HOW CONVINCING ARE THE ARGUMENTS FOR ...

HOW CONVINCING ARE THE ARGUMENTS FOR ENTOPTIC IMAGERY AND HOW FAR CAN THEY BE APPLIED TO MEGALITHIC ART?

Introduction The issue of altered states of consciousness and entoptic imagery has been discussed for decades. So many authors have tried to test the presence of entoptic images in Prehistoric Art that the number of arguments for and against its plausibility is enormous. Because of that, this essay proposes some of the most convincing arguments put forward, in order to evaluate the possibility of applying entoptic imagery to Megalithic Art. In the first place, the essay recovers chronologically the first approaches to altered states of trance and entoptic imagery research and takes into account his application to Palaeolithic Rock Art. It also introduces the concept of shamanism and its use in accordance with the study of Rock Art. In the second place, the topic of Megalithic Art is presented according to main researchers’ arguments and its principal critics. And finally in the third place, this essay points out the controversy triggered by Lewis-Williams and Dowson’s neuropsychological model and also creates a debate on its sustainability and if it is possible its application to all types of Megalithic Art.

Entoptic images and Altered States of Consciousness Since David Lewis-Williams presented in 1988 the first approaches to his Neuropsychological Model based on entoptic imagery, the so-called Altered States of Consciousness have been considered as a relatively important form of explaining Prehistoric Art. Both terms need to be defined before continuing. The first of them is the

1

most important. The expression Altered States of Consciousness (ASCs) was used as early as 1966 by Arnold M. Ludwig and it describes induced mental changes. It refers to every mental state that differs from baseline or normal woken state. The second one, Entoptic Imagery, covers a wide range of visual phenomena experienced by human beings under altered states of mind. These images are best known as hallucinations and they are presumed to be seen by every human being due to the universality of the human nervous system (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1978a, Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1988; 1993; Lewis-Williams 2001; 2002; 2004a; 2004b). According to this, as Ludwig (1966) pointed out, ASCs share features in common: alterations in thinking, change in sense of time and body image, loss of control, change in emotional expression, perceptual distortion, change in meaning and significance, a sense of ineffability, feelings of rejuvenation, and hypersuggestibility (Winkelman 1986:175). In 1986, entering in certain altered states of consciousness was proved to be possible using many trance induction procedures. Winkelman exposed his Theoretical Model including induction techniques like auditory driving, fasting and nutritional deficits, social isolation and sensory deprivation, meditation, sleep and dream altered states of mind, sexual restrictions, extensive motor behaviour and use and consumption of hallucinogenic drugs and alcohol. A year later, Lewis-Williams and Dowson presented their Neuropsychological Model and applied it to the study of Palaeolithic Art (LewisWilliams & Dowson 1988). Based on the universality of human nervous system and of entoptic images as a consequence, Lewis-Williams and Dowson (1988) constructed a model of how this mental imagery is experienced by humans under altered states of consciousness. They distinguished between phosphenes and hallucinations traditionally used together referring to entoptic visual imagery and they used the term phosphenes as entoptic

2

phenomena; they reserved hallucinations for more complex iconic visions (LewisWilliams & Dowson 1988:202). The aim of their model was the comparison of six of the most common entoptic forms to the elements depicted in Palaeolithic European Art (Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1988:203). They chose the most frequent types of entoptic phenomena following the studies of some of the most famous neurologists of the past century (Klüver 1942:172-177; Knoll and Kugler 1959, cited by Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1988:202). Including basic grid and its development in a lattice and expanding hexagonal pattern, sets of parallel lines, dots and short flecks, zigzag lines, nested catenary curves and thin meandering lines (Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1988:203) they established three stages of trance in which phosphenes occur progressively during altered states of consciousness. In the first stage people may experience geometric visual imagery that includes dots, grids, zigzags, curves and meanders (Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1988; Lewis-Williams 1998; 2002; 2004; 2005). They can be seen with the eyes open or closed and they are supposed to be accompanied by a bright light in the centre of the visual field (Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1988; Lewis-Williams 1998; 2002; 2004; 2005). In Stage 2 this entoptic phenomena transforms into iconic forms representing objects that are familiar to them (Lewis-Williams 2004b:127). Moving into the third stage there is a progressive exclusion of perceptual information and a tunnellike perspective is experienced. The entoptic forms change and they seem to be brighter iconic images derived from memory and strong emotional experiences (Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1988; Lewis-Williams 1998; 2002; 2004; 2005). As Lewis-Williams argued, the three stages are not necessarily sequential; some people seem to be transported directly into the third stage for example. ‘They should be considered as cumulative rather than sequential’ (Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1988:204; 2004b:130).

