Analogical Evidence and Shamanism in Archaeological Interpretation: South African and European Palaeolithic Rock Art

MARÍA CRUZ BERROCAL

Rock art studies have been strongly reliant on ethnography in recent decades. Since the 1970s, the (re)turn to ethnography has been considered short of a paradigmatic change, and it has indeed stirred a lot of theoretical discussion in the very under-theorized field of rock art research. The ethnographic turn has been mainly built around shamanism, very loosely defined here as the causal association that researchers establish between shamanic practices and rock art, and from which explanations have been sought. The application of this approach has changed through time, depending on 1) the archaeological context in which it was to be applied, 2) the use of additional sources of evi- dence (namely, neuropsychology), 3) the role of shamanism as a hypothesis or as an established fact. As a hypothesis it has been built on the basis of three dif- ferent kinds of analogies: ethnographic, formal and uniformitarian. This paper addresses the shifting character of shamanism in South African and European Palaeolithic rock art studies, seeking to contribute at least in part to a broader reflection on the nature of analogical reasoning and its implications.

INTRODUCTION This paper highlights the role that anal- ogy plays in shamanism, and its changing This paper is a historiographic revision of nature through time. The term shamanism the application of a shamanistic hypothesis, hides not only different analogies, but also henceforth ‘shamanism’, to rock art stud- different theoretical approaches to the social ies, especially in the South African and significance of rock art. Ultimately, shaman- the Western European Palaeolithic rock art ism is a paradigmatic case study for further corpora. Shamanism is understood here as inquiry into the use of analogy in archaeolog- the association that researchers have estab- ical research to be explored in the future. lished since the 1970s between shamanic Analogical arguments, especially those of practices1 and rock art, even if it was not an ethnographic character, have been present explicitly labelled as such.2 This association in rock art research from its very begin- implies a causal relation, because rock art nings. Ethnographic information from dis- was explained as the product of shamanistic parate parts of the world was employed in practices.

María Cruz Berrocal, Research Group on Social and Economic Prehistory, Instituto de Historia, Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, CSIC Madrid, 28037, Spain. E-mail: [email protected] 2 rock art research in Europe and was also and considered to be nothing short of a essential to its early study in places such paradigmatic change: as South Africa, as researchers recorded the San language and its related oral history A . .. marked rise in success would begin in the early 1970s, when an ethnographic approach, sea- at the end of the 19th century. They sug- soned with social theory, began to be adopted gested that the rock art ‘illustrated’ accounts and which, over the next three decades and more, of indigenous myths, daily-life scenes, folk- produced results that constituted the founda- lore, customs or superstitions (W. Bleek, cited tion for new theory and method. (Lewis-Williams by Lewis-Williams 2006a:352, see also Lewis- 2006a:369) Williams 2000). However, the use of ethnographic informa- The core of this new foundation was shaman- tion was not without problems. In Europe, ism, presented as sound ethnographic analog- the use of ethnographic information was ical reasoning for the first time, and therefore eventually discredited due to the abuse of a real improvement over the previous empiri- analogical arguments, characteristic of early cist research (Lewis-Williams 1991, 2006a). evolutionist and culture history archaeology This re-adoption of ethnographic informa- (Wylie 1985, Lane 2006). Distanced from tion and the application of analogy in rock art the ethnographic sources, researchers used research in an explicit and thoughtful manner this information in a non-systematic way in the 1970s (Lewis-Williams & Loubser and did not take into account the qual- 1986, Lewis-Williams 1991) had a precedent ity of those sources. Back in the original in the 1950s debates over the necessity of areas where ethnographies were recorded, making safe inferences and the status of such as South Africa, Australia (Vinnicombe analogy in mainstream archaeology (Wylie 1995) and USA (Whitley 1994), ethnographic 1985). As a result of these debates, the value records had been early dismissed for several of analogy was firmly established, and in the reasons including difficulties on the part of 1960s ethnoarchaeology as a sub-discipline the researchers in understanding the infor- emerged (Lane 2006). Thus, the return to mation and their scepticism about the qual- analogy as a mode of reasoning in rock art ity of ethnographic descriptions. The loss of research was a slightly late development. the original indigenous interpretations and While this turn to ethnography may have true meaning of the depictions contributed been partially the result of a general trend to this scepticism, since researchers tended in archaeology, other factors certainly con- to assume that only the artists were able tributed to it, such as the relative exhaustion to tell the true meaning of their work. of the previous theoretical frameworks and But, ultimately, ideological reasons and sheer a change in the political climate of the 1970s, racism on the part of colonial societies and representing a re-evaluation of indigenous researchers (Layton 1995, Lewis-Williams peoples’ past and present. 1995a, Vinnicombe 1995) led them, especially Next, I will briefly address these two factors in South Africa, to disregard both rock art in order to better contextualize the subse- and the associated ethnographic information quent discussion of shamanism. as meaningless. The only value of rock art was that it was ‘primitive’ (Jarl Nordblah, pers. FRAMEWORKS comm.). Thus, it is almost ironic that the (re)turn Culture-historical archaeology provided an to anthropology/ethnography led by South omnipresent theoretical framework for rock African researchers in the 1970s was hailed art studies, from which a range of different as ‘revolutionary’ in rock art studies (see interpretations, such as hunting-magic or the Morwood & Hobbs 1992, also Conkey 1997) art-for-art’s-sake hypotheses, were produced. 3

Its underlying principle was rooted in the theory was incapable of reaching the specific notion that rock art resulted from the innate meaning of the depictions. On the other hand, expressiveness of human beings, who natu- structuralism tended to fall into an interpre- rally tend to make their feelings and their tative excess. Hence, the use of ethnographic cultural norms known through art and shared analogy, and particularly of shamanism, arose stylistic traits. Style is therefore an important as an ideal middle ground (Lewis Williams object of study, since it is seen as part of the 1995a). Shamanism approached and treated common cultural heritage shared by one peo- social aspects and symbolic contents at the ple. In this context, style is used at the same same level. Its controlled use of the ethno- time as a) chronological indicator, b) expres- graphic evidence (Lewis-Williams & Loubser sion of the degree of development or cul- 1986, Lewis-Williams 1991) helped reveal the tural and social ‘stage’ of a social formation meaning of rock art, avoiding speculation and and c) expression of ethnicity. Style and rock embedding this search for meaning in a gen- art are then major components of cultural eral aim to understand its function as part of expression, apt to define peoples, cultures and social life (Lewis-Williams 1982). territories. But this approach to rock art min- The application of shamanism was based imizes its relevance in social terms because on functionalism and structuralism, as well it is treated as an inherent human manifes- as Marxism, since there was a recogni- tation, rather than a historical, social and tion that social life is not necessarily har- political one. monious (Lewis-Williams 1995a:77). Social The New Archaeology triggered a critical struggle became a key characteristic of orig- approach to the concept of style (Conkey & inal shamanic interpretations. Ultimately, the Hastorf 1990), whose role was now to be use of Marxist principles was also an attempt understood in terms of function, adaptation to raise social concern among rock art and information (Conkey 1980, 1984, 1985, researchers (Lewis-Williams 2006a:366). Mithen 1987, 1991, Barton et al. 1994). Rock The political climate of the 1970s in South art was regarded as an adaptive phenomenon Africa contributed to the success of shaman- used to transmit information, within and ism because the use of information provided outside the social group. It was assigned a by native people, who had previously been place in the social system as a manifestation neglected, was now reinstated together with within the ideological and symbolic subsys- the value of indigenous knowledge. This had tem, thought to have eased social and ecologi- positive political consequences in the long run cal pressures. In this way, rock art was related (Lewis-Williams 1995b, 2006a) since respect to other spheres of human behaviour rather was now granted to those ‘primitive’ com- than being an individual’s artistic expression. munities who created the artworks. Currently, At the same time structuralism had showed rock art is clearly a most conspicuous element its relevance for rock art studies since the of South African heritage (Fig. 1). 1960s (for instance, Conkey 1989, Criado & With this change in the intellectual and Penedo 1989, Leroi-Gourhan 1992, Sauvet & political attitude towards indigenous groups Wlodarczyk 1995, Santos 1999). Rock art came an important change in academic lead- seemed to lend itself very well to structural- ership in rock art studies. Rock art through- ist logic, due to its alleged entirely inten- out the world had previously been interpreted tional and symbolic character. It would be following the European lead. This situation a direct manifestation of people’s structures was successfully reversed by South African of thought and past worldviews, unlike other researchers, and European rock art was even- sorts of archaeological record. tually interpreted after their approach. Both functionalism and structuralism had It is well known, however, that shamanism limits, though. On the one hand, system has a long history of harsh, repetitive and 4

