ritual demonstrates social hierarchy， people in the ceremony undertake different tasks， and become different castes in society. Different from Frazers opinion that kings monopolize magic， Hocart argues that kingship is the expression of social integrity. The ceremony provides the life force for kingship， and creates the social hierarchy. This paper tries to explain the inner logic of Hocarts theory on kingship， and the significance of his starting with ceremony rather than magic like Frazer， thereby re-establishing his status within anthropology.

Hocart inherited the focus Oriental Studies had on Egyptian and Indian culture. His fieldwork in Fiji and his Classical studies on different cultures expanded his theoretical vision from an Oriental Studies model to a wider anthropological one. In his early works， he focused on kingship. Later he turned to the study of social hierarchy. He found that ritual is the key to understanding the order between nature and society， and also that hierarchy starts with ritual. In ritual， the life-giving force is transferred from the king to everyone. Accordingly， Hocart focused on the study of ritual.

Hocart came up with a creative idea for a methodology on how to compare primitive cultures with complex classical civilizations. His methodology can be called “historical structuralism”. In his opinion， society is an organic whole. As the key to understanding society， structure does not mean the logic of abstract thinking or social functional relationship， but rather it is an essential cultural analysis. Every culture has its own systematic explanation； while it contains a structural relationship within the cultural system， cultural characteristics are just symbols. Hocart believed that the key to comparative studies is to find the organic similarity of structure in two different cultures. He objected to Diffusionists who only regarded cultural characteristics as the evidence of contact between two cultures. He thought that in order to find similarity， cultural integrity is necessary. We should discover the inner mechanisms which motivate the culture. If the mechanism is the same， then we can confirm that the two cultures are comparative. On account of this， he attached importance to history. For him， history was not the evidence of migration for Diffusionism， it is a necessary condition to complete cultural structure.

In Hocarts view， ceremony is essential to social life. Cultural systems do not only reveal social structure， but they also store the history of long periods of time. So， he viewed ceremony as the starting point of the research on kingship. Hocart believed that ceremony is a consistent human behavior going from primitive culture to classical civilizations. People have natural fear in the face of the nature， and this is the result of the uncertainty of danger， manifested as death coming at any time， and unpredictable natural dangers. Ritual action can not only overcome this uncertainty， but it can also serve to construct social organization. It is a “striving for life”， a desire to meet the material needs of people， and create social solidarity. Ceremony constructs social integrity， its members participating in the ceremony of playing different roles have different identities in the society， forming organizational and functional differentiation. This continuous specialization eventually becomes caste， the prototype of government or hierarchy. Differing from Durkheims idea that “ceremony makes social solidarity”， Hocart expands the meaning of ceremony. He thinks that ritual unity comes from the kingship， and that collective effervescence is not only the psychological mechanism， but is a really powerful one in which ancestor kings sacrifice themselves in order to bless and give people food. On the other hand， ceremony directly makes social stratification. Because ritual repeats itself， it forms and maintains stable social order， so it is difficult to overthrow the sovereign. Because of this， Hocart took kingship as his research subject， and from the Melanesian islands to western Christian civilizations， the phantom of kingship has never gone away. It passes through the history， and provides us another way of thinking to understand social structure.

He took more than 10 years to study and work in the South Pacific， working in Fiji， Tonga， Samoa， and so on. He noticed that the form of kingship in Fiji was similar to the Egyptian Pharaoh—the king likened himself to the sun—and， just like the sun conquered darkness and evilness， the king illuminated up the earth， and brought a good harvest for people. The king himself was the symbol of law， both natural and social. His entire body and objects he used were sacred， thus， people who touched him or his things might fall ill with a disease called the “Kings evil”， and only the king could heal it.

Hocart investigated many coronation ceremonies， and from this saw a pattern of 26 steps. This series of activities revealed the process through which an ordinary person became a king. The king must first be ritually dead， then be regenerated into the god status through holy blessings， and finally to step onto the throne to give people blessings. The starting point of the coronation was a painful test for the king—he must go through an ordeal in the woods which brought about his state of death. When he overcame the trial and emerged triumphant， he was told to maintain justice. Then， he returned to earth as a divine god. After a purification， or oil rubbing ritual， he left his state of asceticism， and put on the kings clothes， and became the divine king. He imitated the sun by walking three steps around the holy altar which symbolized the construction of the rule of the world. Governors and officials were appointed in front of him， sometimes he carried out the ceremonies for the passage into adulthood， and each person at the coronation ceremony shared his divinity.

