Lewis WilliamsDowson1988 PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/248010325
The Signs of All Times: Entoptic Phenomena in Upper Palaeolithic Art
Article in Current Anthropology · April 1988

DOI: 10.1086/203629
CITATIONS READS
343 1,445
2 authors, including:
David Lewis-Williams
University of the Witwatersrand
122 PUBLICATIONS 2,923 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by David Lewis-Williams on 11 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Signs of All Times: Entoptic Phenomena in Upper Palaeolithic Art [and Comments and
Reply]
Author(s): J. D. Lewis-Williams, T. A. Dowson, Paul G. Bahn, H.-G. Bandi, Robert G. Bednarik,
John Clegg, Mario Consens, Whitney Davis, Brigitte Delluc, Gilles Delluc, Paul Faulstich, John
Halverson, Robert Layton, Colin Martindale, Vil Mirimanov, Christy G. Turner II, Joan M.
Vastokas, Michael Winkelman and Alison Wylie
Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Apr., 1988), pp. 201-245
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological
Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2743395 .
Accessed: 17/10/2013 10:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 29, Number 2, April I988
? I988 byThe Wenner-Gren forAnthropological
Foundation reserved
Research.All rights OOII-3204/88/2902-0003$2.75
Signs are small measurable things,but interpretations
The Signs ofAll

are illimitable.
GEORGE ELIOT, Middlemarch
Times The so-called signs of EuropeanUpper Palaeolithic art2

have been a persistently intractable challenge to
archaeologists.By and large,two approacheshave been
employedto elucidate theirmeaning.Some writers,es-
EntopticPhenomenain Upper pecially those of earlierdecades, invoked ethnographic
analogies to argue that the signs were traps,huts, or
PalaeolithicArt' shrinesinhabitedby spirits(e.g.,Breuil1952:24). More
recently,writershave turnedfromethnography to inter-
nal analysis,believingit possible to discoveran inherent
orderand then,withoutrecourseto analogues,to induce
by J.D. Lewis-Williams meaning from that order (e.g., Laming i962; Leroi-
and T. A. Dowson Gourhan I968a, b; Marshack 1972; Sauvet, Sauvet, and
Wlodarczyk 1977; Sauvet and Sauvet 1979; Farisi983).
Various patternshave been suggestedand supported,
some more, some less convincingly,by quantitative
work(Parkington
I969, Rosenfeld
1971, Stevensi975),
Elucidationofthegeometric signsin UpperPalaeolithicartis but the next step, induction of meaning,has run into
hamperedbyan absenceofdirectly relevantethnography andby snags, forit is logically impossible to induce meaning
thelogicalimpossibilityofinducingmeaningfromnumerical fromnumerical rock-artdata, as it is fromany data
rock-artdata.This paperapproachesthesignsbyconstructing a
neuropsychological modeloftheapprehension ofentopticphe- (Lewis-WilliamsI983b:IoI; Lewis-Williamsand Loub-
nomenain threestagesofalteredstatesofconsciousness.The ser i986). Although much of this inductive work has
utilityofthemodelis assessedbyapplying it to twoknown provedvaluable and provocative,no explanationforthe
shamanisticrockarts,San and ShoshoneanCoso. It is thenap- signs has won general acceptance. Today there is a
pliedto UpperPalaeolithicmobileandparietalartto showthat "swing away froma fruitlesssearch formeaning to a
thisartwas also associatedwithalteredstatesofconsciousness.
Someoftheimplicationsofthisconclusionforunderstanding the consolidation of all we know about the art" (Bahn
meaningofentopticelements,thediversecontextsofUpper 1986b:55; see also Conkeyi983). Manybelievethat"it
Palaeolithicart,theco-occurrenceofsignsandrepresentational is veryprobablethat we shall neverknow the meaning
art,and theoriginsofartarebrieflyconsidered. of Palaeolithicart" (Sieveking1979:209; Halverson
i987:70).
J. D. LEWIS-WILLIAMS is ProfessorofCognitiveArchaeology and Less pessimistically,we develop a model forclassify-
DirectoroftheRockArtResearchUnitin theDepartment of
Archaeology oftheUniversity oftheWitwatersrand (Johannes- ing and addressingUpper Palaeolithic signs that avoids
burg2o0o, SouthAfrica).He was educatedat theUniversity of simplistic ethnographicanalogy (Wylie i985) and the
Cape Town (B.A.)and theUniversity ofNatal (Ph.D.).His publi- impasse of induction frominternalanalysis. This ap-
cationsincludeBelievingand Seeing:SymbolicMeaningsin proachderivesfromcurrentresearchon San (Bushman)
SouthernSan RockPaintings(London:AcademicPress,1981), rock art in southernAfrica,where the shamanisticna-
TheRockArtofSouthern Africa(Cambridge:Cambridge Univer-
sityPress;Milan: JacaBook,i983), and "The Economicand Social ture of the art has turned attentionto altered states
ContextofSouthernSan RockArt"(CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY of consciousness. Southern Africa is a particularly
23 :429-49). favouredarea because shamanistic images can be ap-
T. A. DOWSON is ResearchOfficer in theRockArtResearchUnit, proached simultaneouslyfrom two directions.In the
Department ofArchaeology, UniversityoftheWitwatersrand.
He firstplace, neuropsychologicalresearch explains the
obtaineda B.Sc. degreein archaeologyandbotanyin I987. formsofcertaindepictions,and, secondly,the meanings
in finalform29 vi 87.
The presentpaperwas submitted of some of these depictionscan be establishedfromdi-
rectlyrelevantethnography. But southernAfricanexam-
ples onlyunderscorethedifficulty ofrock-artresearchin
regions and periods for which no ethnographyexists
(Davis i982; Jones i982; Sauvet i982; Marshack
i986:80-8i). Sieveking(1979:208) andothers(e.g.,Con-
key i983:223) are no doubtrightin an absolutesense
that Upper Palaeolithic art has "no real counterpartin
i. A versionofthispaperwas read(byJDL-W)at the I987 Society any present-dayprimitivecommunity,"but we respond
forAmericanArchaeology meetingin Toronto.We thanknumer- to their "ethnographic despair" by arguing that a
ous colleaguesfromwhoseadviceand criticismwe haveprofited:
T. M. Evers,D. S. Whitley,C. Campbell,Z. E. Kingdon,D. Sapire,
and, especially,T. N. Huffman.We thankthe Librarian,Jagger 2. "Palaeolithicart" is an unsatisfactory
termthatprejudgesaes-
Library,University ofCape Town,forpermission to quotefromthe theticsensibilitiesand obscuresthe varietyofgenres,but,in the
Bleekcollection.The researchwas fundedbytheHumanSciences absenceof a betterand equallysuccinctphrase,we retainit (cf.
ResearchCounciland theUniversity oftheWitwatersrand. ConkeyI984, n.d.; Davis I986:I93).
201

20.21 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 29, Number 2, April 1988
neurological bridge affordssome access to the Upper varietyofmeans. Underlaboratoryconditions,electrical

Palaeolithic. stimulation (e.g., Knoll and Kugler I959, Knoll et al.
I963, Brindley 1973, Eichmeier and Hofer 1974) and
flickeringlight (Young et al. 1975) produce them,but,
EntopticPhenomena althoughflickeringfirelightmay have played a role in
the past, we clearlyhave to look elsewhere to explain
The strongevidence that chimpanzees,baboons, mon- prehistoricexperience.Psychoactivedrugsgeneratethe
keys,cats, dogs,and otheranimals hallucinatesuggests percepts,but fatigue,sensorydeprivation,intense con-
that altered states of consciousness and hallucinations centration,auditory driving,migraine,schizophrenia,
are a functionof the mammalian, not just the human, hyperventilation,and rhythmicmovement are some
nervoussystem(Siegeland Jarvik1975:81-104) and that othergeneratingfactors(Kliiver 1942; Horowitz I965:
"non-real"visual perceptswere experiencedlong before 5i2-i8; Sacks 1970; Siegel andJarvik1975). Much more
the Upper Palaeolithic. Indeed,australopithecinesprob- researchwill have to be done beforeit can be established
ablyhallucinated.Be thatas it may,the nervoussystem whether specific geometricformsare associated with
is a human universal,and we accept that,by the Upper particularcircumstancesof generation(but see Knoll et
Palaeolithic, it was much the same as it is now. The al. i963).
content of early human mental imageryis, however, Nomenclature for these visual perceptsposes some
more problematicthan its existence,because cultural problems.Hopingto avoid a diversionary logomachy,we
expectationsinformthe imageryto a considerableex- follow Tyler (1978:i633) in using entopticphenomena
tent.For a conservativebeginningto an investigationof (fromthe Greek,"withinvision") to mean visual sensa-
possibleUpperPalaeolithicmentalimagerywe therefore tionsderivedfromthe structureofthe optic systemany-
comment less on culturally informedhallucinations where fromthe eyeball to the cortex.This termcovers
thanon a featureof alteredstates completelycontrolled two classes of geometricperceptthat appear to derive
by the nervoussystem. fromdifferent parts of the visual system-phosphenes
Under certaincircumstancesthe visual systemgener- and formconstants.Phosphenescan be inducedbyphys-
ates a rangeofluminousperceptsthatare independentof ical stimulation,such as pressureon the eyeball,and are
lightfroman externalsource (e.g., Kliver i926, 1942; thus entophthalmic("within the eye") (Walker i98i).
Knoll et al. I963; Horowitz I964; Oster 1970; Richards Form constantsderivefromthe optic system,probably
I97I; Eichmeierand HoferI974; Siegel and JarvikI975; beyondthe eyeball itself(Knoll et al. I963, Siegel 1977).
Siegel 1977, 1978; Asaad and Shapiro i986). Although We distinguishthese two kinds of entopticphenomena
therewas interestin these visual perceptsin the igth fromhallucinations, which have no foundationin the
centuryand at the beginningofthisone, it was not until actual structureofthe optic system.Unlike phosphenes
the i920S that Heinrich Kluver began the systematic and form constants,hallucinations include iconic vi-
analysis of the phenomena. Workingunder laboratory sions of culturallycontrolleditems such as animals, as
conditions, Kliiver (i926; I942:I77) concluded that well as somatic and aural experiences.These definitions
these percepts were not just visual "dust"; they had are somewhat complicated by similaritybetween cer-
form.Abstractingredundantform elements fromhis tain phosphenesand formconstantsand the simultane-
subjects' reportsof altered states of consciousness,he ous experience of form constants and hallucinations
arrivedat four groupingsof the percepts.Some years and,moreover,by a tendencyforwritersto use "halluci-
later, Horowitz (1975:178), unaware of Kliiver's work, nation" to cover phosphenes,formconstants,and hal-
similarlyabstractedredundantformelementsfromre- lucinationsas now defined.One of us (JDL-W)has been
portsof alteredstates.He thenfoundthathis elements, guilty of such confusion, but we feel that greater
despitetheir"indescribableness"(Kliiveri926:503), cor- definitionalclarityshould be soughtif we are to attain
responded very largely with Kliiver's categorisation. more precisionin our understandingof shamanisticex-
Other workers (e.g., Knoll I958, Horowitz I964, perience.Nevertheless,at thepresentstageofresearchit
Richards I97I, Eichmeierand Hofer I974, Siegel I977) is prematureto distinguishbetween phosphenes and
have confirmedthese findingsand identifiedfurther re- formconstants (cf. Hedges i983:59), and we therefore
curringformelements. Their researchhas shown that use only the generic term "entoptic phenomena" (or
these visual phenomena,althoughcomplexand diverse, "entoptics") for the largelygeometricvisual percepts.
take geometricformssuch as grids,zigzags,dots,spirals, We reserve"hallucination" formore complexiconic vi-
and catenarycurves.All these perceptsare experienced sions (Siegel 1977:134; Reichel-DolmatoffI978a:i12-
as incandescent, shimmering,moving, rotating,and 13).
sometimes enlargingpatterns;theyalso gradeone into
another and combine in a bewilderingway (Kliiver
1942:176). Because theyderivefromthe human nervous A NeuropsychologicalModel
system,all people who enter certain altered states of
consciousness, no matter what their cultural back- The universalityof entopticphenomena encouragesus
ground,are liable to perceivethem(Eichmeierand Hofer to constructa model ofthe ways in which mentalimag-
1974, Reichel-Dolmatoff1978a). ery is perceived by people in certain altered states of
These geometricvisual perceptscan be induced by a consciousness.Ultimately,such a model should be rele-

LEWIS-WILLIAMS AND DOWSON Signs ofAll Times | 203
vant to all artsderivedfromthesealteredstates.Because images, such as festoons of catenary curves (Kliiver

we are concemed principallywith entoptics,we say less 1942:177, i82, I87; 1972:92; Siegel
Reichel-Dolmatoff
about iconic hallucinations,but the intimaterelation- 1977:134).Finally, entoptic phenomena rotate in the
ship between the two must be clarifiedby any model fieldofvision (Kliiveri926:504, 505; 1942:i8i; Knoll et
that seeks to explain the imageryof alteredstates. We al. i963:204-6).
distinguishthreecomponentswithin our model: types Althoughwe have referredto only entopticphenom-
of entopticphenomena,principlesgoverningtheirper- ena, these seven principlesalso apply to iconic halluci-
ception,and stagesin theprogressionofalteredstatesofnationsand in some cases link the two kindsofpercept.
consciousness. In such an experiencea grid,forexample,may be inte-
gratedwithan animal; in otherinstancesan animal may
be blended with characteristicsof anotherspecies. The
ENTOPTIC FORMS
principlesare necessarilya simplificationof the many
Although there are numerous entoptic forms,certain distortionsand alterationsexperiencedin mental imag-
types recur. We have selected six of the commonest ery (Kliiver 1942:i87), but,aftertheidentificationofent-
types from the range established by neurologistsand optic forms,theyare a second step in buildinga neuro-
Spsychologists(see,forexample,Kluver1942:172-77; psychological model of the ways in which mental
Knoll and Kugleri959; HorowitzI965; Oster 1970; imageryis apprehended.
Richards197I; EichmeierandHofer1974; Siegel1977).
(An importantomission is the spiral or vortex,but we STAGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF MENTAL IMAGERY
feelthisdeservesspecial treatment.)These are (i) a basic
gridand its developmentin a latticeand expandinghex- As a third step we examine three broadly conceived
agonal pattern,(2) sets ofparallellines, (3) dotsand short stages in the progressionof mental imageryduringal-
flecks, (4) zigzag lines crossingthe field of vision (re- teredstates of consciousness.
portedby some subjectsas angular,byothersas undulat- In Stage i subjects experience entoptic phenomena
ing),(5) nested catenarycurves (in a developedformthe alone (Siegel and Jarvik1975:111; Siegel 1977:132).
outer arc comprisesflickeringzigzags),and (6) filigrees These are perceivedwith the eyes open or closed (Kluver
or thinmeanderinglines. Because these phenomenaare 1942:503; Siegel 1977:132) and tend to be located at
mercurial,we do not suppose our six categoriesto be as readingdistance (Siegel 1977:139), thoughtheyalso ap-
rigidas this list seems to imply.Nevertheless,we take pear to recede and advance. The phenomena cannot be
the six entoptictypes to be fundamentalbecause they consciouslycontrolled;theyseem to have a lifeof their
were established by abstractingredundant elements own (Kliiveri926:504; Siegel 1977:132). They are, fur-
froma largenumberof reports. thermore,characterizedby variedand saturatedcolours
(Knoll et al. I963; Siegel 1977:132). Sometimesa bright
PRINCIPLES OF PERCEPTION
lightin the centreof the fieldof vision obscuresall but
peripheralimages (Kliiver i926:503; Siegel 1977:134).
Accordingto neuropsychologicalstudies, the ways in The rateofchangeofthephenomenaseems to varyfrom
which subjects perceive both entopticphenomena and one hallucinogento another(Knollet al. I963:22 i) butis
iconic hallucinations are many and varied. We have, generallyrapid. Laboratorysubjects new to the experi-
nevertheless,formulatedseven general principlesthat ence findit difficultto keep pace with the rapidflowof
governtheirperception:replication,fragmentation, in- imagery,but,significantly, trainingand familiarity with
tegration,superpositioning,juxtapositioning,reduplica- the experienceincrease theirpowers of observationand
tion,and rotation. description(Siegel 1977:134).
When a subject perceivesan entopticphenomenonin In Stage 2 subjects tryto make sense of entopticsby
one of the fundamentalforms,we speak of replication, elaboratingtheminto iconic forms(HorowitzI964:514;
our firstprinciple.The entopticssubsumed under this 1975:177, 178, i8i). In a normal state of consciousness
principleare,in a sense,unmistakable;those coveredby the brain receives a constant stream of sense impres-
the second principle,fragmentation,are less so because sions. A visual image reachingthe brainis decoded (as,
researchhas shown that an entopticphenomenonmay ofcourse,are othersense impressions)bybeingmatched
be broken down into minimal components (Horowitz against a store of experience.If a "fit" can be effected,
1975:178); a grid,forexample,maybe fragmented
intoa the image is "recognised."In alteredstates the nervous
ladder-likeform.The thirdprinciple,integration,moves systemitselfbecomes a "sixthsense" (Heinze I986) that
in the opposite directionand blends images to build up producesa varietyofimagesincludingentopticphenom-
complexpatterns(Kliiver1942:177; Siegel 1977:134). ena. The brain attemptsto recognise,or decode, these
For instance,a gridmay blend with a series of zigzags. formsas it does impressionssupplied by the nervous
Two less intimateways of bringingtogethervisual im- system in a normal state of consciousness. Horowitz
ages are superpositioning
and juxtapositioning.One ent- (1975:177) links this process ofmakingsense to the dis-
opticformmay be projectedagainstanother(Knollet al. position of the subject: "Thus the same ambiguous
I963: 205, 2o8, 2I4; Walkeri98i:I48) orsimplyappear roundshape on initial perceptualrepresentationcan be
nextto it. The nextprincipleis reduplication.Whatmay 'illusioned' into an orange (if the subject is hungry),a
startas a single image becomes a series of duplicated breast (ifhe is in a state of heightenedsexual drive),a

204 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 29, Number 2, April 1988
cup of water (ifhe is thirsty),or an anarchist'sbomb (if largerimages. Togetherwith these theyperceiverecog-
he is hostile or fearful)." nisable shapes of people, animals, and monsters.The
As subjectsmove fromthis stageinto Stage 3, marked intense activityof this stage gives way to more placid
changesin imageryoccur (Siegel I977:I32). Many labo- visions in the final stage. The Tukano's Stages i and 2
ratorysubjects reportexperiencinga vortexor rotating conformto our Stages i and 3 respectively.
tunnelthat seems to surroundthem,and thereis a pro- The model we proposethus comprisesa set ofsix ent-
gressiveexclusion of perceptualinformation(Horowitz opticforms,sevenprinciplesgoverningtheperceptionof
I975: I 78). The sides ofthevortexare markedbya lattice entoptic phenomena and iconic hallucinations, and
of squares like television screens.The images on these threestages in the progressionof alteredstates of con-
"screens" are the firstspontaneouslyproduced iconic sciousness.
hallucinations;theyeventuallyoverliethevortexas ent-
opticsgive way to iconic images (Siegeland JarvikI975:
127, 143; Siegel 1977:136). The iconic images appearto EntopticPhenomena in Shamanisticand
derivefrommemoryand are oftenassociated withpow- Upper Palaeolithic Art
erfulemotionalexperiences(Siegel and JarvikI975:III;
Siegel I977: I36). This shiftto iconic imageryis also ac- To examine the applicabilityof this neuropsychological
companiedby an increasein vividness.Subjectsstopus- model we apply it to two known shamanisticartsfrom
ing similes to describetheirexperiencesand assertthat different continents.If the model provesappropriateto
theimagesare indeedwhat theyappearto be. They "lose thesearts,we can use it to assess artsnot knowna priori
insightinto the differencesbetween literal and analo- to be associated with alteredstates.
gous meanings" (Siegel and JarvikI975:i28). Never- The firstshamanistic art is that of the San. Because
theless, even in this essentially iconic stage, entoptic San rockartis now widelyacceptedas shamanistic,3we
phenomena may persist: iconic imageryis "oftenpro- do not rehearsethe debate about it here.4We merely
jected againsta backgroundof geometricforms"(Siegel point out that igth- and 2oth-century ethnographyre-
I977:I34). cords San shamanisticpracticesin some detail and pro-
These three stages are not necessarily sequential. vides a firmfoundationforthe interpretations that fol-
Some subjects appear to move directlyinto the third low (foran account ofthe ethnography and its relevance
stage,while othersdo not progressbeyondthe first.It to San rock art, see Lewis-Williamsand Biesele I978;
does, however,appearthatexclusivelyentopticimagery Lewis-WilliamsI980; i98ia:25-37; i987a).
is characteristicof the firststage.Nor should the stages to the San we use "shaman" ratherthan
In referring
be considereddiscrete.Construal,forinstance,may oc- the more usual "medicine man," but we do not thereby
cur in Stage 3, with construedentopticsaccompanying implyanythingabout the social position of the person,
true iconic hallucinations. Although entoptics still his or her mental health, or, indeed,many of the other
occur in Stage 3, theyare secondaryand tend to frame characteristicsoften associated with the very het-
the principal iconic elements (Reichel-Dolmatoff erogeneousphenomenoncalled shamanism.Insteadwe
I978a:I47). The threestages we propose should there- emphasise what we believe to be the most important
forebe seen as cumulativeratherthan sequential. and overridingfeatureof shamanism and the one with
This three-stageprogressionwas established by re- which this paper is principally concerned-altered
searchusing mescaline and LSD. We do not know ifthe statesof consciousness.This emphasisis echoed by San
trajectory ofmentalimageryis identicalforall drugsand wordsfor"shaman." The modern!Kungofthe northern
fornon-drug-induced states,but we believe thata broad KalahariDesert use n/um k"au, which means "ownerof
similaritycan be accepted. This assumptionis partially n/um." N/um is a supernaturalpotencythat Marshall
justifiedby the identificationby the Tukano of the Co- (I969:351) likens to electricity:harnessed it is ben-
lombian northwesternAmazon of threestages in their eficial,uncontrolledit is dangerous.The igth-century
yaje-induced visual experiences (Reichel-Dolmatoff southern/Xam San spoke of a !gi:xa (pl. !gi:ten).!Gi is
I978a:12-I3). They speak of an initial stage in which the /Xamequivalentofn/um,and the finalsyllable,-xa,
"gridpatterns,zigzag lines and undulatinglines alter- means "-full," as in "wrathful." /Xam shamans ac-
nate with eye-shapedmotifs,many-colouredconcentric tivatedtheirpotencyto entertrance,as the !Kungstill
circles or endless chains of brillant dots" (Reichel- do today,eitherduringlarge dances or in more solitary
DolmatoffI978b:29i-92). Duringthis stagetheywatch circumstances (Lewis-Williams n.d.a). Hallucinogens
"passively these innumerable scintillating patterns
which seem to approachor to retreat,or to change and
3. See Lewis-Williams (I980, i98Ia, i982, i985a, b, i987a), Lewis-
recombineintoa multitudeofcolourfulpanels." We em- Williamsand Loubser(i986), Huffman (i983), Maggs and Sealy
phasise thattheseformsare depictedbythe Tukano and (i983), Yates,Golson,and Hall (I985), Manhireet al. (i986), Park-
identifiedby them as elements in their yaje visions. ingtonet al. (i986), Campbell(I986, i987).
Reichel-Dolmatoff(I972, I978a, b) has demonstrated 4. Traditionally, San rockartwas seen as theproductofhunting
magicritualsoras a narrative ofdailylifewitha small"mythical"
their isomorphism with entoptic phenomena estab- component.For the variouspositionsadoptedin thisdebate,see
lishedquite independentlybylaboratoryexperiments.In Lewis-Williams (i982, i983a, b, I984a, b, i987a, b), Cooke (i983),
the second stage recognisedby the Tukano there is a Hammond-Tooke (i983), Nettleton (i984), Willcox (I984, i987),
diminutionof these patternsand the slow formationof Woodhouse(I984), and Lewis-Williams and Loubser(i986).

LEWIS-WILLIAMS AND DOWSON Signs ofAll Times I 2o5
are littleused in the Kalahari today(Lee i968; Marshall ENTOPTIC FORMS

i969:372; Katz i982:i80-81), but there is some sugges-
tion theymay have been used more commonlyin the In figurei we assess the firstcomponentof our model,
past (Dobkin de Rios I986). SouthernSan shamanswere the six entoptic categories,against San and Coso rock
believed to entertranceto cure the sick, undertakeex- art.
tracorporealjourneys,make rain, and controlanimals. In dealing with San art, we distinguishbetween en-
The artistsdepictedthe trancedance itself,symbolsof gravingsand paintings because entoptics are, for un-
supernaturalpotency, hallucinations experienced by known reasons, considerablymore prominentamong
shamans, and, most significantforour argument,ent- the former.These two depictivetechniquesare, by and
opticphenomena.Althoughit mighthave been possible large, confined to differentparts of the subcontinent
under certain circumstances,we do not suggest that (Van Riet Lowe i956), but thereis reasonto believe they
these depictions were executed by people actually in were both employed by San people who entertained
trance.It seems more likely that San shaman-artists re- similarbeliefsystems(Lewis-Williamsand Biesele I978;
called and depicted theirpowerfulexperiencesin rela- Lewis-Williams
i983c:3I-37). all six forms
Certainly,
tive tranquility.Today the San listen attentivelyto sha- occur in both engravingsand paintings.
mans' recollections of trance experience; in the past, The six entopticcategoriesare also abundantin Coso
depiction may have been a parallel (but not identical) art,thoughnot in the same proportions.The firstent-
activity. optic, a grid, is often part of the enclosed shieldlike
For a second assessment of our model we turnto the forms.Sets oflines (II) are sometimessimilarlyenclosed,
ShoshoneanCoso rockartof the CaliforniaGreatBasin. but on one side only.The example in IIE is accompanied
The paucityofdirectethnographicreferencesto rockart by a row of dots (III). Dots, like otherforms,are also
in this area has led some studentsto believe that its oftendepicted enclosed. Zigzags and undulatinglines,
social context is virtuallyunknowable. By inference the fourthentoptic,are as common. Catenarycurves(V)
fromthe art alone othershave thoughtit to have been seem to be comparativelyrare,but examples do exist.
associated with a huntingcult focusedon bighornsheep The one in figurei is accompaniedbyconcentriccircles.
(Heizer and BaumhoffI959, I962; Grant I968; Ritter These circles probablyrepresenta vortex,as is more
I970). Recently, closer attention to Great Basin and clearlyseen in the depictionnext to the example of VI.
southernSierraNevada ethnography has suggestedthat We take the presenceof all six entopticformsin both
it was shamanistic (Whitley n.d.a, b; for more on San and Coso art to be an initial confirmationof the
shamanistic rock art in North America see, among utility of our model in explaining one component of
others,Kroeber i925; Grant I965; Kirklandand New- these arts.
comb I967; Ritter and Ritter I972a; Vastokas and Vas- Figure2 shows that the six formalcategoriesare de-
tokas I973; Hedges I973, I976, I983; Applegate I975; pictedin EuropeanUpper Palaeolithic art(cf.Eichmeier
Blackburn I977; Lee I977; Snow I977; Wellman I978, and HoferI974:table 7; BednarikI948b:fig. i). As in the
I979a, b; Garvin I978; Schaafsma I980; Hudson and Lee San and Coso cases, many examples have been chosen
I984). There are manyrelevantthoughnot directethno- almost at randomand could easily be multiplied.Dots,
graphicdata. Whitley(n.d.a) arguesthat,if all the refer- zigzags,andgrids,forinstance,are ubiquitous through-
ences to rock painting within the southern Sierra out the Upper Palaeolithic. In distinguishingbetween
Nevada area (and across a number of ethnolinguistic mobile and parietalartto show thatall six categoriesare
groups) "are viewed within the regional patterns of foundin both, we do not imply that thereis an exact
shamanism,a coherentpatternemerges."The most ex- correspondencein contentbetweenmobile and parietal
plicit statementwas collected by Driver |I937)froma art..Neitherhave we attemptedto distinguishbetween
WesternMono informant:"doctors,po'hage.... painted periods of the Upper Palaeolithic or geographicalre-
theirspirits(anit) on rocks 'to show themselves,to let gions.Subsequentresearchwill, we feelsure,drawthese
people see what theyhave done.' The spiritmust come importantdistinctionsand perhaps suggestsocial and
firstin a dream." Among the Coso Shoshone and other ritualfactorsthat informedthem.
groups (Tubatulabal and Kawaiissu), rock art was as- The six categoriesoffigure2 embracemost butnot all
cribedto "water babies," a concept common in the re- Upper Palaeolithic signs. Because the seven principles
gion. Althoughthese mythicalcreatureshave been dis- governentopticand iconic mental imageryand because
missed as mere "brownies" (Voegelin I938:6I), they thethreestagesofourmodel are not mutuallyexclusive,
were in factdreamor animal helpersofshamans.More- thenumberofpossiblepermutationsis high.Amongour
over, in south-centralCaliforniathere is little lexical omissions are spearlike forms,claviforms,and tecti-
difference between "spirit,""dream helper,"and "sha- forms(fig.3). Some of the spearlikesigns may well be
man" (Whitley n.d.a, b). Among the adjacent Tuba- realisticdepictionsand thus not relevantto this discus-
tulabal the "waterbabies" themselveswereidentifiedas sion,but some are markedwithzigzags (MarshackI969:
the paintersand were seen in jimsonweed trances.Al- figs.2b, 33b, 36, 38, 39a). Similarly,some claviforms,
thoughethnographicevidence fora shamanisticinter- such as those at Les Trois-Freres,Niaux, the Apse at
pretationofCoso rockartis not as richand variedas that Lascaux, and elsewhere(Leroi-Gourhani96 8a:5I3), may
forSan rock art, it is sufficientto justifyusing it in a indeed be simplifiedfemale forms,as Leroi-Gourhan
second, thoughsubsidiary,evaluation of our model. (i968a:I45-46) argues(butsee Bahn i986b). Otherclavi-

20o6l CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 29, Number 2, April I988
ENTOPTICPHENOMENA SANROCKART COSO

ENGRAVINGS PAINTINGS
UA
IIB C ___ _
IV
ci)
VI~~~~~~~~~~~~I
ID_ e.. 1 01
I / IX X
- 'I n--
-- -' I;
~~~~~~~~I
_7eN S..1X@
n-l --
FIG. I . Six categoriesofentopticphenomena comparedwithSan and Coso rock-artdepictions.Redrawnfromthe

following: IA, Siegel(1977:13 8a); B, Richards(I97I:93); C, Thackeray eta]. (19 81:flg. 3); D, Manhire,Parkington,
and Yates (19 8sf:fig 4); E, Grant(19 68:82); IIA and B, Siegel (I977:I38d and c); C, Fock and Fock (19g84:fig.25i8);
D),Pager(197 i:fig. 307); E, Grant(I968:I02); IIIA andB, Siegel(Ig77:I38band k); C, Fock(I979:pl. IOO); D,
Lewis-Williams (I98Ia:fig. 20); E, Wellmann (I979a:pl. 164); IVA,Siegel(I977:I38e); B, Horowitz(I975:fig.2); C,
Fockand Fock(I984:fig. 259); D, Pager(197 i:fig. 338); E, Grant(1968:66); VA,Siegel(I977:I38j); B, Richards
(I97I:9Ib); C, Wilman (I968:pl. 59); D, Lewis-Williams(n.d. b); E, Grant(I968:28); VIA, Horowitz (197 fi:fig.