Fig. 1. South African merchandising with rock art motifs. extensive criticisms, counter-criticisms, replies 1999, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2006a, 2006b, and counter-replies (see Meighan 1982, Lewis-Williams & Clottes 1998b), with the Sauvet 1989, Bahn 1993, 1997, Demoule most aggressive attack unleashed by the 1997, Hamayon 1997, Beaune 1998, Solomon publication of Les chamanes de la préhistoire, 1998, 2001, 2008, Vialou 1998, Taborin by Jean Clottes and David Lewis-Williams 2000, Francfort 2001a, 2001b, Francfort & (Clottes & Lewis-Williams 1996). Some Hamayon 2001, Le Quellec 2001, Lorblanchet of the most important problems that have 2001, Helvenston and Bahn 2004, McCall been pointed out in this debate refer to 2007; see replies in Lewis-Williams 1991, the speculative character of shamanism,3 5 its lack of historical context,4 its reliance term of comparison used by archaeologists on scarce ethnographic evidence and, most must provide additional information about importantly, its lack of explanatory power the structure of the archaeological object, its (Francfort 2001a, Bahn 2001, Le Quellec genesis, its use and so on. 2001, McCall 2007) and lack of testability Analogy cannot be considered an expla- (Sauvet 1989, Bahn 1997, Francfort 2001a, nation. It just highlights regularities and/or 2001b). Some radical proposals ask for a associations that need further inquiry. It does return to empiricism in light of the problems not solve a problem; it helps formulate the of shamanism (Bahn 2001:81). As a whole, correct question. Ultimately, it requires other however, the debate on shamanism has been kinds of evidence to be meaningful. useful because it has helped to address Two quotations from Lucas (2001) are per- issues about cultural contact and cultural tinent to further clarifying this aspect of anal- continuity/rupture of hunter-gatherers’ life- ogy. They point to the fact that an analogy ways, and about the need to make explicit our must allow the existence of differences, in a research procedures (Lewis-Williams 1984, way that makes: 1999, 2006a, Dowson 1994). I do not wish to engage in a general critique or defense of the subject . .. both the same and not the same as shamanism in this paper, but in a discussion the source. The tension between these two terms is on its use of analogical reasoning. Likewise, not open to qualification in terms of the degree of similarity, whether formal or relational. To become I am not concerned here with other related obsessed about such degrees of similarity, is to sub- problems, such as the pervasive association stitute analogy for equivalence ... .the important between rock art and hunter-gatherer soci- point is that analogy, as analogy, should not be pre- eties in the literature in spite of the fact that figured by equivalences in the form of boundary the bulk of the rock art in the world was not connections or connecting principles, as this robs it made by hunter-gatherers (Cruz Berrocal & of its very nature. It suggests moreover that our use Millerstrom 2010; for the case of South Africa of analogies does not need strengthening. (Lucas see Smith & Ouzman 2004), or the analysis of 2001:192). the application of shamanism in Scandinavia Wylie herself points out that analogy is not just (Tilley 1991, Helskog 1999, Lahelma 2005, about similarities but also about differences – the 2007), Central Eurasia (Francfort 1998, fallacy of the ‘perfect analogy’ is that such a thing 2001b) and other areas where a direct his- is not an analogy at all (Wylie 1985). The point torical approach seems feasible, and where about an analogy in other words is that it does not independent developments as well as points mark an equivalence between two terms (source in common with the topic of this paper create and subject) but merely a resemblance. (Lucas a particular historiography worth exploring. 2001:191)

Different kinds of analogy are based on the ANALOGY use of different terms of comparison. I will I shall use the following simple definition briefly deal here with what I term ethno- of ‘analogy’: an analogy is a comparison graphic analogy,5 formal iconographic anal- between two parallel phenomena, one of ogy and formal uniformitarian analogy, as them, in our case, being an archaeologi- they are pertinent for my subsequent discus- cal object of study. This comparison helps sion of shamanism. archaeologists build a hypothesis to under- Ethnographic analogy is a comparison stand their object of study, the assumption between an archaeological object under being that if the two terms of comparison study and ethnographic data provided by are similar in one or more respects, then they indigenous informants. But ethnographic must be equivalent in others. Of course the information varies in character. It can be 6 historical, collected in the recent or dis- analogy is then a variation of a formal icono- tant past. The criteria used to record the graphic analogy because it is intended to information do not necessarily match current explain iconographic similarities but, unlike a research needs. Sometimes these needs neces- formal iconographic analogy, its application sitate re-elaboration in order to be useful. necessarily entails the explanation of those On the other hand, ethnographic informa- similarities, embedded in the uniformitarian tion can be collected for the explicit purpose principle. In the case of shamanism, this of a particular archaeological investigation. principle is that Homo sapiens sapiens have But, since most traditions died long time ago, similar brain structures and nervous systems as a general rule historical ethnographic infor- and therefore their reactions under certain mation is pre-eminent within rock art studies. stimuli are similar (Lewis-Williams 1991:153). Ethnographic information can also be Therefore, similar stimuli must produce sim- direct, when both the archaeological and ilar depictions. This formal uniformitarian ethnographic contexts share a common geo- analogy is known as the ‘neuropsychological graphic setting and a potential cultural con- model’. The scope of a uniformitarian anal- nection exists between them. In the absence ogy should be carefully established to avoid of a continuous historical connection, a geo- the obvious danger of taking for granted what graphic link can still make ethnographic should be formulated as a research problem. information useful because it can be used In the next section I discuss how the nature as a source of ‘structural’ information; for of shamanism mutated across these different instance, it can provide hints about land- types of analogies. It is important however to scape uses or other basic properties of the point out that an analogy is a way of creat- landscape. But there are no absolute criteria ing evidence, and that its value depends on the to define an ethnographic analogy accurately research questions as much as on the nature based on the character of the ethnographic of the comparison. It is ultimately the broader information. On many occasions it is a mat- theoretical framework which determines how ter of degree and scale, ultimately dictated by and why the analogy is established. what is a meaningful temporal or geographi- cal setting. This can make the analogy suscep- THE CHANGING CHARACTER tible to criticism because it can be perilously OF SHAMANISM overextended. Formal analogies are established on the The application of shamanism to rock art has basis of straightforward similarities between grown and become more complex through two objects. In the case of rock art, the time. This complexity can be understood analogy is based on iconographic similari- by observing shamanism in three stages, ties; hence my term formal iconographic. It each presenting particular significance and is applied as two motifs are compared and implications. found alike in some sense or another. A simi- lar origin for both motifs is then inferred from SHAMANISM AS ETHNOGRAPHIC this resemblance (i.e. they are supposed to be ANALOGY made by the same person or under the same circumstances). Resemblance, in sum, can be There are arguments for considering shaman- subject to different interpretations. ism, as it was originally defined, as a middle- A uniformitarian (Lane 2006) analogy is, as range theory6 under an explicit functionalist a general rule, based on the use of an underly- framework. ing assumption of universalism, i.e. a process Shamanism was originally presented that operates in the present must also have (see Lewis-Williams 2006a for an extended operated in the past. A formal uniformitarian account) as a hypothesis used to approach 7 the understanding of South African rock eland (an African antelope), very abundant art through the use of ethnographic texts to in the written records. These elements were shed light on the rock art depictions. These convincingly identified in the rock art com- texts described the activities and beliefs of positions, which allowed researchers eventu- certain social groups and particularly of ally to extend the range of motifs and fea- certain individuals, emphasizing practices tures that could be ‘understood’ using texts, generally considered as shamanic. Thus, a such as dances, blood coming out the nose, general shamanic background was estab- lines of force, fantastic creatures such as the lished for South African past societies and rain animal, some body poses and gestures, consequently for rock art. and the use of cracks or other characteris- Shamanism used two kinds of ethnographic tics of the rocks as part of the compositions. accounts: historical and contemporary. The Most importantly, these iconographic paral- historical ethnographic accounts tended to lels pointed towards the symbolic character of belong to the same geographic setting as the the rock art motifs and their role in certain rock art broadly speaking, while the con- ritual activities. An eland for instance could temporary texts about shamanic practices have as its ultimate referent a mythical being tended to belong to neighbouring areas such and so on. as the Kalahari Desert, where there is no Rock art was subsequently interpreted rock art. as a way to convey spiritual energy and as Historical ethnographic texts (mostly pro- ‘recreations of spiritual or supernaturally duced by W. Bleek, L. Lloyd and J. M. potent entities that could be touched and Orpen) were used to imply the existence of from which people could draw power’ (Lewis- direct cultural continuity between the soci- Williams 2006a:365). The depictions were eties that made the rock art in the past and considered to be part of religious rituals the providers of the ethnographic data. But developed by shamans, intended for healing the link between rock art and ethnographic or rain making, among other functions. In records was not straightforward. On the one turn, rock art places were interpreted as being hand, the majority of written sources had the appropriate settings for these activities been collected from peoples with no living tra- due to alleged supernatural characteristics. dition of rock art. Although the informants Rock shelters became associated with hidden made direct mention to rock art in a few cases, knowledge made public through the action they were seldom the artists. Reliance on of the artist, who in turn was thought to be native accounts, therefore, was not a sufficient equivalent to a religious specialist. The artist condition to validate the use of ethnographic would interact with transcendent realities and sources since the indigenous knowledge in communicate with spirits in rock art places this case was secondary. On the other hand, (Lewis-Williams 1981). the activities, practices and beliefs mentioned Bridging the gap between ethnographic in these texts were interpreted as shamanic texts and rock art was an analogical exer- only in the 1970s; previous researchers did not cise. The texts did not render information on observe this possibility (Bahn 1997). rock art in a direct way, but they allowed But, once the interpretation of the texts researchers to partially reconstruct a society as accounts of shamanic activities was estab- under pressure from colonialism, especially lished, it opened the possibility for researchers their practices in relation to shamanic beliefs. to propose a comparison between the texts In turn, this reconstruction helped with the and the rock art, since some descriptions understanding of the material record (rock were relatively easy to identify on the pan- art) left by past prehistoric societies given els. These were descriptions of transitional that the interpretation of the depictions was states between animal and human,7 and of the reasonably secured through the texts. 8

