Comments on: The Natufian Shaman

By: Oaktree

Oaktree — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:08:49 +0000

After having listened to the interview about your latest book on Gnostic Media I not only ordered “Singing to the Plants’ (luckily Santa had been wise enough to give me an Amazon gift voucher), but also went to your site and read and read many of your articles and comments. Congratulations, great stuff.
I fully agree with all you say about Eliade, about ‘how old is shamanism’ and about the Natufian shaman and InnerWhale raised a good point.
I too very much appreciate Ofer Bar-Yosef’s scholarship and am disappointed that he joined the band-wagon of “shamans at all times and everywhere”, which, to my mind, is starting to get out of hand, e.g. Barbara Tedlock and her Upper Paleolithic female shamans and midwives in “The Woman in a Shaman’s Body” really was too much for me (and I am a woman).
Natufian shaman: Considering that the most spectacular multiple Upper Paleolithic burials also contained a person with physical abnormalities and that a tiny ivory carving of a woman with an asymmetric face had been found at Dolní Vestonice it could be that then (and perhaps also later by the Natufians) such people were considered ‘special’ in some way. However, we do not know which way – were they revered or feared? For the Upper Paleolithic burials Vincenzo Formicola suggests human sacrifice, Timothy Taylor states that they all match the “Theatre of Transgression”. Of course they could just as much have played a sacred role, but that does not immediately mean ‘shaman’.

By: Fred Smith

Fred Smith — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:49:00 +0000

A bit ahead, but I hope not too too far ahead. We are now working on it. With luck 2010; otherwise the following year (Cambridge Univ. Press).

By: Steve Beyer

Steve Beyer — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:23:00 +0000

I eagerly await this new book. When is the publication date, or am I getting too far ahead here?

By: Fred Smith

Fred Smith — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:36:00 +0000

Steve, This is a really interesting post. The problem, as you say well, is that these disciplines are sequestered in the academic world, and have lost communication with each other. In my forthcoming general book on the Vedas, I (with my collaborator, George Thompson) will make a strong case for mid-2nd millennium BCE Vedic shamanism. Fortunately, we have significant literary evidence. The problems arise when we have only stray archaeological evidence, with no supporting historical, linguistic, or literary evidence. In our case the archaeology is spotty, in large part due to the practice of cremation rather than burial. But what you have presented is intriguing, even it cannot be conclusively proved.

By: InnerWhale

InnerWhale — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:37:00 +0000

Thanks for your welcome Steve, and congratulations for your always interesting blog, one of my favourite already.

Again, i have to agree with you about the “disconnection” between archeologists and anthropologists. Actually this is one of the two critical factor in the sicusion about shamanism when pre- and proto-history is involved. In the other thread, “How old is shamanism”, you bring forward a very telling example. Staying on topic, this is exactly the kind of problems that you can find in the massive work about african rock art and shamanism of the cognitive archeologist David Lewis-Williams or the visionary interpretations of the anthropologist Giorgio Samorini on the same subject.
It comes to my mind a similar situation between religion studies and philology….no way you can separate it without betraying the original message.

Possibly some problem about the definition of “shamanism” is adding to the problem. In my opinion, the analysis in your excellent article “Who is a shaman” is a perfect starting point to develop a shared definition or at the least a discussion. If scholars keeps using a non-uniform criterion in the analysis of archeological finds, the subject will remain a mess…..

By: Steve Beyer

Steve Beyer — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:41:00 +0000

The point of my own speculation was not that it was better than the explanation given in the original article, but rather to subvert the notion that the shamanic interpretation was somehow privileged as "the most viable interpretation" or "the most parsimonious explanation." I am not saying that the woman in the grave was not a shaman. I am saying that the authors of the paper have not given us any sound basis to conclude that she was.

I am also troubled at what I can only think of as a continuing shaman inflation. If you define the term shaman broadly and vaguely enough, and if you are willing to cherry-pick bits and pieces of different cultures, then just about anyone can be a shaman. I talk about the definitional problem a little bit here, but to say that the woman in this grave was a shaman simply because she had a deformity and was buried with animal bones stretches the term shaman, I think, beyond reasonable limits.

And yes! Let us apply this critique to tons of work!

I am always happy to hear from you.

By: Name: Asier

Name: Asier — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:20:00 +0000

hei steve, one question.

aren't most anthropology and archeology papers based on plausible explanations?

i am not sure why you criticize the "official " explanation based on another legitimate alternative. it seems to me that would apply to tones of work.

where did i get lost?

By: Steve Beyer

Steve Beyer — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:27:00 +0000

Thank you for your very informative comment. I would certainly never disagree with anything Dr. Bar-Yosef said about Natufian culture generally. I think part of the problem is a disconnection between archeologists and anthropologists with regard to shamanism, which is reflected also in the ongoing kerfuffle about shamanism and paleolithic art. Another part of the problem is that by now the term shaman has been stretched so far that it covers just about any religious functionary in indigenous — and, by extension, early human — culture.

Welcome to the blog. Please feel free to wander around. I would look forward to reading your comments on other posts.

By: InnerWhale

InnerWhale — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:10:00 +0000

Your criticism about the shamanic hypothesis is totally justified from the archeological point of view, Steve. The corpus of the archeological datas about Natufian does’nt justify the shamanistic interpretation, nor the findings of the grave in question. Special treatments in burial, included decorated skulls, are definetly present in Natufian sites: this particular finding seems more interesting from the point of vue of burial customs evolution than anything else.
The only problem is that Dr. Bar-Yosef is one of the leading and most appreciated expert about Natufian culture. Perhaps he is making a link with the more general feeling of “animism” coming from natufian “art” objects. But i do agree that ther’s no evidence whatsoever of shamanism as a practice in Natufian sites.