Is processualist the shamanic interpretation of

Palaeolithic art? Epistemological approach to

the possible relationship between

interpretations of Palaeolithic art and

Archaeological theories

José Fernández Quintano

Philosopher. Independent.

Abstract: Is it possible to compare archaeological theories and interpretations of Palaeolithic art?

Interpretations of Palaeolithic art are influenced by archaeological theories? Comparing

Processualism with shamanic interpretation, we address this matter.

Key words: Palaeolithic art, rock art, processualist, shamanic interpretation.

I am. I went

(Ethnoarchaeology)1

I am. Went I?

(Archaeological Theory)2

Am I?

(Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology, History, Biology, Medicine, ...)3

Table 1. Proposals (previous)

This paper was presented at the XVII World UISPP Congress, held in Burgos (Spain) in September 2014. 1 Ethnoarchaeology is based on anthropological hypothesis about current primitive societies to carry them prehistoric societies. 2 It is debated whether primitive societies can explain the characteristics of prehistoric societies. 3 In the history of humanity and today is subject of research and debate "what is human being": social influences, genetics...

INTRODUCTION

This presentation has two main influences:

1. In the table 2, Criado relates anthropological theories with archaeological theories.

Table 2. Comparison between cultural theories and archaeological theories (Felipe Criado, 2012, p. 38)

Is it possible to create a comparative framework for archaeological theories and theories

that interpret Palaeolithic art? This leads to the following question: Is processualist the schamanic

interpretation of Palaeolithic art?

2. The second influence is Bintliff's article: “The death of archaeological theory?” Right at

the start he considers whether archaeology would benefit from discounting the dogmatic theories

and ideologies that have obscured our pathways to reconstructing the past over the last 25 years

(Bintliff, 2011, p. 7). At the end of the article he proposes that archaeologists use all the possible

theories and models (Bintliff, 2011, p. 20-21).

This article led me to wonder whether it would be possible to write an article with the title:

“The death of the interpretation of Palaeolithic art?” That is, whether we should consider the

theories developed to date to explain it as falling short; whether we should be open to new

models that might help shed light on its meaning.

I. PROPOSALS

A1. All archaeological theories offer an explanation of the material archaeological

record, criticizing previous theories. (Trigger, 1992; Renfrew y Bahn, 2007; Johnson,

2009)

¬A1.4 No archaeological theory is currently accepted as the sole truth by all

archaeologists (Trigger, 1992, p. 13)

A2. There are many proposals to work with any given archaeological theory, or even

with other forms of knowledge other than science. (Bintliff, 2011, p. 20-21)

¬A2. Eclectically bringing together proposals from various theories cancels out the

capacity for critical thinking, the historical motor for progress in many scientific

disciplines. (Johnson, 2009, p. 228-9)

A3. Some theories are rekindled or updated, including some proposals rival theories

(Renfrew y Bahn, 2007, p. 451-2)

¬A3. Archaeological theory is in a state of paralysis and no new paradigms are

emerging (Criado, 2012, p. 112)

(See Table 3)

4 In Logic, “¬” it is denial

Table 3. Proposals with propositional logic formulas

A1 [d] [¬d m] /C14/ [¬d p] [¬p s] d-Trad Arch (no) d m-Marx Arch (no) d p-Proc Arch (no) p s-Post-proc Arch

All archaeological theories offer an explanation of the material archaeological

record, criticizing previous theories (Trigger, 1992; Renfrew y Bahn, 2007; Johnson, 2009)

¬A1 {¬ [p ˄ ¬d ˄ ¬m ˄ ¬s]} It is false (that) = the Processual theory (or other theory) is true and the other theories false

No archaeological theory is currently accepted as the sole truth by all archaeologists (Trigger, 1992, p. 13)

A2 p ˄ m ˄ s ˄ δ Proc Arch, and Neo-Marx Arch, and Post-proc Arch, and theories other sciences (δ)

There are many proposals to work with any given archaeological theory, or even

with other forms of knowledge other than science (Bintliff, 2011, p. 20-21)

¬A2 [p ˅ s ˅ t ] Proc Arch., or Post-Proc Arch, or another (t) new theory

Eclectically bringing together proposals from various theories cancels out the

capacity for critical thinking, the historical motor for progress in many scientific

disciplines (Johnson, 2009, p. 228-9)

A3 p2 = p ˄ s2 ˄ m2 ˄ m4 p2-Cognit Proc = p- contrast theory with facts (Funct Proc) + s2-moderate positivism: the facts do not

exist apart from the theories (Post-proc) + m2-ideology (Neo-Marx) + m4-internal conflicts (Marxism)

Some theories are rekindled or updated, including some proposals (xn) rival theories (Renfrew y Bahn, 2007, p. 451-2)

¬A3 [¬p ˄ ¬s ˄ ¬t] p-Proc Arch s-Post-proc Arch t-new theory Archaeological theory is in a state of paralysis and no new paradigms are emerging (Criado, 2012, p. 112)

A1. Shamanic interpretation is processualist

1-EXPLANATION

Traditional Archaeology "describes" the fossil record. Processualism sets out to

"explain" the past (Renfrew y Bahn, 2007, p. 37).