3

Lewis-Williams and Dowson’s neuropsychological model was first applied to European Palaeolithic Art using cross-cultural analogy from South African Rock Art (Berrocal 2011). According to Lewis-Williams (1988:205), the six types of entoptic images can be found in San Rock Art and Coso Rock Art not only in engravings but also in paintings. These depictions were considered to be part of rituals developed by shamans to contact other realms and worlds. They used shaman referring to medicine man as a person whose principal skill is entering into altered states of consciousness and, as a consequence of this trance state, they try to get in touch with a different and parallel realm in order to control animals, rain or to cure diseases. This specific South African rock art may represent the visions of San and Coso shamans under ASCs states and could be compared with the depictions in Palaeolithic rock art in most of Europe (Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1988; see also Lewis-Williams 1990; 1992; 1998; 2001; 2002; 2004; 2005; 2006). As a result of that, European Cave Art was explained as a product of ritual practices carried out by Palaeolithic shamans under altered states of consciousness (Berrocal 2011:2). Considering this, Palaeolithic Rock Art could be understood as shaman’s depictions created during specific ritual activities but, it must be argued that there is not enough evidence for the existence of a Palaeolithic shaman’s art. We should avoid explaining any sign similar to entoptic imagery as a by-product of shamanism and it is necessary to take into account that the relationship between shamans and the making of the art need not have been direct (Demattè 2004:15). Related to this, not so long ago Dowson argued: ‘Painted and engraved images do not graphically represent metaphors of trance experiences and beliefs; the dying eland is not a metaphor for a 'dying' shaman’ (Dowson 2007:59) Despite the fact that the term shamanism is not new in the literature of Prehistoric Art, Lewis-Williams developed new important arguments to study it. To that extent, it

4

was apparently accepted that shamanism was found in every society in every part of the world, but it was not so convincing in its application to Prehistoric Art studies. It is true that shamanism was used to explain indigenous myths and daily life scenes in Palaeolithic Art during the 19th century (W. Bleek, cited by Lewis-Williams 2006:352, see also Lewis-Williams 2000 and Berrocal 2011). However, it was in the 80s when ethnographic shamanism became popular in Archaeology backgrounds. Following the South African and Latin American ethnographical research, shamanistic practices and experiences were considered as an important support for European Rock Art (Berrocal 2011).

It was not until Lewis-Williams and Dowson approached in 1988 that

shamanistic altered states of consciousness were used as an evidence for studying and explaining European Palaeolithic Art.

Nevertheless, a new way of understanding

shamanism has recently appeared among researchers. This latest approach must be considered as a consequence derived from the criticisms that Lewis-Williams’ South African work received (Berrocal 2011:10). It introduces the idea of understanding shamans as guarantors of the relationship between hunter-gatherers and natural world in state of considering them as special beings that control and preserve supernatural power (Demattè 2004; Dowson 2007).

Rethinking Megalithic Art

Due to the difficulty of testing Lewis-Williams and Dowson model in Palaeolithic Rock Art, some authors made reference to the possibility of applying it to a different kind of Prehistoric Art. As Richard Bradley (1989) first argued, Megalithic Art may be considered as a good archaeological example according to Lewis-Williams and Dowson’s neuropsychological approaches. In contrast to Palaeolithic where we really do know very little about the society, Bradley based his arguments on the viability of 5

knowing and studying the activities of Neolithic contemporary people through the artefacts of megalithic passages and tombs. Moreover, Bradley argued that because the chronology of Palaeolithic art is not understood well enough, focusing on Megalithic Art where there is a clear contrast between earliest naturalistic depictions and later more abstract ones, could be more useful. These latest motifs are considered to be very similar in appearance to Lewis-Williams and Dowson’s entoptics (Bradley 1989:69). During this latest Neolithic period, chambered and passage megalithic tombs began to change their shape and size becoming larger and internally subdividing. These new qualities made possible the association of art to inaccessible places and without daylight in which shamanic practices may have been carried out (Bradley 1989:72; see also Bradley 2009 and Lewis-Williams 1993; 2005).

The best examples are Brittany

Megalithic tombs like Gavrinis and monuments in the Boyne Valley in Ireland whose abstract designs have much in common with Lewis-Williams’ entoptic imagery. Irish Megalithic Art has been widely studied by a variety of authors, among them Jeremy Dronfield excelled in the 90s. Dronfield established his arguments on Bradley (1989) and Lewis-Williams & Dowson’s (1993) conclusions but he used a more analytical and statistical process. His beginning was to specify three different categories of designs found in Irish Megalithic Art; he distinguished among general undiagnostic, endogenous diagnostic and non-endogenous diagnostic motifs. The term ‘endogenous’ refers to what Lewis-Williams and Dowson called ‘entoptic’, that is, depicted elements derived from altered states of consciousness (Dronfield 1995; 1996a; see also LewisWilliams & Pearce 2005:263). Then, in order to identify the distribution of these designs, Dronfield created two different types of rock art: Category S arts, which are associated with altered states of consciousness (Tukano, Huichol and Chumash American arts as examples) and Category N arts, which have no connections with