Researchers then could move on from associations but it did not have to demon- the rock art itself and its interpretation to strate them. Researchers always acknowl- its context of production in the past, i.e. edged that depictions could possibly have shamanic rituals. Rock art was therefore other meanings, inaccessible through ethno- inserted into a broader context, expanding graphic texts. the research focus to the understanding of Shamanism, in sum, played the role of the social significance of shamanism. The middle-range theory because it enabled a final goal of shamanism was to learn about chain of linked assumptions that acted as specific cultural meanings of depictions only bridging arguments of a general hypothe- as a way to understand the rock art and its sis. The chain of inferences that supported social implications. the social interpretation of rock art within Therefore, this initial shamanism provided the San social formation was reasonable. The the bridge that allowed researchers to build hypothetical shamanic character of rock art a chain of inferences from rock art to its was explicit and the hypothesis as a whole was production and, ultimately, to the social con- plausible in this context. text of this production. This description of social context drew from social theory, sys- SHAMANISM AS FORMAL tem theory and Marxism (Lewis-Williams ICONOGRAPHIC AND FORMAL 1982, 1995a), i.e. the analogical reasoning UNIFORMITARIAN ANALOGY was embedded in a broader theoretical frame- work and explaining rock art was ultimately The next stage in the life history of shaman- equivalent to explaining the social formation ism is marked by its application outside its that made it. But rock art was not just a original South African context, especially by-product of certain social practices; it was to European Palaeolithic paintings. Within also an archaeological evidence that rendered this context the ethnographic character of information about the social formation that the hypothesis was downplayed in order to made it, because it was interpreted as a locus emphasize elements that could support its of conflict: ‘The art became an instrument application to Western Europe. It was now of change and an index of social diversity the turn of formal parallels and the so-called and conflict – a very different picture from altered states of consciousness,8 or the neu- the harmonious one projected by function- ropsychological model, to become the central alist perspectives’ (Lewis-Williams 1995b:81). focus of attention. Rock art and rituals were ultimately consid- According to this model, altered states ered social devices intended to release social of consciousness, originating in a malfunc- tension, drive negotiations among different tioning of the brain, explained the geometric groups, alleviate conflict and negotiate status depictions known as entoptics or phosphenes (Lewis-Williams 1980, 1982, 1995b, Blundell (Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1988) (Fig. 2). 1996, Dowson 1994, 1998). Ultimately, the They undergo three phases. The first, existence of rock art was taken as an evi- allegedly induced through the use of certain dence of social struggle; its interpretation was hallucinogens or other practices, results intimately linked to the understanding of the in visions of undulating lines, grids, and economic and social context (Lewis-Williams nested curves. This phase is obviously very 1982). important for the interpretation of rock art. This particular interpretation of rock art In the second stage, individuals may ascribe shamanism made can be discussed on the- meaning to these geometric forms, and in oretical grounds, but potential disagreement the final third stage, people are said to have in this sense does not affect the sound- visions of other ‘people, animals and mon- ness of the analogy. It showed possible sters, as well as hallucinations in all the senses; 9