Schamanic interpretation seeks to "explain" Palaeolithic cave art (Clottes y

Lewis-Williams, 2001, p. 61; 78; 136).

2-MIDDLE RANGE THEORIES

The archaeological record is made up of material remains lacking in meaning

(static). In order to explain the past, Binford uses middle range theories which study in

the present day (dynamic) primitive societies that behave in a similar way (Binford,

1988, p. 23).

Schamanic interpretation rests on the ubiquity of shamanism in present day

primitive societies to confirm a cave art created by shamans in altered states of

consciousness (Clottes y Lewis-Williams, 2001, p. 77).

3-SCIENCE AND ANTHROPOLOGY

According to Binford, archaeologists need to be more scientific (Johnson, 1989,

p. 38) -he favours natural over social sciences (Binford, 1988, p. 25-26)- and more

anthropological -he admits the ethno-archaeological analogy (Binford, 1988, p. 27)-.

Schamanic interpretation draws on neuropsychology, on the characteristics of

the art itself and its archaeological context to propose that Palaeolithic art is shamanic

in origin (Clottes y Lewis-Williams, 2001, p. 143). He also points to present day

schamanic practices (Clottes y Lewis-Williams, 2001, p. 13).

4-GENERALISATION

For processualism, that a piece of ceramics is decorated with a zigzag design is

secondary. Rather, it seeks to understand its function in the social and economic

context (Johnson, 2009, p. 43-44).

Schamanic interpretation is not about interpreting the motifs of cave art, but

about examining the process by which they are created, which in a certain number of

cases is associated with altered states of consciousness (Clottes y Lewis-Williams,

2001, p. 143). The specific meaning of each sign is secondary. In fact, each sign might

have any number of meanings (Clottes y Lewis-Williams, 2001, p. 87).

5-OPTIMISM

Processualism sustained, positively, that we should try to explain the past,

criticizing traditional archaeologists for the pessimism of their premise that

archaeological data were insufficient for reconstructing prehistory (Renfrew y Bahn,

2007, p. 37).

Clottes and Lewis-Williams believe that Palaeolithic art can be explained and

reject outright the pessimism of those who hold that its interpretation is impossible

(Clottes y Lewis-Williams, 2001, p. 134-5).

¬A1. Shamanic interpretation is not processualist

In processualism hypotheses needed to be corroborated (Renfrew y Bahn,

2007, p. 37).

Clottes and Lewis-Williams acknowledge the fact that their schamanic

hypotheses come from outside of the scientific domain, and are therefore neither

demonstrable nor refutable (Clottes y Lewis-Williams, 2001, p. 138).

A2. An uncomfortable, heterodox theory

Schamanic interpretation is the most recent of the main archaeological theories

and of those that interpret Palaeolithic art.

Chronologically it emerges in a post-processual and cognitive processual

context. It would be easy, then, to suggest that schamanic interpretation is a theory

that ought to be related to one or the other of these two currents.

However, this is not the case: schamanic interpretation in fact emerges in the

context of the debate then occurring in archaeology between processualism and post-

processualism.

¬A2. Why is there no processualist interpretation of Palaeolithic art?

First of all, Palaeolithic art is art because of its execution (concept art –

controversy-: Bueno, de Balbín y Alcolea, 2003, p. 13-19) and Palaeolithic because of

its chronology. For processualism, without the artists, without the society that created

the art, without a complete chronology of cave art motifs, it is almost impossible to

propose hypotheses regarding the social, environmental and economic structures in

which Palaeolithic art emerged.

It is crucial for the advancement of human knowledge that theories work

independently. A relationship between schamanic interpretation and any other

archaeological theory is only useful if it offers up new hypotheses that can be tested to

advance its confirmation.

A3. Which branch of science?

Schamanic interpretation of Palaeolithic art is considered by its authors as a

human science (Clottes y Lewis-Williams, 2001, p. 138), emerging in response to the

impossibility of finding indisputable premises in either neuropsychology or the

palaeolithic archaeological record itself. 5

Schamanic interpretation without neuropsychology pertains to the human

sciences. Schamanic interpretation with neuropsychology can be thought of as

pertaining to the hard sciences (Lewis-Williams, 2005, p. 185).

