images of animality

89

ImagesofAnimality:HybridBodiesandMimesisinEarlyPrehistoricArt

Chapter7

ImagesofAnimality:

HybridBodiesandMimesisinEarlyPrehistoricArt

DušanBorić

We will assume for the moment that we knownothingoftheoriesofmaDerandtheoriesofspirit,nothingofthediscussionsastotherealityoridealityoftheexternalworld.HereIaminthepresenceofimages…Yetthereisoneofthemwhichisdistinctfromalltheothers,inthatIdonotknowitonlyfromwithoutbyperceptions,but fromwithinbyaffec‑tions:itismybody.(Bergson1981,17)

…thepossibilityofmetamorphosisexpressesthe…fearofnolongerbeingabletodifferentiatebetweenthehumanandtheanimal,and,inparticular,thefearofseeingthehumanwholurkswithinthebodyoftheanimaloneeats…(ViveirosdeCastro1998,481)

assertsthatearlyexamplesofartisticexpressioncanbeunderstoodbyenvisioningashamanisticreligiouscontextfortheirmaking.Thisargumentrelies,forthemostpart,ontheneurologicalcommensalityof themodernhumanmindwhenexperiencinghallucina‑tionsinalteredstatesofconsciousness,primarilybypowerful individuals like shamans. Subsequently,imagesperceivedduringsuchstatesbecamerenderedinart(Lewis‑Williams2002;2004;Lewis‑Williams&Pearce2005).

Various critiques of functionalist interpreta‑tions have already been raised (e.g. Dowson 1998;Lewis‑Williams2002). Someof these critiqueshavefocusedona tendency towardsa teleologicalargu‑ment in functionalist interpretations that primarilyrecognizesthepracticalandeverydaynatureoftheimage‑making— it is seen as a representationalistmediumfortransmiDinginformationabouttheavaila‑bilityofpotentialresources.Incontrasttothistypeofinterpretation,inthispaperIwillarguethat,atthecurrentstateofresearch,shamanisticinterpretationshave more explanatory potential than functional‑ist interpretations. In shamanistic interpretations,importantly,Dionysianaspectsofartareexplored.Yettheseinterpretationsremainpreoccupiedwithshaman‑isticpracticeandalteredstatesofconsciousnessinanoverly simplifiedanduniformwayby reducingalltypesofritualpracticesandimage‑makingtoshaman‑ism. In shamanistic interpretations, art‑making byhunter‑gathererandearlyagriculturalistsocietiesisreducedtoanideologicalresourceofafewpowerfulshamans,beingimposedontheordinaryfolks.Iwillarguethatshamanisticinterpretationsofimage‑mak‑ingcanusefullybeextendedbyincorporatingthemunderawidertheoreticalframeworkofanimalityasdiscussedinthefieldofanthropologicalphilosophy(e.g.Bataille1989;2005).Iwillalsosuggestamend‑ing certain aspects of suchnotions of animality onthebasisofmorerecentanthropologicaldiscussionsofAmerindianperspectivismandtheroleofbodyas

CanoneconsiderearlyprehistoricarttobeofApollo‑niannature(Fig.7.1a),anadvanceofreason,madden‑inglyreproducingandresemblingthenaturalorderasamimeticdeviceandamediumfor‘externalmem‑orystorage’,orshoulditbebeDerunderstoodasanexpression of the Dionysian aspects of human na‑ture (Fig. 7.1b), relating to ‘dark’ and subconsciouscorners of the human mind and to uncontrollableforces from ‘within’? These quite different under‑standingsofprehistoricandtraditionalsocieties’art‑works(notthatlongagocalled‘primitive’art)reflecttwogeneralgroupsofinterpretationsofferedtodayinaDemptstounderstandsuchart.Thefirstgroupofin‑terpretations(functionalist)emphasizestheecologicalandculturalsituatednessofearlyexamplesofimage‑making.Forinstance,PalaeolithiccaveartpaintingsaswellasartmobilierdepictawiderangeofPleistoceneanimalspecies,whichinhabitedthesameecologicalspaceashumangroups.Thisapproachfocusesonthefunctionalissuesoftheoriginofimage‑making,suchasexchangeofinformation,groupalliances,etc.(seeMithen1988;1989;1991;Gamble1982;1991),ratherthanconsideringthemultiplicityofpossiblemeaningsthat suchdepictionsmighthavehad.On theotherhand,theothergroupofinterpretations(shamanistic)

90

Chapter7

thesiteofontologicaldifferentiationbetweendifferentkindsofbeings.

Building around the idea of the Dionysiannatureofearlyprehistoricart,Idevelopthenotionofanimalityinrelationtosuchart,primarilyrelatedtotherepresentationofhybridhuman‑animal(therian‑thropic)images.Thesuggestionismadethatanimal‑itycanencompasstheshamanisticinterpretationasoneofitsmediawhileofferingawiderframeworkfortheexaminationoftraditionalandearlyprehistoricart. I proceed by focusing on the notions of bodyformanditsmutabilitywithaparticularreferencetoAmazonianethnography(e.g.ViveirosdeCastro1998;2004).Image‑makingandtheontologicalstatusof imagesare furtherdiscussedusing thePlatonictheoryofeikōn,ormimeticimage(likeness).Twoex‑amplesofearlyprehistoricimage‑makingareofferedwiththeemphasisonthedepictionofanimal/humanhybrids.

Alteredstatesofconsciousnessandshamanism

DavidLewis‑Williamsisthemainpropagatoroftheinextricablelinkbetweenshamanisticpracticesand

alteredstatesofconsciousnessandtherangeofim‑agesandsymbolsdepictedintheartofhunter‑gath‑erersocieties(e.g.2002).Morerecently,heextendedthis argument to a range of early agriculturalistcommunities(Lewis‑Williams2004;Lewis‑Williams&Pearce2005).Here,shamanismisunderstoodtobeareligioussystemthatnumeroussocietiesaroundtheworldpractisedthroughouthumanhistory(cf.Eliade1972).Inashamanisticreligioussystemtheworldisseenasatieredcosmoswhereshamansareexcep‑tionalindividualswhopossessthepowertotravelandcommunicatebetweendifferentlevels.Therearethreemainlevels:thesubterranean(chthonic)andup‑perlevelsoccupiedbyavarietyofspirits,spirit‑ani‑malsandothercreatures,andtheintermediateleveloccupiedbyhumanbeings.Shamansarebelievedtousespecialpowerstotranscendthesedifferentlevelsbyperforming‘suchtasksashealing,divination,con‑trolofanimals,controlofweatherandextracorporealtravel’ (Lewis‑Williams 2004, 30). Lewis‑Williamsconnectsashamanisticorganizationof thecosmostotheneuropsychologicalpropertiesofthehumanmind, emphasizing ‘wired’ experiences in alteredstates of consciousness that ‘include sensations ofpassingthroughavortexortunnelandflight’(Lewis‑Williams2004, 30).His all‑encompassinganduni‑versal interpretation of cave art (as well as othersimilarart,aroundtheworldandthroughouthumanhistory)proposesthatitisintimatelytiedtoshaman‑isticreligiouspractices.Inthiscontext,shamanisticvisions (visual hallucinations perceived in alteredstatesofconsciousnessthatareinducedbysensory

Figure7.1.(b)Dionysiusonpanther’sback,Pellas,Macedonia,colouredpebbles,c.300?@.

Figure7.1.(a)ApolloandCentaur,TheTempleofZeusatOlympia,c.460?@.

91


deprivationorsensualstimulations,includingpsy‑chotropicsubstances,etc.)areresourcesthatbecomesociallyappropriatedandmanipulated.