2);
C, Fockand Fock(I984:fig.251I); D, Lewis-Williams
(I98Ib:fig. 2); E, Grant(I968:IOI).

ART
PALAEOLITHIC
MOBILEART PREAAT
I~~~~~ I I
- I ~ 3
0* *
','::.: ,// v
1"o
0.0
7X 147
FIG. 2. Six categoriesof entopticphenomena comparedwith UpperPalaeolithic mobile and parietal art
depictions.Redrawnfromthefollowing:(I) F, Marshack (1972:flg. 34); G, Marshack (1979:flg. 34); H, Marshack
(1985:flg.I7); I, Leroi-Gourhan(1968a:flg.73); (II)F and G, Marshack (T972:figs. 4 and 36); H and I,
Leroi-Gourhan(1968a:flgs.157 and 126); (III)F, Marshack (1972:flg. 12); G, Marshack (1972:flg. 36); H and
I, Leroi-Gourhan(Ig68a:figs.64 and I 65); (IV) F, Marshack (Ig72:fig. 43); G, Marshack (Ig72:fig. 200); H and I,
Leroi-Gourhan(1968a:figs.152 and 710); (V)F, Marshack (Ig79:fig. 29); G, Marshack (1972:fig. 84); H,
Leroi-Gourhan(I968a:277); I, Marshack (I977:Pl. 4S); (VI)F and H, Marshack (1977:pl. IO and 32).

2o8 | CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 29, Number 2, April 1988
48), which omits the very numerous zigzags, flecks,

filigrees,and festoons. Our omissions are, in fact, a
strengthratherthan a weakness in our argument,be-
cause they renderinvalid the potential criticismthat
virtuallyanymarkcan be interpreted as an entopticphe-
nomenon.
Even though our six entoptic categoriesdo not ac-
count foreveryUpper Palaeolithic sign,the presenceof
all six suggeststhatat least some ofthe artoriginatedin
certainalteredstates and leads on to the assessmentof
the othertwo componentsof our model.
STAGES AND PRINCIPLES
Because it is impracticableto deal with each of the six

categoriesin all stages in termsof all the principles,we
B
considera single commonlyexperiencedentopticphe-
nomenon.In its simplestvariantthisentoptic(V) is a set
of nested catenarycurves (cf.RichardsI97I; Eichmeier
and Hbfer I974:23I-35, 255-57, 276, 287-89; Siegel
I977:I39). In a more complex formit is a boat-shaped
1
cJ/ area of invisibilitywith a flickering,zigzag outer arc
C (Richards I97 I:9I). This complex variant can be frag-
mentedinto two parts:the naviculararea ofinvisibility
and the outerzigzags.It is thereforedifficultto be sureif
some depictedzigzags derivefromthis entopticor from
anotherentopticthat seems to comprise"pure" zigzags
D (IV). Migraine sufferers,who experience the catenary
FIG.3. UpperPalaeolithic signsnot coveredby the entoptic,sometimesreportonly one or otherof its two
neuropsychologicalmodel. a, spearlikesigns parts,but encouragementto observeit morecloselyusu-
superimposedon a horse: Lascaux (afterMarshack ally resultsin theirperceivingboth parts.
I972:fig. II5); b, spearlike signs with zigzags: Polesini
By consideringjust this one entoptic,figure4 eluci-
(afterMarshack I969:fig. 38); c, claviforms:Villars dates some ofthe obscuringtransformations and contex-
(afterLeroi-Gourhani968a: 55), Le Gabillou (after tualizations that it and other entopticsunderwentas,
Leroi-GourhanI968a:515); d, tectiforms:Bernifal(after transformed by one or moreofthe seven principles,they
Leroi-GourhanI968a:fig.33), Font-de-Gaume(after were perceivedby shamans in one of the threestagesof
tranceand thenrenderedon the rockface.The firstrow
Sieveking 1979:fig. 64b).
illustratesour firstprincipleby showingreplicatedde-
pictionsofthis entopticphenomenon.The San example
is one of a series of red boat-shapeddepictions(Maggs
forms(e.g.,Leroi-Gourhani968a:72, 33I, I42, 32I, 324) and Sealy i983). Here the navicularformcomprisesfour
are more difficultto account for.Tectiformsare simi- curvesand a peripheralzigzag (cf.fig.I, VB). In Coso art
larly intractable,but those enclosing grids (Sieveking nested curves like these are uncommon, and the ex-
I979:IO7) and those renderedin dots (Leroi-Gourhan ample in figure4 is exceptional.Zigzag and undulating
I968a:fig. 505, 72) may suggesta connectionwith ent- lines are more common.
opticcategoriesI and III. Yet otherforms,the convergent The second rowgivesexamplesoffragmentation, each
nested lines, may representanimal tracks (Delluc and of which shows the zigzag brokendown into chevrons.
Delluc i985). More researchis requiredon all these re- The San example is a set of chevrons.The containing
sidual forms.In any event,the remainingsigns are not line aroundsuch forms(see also the Coso examplein the
numerous, and we believe our classificationis more thirdrow) may be entoptic,forKluver (I942:I77) noted
comprehensivethan, say, Leroi-Gourhan's(I968a: I36- "boundaries"of "lines so thinthatit may be impossible
FIG. 4. Entopticphenomena in the threestages of alteredstages of consciousnessas depictedin San, Coso, and
UpperPalaeolithic art.I, replications;II, fragmentations; HII,integrations;IV, construals;V, integrationswith
animals; VI, integrationswithhuman figures.Redrawnfromthefollowing:I, Maggs and Sealy (I983:fig. S),
Grant(I968:64), Leroi-Gourhan(I968a:304); II, Marshack (1972:fig. I6); III, Grant(i968:Io7a), Marshack
(1979:fig. 35); IV, Pager (1971:fig. 387, 8b), Grant(i986:2ir), Leroi-Gourhan(I968a:fig.27); V, Grant(I968:63),
Leroi-Gourhan(i968a:632); VI, Lewis-Williams(I986a:fig.3c), Grant(I968:69) and Ritterand Ritter(I972b:pl.
4), Marshack (I976:fig.4), and Leroi-Gourhan(I968a:fig.58).

SAN COSO PALAEOLITHIC
m -
- -
0L IV Q
4z i n
'-8LS WN,dA

2101 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 29, Number 2, April I988
to say whethertheyare black or white." The Coso ex- mans believe the place where a trance dance is per-
ample is similarbut lacks the containinglines. Another formedto be redolentwithpotencythatcan be seen only
exampleoffragmentation is IC offigurei, a formthatin by people in trance.We suggestthat flickeringdot and
some expressionsis verylike what we understandby a fleck entoptics (III) were sometimes construedas that
ladderand in othershas morethantwo longlines oronly potencyand then depictedhere and in numerousother
one and a numberof equal or unequal transverselines. more clearly hallucinatory scenes (e.g., Vinnicombe
The thirdrow illustratesthe integrationof two ent- I976:figs. 239, 240).
opticphenomena.The San depictionintegratesgridsand In each of these San examples an entoptichas been
a zigzag; by fillingin one side of the zigzag with gridsa construedas an element in the complex of shamanistic
series of trianglesresults.The Coso example is one of a beliefs.Two of the examples,nested catenarycurvesas
series that has been interpretedas shields. honeycombsand a zigzag as a snake, both construeent-
All the depictionsso fardiscussedare purelyentoptic. optics as items fromthe "real" world,thoughthe snake
In the next stage of alteredstates subjects tryto make has a buck head. The thirdis different because theartists
sense of theirmental images. For example, duringthe construedan entoptic as something(supernaturalpo-
periodof his traininga Samoyed shaman is encouraged tency)that exists in beliefonly.
to "guess" what each element of his vision represents In contrastto the San construal,the Coso example,the
(Siikala i985). This "guessing"is, ofcourse,not random bighornsheep so characteristicof this art (Wellmann
but constrainedby the shaman's traditionand by what I979a:figs. I73-80), is of the more complex version of
he is expectedor desiresto see. the entoptic.The curvedhorns recall the simple form,
Sometimesverylittlemanipulationof an image is re- but the body is an entopticboat shape to which head,
quiredto give it an iconic referent,but in more complex legs,and tail have been added. The placingofanimal legs
construalsthe entopticraw materialmay be swamped on the arc, also done by some San artists(fig.i, VD),
by iconic elaborations.The San example in the fourth suggeststhat the flickeringmarginof the arc may have
row, however,affordsa nice balance between entoptic been construedas the flashinglegs of gallopinganimals
and iconic elements.In the wild, honeycombsoftenas- (Lewis-Williamsn.d.b). Moreover,at a numberof Coso
sume the formof nested catenarycurves (Pager I97I: sites the heads of bighom sheep and antlereddeer have
i51), and the accompanyingbees in numerouspainted been added to identicalnavicularbodies, and in at least
examples of such curves suggestthat a shaman inter- two cases a navicular body has been given two heads
preted the entoptic as a honeycomb (Lewis-Williams (Grant I968:68; Wellmann I979a:fig. i8o). The body
n.d.b). This is because bees are, forthe San, a potent was a basic entoptic"given" that could be turnedinto
symbol of the supernaturalpower shamans harness to more than one species. One particularlyinstructive
entertrance.This construalof catenarycurveswas thus Coso compositionshows bighomsheepwithan antlered
controlledby beliefsabout tranceperformanceand was deer (fig. 5a). Two of the sheep are linked by a non-
probablyalso encouragedby a buzzingin the ears experi- realisticline (cf. Lewis-WilliamsI 9 8 i b), anothersugges-
encedin certainalteredstates(HarnerI973: I I9; Munn tion that these pictures should not be seen "real-
I973:II9; I978; Bootzin 1980:343;
Christie-Murray
Halifax Ig80:49, I44). Other San artistsappear to have
construedthe same entopticin different ways (formore
on southern African construals, see Lewis-Williams
n.d.b); the U-shapeson "decoratedhandprints,"forex-
ample, probablyrepresentthe physicalsensationof tin-
glingin thehandsreportedby I gth-century San shamans
(cf.Bleek and Lloyd MS L.V.4.4224, JaggerLibrary,Uni-
versityof Cape Town; see Wellmann I979a:fig. 423 and
Schaafsma 1980:ii9, pl. ii forsimilar decoratedhand-
printsin Arizona). A
AnotherinterestingSan example of construalis IVD

of figurei. Here a zigzag has been transformed into one
of the buck-headedserpentsthat occur widely in San
rock art; the blood fallingfromthe noses of many such
serpents (e.g., Lewis-Williams Ig8Ia:fig. 23; Johnson
and Maggs I979:fig. 5I) links them to shamans, for
southern San shamans frequentlysuffereda nasal
haemorrhagewhen theyenteredtrance(Lewis-Williams
I98Ia:75-I0I). Snakes are also analogous to San sha-
mans in thattheygo undergroundand thensurfaceelse- FIG. 5. ConstruedentopticphenomenafromCoso. a,
where as shamans do when they are on out-of-body antlereddeer and bighornsheep withnavicular bodies:
travel (Biesele ig80). A somewhat differentSan con- Coso Peak No. 2 (afterGrant I968:98); b, non-realistic
strual is the flecks surroundingthe dancer in IIUD (for line linkingbighornsheep and threesets ofhorns:
full panel, see Lewis-Williams Ig8Ia:fig. 2o). San sha- Sheep Canyon (afterGrant I968:72).

LEWIS-WILLIAMS AND DOWSON Signs ofAll Times I 2ii
istically." In an even more clearly hallucinatory are analogous to tremblingand boilingpotency.In other
compositiona similar line joins three sheep and then words, they believed themselves to be what they saw
runs offto at least two sets of homs as seen fromthe (Lewis-Williamsi986a). Katz's workleads us to suppose
front(fig.5b). In two cases the line becomes one of the that the zigzag legs of the San depictionin the last row
curvinghoms, and in anotherthe homs sproutfromthe representa similarprocess in which somatic trembling
line. One site has 82 head-on pairs of homs, some of was representedbyvisual zigzags. Such confusionofthe
which have the head and ears as well (Grant i968:i2). senses,synesthesia,is a fairlycommonfeatureofaltered
The line itselfmay derivefromEntopticVI (cf.VID in states of consciousness; a touch on the skin, for ex-
fig.I). ample, may feel blue (Kluver 1942:igg; Fischer 1975:
In the final stage of altered states of consciousness, 222; La Barre 1975:io; Emboden 1979:44). Serko (cited
iconic elementsare spontaneousratherthan construals. by Kluver 1942:i8i), in a reportthat recalls the San
For convenience we have divided this stage into two paintingof a man with zigzag legs, said he felthis legs
parts.The first,exemplifiedin the fifthrow, comprises consisted of "spirals" and that these somatic spirals
entoptic phenomena combined with animals, and the blended with a luminous spiral rotatingin the visual
second, in the sixth row, introducesthe human figure. field: "One has the sensation of somatic and optic
The San example of the integrationof entopticswith unity."Anothersubjectreportedthathe became identi-
animals has traditionallybeen seen as a poor attemptto cal with an entoptic "fretwork"pattem as his arms,
drawa zebra,but the quadrupedis partofa largecompo- hands, and fingerstumed into fretwork:"The fretwork
sition thatincludes two well-delineated"rain-animals" is I" (Beringer,cited by Kluver 1942:i82).
(Lewis-Williams i98ia:1o3-i6) and many zigzags (for Similar confusionof the senses probablyaccounts for
fullpanel see Lewis-Williamsi987a:fig. 5). Ratherthan the entoptic pattems integratedinto the rectangular
poor draughtsmanship, a failingseldom evidentin San Coso anthropomorphs(see also Wellmann I979a:figs.
rockart,thispaintingis an instanceoftheintegrationof i95-2oi; Hedges 98.2:fig.5). The astonishingvarietyof
a fragmentedentoptic (chevrons)and iconic imagery. pattemsin thesefiguresmay representbeliefsaboutper-
Generally,entopticsin San rock paintingsare not im- sonal intemal power (Hedges i982:6) ratherthanomate
mediately evident because incorporationis so inti- garments,as has been suggested(e.g., Grant i968:39).
matelyachieved.In the Coso example an iconic lizardis This point will be clarifiedwhen NorthAmericaneth-
juxtaposedwith a zigzag. Such zigzags, a common fea- nographyis more intensivelydeployed in interpreting
ture of North American rock art, seem sometimes to the rock art of the continent.
have been construedas snakes. Identificationof such Stage 3 rock-artdepictionsin-
All the visual experienceswe have describedso farare corporating entopticswithhallucinatoryiconic percepts
witnessed, as it were, fromoutside, but at peak hal- faces seriousproblems.In Stage i, entopticphenomena,
lucinatoryperiodssubjectsbeginto feeldissociatedfrom projectedonto externalobjects, may be so strongas to
their bodies and frequentlybecome part of their own informperceptionof those objects. Kliiver (1942:178)
imagery (Siegel1977:1 36; SiegelandJarvik 1975:128). In cites one of Beringer'ssubjects,who, lookingat a small
thisclimacticperiod,images are fantasticallycombined, branch,said, "The leaves . . . suddenlyappearedin an
and the subject inhabitsratherthan merelywitnessesa omamental pattem as ifjoined in a circulardesignhav-
bizarrehallucinatoryworld.We call this conditionpar- ing the formof approximatelya cobweb. I looked at
ticipationand illustrateit in the last row. Some rock-art otherbranches,and, lookingat them,all leaves assumed
depictionsofhumanbeingsprobablyrepresentparticipa- the same lattice-like arrangement."Stage i pseudo-
tion, but we must allow that it would be difficultto incorporations,as we shall call them,thus incorporate
distinguishbetween images of the subject himselfand entoptic with perceptual elements, whereas Stage 3
images of otherpersons he mightencounterin his al- incorporationsdo not have a perceptual component.
teredstate of consciousness. Further research may distinguish between pseudo-
The San example of what may be participationin- incorporationsand Stage 3 incorporations,but forthe
troducesanotherimportantdimensionin theperception presentwe must be alert to potentialconfusion.
and depictionof entopticphenomenaforwhich San be- So farwe have shown thatthe stagesand principlesof
liefsabout tranceexperienceofferan explanation.When our model clarifyand orderdepictionsin both San and
a San shaman enters trance,his or her legs and arms Coso art. Fuller discussion of a range of entopticsand
tremble.At the same time a painful sensation in the their almost infinite transformations,contextualisa-
stomachis ascribedto the "boiling" of supematuralpo- tions,and variationswould be repetitious.Perusalofthe
tency.When theboilingpotencyrisesup the spineto the San and Coso literaturewill demonstratethe effective
head, the shaman succumbsand entersdeep trance.Katz rangeofthemodel. Because theseothertwo components
(i982:236) believes thatthisrisingand boilingsensation of our model have proved appropriateto these known
is representedby the spirals and zigzags drawnby sha- shamanisticarts,confidencein its efficacyas an expla-
mans whom he asked to draw themselves.By contrast, nation for an importantcomponent of Upper Palaeo-
people who had neverenteredtrancedrew simple stick lithic art increases.The next partof this explanationis
figures.AlthoughKatz does not himselfmake thepoint, illustratedin the Upper Palaeolithic column offigure4.
it seems probablethat the shamans were depictingent- In contrastto the San and Coso depictions,the Euro-
optic phenomena which, because of theirshimmering, pean example of replicationis of a simplervariationof

21.21 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 29, Number 2, April I988
the entoptic-unadomed catenary curves. In Upper and thatred and black dots and otherformswere added
Palaeolithic art such curves are usually furtherdevel- in sets(Marshacki985:102-3). Whenthespacewithin
oped by reduplicationto forma festoon(fig.2, VI) or and aroundthe firsthorse was exhausted,a second out-
symmetricallyinverted(VG). line was painted,and it too was filledwith dots. The
The second UpperPalaeolithicexampleis particularly time lapse between the additions is not known. Al-
interestingbecause it illustratesthe processoffragmen- thoughwe cannotalways be sureifsuch associated ent-
tation (cf. Leroi-Gourhan's[i982] "abbreviation").On optic and iconic representationsare part of a single vi-
this engravedpebble are a zigzag line, a set of overlap- sion and depiction,the combinationof the two kindsof
pingchevronswhichform,in effect, a zigzag,and a num- image was suggestedand made acceptableby the experi-
ber of discretechevrons.The derivationof the chevrons ences of alteredstates of consciousness. In contrastto
fromthe continuouszigzag line seems clear,thoughwe such cases, the bison executed in dots at Marsoulas
do not,ofcourse,implythatthe artistsdid not discrimi- (Graziosi ig60:pl. 213b) and the dottedoutlines of ani-
nate semanticallybetween the replicatedand the frag- malsat Covalanas(pls.230b, .23id, e, 232c, e) aremore
mentedexpressions. clearlydepictionsofvisions thatcombinedentopticand
The next example illustratesjuxtapositioning:a grid iconic elements.
has been placed next to a series of zigzags (cf. Sauvet, The firstUpper Palaeolithic example of integration
Sauvet,and Wlodarczyk 1977:55I). This is a less inti- with a human figureis comparableto the San and Coso
mate way of combiningimages than the integrations depictionsbecause it shows zigzags superimposedon a
fromthe San and Coso arts. humanfigure.The strikinguniversalityofthiscombina-
Upper Palaeolithic examples of Stage 2 are morediffi- tion,whetherby integrationor superposition,is further
cult to identify.We do,however,tentativelysuggestthat evidenceforsomatic and visual synesthesiaoperatingin
the exaggeratedcurved ibex horns with a zigzag outer similarways in different cultures.The second example
marginat Niaux (in the fourthrowhere)and the equally not only juxtaposes entopticand iconic images but also
exaggeratedhornsoftheibex engravedon theLa Mouthe integratestwo iconic images, human and animal, in a
lamp (Graziosi i960:pl. 113) are probablyconstruals. single therianthropic figure.Hallucinations integrating
Anotherinstancemay be the mammothsofRouffignac. human beings with animals are fairlycommon. Kliiver
A salientfeatureofthesepaintingsand engravingsis the (i926:505) recountshis own hallucinationof a human
nested,curvedtusks. To these curveshas been added a head acquiring the hair of a cat and then becoming a
dorsalline; the restofthe mammothis oftenexiguously cat's head. A more vivid and complete transformation
depicted.Many have superimposedzigzags and undula- was describedby one ofJames'ssubjects: "I thoughtofa
tions (Graziosiig60:pls. 148, 149). The Rouffignac mam- fox,and instantlyI was transformed into that animal. I
moths may also exemplifyreduplication,forsome are could distinctlyfeelmyselfa fox,could see mylong ears
depicted in lines, the curved tusks being a prominent and bushytail, and by a sortofintroversionfeltthatmy
repeatedmotif(cf.unconstruedreduplicatedU-shapesin completeanatomywas that of a fox" (Siegel and Jarvik
fig.2, VI). AnotherUpper Palaeolithic example may be I975:I05). In Europeandin southemAfrica, paintedand
the line ofhorses'heads thatLeroi-Gourhan(i982:fig.3) engravedtherianthropes have been interpreted as hunt-
believes were reduced to a zigzag line. If thereis any ersor shamanswearingmasks. In southernAfrica,a lack
association at all, we suggestthe opposite to be more ofethnographicsupportforhuntingmasks (Pager1975 a)
likely: a zigzag was interpretedas the heads of a line of and numerous non-realistic painted features such
gallopinghorses,the movementoftheheads beinganal- as hoofs,long streamersemanatingfromthe shoulders,
ogous to flickeringentopticzigzags. Furtherreduplica- and flywhisksprotrudingfromthe shoulders or head
tions and construalsmay be the ibex heads at Lascaux suggestthattherianthropes arehallucinatoryratherthan
(Graziosi ig60:pl. 194b) and the reindeerat La Mairie a realistic paintings (Lewis-Williams ig8Ia:75-102).
Teyjat(Graziosi ig60:pl. 89e). These suggestionsare ten- Although we allow that, in certain rituals, Upper
tative,but as Upper Palaeolithicresearchofthe kindwe Palaeolithic people may have attachedantlersor horns
advocateproceeds,we expectexamplesas convincingas to theirheads, we argue that the Palaeolithic therian-
the San and Coso ones to come to light. thropesare also betterexplained by hallucinationthan
In Stage 3 the Upper Palaeolithic example of an ent- ritual costume because they,like the southernAfrican
optic combined with an animal is like the San one in ones, have clearlynon-realisticfeatures.Indeed,we re-
that zigzags have been superimposedon an animal (or ject the notion that "primitivementality. . . failed to
vice versa),but it poses problemsof associationbecause establishdefinitiveboundariesbetweenhumans and an-
one cannotbe sure,in the confusedclusterofengravings imals" (Graziosi i960:34) and suggest that the rather
of which it is part, that an artist intendedthis exact unlikelyconceptofa half-man/half-animal was initially
relationship.The entopticmay have been done at a dif- presentedto early people by the nervous systemas, in
ferenttime fromthe iconic, but this is not, of course, alteredstates,it integrateddifferent iconic images. The
sufficient reason to suppose thatan associationwas not therianthrope in figure4 thus probablyrepresentsa sha-
intended.An instructiveexample of intentionaladdi- man participatingin and integratedwith his own visual
tion ofentopticelementsto an iconic image is thehorse imagery.
friezeat Pech Merle (fig.2, IIIH). Infraredanalysis has We can now summarizeour assessment of the utility
indicatedthatthe horseswere originallyemptyoutlines of the neuropsychologicalmodel in elucidatinga signi-

ficantcomponentof Upper Palaeolithic art. In figurei phenomenaon Upper Palaeolithic artefactsand in deep
we showed thata set ofentopticformsoccursin San and caverns; the co-occurrenceof geometricand iconic ele-
Coso shamanisticart. In figure4 we demonstratedthe ments; and, finally,the originsof representational art.
applicabilityof the second and thirdcomponentsof the As we suggestedat the beginningof thispaper,mean-
model to the same arts.We arguethatthemodel exposes ing is a question writersnow tendto shyaway from;we
the neuropsychologicalorderunderlyingthe seeming- too offeronly tentativeand cautionaryobservations.To
ly chaotic integrated,superimposed,juxtaposed, frag- begin with, it must be said that entopticphenomena
mented, and reduplicatediconic and geometricdepic- doubtlesshad different meaningsand associationsin dif-
tions ofthese two arts.Farfrombeinganarchic,San and ferenttimes and places and even for differentartists
Coso art are orderedproductsof identifiablestages of withina singlesociety.The San artists'construalofEnt-
altered consciousness and neurologicallybased princi-optic V as honeycombs,antelope legs along an arc, and
ples in the formationof mental imagery.The painted other formssuggests some idiosyncrasy.But, because
and engravedimages are, in fact,informedby the func- even these various construals all derive fromspecific
tioningof the human nervoussystemin alteredstates. San beliefsabout trance,we believe that,whetherrep-
Because the orderthatresultsis different licated, fragmented,integrated,superimposed,juxta-
fromthe order
Westernersare predisposedto seek in artisticcreations,posed, or reduplicated,entoptic phenomena probably
it has escaped notice. had a restrictedrangeof specificmeanings.Even novel
We have also applied the model to Upper Palaeolithic
construalswould have been intelligibleto San viewers
art(figs.2 and 4) and shown thatit is as appropriatehere
because they would have been constrained by and
as it is to the two known shamanisticarts.In doing so,located within the belief structureof San shamanism.
we emphasisethatwe take into account a largenumber Similarly,because we now know the provenanceofUp-
of features;a single zigzag, forinstance,would not in per Palaeolithic signs, their interpretationsare no
itselfbe persuasiveevidenceforan entopticcomponent. longer,in GeorgeEliot's phrase,"illimitable."
There is thus a strong suggestion that at least a The Tukano go furtherthan the San and provide a
significantcomponent of Upper Palaeolithic art also potential clue to one aspect of the significanceof the
derives fromaltered states of consciousness and that selectionand repetitionofentopticphenomenain Upper
many of the signs depict entoptic phenomena in the Palaeolithic art,a clue thatmay suggestanotherdimen-
various transformations we have described.Because oursion to Conkey's (I980) work on Upper Palaeolithic de-
entoptic categories, principles of apprehension,and sign elements, some of which are clearly entoptic in
stages of altered states are establishedby independent
form(cf. Eichmeier and H6fer 1974:table 7). Each ex-
neuropsychologicalresearch and not derivedfromthe ogamicTukano groupconsidersitselfto "own" a certain
artitself,our model greatlyreducesthe inferentialcom-typeofvision (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1978a:4, 9). These so-
ponent that looms so large in many argumentsabout cially distinguishingvisions are associated with differ-
Upper Palaeolithic art that try to avoid ethnographicent kinds of yaje: the Desana, forexample, "own" at
analogy. least fournamed kinds of yaje, the southem Barasana
We do not arguethat San and Upper Palaeolithicreli-
threekinds. Some kinds of yaje are, in tum, linked to
gions were identical or any similar simplicity.All that
animals. The Tukano themselvessay thattheirshamans
the parallels exhibitedhere allow us to conclude at the
use "fish yaje" to contact the Master of the Animals,
moment is an association with altered states and, fur-
while the Barasana of the Pira-Parana'recognize"yaje of
ther,because shamanism is so pervasivelyassociated the red jaguar" and "yaje of the jungle animals"
with foragingsocieties, that in the Upper Palaeolithic
(Reichel-Dolmatoff1972:97).
this association probablyhad at least some featuresin In discussing the cultivation of such visions in
common with what we understandby shamanism.We shamanism,Noll (i985:445-46) identifiestwo goals of
are, of course, by no means the firstto suggest that shamanistictrainingthatare relevantto the Tukano ex-
shamanism in some formexisted in the Upper Palaeo- perience.Novices learnto increasethevividnessoftheir
lithic (see, among others,Lommel I967; La Barre1970, imagery,and theyleam to controlthe contentof their
1972; Eliade 1972; Eichmeier and Hofer 1974; Furst visions by "actively engagingand manipulatingthe vi-
1976; Halifax I980:3, 17; i982; Pfeiffer sionaryphenomena."As partofthe second skill we sug-
i982; Bednarik
i984a, i986). We simply strengthen gest the cultivationof specificentopticimages.Because
this hypothesisby
developinga neuropsychologicalmodel thatreveals the expectationsharpensperception,certainentopticstend
orderin two shamanisticartsand providesa moresecure to be perceived at the expense of others,and a social
way of addressingUpper Palaeolithic art. group thus develops a characteristicrepertoireof for-
malised,codifiedentoptics.The responseofa laboratory
subjectasked to drawhis entopticperceptsaftera lapse
Implications of time may give some clue to the processes whereby
entopticphenomena become standardised(Knoll et al.
