Answer to Question #316813 in History for Zanda

Question

Critically discuss the shamanism and San mythology models in a study of therianthropes in San Rock art .Refer to no more than 3 images of relevant San Rock art to illustrate your answer

Answer 1

The shamanism and San mythology models

The term San Rock Art, also known as southern African rock art refers to the rock

paintings and petroglyphs created by the "San" people. The linguistic term "San" is often

mistakenly confused as a synonym for "hunter-gatherer," a common misconception. The

term 'Khoisan' refers to both the 'San' hunter-gatherers and the 'Khoikhoi' or 'Khoekhoe'

herder-hunter-gatherers. However the the history of the 'Khoikhoi'/'Khoekhoe' hunter-gatherers/herder-hunter-gatherers is much more complex than what is perceived. The Khoisan peoples are present in most of southern Africa. Today some groups exist as pastoralists, other groups as hunter-gatherers or hunter-gatherer-fishermen, and most if not all work as herdsmen or laborers for "members of other ethnic groups".

"San studies" only came into practice in the late Victorian times, the founder being

George Stow. Since the inception of the practice, scholars and researchers have argued

regarding the cultural continuity between the inhabitants of Southern Africa thirty or forty

thousand years ago and the San of the Kalahari today. It was initially

believed that the art was potentially used as a form of recording the ways in which the

San used certain artifacts, shortly after this theory, an attempt at gaining evidence of

migration by these communities through the subcontinent was established. However both of these theories were later dismissed when a distinguishing moment in the study of Southern African rock art came in 1874 when Joseph Orpen published a paper which was generally considered to prove that San rock art was in-fact religiously motivated.

Traces of Southern African rock art were first discovered in the form of art mobilier, some of which date back to about 27 000 years ago. However, these artworks which were created during the Pleistocene are uniquely ancient. Art which was found on cave walls, or rock art of a more permanent or fixed nature, was a later development. This suggested a shift in the function or perhaps a development in the use-cases of the early illustrations. Radiocarbon dating certain works is exceptionally difficult as the artworks rarely contain enough carbon within the remaining paint to test accurately. The oldest dated parietal works are dated at 3600 ago. The dates assigned to petroglyphs are even more speculative as many of the dates are based on the attributes of the artwork such as geographical location, style, depth of the engraving etc.

One of the issues which plagued early interpretations of san rock art was the use of 19th and 20th century ethnographies to interpret works which are/were far older. Change and history therefore needs to be accounted for in-order to develop a better understanding of “San Rock art” and the San peoples in general. One attempt at such an understanding is an interpretive model developed by David Lewis-Williams and Thomas A. Dowson which put forward a neuropsychological model to interpreting the San rock artworks. Lewis-Williams and Dowson argued that the ethnographic evidence pointed towards, irrespective of other associations or connotation the art might have had, a shamanistic motivation. “Visions” for the artworks allegedly occurred in altered states of being, perhaps during rituals or meditations, where a groups' spiritual leader or “shaman” 

would enter a trance and what we now observe as “rock art” was what the shaman claims to have seen in said “trance”. Crosshatched line, nested u-shapes, zig-zags and dots were considered trance generated. This substantiated the idea that in a trance state, the shaman would see what would be considered the “building blocks” of shamanic images and compositions. The shamanistic models predominant components were geared towards theorizing about San symbolism and the use of ethnographic analogies to interpret the images. This focus on symbolism and the idea of “building blocks” stemmed from one of the shamanistic models key approaches, the neuropsychological approach. This approach proposed the idea that trans or hallucinatory imagery was/is a universal constant for all human beings, the implication being that the San shamans would attach their own connotations to this hallucinatory experience. Semiotics became a more important component of the analysis process, broadly categorized by Lewis-Williams as icon, index and symbol. Among the many depictions of animals humans and birds are the therianthropes, mythical beings which are part human part animal. San paintings containing these therianthropes were analyzed in an attempt to further understand the potential ethnographic perspective of these peoples. 

From the perspective of the shamanistic model, we assume that these therianthropes represent the shamans, who, in their altered states would fuse with or have already fused with animals and birds. This is substantiated by the neuropsychological approach 5 where it is argued that projection of mental imagery and after imagery are intrinsic to trance states. It is in this state of mental projection that the shamans have visions of the spirit world, in which they can fuse with, communicate with and/or summon spirits and animals. This interpretation however is based mostly on the presumption that all San rock art not only be shamanistic but also ritualistic in nature. 