Lewis‑Williams emphasizes the importance ofparticular animals and hybrid beings with mixedaDributes of animal and human bodies, so‑calledtherianthropic images, in art. Such depictions, ac‑cordingtotheshamanisticinterpretation,arespirit‑animals, i.e. spiritual counterparts ofwild animalswhomayactaspowerfulspiritguidesandhelpersforhunter‑gatherersandfarmers.InhisdetailedanalysisofUpperPalaeolithiccaveart,Lewis‑Williamsassertsthatthedepictionsofspirit‑animalsoncavewalls(ei‑therpaintedorcreatedbyutilizingnaturalprotrusionsof rockornatural stainingon cavewalls), releasedthebeingsfromtheunderworldthattheyinhabited(2002).Cavewallsactedasa ‘livingmembrane’be‑tween thisworldand thenetherworld,akin to theway sculptedmaterials were createdwhereby ‘thecarveroftheimagemerelyreleasedwhatwasalreadyinsidethematerial’(Lewis‑Williams2002,199–200;cf.Ingold2000b, 126). Similarly, at theEarlyNeolithicsite of Çatalhöyük in Turkey, according to Lewis‑Williams,housesmayhaveservedasconstructionsofatieredcosmos,where‘eachreplasteringandrepaint‑ingmayhavebeenanewcelebrationandenactmentoftheemergenceofspirit‑animalsand“goddesses”’(2004,38).

Thisinterpretationofearlyprehistoricartimpor‑tantlyovercomes‘functionalistapproachestoPalaeo‑lithiccaveart[that]havereliedsolelyonaWestern,post‑enlightenmentappreciationofart’(Dowson1998,71),thatisfrequentlyunderstoodasapassiverecordofobservednaturalphenomena.Yet, thisargumentstillbegsthequestion:whyareanimalssopervasivein these early artistic expressions? Lewis‑Williamsargues that ‘the mental imagery we experience inaltered states is overwhelmingly … derived frommemoryandishenceculturallyspecific’(2002,126),hinting at the proximity of hunter‑gatherers andfarmers to animals. However, such an explanationfor the abundant references to the animal realm inartisnotcompletelysatisfactory.Thisexplanationisbasedonapsycho‑cognitiveargumentthatassumesthe universality of visions seen in altered states ofconsciousness as ‘hard‑wired’ in the neurologicalfunctioningofmodernhumanbrain.Allprehistoricartcanthenbereadeasilyasthereflectionofvariousstagesofhallucination.Yet,thereissomethingdeeplyunsatisfactorywiththiskindofargument.

Lewis‑Williams’sargumentisbasedonanunex‑aminedassumptionthatsuchcommensalityofhumanneurologyduringalteredstatesofconsciousnesscouldhavearisenindependentlyinanysocialandcultural

context, being subsequently appropriated as a reli‑giousresource.Inthisway,heleavesunquestionedandunexamined(a)theoriginsofvarioustraditionsofshamanismandtheirpossiblediachronicandspatialdiffusions and/or conversions; and (b) neglects thecontext‑specific historically and regionally situatedcosmologiesandmythologiesoftraditionalsocietiesinthepastandthepresent.Furthermore,onemustquestionwhetherthealteredstateofconsciousnessofashamanistheonlytypeofexperiencethatpromptssuchimage‑making,ormightitalsoderivefromotherformsofliminalexperiencesduringvariousstagesofordinarylife?

ThetheoreticalbackgroundforLewis‑Williams’sunderstanding of the shamanistic practice duringtheUpperPalaeolithicandevenmoresoduringtheNeolithicistheviewofideologyinaMarxiansense,i.e.asfalseconsciousness.EspeciallyduringthePre‑PoDeryNeolithicintheNearEast,accordingtoLewis‑WilliamsandPearce,shamansareseenaspowerfulindividualsthatstructurethelifewaysoftheordinaryfolkbasedontheexclusivityoftheirvisionsduringalteredstatesofconsciousness.Inhisopinion,thiseliteofshamansmusthavereliedonhumanandanimalsacrifices in order to impose a specific worldview.DuringthePre‑PoDeryNeolithicperiodintheNearEastthey,

controlledthetransitiontospiritrealmsbymeansofsacrifice:theyhadthepowertosendpeople,whethersacrificedchildren,speciallyselectedindividualsorcaptives,intotheotherworld…(Lewis‑Williams&Pearce2005,81–2;also126–8).

Tosupporttheirclaims,amongotherexamples,Lewis‑Williams&PearcequoteAmerindianshamanism,andespecially‘verticalshamanism’withtheemphasison‘esotericknowledgethatisrevealedandtransmiDedwithinasmallelite’(Lewis‑Williams&Pearce2005,86–7).

However, it is precisely amongstAmerindiananthropologiststhatacritiquehasbeenraisedwithregard to those anthropological accounts that pri‑marily focuson the shamanisticpracticeas amoreexciting researchvenue at the expense ofdomesticandordinarylife(e.g.Fausto2000;Overing&Passes2000;Vilaça2002).Theseauthorsindicatethatvariousaspectsofdomesticandeverydaylife,suchasfiliationandaffinityinthemakingofkinshipties(e.g.eventheproductionofthechild’sbody)areanalogoustosha‑manisticpracticeofdialoguingwiththenon‑human(animal/spiritandother)entities.Theactofbirthisnotassurancethatthenew‑bornwillbecomehumanandchildrenatthisageareparticularlypronetotheinflu‑enceof‘exterior’forces(Vilaça2002;cf.Astuti1998).Inotherwords,ineverydaylifeacrossAmazoniapeople

92

Chapter7

areconcernedabouthowtomaintaina‘properlyhu‑man identity’ thatcanbe indangernotonly in thepost‑natalperiodduringinfancy,whenthechildisataparticularlyvulnerablestage,butalsothroughout‘variousperiodsofadultlife(especiallyinitiation,firstmenstruation,warfarereclusion,andillness)’(Vilaça2002,349).Hence,mundanelifeinAmazonia,andnotonlyshamanisticpractice, is focusedonthealterityanddifferenceincontinuousaDemptstomaintainlifewithinthetermsofwhatisconsidered‘humanity’.

Moreover,Amerindianperspectivism(seebelow)makesitclearthat‘humanityisnotrestrictedtowhatweconsiderashumanbeings:animalsandspiritsmayalsobehuman,whichmeansthathumanityisaboveallthepositiontobecontinuallydefined’(Vilaça2005,448).Theshamansandtheirknowledgearecertainlyimportantfortheirexplicitnegotiationbetweendif‑ferent‘perspectives’(betweenspirit‑animalsandanillhumanbeing,forinstance).Infact,theshamancanbeconsideredtobe‘chronicallyill’(Vilaça2002,361)asheremainsinacontinuousdialoguewiththe‘exterior’,i.e.asatranslatorbetweenhumans,animalsandothernon‑humansubjectivities.ButanindigenouseverydayunderstandingrevealedbyAmazonianethnographyholdsthattheworldisconstitutedofunstablebodiesthatmayundergotheprocessoftransformationfromonetypeofbeingtoanothernotnecessarilyconnectedtoshamanisticpracticeperse(seealsoIngold2000onthe importanceofmetamorphosis forOjibwa).Thismetamorphiccapacity isacentral featureofallhu‑manity(Vilaça2005,452).

Such understanding significantly damagesLewis‑Williams’sposition,whoimplicitlyorexplic‑itlyarguesthatallearlyprehistoricimagerycanbeinterpreted as the outcome of shamanistic visionsduringalteredstatesofconsciousness.Ifweacceptthepossibility that social reality in thepast couldhavebeenunderstood in termsdifferent fromourown, i.e. as a processual universe of relationshipsbetween different kinds of beings that possess aninherent capacity formetamorphosis, thenvisionsofpowerful shamansduringaltered statesof con‑sciousnessmaynotaxerallbetheexclusiveresourcefromwhichthevariedrangeofimagesweredrawnintheearlyprehistoricart,includingthedepictionsofhybridbeings.