The depictionof entopticphenomenain Upper Palaeo- i963:208-i2). Aftera period of 5-26 days, the subject
lithic art invites reflectionon many issues. For the tendedto producemore elaborateand better-defined de-
moment we select only four for briefcomment: the pictions than those done duringthe experiment.After
meaningof entopticelements; the depictionof entoptic fivemonths,he producedwhat he consideredto be even

214 | CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 29, Number 2, April I988
more generalised depictions rather than specific pic- paintedcaves ofWesternEuropeprovidedcircumstances

tures. especially conducive to the generationof entopticphe-
Moreover, specific entoptic phenomena can repeat nomena and hallucinations.
themselvesas afterimages forup to six monthsand "can Locationslike thesmall "sanctuary"in La Pileta come
appear in the visual field at any instantwhen theyare to mind: "The entranceis a fewfeetfromthe floor,and
triggeredoffby a changein body chemistryor an exter- one has to climb up and crawl in. It is only a few feet
nal stimulus" (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1978b:298). These af- high and long, and it is necessaryto kneel or squat in-
terimagesare superimposedon normalvision in other- side" (Marshack1977:287-89). Althoughthereis no
wise ordinarydaily experience. "The particularspec- room forcommunal activity,the vast numberof marks
trumof [entopticphenomena],togetherwith theircul- on the clay wall of this "sanctuary" suggests,as Mar-
tural interpretations,can be said to accompany the shack notes, that it has been repeatedlytouched.Some
personin a permanentmanner" (pp. 298-99). Regional simple iconic depictions,entoptics,and fingerflutings
differencesin Upper Palaeolithic iconic and entoptic (Anati I98I; Bednarik1948a, b, I986) swiftlyexecuted
iconographymay thus have arisenfromdifferent expec- in the soft surfaceof the walls of such locations may
tationsand standardisationsof visions and afterimages. have been made by novices who, having entered the
That such visionswould have had social implications,as caverns on a vision quest, reached out to the existing
they do for the Tukano, is highly probable. A more depictionsto absorb theirpower and to trace theirown
specificstatementis currently impossible,but the culti- visual perceptsduringor aftertheiralteredstate of con-
vation of mental images leads to our second question- sciousness. Significantly,the less accessible parts of
the location of so much Upper Palaeolithic art in deep caves such as Les Trois Freres,Lascaux, Altamira,and
caverns. Niaux contain simpler and more fragmentedfigures;
To approach this problemwe again turnto southern more detailed depictionstend to be nearerthe entrance
Africa.The supernaturalpotencythatSan shamansacti- (Lorblanchet1977:5 3). If certain remote locations be-
vate to entertranceis named afterpowerfulanimals and came known as "powerful"places where visions could
things, supreme among which is the eland (Lewis- be obtained,such depictionswould accumulate there.
WilliamsandBiesele1978, Lewis-Williams ig8ia). The An interestingaddendum to this explanationforre-
eland is also the most frequentlydepictedantelope in mote locations is the placing of many depictions of
manyregions(MaggsI967; Vinnicombe1972, 1976; felinesand otherdangerousanimals in the depthsofthe
Lewis-Williams 1972, 1974, i98Ia; Pager197i), andpart caverns.Writershave arguedthat much of what Leroi-
of the functionof these depictions was recentlyex- Gourhanproposesabout the distributionofpaintingsin
plained by an old woman, probablythe last survivorof the caves does not standup to scrutiny(Ucko and Rosen-
the southem San (JollyI986, Lewis-Williams I986b). feld I967:195-221; Stevens1975), but the placingof
She demonstratedhow dancersseekingpowerturnedto many dangerousanimals in the remote chambersand
face the paintingson the wall of the rock-shelterand passages does seem acceptable (ParkingtonI969). It is
how some people placed theirhands on the paintingsof certainlypossible that the greaterdepths would have
eland to gain power. The paintings,she said, had been induced greaterdread and that shamans and novices
put thereby shamans and containedpower. Although would thereforehave tended to hallucinate dangerous
this incidenttook place in an open rock-shelter and not creatures.In many cases the remotepartsseem to have
in a darkcavern,thereis an importantpotentialparallel been visitedrarelyor,perhaps,only once forthe execu-
with Upper Palaeolithic art: depictionsare botha result tion of art.
of visions (as the presence of entoptics,integrations, On the otherhand,largepaintedgallerieswere proba-
fragmentations, and otherfeaturesshows) and a factorin bly the location of more elaborate rituals involvinga
inducingor at any rate informingthem.Both situations number of people-as is suggestedby the remains of
may have obtainedin the Upper Palaeolithic caverns. scaffolding(Leroi-Gourhanand Allain 1979, Ruspoli
The sensorydeprivationexperiencedin such places i987). These communallyproduced images should be
inducesentopticphenomena, as Walker(i98I:146) re- seen in contrastto (butcertainlynot to the exclusionof)
portsfromhis own experience,and also hallucinations those that could have been the workof a fewmoments.
(e.g., La Barre 1975:14; Pfeifferi982:2ii; Siegel i984). The communallyconstructedgalleries may have been
Aspirantshamans seekingvisions to givethemaccess to vestibuleswhere novices absorbedthe power of impos-
the spiritworld frequentlymeditate in remoteplaces, ing and sometimes rituallyrenewed depictionsbefore
oftencaves(Eliade1972:50-51, 110-14; Halifaxi980:6), venturingfartherinto the caves or being leftalone for
andHultkrantz (i98i:39, 40) records Shoshoneshamans' theirpersonal quest. The arrayof depictionsthat pre-
seekingvisions at rock-artsites.Underlaboratorycondi- pared them forwhat theywere about to see comprised
tions,a subjectasked to turnhis or herattentioninward entoptics,therianthropes,and "powerful"animals ofthe
to entopticphenomenabecomes absorbedin the experi- kind theyhoped to hallucinate.These animals,we sug-
ence,and "typicalsignsoftrancestate(immobility,slow gest,were, at least on one level, the spirithelpersfrom
regular breathing, etc.) become evident" (Hunchak whom shamans obtainedpower.Technique ofdepiction
i980:223). Prehistoricpeople, isolated in dark caverns and location in the cavernsthus suggestdistinctthough
and expectantlyscrutinizingtheirentopticphenomena relatedritual components.
in the hope of seeing specific forms,would similarly But not all UpperPalaeolithicartis in locationsimply-
have inducedan alteredstate.It is thuspossible thatthe ing arcane activities and experiences.The presence of

LEWIS-WILLIAMS AND DOWSON Signs ofAll Times I 2i5
similar but not an identical range of depictionson ar- tumbledto a likeness between theirown and naturally
tefactshas sometimesbeen contrastedwithhiddenloca- formedmarks and some object in nature."Continually
tions to suggest a parallel "secular" artistictradition. markingthe world will continuallyincrease the proba-
Whateverthe differencesbetween mobile and parietal bility that marks will be seen as things" (Davis
art (differencesthat should be exploredin termsof the i986a:2oo). In contrastto this view, we argue that the
stagesand principlesoutlinedhere),the simplepresence answerlies in the operationof the human nervoussys-
of entoptics in both contexts suggest an embracing tem in altered states. Kluver (i926:505, 506; see also
unity.NotwithstandingConkey's (I983) sensible obser- Knoll et al. i963:208) found,fromhis own experience,
vations,elucidationof thatunitymust precedeelucida- thatbothentopticphenomenaand iconic hallucinations
tion of distinctions;the differencesmust be subsumed seemed to be localised on the walls or the ceiling. Szu-
undertheunityratherthanseen as vitiatingit. The pres- man (citedby Siegel and Jarvik1975:io9) describedthis
ence ofentopticphenomenaon mobile artsuggeststhat, experience as "pictures painted beforeyour imagina-
althoughthe experiencesof the cavems may have been tion," and Siegel (1977:134) likened it to "a motionpic-
in. some sense hieratic,elements of the visions there tureor a slide show." Kliuver(1942:179) also foundthat
obtained were also demotic. Free access to visions is entopticimages recurredafterhe had awakenedfroman
indeed characteristicof the Tukano; they depict their alteredstate and that theywere thenprojectedonto the
entopticperceptson house walls, ceramics,bark cloth, ceiling. The Tukano too experiencetheirentopticim-
gourdrattles,stampingtubes,and basketwork(Reichel- ages projectedonto plane surfaces,and, as afterimages,
Dolmatoff1978a, b). The user or beholderof an artefact theymay recurin this way forseveralmonths(Reichel-
withthese designsis continuallyremindedoftheirmes- Dolmatoff1978a:8).
sage-as the San inhabitantsof a painted rock-shelter Such reportssuggestthatearlypeople similarlyexperi-
must have been continuallyaware ofthe "other"world. enced mental imageryand afterimagesprojectedonto
UpperPalaeolithicpeople too were thusremindedofthe their surroundings.Their surroundingswere thus al-
largebodyofshamanisticlore and social normsencoded readyinvestedwith "pictures."Because alteredstatesof
in entopticdesignson artefacts. consciousness produce iconic images that are "com-
In the cavems and on mobile pieces entopticphenom- pletely disengagedfromany kind of natural surround-
ena are frequentlyaccompanied by iconic depictions. ings" and are perceived"withoutregardto size or posi-
Their co-occurrencein single "compositions" or, for tion relative to one another,"as well as distortedand
thatmatter,duringa singleculturalperiodhas been one geometricpercepts,and, further, because these images,
of the central puzzles of Upper Palaeolithic art. Mar- as theyare projectedonto a wall, attaintheir"own free-
shack (I977) and others,denyingan evolutionarylink, floating existence, independent of scene or surface"
see the two formsas parallelgraphicsystems.This judg- (Halverson's [I987:66, 671 phrases to describe Palaeo-
ment may be correctin a generalway, but it does not lithic art), early people were neurologicallyprovided
explain why earlyman and the makersof so manyrock with the salientfeaturesofUpperPalaeolithicart.They
artsaround the world maintainedtwo graphicsystems. did not have to "inventdrawing,"as Delluc and Delluc
The answerto thisproblemis not thatman inventedand (i986) suggest.Tracingprojectedmental images with a
purposefullymaintainedtwo parallel or complementary fingerin the sand or on the softwall ofa cave to experi-
systemsbut that the structureof the human nervous ence them more fully would have "fixed" them and
systemproduces these two kinds of image. The "natu- would have been an initial step in the historyof art.
ralness" of combining them was well illustratedby They were merelytouchingand markingwhat was al-
Reichel-Dolmatoff's(1978a) informantswhen he asked ready there. The firstdepictions were thus not two-
themto drawwhat theysaw undertheinfluenceofyaje; dimensional representationsof three- (even four-)di-
as on theirartefacts,entopticand iconic elementswere mensional reality. Rather, they were "fixed" mental
mixed. In Upper Palaeolithic Westem Europe,southem images. In all probabilitytheirmakers did not suppose
Africa,the Great Basin, and elsewhere, entopticphe- that they stood for "real" animals any more than the
nomena were intentionallyassociated with iconic im- accompanyingentoptic depictions represented(iconi-
ages simplybecause that is the way the human visual cally)thingsin thereal world.It is, furthermore, possible
system works; the association is intrinsicto altered that,fortheirmakers,theearliestdepictionswerevisual
states of consciousness. images: hallucinationsand depictionswere one. The so-
The universalityof the association between entoptic cial circumstancesin which mental images that had
and iconic elementsis a clue to the answerto our final been experiencedfor millennia came to be fixed will
question: how did people come to realise that two- clearly require elucidation; the images must have ac-
dimensional marks could representthree-dimensional quired a significancethat caused people to reach out to
objects? The early view that representationalart grew touch and fixthem.5
out of non-representational, marks,once
self-sufficient This is not to say that all Upper Palaeolithic depic-
discredited,has recently been cogently reargued by tionsare imagesfixedbypeople in alteredstatesor expe-
Davis (I986a). He does not believe thatrepresentational
artevolvedout of the formal"signs," suggestinginstead
5. It is worthnotingthatthepossibletracingofeideticimagery in
thatit evolvedout ofchance orrandommarks.Sooneror the Upper Palaeolithichas been discussed(foran overview,see
later,he argues,as a resultoftheperceptualambiguityof KublerI985), but we believe the presenceof entopticelements
natural marks and features,early people would have suggeststheimageryofalteredstatesratherthaneideticimagery.

2I6 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 29, Number 2, April 1988
riencingafterimages.Once that initial step had been

taken,the developmentof Upper Palaeolithic artproba-
blyfollowedthreecourses.One streamremainedmental
imageryfixedwhile it was beingexperienced.A second
stream derived from recollected mental imagerypro-
cessed in the ways we have suggested.A thirdstream
derivedfromcontemplationof the graphicproductsof
the firsttwo streamsand the realizationthattheycould
be duplicated even by someone who had never experi-
enced an altered state of consciousness. Beliefs about
mentalimageryand its fixingdoubtlesschangedthrough
the Upper Palaeolithic,but the continuedassociationof
entoptic phenomena suggests that even these third-
streamdepictions,in a sense the most realisticpieces of
Palaeolithic art, were also understoodas fixedimages
fromthe world of altered consciousness, even though B
some were socially produced.The accuratelydelineated FIG. 6. Engravedentopticphenomena dated to periods

animals ofSan artshow thatrealismis notincompatible earlierthan UpperPalaeolithic. a, Acheulian: engraved
with the imageryof alteredstates. bone fromPech de L'Aze (afterMarshack 1977: pls. 2
Because alteredstatespersistedthroughoutthe Upper and 6b); b, Mousterian:engravedbone fromBacho
Palaeolithic (and, of course, beyond),the products of Kiro,Bulgaria (afterMarshack 1976:fig. 7c).
these threestreamswere variouslyinterwovenin differ-
ent periodsand places. The "style" ofany periodis thus
much more than the manner in which people reduced to a continuingsymboltraditionbut to the antiquityof
real objects; it is a complex mix of or,perhaps,balance the human nervous system and its generationof ent-
between fixedmental images and afterimages,codified optic phenomena. We thus agree with Gamble (i983:
recollectionsofthese images,and independentlycreated 203) that bones can be scratchedintentionallywithout
representationsof entoptic and extrasomaticsubjects. this implyinga symbolic act; we simplygo furtherby
Moreover,because the action offixingthe imageswould pointing to the origin of the specific forms.Another
have been the same forentopticphenomenaand iconic formoccurs later,in the Chatelperronian-setsofparal-
hallucinations,there is no need to postulate different lel lines (cf.fig.2, second row) that,accordingto Delluc
originsor a geneticrelationshipbetweenUpper Palaeo- and Delluc (I986), "seem to play, fromthe beginning,
lithic signs and representationalart. Both signs and the role of the geometricsigns." We arguethatparallel
iconic representationsare "realistic" in that theyboth lines (fig.i, II) are "geometricsigns."
depict what people "really" experienced.If we are cor- In the lightof these observations,the fragmentary na-
rectin thiseconomical explanation,we mustaccept that ture of Aurignacianiconic representations(Delluc and
the projectionof geometricand iconic imagerywas part Delluc I978) is less enigmatic.6As we have seen, both
of humankind'sexperiencethroughoutthe Palaeolithic entopticand iconic mental imageryis subject to frag-
and in all partsofthe world.Like Davis (I986b:5 i5), but mentation.It seems that,in the earlymillenniaofimage
fordifferent reasons,we believe thatdepictionhad (per- control and fixing,artists fixedfragmentedhallucina-
haps still has) many independentorigins. tions. These Aurignaciandepictionsare not necessarily
The very earliest markingsare, however,geometric metonymicabstractions;they are more probablyfrag-
ratherthaniconic. An engravedbone fromPech de l'Aze mented hallucinations depicted in their entirety.The
has been datedto the Acheulian,ca. 300,000 B.P. (Bordes trajectoryfrom these fragmentationsto the complex
I969). Marshack's (I977:29I) microscopicexamination Magdalenian iconic representationsshould be seen not
of the piece showed thatthe "centralformconsistsof a as a strivingforgreaterrealityor indeed in any direct
hanging'scallop' image." The design (fig.6a; cf. fig.2, relationto the real world but ratherin relationto the
VI) in factcomprisesa series of chevronsand two over- real worldas mediatedby the human nervoussystemin
lapping reduplicated U shapes. Another complex im- alteredstates.Throughoutthe Upper Palaeolithic,men-
age-a set of double zigzags (Marshack I976:fig. 7)-is tal imageryremainedthe same; what people made of it
engravedon a Mousterianbone fragment(fig.6b). Mar- changed throughtime. Art did not "evolve" cumula-
shack (I977) tracesthe zigzag/meander fromthese early tivelyand uniformlythroughthe Upper Palaeolithic.In
beginnings to a number of Upper Palaeolithic sites fact,we explicitlyreject Upper Palaeolithic social and
where it is sometimes associated with representational artistichomogeneityand a unilineal trajectory(cf.Bahn
images.He considersthese "festoonedor serpentineim- I978:I25; Conkey I983, I984, n.d.; Jochim I983). We
ages" to be "the most prevalentmotif of the Upper see our positionas preparatory to the elucidationofsyn-
Palaeolithic" (MarshackI976:278). We believethathe is
correctin identifying the longevityand ubiquityof the 6. Ouraccountomitsdiscussionofpiecesin theround,suchas the
zigzag/meander and the overlappingU shapes; we, how- Vogelherd horses(Marshack1976), someofwhicharemarkedwith
ever,ascribethe persistenceoftheformsnot,as he does, entopticforms.

LEWIS-WILLIAMS AND DOWSON Signs ofAll Times I 2I7
chronicand diachronicvariability.The stagesofaltered nomena were the same then as now, and this is proved
consciousness and the principlesof perceptionwe have by the shapes of the ancient signs.
adumbratedare analyticaltools foraddressingthis com- Ethnographicanalogyis equally difficultto eschew-
plexity. even Leroi-Gourhan'sapproachreliedheavilyon the as-
At one point between the Acheulian and the Magda- sumption that Palaeolithic people thoughtlike 20th-
lenian, the beginningof the Upper Palaeolithic, there century French structuralists.Where truly universal
was an intensificationof production,an apparentin- phenomenaare concemed,one is on saferground;I tried
crease in the artists'entopticrepertoire,the additionof this myselfin a paper cited by the authorsthatfocused
representationalimages, and, quite possibly,a new de- attentionon the factthat water seems to play a role in
sirefordurabledepictions(ConkeyI983:2I3-I4). The everyknownreligionand is therefore likelyto have been
few veryearly examples of engravedentopticphenom- a contributingfactor in whatever beliefs lie behind
ena suggestthlatthisintensification was not theresultof Palaeolithic art. If entopticphenomena are indeed uni-
changesin thehuman brainand nervoussystem.Rather, versal,then it is reasonable to make the same supposi-
social circumstanceschanged,and in thesenew circum- tion forthem. I am a little uneasy, however,that the
stances mental imagery, its projection and fixing, hypothesisrelies so heavily on only two, albeit excel-
achieved new significance.Probably,new social forms lent,ethnographicstudies.
(see, forexample,ConkeyI980, I984; Gamble I980, It also appears that the theorycannot fail simplybe-
I982, I983; FarisI983; GilmanI984; WhiteI985) pro- cause thereare veryfewbasic shapes thatone can draw,
vided a niche foran experienceand associated practice whethertheycome fromthe mind's eye,hallucinations,
thathad its roots deep in the past. or idle doodling:dots,lines, grids,squiggles,and simple
geometricshapes. It is hardlysurprisingthattheseoccur
with some frequencyin Palaeolithic contextsand that
the simpler"signs" are foundall overthe place; it is the
more complex designs, such as "tectiforms" and
Comments "scutiforms,"that are limitedto particularregionsand/
or phases. With the authors,one can interpretthese as
"differentexpectationsand standardisationsof visions
PAUL G. BAHN and afterimages,"but what does this add to earliersug-
428 Anlaby Rd., Hull HU3 6QP, England. 26 viii 87 gestions such as ethnic markers(Leroi-GourhanI980),
and so forth?
As one who greatlyadmiresLewis-Williams'sworkand My criticismis thereforenot (as anticipatedby the
his contributionto the way we thinkabout rockartand authors)thatvirtuallyany markcan be interpreted as an
its possible meanings, I greatlyenjoyed this paper. It entoptic phenomenon but that in any collection of
may well provide some long-neededinsightinto what nonfigurative artthereare boundto be lots ofmarksthat
lies behind some of the "signs" of the Upper Palaeo- look like some or all of the six entopticcategoriespre-
lithic. However, I intend to play devil's advocate here sented in the paper. There are so many apparently
and voice some points on which I would welcome nonfigurativeshapes and combinations of shapes in
clarification. Palaeolithic portable and parietal art that it would be
First,I wonderiftheansweris not beingbroughtat the amazing if these basic categorieswere not present.
same time as (or even before)the question. The recent Thus, although it is reasonable to suppose that ent-
appearance of phosphenesin papers on Palaeolithic art optic phenomena were a contributingfactorto Palaeo-
has certainlyopened up freshavenues of thoughtbut lithic signs, the authors run the risk of producingan-
also incorporatesa numberof assumptionsand truisms. otherof those all-embracingtheoriesthat are no longer
Being totally ignorantof the nonarchaeologicallitera- acceptable forprehistoricart-particularlywhere they
tureon the topic,I would like to know how well estab- dismiss signs that do not fit their categoriesas being
lished the claim is that these thingsare trulyuniversal. realistic depictions, simplifiedfemales, or intractable
Have theybeen recordedin everyhuman groupin exis- despitethe numerouspermutationstheircategoriespro-
tence, or merelyin a few sample populationsscattered vide.
aroundthe globe?Even iftheyare trulyuniversaltoday, Similarly,I do not see why"therianthropes" should all
one still has to make the considerableassumptionthat be hallucinatoryratherthan depictions of ritual cos-
the veryfirstmembersof our subspecies, 30,000 years tumes and masks or simplyof imaginaryor mytholog-
ago, had the same hallucinationsas modernpeople. The ical figures.If such images were commonlyseen in hal-
authorsthemselvespoint out that the contentof early lucinations,I would have thoughtthat they would be
human imagerymust have been greatlyinfluencedby rathermore abundantin the art: as it is, in parietalart
cultural expectations,which were surely differentto they are limited to about i 5 sites, with no more than
ours. halfa dozen apiece (Leroi-GourhanI983:260).
Tautologyis difficultto avoid in prehistoricart stud- To be fair,the paper claims only that some Palaeo-
ies, and we appearto have a degreeofit here:the simpler lithicdepictionswere fixedby people in alteredstateor
Palaeolithic signs are assumed to be hallucinated im- experiencingafterimages, and one can hardlyarguewith
ages, fromwhich it is claimed that these entopticphe- that; most scholars would agree that shamanism and

2I8 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 29, Number 2, April I988
hallucination (with or without mushrooms!)probably My theoremestablishingentopticformsas ourprincipal

played a role in this period in Eurasia, althoughso far means of access to the Palaeolithic mind (Bednarik
therehas been no solid evidence forsuch phenomena. I984b) has been enthusiasticallyadopted by the au-
The authorsbelieve thattheyhave foundsuch evidence, thors.Anothercrucial propositionof mine, that of the
and iftheycan strengthentheircase it will indeed be of phylogenetic longevity of entoptic forms (Bednarik
importance,particularlyifit providessome insightinto i984b:28), is essential to theirhypothesis.This and the
the meaning of the depictions. Somewhat ominously, use ofotherconceptsearlierexpressedbyme promptme
however,theyadmit that entopticphenomenahad dif- to moderationin temperingtheirenthusiasm.
ferentmeaningsand associations in different times and Not surprisingly, I concur with the authors'underly-
places, even within a single society.Their hope is that ingtheoreticalpostulatesand findtheirneuropsycholog-
there may be a restrictedrange of specificmeanings. ical argumentationpersuasive, but their attempt to
Nevertheless,even iftheycan obtaingood ethnographic utilize the valuable researchtools theyhave forgedbe-
informationthat delimitsthe meanings,this in no way comes progressivelyless convincingas their model is
provesthatPalaeolithicmeaningsfellwithinthatrange: developed. This is partlybecause they fail to jettison
it merelymakes it more plausible. ethnographicanalogy and imaginativeinterpretation at
I have been deliberatelypessimisticin this comment; the rightmoment and partlybecause the narrowper-
it is obvious that we can provevirtuallynothingabout spective presented precludes evidence contradicting
the meaning of Palaeolithic art in the absence of the theirfinalinferences.A regionalrock-artsequence such
artistsas informants. The one possible roadto salvation, as that of the Franco-Cantabrianarea, which represents
however, lies in establishingfactorswhich hold true onlyon the orderof0.03% ofthe world'ssurvivingrock
across space and time,and the human nervoussystemis art,providesno adequate basis foridentifying universal
certainlya primecandidate.The authorsare therefore to trends that have strikinglyprofoundimplications (cf.
be applauded forsteppingout onto such thin ice; their Anati's [i986] waming).
futurestudies,as well as workby otherphosphenefans, The authors' opinion that entoptic phenomena and
may well take us as faras we are ever likelyto get into iconic hallucinations have always coexisted is over-
the minds of the Palaeolithic artists. whelminglyrefutedby the evidence fromat least four
continents.For instance, everycompletelyrepatinated
petroglyph(and I am not suggestingthat degreeof pati-
H.-G. BANDI nation is a functionof age alone [BednarikI979]) that I
Scharnachtalstr.12, CH-3006 Bern,Switzerland.6 x 87 have ever examinedin Northand South Americais ofa
noniconic and entoptic form; among the hundredsof
Commentingon this paper is a ratherdifficulttask be- thousands of Australian petroglyphsthat one can rea-
cause it demands,besides knowledgeof Ice Age art, a sonablyattributeto the PleistoceneI am not aware of a
certainintimacywith otherdisciplines,especiallyphysi- singledesignelementthatis not an entopticform(Bed-
ologyand psychology.I preferthereforeto limit myself narik i986b:i64, i986C:242); and the authorsthem-
to some generalremarks.Though I am not totallyper- selves cite Marshack's pioneerworkon pre-Aurignacian
suaded bytheauthors'interpretation ofsigns-I hesitate markingtraditionsin Europe,which are also completely
to accept thatthe enigmaofIce Age art,withits empha- noniconic.The durationof this "noniconic period"was
sis on-animal figures,can be solved with the help of the greaterthan that of the succeeding "iconic period," at
"entoptic phenomena"-I think it is very good to at- least in Europe and Australia.The only explanationthe
temptto approachour impressiveheritagefromthe Ice authorswould offerforthis worldwidedevelopmentis
Age in differentways; the far-reachingtheories that that of changed social circumstances.This feeble con-
have been employedfordecades offerno hope of a solu- struct provides no real challenge of Davis's (i986a)
tion. As shown in a symposium held in Switzerland attempt to explain the "discovery" of iconicity-a
some yearsago (Bandi et al. I979), collaborationamong model which can account forthe empiricalphenomena
archeologists,zoologists,and ethologistscan help us to Lewis-Williamsand Dowson cannotaddresswiththeirs.
learnmore about the imaginationof Upper Palaeolithic Moreover,a sophisticateddebate involvingneurophys-
man. Anotherway mightbe to considerthe testimony iological and neuropsychologicalconceptsas well as cre-
of symbolism.The considerationsraised in this article ative and deductivereasoning(e.g.,Davis I986C; Hamil-
should certainlybe looked at seriously. ton-Smith I986; Faulstich I986, n.d.) has recently
demonstratedhow prefigurative markingscan be exam-
ined scientifically.Such endeavorsto account forthese
ROBERT G. BEDNARIK phenomena involve no alteredstates, shamans, or eth-
AustralianRock ArtResearchAssociation,P.O. Box nographicanalogies,yettheyare not even mentionedby
21I6, Caulfield South,Victoria31I62, Australia. the presentauthors.
