Academic journal article
By Lewis-Williams, J. D.
Antiquity , Vol. 77, No. 295
Alice Kehoe (2002: 384-5) proposes divided camps in the study of rock art and contrasts a "popular" interpretation, which ascribes rock art to shamanism, with an "emerging trend" which is more circumspect and reflexive. Such a dichotomy is both unfair and unhelpful. In the "popular" category, she makes free with my name and ascribes views to me, but, interestingly, does not cite any of my publications. She is prodigal with emotive words like `primitivist' and `racism', and her attempt to characterise the targets of her criticism in a persona! way (`Lewis-Williams and his followers') is indicative of sloppy scholarship: the `followers' are independent thinkers who can make up their own minds and she should accord them the attention they deserve. In these respects, Kehoe's response, unlike Ross's more thoughtful article (2001: 543-8), is injurious to rational debate.
She begins by creating the spectre of `Lewis-Williams' one-size-fits-all assertion that hunter-gatherer shamans created rock art to record their trance visions.' Nothing could be further from the truth. As a reading of my publications would have shown, I have considered only the San of southern Africa and the people of Upper Palaeolithic western Europe, though I have cited other writers on North American rock art. Nowhere have I claimed that all hunter-gatherer rock art is shamanistic; I can speak only for those arts that I have studied. Within southern Africa itself there are rock art traditions other than that of the San; I have not studied them in depth, but I very much doubt that they have anything to do with shamanism. Nor do I argue that the only reason for making rock art images was to record visions:
The shamanistic explanation does not propose that hallucinations experienced in trance account for the entire corpus of San rock art. Nor does it propose that the images were made by people who were actually in a trance state. Further, it is necessary to retain qualifiers such as `essentially' because no one can know what was in the minds of all San painters and because of the as yet unplumbed polysemy of certain categories of paintings. Qualifiers are essential if we are to avoid being driven into the unnuanced monolithism that conceals the allusiveness (and elusiveness) of San thought. The shamanistic explanation certainly proposes a focus on diverse shamanistic beliefs and activities, but it does not deny other meanings. What we need to study is how and what other meanings are encoded in the images (Lewis-Williams 1998:87; emphasis in original).
What, then, does the shamanistic explanation for San (certainly not all) rock art propose?
The making of San rock paintings was essentially (or `principally') associated with a range of shamanistic beliefs, rituals and experiences and was situated within a tiered shamanistic cosmology and complex social relations. The images comprise symbols (or, more emically, concentrations) of supernatural potency (e.g., paintings of eland), images of trance dances, `fragments' of trance dances (e.g., single figures in the arms-back posture), `processed' (recollected and formalised) visions (e.g., the capture of a rain-animal), transformed shamans (including the so-called therianthropes), monsters and beings encountered in the spirit world (e.g., fighting off malevolent spirits of the dead), and `scenic' groups (loosely called `compositions') made by one or more painters, and complex groupings, including superimpositions, of many images that, in a range of ways, show the interdigitating of the spirit realm with the material world. The spirit world was, in some conceptual circumstances, believed to lie behind the walls of rock shelters (Lewis-Williams 1998:87).
All these observations are based on carefully assessed nineteenth- and twentieth-century ethnography and have been argued in detail, image by image, not in broad assertions about `the art'; all broad-sweep rock art explanations that do not deal with individual images and image categories should be treated with caution--as should broad-sweep criticisms, such as Kehoe's (e. …