6

altered states (Roman, Nubian, Benin and Chilkat arts) (Dronfield 1995; 1996a; 1996b; see also Lewis-Williams & Pearce 2005:264). After proving that endogenous motifs were more likely to be found in Category S arts, Dronfield compared both art categories to the depictions found in five groups of Irish megalithic tombs. The monuments chosen were: Knockmany and Sess Kilgreen, Loughcrew, Newgrange, Knowth and Dowth. According to his statistical tests, the motifs depicted in each monument were common with the endogenous elements in Category S arts. He finally concluded: ‘we can say with approximately 80% confidence – that Irish passage-tomb art is fundamentally similar to (as opposed to merely resembling) arts derived from endogenous subjective vision and fundamentally dissimilar to arts not so derived.’ (Dronfield 1995:545). In addition to that, Jeremy Dronfield continued his studies approaching to cosmological world in Irish Neolithic period. He enlarged and enriched his work a year later, including the important aspects of tunnel visions, the realm of death and the specific meaning of the lattice motifs (Dronfield 1996b). Dronfield studied the distribution of endogenous motifs in megalithic tombs and, based on Lewis-Williams and Dowson’s arguments (1993), he argued that there was no doubt that ‘passage-tombs are exclusively associated in Ireland with art derived from subjective vision’ (Dronfield 1996b:40). He settled this statement on the coincidence between a specific entoptic motif, concentric patterns, and the passages of the tombs. After analyzing the samples of Newgrange, Loughcrew and Knowth, he was able to conclude that the passage represents the distance between different realities and worlds. Furthermore, the passages could be used not only as conductors for contacting parallel realities, but also as routes of access for the spirits of death entering the real word and guided by the shamans (Dronfield 1996b:54). In order to clarify the meaning of the lattice motifs, he made reference to the association between human remains and these designs in terms of space.

7

Dronfield argued that despite the fact that it is really difficult to determine an accurate meaning explanation, it could be possible that these motifs represent ancestral relations or descendants (Dronfield 1996b:52). His argument was supported by two known examples: Tukano art, African Dogon art and Yolngu of eastern Arnhem Land in Australia. In the first example lozenge chain motifs are associated with the relations among different social groups (Reichel-Dolmatoff, cited by Dronfield 1996b:52); but in the second and the third sample, lattices are associated with the chests of ancestral beings (Dronfield 1996b:52). As Dronfield argued ‘we have very little cross-cultural association between lattices and ancestors’ and more research is needed in order to throw light on new supporting evidences (Ibid.). Taking into consideration the enormous importance of Dronfield’s studies in terms of scientific methodology with the intention of explaining the influence of altered states of consciousness in Megalithic Art, some problematic points must be admitted. First of all, further investigation of the principal tomb at Knowth proved that the motifs Dronfield had studied were not the earliest pecked designs. As Eogan (1997) showed, entoptic depictions were superimposed on some incised lines which conformed triangles and lozenges. These elements differ considerably from the circles and spirals considered by Dronfield as endogenous diagnostic motifs (Bradley 2009:68-69). Secondly, when he chose the data for presenting his conclusions, he noticed that his analysis worked better at Newgrange than it did at Loughcrew; however the Loughcrew results did not cancel out what he established at Newgrange (Lewis-Williams & Pearson 2005:272). And thirdly, when the process was repeated a month later than Dronfield presented his results, values differed from those obtained during Dronfield’s application of the model. This can be explained by the tendency to under-represent more quantitative and qualitative areas of analysis (Evans 2004:47). Moreover, his analysis determined that

8

each shape-type would only register one count and he made a deliberate exclusion of areas full of undiagnostic motifs (Ibid.). These choices covered Dronfield’s model with great subjectivity and although it maintained his statistical and categorical strength, pushed other authors to consider his approach as a local phenomenon (Evans 2004; Bradley 2009:69). At the same time Dronfield was developing his model, Lewis-Williams and Dowson (1993) got in on the act presenting their first study about altered states of consciousness and Megalithic Art. It must be argued that they precisely based their arguments on the universality of human nervous system in order to affirm the presence of altered states of consciousness in every period of History and in all societies. According to LewisWilliams and Dowson’s arguments, most of the motifs studied represented geometric entoptic phenomena, very similar to phosphenes experienced in stage 1 of the neuropsychological model, rather than iconic images which are more likely to be experienced by humans in stage 3 (Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1993:56). Due to the fact that these elements are very simple, Lewis-Williams and Dowson argued that it is very hard to confirm their entoptic precedence (Ibid.). However, they reintroduced Bradley’s idea about similarities between some more complex Neolithic motifs and entoptic imagery in stage 1 (Bradley 1989; cited by Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1993:56). Realizing that there are some cultural and mental principles that transform basic entoptic elements experienced under laboratory conditions into more elaborate and complex ones, they presented the terms of polyopsia and integration. The first one makes reference to the repetition and reduplication of entoptic patterns and the second one corresponds with the transformation of simple motifs into more complex geometric hallucination (Kiluver 1942; Siegel 1977, cited by Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1993:57). The aim of Lewis-Williams and Dowson’s approach was to compare the