2i VIII 87 By attributing iconic hallucinationsto Middle Palaeo-
lithichominidsLewis-Williamsand Dowson merelyde-
The centralpremisein this innovativepaperis thatthe ferthe questionoforiginsinsteadofprovidingan answer
ordergoverningprehistoricartis derivedfromthe func- forit. If one were to probethe originsof the earlycom-
tioningof the human nervous systemin alteredstates. prehensionoficonicityas postulatedby theauthors,one

LEWIS-WILLIAMS AND DOWSON Signs ofAll Times 1219
would in effectbe strivingto explain a phenomenonthe Anastasi foundexactlythe same traitsin picturesmade
mere existenceof which is not supportedby one iota of by respectableeveryday,sane people who had no aca-
evidence. No intellectualcapacity "was always there," as artists(AnastasiandFoleyI940:355):
demictraining
and most certainlynot the aptitudeforcerebralimage
Only by observingthe artisticbehaviourofa wide va-
conceptualization. Moreover, the authors' own hy-
rietyofgroups,each differing fromthe othersin a dif-
pothesisoffersa perfectly adequate explanation.In Stage
ferentaspect,can we tease out the factorscondition-
2 of theirprogressionof mental imagery,subjects con-
ing the particularbehaviour.Observationslimitedto
sciously elaborate entoptics into spontaneous iconic
a singletypeof subjectmay lead to incorrectgenerali-
forms,which presupposes an ability to visualize self-
zations. A givencharacteristicof children'sdrawings,
generated figurativeiconography.The corollary that
forexample,may be superficiallyattributedto mat-
hominidslackingthatabilitywould not have been capa-
urationallevel; or some recurrentfeaturein the draw-
ble ofproceedingfromStage i to Stage 2 offersitselfas a
ings ofthe insane may be ascribedto theiremotional
variationof Lewis-Williamsand Dowson's ideas-one
disorderor mental deterioration.Examinationofthe
that would not just accommodate the empirical evi-
drawingsby untrainednormaladults,however,may
dence but even facilitatethe explanationofcertainother
revealthe same featuresand therebysuggestthat
developmentsheraldingthe Upper Palaeolithic.
such characteristicsfollowonlyfromthe lack offor-
Trance hypothesis is no panacea for the immense
mal artistictrainingcommon to the threegroups.
complexitiesfacingus in prehistoricart. Once we peel
away the hardened,almost fossilizedlayerofunsubstan- Knowledge about untrained normal adults' pictures
tiatedassumptions,half-truths, prejudices,and misiden- would be valuable to prehistorians(Clegg I979) as well
tificationswe have allowed to accumulate (cf. Bahn as psychologists.A symposiumof the FirstAURA Con-
i986a, Clottes I986), how much do we really know gressin Darwin next Septemberis broadlyaimed at this
about the social attitudes,structures,and values of,say, topic (Clegg I987a).
the Aurignacians?Over the yearsI have deliberatelyre- Few of us would rule out the possibilitythat altered
sisted the temptationto seek a link between the ent- statesofconsciousnesssometimesaccompaniedPalaeo-
optic phenomena of the Pleistocene and those known lithic pictures,and it would be interestingto identify
fromseveralrecentrock-arttraditions,and I have indeed "altered-state"pictures. Lewis-Williams and Dowson
emphasizedthatmytheoriesderiveno supportfromcer- seem carefulto avoid claiming such a capacity.In the
tain ethnographicclaims or observations (Bednarik absence of a control-perhaps picturesproducedin the
1986 b:I65). While it may have been preferableforthis laboratory before the artists entered their altered
separationto have been maintained,the authorshave states-we cannot tell whetherthe traitsdescribedare
takenthe plunge,and theirpropositionsmustbe consid- producedonly by artistswho have undergonesome al-
ered. teredstateofconsciousness.Since thesesortsofpictures
Despite my reservationsand criticism,I findsome in- are the productsofneurologicalhardware,theycould be
terpretiveaspects of the paper surprisinglyplausible. expectedin ordinarypeople's ordinarypictures.The six
In particular,the illustrations of Upper Palaeolithic entopticformsamount to a good basic graphicvocabu-
therianthropesand of possible associations of entoptic lary,and the seven principlesare a good basic guide to
formswith figurativeart presentsome attractivealter- variation.Graphic artistsas well as musical composers
nativesto previousideas. They will have to be carefully sometimeswork (or play)' with variationson a theme.
consideredin the lightof chronologicalor geographical I like this paper and wonder how easily it mightbe
distributionpatternsand otherevidence. applied to the data I strugglewith (Clegg I984, i987b),
several thousand old (some may be Pleistocene) petro-
glyphsat a largesite in westernNew SouthWales. Many
ofthe markscan be recognisedas depictionsofanimals'
JOHN CLEGG tracksand simple non-figurative lines, spirals,asterisks,
DepartmentofAnthropology,Universityof Sydney, and circles. Veryfew look like picturesof people, kan-
Sydney,N.S.W. 2006, Australia. I4 viii 87 garoos,or lizards.Several of the petroglyphs do not look
like anythingand are classifiedas complex non-figura-
This provocativepaper gives us new ways to analyse tives.No two are alike, thoughsome are variationson a
pictures.The model should have cross-culturalvalidity, theme(see fig.I). Some overlap"tracks."I have failedto
but its use presentsproblemsof control. infertheirrelative age fromthe overlap. Until reading
Prehistoriansworkingwith text-freepictures(Hawkes the presentpaper,I had thoughtof them as exploratory
I954) have fewsuitable models. Until recentlythe liter- variations.Now I realise thatthe explorationsmayhave
ature hardlymentionedart historians,critics,aestheti- been performedby a psychoneurologicalsystemin an
cians, or even the EgyptologistSchafer(I974) but used alteredstate of consciousness,and I feelI almosthave a
unstated and diffuse norms (naturalistic, childlike, way to analyse them.
schematised,stylised,iconic, and so forth),undefined,
uncontrolled,and almost useless.
Psychologistsonce believedthatcertainaspects ofpa- i. The exploratory
businessof artistscan be describedby either
tients'pictureswere diagnosticof mental illness. Anne word.

2201 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 29, Number 2, April 1988
C 11
Complex non-figurative
FIG. I . petroglyphs fromthe "Nebula" subsite,Sturt'sMeadows, westernNew South
Wales. Average distance betweenoriginalsapproximatelyIO m, averagediameterabout 400 mm. Petroglyphs
like these occurnowhereelse on the site. Whetherthe birdand kangaroo tracksare associated with themis
unknown.

LEWIS-WILLIAMS AND DOWSON Signs ofAll Times |2.2i
MARIO CONSENS Lewis-Williamsand Dowson thinkthat the U shapes

Centrode Investigacionde ArteRupestredel Uruguay, on "decorated handprints"representthe sensation of
Ave. I8 de Julio2172/501, Montevideo,Uruguay. tinglingin the hands reportedby shamans in the igth
I4 IX 87 century.What are we to think,then,about the factthat
most South Americanhandprints(in Argentina,Brazil,
Lewis-Williams'svarious papers forCA in the last five Uruguay,and Chile) are child-size?Perhapsthat South
yearshave arousedin me a deep respectforhis scientific Americanshamans were dwarves?
personality.He has expressedideas about the meaning I am uneasy about their methodology.Everyoneac-
and functionofrockartthathave provokedintensecriti- cepts social explanationin archaeology,but I cannotac-
cism among investigators.He supports revolutionary cept as "social explanation"the state ofmind of certain
formsof descriptionof rock art, and he has the great shaman's apprenticesmorethan40,000 yearsago,inside
virtueofcontinuallyrevisinghis ideas. Besides,he is an European caves, absorbingthe power fromdepictions.
honestman who reallybelieves what he says.His papers Lewis-Williamsand Dowson make too many assump-
performthe role ofa spurfortherock-artspecialistcom- tions.They have enoughto tell us withoutforcingon us
munity.At the same time,because of all this,it is very these inconceivable exercises in postdiction.They say
difficultto producea methodicalcriticismofthispaper, that their omissions strengthentheirproposition,and
in which he takes a pseudoepistemologicalapproachto this is truein the sense that ifone takes out of a model
the subject (a mixtureof axioms, assertions,and beliefs what doesn't make sense, it will appear more convinc-
and ethnographic,neurophysiological,and biological ing.
data) thattakes into considerationa periodofmorethan The weakest point in theirmodel arises fromjuggling
threethousandyearson threecontinents.My comments only six phosphenes and seven principles goveming
are quite similar to those made by otherson an earlier theirperceptionto cover rock art fromSan, Coso, and
effort(Clegg i982, Groenfeldti982, Vastokas i982). I Upper Palaeolithic con?texts. They do not say thatphos-
do not accept the Lewis-Williamsand Dowson model. phenes are culturallyselected and this is the source of
To accept it would amount to acquiring a universal, their variety.The model is like a wonderfulkaleido-
timeless decoderforall signs. scope in which a fewphosphenescombinewith a set of
The authorsstartfromalteredstatesof consciousness principlesneglectingcultural selection in three stages
producedbyuse ofmescaline and LSD and extrapolateto obtained only with mescaline and LSD in specificlab
any other kind of trance,overlookingthe evidence of situationsto interpretprehistoricart.No time,no place,
ethnicdifferences in pharmacokinetics(Kalow, Goedde, no culture:these are "the signs of all times."
and AgarwalI 986). They say thatall thegeometricsigns I can accept theirassertionthat "it is logicallyimpos-
are phosphenes,but they do not tell us that the infor- sible to induce meaningfromnumericalrock-artdata"
mant on those altered states can only describewhat is onlyin part.Deprivedofdirectsources(and thisdoes not
filteredthroughhis own culturalinformation(Reichel- necessarily mean ethnography),we must work with
Dolmatoffi985:296). Nor do theywarn us thatin such quantitative and qualitative data. It is true that the
alteredstates it is almost impossible to separatefigure meaning of the signs is impossible to determinefrom
fromground(Davson I963). They do not mention the numericalrock-artdata. Nor is it possible to obtain any
more than 30 phosphenescurrentlyidentified,ofwhich kind of meaningwithouttakinginto account the struc-
they selectivelyreferto only 6. They do not consider ture of synchronicdepictions,as they claim. I believe
thatthe Tukano perceivethese phospheneswith "noto- thatwe can avoid misuse ofnumericalrock-artdata if(i)
rious lateral symmetry"(Reichel-Dolmatoffi985:293). we accept (or even believe) that thereare regularitiesin
They include in the category"shaman" both the lone human behaviourthat are expressedin the structureof
visionaryof the Siberians and the collective Tukano. synchronicdepictions; (2) we do not seek to extract
They consider San and Coso arts comparable,but any- meaningdirectlyfromsymbolsbut ratherattemptfrom
one can observe that the motifs(assemblagesof signs) synchronicdepictionsand theircorologicaland spatial
are verydifferent. This paper forcesus again to accept relationshipsto obtaina probabilisticallycontrolledpat-
San art as unconditionallyshamanic. They cannot sim- tern of regularitiesand anomalies from which some
ply say that it has shamanic components;theirmodel meaningful structure or model (not necessarily the
calls forwholeness. They disregardpreviouscriticisms meaningofthe signsthemselves)may emerge.Withthis
in thesepages (Bardilli982, Inskeep i982, Willcox I983, structure-which one mighteven call "style"-we will
Woodhouse I984). We are asked to accept that Coso art be in a betterposition to consider social information
is shamanic because a modem informantsuggestsit, froma particularperiodofhuman behaviouras a whole.
overlooking the fact that this informantwas accul- Partitionofthe contextintosimilarsimpleformscannot
turated,completelyremoved fromhis social context, be accepted(see also Prettyi982).
and thus unable to providean emic interpretation satis- I am surprisedby Lewis-Williamsand Dowson's state-
fyingthe Westernobserver.This kind ofinformant, gen- ment"We see our positionas preparatory to the elucida-
erallysurroundedand harassed by ethnologistsand an- tion of synchronicand diachronicvariability."For me,
thropologists,can only expresshis ignoranceabout the these kinds of elucidation are technicaldevices thatwe
meaningof iconic formsby sayingthattheyare "super- must employ from the beginningof any rock-artre-
naturalbeings" or commonplaces. search.Nowadays infraredfilms,spectralcolour sliding,

222 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY VolUMe 29, Number 2, April I988
and quantitativeanalysis are standardprocedure(Con- not familiarwith the detailed findingsor structureof
sens i986). argument of the unpublished paper cited for Coso
Their paper is stimulating,nevertheless,and theirin- shamanism and rock art. Their model of six types of
telligentproposalswill compel all investigatorsto think entoptics,seven modes of "perceiving"them,and three
about their objectives. This kind of paper clarifiesthe stages in a subject's experienceof the altered state of
limits beyond which we fall into science fiction or consciousness, although perhaps overly complex and
paleopsychology. certainlytendentiousat the moment,at least gives us
somewhereto start.As theysay, it is foundedin "uni-
versals" of hominidperceptualneurology.It may there-
WHITNEY DAVIS foreserveas an appropriatecontrolforthe studyof cul-
DepartmentofArtHistory,NorthwesternUniversity, turalconventionsofwhat Noll (I 985)has called "mental
Evanston,III. 602o8,U.S.A. 2i VIII87 imagerycultivation."Finally,theyput all theircardson
the table in proposingsome specificexamples of Upper
This is a clear and provocativepaper.It buildsfromwell- Paleolithic markingwith an entopticcomponent(that
known research to some unexpectedlystrongconclu- is, source and/orreference,a distinctiontheydo not al-
sions. The strongdose of speculationand downrightun- ways clarify)and hope thatfurther scrutinywill confirm
provedassertion-with the required"academic" mix of their views. As a "position paper," the article is ex-
may-havesand possiblys-is invigorating. tremelyelegant.
The hypothesisthatentopticphenomenamay be "ex- Despite its usefulness,I have some reservationsabout
temalized," "fixed," depicted,or otherwisegenetically the paper. The discussions of entopticsand theirtrans-
or referentially related to nonrepresentational or repre- formationsand of "mental imagery"in "alteredstatesof
sentationalgraphicdisplays,howeverthese in turnare consciousness"-tendentious enough terms to begin
defined,has been around for some time now. For in- with!-are clear as faras theygo. However,the litera-
stance,in I965 two neuropsychologists and a specialist ture on these subjects is immense, rangingfrombald
in children'sdrawingconcluded that children'sprefigu- reportsof subjects' experiencesto highlycomplex theo-
rativescribblesresemblecertainphosphenesas reported retical accounts; moreover,it is various in its ontolog-
or sketchedby adult subjects (Kellogg,Knoll,and Kugler ical and epistemological claims (see Noll I985 and
I965; cf. AndersonI975). Althoughtheydrewno abso- Asaad and Shapiro I986 fortwo reviews)and somewhat
lutely explicit inferences,they evidentlybelieved that confusing,to this outsiderat least. I would reservejudg-
the entoptic experiences were somehow carried over ment on Lewis-Williamsand Dowson's presentation-
intothe drawing.In myopinion,a clearunderstanding of which is not, of course, forpublicationin a joumal of
this process of transferhas not yet been achieved. The perceptualor cognitivepsychology.
vague termsused forit-"externalization" or,as in this More to the immediatepoint,I findthe identification
paper,"fixing"-still requireelucidation. of an "entoptic" component in the Upper Paleolithic
Application of the hypothesisto rock arts has been "iconic" representationsactually cited here (fig.4, IV
made repeatedlyin the literature(e.g.,Blackbum I977; and V) somewhat strained.It seems difficultto distin-
Reichel-Dolmatoff I978b; Davis i986c:53; Lewis- guish morphologicallybetween a stylizediconic repre-
Williams i986a). In a series of importantpapers (which sentationof horns or hair (thatis, where stylizationis
Lewis,Williamsand Dowson do not reallyengage),Bed- not symbolicor, at least, does not referto entopticphe-
narik (I984a, b; i986a, b; n.d.) has investigatedmor- nomena) and "entoptically"derivedforms"construed"
phological correlationsbetween entoptics(phosphenes) representationally. (Moreover,even if entopticand pic-
and apparentlynoniconic European and AustralianUp- tureare morphologicallyidentical,thisis not enough,in
perPaleolithicparietalmarkings(thecommentson Bed- itself,to show theyare related; a filmI make mightbe
narik i986b should be useful to readersof the present morphologicallyindistinguishablefroma dreamI once
paper). had without that film's therebyderivingfromand/or
Lewis-Williamsand Dowson advance the discussion depictingthat dream-but more on this below.) This is
of the hypothesisin several ways. Althoughit will al- not to say that I reject the hypothesis.It is logically
waysbe difficult to distinguishin practicebetween"ent- possible thatimages in the technicalsense could evolve
optics" and "hallucinations" and between "noniconic" fromthe second-order"construal" of entoptics.I would
and "iconic" patterns,theirterminologicalclarifications subsume that process under the generalrubricof "see-
arehelpful(see also TylerI978: I633 and Davis I986c: 53 ing-as" and "disambiguation" that I have considered
for use of "entoptics" vs. "phosphenes," "form con- elsewhere as one of the fundamental perceptual-
stants"). For readerswho may be unfamiliarwith the neurologicaleventsdetermining depiction(Davis I986a,
rockartsofvariousNorthAmericanIndiansocietiesand i987)-for depictionsof entopticphenomenamay well
of the southernSan, theirremarkson the shamanistic be one kind of "ground" (along with naturalforms,for-
contextand referenceoficonography, withsome intrigu- tuitously produced man-made marks, nonrepresenta-
ing furtherexamples, will be useful. Lewis-Williams's tional but semantic marks, etc.) for the replicationof
research on the southem San constellation of trance images of "externalobjects."
dancing and rock painting is well known, and his Despite some rhetoricabout underlying"universal"
findingshave been prettymuch broadlyaccepted; I am processes and the "origins" of representationas such

LEWIS-WILLIAMS AND DOWSON Signs of All Times | 223
(more about this below), in this paper Lewis-Williams lithic people experienced entoptically or hallucina-
and Dowson have really offeredan iconographical de- torily."
ciphermentof previouslypuzzling visual displays,just It is clear, then,that to assess the plausibilityof the
as Lewis-Williamshas done already(e.g., ig8ia) forthe decipherment(vis-a-viscompetitors),we must investi-
iconographyof southernSan rockart.I expectthatmost gate the possible place of entopticallyderivedgraphics
debate will center upon the plausibility of their de- (noniconicor iconic) and ofimages ofentopticsin Upper
ciphermentin relationto (possiblyin combinationwith) Paleolithic society. Presumably, using the rich an-
competingdecipherments.Obviously,we have no direct thropologicalliteratureon shamanism,we can do better
access to Paleolithic or any otherminds: as always,we thanthe sketchyand by now cliche invocationofinitia-
have to interpretthe physicalpropertiesand contextof tion,imprinting, validation,and so on.
the graphicdisplay-its apparentmorphology,distribu- All of the "implications" raised by Lewis-Williams
tion, mode of manufacture,deposition,and preserva- and Dowson need close scrutiny.I will take up just one
tion-as most compellinglyand comprehensivelyex- topic close to my own currentinterests.I do not think
plainedby supposingit is a signand/orassigningit such- that this or any particulariconographicdecipherment,
and-sucha reference(Davis i987:I27-28; n.d.). This is whateverthe antiquityof the images or theirapparent
the necessarilyroundaboutand uncomfortablebut in association with "universal" perceptualprocesses,says
some ways preeminentlyanthropological,archaeolog- anythingabout the "origin of representationalart" as
ical, or historicalfateof interpretation. such. It may say somethingabout a historicalorigin,but
In this light,it may be recalled that Marshack's de- therehave been many of these. The paper is markedby
ciphermentofa "notation" in some Paleolithicgraphics some uneasiness and even confusionon this point.It is
is reallyquite penetrating.For instance,whereasLewis- sometimesnot clear whethergraphicdisplaysmorpho-
Williams and Dowson take what they call the "zigzag logically resemblingentopticphenomena are taken by
line, set ofoverlappingchevronswhichform,in effect,a Lewis-Williamsand Dowson to be genuinelysymbolic
zigzag, and a numberof discretechevrons"engravedon (denotational)at all. Insofaras entopticand hallucina-
the famous supposedlyUpper Perigordianpebble from toryphenomena are intrinsicto the hominid nervous
Barma Grande,Grimaldi (theyillustrateonly one face, system,theyare not, strictlyspeaking,"images" at all,
fig.4, II), to exemplifythe "fragmentation" ofthe "cate- on any developed definitionof that term:they are per-
narycurve" entoptic(Principle2 forfig.i, V), Marshack cepts or perceptions. (Oddly, cognitive psychologists
(I972:8i-86, figs. i6, I7) can account rathermore pre- like Kosslyn [I983] have been studyingpictures to
ciselyforalmost everyline and forthe overallstructure understandthe propertiesof "mental images.") For an-
or "composition"of the display-in this case, as having thropologicalor historicalpurposes,we have to know
the notationaldifferentiation of a calendricalstatement how perceptionsare extrasomaticallysymbolized (and
fora three-monthlunar period (no "fragmentation"in similarlyfor nonvisual cognitive phenomena such as
this!). I am not asking Lewis-Williamsand Dowson to propositions,attitudes,"thoughts,"or objectlabels). Al-
dispute Marshack or the various structuralsemiotic thoughthe perceptualand cognitiveactivitiesmay be
readingsof Paleolithic syntax(withoutmuch semantic intrinsicand universal,the extrasomaticsymbolicones
decipherment)by Leroi-Gourhan(e.g., i968c), Sauvet, (e.g.,depictionor notation)are not, and theycannot be
Sauvet, and Wlodarczyk(I977), and others,fortheyare takenforgranted.As I have pointedout elsewhere,that
entitledto presenttheirown alternative;moreover,it is ourvisual systemis operatingas it ordinarilydoes under
even conceivable that Marshack-likenotationsor other various stimulations-of light enteringthe lens of the
scriptscould have derived,like images,as "construals" eye, of mechanical pressureon the cornea, etc.-does
of entoptics,as a general model would admit (Davis not mean that we can design and use an extrasomatic
I986a, i987). Nevertheless,in comparisonwith Mar- representationalsystem (denotationalor symbolicsys-
shack's as it stands their decipherment,althoughper- tem) preservingany of this information.Furthercondi-
haps coveringmany cases, lacks the power preciselyto tions or processesmust be specifiedto take us fromper-
account for specific morphologyand syntax. Alterna- ceptualto graphicabilitiesand experiences.A relationof
tively,it buys this power too easily and cheaply,for,as referencemust be forgedbetween graphic marks (or
theycome close to admitting,anythingand everything other media) and perceptual experience such that the
can be interpretedas a permutationof one of the rather marks denote or depict experiencewhen this relation
casually defined entoptic "types." True denotation, holds in a particularway (Davis i986c:54). As I see it,
whether depictional or not, must definitelyrule out this is the question of the originsof representation. My
some morphologiesas being overlyambiguous or non- answerto it (Davis I986a, i987), althoughcriticizedby
denotational-as being outside the systemof reference Lewis-Williams and Dowson, does not contradictbut
(Goodman I972, Elgin I983). But despite Lewis- crosscuts and in my opinion would actually have to
Williams and Dowson's claim to have isolated some ba- underwritetheirs.They propose that the entopticper-
sic types (perhapstrue as faras it goes), ultimatelywe cept-often experienced as floating before the ob-
have no good idea ofwhat could not countas entopticor server-and afterimagesofit (describedin Gombrichean
hallucinatory,and thereforeas it stands the "decipher- termsas "projections")may have been "traced" by the
ment" is impossible to evaluate or refute.A proponent subject/observer, effecting,of course,our crucial transi-
can always say, "Well, perhapsthis is just what Paleo- tion fromperceptto graphicdisplay. This is a highly

224 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 29, Number 2, April I988
specialized suggestionthatactuallyhas onlya secondary possible implicationsforPalaeolithic symbolismis con-

place in theirstructureof argument;it is one explana- finedto a study of the perceptionof simple geometric
tion of how the subject/observer could have carriedout forms,spontaneousor induced (includingthe verycom-
the project of symbolizingentoptics should he or she mon vision ofbodies floatingin thevitreoushumour),to
have desiredto do so. Althoughit has an honorableplace the exclusion of the various typesof hallucination(the
in traditionalaesthetics,theprojection/tracing theoryis, patientbeing aware or not of the abnormalcharacterof
I think,fatallyrestrictedand incomplete.For one thing, these complex visions that,in contrastto optical illu-
tracingis a difficult and unlikelyprocedure(justtrytrac- sions,have no externalobject).Nor does it claim to pro-
ing your own afterimageson a wall or shadow on the vide an explanation for the very distinctive signs
groundor even thefarsimplertask,recommendedin the (pseudoarrows,claviforms,and tectiforms),to which
Renaissanceforstudyinglines ofprojectionand thevan- should doubtless be added most of Leroi-Gourhan's
ishing point, of tracingyour face in a cloudy mirror). thickand thin signswith probablesexual connotations.
Much more worrying,the theoryactually says nothing In fact,with referenceto the complexityof the signs at
essentiallyabout symbolizationor referenceat all. For Lascaux, Leroi-Gourhanadmittedto us shortlybefore
instance,I can certainlytracea signatureto forgeit, not his death, "At Lascaux I reallybelieved theyhad come
to referto it; in fact,in forgingyoursignatureI certainly veryclose to an alphabet."
do not want to referto it. If and onlyif the tracein turn The presentstudyis an update on the question of the
stands foror denotes that which it necessarilyalso re- entopticoriginof the elementarygraphicunits that are
sembles does it become an image in the strict sense so frequentin mobiliaryart and so oftenomittedfrom
(Maynard[I986] rightlycriticizesDavis [i986a] forin- the inventoriesofparietalart.It carriesmuch farther the
adequatelyrecognizingthis,and see Davis [I987: n. 22, previousmodestattemptbyDesban (I976), inspiredas it
Again,this abilityor interest,althoughbased on was by the work of Max Knoll and G. Oster, which
23, 26]1).
universal perceptual and cognitive processes, is not sought,throughtheuse ofphosphenes,to drawa parallel
automatic.It is actually quite difficultto give a nontau- between certainsigns in prehistoricart and certainele-
tologousformalaccount of it. In a generalmodel of ori- ments in contemporaryart (particularlyin the worksof
gins,I would not relyon anythingso cognitivelyspecial- Paul Klee and JoanMiro).'
ized as an "altered state of consciousness" (forimages
originate nonconventionally but quite "normally"
among children)or anythingso technicallyspecialized PAUL FAULSTICH
as tracingprojections.In a generalmodel, images origi- Instituteof Cultureand Communication,East-West
nate in the replicationof seeing-asas such or foritself Center,1777 East-WestRd., Honolulu, Hawaii 96848,
(Davis I987). It would be intriguingto discoverthatthe U.S.A. 26 viii 87
referentof the images in one such canonical chain of
replications was an entoptic, as Lewis-Williams and The model presentedby Lewis-Williamsand Dowson
Dowson mightclaim forthe Paleolithic chain, but the indicatesthatscholarsare returningto theirown neuro-
ability to referto an entopticpictoriallywas actually psychologicalstructurein tryingto uncoverthe deeper
acquired in another way, although no less "intrinsi- significanceof prehistoricsigns and symbols.This ap-
cally." Indeed,the culturalexpectationor conventionto proachis a naturalnext step in what has provedto be an
"drawan entoptic,"as to "draw a bison,"mayhave crys- increasinglyprovocative conversation with the past.
tallized quite late in a replicatorysequence beginningin Providinginsightinto the foundationsofsymbolingand
some simplerand more common mark-makingactivity the meaningfulnessof Upper Paleolithic art,the model
such as "digital fluting"(BednarikI986a, Davis I987). has far-reaching implications.
In all of this, I am stressingnot so much our disagree- Excellent examples of iconic/entopticcombinations
ment as our divergencein asking and answeringdiffer- occur in prehistoricarts throughoutthe world. Lewis-
ent questions: whereas Lewis-Williamsand Dowson re- Williams and Dowson's model could be applied to the
ally are asking what Upper Paleolithic graphicsmight X-rayrock art of ArnhemLand, Australia,in which a
have meant,I ask how theycould have meant anything subject's internalorgansand skeletal featuresare illus-
at all. trated.It suggeststhaticonic depictionsassociated with
entopticformsoriginatedwithin the thirdstage of al-
teredstates of consciousness. Early X-rayart,which is
BRIGITTE DELLUC AND GILLES DELLUC graphicin formand simple in execution,may have been
U.A. I84 du CNRS, Musee de l'Homme, 75OI6 Paris, derivedfrommental images producedduringthe final
France.9 ix 87 stage of alteredconsciousness,in which entopticsmay
persistduringiconic hallucinations.Ifsymbolicassocia-
In the difficultfield of semiological analysis of the tions are unavoidable in representationalart,as Lewis-
parietaland mobiliaryartof the Upper Palaeolithic,any Williams and Dowson imply,then a cognitivecorrela-
attemptat interpretation, howeverlimited,is worthyof tion could have been made between gridlikeentoptic
consideration. Very prudently, Lewis-Williams and formsand skeletal features.Once this connectionwas
Dowson's workon the originand descriptionofentoptic
phenomena (phosphenesand formconstants)and their i. Translated by Mary Turton.