IarguethatinthediscussionsofUpperPalaeo‑lithicandNeolithichybrids, it ismostuseful to fo‑cusoncontextualdetails in reconstructingpossiblespecificities of relational cosmologies that includedhumans, animals andother‑thanhumanbeings foreach regional sequencewhere such images appear(seetwocasestudiesbelow).Althoughtherepresenta‑tionsofhybridbeingscouldderivefromshamanistic

visions,Iwouldarguethat,first,onagenerallevelitremains important to understand social realities ofprehistoryintermsofdifferingideologiesthatareaconstitutivepartofaparticulareverydayreality(cf.Althusser1971)ratherthantounderstandideologyas false consciousness imposed ‘from above’ by aneliteofshamans.Whereinliesapotentialforunder‑standing the ontological grounding of shamanisticpractice ineverydayrealityandnotrestrictingit tovisionsderivingfromalteredstatesofconsciousness.Second,inordertoexaminearchaeologicalevidenceforthesignsofspecificontologies,differentfromourown,hereIdiscussthecaseofAmazonianontologyof relatedness. Themain goal of this exercise is tohighlight the possibility that among various socie‑tiesofOldWorldprehistorywhereoneencountershybridbodyimagery,theirmythologicalvocabularyrenderedinartmayindicatespecificontologies,wherecorporealitywasunderstoodas themain sourceofagency/intentionality.Myfirstgoal is to situate theshamanisticexplanationofhybridbeingsundertherubricofanimality,referringtothefieldofanthropo‑logicalphilosophyopenedupbyFrenchphilosopherGeorgesBataille.

Reinofanimality:GeorgesBataille’stourof

Lascaux

GeorgesBataille(1897–1962)occupiesauniqueplaceinthetraditionofFrenchphilosophicalthought.AshegladlyadmiDed,hewasnotanacademicphilosopher,andherefusedtobeaDachedtoanyofthephilosophi‑calmovementsofhisday,suchasexistentialism,ashe opposed such thinkers as Sartre (Bataille 2005,47–8).Asajournaleditor,hepublishedearlyworksofBarthes,FoucaultandDerridaandinfluencednu‑merousthinkersofthepoststructuralistphilosophicalprovenience.Troubledbyillhealth,hisphilosophicalthought focusedonphenomenasuchasdeath, sex,eroticism, sickness, expenditure and transgression.His thought denies ontological and religious tran‑scendence. Influencedby theGnosticconceptionofmaDer, Bataille envisioned the continuity of ‘base’maDer ‘as an active principle having its own eter‑nal autonomous existence as darkness […] and asevil’(Bataille1970,302).Suchaconceptionof‘base’maDer as active, dark, evil, formless (informe) andoverwhelmedbysilence,goesbeyondphilosophicaltraditionsofidealismandmaterialismandevokes‘theimmensedeathscapesofauniversewithoutimages’(GargeD2002,13).Humanexistenceandthebirthofthesubjectandbeing,accordingtoBataille,representaviolentandtragicseparationfromthe‘base’maDeror‘continuity’(1989).Itistheworldofconsciousness

93


humanity…weenterasacredworld,aworldofholythings(Bataille1986).

Bataille’s explanation for the origin of religiousthoughtdiffersfromthecommondistinctionbetweenanimalityandhumanity‑divinity.ForBataille,animal‑ityistheentrypointtothesacred.

Bataille also discusses the naturalist, preciseexecutionofanimalimagesintheUpperPalaeolithic.Suchnaturalismsharplycontrastswiththewayhu‑mansarerepresented—frequentlyasschematicforms(‘stick’‑likestyle),sometimeswithananimalmaskandusuallyasrepresentationsoftherianthropichybrids.Thisphenomenonisbestexemplifiedbythewidely‑citedshaxscene(alsoknownasthewellorpitscene)fromLascaux.Abeautifullyrendereddyingbisonisapparentlypiercedwithaspear,‘thelifeinsidehimpouringforthfromthebelly’(Kendall2005,27),whileinfrontofitisabird‑facedrepresentationofamanwithbird‑likehands,whofallsbackwards inastiff(dying?)ithyphallicposturewithopenarmsandhissexerect(Fig.7.2).Theinclusionofabirdonastaffsuggests a continuous avian theme. Whether thenearbynaturalisticrepresentationofarhinocerosleav‑ingthesceneiscontemporaneousandmeaningfullyconnectedtothedescribedsetisdebated.ThissceneisthemostwidelydiscussedimageoftheUpperPal‑aeolithicparietalartandvariousinterpretationshavebeenoffered.TheinitialinterpretationofAbbéBreuil,that thescenerepresentsahuntingaccidentwithadyinghunterinfrontofawoundedbison,hasbeenrejectedasnaïvebymostauthors.Asearlyas1952,H.Kirchnerwrotethatthescenerepresentsashamanor

andthehumanworldofwork,prohibitionsandtaboosthatBataillecontrastsagainsttheworldofanimalityandtransgression.Hisanalysisbuildsonanimalityand its antithesis:work/understanding. Bataille be‑lievedthatinsearchingforecstasythesubjectdesirestoexperiencelossofbeing.

Theactionsofreligioussacrificeandoferoticfusion,in which the subject seeks to be ‘loosed from itsrelatednesstotheI’andtomakeroomforareestab‑lished‘continuityofBeing,’areexemplaryforhim.Bataille,too,pursuesthetracesofaprimordialforcethatcouldhealthediscontinuityorrixbetweentherationallydisciplinedworldofworkandoutlawedother of reason. He imagines this overpoweringreturn to a lost continuity as the eruption of ele‑mentsopposedtoreason,asabreath‑takingactofself‑de‑limiting. In thisprocess ofdissolution, themonadicallyclosed‑offsubjectivityofself‑assertiveand mutually objectifying individuals is dispos‑sessed and cast down into the abyss (Habermas1987,99–100).

WhilethementionedaspectsofBataille’sphilosophi‑cal thought arewell‑knownand frequently evokedinsuchdiversefieldsasanthropological(e.g.Taussig1993; 1999) and architectural theory (e.g. Kwinter2001;Bois&Krauss1997),Bataille’sfascinationwithprehistoric art is rarely discussed (but see Taussig1993, 85; Borić 2005, 52–3). Bataille’s interest, as aneducatedgeneralreader,intracingthehistoricaltra‑jectoryofsomeofhisphilosophicalconcepts inthefieldofprehistoricresearchhasrecentlybeenbroughttolightwiththepublicationofhisessaysandlecturesonthetopicofprehistoricart(Bataille2005).UpperPalaeolithicparietalartparticularlyfascinatedBataille.Thecentralthemeofhistextinthelavishlyillustratedmonograph,Lascauxor theBirthofArt (1955), is thepassagefromanimaltoman,i.e.thebirthofthesub‑ject.Whilecloselyfollowingandacknowledgingtheauthorityofspecialistprehistorians,particularlyhiscontemporariessuchasAbbéBreuil,Bataille‘find[s]somethingmissinginthegreaterpartofthewritingsthatdealwiththeprehistorictimes’(1955,30).Asaresult, hedeveloped a theory that incorporates thearchaeologicalevidenceofearlyprehistory,withspe‑cialreferencestovisualart,intoawiderframeworkofphilosophicalanthropology.