9

motifs related to polyopsia and integration with complex depictions found in Megalithic Art using ethnographic examples (Tukano art and southern African art). They finally suggested that the complex megalithic imagery where repetitions of patterns can be found and where different types of motifs are depicted together, should be explained by polyopsia and integration principles (Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1993:57-58; see also Lewis-Williams & Pearce 2005). Later, Lewis-Williams and Pearce (2005) developed the terms of polyopsia and integration trying to explain their possible meaning in accordance with Megalithic Art. In the case of polyopsia, they argued that the repetitions of entoptic motifs represent the access to other dimensions (Lewis-Williams & Pearce 2005:273); this idea was first proposed by other authors who argued that the depiction of duplicated series of handprints may represent a contact from and with the underworld (Mellaart 1967, cited by Lewis-Williams 2004a:43-45). However, much more interesting is their approach to the principle of integration. According to them, integration may explain the association of naturalistic and more abstract motifs depicted in some of the more complex megalithic designs (Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1993:57; Lewis-Williams & Pearce 2005:275). The integrations of bows, arrows and axes and entoptic elements as curves and spirals were seen as part of a symbolic system. These naturalistic motifs were considered as symbols of political power which depicted together with entoptic elements, meant a link between the realm and the cosmos (Lewis-Williams & Pearce 2005:275). Due to the unquestionable relation between the naturalistic elements depicted on megalithic monuments and the artefacts found in burial mounds (Bradley 1989), something to be considered is the immeasurable value of taking into account the symbolic meaning of these integrations. Not only could this kind of motifs be explained as Neolithic political symbols but also they could represent social aspects closely

10

related to the Neolithic humans’ necessity of understanding and handling with supernatural forces (Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1993; Lewis-Williams 2004a; LewisWilliams & Pearce 2005). This reference brings us to one relevant issue: the significance of Megalithic Architecture. Many writers have pointed out the importance of Megalithic monuments in the landscape but only some of them have related it to altered states of consciousness and shamanism. Julian Thomas, Andrew Sherratt and Richard Bradley first argued the existence of connections between the construction of megalithic spaces and human consciousness (Bradley 1989; Thomas 1990; Sherratt 1990). The act of constructing, transforming, decorating and depositing human remains in megalithic monuments must be considered in terms of human agency and as an expression of Neolithic cosmological and religious beliefs. Thus, the rituals carried out inside them should be understood in the same way. Lewis-Williams and Pearce (2005:279) suggest that this agency is nothing but ‘the functioning of the human nervous system within Neolithic society underwrote the conception, construction and modification of monuments’. As a result of this, Megalithic monuments symbolize the Neolithic cosmos. Through the passages the ritual practitioners can move between the outside world and the underworld realm (Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1993; Lewis-Williams 2004a; 2004b; Lewis-Williams & Pearce 2005; see also Bradley 2009). As Lewis-Williams and Dowson (2005:279) argued ‘the structure itself presents an iconographic image of the tiered cosmos’; across the walls Neolithic people could contact with other realms and worlds. The passages and the chambers represent the best example of inaccessible places and they would induce a feeling of sensory deprivation. Darkness and cold would provoke a lack of sense which could trigger in altered states of consciousness (Lewis-Williams & Pearce 2005; Bradley 2009). In addition to this, the monuments have special acoustic

11

characteristics (Watson 2001, cited by Bradley 2009:70). The most important is its strange resonance which alters human perception and could create auditory hallucinations in visitors’ minds. All together with ritual practices like singing, dancing and drumming could have made visitors enter states of trance (Lewis-Williams & Dowson 2005; Bradley 2009:70). It is necessary to say that these arguments do not prove that megalithic monuments were built with the purpose to generate sensory deprivation but it is true that their features help Neolithic people to experience altered states of consciousness (Watson 2006). Finally and as a consequence of ASCs, visitors or ritual practitioners could have depicted most of entoptic phenomena found in megalithic tombs (Bradley 1989; 2009; Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1993; LewisWilliams & Pearce 2005.).

