Part 3 of 'The Concept of Shamanism'

Interesting blog post from someone who's a Western shamanic practitioner:

http://therioshamanism.com/2007/12/05/this-may-be-blasphemous-to-some/#comment-813

I'm not an expert on Michael Harner's work, but I think I agree with pretty much all of the issues Lupa raises regarding core shamanism (at least, from a theoretical perspective- I have no idea how the two compare from the perspective of people who are actually interested in practicing shamanism and are trying to decide which approach would work best for them).


I've had a look at Henri-Paul Francfort's Introduction to the Prehistoric Section in The Concept of Shamanism (p.31-49). Francfort kicks things off (p.31-2) with a really useful summary:

"Fundamental to the theory of universal shamanism are four assumptions or claims:

1. A universal spirit present in the brain and neuropsychological system of Homo sapiens sapiens is demonstrated by his/her ability to attain "altered states of consciousness" (trance);
2. A universal primitive original religion of Mankind is based upon this universal capacity for trance and upon the subsequent concept of a universal "entoptic" visionary sequence, leading from simple geometric forms to reversible transformations human <=> animal;
3. A universal internal capacity to express the above-mentioned "entoptic" visionary sequence directly and immediately in art forms is displayed.
4. The special function of "shamans" as creators of art.

The papers presented here strongly question the validity of such an idea of shamanism and artistic creation. They argue by demonstrating:

-contingency and current fashion: this "shamanism" is a product of a contemporary trend (new-age, postmodernism, post-processual archaeology) originating in Western societies;

-the inconsistencies in the definitions and uses of this "shamanism", in spite of the more or less explicit claims for its cross-cultural nature and for the universality of the human spirit;

-the problematic character of the supposed psychologically universal entoptic vision sequence and of the subsequent spontaneous, direct, immediate materialisation into works of art;

-the diversity of cultural activities that can lie at the origin of the creation of art;

-the very limited number of prehistoric images and artefacts that can be related to "shamanism" and their questionable interpretation;

-the variety of rock art expressions and artistic motivations;

-the variability of meanings in rock art;

-the historicity of "shamanism" and its variability through space and time in various cultures;

-the diversity of the individuals and functions subsumed under the general term of "shaman";

-finally the vacuity of a general, shallow, blanket concept of "shamanism for prehistory."

Other things:

p.35- Francfort argues that theories which connect shamanism and rock art are often tautological- "prehistoric shamanism is deduced from cave art only, and the shamanic interpretation of art is inferred from the previous conclusion." For example, in The shamans of prehistory, Clottes and Lewis-Williams argue that "although the art of the San is very different to that of the Upper Paleolithic, it is analogous to it because it too is associated with a form of shamanism." (p.188-9 of French edition, Francfort's translation).


p.36- Francfort notes that the identifying evidence for shamanism in prehistoric rock art is dodgy, since most of these theories are unfalsifiable. Clottes and Lewis-Williams argue that art doesn't need to be unified either stylistically or thematically for it to count as evidence for shamanism, because Christian art is a recognisable genre despite the fact that it occurs in multiple cultural contexts, with a wide range of art styles and a large variety of images depicted. But Christian art is unified by the fact that it all ultimately references stories which art historians can study separately from the art (e.g. by reading the scriptures). We don't have these supporting references when it comes to prehistoric shamanism, so any arguments based on their belief systems are going to have to be much more tentative.

p.37- Francfort remarks offhandedly that Australia, PNG and the Andaman islands have no indigenous shamanic traditions. What does that actually mean, given how massively vague the normal use of the word is?

p.38- Francfort also remarks offhandedly that "it is well-known, for instance, that the concept of god appeared sometimes after the Neolithic." What? Well-known by who? He does cite a source, however (J. Cauvin's The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture), so I may have to go and check that out.

He notes that we've rejected the Marxist idea that art style is linked to a society's economic mode in any sort of way that's obvious to the observer (except in the sense that the content's going to differ in some cases, I guess- non-farmers are much less likely to draw people ploughing, or whatever).

p.41- He notes that anthropologists have rejected the art theory idea that non-Western cultures have a tendency to produce art which is in some way more spontaneous or childlike than traditional Western art. Most non-Western art is produced according to relatively strict schemas or mental plans- it only looks rules-free or spontaneous if you're not familiar with the rules system being used. This includes art which is produced with the aid of drugs or other sorts of ASC.

p.42- even if we look specifically at art produced by Westerners, there probably isn't any way to reliably tell the difference between art inspired by ASCs (whether induced by drugs, mental illness or shaman-style vision quests) and art that's just produced by people who have active imaginations.

Clottes and Lewis-Williams suggest that in prehistory, children who showed artistic talent were directed towards training in shamanism. This seems to imply that they don't think 'art' and 'shamanism' are intrinsically linked (i.e. they'll only be linked within a culture if people are specifically socialised to see a connection). If this is the case, then why assume that a random culture which we know very little about really DID link shamanism and art in this way?

p.44- we also need to recognise that the idea of self-expression in art is not a concept which is necessarily found in non-Western cultures.