Bataille sees the existence of prohibitions ascharacteristically human behaviour and the maindifferencebetweenhumansandotheranimals.Theearliestprohibitionsare related todeath (includingprohibitionagainstmurder)andsexualreproduction(includingprohibitionsrelatedtoincest).As‘theen‑duringanimalityinusforeverintroducesrawlifeandnatureintocommunity,…prohibitionsexisttoquelltheseuprisingsandspreadoilontheseaofinsurgent

animal passion and unruliness’ (Bataille 1955, 37).Moreover, such surges of animality become chan‑nelled through acts of intentional expenditure andexcessivewasteatthetimeofholidaysandfeasts,thephenomenonthatBataillereferstoastransgression.Itisthroughtransgressionthatonefinds‘thesourceofecstasyandthecoreofreligion’(Bataille1955,37),i.e.thesacredworld.HereBataillepointstoshamanisticreligiouspracticeasamediumoftransgression.

Bataille suggests that animal images found inLascauxandothercavesareevidence‘oftheanimalitythatthey[humans]wereshedding’(1955,115).Palaeo‑lithichumanschoseto‘fleetheirhumanity;thesemenrefusethedestinythatdeterminesthem:theyoverflowinto savagery, the night of animality…’ (2005, 65).Theseeruptionsof animalityare radicallydifferentfromthelatertendencytoreduceanimalstothings,which emphasized a discontinuity, a fundamentaldifferencebetweenhumansandanimals:

[a]ssoonashumanbeingsgivereintoanimalnature,in somewaywe enter theworld of transgressionforming the synthesisbetweenanimalnature and

94

Chapter7

medicine‑manwhoassumessomecharacteristicsofabirdduringtranceinordertoachieveextracorporeal(aerial) travel. A shamanistic interpretation of thesceneisfurtherelaboratedinmorerecentdiscussionsbyDavenport& Jochim (1988) andLewis‑Williams(2002,262–6).

Batailleacceptsthatthescenerepresentsasha‑man,buthisexplanationisdifferent: ‘[the]shaman[is]expiating,throughhisowndeath,themurderofthebison’(Bataille1955,75).Here,Batailleinsiststhatmurderisconsideredtabooandaprimevalsin.

…[B]ypaintingtheanimalsthattheykilled,theyen‑visionedsomethingotherthantheirearthlydesires:whattheywantedtoresolvewasthehauntingques‑tionofdeath.Certainlydeathdidnotceaseterrifyingthem,but theyovercameit through identification,throughareligioussympathywiththeirvictims.Thissympathywasinasenseabsurd,sincetheydidkillthem.Butitwasprofoundinthisparticularsense:thatbykillingthem,theymadethemdivine.Andinitsessence,thedivineisthatwhichexceedsdeath(Bataille2005,169).

The death of the shaman is frequently not a ‘real’death,butadeathnecessarytomakeajourneytoan‑otherworld(Lewis‑Williams2002,265)ortobecomeanewpersonthroughtheprocessofbodymetamor‑phosis(e.g.Ingold2000a,b).Ahuntermayfacegreatdangerwhenkillingananimal,sincebeneaththeskinofahuntedanimalonemayencounteradangerousspirit.Thehuntedanimalmustbeincomplicitywithitsownmurderifthehunteristoavoidmisfortune,sicknessorevendeath(e.g.Ingold2000b,121–3;Vilaça2005).EthnographicevidencemaysupportBataille’s

notion of expiation, of asking themurderedanimalforforgivenessbyofferingasymbolicdeathofashamanwhometamorphosedintoananimal.Theliminalityofshaman’sexistenceinbetweenworldsismostaptlychar‑acterizedonthebasisofAmazonianethnography in the following way:‘Thesoulofshamans,theonlypeo‑ple to have an ever‑present soul, issimplyananimalbody’(Vilaça2002,361).Theanimalsarerepresentedintheir naturalistic beauty, while theman is represented in a grotesquestyle,asachildlikecaricature.Thereare a number of similar therian‑thropic,frequentlyformless,figuresthatarefoundinUpperPalaeolithicparietalart(seeBataille1955,133–6)(Fig.7.3).

Thedichotomybetweenanimalworld(asnature)andhumanworld

(asculture)hasbeen,forbeDerorworse,presentinanthropologicalaccountstoo.Forinstance,inAma‑zonianethnography,amongtheBarasana,aTukano‑speakinggroup,ithasbeenarguedthatthispassagefromanimalitytohumanityisimplicitinbeliefsheldbythisgroupinrelationtochildrenandthepossibilityoftheirtransformationintoananimal:

ThatanunbornsoulispartofaworldthatincludesanimalsisevidencedbythefactthattapirsandotherTaking‑inPeople…trytosuckthechildintotheiranus—areversalofbirth—astheyarejealousofthelossofoneoftheirnumber…Birthisthuslikeapassagefromtheanimalworld(nature,He)tothehumanworld(culture)(Hugh‑Jones1979,141quotedbyVilaça2002,358–9)

This case and other similar ethnographic accounts(e.g.DaMaDa1976,90–91quotedbyVilaça2002,359)wouldaccordwiththemainanimalitythesis intheworkofGeorgesBataillewhendiscussingprehistoriccaveartasavisualrenderingofthisprocessofnego‑tiationbetweenanimalityandhumanity.Pervasiveasthisnarrativemaybe,therehasbeenagrowingbodyofrelevantanthropologicalliteraturethathighlightsdifficulties with this opposition between animalityand humanity in a critical way. The main critiquelaunchedbyseveralauthorswhoseworkfallsunderthe rubric ofAmerindianperspectivismwarns thatthese types of accounts remain confined to the toofamiliarWestern conceptual dichotomy of ‘Nature’versus ‘Culture’. This critique provides a specificreadingoftheAmazonianethnographywithregardto the classic anthropological issue of kinship and

Figure7.2.TheShaNscene,Lascaux,UpperPalaeolithic.

95


relatedness by emphasizing the importance of thebodyas theprivilegeddimension indifferentiatingamongkindsofbeings.Thetheoreticalrelevanceofsuchareadinggoesbeyondtheregionalconfinesofanethnographyasitmayhelpindisplacingthecom‑placenceofourcommonsenseunderstandingswheninterpretingprehistoricart.

Bodyanditsmetamorphosis:thesiteof

ontologicaldifferentiation

Thetheoreticalposition incurrentanthropologicalthought known asAmerindian perspectivism canbedescribed,ontheonehand,‘asalabelforasetofideas and practices found throughout indigenousAmerica’ (ViveirosdeCastro 2004, 5), and, on theotherhand,asanethnographicallygroundedexten‑sion of specific theoretical concepts toucheduponbyvarious thinkersof theWesternepisteme, suchasGillesDeleuzeandBrunoLatouramongothers.ThemainthesisofAmerindianperspectivismisthattheethnographicevidenceofindigenousAmazoniaindicatesaveryspecificontology,fundamentallydif‑ferentfromourWesternontologythatdominatestheanthropologicaldiscourses,suchastheembodimentparadigm(e.g.Csordas1999).Theontologytowhichthemostwidespreadanthropologicaldiscoursessub‑scribecouldbedescribedasmulticulturalist—singlereality(nature)andmanyculturalexpressionsofthissameunity.Suchacommonunderstandingassumesthat the body is a universal given, while subjectshaveparticularspiritsintheworldofmanymean‑ings. In contrast, forvarious indigenouspeople inAmazonia(andthisthinkingisnotconfinedonlytoAmazonia:cf.Ingold2000b;Leenhardt1979quotedbyVilaça2005,448),allbeings,humanandnon‑hu‑man,areendowedwiththesamespirit(animism),but thesiteofmaindifferentiationbetweendiffer‑entkindsofbeingsisthebody.InsteadofWesternmulticulturalism,theAmazonianthoughtisfoundedon the logic of ‘multinaturalism’—many naturesandoneculture.Subsequently,thewaypeopleseetheworlddependsontheperspectivetheyoccupy,whichisdeterminedbythekindofbodytheyhave:‘…thesetofhabitsandprocessesthatconstitutebod‑iesispreciselythelocationfromwhichtheidentityanddifferenceemerge’(ViveirosdeCastro1998,480).Commensality(forinstance,beingabletosharefoodorresidinginthesamelocation)istheaffirmationofsharingthesameperspectivethatisconstantlyfab‑ricatedbyconstructingbodilygroundedmemories(Vilaça2002;2005,454).