A controversial issue Since the origin of Lewis-Williams and Dowson’s neuropsychological model critics emerged from the most important researchers in Archaeology. The main criticism referred to altered states of consciousness among Palaeolithic people, the way of entering them and its comparisons to ethnological samples. Most of the arguments against Lewis-Williams and Dowson’s model were triggered by the reason that there is a complete absence of explanation of the different forms of entering altered states of consciousness among societies, and how these forms could have been used by Palaeolithic people, in their first work ‘The Signs of All Times: Entoptic Phenomena in Upper Palaeolithic Art’ (1988). It appeared, moreover, that every abstract and simple design could be considered as entoptic phenomena experienced in stage 1 of neuropsychological model as well as every more complex depiction could be understood as iconic hallucinations (Helveston & Bahn 2003). However, it must be 12

argued that Lewis-Williams and Dowson (1988:202) pointed out the existence of varied ways of entering altered states of consciousness ‘Psychoactive drugs generate the percepts, but fatigue, sensory deprivation, intense concentration, auditory driving, migraine, schizophrenia, hyperventilation, and rhythmic movement are some other generating factor’. His lack of explanation was the cause of misunderstanding and consequence criticism (Pearce 2004). It is worth arguing that since Lewis-Williams and Dowson presented their model, accurate explanation and research has been carried out in order to improve their original position (For example Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1992; 1993; Lewis-Williams & Clottes 1998; Lewis-Williams 2002a; 2002b). Nevertheless, Helveston and Bahn presented in 2002 their ‘Desperately Seeking Trance Plants: Testing the “Three Stages of Trance” Model’ based on the ideas expressed by Lewis-Williams and Dowson in 1988. From their point of view, they put forward some weaknesses of the neuropsychological model. In the first place, they argued that Lewis-Williams and Dowson model do not describe any trance state induced by natural practices and they focused their attention on drug-induction (Helveston & Bahn 2003:214). They tried to refute ‘The Three stages of trance’ putting forward that the hallucinogenic plants species needed to induce altered states of consciousness could not be found in Europe across this period of time (Ibid.). And in the second place, they affirmed that due to the fact that not everyone experiences the three stages of trance, Lewis-Williams and Dowson’s model should be considered inexact and inaccurate. Related to this, one point must be clarified. Lewis-Williams and Dowson never said that the three stages of trance were experienced by every human brain in the same way; they correctly stated ‘These three stages are not necessarily sequential. Some subjects appear to move directly into

13

the third stage, while others do not progress beyond the first’ (Lewis-Williams & Dowson 1988:204). Something important to analyze is the sustainability of Helveston and Bahn’s arguments. This labour was done by Pearce in his reaction presented in 2004. Apart from suggesting the misunderstanding of the functioning of neuropsychological model, Pearce stated eight false premises assumed by the authors of ‘Desperately Seeking Trance Plants: Testing the “Three Stages of Trance” Model’. It could be interesting to report them here in order to understand the kind of assumptions that we are considering. They include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

The three stages of trance are ineluctably sequential. The three stages are only generated by the consumption of certain, specified, plant hallucinogens. The hallucinogens would be consumed in the same place that the art was made. There would be material residues of the hallucinogen. Material residues would be discarded. Material residues would be discarded in the same place as the art was produced. The residues would be in a form recognizable to archaeologists The residues would survive to the time of excavation.

(Pearce 2004:83-84)

The first two premises have been proved to be wrong some lines before (Pearce 2004:83) but the other six left must be considered in a different way. It is clear now that these assumptions represent the best examples of middle-range theories in the way that all of them try to put forward a general statement that can be verified by material evidences (Merton 1968). It is known the importance of these types of theories some decades ago, but, based on the real changes that are happening in Archaeology, it must be argued that another kind of hypothesis is possible. Because the topic being studied is settle in consciousness, why not trying some more relative ideas? What would happen if we consider the subjectivity of prehistoric people? The critics against Palaeolithic Art application of Lewis-Williams and Dowson neuropsychological model have been enlarged by the ignorance of most of the social

14

aspects in that period of Prehistory (Bradley, 1989). However, in relation with Neolithic, further research has thrown light on new evidences that prove the existence of weaknesses in Lewis-Williams and Dowson’s model. The first question we have to answer is if Lewis-Williams, Dowson and Pearce’s arguments can be applied to all megalithic tombs. Related to this, it is necessary to explain that although Megalithism was considered as a simultaneous and homogeneous cultural aspect in most parts of Atlantic Europe during the Neolithic, it has been proved that megalithic tombs found in Brittany, Ireland and Wales differ considerably from megalithic monuments from South-West Europe (Bradley 1997; 1998; 2002; 2009). Lewis-Williams and Pearce’s based their arguments on passage graves in Wales, Ireland and Brittany and they did not consider other types of monuments such as closed chambers nor other kinds of Neolithic art as Schematic art in Iberia. After studying the Neolithic art from South-West Europe, it has recently been argued that Megalithic art and altered states of consciousness may be just locally related (Bradley 2009:71). Bradley (2002; 2009) analyzed the distribution and context of Neolithic art and suggested that Lewis-Williams’ model might fit in British Islands but it does not in other areas like Portugal, France or Spain. Entoptic phenomena identified as phosphenes are associated with passage graves and with monuments where the chambers are far away from the entrance. This has been observed in Irish megalithic tombs and also in monuments found in England, Wales and Brittany. However, naturalistic designs such as anthropomorphic images depicted in France, Portugal and Spain are more likely to appear close to the entrances of megalithic monuments where they could have been seen by many people (Bradley 2009:73). In addition, these naturalistic motifs are not found associated with more abstract ones. All this together lead us to believe that despite the

15

existence of altered states of consciousness in Neolithic society, more research is needed in order to identify entoptic imagery in Megalithic Art.