made, the artcould have developedinto thewell-known horses'heads mayhave been reducedto a zigzagjust as a
complexrepresentations ofhumans and animals thatin- zigzag may have been elaboratedinto a line of horses'
corporatesuch featuresas backbones, lungs, and even heads. It is conceivable that an association between a
breast milk. In the final phases of this art, inanimate zigzag line and the heads of gallopinghorses could be
objects such as riflesare painted with X-rayfeatures. perceivedin a single instant. Althoughits occurrence
ContemporaryArnhemLand barkpaintingscontinueto would be extremelysignificant,this sort of perceptual
combineentopticand iconic forms.Farfrombeingmere quantum leap would be difficultif not impossible to
filler,the entopticformsare finelyintegratedpatterns pinpointin the developmentof an artistictradition.
with symbolic meaning. I am not arguingthat Lewis- This bringsme to a relatedpoint:referring to figure5b
Williams and Dowson's model explains the originsof as a "clearly hallucinatorycomposition" is an overly
X-rayart; ratherI am playingwith the applicabilityof liberalreadingof a complex iconic/entopticintegration.
the model to an artistictraditionotherthan theirthree This interpretation is laden with culturalpredilections
examples. and does not give sufficientcreditto the reflexiveand
My understandingof Lewis-Williamsand Dowson's interpretiveaspects of creativity.Primal arts utilize
argumentis that arthavingvisual similaritieswith ent- symbols which operate on both the reflective,intel-
optic phenomena originatedthrougha process of con- lectual level and the nonreflective,perceptual level.
scious imitation rather than free-flowing, unselfcon- Schematizationis a sophisticatedcognitiveand artistic
scious spontaneity.Primal arts in general-not only device foreliminatingthe inessentialand portraying an
shamanistic arts-ubiquitously incorporate entoptic object diagrammatically.
forms.It could be that both entoptic phenomena and On a less theoreticalnote, Lewis-Williamsand Dow-
primal symbols derivedirectlyfromthe same ordering son presentsome unsubstantiatedsuppositions.For ex-
and pattern-producing neurologicalfunctionratherthan ample, irrespectiveof their initial qualifications,they
the art's being informedby entoptics.If so, theremay repeatedlyreferto Coso petroglyphsas "shamanistic
have been no need forartiststo base theirimage making art," a claim for which there is no conclusive ethno-
on reviewand imitationofentopticphenomena.Human graphic evidence. In spite of much speculation, we
image making emergesfromcomplex associations and shouldnot prematurelyattributea shamanisticoriginto
motivations;to ascribe its originsto entopticimagery this art.
alone may not be adequate. We are a long way from Lewis-Williamsand Dowson have shiftedaway from
understandingthe intricatedetails of symbolicrelation- the usual vehicles of research-ethnographyand inter-
shipsin theartofcontemporary peoples,let alone thatof nal analysis. They presenta model which,theybelieve,
the Upper Paleolithic. objectivelyreveals Upper Paleolithic art to be the prod-
Entoptic patterns have a strikingimmediacy, both uct of identifiablestages of altered consciousness. In
visually and psychologically.As Lewis-Williams and spite of my caveats, I am verytaken with theirmodel,
Dowson indicate, however,this does not preventent- especiallywhen I read it as exploratoryratherthan con-
optic formsfrombeing saturatedwith complex mean- clusive. Lewis-Williams and Dowson's concept of a
ing. The human mind strivesto process sensoryinfor- "neurological bridge" which gains us access to Upper
mation-to structureit and to shape it into workable, Paleolithic imageryis an importantcontributionto our
accessible knowledge. The inescapabilityof symbolic deepeningunderstandingof prehistoricart.
modelling among Homo sapiens sapiens complicates
our abilityto graspmeaningfromprehistoricart,forwe
are dealingwithimageryrichin culturallybased associa- JOHN HALVERSON
tions. All we can hope to produce is realisticand con- Adlai E. StevensonCollege, Universityof California,
structiveinterpretations of interpretations. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95o64, U.S.A. i9 viii 87
In symbolism,a visual similarityallows one image to
representanotherwhile transcendingitself.Images are This paper offersan extremelyinterestingand persua-
not necessarilyrepresentative of only one object or con- sive explanation of those indeed "intractable"figures
cept. Often,thereis a continuumof symbolicmeaning traditionallycalled "signs." In fact,it is the firstreally
in which images are multivocalto varyingdegrees.The credible explanation that I have seen. The account of
patternsintegratedinto the Coso anthropomorphs, for entoptic phenomena and processes is lucid, the main
example,may depictbothinternalpowerand ornategar- argumentcogent,and the heuristicuse of ethnography
ments,not necessarilyone or the other.We should re- admirable in respect to San and Coso depictions (al-
frainfromapplyingdualistic categoriesto prehistoric thoughI should thinkBednarik[i984b] deserveda good
arts-all of which are infusedwith cultural as well as deal more recognitionforhis explicit identificationof
naturalsymbols. phosphenetypeswith Australianpetroglyphs).
Lewis-Williams and Dowson portrayUpper Paleo- The authors do avoid "simplistic ethnographicanal-
lithic and shamanistic art as the result of a controlled ogy" in the main, but I wonder whethersomethingof
and systematicundertaking.They are rightin observing the sorthas not slippedinto the laterpartofthepaperin
thatimage makingdid not necessarilyevolve fromsim- assumptionsmade about shamanismand ritual.For ex-
ple to complex. Complex mentalimages certainlycould ample, "because [emphasisadded]shamanismis so per-
have been reduced to schematic form.Thus, a line of vasivelyassociated with foragingsocieties," the authors

226 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY VolUMe29, Number 2, April I988
concludethat"in theUpperPalaeolithicthisassociation is thattheyknew theywere depictingmentalimages.In

probablyhad at least some featuresin common with the case of animals, moreover,therewould be no differ-
what we understandby shamanism." This is surelya ence in memoryimages betweenhallucinationsand vi-
shamelessappeal to analogy.Thereare also referencesto sual perceptions,and both would "stand for" extemal
"novices . . . on a vision quest," "elaborate rituals," objects. Otherwiseput, memoryimages of real animals
"spirit helpers fromwhom shamans obtained power," would supersede hallucinations in the process of con-
etc. If everythingstated or implied in these passages is strual, a supposition supported by the "realism" of
perfectly possible,yetthe sourceofsuch speculationcan animal depictions(thereare extremelyfewfantasticani-
onlybe ethnographicanalogy;thedepictionsthemselves mals in cave art,thoughthese mightbe expectedfroma
carryno such implications.It is, afterall, equally possi- hallucinatorysource). In short,people probablyunder-
ble thatno ritualofanykindwas involvedand thatthese stood quite well that depictionswere depictions,repre-
people knew nothingof spirits,vision quests, or sha- sentingthings seen, optically or entoptically,and the
mans. That they did hallucinate is plausible, but the question of why depictions were made at all remains
plausibilityrestsfirstofall on thefactthathallucinating open.
is a human biological phenomenon (the "neurological Up to a point, then, the authors' theoryseems thor-
bridge"),which need not have been enculturatedin any oughlyconvincing.As an explanationof so-called signs
way. Indeed, it may have been a common experience, as representationsof entoptic phenomena, it offersa
not somethingespeciallyto be soughtoravoidedbut just brilliantsolution to what has long seemed a hopeless
a part of life. Many thingscan induce visions: the au- problem.Perhapsit were best leftat that.As an account
thorsmentionflickeringlight,fatigue,sensorydepriva- of the origins of depiction, the theoryhas too many
tion, intense concentration,and rhythmicmovement, difficultiesto be persuasive,but it is otherwisea major
forexample, all of which, one mightassume, were not achievement.
infrequentin the lives of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers.
Hence, in the limited sense the authorspropose,virtu-
ally anyonecould have been a "shaman." And ifvisions ROBERT LAYTON
were commonplace,why should theybe singledout for DepartmentofAnthropology,UniversityofDurham,
depiction?It is, I suppose,to answerthis implicitques- 43 Old Elvet, Durham DHI 3HN, England. i iX 87
tion that the authors take doubtfulrecourseto ethno-
graphicanalogy.In thiscase, the San analogue is precari- Lewis-Williamsand Dowson recognizetheproblemthat
ous enough in itself (Lewis-Williams i982). I do not Upper Palaeolithic rock art has no exact modem coun-
mean the trancetheory,which seems solidlybased, but terpartand the difficulty this createsforexplanationby
ratherthe supposed ritual context,forwhich the evi- ethnographicparallel. But in what way is theiruse of
dence is thin. ethnographicanalogyless simplisticthan Breuil's? Pre-
The most difficultpartof the paperforme is the last sumablyin its systematicapplicationof a theorywhich
section,which sets out to answer the question of how accounts fora varietyof motifsratherthan the piece-
people came to realize that two-dimensionalmarks meal selection of parallels fromdiversecultures.Their
could representthree-dimensional objects.So faras I can paper usefullybroadens the range of possible explana-
see, the question is not answered,forunless geometrical tions of Palaeolithic signs,but how susceptibleis their
entopticsare assumed to be three-dimensional, which hypothesisto verification?They are no doubt correct
seems most unlikely,two-dimensionaldepictionssim- that any explanation of the unique body of material
ply representtwo-dimensionalmental images. But the which Palaeolithic cave art constitutesmust begin by
real subject seems to be not perception(the capacityin identifying some universal elements in human percep-
question is probablyto a largedegreeinnatein any case) tion,but this is not enough; any adequate theorymust
but the originsof depictive activity.And here the au- also accountforthe diversityand uniquenessofdifferent
thorsespouse a bold and controversialprojectiontheory cultural traditions.While certain elements of Palaeo-
(one quite different fromGombrich's,incidentally).Has lithic culture can be reconstructedbeyond reasonable
anyone actually been known to trace projectedimages doubt,othersmay onlybe inferred on a balance ofproba-
on the surfacewhere the images appear to be? Further- bilities,and many guesses remain mere possibility.To
more,since the projectedentopticsare characterizedby which categorydoes the presenthypothesisbelong?
constantmovementand fluctuationfromone patternto While alteredstates ofperceptionmay induce univer-
another,would not their"fixing"by tracingbe virtually sal images,theydo not inevitablyproducerock art.Is it
impossible?It seems morereasonableto assume thatthe not a relevant considerationthat not all San rock-art
depictionswere based on memory(as is suggestedfor techniques showed the same predilectionfordepicting
San painters),which had already"fixed"salient images. allegedlyentopticmotifs,despitethe artists'possession
Thus thereis no need to suppose that"fortheirmakers, of apparentlysimilar belief systems?It would be false
the earliest depictions were visual images: hallucina- logic to argue that (a) optic stimulationalways incites
tions and depictionswere one." If the makersof animal perceptionof grids; (b) Palaeolithic art motifsinclude
depictions "did not suppose that they stood for 'real' grids;therefore(c) these gridsare the productof optic
animals any more than the accompanyingentopticde- stimulation.The missing step is that which would en-
pictions represented (iconically) things in the real able one to weigh the probabilityof this hypothesis
world,"what did theysuppose? Surelythe implication againstalternatives(traps,sexual signs,notations,etc.).

What level of proof do Lewis-Williams and Dowson or derivefromalteredstates of consciousness.Indeed,it

claim? "A single zigzag would not be persuasive evi- has been arguedthat the productionof virtuallyall art
dence"; "presenceofall six [entopticcategories]suggests involves an alterationin consciousness and that traces
[emphasisadded]thatat least some ofthe artoriginated of this can be detected in its form or content (e.g.,
in certainalteredstates"; "the Europeanexample ofrep- Ehrenzweig I953, Kris i952, Martindale I98I). How-
lication is of a simpler variation"; homed or antlered ever,these alteredstatesofconsciousnessare not neces-
humans are "betterexplained [emphasisadded] by hal- sarilyso extremeas thoseinducedbypsychoactivedrugs
lucination... because they... have clearlynon-realistic or sensorydeprivation.Rather,the inspirationforworks
features"(clarityassessed by what criteria?);"we expect ofartmay derivefrommildlyalteredstatessuch as hyp-
examplesas convincingas the San and Coso one to come nagogicstates,reverie,and fantasy.
to light" (how will degreeof convictionbe measured?). It does not seem necessary to argue that Upper
The authorsareprobablycorrectto statethatSan artis Paleolithicsignsare always due to what Lewis-Williams
now widely accepted as shamanistic,but what specific and Dowson call entopticphenomena.Visual activityis
evidenceis therethatSan artistsintendedto depict"ent- usually dividedinto several levels of neural processing:
optic" forms?It is often the most ambiguous motifs, purelysensoryactivity,detectionofelementaryfeatures
such as "flyingbucks," that seem to be used as firm such as lines, slits, and angles (Hubel and Wiesel I965),
evidencefordepictionoftranceexperience.The security and activation of sets of neurons coding "unitaryper-
of this particularevidence should be assessed, as it is cepts" or recognizableobjects (KonorskiI967). Unitary
treatedas provenin the remainderof the paper. Other perceptsare presumablyconstructedfromsimultaneous
ethnographyshould perhapshave been drawnfrombet- activation of neurons coding elementaryfeatures(see
ter-knowncases ofshamanicart,notpoorlydocumented MartindaleI98I fora review).Visual perceptionconsists
rock art. Does Inuit or Tibetan art embody"entoptic" of "bottom-up"activationfromthe sensorylevel to the
forms?How probable is it that shamanism inevitably level of unitarypercepts.Mental images or hallucina-
determinesthe formof art motifs? tions consist of "top-down"activationfromthe level of
Are Palaeolithic signsa unitarycategoryin the artists' unitaryperceptsto the sensorylevel. (Ifhallucinations
culture or a residual categoryof the analyst-those and mentalimages did not include activationofneurons
which cannot be construed as animals or anthropo- on lower levels of analysis, we would not be able to
morphs? Lewis-Williams and Dowson maintain that "see" them.)Presumably,phosphenescorrespondto ac-
theirargumentis strengthenedby the recognitionthat tivationof neurons only on the sensorylevel, whereas
not all marks can be construed as entoptic; some Kliuver's
(1I966 [i928]) to
"formconstants"correspond
"spears" may be realistic depictionsof weapons, some activation of neurons on both featural and sensory
claviformsof simplifiedfemaleforms.But those which levels. Neural activityon the featurallevel occurs not
do not fit the six entoptic categoriesare describedas only in the case of entopticphenomenabut also in the
residual: what independentmeans can be used to deter- cases ofnormalperceptionand organizedmentalimages
mine the unityof those construedas entoptic?Do they and hallucinations. It is a common assumption that
always occurjuxtaposedonlyto other"entoptic"forms? what Kliivercalled formconstantsare thebasic building
Are theyconfinedto certaintypesof location? The au- blocks of both veridical and hallucinatoryperception.
thorsproposesuch a hypothesiswhen theystatethatthe Given this,it makes sense to arguethatformconstants
less accessible partsof some caves contain simplerand or "signs" can arise fromnormal perceptionif one at-
more fragmentedfiguresbut go on to note that similar tends to the featurallevel ratherthan to the level of
motifsoccur as artefacts.Even the factthatsome motifs unitarypercepts.
are entopticin formdoes not provetheyare entopticin Evidence for this contentioncomes fromstudies of
intent. children'sdrawings.Five of Lewis-Williamsand Dow-
It is importantnot to elevate tendenciesintouniversal son's UpperPaleolithic "signs" are includedin Kellogg's
principles. Lewis-Williams and Dowson write that foundin
(I 969: I 5) catalogueofthe2o basic "scribbles"
shamanismis pervasivelyassociated with foragingsoci- the drawingsof childrenfromtwo to fouryears of age.
eties, but so is totemism.They suggestthat shamans The sixth (grids,lattices, ladders) is prominentin her
oftengo to remoteplaces such as caves to meditate,but listingofcommonaggregationsofscribbles.(Kelloggand
shamans are not the only people who visit caves. othershave printedout the similaritiesbetweenmotifs
Although my remarksare critical, they are not in- in children'sart and Paleolithic art.)To my knowledge,
tendedto be destructive;rather,theyare aimed at sug- no one has arguedthat young childrenare tryingto re-
gestinghow this interestinghypothesismightbe used. produceentopticexperiencesin theirdrawings.It is gen-
erallyagreedthatchildrenare not attemptingto produce
realisticdrawingsand failingbecause oflack oftechnical
skill (ArnheimI967, Harris I963, Luquet I927). Rather,
COLIN MARTINDALE as Luquet put it, the child draws"what he knows rather
DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofMaine, than what he sees" because he attendsto different as-
Orono,Maine 04469, U.S.A. 29 vii 87 pects of the optic arraythan the artist attemptingto
renderwhat we call a realisticdepiction(Gibson I979).
I agree with Lewis-Williams and Dowson that the It would seem thatthe child is attemptingto depictcon-
"signs" of Upper Paleolithic artmay be connectedwith cepts or abstractessences ratherthan raw, specificper-

cepts.Because of this,basic featuresare attendedto and know about rock art yields no evidence as to any
irrelevantor idiosyncraticaspects ofthe optic arraycon- shamanisticoriginforthese paintings.'
nectedwith perspective,viewingangle,shadowing,and
so on, are ignored.It is notable that some autistic chil-
dren so retardedthat they seem quite literallyto lack
abstractconcepts do produce,at veryyoungages, quite CHRISTY G. TURNER II
realisticdrawingsemployinglinearperspective,shading, DepartmentofAnthropology, Arizona State
and otherdevices (Selfe I983). University,Tempe,Ariz. 85287, U.S.A. 2o VIII 87
It seems plausible that the goal of Upper Paleolithic
artistswas the same as that of children.That is, they This essay is exhilaratingand disappointingat the same
were oftenattemptingto depicteitherperceptsor men- time. A brilliantlycreativeapplicationof biological in-
tal images but theirnotionofwhat is importantdiffered formationto the archaeologicalproblemof interpreting
markedlyfromwhat a modem artistaiming at photo- Paleolithicrockart,thepresentationis weakenedby the
graphicrealism deems to be important.Their attention authors' position that it is "logically impossible to in-
was drawnto the featurallevel ofperceptionratherthan duce meaningfromnumericalrock-artdata,as it is from
to the less generallevel of unitarypercepts.It is plausi- any data." How many times a day does a scientistsay:
ble that some Upper Paleolithic signs arose in precisely "What these data mean is that . . ."? It is preciselythe
the way Lewis-Williamsand Dowson say thattheydid. lack ofquantitativeinformation forsample sizes, central
My point is that such signs may also have arisen from tendencies,associations,and variationthatreducestheir
othercauses having as much to do with the goal of the propositionto argumentratherthan hypothesistesting,
artistas with his or her state of consciousness. fromscience to polemics.
What is theirproposition?Simplyput, theyofferthat
some rock-artdesigns are mimics of visual artifactsof
the nervous system, such as simple hallucinations-
artifactssaid to be documentedin laboratoryand case
VIL MIRIMANOV studies,especiallyinvolvingpersonsin variouslyaltered
Instituteof WorldLiterature,Vorovskystr.25a, mental states (I triedfora week to induce the effecton
Moscow I2I069, U.S.S.R. 28 IX 87 myselfbut got nothing,even in an alteredstate).Using
an independentlyderived shape classificationof these
This paperis certainlya bold one, but the conclusionsit visual artifacts,the authorstryto identifycorresponding
draws do not seem convincing.The set of rock depic- types in AfricanSan, American Coso, and widely dis-
tions the authors choose to analyze and entopticsigns tributedPaleolithic rock art. Simple designsare reason-
have in common only a rhythmicstructurethat can in ably matchedwith the visual artifacttypes.More com-
some cases be tracedto human physiology.The rhyth- plex and naturalistic designs are said to incorporate
mic characterof entopticphenomenais, moreover,evi- externalnonbiologicallyderivedinformation(a detailed
dentlyinduced by neurologicalprocesses,while the re- drawingof a horse may incorporateone of the visual
currenceof simple formsmay be kineticin origin,that artifacttypes,but thehorseformcomes fromoutsidethe
is, broughtabout by monotonous movement,the so- artisan). Would not simple designs be more likely
called dance ofan arm (Arutunovand SergeevI975:I76). matchedalways with the visual artifacttypesthancom-
They may also be graphiccounterparts oforal ormusical plex ones? Here is where the issue of quantificationen-
rhythms (MirimanovI973:55-67). In manycases such ters.
formsare a simplisticsymbolicdepictionofan object.A In a given culture,who produces the rock art? The
zigzag,forinstance,may be the symbolicdepictionof a authors imply that shamans or individuals on vision
snake, water, and so on. Many signs, including some quests were significantlyinvolved. But no evidence is
similar to entopticones, that we findin Neolithic art offeredas to the ratioofvisual artifactdesignsproduced
and the Metal Ages have been safelyinterpreted.Such by nonshamans, particularlychildren and subadults,
"understandable"non-figurativedepictions occur less whom we could expect to be immature artisans and
oftenin Palaeolithic artbecause we know less about it, thereforeproducersof simplerdesigns.I rathersuspect
but theyinclude "macaroni,"hand imprints,arrow-like thatthe developmentof drawingin childrenis strongly
lines, vulvas, etc. There are many Neolithic and Eneo- correlatedwith neurologicalgrowthand development;
lithic depictions that match the entoptics, but one at least that is my impressionof children'sdrawingsin
would hardlyimaginethe stockbreeders, hunters,or cul- several culturesI have experienced.I doubt verymuch
tivatorsofEurasia coveringthe rockswith depictionsof that what children draw results fromvisual artifacts.
anomalous entopticphenomena. And I know fromexperienceamong Hopi, Aleuts, and
As for the zooanthropomorphicpaintings,they are Russians as well as withmyown daughtersthatchildren
definitelynot the resultofhallucinations.In the Sahara do practice rock or other surfaceart. How do we dis-
and South Africathey are in some cases camouflaged
huntersand in others ritualisticmasked dancers. Fur- I. Copyrightis retained by the copyrightagency of the U.S.S.R.,
thermore,zooanthropomorphicdepictions constitute Vsesoyusnoye Agentstvo po Avtorskim Pravam (6a, B. Bronnaya,
the basis of all traditionalart. Finally,what little we K-IO4 MOscOw I03670, U.S.S.R.).

LEWIS-WILLIAMS AND DOWSON Signs ofAll Times 1 229
criminate between possible shaman activity and the formedhis interpretations of southernSan rockartand,
markingsof children? most recently,thatofthe Upper Palaeolithic.This most
To beginwith,designsneed to be analyzedin depthto recentexercise in the application of experimentalpsy-
identifyfactorsof treatmentor formthat would differ- chological data by Lewis-Williams and his colleague
entiate the productionsof normal adults, altered-state Dowson to the problemof prehistoricartinterpretation
adults,and subadults.There will be variationin the de- can onlybe commended.In agreementwith Gestaltpsy-
pictions of these threeclasses, so quantificationhas to chologistRudolfArnheim (I974:3), who says that "all
be involved to providesome estimateof error.Context seeing is in the realm of the psychologist,"I thinkthat
(i.e., deep caves or strangeplaces) cannot be assumed insufficient attentionhas been paid so farto the investi-
withoutindependentassessment to be a reasonable aid gation of actual artisticprocesses and productsby ex-
fordiscriminatingbetween the rock-artproductionsof perimentalpsychologistsworkingnot only in neuro-
childrenand those influencedby visual artifacts,i.e., psychologybut in the various relevantfieldsof mental
shamans'. Preservationneeds to be factoredin, since imagery,visual perception,dreamresearch,and human
weatheringcould break down a complex design into a response to visual stimuli. While it has not yet been
remnant simple-appearingone. Placement relative to demonstratedto the satisfactionof most art specialists,
the groundsurfaceis anotherobvious variable,and so it is clear that a greatdeal of visual expressionand ob-
forth. serverresponsehas a physiologicalbasis, subject to the
Quantitativedata are also needed to evaluate the fre- ever-present conditioningfactorsof cultureand individ-
quencies ofthe neurologicallyinfluencedtypeswithina ual personality.Valid interpretation ofartisticprocessin
rock-artpanel, betweenpanels, and throughtime.In the any society of necessityrequiresthe cross-disciplinary
Anasazi culturearea where I have had some experience cooperationof psychology,anthropology,and the his-
withrockart(TumerI963, I97I), the earlieststyleis toryof art.
decidedlysimplistic,and thereforeall six of the visual Lewis-Williams and Dowson hypothesizefor Upper
artifacttypes can be recognized,and quite frequently. Palaeolithic "signs" what Reichel-Dolmatoff(I978b)
But these formsare styleor traditioncharacteristicsand had alreadydiscoveredamong the Tukano of Colombia,
hardlythe result of only shaman activity,heavy drug thatdrug-induced phospheneswere thevisual sourcesof
use, or other determiningfactors.Coming up in time, inspirationforalmost theirentiredesignrepertoire. It is
Anasazi rock art becomes both more realistic and ab- Reichel-Dolmatoff,too, who seems to have been the
stract,and the visual artifacttypesare much less readily firstto suggest that "it would not be difficultto find
identifiable.My point is thatvariationin the frequency parallels to phosphene-deriveddesign motifsin prehis-
of visual artifacttypes occurs throughtime and space. toric . . . petroglyphsand pictographs"(P. 302). Perhaps
Consequently,statisticalinferenceis obligatoryforfac- this precedence should have been more obviously ac-
toringout the different causes of convergentformsthat knowledgedby the authors. Their use of this Tukano
must be consideredbeforeit is possible to get at the material to help support the interpretationof Upper
meaningof Paleolithic rock art.At least it is obligatory Palaeolithicpainted"signs" as entopticrepresentations,
if we want to know the probabilityof discriminating it should be noted, contradictstheir statement that
between drawingsby shamans and by childrenor be- "simplisticethnographicanalogy"is beingavoided.Eth-
tween styleand content. nographicevidence and analogy is in fact essential to
If my comments appear overlycritical,they are not theirargument,thatis, to thepostulationthatshamanic
intended to be. I applaud this very clever,highlycre- practicesinvolvingalteredstatesprevailedin the Upper
ative, and scholarlyeffortat constructinga "neurolog- Palaeolithic and that the mental images experiencedin
ical bridge"to the Paleolithic. I findthe idea of visual those states were actually reproducedon cave walls.
artifacts'being an elementin Paleolithicrock artintui- This commentis not to argue againstthe use of ethno-
tively satisfying.However, there is a big gap between graphicanalogyor to oppose thelikelihoodofsome form
thisidea and a demonstrationofits vitality,and thisgap of shamanism in the Upper Palaeolithic but merelyto
is the resultof inadequate methodology.Such a demon- point out that ethnographicanalogyand internalanaly-
strationcan only be done by statisticalinferencebegin- sis are difficult to avoid wherealmostall contextualdata
ningwith some reasonablebaseline such as averagedor are lacking. For any hope of success in understanding
weightedworldorregionalethnographic analogiestrans- prehistoricart,what is needed is not a battleoftheories
formedto some sort of numericalscaling. and methodologiesbut cooperationamong them.
While I supportthe use of experimentalneurological
and other psychological data for the interpretationof
JOAN M. VASTOKAS prehistoricartand,I mightadd,forthe stillundeveloped
DepartmentofAnthropology, TrentUniversity, investigationofaestheticuniversals,those data alone do
Peterborough,Ont., Canada KgJ7B8. I4 viii 87 not entirely"explain" the concretevisual images. The
primeconditioningfactorsof cultureas well as those of
Keepingup with Lewis-Williams'sshiftingmethodolo- physicalformat,techniquesof execution,and materials
gies is no mean task. Within a span of only six years, employedby the artistlargelydeterminewhetherand
ethnographicanalogy,symbolicanalysis,Marxistsocial how those ephemeralentopticphenomena are actually
theory,and,now, neuropsychology have sequentiallyin- representedon the cave walls.

As the authorsstate,phosphenesare experienceduni- ture") with all its acquired conventions,and the be-
versally.But they are not universallyrepresented.It is haviouralvagariesof the artist'stools and materials.
one thingto experiencemental images; it is anotherto While phosphenesmay have servedas visual sources
reproducethemin materialform.It is difficult to accept in a number of circumstancesthroughouthuman his-
the authors'suggestionthat the Upper Palaeolithic art- tory,interpretationof prehistoricart in termsof these
ists may have projected their mental imageryand af- neuropsychologicalphenomena should not be carried
terimageslike so many slides onto the cave wall and too far,as I am afraidtheauthorshave done in thecase of
"traced"them,"merelytouchingand markingwhat was the Coso rock-artdata. Viewed cross-culturally,the
already there." The passivityof subjects duringtrance sources for image creation are immensely varied and
does not allow foractiveproductionofartforms."Recol- difficult to disentanglewhen one considersthe complex-
lected mental imagery,"on the otherhand,must be ac- ityof artisticprocesses. Shamanism and hallucinogenic
knowledgedas one ofthe sourcesofvisual inspirationin phenomena seem to have been a fad with us in recent
prehistoricrock art. But, as in the case of the Tukano, years, to the neglect of innumerableother considera-
mental image recollectionsare conditionedby cultural tionsofequal importanceto the interpretation ofprehis-
as well as technicaland environmentalfactors.That the toricand non-Westernartforms.
cave walls as a physical environmentalfactor,forex- One observationthatneeds makingat this junctureis
ample,were not consideredby the authorsis clear.They the neglect of the potential data that living artistscan
seem to agreewith Halverson's (I987:67) descriptionof providefora kind of "ethnographicanalogy."If,indeed,
the painted images as "free-floating" and "independent thereare any universalsto be discoveredin artisticpro-
of scene or surface." cesses and ifthe routeto theirdeterminationlies in the
Phosphenes may be "free-floating"in the vitreous various branchesof experimentalpsychology,thenpsy-
humourofthe eye,but paintedimages adhereand relate chologists,anthropologists,and prehistoric-art special-
to particularsurfaces,which oftengive evidenceofhav- ists should be doing research among living artists in
ing been deliberatelyselected, not arbitrarily"traced" Westernas well as non-Westernculturalcontexts.
upon because theyjust happenedto be there.This selec-
tivityis obvious in the case, forexample,of the cluster
of red dots on the ceiling at Pech-Merle,located not on MICHAEL WINKELMAN
theroughside walls but on therelativelysmoothsurface Cross-cultural Irvine,Calif.927I6-4032,
Consultants,
of the ceiling. This selectivityis even more evidentin U.S.A. 2i viii 87
animal representations. The head ofthe spottedhorseat
the same site,forexample,is fittedinto and conformsto Lewis-Williamsand Dowson are to be commendedfor
a similarlyshaped rock projection(Pfeiffer i982: plS. I3 an informativecross-disciplinarysynthesisofthe neuro-
and 14), and the plastic volumes ofthe clay bison at Tuc psychologyof entoptic and hallucinatoryphenomena
d'Audoubertconformvisually to theirrockymatrixin with an analysis of the origin and significance of
the centerof the cave (pl. i12).The visual and evocative Palaeolithic and othercave and rock art. While the ap-
contextofthe site itselfcannotbe ignoredas a sourceof proach has limitationsand shortcomingsrecognizedby
inspiration.Indeed,in many cases, it is quite likelythat the authors,it makes an importantcontributionto the
thesite is iconicallypriorto and rituallymoreimportant developmentof a biopsychologicalmodel of shamanic
than the pictorialimages with which it is covered.The and related altered-state-of-consciousness activities.
visuallysuggestivecrevicesand seams oftheprehistoric The explanation of these art formsas "productsof al-
petroglyphsnear Peterborough,Ontario, for example, teredstates of consciousness and relatedneurologically
clearlyinspiredimages offemalegenitalia(Vastokasand based principlesin the formationof mental images,in-
Vastokas I973:79-83). formedby the functioningof the human nervous sys-
It is quite likely that phosphenes,even in the Upper tem," links their research with my work on the
Palaeolithic,while passively received,were almost im- psychophysiologyof altered states and the origins of
mediately afterward given cultural interpretations. shamanism (Winkelman i986) showing that trance-
Meaning would have had to be projectedupon these induction techniques used cross-culturallyinclude
mental phenomenabeforethe artistcould have feltany stimulationofaspects ofthe centralnervoussystemthat
need to "fix" them permanently.Any practisingartist producehallucinatoryvisual activity.
can reportthatthe criticalstepbetweenimaginedpaint- A biopsychologicalapproachis usefulnot onlyforex-
ings and theiractual executionon canvas or wall is the plainingthe homogeneityofrockartand shamanicprac-
most crucial,requiringat least the planned presenceof tices worldwide but also for addressingparticularas-
appropriatetools and materials,if not (in the case of pects ofthe art.The occurrenceofUpperPalaeolithicart
Westerners)a lengthysequence of experimentationin formsin deep caverns,forexample,can be understoodin
preliminarysketchesand drawings.The pointis thatthe terms of the trance-inducingpropertiesof these loca-
creative interval lies between passivity ("getting an tions, including sensory deprivation,temperatureex-
idea") and the completed action ("gettingit down on tremes,oxygen deprivation,physical immobility,and
canvas"), a process that is not automatic (not a case of emotional manipulation(see Winkelman i986).