¬A3. Today

The current economic crisis has taken its toll on archaeology, generating

considerable disorientation. Current debate revolves around whether to continue

under the values of a "greater good" or surrender to the despotism of the marketplace

(Hernando, 2014, p. 128). In addition to this uncertainty, archaeology itself is

undergoing a fracture between university archaeological activity on the one side and,

on the other, the emergence of a commercial archaeology based on the liberal use of

archaeological heritage and its introduction into the marketplace (Criado, 2012, p.

114). This would see research displaced as the main driving force behind archaeology

(Sánchez, 2014, p. 14).

Archaeology is and always will be an activity that is immersed in the prevailing

social, economic and ideological environment. 5 This paper does not analyze the shamanic interpretation of Palaeolithic art. Regarding the controversy of this

proposal, see: ubiquity –controversy-: Bahn –In: Lorblanchet et al. 2006-, p.11-51; Francfort –In: Lorblanchet et al.

2006-, p. 137-192, Bolin, 2010, p. 33, Bednarik, 2013, p. 491-3; palaeolithic signs and phosphenic images –

controversy-: Sanchidrián, 2001, p. 348; Bahn, 2003, p. 55; Bahn –In: Lorblanchet et al. 2006-, p.11-51, Helvenston

et Bahn –In: Lorblanchet et al. 2006-, p. 52-52-67; Delluc D. –In: Lorblanchet et al. 2006-, p.68-104; criticism

shamanic interpretation: Bahn, 2003; Lorblanchet et al., 2006; Bednarik, 2013. Also, Clottes and Lewis-Williams in

the second edition (2001) answered the criticisms of the first edition (1996) (Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 2001, p

113-167).

II. INFLUENCES

Is it possible to establish a framework between archaeological theories and

theories which interpret Palaeolithic art?

Processual ethnoarchaeology explains society from outside (etic), striving for

utmost objectivity. In contrast, post-processual ethnoarchaeology tries to understand

societies from within (emic), placing emphasis on the symbolic aspects (Cruz y Fraguas,

2009, p. 36-37).

Transferred to Palaeolithic art, those theories that interpret it from outside,

with hypotheses from other sciences, would be those influenced by processualism,

while those that interpret it from inside, searching for a meaning from within, would

be post-processualist.

The question is whether or not archaeological theories and theories that

interpret Palaeolithic art can be said to directly influence each other.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Manfred and Katja Bader for your reading and comments.

Thanks to Caroline for translating it into English.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bahn, Paul G. 2003. “Líbrenme del último trance: una valoración del mal uso del

chamanismo en los estudios de arte rupestre”. El arte prehistórico desde los inicios del

siglo XXI: Primer Symposium Internacional de Arte Prehistórico de Ribadesella. Rodrigo

de Balbín Behrmann y Primitiva Bueno Ramírez (coord.). Ribadesella (Asturias), p. 53-

74.

Bednarik, R.G. 2013. “Myths About Rock Art”. Journal of Literature and Art

Studies, v.3, nº.8, p. 482-500.

Bueno Ramírez, Primitiva; de Balbín Behrmann, Rodrigo y Alcolea González,

José J. 2003. “Prehistoria del lenguaje en las sociedades cazadoras y productoras del

sur de Europa”. El arte prehistórico desde los inicios del siglo XXI: Primer Symposium

Internacional de Arte Prehistórico de Ribadesella. Rodrigo de Balbín y Primitiva Bueno

(coord..). Ribadesella (Asturias), p. 13-22.

Binford, Lewis R. 1988. En busca del pasado. Crítica. Barcelona. [In pursuit of

the past. Thames & Hudson, London, 1983]

Bintliff, John. 2011. “The death of archaeological theory?”. In: The Death of

Archaeological Theory? Bintliff, J. L. and M. Pearce, M. Oxford, p. 7-22.

Bolin, Viviane. 2010. Schamanismus als Erklärungsmodell für eiszeitliche

(Höhlen)Kunst in Europa?. Düsseldorf.

Clottes, Jean y Lewis-Williams, David. 2001. Los chamanes de la prehistoria.

Editorial Ariel. Barcelona. [Les chamanes de la préhistoire. Éditions du Seuil. Paris,

1996. «Après Les Chamanes, polemique et réponses». La Maison des Roches. Paris,

2001]

Criado Boado, Felipe. 2012. Arqueológicas. La razón perdida. Edicions

Bellaterra. Barcelona.