Discussion Reached this point, it is unquestionable that entoptic imagery is present in Prehistoric Art. The problem is to determine in which kind of prehistoric art it is most likely to be found. I totally agree with Lewis-Williams and Dowson’s statement about the universality of human nervous system and thus, it must be considered that altered states of consciousness could have been experienced by Palaeolithic as well as by Neolithic people. It does not necessarily prove that every prehistoric art motif can be understood as depictions made by people under a state of trance. However, it does enable us to explain the meaning of Prehistoric Art in a more accurate way. Following Bradley’s ideas (1989) the analysis of Megalithic Art must be presumed

better

for

the

application

of

Lewis-Williams

and

Dowson’s

neuropsychological model. As was said before, it is very little what is known about Palaeolithic society and its cultural activities. Because of that, moving step forward give plausibility to the entoptic imagery topic. Dronfield and Lewis-Williams’ approaches to Neolithic consciousness have developed a new way of explaining Megalithic Art. It is clear that weak points can be found in every kind of controversial work but it is our choice to deplore it or to use it in order to improve future research. It is true that Dronfield’s deliberate errors rest sustainability to his arguments and transform relevant statements into questionable ones. However, his work represents the first statistical and analytical study carried out in relation with entoptic phenomena in Prehistoric Rock Art. Thank to Dronfield’s work, Lewis-Williams and Dowson’s neuropsychological model has been proved in Irish Megalithic Art. Why not testing it in other parts of Europe? May it be suitable for Western European Neolithic Art? Applying Dronfield’s approach 16

to Western Europe could probably improve the knowledge about Megalithic Art in this area. According to Megalithic Architecture I introduced the idea of human agency. This agency must be understood as the capacity of a person to act and make choices in his or her world (Bandura 2001). Agency is something inherent in humans and it is closely connected with their ability to change their own world. Because of that, it is really important to consider it in Prehistory Research. In addition, agency is strongly related to cognition and consciousness, two terms that, according to Bandura ‘involve accessing and deliberative processing of information for selecting, constructing, and evaluating courses of action’ (Ibid.). The same consciousness was the aim of this essay and, as we have seen, it controls our reality and our activities, from the most basic ones like sleeping and dreaming, to the most symbolic ones like depicting images in walls. Considering that point, Megalithic Art cannot be restricted to stylistic analysis, more interpretative studies must be achieved. We cannot continue believing that Archaeology is based on analytical and quantitative data, there is much more behind the huge amount of sample tables; archaeologists have the power of interpretation and it is something we should use more often.

References BAILEY, D. (2005). Prehistoric figurines: Representation and corporeality in the Neolithic. London, Routledge. BALLICK, M. J. (1996). Plants, people, and culture: the science of Ethnobotany. New York, Scientific American Library. BANDURA, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology 52: 1-26. BARRET, J. C. (1994). Fragments of Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life. Oxford, Blackwell.

17

BEDNARIK et al. (1990). On Neuropsychology and Shamanism in Rock Art. Current Anthropology 31(1): 77-84. - (1992). Palaeoart and Archaeological Myths. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2(1): 27-57. BERROCAL, M. C. (2011). Analogical Evidence and Shamanism in Archaeological Interpretation: South African and European Palaeolithic Rock Art. Norwegian Archaeological Review 44(1). BRADLEY, R. (1989). Deaths and Entrances: A Contextual Analysis of Megalithic Art. Current Anthropology 30(1): 68-75. - (1997). Rock art and the prehistory of Atlantic Europe: signing the land. London, Routledge. - (1998a). Contrasting styles of Rock Art in the Prehistory of North-West Iberia. Oxford journal of Archaeology 17(3): 287-308. - (1998b). The significance of monuments: on the shaping of human experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe London, Routledge. - (2002). Access, style and imagery: The audience for Prehistoric Rock Art in atlantic Spain and Portugal, 4000–2000 BC. Oxford journal of Archaeology 21(3): 231-247. - (2009). Image and audience: rethinking prehistoric art. Oxford, Oxford University Press. BRADLEY et al. (2000). Decorating the Houses of the Dead: Incised and Pecked Motifs in Orkney Chambered Tombs. Cambridge Archaeological journal 11(1): 45-67. BRESSLOFFI, P. C. (2001). Geometric visual hallucinations, Euclidean symmetry and the functional architecture of striate cortex. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 356: 299-330. BRIMBLECOMBE, Scientechnica.

R.

W.

(1975).

Hallucinogenic

agents.