Inthisontology,humanitycharacterizesallbe‑ingsintheirinteractionwiththeirownspecies:

…individualsofthesamespeciesseeeachother(andeachotheronly)ashumansseethemselves,thatisasbeingendowedwithhumanfigureandhabits,seeingtheirbodilyandbehaviouralaspectsintheformofhumanculture.…Whereweseeamuddysalt‑lickonariverbank,tapirsseetheirbigceremonialhouse…Suchdifferenceofperspective—notapluralityofviewsofasingleworld,butasingleviewofdifferentworlds—cannotderivefromthesoul,sincethelat‑teristhecommonoriginalgroundofbeing.Rathersuchdifferenceislocatedinthebodilydifferencesbetweenspecies,forthebodyanditsaffections(inSpinoza’ssense,thebody’scapacitytoaffectandbeaffectedbyotherbodies)isthesiteandinstrumentofontologicaldifferentiationandreferentialdisjunction

Figure7.3.Theriokephalicbeingengravedonapebble,LaMadeleine,Dordogne,UpperPalaeolithic.(Photo:MuséedesAntiquitésNationales,Saint‑Germain‑en‑Layu.)

96

Chapter7

(ViveirosdeCastro2004,6).Such cosmology holds that humanity rather thananimality is the meta‑condition of all beings, bothhumans and animals.Animals lost their humanityaccordingtoAmerindianmythsandthehumansarestrugglingtopreservetheirownhumanityinthefaceofthreateningexteriorpowers.InAmazonianthought,deathisnevercausedbynaturalcausesbutisalwaystheoutcomeoftheinfluenceofmalignantagency(e.g.Taylor1996,202;Vilaça2005,453).Moreover,whatcharacterizes the relationality between human andvariousfiguresofalterity(forinstance,wildanimalsorenemies)isthecontinuallyshixingpredator/preyrelationship(e.g.Vilaça2005,455).

Thisthoughtholdsthatbodiesarecharacterizedbyasignificanttransformability.Illnessanddeatharethemosttypicaltypesoftransformationwhereahu‑managentbecomesthepreyofaparticularpredatorin the formofenemy,animalorspirit.HencethereisawidespreadfearofmetamorphosisinAmazonia(ViveirosdeCastro1998).Theonlyhumanscapableof interacting with different classes of beings areshamans.Theycanassumedifferentperspectives,i.e.metamorphizeintodifferentbodies.

…Amerindianperspectivismhasanessentialrela‑tionwithshamanismandwith thevalorizationofthehunt…theanimalistheextra‑humanprotoypeoftheOther,maintainingprivilegedrelationswithotherprototypicalfiguresofalterity,suchasaffines…Thishuntingideologyisalsoaboveallanideologyofshamans,insofarasitisshamanswhoadminis‑tertherelationsbetweenhumansandthespiritualcomponentoftheextra‑humans,sincetheyalonearecapableofassumingthepointofviewofsuchbeingsand,inparticular,arecapableofreturningtotellthetale(ViveirosdeCastro1998,472)

Thisunderstandingputsanimportantemphasisontheshamanisticpracticeasbothapracticalandeso‑tericideology.ShamanisticvisionsandalteredstatesofconsciousnessareanimportantpracticalresourceinmaintainingdailylifeinAmazonia(e.g.shamanistichealing or visions searches: cf. Taylor 1996, 207–9).Such a view supports the importance placed uponshamanismasarguedbyLewis‑Williams(seeabove),andmayindeedsuggestthatsomeofthosehybridsfound in prehistoric art depict powerful shamanswhosebodieschangeinordertoseetheworldfromadifferentperspective in their encounterswith the‘exterior’.Atthesametime,thisclaimismadewithoutassumingthatshamanisticideologywasexperiencedasfalseconsciousnessbutasatruthoftheeverydayreality structured by long and complex mythicalgenealogies.Furthermore,thisexplanationdoesnotneedtorelyon‘hard‑wired’experiencesofthehuman

brainduringalteredstatesofconsciousnessasclaimedbyLewis‑Williams.Moreover,astheAmazoniancaseshows, the everyday experience and not only sha‑manisticpracticecanbecharacterizedbyaconstantstruggleinthefabricationofthehumanbody,whichattheswirlofamalignantinfluencemayslipintotherealmofanimalityunderstoodasexteriority,whichinpracticaltermstranslatesasillnessordeath.

As suggested on the basis of theAmerindianperspectivism,oneneedstotheoreticallycontextualizeanddissectBataille’snotionofanimality.Toooxen,thenotionofanimalityisputinasharpoppositiontothenotionofhumanity,andthisdichotomyre‑enactstheWesternconceptualschemataof‘Nature’versus‘Culture’inwhichthecultureisfabricatedandnatureisgiven.Insuchaccounts,touseBataille’svocabulary,it is the ‘passage from animality to humanity’ thatbecomes underlined. Conversely, the Amerindianthoughtmakesaclaimthatitisnaturethatisfabri‑catedandculture(seenas‘humanity’thatsharesthecommonvital force/spirit amongdifferent kindsofbeings)isgiven,universalandinnate.Insuchacon‑ceptualuniverse,whichalsomighthavecharacterizedvariousconceptualuniversesinthepast,therelianceon our own ontological postulates is of liDle help.Amerinidianperspectivismmay, thus,beusedasatheoretical proxy case to challenge our conceptualschemesagainstthearchaeologicaldata.

Ontheotherhand,theexamplesfromAmazo‑nian ethnography may indicate the importance ofsomepointsputforthbyBatailleininterpretingtheUpperPalaeolithic artistic depictions. Inparticular,differing stylistic depictions of human and animalbodies in the situationof contactbetweendifferentkindsofbeings(seetheLascauxShaxscene,Fig.7.2)seemtoindicateanunderstandingbywhichthemainlocus of differentiation between different kinds ofbeingsisexactlythebodilyappearancethatbecamerenderedinthisart.

Whilenotdoingfulljusticeinthissummarytothecomplexityofargumentspresentedinrecentdis‑cussionsofAmerindianperspectivism,itisinstructivetoclosethisdiscussionbyfocusingonthequestionof reproducing an image in indigenousAmazonia.Theimagehereisrelatedtotheconceptofsoulasarepresentationofthebodyorthe‘otherofthebody’inanotherrealm.

…thesoulasanactualizationofthebodyinanotherworld(whichmeanswithinanothersetofrelations)isevidentintheassociationtheWari’makebetweensoul,shadow,reflection,andtraceslexbythebody,allnamedinanidenticalmanner: jam‑…Thisas‑sociationisnotrestrictedtotheWari’andis,infact,widespread. … among the Araweté, Viveiros de

97


Castro…reportsthatîisthetermforshadow,im‑age,reproductions(suchasrecordingofavoice,forexample),aswellasbeingthetermforvitalprinciple.(Vilaça2005,453)

From such an understanding stems an importantimplication thatdepictions of a rangeof images inprehistoricart,includingtherianthropicimages,mighthavebeenrelatedto theunderstandingbywhichaspiritualagencyfromanotherworldisitselfdepictedorispurelybeingreleasedbytheactofdepiction.Inthisway,renderedimagesmighthavebeenreificationsofpowerfulforcesthatcomeoutofnon‑persons,i.e.physicalsubstances(cavewalls,replasteredwallsofbuildings, stone boulders, etc.; see below) that areendowed by a relational agency (Gell 1998; Ingold2000a).Inordertoexplorethisthesisfurther,Icon‑sidertheconceptofmimesis.