Fig. 2. After Lewis-Williams & Dowson (1988). Printed with permission from University of Chicago Press. subjects participate in their own imagery. establish a meaningful comparison between Geometric imagery may now be peripheral entoptic motifs seen by contemporary people or combined with iconic images. The third under experimental conditions and the South stage is frequently reached by seeming to pass African rock art corpus. Positive correlation through a vortex or tunnel, or by a sensation was taken to be a proof that these rock art of flight’ (Lewis-Williams 2004a:107). motifs, previously unexplained in the absence In theory, and in spite of the physiological of ethnographic information directly associ- emphasis entailed by the neuropsychological ated with them (Layton 2000:174), had been model, entoptics in rock art should be consid- produced by people in an altered state of con- ered to be the result of the interplay between sciousness, i.e. by shamans. At the same time, the inherent structure of the brain and partic- lack of a perfect fit between images would ular cultural contexts, even under an altered be the product of particular cultural contexts state of consciousness (Lewis-Williams & and would allegedly not weaken the anal- Dowson 1988). In fact, however, universalism ogy (Lewis-Williams 1991, Lewis-Williams & prevailed over any sort of cultural particular- Dowson 1992). ism and the human nervous system was prior- As a result, the neuropsychological model itized over culture. This was the only way to was regarded as independent evidence that 10 allegedly made the analogy stronger, based trance, may produce them, so it should not on formal iconographic similarities between be possible to tell a shamanic from a non- experimental images and South African rock shamanic context (contra Whitley 2005:122). art motifs. This new take on shamanism Moreover, the assumption of independence was to be applied to other non-ethnographic for the neuropsychological model is prob- rock art corpora elsewhere in the world, lematic, because it actually depends on the particularly to European Palaeolithic rock previous establishment of a shamanic inter- art (Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1988, 1992, pretation of the rock art, i.e. it depends on a Clottes & Lewis-Williams 1996, Lewis- previous ethnographic analogy. Williams & Clottes 1998a), where geometric For these reasons, other lines of evidence depictions had often gone unexplained. must be added, as was the case with the By then, the nature of shamanism had obvi- shamanic interpretation of the European ously switched from an ethnographic direct Palaeolithic rock art, where more arguments historical approach to a formal one, based were later supplied (see Lewis-Williams 2002, on the geometric nature of the depictions, Whitley 2005). Unfortunately, archaeological although some iconic depictions began to be arguments for the existence of shamanic prac- increasingly interpreted as shamanic (Lewis- tices tend to be inconclusive. Williams 1991, Lewis-Williams & Dowson In sum, as shamanism mutated from a 1992). South African direct historical approach to a Formal analogy and the neuropsycholog- purely formal analogy in the case of European ical model became the mechanisms that Palaeolithic rock art – literally and metaphor- allowed the application of shamanism to the ically moving outside its original context – it European Palaeolithic. But the substitution became weaker as it relied on longer chains of an ethnographic analogy by a formal of inference and the articulation of different one under the same label, shamanism, trig- kinds of analogical reasoning. More accu- gered harsh criticisms against it, as its pro- rately, weakness arose because the scope of ponents were accused of speculation and ill the interpretation – that the rock art is the use of the analogy in order to describe many product of shamanic practices, and therefore (ambiguous) depictions in shamanic terms. shamanism was a fundamental pillar of San Indiscriminate use of formal iconographic and Palaeolithic societies – did not change analogies even brought criticisms of South according to the power of the analogy in use. African proponents of shamanism (Blundell 1998, Lewis-Williams 2006a).9 SHAMANISM AS TRANSLATION This wave of criticisms was to be expected because, even though a formal analogy is part In theory, shamanism is still considered a of middle-range theory strategies that can be hypothesis that aims to understand South accepted when justified (see Lewis-Williams African San rock art based on an ethno- 1991:158, and favourable critiques in Barich graphic analogy and in this sense it could 1996:10, Trigger 1995:455), it is weaker than be subject to further testing (Lewis-Williams an ethnographic analogy because it is based 2006a). However, the abundance with which on subjectively defined iconographic similar- shamanism has been applied in many dif- ities without further context. For instance, ferent archaeological contexts all over the critics (Francfort 2001a, Bahn 2001, but see world has had the effect of strengthening the reply in Lewis-Williams 2004a, 2006a) have validity of the original hypothesis in South pointed out that geometric motifs are not Africa. Most of the criticisms that it has necessarily entoptics, and entoptics are not received (see Jolly 1996, Solomon 2001, 2008, necessarily a product of altered states of Dowson 2007; see also Layton 2000) have tar- consciousness. Many circumstances, besides geted the content of the interpretation but 11 have not questioned its validity as a method. act of translation, i.e. using the ethnographic They mostly point that not all San rock records to interpret signs and assigning con- art would have been produced by shamanic crete, finite meanings to the rock art motifs. practices, advancing alternative interpreta- Through this set of mutations, shamanism tions also based on ethnographic accounts may be identified as a case study that demon- (Dowson 2007, Solomon 2008). These are, strates how the original use of ethnography however, less robust than shamanism, whose as a source of analogy has eventually led to pre-eminence, being more systematic, has non-analogical reasoning10 while the focus of not been threatened, as Layton points out: research, i.e. the interpretation of rock art, ‘Lewis-Williams’ reading is more persuasive remained the same. because more details of the composition are read in a way consistent with the available IMPLICATIONS ethnography for the region and no details contradict the preferred reading’ (Layton Shamanism conflates theories and analogies 2000:171). of very different characters. Initially, the orig- In reality, shamanism is no longer used inal ethnographic analogy was posed as an as a plausible hypothesis; instead, it has epistemological bridge to explain rock art in acquired the status of a fact (see Lewis- its social context and historical conjuncture. Williams (1996:291) or Whitley – ‘The San It later became a formal iconographic analogy of southern Africa are very well known for when it was applied to the different tem- their shamanic rock art’ (Whitley 2005:98)). poral and geographical context of European The original hypothesis interpreting San rock Palaeolithic art. At the same time, it mutated art as shamanic has tacitly been accepted as again to become a uniformitarian analogy being correct by a majority of researchers. As used as an alleged independent kind of evi- a result, oral narratives collected in ethno- dence. Finally, shamanism became an exercise graphic records and rock art have become in exegesis of the meaning of the depictions different channels of the same communicative through the use of ethnographic texts. These process. Consequently, current research is different kinds of reasoning can be associated focused on the transposition of meaning to a broader theoretical change, from the ini- from the ethnographic and textual context tial materialist framework of shamanism to to the archaeological one. Both are seen as what we could consider properly an idealist two sides of the same experience, of the same one – or post-processual due to its emphasis phenomena: the shamanic practices. Thus, on symbolism and meaning (see Barich 1996, shamanism, or properly speaking religion, is McCall 2007:226). the fundamental focus of research, and rock This shift has raised a series of issues. First, art becomes supplementary evidence of its the strength of the analogy has suffered as its existence. character has changed, and this needs to be If we stick to the definition of analogy explicitly acknowledged by researchers since given above, regarding what an analogy is it has an impact on its heuristic power. As and does, the original analogical character the nature of the analogy became weaker, of shamanism should be reconsidered. As its associated interpretation should have been it is now applied, shamanism has conflated accordingly limited. the two terms of the comparison into a sin- Second, shamanism tends to conflate gle phenomenon. Thus, the possibilities of epistemological categories such as explana- showing contrast, similarities or differences, tion, theory, analogy, method (e.g. it is a maybe even principles of connection or rela- ‘new theory and method’ (Lewis-Williams tional properties between them (Wylie 1985), 2006a:369)), and facts. A more explicit have been eliminated and substituted by an epistemological definition of shamanism is 12 probably needed, especially about the current societies, and its study was not always seen as status of shamanism regarding the available an archaeology of religion (see Palacio 2010) evidence. or as a quest for meaning (see also Balbín Third, it has been acknowledged many & Alcolea 1999, Balbín 2007). These have times that emic approaches might privilege become essential issues in rock art research the vision of a specific individual or group as social archaeology (namely functionalism of individuals over the rest of the group, by and Marxism) has lost appeal and a prac- focusing on the one particular meaning avail- tice rooted in thinking in terms of individ- able. Meaning is polysemous and the rela- uals and agency has gained terrain. In this tion between meaning and material sign is regard, it is also likely that the relevance of the not univocal within the same social group. neuropsychological model in shamanism con- Knowledge may be unevenly distributed tributed to this change in focus. The emphasis inside the social group. Therefore, there is given to the human nervous system, its uni- the danger that ethnographic records might versality and its apparent explanatory power be biased, masking differences in knowledge tend to stress the role of the individual/artist and/or power. In shamanism this point might (Hamayon 2001:13) versus that of society. be complicated by the fact that it was mainly This tension was already present in the origi- not the makers of the rock art who provided nal formulation of the hypothesis but it seems information. Placing too much emphasis on to have been finally resolved in favour of the centrality of texts as opposed to empirical the individual (see Dowson 1988:125, Lewis- observations from the archaeological record Williams 2002:45). The initial concern to can further exacerbate these problems. place rock art and individuals in their social And, fourth, as an ethnographic or uni- context has been very much replaced by the formitarian, direct historical, formal or notion of humans as essentially religious (and hermeneutical approach, shamanism depends artistic) beings.11 In other words, the original on underlying assumptions that point to premise concerned with the social relations different research goals. In my view, it has in which the rock art was embedded (see, for evolved from a functionalist interpretation of instance, Lewis-Williams 1982, Dowson 1994, rock art, with a focus on conflict as inherent 1998) evolved into an ‘explanation’ of rock art in the social role of artistic production, to by assigning particular meanings to the depic- become an inquiry about spiritual and reli- tions. Individual genius, creativity and per- gious concerns and activities of individuals sonal intentions (aspects that can or need not (e.g. Bertilsson 1995, Whitley 2001, 2005, be explained), together with an allegedly uni- Whitley & Keyser 2003, Jones 2003, see also versal predisposition towards religion and its Trigger 1999). practice, have become the ultimate explana- Rock art is generally regarded as a tion of the existence of rock art, that appears privileged means of accessing the sym- as the product of a myriad of individual inde- bolic realm, and seems to lend itself to pendent events fundamentally disconnected interpretative meaning-oriented approaches, from each other, that eventually formed the as ‘archaeological settings saturated with rock art corpus as we know it. “art” and “ritual” ’ lend themselves to In a way, the use of the ethnographic meaning-oriented analysis (Robb 2007:73). records may promote such an approach to But, as many materialist-framed works show rock art as they are case by case accounts (Conkey 1980, Lewis-Williams 1982, Jochim of depictions and of particular sites; as a 1983, Gilman 1984, Mithen 1987, 1991, result, researchers may end up with a collec- Rosenfeld 1997), rock art was not always tion of particular events. But, if we are going regarded as a mere provider of evidence to attain the methodological tools necessary for the existence of religion in prehistoric to explain its appearance as an extremely 13 structured phenomenon, rock art must be for a given phenomenon but instead reaffirm explicitly defined as a social institution. existing ones and in this way the status quo. This was part of the original formula- This is the worst case scenario, of course. tion of shamanism, as it was the contem- The epistemic value of analogy was estab- plation of contradiction and rock art as a lished long ago (see Wylie 1985, Lane 2006) locus of struggle (‘The rock art was one ele- and analogical reasoning has helped to make ment in a dialectic of domination and resis- rock art meaningful in its broader social con- tance’ (Dowson 1994:341)). This was in my text on many occasions. Ethnography has view one of the best accomplishments of the been a real peer to archaeology, especially shamanic approach, since researchers were in case studies where ethnographic data have able to reach social readings of rock art been complemented with a strong interest in that still remain quite innovative; shaman- landscape, the location of the rock art and ism allowed a better understanding of the the patterns of association of rock art and social formation that made the art. Actually, other elements (Deacon 1988, Morwood & shamanism potentially promoted the practice Hobbs 1992, Smith 1992, Taçon & Faulstich of archaeology, as a means of independent 1993, Bradley et al. 1994, Waddington 1996, verification. However, as it shifted towards Millerstrom 1997, Rosenfeld 1997, David & a greater focus on religion and meaning, Lourandos 1998, Martínez 1998, Santos shamanism has been reduced in its scope 1999, Layton 2000, Lee & Stasack 2005 both in content and method, since it reduces [1999], Cruz Berrocal & Vicent 2007). For archaeological practice to a mere complement these reasons, an anti-ethnography declara- of ethnographic texts.12 Moreover, the use of tion is totally out of place. Rather, analogical ethnographic texts as ‘translations’ of archae- reasoning and its implications must be made ological objects, as opposed to actual ana- explicit (or what kind of analogy and how logical reasoning, potentially annihilates the is being used), since building an analogy is possibility of contradiction between material one important way for rock art researchers culture and discourse. (and archaeologists at large) to create their evidence. The study of rock art is currently domi- CONCLUSION nated by interpretative approaches that tend Rock art is multidimensional: a product of to rely on ethnographic analogy and place ideological processes and relations, a sym- emphasis on grasping the concrete meanings bolic phenomenon, a cultural correlate of of the depictions by way of an explanation. social, economic and political processes. It These approaches should be included within must therefore be addressed from a com- a higher-level contextualization of rock art. plex point of view, one that transcends the- For instance, altered states of consciousness oretical boundaries (between processual and are social experiences that can be explained as post-processual archaeologies, between struc- part of regulatory social institutions. These, turalist and historical materialist approaches, in turn may be understood within particular between materialism and idealism) and disci- historical conditions. It is, therefore, specific plines (anthropology, archaeology). In some social and historical contexts and the mate- cases, the use of direct ethnographic analogies riality of the paintings itself that represent may inhibit the development of more nuanced relevant objects of research. Intersubjective archaeological approaches given the wealth judgement of the research, treating rock art of detail they provide. Thus, ethnographic as the expression of a social institution rather analogies may not always open new possibil- than as a particularistic activity and the anal- ities of research and interpretation; they do ysis of our analogical thinking should all be not widen the range of potential explanations part of the process of validating our results. 14