Bristol,

Wright-

CHIPPINDALE, et al. (2000). Visions of Dynamic Power: Archaic Rock-paintings, Altered States of Consciousness and ‘Clever Men’ in Western Arnhem Land (NT), Australia. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10(1): 63-101. CLOTTES, J. (2004). Hallucinations in Caves. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14(1): 81-82. CYTOWIC, R. E. (1994). The man who tasted shapes: a bizarre medical mystery offers revolutionary insights into emotions, reasoning and consciousness. London, Abacus.

18

DEMATTÈ, P. (2004). Beyond Shamanism: Landscape and Self-expression in the Petroglyphs of Inner Mongolia and Ningxia (China). Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14(1): 15-23. DORNAN, J. L. (2004). Beyond Belief: Religious Experience, Ritual, and Cultural Neuro-phenomenology in the Interpretation of Past Religious Systems. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14(1): 25-36. DOWSON, T. A. (2007). Debating shamanism in south african rock art: time to move on... South African Archaeological Bulletin 62(185): 49-65. - (2009). Re-animating Hunter-gatherer Rock-art Research. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19(3): 378-387. DRONFIELD, J. (1995). Subjective vision and the source of Irish megalithic art. Antiquity 69: 539-549. - (1996a). The Vision Thing: Diagnosis of Endogenous Derivation in Abstract Arts. Current Anthropology 37(2): 373-391. - (1996b). Entering Alternative Realities: Cognition, Art and Architecture in Irish Passage-Tombs. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6(2): 37-72. ELIADE, M. (1975). Le sacré et le profane Paris, Gallimard. - (1989). Shamanism: Archaic techniques of ecstasy. London, Arkana. EVANS, E. (2004). Archaeology from art: exploring the interpretative potential of British and Irish Neolithic rock art Oxford, John and Erica Hedges. FURST, P. T., Ed. (1972). Flesh of the Gods. United States of America, Praege Publishers. GARFINKEL et al. (2011). Reproductive Symbolism in Great Basin Rock Art: Bighorn Sheep Hunting, Fertility and Forager Ideology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 21(3): 453-471. GOSDEN, C. (2001). Making Sense: Archaeology and Aesthetics. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 33(2): 163-167. GRILLY, D. M. (2006). Drugs and human behavior. Boston and London, Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. HAMPSON, J. (2011). Rock Art regionalism and identity: Case studies from TransPecos Texas and Mpumalanga Province, South Africa. Clare College, Cambridge. Cambridge, University of Cambridge. Archaeology: 407. HAYWARD, M. H., Ed. (2009). Rock Art of the Caribbean. Tuscaloosa, The University of Alabama Press.

19

HEINZE et al. (1986). More on Mental Imagery and Shamanism. Current Anthropology 27(2): 154. HELSKOG, et al. Ed. (1995). Perceiving rock art: social and political perspectives : ACRA, the Alta Conference on Rock Art, Alta Conference on Rock Art (1993 : Alta, Norway). Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning. HELVESTON, P. & BAHN, P. (2003). Testing the ‘Three Stages of Trance’ Model. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13(2): 213224. HODGSON, D. (2003). Seeing the ‘Unseen’: Fragmented Cues and the Implicit in Palaeolithic Art. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13(1): 97-106. - (2006). Altered States of Consciousness and Palaeoart: an Alternative Neurovisual Explanation. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16(1): 27-37. HUMPHREY, N. (1998). Cave Art, Autism, and the Evolution of the Human Mind. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8(2): 165-191. KUIJT, I., Ed. (2000). Life in Neolithic farming communities: social organization, identity, and differentiation. Fundamental issues in archaeology New York, London, Kluwer Academic/Plenum. LEWINGTON, A. (2003). Plants for people. London, Transworld. LEWIS-WILLIAMS, D. (1992). Vision, power and dance: The genesis of a southern african rock art panel. Amsterdam : Enschedé, Kroon-voordracht. - (2002a). A cosmos in stone. Rowman Altamira. - (2002b). The Mind in the cave, Thames & Hudson. - (2004a). Constructing a cosmos Architecture, power and domestication at Çatalhöyük. Journal of social Archaeology 4(28). - (2004b). Neuropsychology and Upper Palaeolithic Art: Observations on the Progress of Altered States of Consciousness. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14(1): 107-111. -(2006). Debating rock art: myth and ritual, theories and facts. South African Archaeological Bulletin 61(183): 105-114. LEWIS-WILLIAMS, D. & CLOTTES, J. (1998). The shamans of Prehistory. Trance and magic in the painted caves. New York, London Abrams. LEWIS-WILLIAMS, D. & DOWSON, T. (1988). The Signs of All Times: Entoptic Phenomena in Upper Palaeolithic Art. Current Anthropology 29(2): 201-245. -(1993). On Vision and Power in the Neolithic: Evidence From the Decorated Monuments. Current Anthropology 34(1): 55-65.