The possibility that Lewis-Williams mistakenly misinterpreted accounts of spirits and/or mythological beings for accounts of trance must be considered. According to Solomon (2018) the shamanistic model misinterprets a shamanistic ritualistic recording of human animal fusions and early psychedelic visions for an artistic spiritually motivated practice. It is possible that these artworks were birthed in shamanistic trance-visions but there is no evidence to support the claim that this is where it remained, nor can it be assumed that the shamans themselves had the overriding cosmology which determined what was painted/ engraved and how. If we consider the catalogue of Southern African rock art, it becomes obvious that it is simply too diverse to assume San sameness; the term used by Solomon to describe the shamanistic models tendency to assume all San rock art was driven by the same ritualistic approach. This artistic diversity within San paintings is unquestionably connected to the ethnographic diversity of the San peoples themselves. Furthermore, one must take into account the possibility of the paintings existing as a method of manifestation or contacting benevolent spirits who could have been perceived as acing on behalf of the living as a posed to a record of events or experiences particularly of a shamanistic trance nature.

If we look at the Kamberg paintings also known as the rosetta stone of San Bushman rock art, specifically the section depicting the eland surrounded by many therianthropes. The panel is referred to as the key panel in rock art, and is widely known by the shamanists as the “rosetta stone” of the San rock art world. This panel is said, ethnographically, to represent power, potency and the spirit world. According to Ouzman, this eland was unlikely to have been seen in the physical world, that it instead was seen from within and brought into the physical realm through artistic depiction in the form of the existing mural. Ouzman’s reading is rooted in a shamanistic perspective, relying solely on the assumption that the depictions stemmed from hallucinatory/ trance experiences. In his reading Ouzman claims that in this panel, human and animal do not exist as separate categories, that the shamans themselves became the animals in the form of therianthropes. However, therianthropes interpreted as representative of shamans is problematic claims that a stronger case could perhaps be made in support of the idea that the therianthropes were more likely to symbolize spirits of the dead or mythical ancestors, especially in the case of Kamberg. 

Another assumption of the shamanistic approach is criticized, that being its tendency to attribute imagery depicted by the san artists to shamanistic visions, Solomon instead 7 suggests that it could most likely have been rooted in a fundamental (Khoi) San spatiotemporal frame, and allied forms of beliefs about mortality and life after death. Solomon substantiates this claim by pointing out the likeliness of images of death and dying referring to mortality rather than trance. Furthermore, if a shamanistic interpretation may see the eland as painted symbols shamans use to enter trance, then if re-evaluated one might find that it may equally be argued that it was the eland’s mythological as well as ritualistic significance that made it a favored subject for San artists .

The artwork can therefore alternatively be interpreted as a therianthropic spirit rainmaker (deceased kin) controlling the rain or weather (as an eland) due to a request made by the living. It is important to note that this interpretation does not neglect the possibility of trance ritual, or even the involvement of a shaman. It does however take into account the connections between blood and water/rain which is said to be embodied in the depiction of the death figure/Rain Bull (eland), the blood and water being universal symbols of life and death. This interpretation notes that this reading is attuned specifically to the aforementioned work only and recognizes regional and periodic differences.

It seems that the previously accepted concept of universally experienced hallucinatory form constants tend to permit the generalization of analysis. These form constants stem from the neuropsychological idea of the mind attributing meaning to abstract shapes seen by shamans while in the trance state. Solomon 8 argues that the iconography of San art requires site specific attention, where each artistic production (weather painting, engraving, or ready-made-objects) receives proper contextual analysis, as a posed to interpretation by the assumption of shared neuropsychological, hallucinogenic form constants. Not only has the shamanistic model come under heavy critique in recent years, Lewis Williams himself is said to have dismissed a substantial body of work, as well as reiterating outdated theories and selectively engaging with counter arguments.

It can therefore be stated that the notion that all Southern African rock art stands as a recording of shamanistic trance/hallucinogenic experience is presumptuous to say the least, Solomon and many others have for some time now been attempting to provide alternative solutions and theories to the interpretive models which guide our understanding regarding San art, however, it is important note that according to Dawson those who appose the shamanistic model have too failed to produce better yielding results. Dawson’s critique further complicates the debate by noting that “histories of humanity are often little more than histories of the West”, essentially stating that the perceived differences between upper Paleolithic cave art and any creative practice since were not connected to an evolutionary grand awakening of creative potential but rather simply skillful human beings engaging with their diverse immediate environments in various ways and that any attempt at creating grand narrative of art is little more than a justification of the present.