"tracing"ideas) but subjectalways to thepeculiaritiesof The analysis of entopticformsand the rules fortheir
individualmotorhabits,backgroundtraining(read"cul- combinationprovides a useful alternativeto views of

LEWIS-WILLIAMS AND DOWSON Signs ofAll Times I 23I
these art formsas reflectingcognitivedeficitsof primi- similaritiesin visual imagerymanifestedin diversecon-

tive artists. An unaddressed issue is whetherpartici- texts.
pation in the bizarrehallucinatoryworldsand theirde- What "independentneuropsychologicalresearch"pro-
piction constitutes a parallel, equivalent, or inferior vides is a model ofa cause-a constrainingorgenerating
perceptualmodality. factor-that is capable ofproducingcertainvisual imag-
I question the usefulness of the notion of "stages in ery,imagerywhich is also associated, Lewis-Williams
the developmentof mental imagery,"especially since and Dowson argue,with the artisticexpressionof sha-
the authorsthemselvespoint out that the threestages manistictraditions.Given the physiologyof the human
are to be viewed as "cumulativeratherthansequential." nervoussystem(or,indeed,thatofmanymammals),this
Althoughthe model emphasizes a developmental-stage cause is potentiallyoperativein all humancontexts.The
perspective,the discussion shows that this perspective poweroftheneurologicallink is, then,thatit effectively
is unnecessary,likely a productof Westernevolution- eliminates uncertaintyabout whether the postulated
ary/developmental tendenciesand the effortto orderent- causal factorcould have been present,givenits biophys-
optic,iconic,and hallucinatoryformshierarchically. ical nature.Two questions remain,however,which are
The subsequentanalysessuggestedbyLewis-Williams not settledby the neurologicalmodel itself:whetherthe
and Dowson mightmorefirmlyestablishthefundamen- causal factorcitedwas, in fact,operativein the contexts
tal importanceof entopticformsand indicatethe extent in question (did people in these contextsenterthe al-
to which social and cultural factorsaffecttheirmani- teredstatesofconsciousnessin which theirneurological
festations.A formalexaminationofthe incidenceofent- systemscould be expectedto produceentopticimages?)
optic formswith respect to the entire range of forms and whetherit played a role in the artistictradition(did
presentedwould be valuable in this connection.Future the rock art result frompeople's attemptingto "fix"
questions include an assessment of the specificmean- these particularimages?).
ings or rangeof meaningsascribedto entopticphenom- In the San and Coso cases, it is possible to settlethese
ena, sociocultural factorsaffectingthe selection of or questions ethnographicallyor ethnohistorically.These
emphasison specificentopticphenomena,and the ways are culturalcontextsthatincorporateshamanistictradi-
in which expectationsmay feedback into altered-state- tions in which trancesplayeda centralrole. The trances
inductionprocedures. werevalued in partforthevisionsassociatedwiththem;
the rock artis known to be associated with shamanism,
and there is some direct testimonythat it embodies
ALISON WYLIE trance-inducedvisions. The backgroundneurophysio-
DepartmentofPhilosophy,Universityof Western logical knowledgecitedmakes it possible to reconstruct,
Ontario,London, Ont., Canada N6A 3K7. 24 viii 87 with a high degree of certainty,what sorts of images
these neurologicallyinduced visions would have incor-
The main virtue claimed for the "model" of rock art porated.The crucial step in determiningthe "validity"
presentedhereis thatit "reduces the inferentialcompo- of the model forCoso and San art is to demonstratea
nent" inherentin both "internalanalyses" and analog- correlationbetween these entopticimages and the con-
ical interpretation.The suggestionis thatthe "neurolog- tent of the art; it is a matterof linking the model of
ical bridge"makes it possible systematicallyto exploit imagesproduced"within,"as a functionofthe structure
externalinterpretive resourceswithoutengagingtheun- ofour nervoussystemundertrancelikeconditions,with
reliabilityof "simplistic" ethnographicanalogy.In what the images encounteredin rock art. The existence of
follows,I want to drawattentionto analogical elements shamanism secures this connectionas an enablingcon-
that remain in the formulationof this model. Far from dition; it involvespracticeswhich ensurethatsome in-
calling into question claims made forits plausibilityor dividuals(thoseproducingthe art)enteredstatesofcon-
security,my aim is to elaboratethe suggestionthat re- sciousness in which the postulated causal mechanism
liance on analogical inferenceshould not automatically would have been activated (i.e., states in which they
give way to "ethnographicdespair" when no single, would have experiencedthe distinctiveentopticimages
complete analog for the subject is available. Sophis- describedby the model). The relevance of this to the
ticatedanalogical argumentacross the sciences exploits artistic traditionis then confirmedby demonstrating
a range of sources-the analogs involved are generally that the art embodies the same range of images as is
"multiply connected"(HarreI970:49)-and establishes distinctiveof these alteredstates of consciousness.
the relevanceof these sources to the subjectby demon- When the model is extendedto UpperPaleolithicart,I
stratingthe existenceof"determiningstructures"(Weit- submit,it is by analogy,althoughnot simply"formal"
zenfeldI984:I43) thatensure,with some specifiablede- analogy that trades on contingentsimilaritiesbetween
greeofreliability,thatthe association ofcomparedwith source and subject. The neurological source supplies,
imputed attributesis not purely accidental. I suggest again, only informationabout the sorts of images the
that the strengthof the model proposed by Lewis- human nervous system is capable of producingwhen
Williams and Dowson derives not so much froman "altered" by sensorydeprivationor drugs.The supposi-
eliminationof inferenceas froman effectiveuse of two tion that the minds of Upper Paleolithic artistswere so
quite different,mutually reinforcingsources which alteredand theirartrepresentsa "fixing"ofvisual sensa-
underwritestrongclaims for the relevance of specific tions so inducedis based on analogyto the San and Coso

cases; the "positive" analogy consists of strikingsimi- a rangeof source contexts.Both call forbroadeningthe
laritiesin therepertoireofimagesproduced.The conclu- rangeof sources on which the analogical portionof the
sion drawn is that they are entoptic images and are argumentis based. The formersuggeststhe value of de-
thereforefurther similar in being associated with vising methods forsystematicallymeasuringand com-
shamanistic-likepractices.The pivotalargumenthereis paringdegree of fit to demonstratethat it is not acci-
thatthe same "determiningstructure,"specifically,the dental.The latterdirectsattentionto cross-contextcom-
neurologicalstructurethatproducesa delimitedrangeof parisons designedto determinewhetherdistinctiveen-
visual sensations under trancelikeconditions,was re- toptic forms and entoptic-iconic mixes of forms
sponsible forthe repertoireof images presentin Upper routinely(oralways) occur in artassociated withtrance-
Paleolithic art as in artistic traditionsknown to be or altered-state-inducing practicesand whether,by way
shamanistic,those ofthe Coso and San. This is an argu- of seeking counterexamples,they ever occur (or with
ment that the presenceof a particularrepertoireof im- what frequencytheyoccur) in artistictraditionsassoci-
ages is a "relevant"indicatorthatthe postulatedcausal ated with no such experience.Where it is recognized
factorswere presentand operativeas well. And it de- that nonneurologicalfactorsplay a role in the iconic
pendsnot solelyon theneurophysicalinformation about interpretationofentopticimages in the second and third
ourcapacityto experienceentopticsensationsundercer- stages,and even in the firststage,where "expectation"
tain conditionsbut,giventhe lack of any collateralevi- may "sharpen" the perceptionof some entopticsrather
dence of direct connection,on a demonstrationof the than others,it would also be useful to determinethe
tightnessof the link betweenthe havingof such experi- consistencyand isolate the degreeofplasticityof "form
ences and the productionof the associated artisticim- constants," transformationprinciples, and stage se-
ages. quence across "alteredstates of consciousness" induced
On this analysis,then,the crucial,inference-securing,in different ways, under divergentcultural conditions
element of Lewis-Williams and Dowson's argument (e.g., associated with cults or religioustraditionsof di-
consistsofthe considerationstheybringto bearin estab- versecontentor with secular practicesin which the im-
lishingthatthe rock arttheydiscuss incorporatesa rep- ages have no particularconventionallydefinedsignifi-
ertoireof images sufficiently like entopticor entoptic- cance).
iconic mixes of images produced neurologicallyunder All these possibilitiesforstrengtheningthe argument
trancelike conditions and sufficientlyunlike images take a common question as their point of departure:
that are or would be producedby otherpostulated"de- What would count as disconfirmationof the model?
terminingstructures"(e.g., representationalinterests, More concretely:How clearly diagnostic are the "ef-
theinternaldynamicofevolvingartisticskills and tradi- fects" of the particularcausal factorpostulated in the
tions)to be verylikelyto be entopticimages-the result presentmodel?Whatis the likelihoodthattheycould be
of attempts to "fix" trance-inducedentoptic images producedby othercausal factors?It will depend on the
ratherthan ofotherconditions,intentions,or activities. circumstancesof research in several different fields-
The model is properlydefended,on this account, as a neurophysiology,ethnography,archaeology-whether
"best explanation,"and its strengthderivesboth from anyor manyofthese questionscan be fruitfully pursued.
the extensivenessof the "fit" between formsdescribed It is a significantstrengthofthepresentmodel,however,
by neurologicalresearchand formsevidentin rock art thatit not onlyprovidesan initiallycompellingaccount
and fromits capacityto account forfeaturesof the sub- of puzzling, seemingly "anarchic" phenomena but so
ject which remainpuzzling on alternativemodels (e.g., clearlyopens up new lines of inquiry.
the juxtapositionof geometricand representationalim-
ages). The model is "best" to the extentthat the cited
causes can be shown to be uniquely associated with the
effectsin question. Reply
When the argumentforLewis-Williamsand Dowson's
model is considered in this light, a number of pos-
sibilities for furtherinvestigationsuggest themselves. J. D. LEWIS-WILLIAMS AND T. A. DOWSON
As an argumentfora "best explanation,"the case forthe Johannesburg, South Africa.i6 XI 87
model is essentiallycomparative;furtherexplorationof
the strengthsand limitations of alternative models As a number of commentatorspoint out, the topic we
would seem importantforsecuringand perhapsrefining address impinges on several specialist fields: psychol-
it. Two strategiesforstrengthening analogical claims of ogy,neurology,archaeology,arthistory,and philosophy.
relevancefollow fromthe structureof the inferencein- Vastokas, who is clearly aware of this complexity,re-
volved (Wylie i985), both ofwhich could be relevantin markson the "shiftingmethodologies"one ofus (JDL-W)
makingthis centralcomparativeassessment.One is to has employedin the past. The reasonforthisdiversityis
press the demonstrationof tightness of fit between thatmethodand theorymust be appropriateto theques-
source and subject (showing that it is unique to this tion. This places a burdenon rock-artresearchers,and
model), and the other is to investigatethe persistence we are,therefore, gratefulthatrepresentativesofvarious
and uniqueness ofthe connectionbetweenentoptic-like fieldshave takenthe troubleto comment.Theirremarks
images in artand theirexperiencein trancelikestatesin raise three comparativelyminor points, some unfortu-

nate misunderstandings, a methodologicalproblem,and he notes that thereis verylittlein his workwe wish to
two major philosophicalissues. In our response,we ad- "engage" at this juncture.In any event,Eichmeierand
dressthese topics in this order. Hofer's(I974) morepenetratingstudypreemptedhim by
The firstminorissue concernsour use of "shaman." ten years,and Reichel-Dolmatoff's(I972, I978a, I978b)
Consens notes thatwe use thewordto includethe "lone even earlier seminal ethnographic work with the
visionaryof the Siberians and the collective Tukano," Tukano has not been bettered.Then, just over a decade
and Halverson rightlyconcludes that, in the limited ago, Blackburn(I977:93), in anotherpaperwe cited,ob-
sense we propose,"virtuallyanyone could have been a servedparallels between Chumash designelementsand
shaman." As we stated,we mean only to implypersons entopticformsand urgedresearchersto "learn more ...
in hunter-gatherer societies who enteralteredstates of about the biopsychologicalaspects of the art and the
consciousness to performvarious curing and super- interveningculturalscreen,and about the processofin-
naturalfunctions.Whethersuch personsare solitaryor teractionbetween the two." As faras we know,no one
common (as with the San) is immaterialto our present has heeded Blackburn'sadvice and gone much beyond
argument,though we believe it may be necessary to reportingformalparallels. Thus, as Davis remarks,the
draw this distinctionat a later stage. idea that entopticphenomena may be depictedin vari-
A second minorpointis the place oftherianthropes in ous arts "has been around forsome time now." We ac-
shamanisticart. Mirimanov claims that theyare "defi- knowledgedthis by citinga numberof papers,some of
nitelynot the result of hallucinations" and that "what which Davis cites again. Neither Bednariknor we can
little we know about rock art yields no evidence as to claim precedence for observingisomorphismbetween
any shamanisticoriginforthese paintings."We cannot entopticphenomenaand certainrock-artdepictions,and
speak forthe Sahara, but thereis now little doubt that we were carefulto avoid makingsuch a claim. The im-
the San examples are hallucinatory(see our footnotes3 portantpoint is that the notingof formalparallels be-
and 4). In one of the few directcommentson San rock tween entopticphenomena and certaingraphicimages
paintingsa igth-centurySan informantsaid, in a series is, in itself,not sufficiently illuminating:it needs to be
of San metaphors,that theywere men in trance(Lewis- developedand incorporatedinto a comprehensivemodel
Williams I980), and the statementby James'ssubject thatcan become partof a more complex argument.Bed-
about turninginto a foxshows thatzoomorphictransfor- narik's failureto develop such a model can perhapsbe
mation can indeed be part of tranceexperience.In any attributedto his misunderstandingof analogy (see be-
event,clearlypainted fetlocksand hoofsas well as the low) and his beliefthat"semanticsare amongthe trivial
factthat some are half-animaland half-humanprelude aspectsofearlymarkingtraditions,thatderivationis the
their being human beings in disguise. More inter- real issue" (BednarikI986b:I63), and that changingso-
estingly,Bahn asks why theyare not more abundantin cial circumstancesare a "feeble construct"(see, forex-
EuropeanUpper Palaeolithic art. In fact,a similarposi- ample,ConkeyI980, GambleI983, andWhiteI985 on
tionobtainsin southernAfrica,where,in one area,there this last point). If Bednarikhad not been hamperedby
are 6,32i humanand 3,942 animaldepictionsbutonly thesemisunderstandings, he would nothave foundsome
88 therianthropes (Pager I97I:32I). Althoughsome interpretiveaspects of our paper "surprisinglyplausi-
commentatorsdo not recogniseit, we draw attentionto ble."
the importanceof cultural selection in explainingem- There are,in additionto these minorpoints,two mis-
phases and omissions in various arts. The San, forin- understandings we must rectify.First,Bednarikbelieves
stance, selected certain animals forfrequentdepiction we claim that "entopticphenomenaand iconic halluci-
and ignoredothers;similarly,some societies emphasize nations have always coexisted." In fact,we claim only
certain entoptic phenomena and ignore others. The that theirassociation is remarkablywidespreadin rock
Tukano, in an indisputablyshamanisticart,have very art. Moreover, we adduce evidence that the earliest
fewtherianthropes. The comparativepaucityoftherian- markingsare exclusivelyentopticand arguethatat "the
thropesin a number of shamanistic arts certainlyre- beginningoftheUpperPalaeolithictherewas an intensi-
quires more detailed explanation,but it does not count ficationof production,an apparentincrease in the art-
againsta shamanisticexplanation. ists' entopticrepertoire,
the additionofrepresentational
The last minor point concerns the origin of certain images,and, quite possibly,a new desirefordurablede-
ideas. Bednarik remarks on "[his] theorem" and "an- pictions."
other crucial proposition of [his]," while Halverson The second misunderstanding,exemplifiedby Vas-
thinkswe should have accordedBednarik"a good deal tokas, is our fault ratherthan hers. In a badly phrased
more recognition"and Davis believes we "do not really sentence we appeared to claim that Upper Palaeolithic
engage"Bednarik'swork.Althoughdebates ofthis kind depictionsare always independentof theirsupport.We
can become unseemly, creditmust certainlybe given intendedto say only that many (but not all) iconic im-
where it is due. We merelypoint out that we did not ages are depictedwithoutgroundlines or surroundings
know of Bednarik's work until the southern African and thattheyare oftengroupedso thattheyappearto be
workwas faradvanced (cf.Thackerayet al. I98I; Maggs quite independentof one another.Certainly,verylarge
and Sealy I983; Lewis-WilliamsI984c, i985 a; see Bed- numbersof images are associated with the formof the
narik[I 986 b: i 6 5] himselfon thispoint)and,much more rock wall, and we are gratefulto Vastokas forcitingex-
important,thathe makes so littleofthe formalparallels amples.

Important methodological issues arise from some actual meaning as is possible" (p. 22, emphasis added).
commentators'emphasis on traditionalstrategiesfor He thus shows that the ideas are in fact coming from
rock-artresearch.Consens, forinstance,believes the es- himself,not fromthe data, and he effectively excludes
tablishmentof(probablystylistic)sequences and regions statistical inferencefromthe formulationof explana-
and quantitative analyses are "standard procedure." tions of meaning.
This is a manifestationof the empiricistposition that These examples illustratesome of the problemswith
researchersshould collect all data, classifythem, and traditionalempiricistrock-artresearch:it is committed
then induce explanations fromthem. Turner also ex- to a false notion of "science" and consequentlyseldom
pressesthisview when he defendsinductionofmeaning gets beyonddescriptiveinventoriesand, in the veryna-
fromnumerical rock-artdata by asking, "How many tureofits method,cannotproducepersuasiveresults(for
times a day does a scientistsay: 'What these data mean more on empiricism in rock-artresearch,see Lewis-
is that . . .'?" Contraryto his expectation,data do not Williams and Loubser i986). Because we do not adopt
speak, indeed cannot speak, to the researcherin this the traditionalempiricistapproach,the formof our ar-
way. Whatever he may believe he is doing, the re- gument is a problem for a number of commentators.
searcherformulateshypothesesand applies themto the Consens, for instance, characterisesit as "a pseudo-
data; in otherwords,theideas come fromthe researcher, epistemologicalapproach" comprising"a mixtureofax-
not the data (Chalmers I978). Still more seriously, ioms, assertions,and beliefs." To show that this ex-
which of the multitudeof possible observationsqualify travagantcharge betrays a tenuous hold on logic in
as data, and how should theybe classifiedor analysed? generaland,in particular,on theprogressionofour argu-
For data to be collected in the firstplace theymust be ment,we now addressthe natureofproofand the struc-
deemed relevantto some hypothesis;not even supposed tureof our argument.
"raw data" can be theory-free. If, as in a grossbut not On the matterof proof,Davis writes of "downright
imaginaryexample,painted "scenes" are categorizedas unprovedassertion,"and Bahn claims thatourargument
walking,hunting,dancing,fighting, domestic,mythical, "in no way provesthatPalaeolithicmeaningsfellwithin
and ceremonialgroups,the resultswill show thata cer- thatrange."As philosophersofscience have amplydem-
tainpercentageofthe artis secularand a certainpercent- onstrated,this is a grave misunderstanding(see, e.g.,
age "religious." But, because each of the categoriesis Chalmers I978). Proofis a concept appropriateonly to
itselfan interpretationbased on the assumptionsthat mathematicsand unimpeachabledeductivearguments.
such groupsare evidentupon inspectionand thatthe art A call forproofis thereforeinappropriatein rock-artre-
is partlysecularand partlyreligious,thegeneralresultis search,and researchersmust use formsof argumentap-
inevitable.All the accompanyingnumbersand statistics propriateto the human sciences.
merely lend a "scientific" flavour to the work. As A numberof commentatorsraise the converseprob-
Shanks and Tilley (I 9 8 7: 59) remark,"For mathematiza- lem of disconfirmation.Davis, for instance, says that
tion meaningis a meaning-lessquestion. This is the in- withoutan element of disconfirmation our explanation
evitableconclusion to a beliefin the objectivityofpreci- is "impossible to evaluate." What element in an art
sion and calculability."Thus the numericalinventories could be shown to precludean explanationderivedfrom
Turneradvocates reflectnot "objective" criteriabut cri- alteredstatesofconsciousness(ASC)? Such an argument
teriathatthe researcherdeems potentiallysignificantin would run:
termsofhis orher(perhapstacit)hypothesisand thatare
Ifx, then not ASC,
thereforealreadyskewed. As we ourselveshave found,
numericalinventoriesmust ofnecessityomitimportant wherex is a featureofthe content,orperhapscontext,of
criteriaofwhich the researcheris ignorantat thetimeof an art.Althoughwe note thatour model does not eluci-
collection. date all UpperPalaeolithic signs,the difficulty hereis, of
Because of these problems,quantificationnot surpris- course,definingx. At presentpartofour argumentruns:
inglyplays hardlyany significantrole in Turner'sown
If yI, y, y3 .. . , then ASC.
work.In his commenthe says, "Statisticalinferenceis
obligatoryforfactoringout the different causes of con- But,because we do not yet know the completerangeof
vergentforms,"but in his study of the Glen Canyon y's, it is hardto be sure thata supposedx will not,upon
petroglyphshe definesstyles subjectively,not statisti- further research,turnout to be a y or,at anyrate,a non-
cally (forexample, "a poorly-executedoutline," "natu- restrictingfactor.This has in fact been our experience
ralisticdesignsare poorlydone," "falls shortofthe qual- with southernAfricanrock art.At one time some writ-
ityofStyle4 imagery"[Turneri963:6]). Similarly,when ers thoughtthat the so-called narrativescenes appar-
he comes to "possible motivationsforpetroglyphs"he entlydepictingfights,hunts,and so forth,could not be
writes, "some individual petroglyphs,and two panels derivedfromtrance experience.Since then it has been
composed of several differentdesigns both represen- shown that such events are also part of trance experi-
tational and non-representational, have 'struck' me ence, and, as otherpaintedfeaturesoftenconfirm,there
the way some abstract paintings have done. Though is everyreasonto believe thatthe supposedx in thiscase
meaningless,theyare to mymind as theyshould be" (p. is not an x at all (Lewis-WilliamsI984c; Campbell I986,
29, emphasis added). He also says, "Interpretationof I987). In anyevent,the observationstatementsthatcon-
realisticformsprobablywill give as close a guess about stitutesupposed x's are themselvestheory-laden.They

have to be made in the languageof some theoryand are the hithertoinexplicable relationshipbetween iconic
therefore as fallibleas the theoriestheypresuppose;they and geometricrock-artimages.This alone establishesits
are not "given" and not as secure as theyare popularly explanatorypower.
believedto be (Chalmers I976:25-30; Hempel i966:i2). Having constructedthe model,we assess its utilityby
Because observationstatementsare fallible,theycannot applyingit to two known shamanisticrock arts.At this
conclusivelyfalsifya hypothesis.As long as thereis un- point Layton expressesthe view that our two shaman-
certaintyabout establishingunequivocal x's we shall istic rock arts (we resolvedto stay with rock art and to
not be able to formulatedisconfirmations. This, how- ignore other shamanistic art forms)are "poorly docu-
ever,is not the end ofresearch;incontrovertible discon- mented,"and Vastokas,Faulstich,and Consens, in con-
firmationsare difficult to formulatein manyarchaeolog- trastto Bahn, question whetherthereis sufficientevi-
ical areas, but that does not inhibit research.Indeed, dence to accept Coso rockartas shamanistic.In the first
rock-artresearchis in good company; many scientific place, we believe that San rock art is adequatelydocu-
disciplinesoperateoutside the rigidlydemarcatedareas mented;ourfootnote3 providesreferencesto a wealth of
ofproofand disconfirmation. As in similarlyplaced dis- evidence and also answers Consens's misapprehension
ciplines,we shall have to work with "best-fit"hypoth- that we "disregardprevious criticism." Secondly, we
eses. Philosophers of science have proposed criteria turnedto Coso rock art because it was froma different
wherebyhypotheses may be judged (e.g., Copi I968, continentand because there is evidence that it too is
Hempel i966), and these have been used in rock-art shamanistic.To allay misgivingson this pointwe have
research (Lewis-Williams I983a, Lewis-Williams and asked Whitleyto outline some importantnew evidence
Loubser i986). They include quantityof data explained, (see below).
diversityof data explained, testability,heuristic and When we applyour model to these two arts,we avoid
predictive potential, and compatibility with well- the obvious pitfallof identifying any squiggleas an ent-
establishedresearch. optic image; we do not "come close to admitting"
The evaluation of hypotheses in the absence of (Davis) that any mark can be interpretedas entoptic.