This is especially so as nowadays mere icono- assumed the shamanistic nature of these practices graphic descriptions, studies of representation and even the term). ‘Shamanism’ would not be and perspective, holistic explanations of terri- used as a label by Lewis-Williams until several torial articulation and landscape construction years later (J. Deacon pers. comm.). 3 and even demonstrations of a priori assump- Examples of which would be the idea of a mem- tions are all valid and equal outcomes of rock brane as an interface between two worlds and the use of hallucinogenic substances by shamans. The art research. assumption of a separation of the sacred and pro- fane spheres has also been represented as a Western ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS construction (e.g. Bahn 1997, 2001) that should not be attributed to past peoples. The core of this paper was written while 4This would be due to its failure to address the I was a MEC/Fulbright postdoctoral scholar issue of cultural change over time, which promotes at UC Berkeley, 2007–2008. I thank Meg a view of southern African rock art as static and Conkey, Juan Vicent, Antonio Gilman and universal (McCall 2007:225). 5 Leonardo García Sanjuán for their read- Ethnographic analogies can ultimately be either ing and comments. I warmly thank Janette relational analogies, based on understanding the Deacon and Maribel Martínez Navarrete for causal relationships between the variables that can be observed, or formal analogies, based on their clever and useful suggestions. Marcos a straightforward comparison of some aspect of Llobera thoroughly revised the paper and the form or observable characteristics (Wylie 1985). English, improving it a great deal, for which But I will use the concept ‘ethnographic analogy’ I remain really thankful. Carmen Pérez, to stress the source of the information employed in Teresa Rodríguez and Alex Suárez gave me the analogy. a hand with pictures. Primitiva Bueno and 6A middle-range theory (MRT) ‘is widely regarded Rodrigo de Balbín also provided bibliography. as a useful means by which archaeologists can Reviewers of a previous version pointed out reconstruct human behaviour from a material- its weaknesses. Any mistake remains my own. ist and rationalist perspective. As defined by Binford ... this approach postulates that, if a strong correlation can be established between spe- NOTES cific aspects of behaviour and specific aspects of material culture in the modern (actual) world, the 1Shamanic practices or shamanic religion have presence of such material culture in the archaeo- been a widely debated topic in broader anthropo- logical record allows the archaeologist to assume logical and historical contexts (see, e.g., Hamayon that the associated behaviours also were present 1993, 1995, 1998, Kehoe 1996, 2000). Their rela- in the past. The bridging or warranting argument, tionship with the counter-culture movements of which establishes the relevance of the modern gen- the 1960s has been pointed out (which, for eralization for inferring past behaviour, is that of instance, led some critics to see a link between uniformitarianism. It is assumed that the corre- drug use in the present and hypotheses about drug lation applies to all situations in which human use in the past leading to the making of rock art cognitive and behavioural capacities were the same (Meighan 1982:226)). Also the romanticized vision as those of modern human beings. The goal of of the past turned out by shamanism has been crit- middle-range theory is not to explain human icized (Hamayon 2001:3). More problematically, behaviour but to infer it from material remains it is generally assumed that there exist varying recovered from archaeological contexts’ (Trigger criteria behind almost every use of the concept. 1995:450). 2This paper is mostly focused on shamanism as Or, an ‘MRT is a body of theory (or methodol- it was presented and popularized by the work of ogy) which bridges the gap between our observa- J.D. Lewis-Williams. In his important paper of tion of the archaeological record and our interpre- 1982, however, he did not use the term shaman- tation of it as a cultural system – it provides the ism, instead referring to medicine men, trancers middle ground between unreflective observation and healers (interestingly, two of his commentators and general theory ... Thus an MRT might have 15 very general cross-cultural applicability, but its role of theory – of representation, social agency, per- in interpreting the past is as a bridge or method- formance, semiotics and structuration, feminist ological tool and is quite distinct from general theory, and so forth – that are unlikely to be con- social theory ... . In themselves ... middle range sidered in (sometimes problematic) ethnographies, theories are as theoretical as any other theory but may be particularly well suited to the nature of and no more or less general than “general” social rock art as a cultural phenomenon. Furthermore, theory’ (Lucas 2001:184–185). what is painfully missing or limited in many of 7These representations can relatively easily be these approaches is the archaeology; that is, the interpreted as shamans undertaking a spiri- use of archaeological materials and contexts, where tual transformation, based on the ethnographic available, to provide additional lines of evidence records. But the relevance given to these depictions into understanding the (presumably dynamic and has been considered a bias of shamanism, because changing) social contexts within which shaman- they are in a minority (Bahn 2001:76) and could ism, ritual, and trance, for example, would have also be interpreted as disguises used by hunters, been embedded’ (Conkey 1997:170). as spirits or as other mythical creatures (Solomon 1998, 2001, 2008). REFERENCES 8Originally, shamanic practices did not imply altered states of consciousness (Hamayon 2001, Bahn, P. 1993. The ‘dead wood stage’ of prehis- Bahn 2001). Trance became a key component of toric art studies. In Lorblanchet, M. & Bahn, P. shamanism for South African rock art researchers (eds). Rock Art Studies. The Post-Stylistic Era or and their particular contribution to a definition of Where Do We Go from Here?, pp. 51–59. Oxbow shamanic religion. Books, Oxford. 9‘Since the publication of “Signs of all times”, Bahn, P. 1997. Membrane and numb brain. researchers from various parts of the world have A close look at a recent claim for shamanism taken up the model as a tool for approaching the in Palaeolithic art. Rock Art Research 14(1), understanding of rock art. It is in this globalization 62–68. of the model that potential dangers are found ... Bahn, P. 2001. Save the last trance for me. An a further potential danger of the use of the model assessment of the misuse of shamanism in rock is the tendency to treat the entoptic component as art studies. In Francfort, H-P. & Hamayon, R. in the final explanation. Once it is realized that an collaboration with P.G. Bahn (eds). The Concept art depicts entoptics, some people feel that there is of Shamanism. Uses and Abuses, pp. 51–93. little more to say. “Abstract” images, like painted Bibliotheca Shamanistica, Akadémiai Kiadó, and engraved entoptics, do, however, have cultural Budapest. values and meanings’ (Blundell 1998:9–10). Balbín Behrmann, R. de 2007. El chamanismo 10But see Kosso (1991:626), who argued that cabalga de nuevo. Una propuesta nueva de middle-range theory and hermeneutic approaches carácter tradicional sobre el arte prehistórico. have a ‘common structure’ and ‘are fundamentally Review article: M. Lorblanchet, J. Le Quellec, the same method’. P. Bahn, H.P. Francfort and G. Delluc (dir.) 11It has been noticed that such a focus on the Chamanismes et arts préhistoriques. Vision cri- religious character of the art can contribute tique. Ed. Errance, Paris, 2006. Trabajos de to regarding its makers as fundamentally dif- Prehistoria 64(2), 182–184. ferent (Bahn 1997:64; see also Klein et al. Balbín Behrmann, R. de & Alcolea, J. 1999. Vie 2001:229). quotidienne et vie religieuse. Les Sanctuaires 12It has been noticed that the turn to ethnogra- dans l’art Paléolithique. L’Anthropologie 103, phy ‘has at least two implications: first, it mandates 23–49. that interpreters (and especially the followers of Barich, B. 1996. Post processual archaeology and shamanism) confront explicitly the rather gnarly scientific objectivity. Implications for rock art if not longstanding issue of the nature, role, and research. Origini 20, 7–16. limits of ethnographic analogy in archaeological Barton, C. M., Clark, G.A. & Cohen, A. 1994. Art reasoning and interpretation; and second, it asks as information. Explaining Upper Palaeolithic how rock art researchers can develop interpre- art in Western Europe. World Archaeology tive frameworks that draw from the rich bodies 26(2), 185–204. 16