The king obtained his divine character in coronation ceremony. In this ritual， the king received two sacred items， one is bark cloth and the other is an ambrosia made from kava. The former represents the legitimate right of inheritance from ancestoral kings who possess the land. The latter represents the victory of the conqueror defeating the chaos of nature. They both derive from ceremony of sacrifice.

Once the sacrifice ceremony is completes， kava represents the divine source of the sun， and the bark cloth represents the fertility of the land. Through the self-sacrifice of the ancestor kings， the original altar was created， which witnessed the combination of the sun and the earth. In the virtuous Indian Purasha myth， the ancestor king sacrifices himself to create the world， and as such he becomes the meaning and life force of the world. It also represents the soul and divine character. The altar is the ancestors graves； the ancestors souls turn into the life-giving force； and， thus， the social order has established through the logic of kingship through ancestor worship. In the sacrificial ceremony of the Brahmans， they create a pan of fire to represent the combination of sun and earth. The earliest ancestor king imitates Purashas self-sacrifice to create the world and to give it life. The king drinks the kava， and puts on bark cloth during the ceremony， and through this he obtains the divine character from sun and earth， and becomes the divine king. Through this， the ritual creates an inexhaustible life force which is given to officials and youths who， by taking part in the rite of passage into adulthood， share the kings divinity.

In the book Caste， Hocart describes his social vision. His society is hierarchical because of the different roles people take in the sacrificial ceremony. Their social characters are fixed， so the ritual creates caste as well. Hocart thinks that the first division appeared between the people who took part in the ceremony and those who did not. Moreover， participants are further distinguished into those who conduct the sacrifice and those who serve. The latter are divided according to their services. Hocart thinks division of society and hierarchy is endogenetic； he does not agree with Sahlins conquest theory. Sahlins regards Hocarts rank as power， but the social division which starts from the division of ceremony may not relate to power.

Above all， Hocarts analysis follows the tradition of Oriental Studies. He developed the theory of kingship as the expression of social holism and holiness， especially the structure and function of society expressed in the coronation and ceremony of sacrifice， as well as the social divisions caused by it. In the history of academic development， Hocart study on kingship and ritual has the same value as Frazers study on magic and Durkheims study of religion. Firstly， Hocart， differs from evolution and material researches. He starts with the classical Oriental civilizations. He believes that the sun continuously provides the life-force to the society， whereas Frazer regards the life-force as that which renews natural annually. His study on magic is affected by the theory of evolution， and he desires to seek a common theoretical paradigm from primitive society to western civilization. Secondly， Hocart solves the problem of supreme god. Since Taylor， the concept of supreme god， which spread throughout primitive society， was thought to be influenced by Christian religious thinking. Even though Andrew Lang has pointed out that the concept of a supreme god exists in early societies， he cannot explain the social function of a supreme god. However， Hocart explains the process in which the society grows out from the concept of a supreme god. Thirdly， Hocarts analysis of ceremony provides the impetus for the division of society. He believes that the foundation and division of holiness occur separately in the coronation ritual and the ceremony of sacrifice. The hierarchy does not damage the holism of holiness； it just the subdivision of function. Therefore， Hocart is an indispensable anthropologist in history. One of his assistants in Fiji once said that Hocart was not just a scholar， but a Bodhisattva. This highlights anthropologists wider perspective and deep understanding of humankind.

Today， we need Hocart even more. In facing the secular crisis of modern society， maybe Durkheim goes too far. Hocart inspires us to find the eternal life-force to ease the anxiety of our soul. Hocart has practical significance to China as well. This is because his research on social holism and impetus are not only a response to

the vitality of classical civilization， but also are reflected directly in the cultural construction and development of ethnic minorities in China. Hocarts fieldwork materials in South Pacific Islands and Southeast Asian have also inspired us to understand the political and cultural expression of neighboring countries.

Key Words：kingship；coronation ceremony； sacrifice ceremony； caste

References：

A.M.Hocart. Kingship. Oxford University Press. London. 1969

A.M.Hocart. Kings and Councillors. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago. 1970

A.M.Hocart. Caste. Russell & Russell. New York. 1968

Emile Durkheim. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life， Free Press， London， 1995 ＼＼

M Sahlins. Islands of History. University of Chicago Press. 2nd 1987.

Rodney Needham. Editors Introduction. In Kings and Councillors.The University of Chicago Press. Chicago. 1970