"proof" is a major featureof our argument.To show Applicationofour completemodel to drawingsmade by
whereit fitsin we now adumbratetheprincipalstagesof chimpanzees (Morrisi962:figs. 6-9, 48, 49, reproduced
our argument,at the same time addressingothercom- by Davis I986a:fig. 7) shows quite clearly that the
ments relevantto these stages. model does exclude some "arts." We point not just to
Our argument begins with the constructionof a the six entopticformswe selected but also to combina-
neuropsychological(ratherthan "neurophysiological") tions and transformations of these formsby definable
model of mental imageryin alteredstates of conscious- principles(also derivedfromneuropsychology, not from
ness. This model is derivedentirelyfromneuropsycho- the artitself)and to the juxtapositioning,superposition-
logical research,not fromrock art; its validitycan be ing, and combinationof entopticand iconic images (as
questioned only by neuropsychologicalresearch.We do the neuropsychologicalmodel predicts). Because our
not see in what way it is "tendentious"(Davis), and we model in this way makes sense of images in San and
certainlydo not, as Bednarikclaims, use "0.03% of the Coso art, our confidencein its utility increases (note
world's survivingrock art" as a "basis foridentifying thatwe do not claim to have "proved"the model in any
universal trends." A misunderstandingof this mag- sense), and we are encouraged to apply it to Upper
nitude explains why, forBednarik,our argument"be- Palaeolithic art.
comes progressivelyless convincingas [our] model is It is at this point, Wylie contends,that we proceed
developed."The kind ofuniversalitywe proposederives analogically.Bednarikcastigatesus because we "fail to
not fromUpper Palaeolithic art but fromneuropsycho- jettisonethnographicanalogy ... at the rightmoment"
logical researchalone (cf.Winkelman's[I986] important (wheneverthat might be), and Halverson writes of "a
work on the neuropsychologicalbasis of shamanism). shameless appeal to analogy" (cf.Vastokas on our use of
There is thus no tautologyas Bahn charges.The struc- Tukano material).Because these and similarcomments
ture of the human nervous systemestablishesa poten- reflecta generaland serious misunderstanding in rock-
tial forentopticphenomenathatis universal.Examina- artresearch,theydeserveclose consideration.Near the
tion of Upper Palaeolithic artreveals similarforms,and beginningof our paper we express the belief that our
this, togetherwith otherpoints,suggestsstronglythat argumentreduces the inferentialelementthatlooms so
these formsare entopticin origin.We certainlydo not, large in argumentsfrominternalanalyses and, at the
as Bahn claims, start our argumentby assuming that same time, avoids simplisticethnographicanalogy(see
Palaeolithic signs are entopticimages. also Lewis-Williamsand Loubser i986:262-64). We do
The usefulnessof our model, especially the notion of not claim to be eliminatinginferenceor analogy.We are,
stages in the developmentof mental imagery,is ques- therefore, especially gratefulto Wylie,a philosopherof
tioned by Winkelman. However, the fact that the science, forher thoughtfuland detailed examinationof
Tukano recognisecomparablestagesin theirown expe- ouruse ofanalogy.Unlike othercommentators, she does
rienceshows thatthe model is not entirely"a productof not reject analogy out of hand. Instead she elaborates
Western evolutionary/developmental tendencies and "the suggestion that reliance on analogical inference
the effortto order entoptic,iconic, and hallucinatory should not automaticallygive way to 'ethnographicde-
formshierarchically."Moreover,the model elucidates spair'when no single,completeanalog forthe subjectis

available." We take her acceptance of our argumentas such as the widespread association of geometricand
vindicationin the face ofthe criticismto whichwe now iconic depictions and the origins of art. In achieving
turn. thesefurtherexplanationsofdata,we believe our model
Laytonasks ifour use ofanalogyis anyless simplistic is more empiricallyadequate.
thanBreuil's.To answerthisquestionwe mustfirstcon- It is in the light of "best-fit"considerationsthat the
sider the kind of simplistic analogy one of us has alternativeexplanations some commentatorsadvance
criticisedelsewhere(Lewis-Williamsand Loubser I986). must be assessed. The one we find most thought-
In such an analogy,Pager(1I975 b:8o) cites an Australian provokingand best-argued(though ultimately inade-
Aboriginalritualusing a rope fringedwith white feath- quate) is Martindale's.We do, of course, allow that art
ers to explain the sinuous red line fringedwith white may derive from "mildly altered states such as hyp-
dots thatsometimeslinks depictionsin San rockart.He nagogic states, reverie,and fantasy,"but we part com-
concludes,"Withoutaskingforpossiblereasonsforsuch pany with him when he goes on to argue that "'signs'
a strikingparallel one mightjust accept that the same can arise fromnormal perceptionif one attendsto the
explanationfitsthe extraordinary rockartscenes." This featurallevel ratherthan to the level of unitaryper-
is the kind of (false) analogy employed by Breuil and cepts" and that this would account forUpper Palaeo-
others.In contrastto it, Wylie (I985; see also Salmon lithicartifthe artists'goal was the same as thatofchil-
i982:62-63) describesa formofanalogythatdependson dren,who attendto only "basic features"of the "optic
relationsof relevance.The conceptof relevanceimplies array." Acceptance of Martindale's hypothesiswould
a causal or determiningeffectbetweenpropertiesin the entail,in part,showinghow and whytheyderivedthese
sourceof an analogy.In otherwords,the sourceexhibits particular"buildingblocks" fromtheirveridicalpercep-
two properties,A and B, and it can be shown thatcausal, tions. Further,we believe that the long association of
functional,or some other close connection exists be- entopticformswith oftenremarkably"realistic" iconic
tweenthem.It followsthat,ifthe subjectofthe analogy depictions,various kinds of combinationsof entoptic
also exhibitsA, it is reasonable to accept that the same and iconic forms,and combinations of iconic images
relationalmechanismexistsin thesubjectand that,con- (therianthropes),togetherwith evidence for complex
sequently,B is also present. Upper Palaeolithic social forms,are betterexplainedby
In archaeologicalresearchit is difficultin practiceto the more extremevarietiesof alteredconsciousness as-
establishstrongrelationsof relevancethat are not triv- sociated with shamanism than by infantileperception.
ial. Archaeological analogy extends an argumentfrom Interestingas Martindale'shypothesisis, we considerit
the ethnographicpresentinto a new domain,the distant less successfulas a "best-fit"hypothesis;it does not,we
past, in which we cannot always be sure that the same submit,coveras manydata as ours.Mirimanov'ssugges-
mechanismsexisted.In otherwords,Upper Palaeolithic tionthat"the recurrenceofsimpleformsmaybe kinetic
social formationsmayhave been so different fromanyof in origin,that is, broughtabout by monotonousmove-
those observedethnographicallyor historicallythat we ment" and the suggestionofa numberofcommentators
cannot considerthem to exhibitthe same principlesof thatentopticformsmay have been the workofchildren
relevance. We believe that our argumentat least par- must both be rejectedforthe same reasons.
tiallyovercomesthisobjectionand comes close to estab- In contrastto these alternativehypotheses,Davis be-
lishingstrongrelationsof relevance.In the firstplace, a lieves that his explanationforthe originof art "must
review of these comments shows that our proposition underwrite"ours. Simplyput, Davis's argumentbegins
that the nervous system of Upper Palaeolithic people with the proposition that natural and human-made
respondedin certainalteredstates in ways closely simi- marks are sometimes perceptuallyambiguous or, more
lar to modernpeople's seems not to be generallyor seri- broadly,have the capacity to be optical illusions. A
ously disputed. There is, moreover,a relation of rele- linear shadow or black mark,forinstance,may be mis-
vance between activation of the nervous system in takenfora deep groove,and thedualityoftheperception
alteredstates and entopticphenomena.The presencein it affordswould have been empiricallyascertainableto
Upper Palaeolithic art of geometricformsverysimilar earlypeople. From this fundamentalpropositionDavis
to entopticphenomena, combinationsof entopticand argues that it was inevitable that humankind would
iconic forms,and a rangeofpredictabletransformations eventuallytumbleto iconicityand the representation of
imply,throughthis relationof relevance,alteredstates three dimensions on plane surfaces: "The more you
of consciousness comparablewith the shamanisticSan mark,the more likely you will be to produce at some
and Coso ones that producedgeometricrock art. This pointa markwhichpotentiallywill be seen,byyou or by
briefanalysis shows that our argumentis demonstrably someone else, as a thing"(Davis 1986a:2oo). This poten-
"less simplisticthanBreuil's" and supplieswhat Layton tial becomes, with the increasing sum of marks, so
calls the "missing step" that enables us to assess the strongthat representationalmarkingis predictable(p.
strengthof our analogyagainst others'. 201).
From here on our argumentdevelops as a "best-fit" Whilstit is, as we have shown,difficultto disconfirm
hypothesis.Althoughwe headed the final section "Im- such a hypothesis,its inadequacies are demonstrable.In
plications," it is more than that. We actually provide the firstplace, we are uneasy about inevitablistargu-
additionalargumentforour explanationbyshowingthat ments.Davis's hypothesisrecallsmonkeys,typewriters,
it makes sense of other puzzling featuresof rock art, and Shakespearesonnets.It seems fromthe Mousterian

evidencethatearlypeople weremaking(entoptic)marks Davis's use of "projection"here seems to differ fromhis

beforetheUpperPalaeolithic(fora recentreviewofMid- use of it elsewhere (Davis I986a:I99). As Halverson
dle Palaeolithicsymbolism,see Chase and Dibble I987). recognises,"projection" can refereitherto the projec-
It also seems inescapable that social formsmust have tion ofmeaningonto naturalmarkslike cracksor stains
developed at the beginningof the Upper Palaeolithic on a wall (Gombrichi96i) or to the visual projectionof
that provideda niche forthe practice,for,without an the image itself.We propose visual projection,not se-
appropriatesocial framework, representationwould not manticprojectiononto preexistingmarks,naturalorhu-
have "taken off"as it did at that time. Thus, while it man-made. We cannot be sure at presentif projected
may be truethatsome marksare intrinsicallyperceptu- iconic and entopticmental images tracedon a wall or
ally ambiguous,therewas nothinginevitableabout the floorwere, forUpper Palaeolithic people, those images
"discovery"of representation.At this point Davis's hy- or whether they were intended to remind people of
pothesis could be saved by droppingthe inevitablist them,thatis, accepted as referencesto mentalimagery.
componentand substitutinga social explanationto ex- We suspect that,initially,theywere mental images and
plain the increasedvalue of exploitingperceptualambi- that referencedeveloped along with socially produced
guityat the beginningof the Upper Palaeolithic were it images.
not forthe fundamentalproblemthathis explanationis Eitherway, "the implicationis that theyknew they
very close to the old idea that early people perceived were depictingmental images" (Halverson).Presentun-
iconicityin randommarksand patches on a wall (Gom- certaintyon this point does not,however,seem to be as
brich I96I). Even if some of those markswere ambigu- serious as Davis believes; it is a secondaryquestion.
ous, it does not explainwhyorhow thatambiguitycame Similarly,the action offixingprojectedimageswas prob-
to be seen, by a major extension,to represent,say, an ably also less complex than Davis allows. He recom-
animal. The illusion of depththata darkblack line may mends tryingto traceone's face in a cloudymirror.The
givewould not,we believe,have "predictablyresultedin three-dimensionality ofthemirror,ofcourse,makes this
the emergenceof the specificallyrepresentational mark a trickytask. But tracinga projectedcolour slide is com-
throughseeing marks as things"(Davis i986a:2oi). parativelyeasy, and it is to this thatlaboratorysubjects
Davis's hypothesishas an even more serious limita- liken projected mental imagery (Siegel and Jarvik
tion. Althoughhe refersto Aurignacianmarkings,they 1975:109; Siegel1977:134). We do notsuggestthatthe
do not play a majorpartin his argument.He likensthem act of tracingwas "automatic." On the contrary, we be-
to "moderntelephone-paddoodling"thatdoes not "ini- lieve thatprojectedentopticand iconic mentalimagery,
tially or necessarilypossess but may quickly acquire like that of the Tukano (Reichel-Dolmatoff1978a:8),
meanings" (Davis I986a:197). The factthat these early was a "natural" partof earlypeople's experience.Then,
people made marksis more importantto him thantheir withthe developmentofcertainkindsofsocial relations
form.But, as we have shown, these marksare less ran- (still to be elucidated), these images became more
dom than Davis allows; theycan readilybe seen as part significant, as theyhave forthe Tukano, and therewas a
of a long entoptictradition.As his argumentproceeds, growingdesire to touch and fix them. As the fragmen-
Davis concentrateson representationsof three-dimen- taryevidence shows, some fixingdid take place before
sional items in two dimensions and ignoresthe signs the Upper Palaeolithic. Although, as other commen-
thataccompany(in some sites exceed) iconic depictions tatorspoint out, this process requiresmore explication,
throughoutthe Upper Palaeolithic. The intimate and it seems to us to explain early markingbetter than
long-livedrelationshipbetween these two apparently Davis's account because it explains the formsof early
different kinds of depictioncannot be ignored.By drop- imagesand shows the originofsignsand representations
ping considerationof signs once representation is estab- to have been in a single experience.We thereforedo
lished Davis turnshis back on a crucialfeatureofUpper not believe thathis explanationnecessarilyunderwrites
Palaeolithicartand, in effect,relegatesthe signsto their ours.
old positionas precursorsoficonicity,even thoughthey This kindofevaluationis thefinalpartofan argument
persistedthroughoutthe Upper Palaeolithic. Clearly,in that proceeds by clear stages: constructionof a model,
termsofthe criteriaforhypothesisevaluation,an expla- assessmentofits utility,applicationofthemodel to Up-
nationthatcoverssignsand representations will be pref- perPalaeolithicart,and,finally,evaluationofaltemative
erable to one that explains just one or the other.We hypotheses.We do not claim to prove anything;we
argue that our hypothesisdoes this (i) by at one level merelyoffera hypothesisthatwe believe explainsmore,
combiningthe two classes ofdepiction(bothderivefrom and more varied, data than competinghypotheses,is
mental imagery),(2) by explainingthe formsthe signs compatiblewith well-establishedresearch,and has pre-
take,and (3) by explainingwhyand how signsand repre- dictive and heuristicpotential.It awaits modification,
sentationsare associated throughoutthe Upper Palaeo- refinement, or rejectionwhen it failsto fulfilthesecrite-
lithic.Our hypothesisis thus morecomprehensivethan ria. As numerous commentatorsincluding Clegg and
Davis's; acceptance of ours makes his redundant. Faulstichnote, our model's explanatorypotentialmust
More specifically,Davis sees his explanationas under- be assessed againstotherrockarts,and the pointsthatit
writingours in offering a betterexplanationforthe ori- raises but does not fullyresolve must be followedup.
gin of image makingthan our notion offixingprojected Winkelmanand Davis, forinstance,rightlyrecommend
mental images (see also Halverson and Vastokas). an assessment of the socioculturalfactorsaffectingthe

selection of or emphasis on specificentopticphenom- 71; Suttoni982:i5i),

Chemehuevi(Laird1976:103, 123;
ena, while Vastokas urges researchamong livingWest- i984:302), and Coso
Shoshone (Driver 1937:86, i26; Ir-
ernand non-Westernartists.An importantpointhereis win i980:32), ethnographicinformantsconsistentlyand
that a hypothesisdoes not have to explain all data in- unanimouslyreferredto rock art as made by shamans'
stantlybeforeit can be adopted; in the absence of the spirithelpers.
misleadingnotion of proof,it has only to explain more Shamanism in the western Great Basin was closely
data betterthan competinghypotheses.It thenprovides tied to the ingestionof psychotomimeticplants, espe-
a platformforaddressingoutstandingissues. We argue cially native tobacco; supernaturalpower forthe prin-
that our explanationforthe signs and otherfeaturesof cipal shamanic function, curing, was derived from
UpperPalaeolithicartis, at thepresentstageofresearch, "dreaming"relatedto the ingestionof the psychotomi-
the "best fit,"and this seems to be accepted by many metics; and thispowerwas manifestor embodiedin the
commentators.We extendour thanksto them,fortheir spiritor dream helper (cf. Steward 1933, Driver 1937,
oftenverygenerouslyphrased remarks,and no less to Park 1938, Voegelin 1938, Kelly 1939, Laird 1976, Zig-
our critics,who have pointed to numerous promising mond 1977, Siskin I983). Why did ethnographicinfor-
avenues forfurtherresearch. mantsconsistentlyreferto the creatorsoftherockartas
spirit/dreamhelpers? Two reasons can be suggested.
First,the actions of this helper were inseparablefrom
DAVID S. WHITLEY those of the shaman (and vice versa); dream,shaman,
Rock ArtResearch Unit, Universityof the and helperwere semantically,metonymically,and epis-
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2050, SouthAfrica. temologicallyequivalent (cf.Applegate1978:27, 9IjSis-
17 XI 87 kin i983:22). Second,as is suggestedbyLaird(i984:302),
mentioningthe names of the dead was generallypro-
A number of commentatorshave questioned Lewis- scribed,and it may well have been convenient(and cul-
Williams and Dowson's use ofthe Coso rockengravings turallypreferable) forinformantsto referto the artistsin
as an example of shamanic art,arguingthatthishas not termsof theirspirithelpers ratherthan to specifythe
been established.Because thiscontentionis based on my dead shamans themselves.The ethnographicreferences,
as yet unpublished work (Whitleyn.d.c), the authors thus,are not opaque in theirattributionsofthe art;they
have asked me to respond directlyto this concern. I must simply be interpretedwithin their cultural con-
oblige by brieflysummarizinghere conclusions I have texts,and they are unqualifiedand uncontradictingin
reached concerningthe rock art of the Coso regionand linkingthe art to shamans.
environs. A deeperexaminationof westernGreatBasin linguis-
Althoughnot widelyrecognizedas such, thereare nu- tics providesa second confirmationof the link between
merous ethnographicreferencesto rock-artproduction the rock artand shamanism.This is foundin JohnWes-
in the westem Great Basin. These providea clear and ley Powell's Numic (Uto-Aztecan)textsand word lists,
coherentindication of the creatorsof the art. Histor- recordedbetween i868 and i88o. Powell listedthe word
ically, however, rock-artresearchers(and some eth- for"shaman" (derivedthroughoutthe regionfromthe
nographers)have overlooked these referencesor have cognateforsupernaturalpower,poa; cf.Miller I972:130)
undertakenonly a superficialexamination of the lin- in his orthographyas poagunt. Significantly, he trans-
guisticglosses attachedto them.For example,Voegelin lated this as both "medicine man" and "a man who
(1938:6i) dismissed the purportedcreatorsof Tubatula- writes"(Fowlerand Fowler 1971:144-45), thatis, a man
bal rock art,the yahi iwal, "water babies," as "brown- who writes on rocks (cf. Kerr's Coso Shoshone infor-
ies." Yet she subsequentlynotedyahi iwal as sometimes mant, Charlie Wrinkle, who consistentlyreferredto
seen in jimsonweed (Datura spp.) trancesand reported rockengravingsas "rock writings"[Irwini980:32]), em-
that theywere a shaman's dreamhelpersand had a pre- phasizing the importance in rock-artresearch, once
dilectionfortobacco.Similarly, Zigmond(1977:7I) re- again, of goingbeyond the superficiallinguisticglosses
cordedthe 2uwan 2azi, "rock babies," as responsiblefor of the existingethnographies.
Kawaiisu rockartand notedthata hearingor sightingof Given theincreasingevidenceforhistoricrockengrav-
one ofthese supernaturalbeingswas an "omen ofdeath" ings in the Coso Range and westernGreat Basin (Whit-
(a metaphor for trance in the region [cf. Zigmond ley and Dorn I987), we have a firmlink between the
I980:33, n. Il). Rock or waterbabies,in otherwords, ethnographiesand the makers of the art. Because this
were not consideredinconsequentialdwarfish"brown- ethnography providesa clear indicationofthe shamanic
ies" or "hobgoblins" in western Great Basin culture. originsof the art and the relationshipof shamanismto
Rather, they were supernaturalbeings imbued with dreaming and the ingestion of hallucinogens, Lewis-
power and closely tied to shamanism.Indeed,through- Williams and Dowson's argumentforentopticphenom-
out the westernGreat Basin the "waterbaby" servedas ena within the Coso corpus rests on firmground.Fur-
one of the most importantand potentof the shaman's ther,the situationin this regionillustratesthatthereis
spiritor dreamhelpers(cf.Park 1938:15, 76-79; Downs much to be gainedfroma reexaminationofethnography
I96I:366-67; Siskin i983:23; Miller i983:75). Thus, vis-a-visrockart(cf.Whitleyi982), even in a region(like
amongthe Uto-Aztecan-speaking Tubatulabal (Voegelin easternCalifornia)arguedby many to be devoid of rele-
1938:6I), Kawaiisu (Driver 1937:86; Zigmond 1977:68, vant or useful ethnographicreferences.

ReferencesCited . n.d. "Fingerlines, theirmedium and theirdat-

ing,"in The Australianmeander tradition.Editedby
ANASTASI, ANNE, AND JOHN P. FOLEY, JR. I940. The K. J.Sharpe.Forthcoming.[WD]
studyof "populisticpainters"as an approachto the BIESELE, M. I980. "Old K"xau," in Shamanic voices.
psychologyofart.JournalofSocial Psychology Editedby J.Halifax,pp. 54-62. Harmondsworth:
II:353-68. [Jc] Penguin.
ANATI, E. I98I. The originsofart.Museum 33:200- BLACKBURN, T. I977. Biopsychologicalaspects of
210. Chumash rock art.Journalof Californiaand Great
. I986. Commenton: The originsofimage mak- Basin Anthropology4:88-94.
ing,by W. Davis. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 27:202. BOOTZIN, R. R. I980. Abnormalpsychology.Toronto:
[RGB] Random House.
197 5. Fetal phosphenesand newbom
A N D E R S O N, R. H. BORDES, F. I969. Os percemousterienet os grave
patternpreferences.Developmental Psychobiology acheuleen du Pech de l'Aze II. Quaternaria 2:i-6.
8:571-72. [WD] BREUIL, A. i952. Fourhundredcenturiesofcave art.
APPLE R. B. 1975. The Datura cult amongthe
GATE, Montignac:Centred'Etude et de Documentation
Chumash. Journalof Californiaand GreatBasin An- Prehistoriques.
thropology2:7-17. BRINDLEY, G. S. I973. "Sensoryeffects
ofelectrical
1978. 2Atishwin:
Thedreamhelperin south- stimulationof the visual and paravisualcortexin
centralCalifornia.Ballena PressAnthropologicalPa- man," in Handbook ofsensoryphysiology,vol. 7,
pers13. [DSW] pt. 3B. Editedby R. Jung,pp. 583-94. New York:
ARNHEIM, Art and visual perception:A psy-
R. 1974. Springer-Verlag.
chologyof the creativeeye. Berkeleyand Los CAMPBELL, C. I986. Images ofwar: A problemin San
Angeles:University
ofCalifornia
Press.[CM, JMV] rockartresearch.WorldArchaeologyi8:25 5-68.
ARUTUNOV, S. A., AND Prob-
B. A. SERGEEV. 1975. . I987. Contactperiodrockartofthe south-east-
lems of the ethnichistoryof the BeringSea coast ernmountains.M.Sc. thesis,Universityofthe Wit-
peoples (in Russian). Moscow: Nauka. [VBM] watersrand,Johannesburg, South Africa.
ASAAD, G., AND B. SHAPIRO. I986. Hallucinations: CHALMERS, A. F. 1978. Whatis this thingcalled sci-
Theoreticaland clinical overview.AmericanJournal ence? Milton Keynes: Open UniversityPress.
ofPsychiatry143:I088-97. CHASE, P. G., AND H. L. DIBBLE. I987. Middle
BAHN, P. G. 1978. Watermythology and the distribu- Palaeolithic symbolism:A reviewof currentevidence
tion ofPalaeolithicparietalart.Proceedingsof the and interpretations.JournalofAnthropologicalAr-
Prehistoric
Society44:1 25-34. chaeology6:263-96.
. I986a. Commenton: Parietalfingermarkings CHRISTIE-MURRAY, D. 1978. Voices fromthegods.
in Europeand Australia,by R. G. Bednarik.Rock Art London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.
Research 3:54-55. CLEGG, JOHN. 1979. "A possiblyuniversaltendencyin
. i986b. No sex, please, we're Aurignacians. artcomposition."Prehistoricart and religion(Val-
RockArtResearch3:99-120. camonicaSymposium 1979), pp. 467-8I. [JC]
BANDI, H.-G., W. HUBER, M.-R. SAUTER, AND B. SIT- . i982. Commenton: The economic and social
TER. Editors.1979. La contributionde la zoologie et contextof southernSan rockart,by J.D. Lewis-Wil-
de l'ethologiea' l'interpretationde l'art peuples chas- liams.CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 23:439-40. [MC]
seursprehistoriques.Fribourg.[HGB] . I984. Enquetes preliminairesa Sturt's
BARDILL, PATRICIA N. i982. Commenton: The eco- Meadows: Un gisementaustraliende petroglyphes
du
nomic and social contextofsouthem San rockart,by stylepanaramitee.
L'Anthropologie
88:595-6II. [JC]
J.D. Lewis-Williams.CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY . 987 a. Human picturingbehaviourand the
23:438-39. [MC] studyofprehistoricpictures.Rock ArtResearch
The potentialofrockpatina-
B E D N A R I K, R. G. 1 9 7 9. 4:29-35. [JC]
tion analysisin Australianarchaeology.Pt. I. The Ar- . I987b. Styleand traditionat Sturt'sMeadows.
tefact4:14-38. i9(2). In press.[JC]
WorldArchaeology
. I984a. Die BedeutungderPalaolithischenFin- CLOTTES, j. I986. Commenton: Theoreticalconcepts
gerlinientradition.Anthropologie22:73-79. thatlead to new analyticmethods,modes ofenquiry,
. I984b. On the natureofpsychograms.The Ar- and classes ofdata, by A. Marshack.Rock ArtRe-
tefact8:27-3 2. search 3:175-76. [RGB]
. I986 a. Parietalfingermarkingsin Europeand CONKEY, M. w. I 980. The identification ofprehistoric
Australia.Rock ArtResearch 3:30-6 i. hunter-gatherer aggregationsites: The case ofAlta-
I986 b. Replyto commentson: Parietalfinger mira.CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 2i:609-30.
markingsin Europe and Australia.Rock ArtResearch . I983. "On the originofPaleolithicart:A re-
3: I62-70. [RGB] view and some criticalthoughts,"in The Mousterian
. I986c. Cave use by AustralianPleistoceneman. legacy: Human bioculturalchangein the Upper
Proceedingsof the UniversityofBristolSpelaeolog- Pleistocene.Editedby E. Trinkaus,pp. 201-27. Brit-
ical Society 17:2.27-45. [RGB] ish ArchaeologicalReportsInternationalSeries I 64.

. I984. "To findourselves:Artand social geogra- FARIS, j. C. I983. "Fromformto contentin the struc-
phyofprehistorichunter-gatherers," in Past and turalstudyofaestheticsystems,"in Structureand
presentin hunter-gatherer studies. Editedby C. cognitionin art.Editedby D. K. Washburn,pp. go-
Schrire,pP.253-76. New York: Academic Press. I I 2. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
. n.d. New approachesin the searchformeaning? F A U L S T I C H, P. I 9 86. Comment on: Parietalfinger
A reviewofresearchin "Palaeolithic art." MS. markingsin Europeand Australia,by R. G. Bednarik.
CONSENS, MARIO. I986. El arterupestrede San Luis. Rock ArtResearch 3: I 6 I-62. [RGB]
San Luis: Direccion de Cultura. [MC] . n.d. Massagingthe earth:A psychoarchaeolog-
COOKE, C. K. I983. Moreon San rockart.CURRENT AN- ical interpretation ofPleistoceneparietalart.Paperto
THROPOLOGY 24:538. be presentedin SymposiumK ofthe FirstAustralian
COPI, I. M. I968. Introduction tologic.New York: Rock ArtResearchAssociation Congress,Darwin,
Macmillan. August/September I988. [RGB]
DAVIS, W. i982. Comment on: The economic and so- FISCHER, R. I975. "Cartography ofinnerspace," in
cial contextof southernSan rockart,by J.D. Lewis- Hallucinations: Behaviour,experience,and theory.
Williams. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 23:440-4I. Editedby R. K. Siegel and L. J.West,pp. I97-239.
. 986a. The originsofimage making.CURRENT New York: Wiley.
ANTHROPOLOGY 27: I 93-2 I 5. FOCK, G. J. I979. Felsbilderin Siidafrika.Vol. I. Die
. I986b. Reply [to B. Delluc and G. Dellucl. CUR- gravierungenauf Klipfontein,Kapprovinz.Koln:
RENT ANTHROPOLOGY 27:5I5-I6. Bohlau Verlag.
. I986c. Comment on: Parietalfingermarkings FOCK, G. J., AND D. FOCK. I984. Felsbilderin Siidaf-
in Europe and Australia,by R. G. Bednarik.Rock Art rika. Vol. 2. Die gravierungenauf Kinderdamund
Research 3:5I-54. [RGB, WD] Kalahari. Koln: Bohlau Verlag.
. I987. Replicationand depictionin Paleolithic FOWLER, D. D., AND C. S. FOWLER. Editors.I97I.
art.RepresentationsI9: III-47. [WD] Anthropologyof theNuma: JohnWesleyPowell's
. n.d. Seeing throughculture:The possibilityof manuscriptson theNumic peoples ofwesternNorth
the historyofart.MS. [WD] America, i868-i88o. SmithsonianContributionsto
DAVS ON, HUGH. I963. The physiologyofthe eye. Bos- AnthropologyI4. [DSW]
ton: Little,Brown.[MC] FURST, P. T. I976. Hallucinogens and culture.Novato,
DELLUC, B., AND G. DELLUC. I978. Les manifesta- Calif.: Chandlerand Sharp.
tionsgraphiquesaurignaciennessur supportrocheux GAMBLE, C. I980. Informationexchangein the Palaeo-
des environsdes Eyzies (Dordognes).Gallia Pr6his- lithic.Nature 283:522-23.
toire2:213-438. . i982. Interactionand alliance in Palaeolithicso-
. i985. De l'empreinteau signe.Dossiers Histoire ciety.Man 17:92-107.
et Archeologie90:56-62. . I983. "Culture and societyin the Upper
. I986. Comment on: The originsofimage mak- Palaeolithic ofEurope,"in Hunter-gatherer economy
ing,by W. Davis. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 27:37 I . and prehistory:A Europeanperspective.Editedby G.
D E S B A N, M . C. I 976. Symbolesprehistoriques et ele- Bailey,pp. 2oi-II. Cambridge:CambridgeUniver-
mentsde l'art contemporain:Contributiona l'etude sityPress.
de quelques identitesavec les "phosphenes."Reprint GARVIN, G. 1978. "Shamans and rock artsymbols,"in
in the libraryofA. Leroi-Gourhan,Perigueux,Dor- Fourrock artstudies. Editedby C. W. Clewlow, Jr.,
dogne,France.[BD, GD] pp. 65-87. Ramona, Calif.: Ballena Press.
DOBKIN DE RIOS, M. I986. Enigmaofdrug-induced al- GIBSON, J. J. 1979. The ecological approachto visual
teredstates ofconsciousness amongthe !KungBush- perception.Boston: HoughtonMifflin.[CM)
men of the KalahariDesert. JournalofEthnophar- GILMAN, A. I984. "Explainingthe Upper Palaeolithic
macology I 5:297-304. revolution,"in Marxistperspectivesin archaeology.
D O W N S, J. F. I 96 I. Washo religion.Anthropological Editedby M. Spriggs,pp. II5-26. Cambridge:Cam-
Records I6:363-85. [DSW] bridgeUniversityPress.
D R I V E R, H. E. I 937. Culturalelementdistributions. 6. G O MB RI C H, E. H. I 96 I. Art and illusion. Princeton:
SouthernSierraNevada. AnthropologicalRecords BollingenSeries.
I:35-I54. GOODMAN, N. I972. Languages of art:An approachto
EHRENZWEI G, A. I953. The psycho-analysisof artistic the theoryofsymbols.Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill.
vision and hearing.New York: Braziller.[CM] [WD]
EICHMEIER, J., AND 0. HOFER. I974. EndogeneBild- GRANT, C. I965. The rockpaintingsof the Chumash:
muster.Munich: Urban and Schwarzenberg. A studyof a CaliforniaIndian culture.Berkeley:
E L G I N, C. z. I 983. Withreference to reference.In- Universityof Califomia Press.
dianapolis: Hackett. [WD] . I968. Rock drawingsof the Coso Range. China
ELIADE, M. I972. Shamanism: Archaic techniquesof Lake, Calif.: MaturangoPress.
ecstasy.New York: Routledgeand Kegan Paul. G RA Z I O S I, P. I 960. Palaeolithic art.London: Faberand
EMB O D EN, W. 1 979. Narcoticplants. New York: Mac- Faber.
millan. GROENFELDT, DAVID. i982. Commenton: The eco-

LEWIS-WILLIAMS AND DOWSON Signs ofAll Times I 24I
nomic and social contextofsouthem San rockart,by ism in Chumash rock art.JournalofNew WorldAr-
J.D. Lewis-Williams.