Cruz, María. 1998. Introducción crítica a la arqueología cognitiva. Tesina.

Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

Cruz Berrocal, María y Fraguas-Bravo, Alfonso. 2009. Introducción al arte

rupestre prehistórico. Edición electrónica. Luarna Ediciones. Madrid.

Domínguez Berenjeno, Enrique Luis. 1997. “La verdad inexistente: arqueología

y reflexión filosófica”. SPAL. Revista de prehistoria y arqueología de la Universidad de

Sevilla, nº6. Sevilla, p. 9-22.

Fernández Quintano, José. 2012. “I. Hacia una “teoría general unificada” de la

interpretación del arte rupestre paleolítico. II. La teoría intermedia del «espacio

compartido»”. In: J. Clottes (dir.), 2012. L’art pléistocène dans le monde / Pleistocene

art of the world / Arte pleistoceno en el mundo, Actes du Congrès IFRAO, Tarascon-sur-

Ariège, septembre 2010, Symposium « Art pléistocène en Europe ». N° spécial de

Préhistoire, Art et Sociétés, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénées, LXV-

LXVI, 2010-2011, livre: 38-39, CD: 93-104.

-- 2013. “Consideraciones sobre los motivos astraliformes en el Arte

Esquemático de la Península Ibérica”. Actas II Congreso Arte Rupestre Esquemático en

la Península Ibérica. Comarca de los Vélez (Almería) 5-8 de mayo 2010. Julián Martínez

García y Mauro S. Hernández Pérez (coord.). Vélez-Blanco (Almería), p. 19-24.

Groenen, Marc. 2000. Sombra y luz en el arte paleolítico. Editorial Ariel.

Barcelona. [Ombre et lumière dans l’art des grottes. Centre de Recherche et d’Études

Technologiques des Arts Plastiques. Bruxelles, 1997]

Hernando, Almudena. 1992. “Enfoques teóricos en Arqueología”. SPAL. Revista

de prehistoria y arqueología de la Universidad de Sevilla, nº1. Sevilla, p. 11-36.

-- 2012. “Teoría arqueológica y crisis social”. Complutum, Vol. 23 (2). Madrid, p.

127-145.

Johnson, Matthew. 2000. Teoría arqueológica. Editorial Ariel. Barcelona.

[Archaeological Theory. An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell. Oxford, 2000]

Lasheras Corruchaga, José Antonio y González Echegaray, Joaquín. 2005. El

significado del Arte Paleolítico. Ministerio de Cultura, Gobierno de España. Madrid.

Lewis-Williams, David. 2005. La Mente en la Caverna. La conciencia y los

orígenes del arte. Akal, Madrid. [The Mind in the Cave: Consciousness and the Origins

of Art. Thames & Hudson. London, 2002]

Lorblanchet, M.; Le Quellec, J-L ; Bahn, P. G. ; Francfort, H-P ; Delluc, B et G .

2006. Chamanismes et arts préhistoriques : Vision critique. Éditions Errance, Paris.

Montes Gutiérrez, Rafael. 2013. “Teorías interpretativas del arte mueble

paleolítico”. Tiempo y sociedad, nº 11, p. 5-61.

Ramos, José; Cantalejo, Pedro y Herrerías, Mar. 1999. “El arte de los cazadores

recolectores como forma de expresión de los modos de vida. Historiografía reciente y

crítica a las posiciones eclécticas de la Posmodernidad “, Revista Atlántica-

Mediterránea de Prehistoria y Arqueología Social, nº 2. Universidad de Cádiz, p. 151-

177.

Renfrew, Colin y Bahn, Paul. 2007. Arqueología. Akal. Madrid. [Archeology.

Theories, Methods and Practice. Thames & Hudson, London, 1991]

Ripoll Perelló, Eduardo. 1986. Orígenes y significado del arte Paleolítico. Silex

ediciones. Madrid.

Sánchez Yustos, Policarpo. 2014. “Los márgenes del pasado. La producción

transdisciplinar del saber arqueológico”. Complutum, Vol. 25 (1). Madrid, p. 9-16.

Sanchidrián, José Luis. 2001. Manual de arte prehistórico. Ariel. Barcelona.

Trigger, Bruce G. 1992. Historia del pensamiento arqueológico. Editorial Crítica.

Barcelona. [A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press.

Cambridge, 1989]

Ucko, Peter y Rosenfeld, Andrée. 1967. Arte paleolítico. Ediciones Guadarrama.

Madrid, 1967. [Palaeolithic Cave Art. McGraw-Hill. New York]

Vásquez Monterroso, Diego. 2007. “Arqueología crítica”. Albedrío. Guatemala.