20

LEWIS-WILLIAMS, D. & PEARCE, D. (2005). Inside the neolithic mind. London, Thames & Hudson. LUDWIG, A. M. (1966). Altered States of Consciousness. Archives General Psychiatry 15(3): 225-234. MACCLENON, J. (1997). Shamanic Healing, Human Evolution, and the Origin of Religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36(3): 345-354. MANHIRE, A. (1991). Shamanism and rock art paintings: Aspects of the use of rock art in the south-western cape, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin 46(3): 3-11. - (1998). The Role of Hand Prints in the Rock Art of the South-Western Cape. The South African Archaeological Bulletin 53(168): 98-108. MAVROMATIS, A. (1987). Hypnagogia. London, Routledge. MELLARS, P. (1996). Modelling the early human mind. Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. MERTON, R. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York. METZNER, R. (1998). Hallucinogenic Drugs and Plants in Psychotherapy and Shamanism. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 30(4). MITHEN, S. (1998). The prehistory of the mind: a search for the origins of art, religion and science. Oxford, Phoenix. NASH, G., Ed. (2001). European Landscapes of Rock Art. London, Routledge. - (2002). Pictures in place figured landscapes of rock-art. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. NOLL, R. (1985). Mental Imagery Cultivation as a Cultural Phenomenon: The Role of Visions in Shamanism. Current Anthropology 26(4): 443-461. O'SULLIVAN, M. (1989). A stylistic revolution in the megalithic art of the Boyne Valley. Archaeology Ireland 3(4): 138-142. OUZMAN, S. (2001). Seeing Is Deceiving: Rock Art and the Non-Visual. World Archaeology 33(2): 237-256. PALACIO-PÉREZ, E. (2010). Cave art and the theory of art: The origins of the religious interpretation of paleolithic graphic expression. Oxford journal of Archaeology 29(1): 1-14. PATTON, M. (1990). On Entoptic Images in Context: Art, Monuments, and Society in Neolithic Brittany. Current Anthropology 31(5): 554-558.

21

PEARCE, D. (2004). ‘Testing’ and Altered States of Consciousness in Upper Palaeolithic Art Research. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14(1): 82-85. PORR, M. (2009). Palaeolithic Art as Cultural Memory: a Case Study of the Aurignacian Art of Southwest Germany. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 20(1): 87108. PRANCE, S. G., Ed. (2005). The cultural history of plants. London, Routledge. PRICE, N., Ed. (2001). The Archaeology of shamanism. London, Routledge. REICHEL-DOLMATOFF, G. (1978). Beyond the Milky Way: Hallucinatory imagery of the Tukano Indians. Los Angeles, UCLA. Latin American Center. ROBIN, G. (2010). Spatial Structures and Symbolic Systems in Irish and British Passage Tombs: the Organization of Architectural Elements, Parietal Carved Signs and Funerary Deposits. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 20(3): 373-418. RUDGLEY, R. (1993). The alchemy of culture: intoxicants in society. London, British Museum Press. SHERRATT, A. (1990). The Genesis of Megaliths: Monumentality, Ethnicity and Social Complexity in Neolithic North-West Europe. World Archaeology 22(2): 147167. - (1995). Consuming habits: drugs in history and anthropology. London, Routledge. SIEGEL, R. K. (1980). The Psychology of Life After Death. American Psychologist 35(10): 911-931. SIMPSON, A. G. B. (2002). Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions: The part of the brain that can induce out-of-body experiences has been located. Nature 419(2): 269270. TAÇON et al. (2010). Naturalism, Nature and Questions of Style in Jinsha River Rock Art, Northwest Yunnan, China. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 20(1): 67-86. TART, C. T. (1972). States of Consciousness and State-Specific Sciences. Science 176: 1203-1210. THOMAS, J. (1990). Monuments from the Inside: The Case of the Irish Megalithic Tombs. World Archaeology 22(2): 168-178. VERHOEVEN, M. (2002). Ritual and Ideology in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Levant and Southeast Anatolia. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12(2): 233-258. VIEIRA, V. (2009). A Context Analysis of Neolithic Cygnus Petroglyphs at Lake Onega. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 20(2): 255-261.

22

WATSON, A. (2001). The sounds of transformation. In N. Price (ed.) The Archaeology of Shamanism: 178-192, London: Routledge. - (2006). (Un)intentional sound? Acoustics and Neolithic monuments. In C. Scarre and G. Lawson (eds) Archaeoacoustics. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs. WENGROW, D. (2001). The Evolution of Simplicity: Aesthetic Labour and Social Change in the Neolithic Near East. World Archaeology 33(2): 168-188. WHITLEY, D. S. (1999). Sally's Rockshelter and the Archaeology of the Vision Quest. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9(2): 221-247. - (2001). Handbook of rock art research, Rowman and Littlefield. WINKELMAN, M. (1986). Trance States: A Theoretical Model and Cross-Cultural Analysis. Ethos 14(2): 174-203. - (2002). Shamanism and Cognitive Evolution. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12(1): 71-101.

23