Eikōnandmimesis

HereIdiscussthenatureofmimeticactivity,i.e.theway ‘reality’ becomes reproduced through imageson thebasisof thePlatonic theoryofeikōn and itssubsequentphilosophicalrefigurings.Whenconsid‑eringimagesandmimeticreproductionof‘reality’,this philosophical tradition distinguishes betweensimple mirroring of semblances and image‑mak‑ing that exposes the true being of what becomesrepresented.Artistic(mimetic)practicemayactasamediumthatexposesamoreprofoundrealitythanthatencountered in theworldofeverydayhumanexperience.

ThetheoryofmnemicpresencethatexplainsthepersistenceofimagesinthemindisfoundintextsbybothPlatoandAristotle.InPlato’sTheaetetuswefindthefirstdiscussionofmemory in theGreekphilo‑sophical tradition,usingthemetaphorofaslabofwaxwithimprints(typoi)todescribethepersistenceofimagesinthemind.Hereoneencountersoneofthegreatestaporiasofmemory:animagethatstandsforanabsentthing(cf.Krell1990;Ricoeur2004).Closelyrelatedtothequestionofmemoryandimagesthatareretainedinthemindisthequestionofthereli‑ability of the images that remain, or that becomememorized.Hence the themeof likeness (eikōn) isfoundinanumberofPlato’sdialogues. InSophist,thediscussionofidol‑makingdistinguishesbetweensculptureandpaintingsthatmaintaintheexactpro‑portionsandcoloursoftherepresentedperson,andsemblances in which proportions are distorted inordertomake,forinstance,acolossalworkappearwell‑proportionedaccordingtohumangeometry.InthetenthbookofPlato’sRepublicSocratesandGlau‑condiscussthesophisticartofmirroring:

…doyounotperceivethatyouyourselfwouldbeabletomakeallthesethingsinaway?

…Youcoulddoitmostquicklyifyoushouldchoosetotakeamirrorandcarryitabouteverywhere.Youwouldspeedilyproducethesunandallthethingsinthesky,andspeedilytheearthandyourselfandtheotheranimalsandimplementsandplantsandalltheobjectsofwhichwejustnowspoke.

Yes, he said, the appearance of them, but not, ofcourse,thebeingsintheirtrueself‑showing[myempha‑sis].(Sophist233e–4ecitedbyKrell1990,34)

This dialoguedistinguishes the ‘appearance’ of be‑ings from their ‘self‑showing’ and brings to mindHeidegger’s discussion of the three kinds of pro‑duction: thegodproducing the idea, thecraxsmanproducing the thingand thepainterproducing theimage.The image isproducedby ‘leading forwardintoradiantoutwardappearanceorprofile,abring‑ingoutofconcealmentandintopresence’(Krell1990,34).Themimeticrepresentationofanimageexposesthefundamentalbeingofagod‑likeideaexecutedasathing.

What isdecisivefortheGreek‑Platonicconceptofmimēsisorimitationisnotreproductionorportrai‑ture,notthefactthatthepainterprovidesuswiththesamethingonceagain;whatisdecisiveisthatthisispreciselywhathecannotdo,thatheisevenless capable than thecraxsmanofduplicating thesame thing. It is thereforewrongheaded to applytomimēsisnotionsof ‘naturalistic’or‘primitivistic’copyingandreproducing.Imitationissubordinateproduction.Themimētēsisdefinedinessencebyhispositionofdistance;suchdistanceresultsfromthehierarchyestablishedwithregardtowaysofproduc‑tionand in the lightofpureoutwardappearance,being.(Heidegger1979,185).

ThiswayofunderstandingimagescanalsobefoundintheOrthodoxChristiantraditionoficon‑making.Iconsarepaintedpicturesofsaints thatacquirenu‑minousqualitiesinaverymaterialway.Similarly,wecanthinkofimagesfoundonthewallsofPalaeolithiccavesashavingaverymaterialeffectonthosePalaeo‑lithic humans who descended into those secludedspaces.Iwouldclaimthatonecouldmakeausefulconnectionherebetweenthephilosophicaldiscussionofeikōnandthemeaningandfunctionofarangeofimages found in early prehistoric art. Themimeticprocessof image‑making shouldnotbe consideredanaturalisticrepresentationorcopyofthemundanerealityofearlyprehistory,butcanmoreappropriatelybeconnectedtothedesiretoexposethetruestructureof being, or, in termsofAmerindianperspectivism(seeabove),thesoulcounterpartofthebodyinan‑otherworld. Ifunderstood in thisway, images thatappear in the course of theUpperPalaeolithic and

98

Chapter7

theNeolithicwereamediumthroughwhicha‘true’reality(animalityorimmanenceaccordingtoBataille)becameexposed.

ThePlatonictheoryofeikōnpointstotheonto‑logicalproblemofmaking‑presentandself‑showing,whichisatthecoreofamimeticact.Humanformsrepresentedastherianthropicimages(Fig.7.4)onthecavewallsalongwithmore‘naturalistic’representa‑

tionsofawiderangeofanimalsintheUpperPalaeo‑lithicparietalartsuggestnotacopiedrealityoftheeveryday,butrathertheworldofexposedanimalityencounteredindreamsorindeedwhileexperiencingalteredstatesofconsciousness. In thisotherreality,ananimalmaskalwaysaccompanieshumanoidform(Fig.7.5).Thepresenceofananimalmaskindicatesthatsimilarlytovariousethnographicinstances,someofwhichhavebeendescribedhere,itisthebodymeta‑morphosis(i.e.thechangeofperspectivebyacquiringanewbodyform)thatenablesthecommunicationandcross‑overbetweendifferentkindsofbeings.Inwhatfollows,Iprovidetwoexamplesofanimal‑humanhy‑briddepictionsrelatedtothebeginningsoftheEarlyNeolithic, inanaDempttoexplorespecificregionalandcontextualmeaningsaDachedtothispractice.

TherianthropicimagesintheNeolithic

Apartfromthepreviouslymentionedimagesrepre‑sentinghuman–animalhybridsfoundintheEuropeanUpperPalaeolithicart,suchimagesarealsofrequentlyfoundamongPre‑NeolithicandEarlyNeolithicsocie‑tiesintheeasternMediterranean.Here,Iwillbrieflyillustratemypreviousdiscussiononthebasisoftwocasestudiesfromthiswiderregion:LepenskiVirandÇatalhöyük.

Danubianhybrids:LepenskiVirAn obvious example of therianthropic images, notmentionedintherecentworkInsidetheNeolithicMindbyLewis‑Williams&Pearce(2005),whichtreatsothersuchimageryforthegivenperiod,isfoundattheMe‑solithic–EarlyNeolithicsiteofLepenskiVirinsouth‑eastEurope(c.9300–5700cal.~�:Borić&Dimitrĳević2007).Heresculptedboulders,depictinghuman–fishhybridbeings(Figs.7.6&7.10),werefoundintrap‑ezoidal buildings, frequently around rectangularstone‑linedhearths (Borić2005;Srejović1969;1972;Srejović&Babović1983).ThisregionaltraditionhasrootsinthelocalMesolithicsequenceandisconfinedtoseDlementsfoundonbothbanksoftheDanubeintheareaknownastheDanubeGorges(Borić2002a,b;Borić&Miracle2004;Radovanović1996).Theappear‑anceofart inthetrapezoidalbuildingsatLepenskiVirfromaround6300–5900cal.~�ischronologicallycontemporaneous with the appearance of the firstEarlyNeolithiccommunities inthewiderregionofthecentralBalkans.