Beaune, S. de 1998. Chamanisme et préhistoire. Un Cruz Berrocal, M. & Millerstrom, S. 2010. feuilleton à épisodes. L’Homme 147, 203–219. Introduction to rock art and food producing Bertilsson, U. 1995. Rock art, recent research societies. A systematic association. In Guidon, and religion. In Helskog, K. & Olsen, B. N., Buco, C. & Simoes, M. (eds). Global (eds). Perceiving Rock Art. Social and Political Rock Art. Annals of the XVI World Congress Perspectives, pp. 207–214. Novus Forlag, of the International Federation of Rock Oslo. Art Organizations, pp. 1359–1364. IFRAO, Blundell, G. 1996. Book review: The Rock Art of FUMDHAM, Piauí, Brazil. the Golden Gate and Clarens District by Bert Cruz Berrocal, M. & Vicent García, J.M. 2007. Woodhouse. William Waterman Publications: Rock art as an archaeological and social indica- Rivonia. Southern African Field Archaeology 5, tor. The neolithisation of the Iberian Peninsula. 103–104. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26, Blundell, G. 1998. On neuropsychology in south- 676–697. ern African rock art research. Anthropology of David, B. & Lourandos, H. 1998. Rock art and Consciousness 9(1), 3–12. socio-demography in northeastern Australian Bradley, R., Criado, F. & Fábregas, R. 1994. prehistory. World Archaeology 30(2), 193–219. Rock art research as landscape archaeology. Deacon, J. 1988. The power of a place in under- A pilot study in Galicia, North-West Spain. standing southern San rock engravings. World World Archaeology 25(3), 374–390. Archaeology 20(1), 129–140. Clottes, J. & Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1996. Les Demoule, J.P.1997. Images prehistoriques, rêves de chamanes de la préhistoire. Transe et magie dans préhistoriens. Critique 606, 853–870. les grottes ornées. Seuil, Paris. Dowson, T. 1988. Revelations of religious real- Conkey, M.W. 1980. The identification of pre- ity. The individual in San rock art. World historic hunter-gatherer aggregation sites. The Archaeology 20(1), 116–128. case of Altamira. Current Anthropology 21(5), Dowson, T. 1994. Reading art, writing history. 609–630. Rock art and social change in southern Africa. Conkey, M.W. 1984. To find ourselves. Art and World Archaeology 25(3), 332–345. social geography of prehistoric hunter-gatherers. Dowson, T. 1998. Like people in prehistory. World In Schrire, C. (ed.). Past and Present in Hunter- Archaeology 29(3), 333–343. Gatherer Studies, pp. 253–276. Academic Press, Dowson, T. 2007. Debating shamanism in south- New York. ern African rock art. Time to move on ... . Conkey, M.W. 1985. Ritual communication, social South African Archaeological Bulletin 62(185), elaboration, and the variable trajectories of 49–61. Palaeolithic material culture. In Price, D.T. & Francfort, H-P. 1998. Central Asian petroglyphs. Brown, J. (eds). Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers. Between Indo-Iranian and shamanistic interpre- The Emergence of Cultural Complexity, pp. 299– tations. In Chippindale, C. & Taçon, P. (eds). 323. Academic Press, New York. The Archaeology of Rock Art, pp. 302–318. Conkey, M.W. 1989. The structural analysis Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. of Palaeolithic art. In Lamberg-Karlovsky, Francfort, H-P. 2001a. Prehistoric section. An C.C. (ed.). Archaeological Thought in America, introduction. In Francfort, H-P. & Hamayon, R. pp. 135–154. Cambridge University Press, in collaboration with Bahn, P.(eds). The Concept Cambridge. of Shamanism. Uses and Abuses, pp. 31–49. Conkey, M.W. 1997. Making a mark. Rock Bibliotheca Shamanistica, Akadémiai Kiadó, art research. American Anthropologist 99(1), Budapest. 168–172. Francfort, H-P. 2001b. Art, archaeology and the Conkey, M.W. & Hastorf, C. (eds) 1990. The Uses prehistories of shamanism in Inner Asia. In of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge University Francfort, H-P. & Hamayon, R. in collaboration Press, Cambridge. with Bahn, P. (eds). The Concept of Shamanism. Criado, F. & Penedo, R. 1989. Cazadores y salva- Uses and Abuses, pp. 243–276. Bibliotheca jes. Una contraposición entre el arte Paleolítico Shamanistica, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. y el arte Postglaciar Levantino. Munibe 41, Francfort, H-P. & Hamayon, R.N. in collabora- 3–22. tion with Bahn, P. (eds). 2001. The Concept 17