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY chaeology6:26-47.
23:44I. [MCI The trancehypothesisand the
H U F F M A N, T. N. I 9 8 3.
HALIFAX, j. 1980. Shamanic voices. Harmondsworth: rockartofZimbabwe. SouthAfricanArchaeological
PenguinBooks. Society,Goodwin Series 4:49-53.
.i982. Shaman: The wounded healer. New HULTKRANTZ, A. I98I. Accommodationand persis-
York: Crossroad. tence: Ecological analysisof the religionof the
HALVERS ON, J.I987. Artforart'ssakein the SheepeaterIndians in Wyoming,U.S.A. Temenos
Palaeolithic. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY28:63-89. I7:35-44.
HAMILTON-SMITH, E. I986. Commenton: Parietal Hypnoticinductionby entoptic
H U N C H A K, J. F. I 9 80.
fingermarkingsin Europe and Australia,by R. G. phenomena.AmericanJournalof Clinical Hypnosis
Bednarik.Rock ArtResearch 3:I59-60. [RGB] 22:223-24.
HAMMOND-TO OKE, W. D. I983. ReplytoA. R. Will- INSKEEP, R. R. i982. Commenton: The economic and
cox. SouthAfricanArchaeologicalBulletin 38:5-6. social contextofsouthernSan rock art,by J.D.
HARNER, M. J. I973. Hallucinogens and shamanism. Lewis-Williams.CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 23:44I-42.
New York: OxfordUniversityPress. IRWIN, C. N. Editor.I980. The ShoshoniIndians of
HARRE, ROM. I970. The principlesofscientificthink- Inyo County,California:The Kerrmanuscript.Bal-
ing. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. [AW] lena Press Publicationsin Archaeology,Ethnology,
HARRIS, D. B. as measures
I963. Children'sdrawings and HistoryI 5. [DSW]
ofintellectualmaturity.New York: Harcourt,Brace JOCHIM, M. A. I983. "Palaeolithic cave artin ecolog-
and World.[CM] economyand
ical perspective,"in Hunter-gatherer
HAWKES, C . I954. Archaeologicaltheoryand method: prehistory:A Europeanperspective.Editedby G.
Some suggestionsfromthe Old World.AmericanAn- Bailey,pp. 2 I2-I9. Cambridge:CambridgeUniver-
thropologist56:i55-68. [JC] sityPress.
HEDGES, K. I973. Rock artin southem Califomia. JOHNSON, T., AND T. M. 0 C. MAGGS. I979. Major
PacificCoast Archaeological Society Quarterly9: rockpaintingsofsouthernAfrica.Cape Town: David
I-28. Philip.
.I976. "Southem Californiarockartas shaman- JOLLY, P. I986. A first-generation
descendantofthe
istic art,"in AmericanIndian rock art,vol. 2. Edited TranskeiSan. SouthAfricanArchaeologicalBulletin
by K. Sutherland,pp. i26-38. El Paso: El Paso Ar- 4I:6-9.
chaeological Society. JONES, T. i982.Commenton: The economic and social
.i982. "Phosphenesin the contextofNative contextofsouthernSan rock art,by J.D. Lewis-Wil-
Americanrock art,"in AmericanIndian rock art, liams. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 23:442-43.
vols. 7 and 8. Editedby F. G. Bock,pp. i-io. El Toro: KALOW, WERNER, H. WERNER GOEDDE, AND
AmericanRock ArtResearchAssociation. in
DHARAM P. AGARWAL. I986. Ethnicdifferences
.I983. "The shamanic originsofrock art,"in reactionto drugsand xenobiotics.New York: Alan
Ancientimages on stone: Rock artin the Californias. R. Liss. [MC]
Editedby J.A. Van Tilburg,pp. 46-59. Los Angeles: KATZ, R. i982. Boilingenergy:Communityhealing
Rock ArtArchive,UCLA. among the Kalahari !Kung. Cambridge:HarvardUni-
HEINZE, R-I. I986. More on mentalimageryand versityPress.
shamanism.
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY .27:I54. KELLOGG, R. I969. Analyzingchildren'sart. Palo Alto,
HEIZER, R. F., AND M. A. BAUMHOFF. I959. GreatBa- Calif.: National PressBooks. [CM]
sin petroglyphsand game trails.Science I29:I904-5. KELLOGG, R. M., M. KNOLL, AND J. KUGLER. Form-
.i962. Prehistoricrock art ofNevada and east- similaritybetweenphosphenesofadults and pre-
ern California.Berkeley:Universityof Califomia schoolchildren's Nature208:II29-30.
scribblings.
Press. [WD]
H E M P E L, C. G. I 966. Philosophyofnatural science. En- KELLY, I. T. I939. SouthernPaiute shamanism.An-
glewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall. Records2: I 5 I-67.
thropological [DSW]
HOROWITZ, M. j. I964. The imageryofvisual halluci- KIRKLAND, F., AND W. W. NEWCOMB. I967. Therock
nations.JournalofNervous and Mental Disease art of the Texas Indians. Austin: UniversityofTexas
I38:5I3-23. Press.
. I975. "Hallucinations: An information-process- KL UV ER, H. I926. Mescal visions and eideticvision.
ing approach,"in Hallucinations: Behaviour,experi- AmericanJournal ofPsychology 37:502-I5.
ence, and theory.Editedby R. K. Siegel and L. J. . I942. "Mechanisms ofhallucinations,"in Stud-
West,pp. I63-95. New York: Wiley. ies in personality.Editedby Q. McNemar and M. A.
HUBEL, D. H., AND T. N. WIESEL. I965. Receptive Merrill, pp. I75-207. New York:McGraw-Hill.
fieldsand functionalarchitectureoftwo nonstriate . I966 (i928). Mescal and themechanisms of
visual areas (I8 and i9) of the cats. Journalof hallucinations. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Neurophysiology28:229-89. [CM] [CM]
HUDSON, T., AND G. LEE. I984. Functionand symbol- K N O L L, M. I 9 58. Anregunggeometrischer Figurenund

2421 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 29, Number 2, April I988
anderersubjektiverLichtmusterin elektrischenFel- . I983. "Les entitesimaginaires:Esquisse d'une

dern.Zeitschrift
ffirPsychologie I7:iio-26. recherchesur les monstresparietauxpaleolithiques,"
KNOLL, M., AND J. KUGLER. I959. Subjectivelightpat- in Homenaje al Prof.M. AlmagroBasch, vol. i, pp.
ternspectroscopyin the encephalographicfrequency 25I-63. Madrid: Ministeriode Cultura.[PGB]
range.Naturei84:i823-24. LEROI-GOURHAN, A., AND J. ALLAIN. 1979. Lascaux
KNOLL, M., J. KUGLER, 0. HOFER, AND S. D. LAWDER. inconnu. Paris: CentreNational de la Recherche
I963. Effectsofchemical stimulationof electrically Scientifique.
inducedphospheneson theirbandwidth,shape,num- LEWIS-WILLIAMS, J. D. I972. The syntaxand function
ber,and intensity.Confinia Neurologica23:20i-26. ofthe Giant's Castle rockpaintings.SouthAfrican
KONORSKI, j. I967. Integrativeactivityof the brain. ArchaeologicalBulletin 27:49-65.
Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. [CM] . I974. Superpositioning in a sample ofrock
KOSSLYN, S. I983. Ghostsin themind's machine: paintingsin the BarklyEast district.SouthAfrican
Creatingand usingimages in the brain.New York: ArchaeologicalBulletin29:93-I03.
Norton.[WD] . I980. Ethnography and iconography:Aspectsof
KRIS, E. i952. Psychoanalyticexplorationsin art.New southem San thoughtand art.Man I5:467-82.
York: IntemationalUniversitiesPress. [CM] I 98 I a. Believingand seeing: Symbolicmean-
KROEBER, A. L. I925. Handbook of the Indans of ingsin southernSan rockpaintings.London: Aca-
California.Bureau ofAmericanEthnologyBulletin demic Press.
78. . Ig8Ib. The thinred line: SouthernSan notions
KUBLER, G. I985. Eidetic imageryand Palaeolithicart. and rockpaintingsof supernaturalpotency.SouthAf-
Journal
ofPsychology
I I 9: 5 57-6 5. rican Archaeological Society36:5-I3.
LA BARRE, The GhostDance: Originsofreli-
W. I970. . i982. The economic and social contextof
gion. Garden City: Doubleday. southem San rock art.CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
. I972. "Hallucinogens and the shamanisticori- 23:429-49.
gins ofreligion,"in Flesh of thegods: The ritual use essay: Science and rockart.
. I983 a. Introductory
ofhallucinogens. Editedby P. T. Furst,pp. 26I-78. SouthAfricanArchaeological Society,Goodwin
London: Allen and Unwin. Series4:3-I3.
. I975. "Anthropologicalperspectiveson halluci- . I983b. Reply [to C. K. Cooke and A. R. Will-
nation and hallucinogens,"in Hallucinations: Be- COX]. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 24:540-45.
haviour,experience,and theory.Editedby R. K. The rock art ofsouthernAfrica.Cam-
. I983c.
Siegel and L. J.West,pp. 9-52. New York: Wiley. bridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
LAIRD, C. 1976. The Chemehuevis.Banning:Malki . I983d. Review of: Rock art of the Spanish Le-
Museum. [DSW] vant,by A. Beltran(Cambridge:CambridgeUniver-
. I984. Mirrorand pattern:GeorgeLaird's world sityPress,i982) and The dawn ofEuropeanart:An
of Chemehuevimythology.Banning:Malki Museum. introductionto Palaeolithic cave painting,by A.
[DSW] Leroi-Gourhan(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
LAMING, A. i962. La significationde l'art rupestre Press,i982). South AfricanArchaeologicalBulletin
paleolithique. Paris: Picard. 38:IOO-IOI.
LEE, R. I968. "The sociologyof !KungBushmantrance . I984a. Reply [to H. C. Woodhouse].CURRENT
performance," in Trance and possession states. ANTHROPOLOGY 25:246-48.
Editedby R. Prince,pp. 35-54. Montreal:R. M. . I984b. The empiricistimpasse in southernAf-
Bucke Memorial Society. ricanrock artstudies. SouthAfricanArchaeological
LEE, G. I977. Chumash mythology in paint and stone. Bulletin 39:58-66.
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly . I984c. "The rock artworkshop:Narrativeor
I3(3): I-I4. metaphor?"in Frontiers:SouthernAfricanarchaeol-
LEROI-GOURHAN, A. i968a. The art ofprehistoric ogytoday. Editedby M. Hall, G. Avery,D. M. Avery,
man in westernEurope.London: Thames and Hud- M. L. Wilson,and A. J.B. Humphreys,pp. 323-27.
son. BritishArchaeologicalReportsInternationalSeries
. 68b. "Les signesparietauxdu Paleolithique 207.
superieurfranco-cantabrique," in Simposia interna- . Ig8sa. The San artisticachievement.African
cional de arterupestre,pp. 67-77. Barcelona:In- Arts I8(3):54-59.
stitutode Prehistoriay Arqueologia. . I985 b. Testingthe tranceexplanationof south-
. I968c. Treasuresofprehistoricart.Translated em Africanrock art: Depictions offelines.Bolletino
by N. Guterman.New York: Abrams.[WD] del CentroCamuno di Studi Preistorici22:47-62.
. I980. "Les signesparietauxcomme 'marqueurs' . I986a. Cognitive and optical illusions in San
ethniques."Altamira Symposium,pp. 289-94. Ma- rock artresearch.CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 27:I7I-
drid:Ministeriode Cultura. [PGB] 78.
. i982. ThedawnofEuropeanart:An introduc- . I986b. The last testamentofthe southem San.
tion to Palaeolithic cave painting.Cambridge:Cam- SouthAfricanArchaeologicalBulletin4I:IO-II.
bridgeUniversityPress. . I987a. "Paintingsofpower: Ethnography and

rockartin southernAfrica,"in Past and futureof . 1979. UpperPalaeolithic symbolsystemsofthe

IKungethnography:Criticalreflectionsand symbolic Russian Plain: Cognitiveand comparativeanalysis.
perspectives.Editedby M. Biesele and R. Gordon,pp. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 20:271-3 II.
231-73. Hamburg: BuskeVerlag. . I985. Theoreticalconceptsthatlead to new an-
. I987b. The San rockartdebate.Man 22:173- alyticmethods,modes ofinquiry,and classes ofdata.
75. RockArtResearch2:95-III.
. n.d.a. A dreamof eland: An unexploredcompo- . I986. Replyto comments.Rock ArtResearch
nentof San shamanismand rockart. WorldAr- 3:67-82.
chaeology.In press. M A R S H A L L, L. I 9 69.
The medicine dance ofthe !Kung
. n.d.b. Seeing and construing:A neurological Bushmen.Africa39:347-8 I.
constantin San rock art.MS. MARTINDALE, C. I98I. Cognition
and consciousness.
LEWIS-WILLIAMS, J. D., AND M. BIESELE. 1978. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey. [CM]
Eland huntingritualsamongnorthernand southem MAYNARD, P. I986. Commenton: The originsofim-
San groups:Strikingsimilarities.Africa48:117-34. agemaking,byWhitney
Davis. CURRENT ANTHROPOL-
LEWIS-WILLIAMS, J. D., AND J. H. N. LOUBSER. I986. OGY 27: 2o6-7. [WD]
"Deceptive appearances:A critiqueof southemAfri- MILLER, j. I983. Basin religionand theology:A com-
can rock artstudies,"in Advances in worldarchaeol- parativestudyofpower (puha). Journalof California
ogy,vol. 5. Editedby F. Wendorfand A. E. Close, pp. and Great Basin Anthropology5:66-86. [DSW]
.253-89. New York: Academic Press. MILLER, W., COMPILER. 1972. Newe Natekwinappeh:
LOMMEL, A. I967. Shamanism: The beginningsof art. Shoshonistoriesand dictionary.UniversityofUtah
New York: McGraw-Hill. AnthropologicalPapers 94.
LORBLANCHET, M. 1977. "Fromnaturalismto abstrac- MIRIMANOV, V. B. 1973. KunstderUrgesellschaft.
tion in Europeanprehistoricrock art,"in Formin in- Dresden and Moscow: Kunst/Iskusstvo. [VBM]
digenousart: Schematisationin the artofAboriginal MUNN, H. 1973. "The mushroomsoflanguage,"in Hal-
Australia and prehistoricEurope.Editedby P. J. lucinogensand shamanism. Editedby M. J.Hamer,
Ucko, pp.44-56. Canberra:AustralianInstituteof pp. 86-122. New York:Oxford UniversityPress.
AboriginalStudies. NETTLETON, A. I984. San rock art:Image,function,
LUQUET, G. 1927. Le dessin enfantin.Paris: Alcan. and meaning(A replyto A. R. Willcox). SouthAfri-
[CM]. can ArchaeologicalBulletin 39:67-68.
MAGGS, T. M. O'C. I967. A quantitativeanalysisofthe NOLL, R. I985. Mental imagerycultivationas a cultural
rock artfroma sample area in the westem Cape. phenomenon:The role ofvisions in shamanism.CUR-
SouthAfricanJournalof Science 63:100-104. RENT ANTHROPOLOGY 26:443-6 I.
MAGGS, T. M. O'C., AND J. SEALY. I983. in
Elephants OSTER, G. 1970. Phosphenes.ScientificAmerican
boxes. SouthAfricanArchaeological Society,Good- 22.2(2):83-87.
win Series 4:44-48. Ndedema. Graz: Akademische.
PAGER, H. 1971.
MANHIRE, A. H., J. PARKINGTON, AND R. YATES. . Ig7sa. "The antelope cult ofprehistorichunt-
I985. Nets andfully recurved
bows:Rockpaintings ers of South Africa,"in Les religionsde la pr6histoire.
and huntingmethodsin the Westem Cape, South Af- EditedbyE. Anati,pp. 401-Il . Capo di Ponte:Cen-
rica.WorldArchaeology 17:I61-74. troCamuno di Studi Preistorici.
MANHIRE, A. H., J. E. PARKINGTON, A. D. MAZEL, . 1975 b. StoneAge mythand magic. Graz:
AND T. M. 0 'C. MAGGS. I986. Cattle,sheep,and Akademische.
horses:A reviewofdomesticanimals in the rockart PARK, W. Z. 1938. Shamanism in westernNorth
ofsouthemAfrica.SouthAfricanArchaeologicalSo- America. NorthwesternUniversityStudiesin the So-
ciety,Goodwin Series 5:2 2-30. cial Sciences 2. [DSW]
MARSHACK, A. I969. Polesini: A reexaminationofthe PARKINGTON, J.I969. Symbolism in Palaeolithic
engravedUpper Palaeolithicmobiliarymaterialsof cave art.SouthAfricanArchaeologicalBulletin
Italyby a new methodology.Revista di Scienze Preis- 24:3-13.
toriche24:219-8 i. PARKINGTON, J., R. YATES, A. MANHIRE, AND D.
.1972. The roots of civilization.London: HALKETT. I986. The social impact ofpastoralismin
Weidenfeldand Nicolson/NewYork: McGraw-Hill. the southwesternCape. JournalofAnthropological
.1976. Some implicationsofthe Palaeolithic Archaeology 5:313-29.
symbolicevidenceforthe originoflanguage.CUR- PFEIFFER, J. E. I982. The creativeexplosion:An en-
RENT ANTHROPOLOGY 17:274-82. quiryinto the originsof art and religion.New York:
.1977. "The meanderas a system:The analysis Harperand Row.
and recognitionoficonographicunits in Upper REICHEL-DOLMATOFF, G. 1972. "The culturalcon-
Palaeolithic compositions,"in Formin indigenous textof an aboriginalhallucinogen:Banisteriopsis
art: Schematisationin the art ofAboriginalAus- caapi," in Flesh of thegods: The ritual use ofhal-
tralia and prehistoricEurope.Editedby P. J.Ucko, lucinogens.EditedbyP. T. Furst,pp. 84-113. Lon-
pp. 285-317. Canberra:AustralianInstituteofAb- don: Allen and Unwin.
originalStudies. 1 978 a. Beyond the Milky Way: Hallucinatory

244 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 29, Number 2, April 1988
imageryof the Tukano Indians. Los Angeles:UCLA . I984. Hostage hallucinations:Visual imagery
Latin AmericanCenter. inducedby isolation and life-threateningstress.jour-
. 1978b. "Drug-inducedoptical sensationsand nal ofNervous and Mental Disease 172:264-72.
theirrelationshipto applied artamongsome Colom- SIEGEL, R. K., AND M. E. JARVIK. 1975. "Drug-induced
bian Indians,"in Artin society.Editedby M. Green- hallucinationsin animals and man," in Hallucina-
halghand V. Megaw, pp. 289-304. London: Duck- tions: Behaviour,experience,and theory.Editedby
worth. R. K. Siegel and L. J.West,pp. 8i-i6i. New York:
I198 5. "Aspectos chamanisticosy neurofisiologi- Wiley.
cos del arteindigena,"in Estudios en arterupestre. SIEVEKING, A. 1979. The cave artists.London: Thames
Editedby C. Aldunate del S., J.BerenguerR., and V. and Hudson.
Castro R. Santiago:Museo Chileno de ArtePreco- SIIKALA, A. I985. Comment on: Mental imageryculti-
lombino.[Mc] vation as a culturalphenomenon:The role ofvisions
RICHARDS, W. 1971. illusions ofmi-
The fortification in shamanism,
byR. Noll. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
graines.Scientific
American224:89-94. 26:455-56.
RITTER, D. 1970. "Sympatheticmagic ofthe huntas SISKIN, E. E. I983. Washo shamans andpeyotists:Re-
suggestedby petroglyphsofthe westernUnited ligious conflictin an AmericanIndian tribe.Salt
States." Actes du SymposiumInternationald'Art Lake City: UniversityofUtah. [psw]
EditedbyE. Anati,pp.397-421
Pr6historique. . Val- SNOW, D. R. Rock artand the power ofshamans.Natu-
camonica: CentroCamuno di Studi Preistorici. ral History86(2):42-49.
RITTER, D. W., AND E. W. RITTER. 1972a. "Medicine STEVENS, A. 1975. Animals in Palaeolithiccave art:
men and spiritanimals in rockartofwestem North Leroi-Gourhan's hypothesis.Antiquity49:54-57.
America."Acts of the InternationalSymposiumon STEWARD, J. H. 1933. Ethnography of the Owens Val-
RockArtat Hanko,pp. 97-125. ley Paiute. Universityof CaliforniaPublicationsin
. 1972b. "Prehistoricpictographyin North AmericanArchaeology andEthnology 33(3). [DSW]
Americaofmedical significance,"in Medical an- SUTTON, M. Q. I982. Kawaiisu mythologyandrock
thropology.Editedby F. X. Grollig,S. J.Haley, and art:One example. Journalof Californiaand Great
H. B. Haley,pp. 137-228. The Hague:Mouton. Basin Anthropology4:148-54. [DSW]
ROSENFELD, A. 1 97 I. Review of:Notation dans les gra- THACKERAY, A. I., J. F. THACKERAY, P. B. BEAU-
vuresdu Paleolithique superieur,by A. Marshack. MONT, AND J. C. VOGEL. I98I. Dated rock engrav-
Antiquity
45:317-19. ingsfromWonderwerkCave, South Africa.Science
RUSPOLI, M. I987. The cave ofLascaux: The finalpho- 214:64-67.
tographicrecord.London: Thames and Hudson. Petrographsof the Glen Can-
TURNER, C. G., II. I963.
SACKS, 0. W. 1970. Migraine: The evolutionofa com- yonregion:Styles,chronology,distribution,and rela-
mon disorder.London: Faber. tionshipsfromBasketmakerto Navajo. Museum of
SALMON, M. H. I982. Philosophyand archaeology. NorthernArizonaBulletin38 (Glen Canyon Series4).
New York: Academic Press. [CGT].
SAUVET, G. i982. Comment on: The economic and so- . 1971. Revised datingforearlyrockartofthe
cial contextofsouthem San rockart,by J.D. Lewis- Glen Canyon region.AmericanAntiquity36:469-7I.
Williams. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY .23:443-44. [CGT]
SAUVET, G., AND S. SAUVET. 1979. Fonction TYLER, C. W. 1978. Some new entopticphenomena.Vi-
semiologiquede l'artparietalanimalierfranco-can- sionResearchI8:I633-39.
tabrique.Bulletinde la Societe Pr6historiqueFran- UCKO, P. J., AND A. ROSENFELD. I967. Palaeolithic
Saise 76:340-54. cave art.London: Weidenfeldand Nicolson.
SAUVET, G., S. SAUVET, AND A. WLODARCZYK. 1977. VAN RIET LOWE, C. I956. The distributionofprehis-
Essai de semiologieprehistorique.Bulletinde la toricrock engravingsand paintingsin SouthAfrica.
Societe Pr6historiqueFranc,aise74:545-58. (ArchaeologicalSeries 7.) Pretoria:Archaeological
SCHAAFSMA, P. 1980. Indian rock artof the South- Survey.
west. Albuquerque: UniversityofNew Mexico Press. VASTOKAS, JOAN M. I982. Commenton: The eco-
SCHAFER, HEINRICH. 1974. PrinciplesofEgyptianart. nomic and social contextof southernSan rockart,by
Oxford:ClarendonPress. [JC] J.D. Lewis-Williams.
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
SELFE, L. I983. Normal and anomalous representa- 23:444-45. [MC]
tional drawingabilityin children.London: Aca- VASTOKAS, J. M., AND R. K. VASTOKAS. 1973. Sacred
demicPress.[CM] artof theAlgonkians:A studyof the Peterborough
SHANKS, M., AND C. TILLEY. ar-
I987. Re-constructing petroglyphs.Peterborough:Mansard.
chaeology: Theoryand practice. Cambridge:Cam- VINNICOMBE, P. 1972. Myth,motive,and selectionin
bridgeUniversityPress. southern Africanrockart.Africa42:192-204.
SIEGEL, R. K. 1977. Hallucinations. Scientific
Ameri- . 1976. People of the eland. Pietermaritzburg:
can 237:132-40. Natal UniversityPress.
Americanjour-
. 1978. Cocainehallucinations. VOEGELIN, E. W. 1938. Tubatulabal ethnography.An-
nal ofPsychiatry 135:309-14. Records.2(I): I-90.
thropological

WALKER, j. I98I. The amateurscientist:About phos- . I984. Meanings and motivesin San rockart:
phenes.ScientificAmerican 244(5):142-5a2. The views ofW. D. Hammond-Tookeand J.D. Lewis-
WEITZENFELD, JULIAN by
S. i984. Validreasoning Williams considered.SouthAfricanArchaeological
analogy.PhilosophyofScience 51:137-49. [AW] Bulletin 39:53-57.
WELLMANN, K. F. 1978. NorthAmericanIndian rock . I987. The culturalcontextofhunter-gatherer
artand hallucinogenicdrugs.Journalof theAmerican rockart.Man .22:17 1-72.
Medical Association 239:1524-27. WILMAN, M. I968. The rock engravingsof Griqualand
1 979 a. A surveyofNorthAmericanIndian Westand Bechuanaland, SouthAfrica.Cape Town:
rock art. Graz: Akademische. Balkema.
1979b. NorthAmericanrock art:Medical con- WINKELMAN, MICHAEL. I986. Trancestates:A theo-
notations.New YorkState JournalofMedicine reticalmodel and cross-culturalanalysis.Ethos
79:1094-1105. 14:174-203. [Mw]
WHITE, R. i985. Thoughtson social relationshipsand I 984. On the social contextof
W OO D H O US E, H. C.
languagein hominidevolution.Journalof Social and southemAfricanrockart. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
Personal Relationships.2:95-ii5. 25 :244-46.
WHITLEY, D. s. i982. Notes on the Coso petroglyphs, WYLIE, The reactionagainstanalogy.Ad-
A. I985.
the etiologicalmythologyofthe Westem Shoshone, vances in ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory8:63-
and the interpretation ofrock art.Journalof Califor- III.
nia and GreatBasinAnthropology
4:262-72. YATES, R., J. GOLSON, AND M. HALL. I985. Trance
. n.d.a. Functionand meaningin southemSierra performance:The rock artofBoontjieskloofand
Nevada rock art.MS. Sevilla. SouthAfricanArchaeologicalBulletin
. n.d.b. Ethnographyof communicationand rock 40:70-80.
artstudyin the active voice. Paperpresentedat the YOUNG, R. S. L., R. E. COLE, M. GAMBLE, AND M. D.
annual meetingsofthe SocietyforAmericanAr- RAYNER. I975. Subjectivepattemselicitedby light
chaeology,Toronto,Canada. flicker.VisionResearch I5:I1289-go.
. n.d.c. Context,symbol,and meaningin North Z I G M O N D, M. 1 977."The supematuralworldofthe
Americanarchaeology:A studyof southernSierra Kawaiisu," in Flowersof the wind: Papers on ritual,
Nevada rock art.MS. [DSW] myth,and symbolismin Californiaand the South-
WHITLEY, D. S., AND R. I. DORN. I987. Rockart west. Editedby T. C. Blackbum,pp. 59-95. Socorro:
chronologyin eastem Califomia. WorldArchaeology Ballena Press. [DSW]
I9. In press. [DSW]. . I980. Kawaiisu mythology:An oral traditionof
WILLCOX, A. R. I983. Moreon San rockart.CURRENT south-centralCalifornia.Ballena PressAnthropolog-
ANTHROPOLOGY 24:5 3 8-40. [MC] ical Papers i8. [DSW]

View publication stats

Lewis WilliamsDowson1988 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lewis WilliamsDowson1988 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The Signs of All Times: Entoptic Phenomena in Upper Palaeolithic Art

Article in Current Anthropology · April 1988

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

Signs are small measurable things,but interpretations

The Signs ofAll

Times The so-called signs of EuropeanUpper Palaeolithic art2

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

neurological bridge affordssome access to the Upper varietyofmeans. Underlaboratoryconditions,electrical

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

vant to all artsderivedfromthesealteredstates.Because images, such as festoons of catenary curves (Kliiver

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

are littleused in the Kalahari today(Lee i968; Marshall ENTOPTIC FORMS

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

ENTOPTICPHENOMENA SANROCKART COSO

FIG. I . Six categoriesofentopticphenomena comparedwithSan and Coso rock-artdepictions.Redrawnfromthe

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

48), which omits the very numerous zigzags, flecks,

STAGES AND PRINCIPLES

Because it is impracticableto deal with each of the six

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

AnotherinterestingSan example of construalis IVD

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

more generalised depictions rather than specific pic- paintedcaves ofWesternEuropeprovidedcircumstances

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

riencingafterimages.Once that initial step had been

some were socially produced.The accuratelydelineated FIG. 6. Engravedentopticphenomena dated to periods

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

hallucination (with or without mushrooms!)probably My theoremestablishingentopticformsas ourprincipal

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

MARIO CONSENS Lewis-Williamsand Dowson thinkthat the U shapes

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

specialized suggestionthatactuallyhas onlya secondary possible implicationsforPalaeolithic symbolismis con-

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

concludethat"in theUpperPalaeolithicthisassociation is thattheyknew theywere depictingmentalimages.In

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

What level of proof do Lewis-Williams and Dowson or derivefromalteredstates of consciousness.Indeed,it

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

these art formsas reflectingcognitivedeficitsof primi- similaritiesin visual imagerymanifestedin diversecon-

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

This content downloaded from 146.141.15.220 on Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:05:38 AM

evidencethatearlypeople weremaking(entoptic)marks Davis's use of "projection"here seems to differ fromhis