Anearlyexampleofanthropomorphicrepresen‑tationinthisregioncomesfromtheLateMesolithicsiteofVlasac,whichissituatedintheimmediatevicin‑ityofLepenskiVir(Srejović&Letica1978).Herewefindaschematicrepresentationofahumanbodyin‑

Figure7.4.Human–animalhybridmalebodyengravedonabone,Mas‑d’Azil(Ariége),11,000–9000?@.(PhotoMuséedesAntiquitésNationales,Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye.)

Figure7.5.Theriokephalicbeing(shaman?),LesTroisFrères,UpperPalaeolithic.(ReproducedaNerBreuil1979,fig.130.)

99


cisedonastoneboulder(Fig.7.7),whichcouldalsoberelatedtosimilar‘formless’imagesfrequentlyfoundduring the Upper Palaeolithic period (see above).Around6300cal.~�,anumberof‘representational‑ist’,geometricandaniconicsculptedbouldersbecameanimportantmediumofsocial/ideological/religiousexpressionthatatleastinpartmusthavebeenrelatedtotheappearanceofthefirstNeolithiccommunitiesin the wider region. Although boulders appear atseveralsitesduringthisperiod,theyarebyfarmostabundantatLepenskiVir,whichisalsotheonlysitewheretherepresentationsofhybridfacesarefound(Figs.7.8&7.10).Apartfromanumberofexplicitly‘representationalist’imageswiththeclearestdepictionofheadsbearingmixedhumanandanimalfeatures,otherboulderswere frequentlycarvedbyapplyingonlygeometricmotifsover theirsurfaces.Yet, theirround or sometimes elongated shape and carvedmotifsindicatethattheseapparentlynon‑representa‑tionalboulderscouldalsostandforbodiesoffish‑likebeings,possiblyindicatingaparticularstateofbodymetamorphosis(Borić2005).

Palaeodietary data from the region indicate astrong reliance on fish throughout the Mesolithicperiod(Bonsalletal.1997;Borićetal.2004;Borić&Dimitrĳević2005).Oneof thespecialties inrelationtofishing in thisregion is thepresenceofsturgeonremains (Borić 2002b).Although various species offishremainedanimportantsourceofproteininthedietaxer6300cal.~�andduringtheEarlyNeolithicperiod,onthebasisofstableisotopedataitseemsthatat leastapartofthepopulationduringthisperiod,andparticularlythoseburiedatthecentralsiteofLep‑enskiVir,abandonedahighrelianceonfishthathadcharacterized theMesolithicdiet. Since this changelargelycoincideswiththeappearanceofthebouldertraditionandfish/humanhybrids’depictions,oneistempted to interpret this dietary change, althoughnotentirely,asaconsequenceofspecificprohibitions,includingtaboosagainsteatingatleastcertaintypesoffish(Radovanović1997).

Thissuggestioncouldbereinforcedonthebasisoftheavailablecontextualdata.Bothrepresentational‑istaswellasgeometricbouldersfromLepenskiVirinseveralinstancescommemorateddeceasedindividu‑als,henceconnectingtherealmofthedeadandtheliving (Borić 2005). Representations of human–fishhybrids and their associationswith at least severalburiedindividualsatLepenskiVir,stronglyindicateabelief in thepossibilityofhumanmetamorphosisintoacertainkindoffishbeing.Suchabeliefmighthavebecomeadominantviewintheperiodaxer6300~�,whichmatches thepaDernof the stable isotopedata.Forinstance,intheAmazonianethnographythe

fearofmetamorphosisintoacertainkindofanimalcloselyrelatedtohumanscomesoutofthehorrorofeatingthehuman(one’skin)who‘lurks’intheani‑malskin(ViveirosdeCastro1998,481).Thedeadareherenotunderstoodashumansbutasspiritsthatareintimatelyrelatedtoanimals:‘[t]hedeadarelogicallyaDractedtothebodiesofanimals;thisiswhytodie

Figure7.6.Hybridhuman–fishboulderartworksfoundinsituaroundastonerectangularhearthinthecentreoftrapezoidalbuildingHouseXLIV/57,LepenskiVir.

Figure7.7.Incisedhuman‑likeformonastoneboulder,Dwelling2a,Vlasac,c.7300–6500?@.(ANerSrejović&Letica1978,T.LXIX.)

100

Chapter7

istotransformintoananimal…asitistotransformintootherfiguresofbodilyalterity,suchasaffinesandenemies’(ViveirosdeCastro1998,482).

Onlytwoinstancesofrepresentationalistboul‑dersassociatedwith thedeceasedwerereportedatLepenski Vir and in both cases the deceasedwerechildren(Fig.7.9;cf.Borić&Stefanović2004).Theseexamplesofboulderscommemoratingthedeceased,alongwithothertypesofrepresentationalistbouldersnot found in association with the deceased, likelypointtoaspecificiconographyofdepictingtheface(andeyesinparticular)thatisrelatedtoprescribedstagesofembodimentconnectedtoparticularageandgendercharacterizationofthedeceased(Borić2005).However,oneisalsotemptedtothinkofthenarrativevalueoftheseexamplesinobjectifyingthemetamor‑phosisofthesetwochildrenwhoperhapsdiedinaparticularlyominousway.Byplacingthesebouldersinassociationwiththeburials,thelivingmighthaveactedinordertoassuretheprescribedwayofmeta‑morphizing into the totemic animal. These imagesseemtoobjectifyaparticularideaof(atleastcertainindividuals’)mutationindeath.Here,thehybridityof the represented boulder body associatedwith aparticulardeceasedwarnsoftheliminalzonethatthedeceasedhasentered. It is thebodythat isaffectedbythechangeoftopologicalordersasthemainsiteofontologicaldifferentiation:theimageofthebodyretainstheelementsofhumanityandacquiresanewelementofanimalityinitsdepiction(Figs.7.8&7.10).

Thedeathinthiswaydoesrepresentamajorshixofone’sperspectiveandthechangeofthatperspectiveisunderlinedwiththemutationofthebodyform.

WheredoesthetraditionoftheboulderartworksfromLepenskiVirleavetheshamanisticinterpreta‑tionofLewis‑Williamswithregard toothersimilartheriantropic and geometric imagery found in theNeolithic?Forinstance,arangeofgeometricimagesfoundonLepenskiVirboulders(Fig.7.8),accordingtothetypeofanalysismadebyLewis‑Williams&Pearceinothercasestudies(Lewis‑Williams2002;Lewis‑Wil‑liams&Pearce2005),couldeasilyberelatedtovisionsduringaltered statesof consciousness.Contrarily, Iprefertoseethesemotifsasanexpressionofcontext‑specific paDerns of a particular being‑in‑the‑world

Figure7.8.Sculptedbouldershowingahuman–fishhybridbeing,HouseXLIV/57,LepenskiVir,c.6200–5900?@.

Figure7.9.(a)ChildBurial61inHouse40and(b)sculptedboulderdepictinghuman–fishhybridfacefoundabovetheheadofthechild,LepenskiVir,c.6200–5900?@.

