Shamanism and the Ancient Mind: A Cognitive Approach to Archaeology. (Reviews).
David, Bruno
By James L. Pearson.
Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. 2002.
Pp. ix + 195, 16 Figures.
Price: US $63 (cloth); US $24.95 (paperback)
Shamanism and the Ancient Mind synthesises recent shamanistic
approaches to archaeological interpretation. In eleven chapters (1,
Archaeology's Final Frontier; 2, Antecedents to Cognitive
Archaeology; 3, The Roots of Cognitive Archaeology; 4, The Tools of
Cognitive Archaeology; 5, The Evolution of Rock Art Research; 6, Rock
Art Research in the Americas; 7, Shamanism; 8, Using the Tools of
Cognitive Archaeology; 9, The Nonarchaeological Case for Shamanism; 10,
The Archaeological Evidence for Shamanism; 11, Approaching the Final
Frontier). James Pearson argues that what have in the U.S. hitherto been
dominant, adaptationist approaches to the archaeological record are
found wanting, suggesting instead a cognitive approach to the past.
Founded on this well-argued conviction (yet not engaging with the
large, mainly British post-positivist archaeological literature),
Pearson proceeds to argue that the most parsimonious explanation for
various past cultural practices -- and in particular the creative
contexts of much rock-art around the world -- can be found in shamanism.
Here, shamanism is not so much defined as a geographically and
historically particular cultural expression, as a widespread cultural
genre concerning religious leaders, teachers and healers that mediate
with the 'supernatural' under altered states of consciousness,
often drug-induced.
Shamanistic interpretations -- and there are varied formulations --
have gained much influence worldwide since David Lewis-Williams'
influential South African writings of the mid-1980s. Today, shamanistic
explanations in archaeology and in rock-art research focus especially on
the universality of altered states of consciousness (drug-induced,
caused through lack of sleep, excessive active participation in social
rituals or the like), the role of shamanism in ritual behaviour and
collective consciousness, and the universality and biological
foundations of visionary experiences and entoptic phenomena.
So influential -- and at times, it seems, unreflective -- have such
approaches become to the interpretation of rock-art that Meg Conkey (in
David Whitley ed. Handbook of Rock Art Research, AltaMira Press, 2001)
recently noted their 'epidemic' proportions. This influence is
well illustrated by the recent French translation of Elkin's
Aboriginal Men of High Degree as Les Chamans Aborigenes (Editions du
Rocher, 1998), a redirected representation of Aboriginal cultural
practices that effectively silences Elkin's particular cultural
nuances of Aboriginal religious practices and worldviews. The
shamanistic framework has now become a problem of the hyper-real.
While Pearson presents a useful compilation of shamanistic
approaches to archaeology and rock-art research, I remain unconvinced of
his claim that shamanism has general applicability to archaeological
interpretation. At a general level, Pearson attempts to prove by
detailing a narrow set of cultural examples, rather than test, the
widespread applicability of shamanism to the archaeological record.
Pearson structures most of his arguments around a small number of case
studies -- mostly from the U.S. -- arguing that much of the world's
rock-art was created in shamanistic contexts. This conviction is pursued
without ever addressing the many ethnographic observations of rock-art
creation around the world that contradict the claimed general
explanatory power of shamanism.
In Australia, shamanistic interpretations certainly do not sit well
with much ethnographic knowledge; rather, here it is Aboriginal
worldviews (including religious beliefs and practices) that attain
interpretative predominance in rock-art research. And if much rock-art
is shamanistic, what about all other artistic expressions, from bark
paintings (where design conventions often mirror those on rock walls),
to designs on spears or didgeridoos or basketry? The answer, I suspect,
is much akin to Marianna Torgovnick's (Gone Primitive, University
of Chicago Press, 1990) once-'primitives' who retreat when
approached -- they fail to materialise when too close to the here and
now -- for shamanism in rock-art largely retreats in the face of
indigenous creative practice; 'shamanism', like the
'primitive', labels whom? There are certainly healers and
teachers and people who mediate with the spiritual. But is this a
characteristic of 'the ancient mind', as Pearson suggests
(what does 'the ancient mind' mean?), or are we here on the
verge of asking questions about religious beliefs and practices in
general. I am not convinced that the general concept of shamanism is at
all useful here -- and Pearson's book does not help in this regard
-- and the term does beg deconstruction. It is, I would suggest,
religious experience and ontology that are at stake, not shamanism, in
Pearson's search for a cognitive archaeology.
The problem of primitivist thinking is doubly evident in
Pearson's book, where hunting and gathering peoples, past or
present, are discussed as 'primitive' and 'ancient'
cultures. Yet it is strange that despite an explicit general view that
peoples who hunt and gather are deemed shamanistic and animistic, it is
various horticultural societies around the world that furnish some of
the best examples of shamanism, as propounded by Pearson. Yet it
nevertheless remains that in most parts of the world rockart that was
created recently can be shown to not have been created in shamanism.
Pearson's neo-Frazerian approach to cognitive evolution
homogenizes non-Western cultural practices. Indigenous ontology and
beliefs are silenced in a shamanistic hyperreality. Questions of
meaning, and the meaningfulness of cultural practices, are only broached
after their shamanistic frame is predetermined. Yet were one interested
in relating rock-art to cognition (including past religious beliefs and
practices), as Pearson appropriately suggests, why not begin by asking
questions of the place of rock-art and other archaeological remains in
past ontologies?
Much of the material presented in this book is based on secondary
texts. For example, in presenting a fairly detailed (and at times
well-summarised) history of archaeological and rock-art research in the
U.S., it is not the original writings that are researched and referenced
but textbooks such as Bruce Trigger's A History of Archaeological
Thought (Cambridge University Press, 1989). It is also worth noting that
historically North American rock-art research (unlike other aspects of
archaeological practice) has not achieved great international influence;
a major part of this book systematically notes that we should change how
we approach rock-art research, but the research trends presented here
relate largely to North American rock-art research. In this aspect this
book will therefore be most relevant to North American rock-art
researchers, and in this sense also the call for going beyond
adaptationist thinking is welcome.
All in all, Shamanism and the Ancient Mind presents a useful
summary and synthesis of the major shamanistic arguments employed by
rock-art researchers, but it does not address the shamanism model's
incapacity to address indigenous ontology and religion in the first
instance. Nor does it make a case for the need for a cognitive
archaeology as such, as there are many kinds of cognitive archaeologies
(in this book Pearson appears to suggest that cognitive archaeology
means shamanism; see the Cambridge Archaeological Journal -- a journal
specifically dedicated to cognitive archaeology -- for nonshamanistic as
well as shamanistic examples of cognitive archaeology).
In summary then, a useful book in the sense that it summarises the
main arguments for shamanistic explanations to rock-art, but
disappointing in that it bypasses indigenous ontology in the first step
and therefore does not, to this reviewer at least, present a convincing
alternative framework for understanding the cultural contexts and
impetus for much rock-art in Australia or around the world.