Williams turned to the ethnographic record and oral tradition. His work matures into a well-craft... more Williams turned to the ethnographic record and oral tradition. His work matures into a well-crafted "cable argument" (after Wylie 1989). Weaving together three lines of independent evidence: ethnography, the painted imagery itself, and neuropsychology (entopic phenomena), Lewis-Williams argues that San rock art is, fundamentally, shamanistic in nature. The first half of the book is devoted to arguments for this theory and these are indeed persuasive. Lewis-Williams then begins to "build bridges" of interpretation towards the imagery found in the Upper Paleol1thic painted caves of Western Europe. Working against the "tacit moratorium on explanation" that plagued such efforts in the post-Leroi-Gourhan era (i .e. , structuralist theory) , L ewis-Williams strives to apply his findingsgermane to San rock art-to those of the Paleolithic period. Despite the significant spatial and temporal distances (which he acknowledges), he insists that such connections are worthwhile, compelling and, ultimately, full of potential. What must be appreciated in this book are the laudable attempts made by the author to say something about the production and purpose of rock art in both South Africa and Western Europe. Too often , rock art studies are both badly neglected and avoided as a result of seemingly insurmountable interpretive obstacles. Lewis-Williams' theory of shamarustic rock art (paintings and engravings produced in an "alter,ed state of consciousness") has, however, stirred sizable debate in the archaeological community. Resistance has been grounded in fears of " monolithic" explanation-a uniform raison d ' etre for all rock art produced in hunter-gatherer societies. And although Lewis-Williams argues that shamanistic explanation provides only an important point of departure-an operung up of "Iim1tless possibilities"-this book leaves the reader with the uncomfortable feeling that shamanism should be understood as a urn versa) common denominator or motive for all rock art. One even begins 10 The Midden 35/2
The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with p... more The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
No single word exists, within Canada itself, to designate with satisfaction to both races a nativ... more No single word exists, within Canada itself, to designate with satisfaction to both races a native of the country. When those of the French language use the word Canadien, they nearly always refer to themselves. They know their Englishspeaking compatriots as les Anglais. English-speaking citizens act on the same principle. They call themselves Canadians; those of the French language French-Canadians. HUGH MACLENNAN 1 Canadians have long differed in their names for the various 'native' groups of their country, whether of European descent, Indian, or biracial. The solitudes go back a long way, and number more than two. Eighteenth-century fur traders did agree more than do present-day Canadians on some of their usages; for them, all 'French' fur traders or later, 'Canadian,' sprang from the Montreal fur trade (in essence, Quebec), while the 'English' comprised those traders not so affiliated, that is, those of the Hudson's Bay Company. Since then, the picture has become more complex. 'French-Canadian' is a more recent, and as Mac-Lennan notes, anglophone term, which for English-speakers now parallels the persistent francophone usage, Anglais. But ne'er the twain shall meet, or so it seems. The eighteenth-century consensus on who a Canadian was has faded; now 'we' are the Canadians and 'they' are something slightly other. Students of language are accustomed to thinking in terms of linguistic communities, and of course language is a social phenomenon. But communities imply boundaries and a degree of isolation and separateness. When changes, intrusions, or dispersals affect such a community, its
Williams turned to the ethnographic record and oral tradition. His work matures into a well-craft... more Williams turned to the ethnographic record and oral tradition. His work matures into a well-crafted "cable argument" (after Wylie 1989). Weaving together three lines of independent evidence: ethnography, the painted imagery itself, and neuropsychology (entopic phenomena), Lewis-Williams argues that San rock art is, fundamentally, shamanistic in nature. The first half of the book is devoted to arguments for this theory and these are indeed persuasive. Lewis-Williams then begins to "build bridges" of interpretation towards the imagery found in the Upper Paleol1thic painted caves of Western Europe. Working against the "tacit moratorium on explanation" that plagued such efforts in the post-Leroi-Gourhan era (i .e. , structuralist theory) , L ewis-Williams strives to apply his findingsgermane to San rock art-to those of the Paleolithic period. Despite the significant spatial and temporal distances (which he acknowledges), he insists that such connections are worthwhile, compelling and, ultimately, full of potential. What must be appreciated in this book are the laudable attempts made by the author to say something about the production and purpose of rock art in both South Africa and Western Europe. Too often , rock art studies are both badly neglected and avoided as a result of seemingly insurmountable interpretive obstacles. Lewis-Williams' theory of shamarustic rock art (paintings and engravings produced in an "alter,ed state of consciousness") has, however, stirred sizable debate in the archaeological community. Resistance has been grounded in fears of " monolithic" explanation-a uniform raison d ' etre for all rock art produced in hunter-gatherer societies. And although Lewis-Williams argues that shamanistic explanation provides only an important point of departure-an operung up of "Iim1tless possibilities"-this book leaves the reader with the uncomfortable feeling that shamanism should be understood as a urn versa) common denominator or motive for all rock art. One even begins 10 The Midden 35/2
The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with p... more The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
No single word exists, within Canada itself, to designate with satisfaction to both races a nativ... more No single word exists, within Canada itself, to designate with satisfaction to both races a native of the country. When those of the French language use the word Canadien, they nearly always refer to themselves. They know their Englishspeaking compatriots as les Anglais. English-speaking citizens act on the same principle. They call themselves Canadians; those of the French language French-Canadians. HUGH MACLENNAN 1 Canadians have long differed in their names for the various 'native' groups of their country, whether of European descent, Indian, or biracial. The solitudes go back a long way, and number more than two. Eighteenth-century fur traders did agree more than do present-day Canadians on some of their usages; for them, all 'French' fur traders or later, 'Canadian,' sprang from the Montreal fur trade (in essence, Quebec), while the 'English' comprised those traders not so affiliated, that is, those of the Hudson's Bay Company. Since then, the picture has become more complex. 'French-Canadian' is a more recent, and as Mac-Lennan notes, anglophone term, which for English-speakers now parallels the persistent francophone usage, Anglais. But ne'er the twain shall meet, or so it seems. The eighteenth-century consensus on who a Canadian was has faded; now 'we' are the Canadians and 'they' are something slightly other. Students of language are accustomed to thinking in terms of linguistic communities, and of course language is a social phenomenon. But communities imply boundaries and a degree of isolation and separateness. When changes, intrusions, or dispersals affect such a community, its
Uploads
Papers by Arthur Ray