of Shamanism. Uses and Abuses. Bibliotheca Kehoe, A. 1996. Eliade and Hultkranz. The Shamanistica, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. European primitivism tradition. American Gilman, A. 1984. Explaining the Upper Palaeol- Indian Quarterly 20(3), 377–392. ithic revolution. In Spriggs, M. (ed.). Marxist Kehoe, A. 2000. Shamans and Religion. An Perspectives in Archaeology, pp. 115–126. Anthropological Exploration in Critical Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Thinking. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL. Hamayon, R.N. 1993. Are ‘trance’, ‘ecstasy’ and Klein, C.F., Guzman, E., Mandell, E.C., Stanfield- similar concepts appropriate in the study of Mazzi, M. & Volpe, J. 2001. Shamanitis. A Pre- shamanism? Shaman 1(2), 3–25. columbian art historical disease. In Francfort, Hamayon, R.N. 1995. Pour en finir avec la ‘transe’ H-P. & Hamayon, R. in collaboration with et ‘l’extase’ dans l’étude du chamanisme. Etudes Bahn, P. (eds). The Concept of Shamanism. mongoles et sibériennes 26, 155–190. Uses and Abuses, pp. 207–41. Bibliotheca Hamayon, R.N. 1997. La transe d’un préhisto- Shamanistica, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. rien. A propos du livre de Jean Clottes et David Kosso, P. 1991. Method in archaeology. Middle- Lewis-Williams. Les Nouvelles de l’Archaeologie range theory as hermeneutics. American 67, 65–67. Antiquity 56(4), 621–627. Hamayon, R.N. 1998. ‘Ecstasy’ or the West- Lahelma, A. 2005. Between the worlds. Rock dreamt Siberian shaman. In Wautscher, H. (ed.). art, landscape and shamanism in subNeolithic Tribal Epistemologies, pp. 175–187. Aldershot, Finland. Norwegian Archaeological Review Avebury. 38(1), 29–47. Hamayon, R.N. 2001. Shamanism. Symbolic sys- Lahelma, A. 2007. ‘On the back of a blue elk’. tem, human capability and Western ideology. Recent ethnohistorical sources and ‘ambigu- In Francfort, H-P. & Hamayon, R. in col- ous’ Stone Age rock art at Pyhänpäa, Central laboration with Bahn, P. (eds). The Concept Finland. Norwegian Archaeological Review of Shamanism. Uses and Abuses, pp. 1–27. 40(2), 113–137. Bibliotheca Shamanistica, Akadémiai Kiadó, Lane, P. 2006. Present to past. Ethnoarchaeology. Budapest. In Tilley, C., Keane, W., Küchler, S., Helskog, K. 1999. The shore connection. Cognitive Rowlands, M. & Spyer, P. (eds). Handbook landscape and communication with rock carv- of Material Culture, pp. 402–424. Sage, London. ings in northernmost Europe. Norwegian Layton, R. 1995. Rereading rock art. Text and Archaeological Review 32(2), 73–94. discourse. In Helskog, K. & Olsen, B. (eds). Helvenston, P.& Bahn, P.2004. Waking the trance- Perceiving Rock Art. Social and Political fixed. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14(1), Perspectives, pp. 217–227. Novus Forlag, 90–100. Oslo. Jochim, M. 1983. Palaeolithic cave art in eco- Layton, R. 2000. Review feature. Shamanism, logical perspective. In Bailey, G. (ed.). Hunter- totemism and rock art. Les chamanes de la Gatherer Economy in Prehistory. A European Préhistoire in the context of rock art research. Perspective, pp. 212–219. Cambridge University Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10(1), Press, Cambridge. 169–186. Jolly, P. 1996. Symbiotic interaction between black Le Quellec, J-L. 2001. Shamans and Martians. The farmers and south-eastern San. Implications for same struggle! In Francfort H-P. & Hamayon, southern African rock art studies, ethnographic R. in collaboration with Bahn, P. (eds). The analogy, and hunter-gatherer cultural identity Concept of Shamanism. Uses and Abuses, pp. (with comments). Current Anthropology 37(2), 135–159. Bibliotheca Shamanistica, Akadémiai 277–305. Kiadó, Budapest. Jones, A. 2003. Art and contestation: a review of Lee, G. & Stasack, E. 2005 [1999]. Spirit of K. Helskog, (ed.): Theoretical Perspectives in Place. Petroglyphs of Hawai’i. Easter Island Rock Art Research. Novus Forlag, The Institute Foundation, Los Osos. for Comparative Research in Human Culture, Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1992. L’art pariétal. Langage Oslo, 2001. Norwegian Archaeological Review de la préhistoire. Editions Jérôme Millon, 36(1), 77–80. Grenoble. 18

Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1980. Ethnography and Lewis-Williams, J.D. 2004b. On sharpness and iconography. Aspects of southern San thought scholarship in the debate on ‘shamanism’. and art. Man 15, 467–482. Current Anthropology 45(3), 404–406. Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1981. The thin red line. Lewis-Williams, J.D. 2006a. The evolution of the- Southern San notions and rock paint- ory, method and technique in southern African ings of supernatural potency. South African rock art research. Journal of Archaeological Archaeological Bulletin 36, 5–13. Method and Theory 13(4), 343–377. Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1982. The economic and Lewis-Williams, J.D. 2006b. Debating rock art. social context of southern San rock art. Current Myth and ritual, theories and facts. South Anthropology 23(4), 429–449. African Archaeological Bulletin 61(183), Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1984. The empiricist impasse 105–114. in southern African rock art studies. South Lewis-Williams, J.D. & Dowson, T. 1988. The African Archaeological Bulletin 39, 58–66. signs of all times. Entoptic phenomena in Upper Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1991. Wrestling with anal- Palaeolithic Art. Current Anthropology 29(2), ogy. A methodological dilemma in Upper 201–244. Palaeolithic art research. Proceedings of the Lewis-Williams, J.D. & Dowson, T. 1992. Art Prehistoric Society 57(1), 149–162. rupestre San et paleolithique superieur. Le lien Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1995a. Perspectives and tra- analogique. L’Anthropologie 96(4), 769–790. ditions in southern African rock art research. In Lewis-Williams, J.D. & Clottes, J. 1998a. The Helskog, K. & Olsen, B. (eds). Perceiving Rock Mind in the Cave–the Cave in the Mind. Art. Social and Political Perspectives, pp. 65–86. Altered Consciousness in the Upper Paleolithic. Novus Forlag, Oslo. Anthropology of Consciousness 9(1), 13–21. Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1995b. Some aspects of Lewis-Williams, J.D. & Clottes, J. 1998b. rock art research in the politics of present- Shamanism and Upper Palaeolithic art. day South Africa. In Helskog, K. & Olsen, B. A response to Bahn. Rock Art Research 15(1), (eds). Perceiving Rock Art. Social and Political 46–50. Perspectives, pp. 317–337. Novus Forlag, Oslo. Lewis-Williams, J.D. & Loubser, J. 1986. Deceptive Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1996. Comment to Jolly, appearances. A critique of southern African P. 1996. Symbiotic interaction between black rock art studies. Advances in World Archaeology, farmers and south-eastern San. Implications for Vol. 5, pp. 253–289. Academic Press, New York. southern African rock art studies, ethnographic Lorblanchet, M. 2001. Encounters with shaman- analogy, and hunter-gatherer cultural identity. ism. In Francfort, H-P. & Hamayon, R. in col- Current Anthropology 37(2), 277–305. laboration with Bahn, P. (eds). The Concept Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1999. ‘Meaning’ in southern of Shamanism. Uses and Abuses, pp. 95–115. African San rock art. Another impasse? South Bibliotheca Shamanistica, Akadémiai Kiadó, African Archaeological Bulletin 54, 141–145. Budapest. Lewis-Williams, J.D. (ed.) 2000. Stories that Float Lucas, G. 2001. Critical Approaches to Fieldwork. from Afar. Ancestral Folklore of the San of Contemporary and Historical Archaeological Southern Africa. David Philip, Cape Town. Practice. Routledge, New York. Lewis-Williams, J.D. 2002. The Mind in the Cave. Martínez García, J. 1998. Abrigos y accidentes Consciousness and the Origins of Art. Thames & geográficos como categorías de análisis en el Hudson, New York. paisaje de la pintura rupestre esquemática. El Lewis-Williams, J.D. 2003. Putting the record sudeste como marco. Arqueología Espacial 19– straight. Rock art and shamanism. Antiquity 20, 543–561. 77(295), 165–170. McCall, G.S. 2007. Add shamans and stir? A crit- Lewis-Williams, J.D. 2004a. Neuropsychology ical review of the shamanism model of forager and Upper Palaeolithic art. Observations on rock art production. Journal of Anthropological the progress of altered states of conscious- Archaeology 26, 224–233. ness. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14, Meighan, C. 1982. Rock art and archaeology. 107–111. American Indian Rock Art 7–8, 225–229. 19

Millerstrom, S. 1997. Carved and painted rock Archaeology of Rock Art, pp. 268–284. images in the Marquesas Islands, French Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Polynesia. Archaeology in Oceania 32, 181–196. Solomon, A. 2001. What is an explanation? Belief Mithen, S. 1987. Looking and learning. Upper and cosmology in interpretations of southern Palaeolithic art and information gathering. San rock art in southern Africa. In Francfort, World Archaeology 19(3), 297–327. H-P. & Hamayon, R. in collaboration with Mithen, S. 1991. Ecological interpretations of Bahn, P. (eds). The Concept of Shamanism. Palaeolithic art. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Uses and Abuses, pp. 161–77. Bibliotheca Society 57(1), 103–114. Shamanistica, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. Morwood, M. & Hobbs, D. 1992. Rock Art and Solomon, A. 2008. Myths, making, and conscious- Ethnography. Proceedings of the Ethnographic ness. Differences and dynamics in San rock arts. Symposium 5, Australian Rock Art Association Current Anthropology 49(1), 59–86. Congress (Darwin 1988). Taborin, Y. 2000. Les interprétations de l’art Palacio Pérez, E. 2010. Cave art and the theory of paléolithique. Archéologia 366, 52–61. art. The origins of the religious interpretation of Taçon, P. & Faulstich, P. 1993. Introduction. Palaeolithic graphic expression. Oxford Journal Expressing relationships to the land by mark- of Archaeology 29(1), 1–14. ing special places. In Steinbring, J. & Watchman, Robb, J. 2007. The Early Mediterranean Village. A. (eds). Time and Space. Dating and Spatial Agency, Material Culture, and Social Change Considerations in Rock Art Research, pp. 81– in Neolithic Italy. Cambridge University Press, 83. Occasional AURA Publication 8, Australian Cambridge. Rock Art Research Association, Melbourne. Rosenfeld, A. 1997. Archaeological signatures of Tilley, C. 1991. Material Culture and Text. The Art the social context of rock art. In Conkey, M., of Ambiguity. Routledge, London. Soffer, O., Stratmann, D. & Jablonski, N. (eds). Trigger, B. 1995. Expanding middle-range theory. Beyond Art. Pleistocene Image and Symbol, Antiquity 69(264), 449–459. pp. 289–300. University of California Press, Trigger, B. 1999. Reconnoitring religion. Berkeley. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9(1), Santos Estévez, M. 1999. A arte rupestre e a con- 139–141. struccion dos territorios na idade do bronce en Vialou, D. 1998. Problématique de l’interprétation Galicia. Gallaecia 18, 103–118. de l’art paléolithique. Rivista di Scienze Sauvet, G. 1989. Further comment. Rock Art Preistoriche 49, 267–281. Research 6(2), 149–150. Vinnicombe, P.1995. Perspectives and traditions in Sauvet, G. & Wlodarczyk, A. 1995. Éléments Australian rock art research. In Helskog, K. & d’une grammaire formelle de l’art parié- Olsen, B. (eds). Perceiving Rock Art. Social and tal paléolithique. L’Anthropologie 99(2–3), Political Perspectives, pp. 87–103. Novus Forlag, 193–211. Oslo. Smith, B. & Ouzman, S. 2004. Taking stock. Waddington, C. 1996 Putting rock art to use. Identifying Khoekhoen herder rock art in A model of Early Neolithic transhumance in southern Africa. Current Anthropology 45(4), North Northumberland. Northern Archaeology 499–526. 13–14, 147–177. Smith, C. 1992. The use of ethnography in inter- Whitley, D. 1994. Ethnography and rock art in preting rock art. A comparative study of art the Far West. Some archaeological implica- from the Arnhem Land and Western Desert tions. In Whitley, D. & Loendorf, L. (eds). regions of Australia. In Morwood, M. & New Light on Old Art. Recent Advances Hobbs, D. (eds). Rock Art and Ethnography. in Hunter-Gatherer Rock Art Research, Proceedings of the First Australian Rock Art pp. 81–93. Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, Research Association Congress, pp. 39–45. Los Angeles. Australian Rock Art Research Association, Whitley, D. 2001. Science and the sacred. Melbourne. Interpretative theory in US rock art research. Solomon, A. 1998. Ethnography and method In Helskog, K. (ed.). Art and Contestation. in southern African rock art research. In Theoretical Perspectives in Rock Art Research, Chippindale, C. & Taçon, P. (eds). The pp. 130–157. Novus Forlag, Oslo. 20

Whitley, D. 2005. Introduction to Rock Art Wylie, A. 1985. The reaction against analogy. In Research. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Schiffer, M. (ed.). Advances in Archaeological Whitley, D. & Keyser, J. 2003. Faith in the past. Method and Theory, Vol. 8, pp. 63–111. Debating an archaeology of religion. Antiquity Academic Press, New York. 77(296), 385–393.