101


toauniversalinterpretationthatseesthesemotifsasanexpressionof‘hard‑wired’experiencesinalteredstatesofconsciousness.Bethatasitmay,whatseemspossibleisthattheevidencefromLepenskiVirandothersitesinthisregionindicatesthattheidea(fear?)ofhumanmetamorphosisintohybridfishbeingsde‑pictedonsomeofthebouldersmighthavebecomeapredominantbeliefaxer6300cal.~�,whichinturnmight have triggered taboos toward the intake ofcertainspeciesoffish.Suchbeliefsmighthavebeenconnectedtoshamanisticpractice,asshamansmusthavebeen those individualswhowereable to ‘see’thesedifferentperspectivesthatdifferentbodiesoc‑cupied,i.e.differenttypesofbeingsintherealmofanimality.However,sincethesculptedboulderswerepractically found ineverybuildingatLepenskiVirandsinceitisunlikelythatsolelyshamansinhabitedbuildings at this site, it seemsmore likely that theunderstandingoftheobsessionwiththepossibilityofhumanmetamorphosiswassharedacrossthesocialmatrixatthisandperhapsotherneighbouringsites.Amongotherthings,thisideaofmetamorphosisandchangeofperspectivemighthaverelatedtothepos‑sibleinfluxofnewpeopleandnewpracticesaroundthis time in thewiderregion,requiringnegotiationofdifferentfiguresofalterity,beitanimalorforeignhumanbodies.

Anatolianhybrids:ÇatalhöyükÇatalhöyükisalargemoundsituatedinsouth‑centralAnatolia with a continuous occupation between c.7400and6200cal.~�(Hodder&Cessford2004,fig.1).Theorganizationofbuildingactivitiesanddailylife at this site followed a strictly prescribed set ofrulesthatappliedtoeverybuildingatthesitewhenitcametothearrangementofbuildingspaceortheprescribedlifecycleofeachofthesespaces(Hodder&Cessford2004).Thebest‑knownaspectofthissiteistheabundanceandtherangeofpaintedimageryfoundonthewallsofanumberofbuildings(Mellaart1967;Hodder1990;2006).Largeplasteredbucraniawere alsopart of buildings’ interiors. The renewedworkatÇatalhöyükindicatesthattherewerenomajordifferencesbetweenbuildingsintermsofthepossibledistinctionintoshrinesanddomesticareasonthebasisoftheaccumulationofparticularlychargedaspectsofsymbolism(e.g.presenceofburials,elaboratepaintings,buildingsize,etc.).Asuggestionwasmadethatsuchasituationindicatesthathouseswerelociofsocialrela‑tionswithnocentralofficeofpriestsorotherfiguresofauthority(Hodder&Cessford2004).

Withregardtotherianthropicimagesofhumans,the original excavator of the site, James Mellaart,noticedthatthelegsofsomevulturesfoundpainted

inShrineVII.8appearashuman legs (1967,82,figs.14–15) (Fig.7.11).Andon the innerwallsofhouses,vulturesarefrequentlyassociatedwithheadlesshu‑manfigures.JustasintheUpperPalaeolithicparietalart,humanfiguresatthissiteappearaselaboratedsil‑houeDes,incontrasttoamore‘naturalistic’renderingofanimals(Fig.7.12);theimplicationofthisbeingtheneedtounderlinethedifferencebetweenhumanandanimalrealmsbyadifferentstyleofdepictingbodyforms, and possibly the non‑mundane character ofthedepictedworld.Althoughhumansdonotassumeananimalmask,theyareshownwithleopardskinsaroundtheirwaists(seeHodder2006),whichmight

Figure7.10.Sculptedboulderdepictinghuman–fishhybrid(beluga?),HouseXLIV/57,LepenskiVir,c.6200–5900?@.

Figure7.11.VultureswithhumanlegsdepictedonthewallofMellaart’s‘ShrineVII.8’,Çatalhöyük.(Photo:JamesMellaart.)

102

Chapter7

haveheldsomeprotectivepowerinthenetherworld,whichthesescenesmighthaverepresented.Here,too,itseemsthattheartisticrepresentationoftheworldrevealsamoreprofoundrealitythanasimplerepro‑ductionofeverydayroutine.

Onerecentdiscoveryfromthissiteisofparticu‑larrelevancetomydiscussionoftherianthropicim‑ages.Itrelatestoastampsealofahybriddeitywithitshumanoidbodyandfrontandhind legsraisedupwards andwith an animal (bear?) head (11652.X1,Summit)(2005StampSealArchiveReport,hDp://www.catalhoyuk.com/)(Fig.7.13).Thisisauniquefindand itfinally solves themysteryof the iconicroleofahumanoidformfoundmouldedonnumer‑ousbuildingsatthissitewithitsfrontandhindlegsraisedupwardsinthesamewayasonthissealstamp(cf.Mellaart1967).SuchsculptedimagescomingoutofthenorthernwallsofbuildingsatÇatalhöyükoc‑cupiedthedominantpositioninbuildings(Fig.7.14).ThishybridbeingmusthavehadanimportantplaceinthemythologyoftheÇatalhöyükoccupants.Theprevailing interpretation of these imageswas thatthey indicate the ‘mother goddesses’ giving birthtoabull,andalotofinkwasspilledinelaboratingthesignificanceofthesefindsintheconstructionofratherfamiliarNeolithicnarrativesofdomesticationand fertility (e.g. Cauvín 2000). The problem thatobstructedtheadequateinterpretationofthesefindshasbeenthefactthattheseimageswerealwaysfoundwiththeheadsandhandscutoffasintentionalacts

ofbuildingabandonment.However,itislikelynowthatinalltheseinstancesitisahybridbeingwithahumanbodyandananimalheadthatwasdepicted.Thesuggestionhasbeenmadethattheheadofthestampsealdepictsabear(S.Farid,pers.comm.).ThesignificanceofbearfortheÇatalhöyükmythologicaluniverse could also be reinforced by thefindof abear’spawinoneofthebuildingsintheSouthAreaofthesiteduringtherenewedexcavations(cf.1998ArchiveReport,hDp://www.catalhoyuk.com/).

Possible interpretation couldbe that thebearmight have represented a totemic animal from adistantpast,andthatthiscommunityturneditintoanimportantancestralandpossiblyprotectivefig‑ure thatoversawthedaily lifewithinbuildingsatthesite.Thedestructionofthepawsandtheheadon themoulded images of this ancestral being, asfoundonthewallsofÇatalhöyükbuildings,issig‑nificanthere.Itisthroughthedestructionofanimalelementson thebodyof thehybridbeing that theprescribed closure of the building’s lifecycle is as‑sured.Oneshouldnotethatitwastheheadthatwasalsofrequentlyremovedfromtheburieddeceasedfound beneath building floors.While it would behardtopenetrateintothespecificmeaningsofthispractice,itislikelythatsuchactsofbeheadingforthe community atÇatalhöyükmarked the changeoftopologicalordersbyalteringthebody.AtÇatal‑höyük, theheadof either thishybridbeingor thedeceasedheldimportance.Innumerouscontexts,the

Figure7.12.DetailofpaintedleopardreliefatÇatalhöyük.(Photo:JamesMellaart.)

103


headandfaceareparticularlyexpressiveelementsofone’sidentity.Thefactthatboththeheadsofthedeceasedandtheancestralbeingwereremoved,andalsothatheadlesshumanfigurewereassociatedwithsometimestherianthropicvultures,mayindicatethattheheadandfacebutperhapsalsofeetandhandsinparticularweretheelementsofthebodythroughwhich themetamorphosis fromonekindof beingintoanotherwasrevealed.

The abundance of imagery foundpainted onthe walls of buildings at this site (Mellaart 1967)hasrecentlybeeninterpretedbyLewis‑Williamsasimagesperceivedbyshamansduringalteredstatesof consciousness (2004; Lewis‑Williams & Pearce2005).Iwillnothererepeatmypreviouscritiqueofsuchanexclusiveconnectionofimage‑makingandshamanisticpractice(seeabove).ItismoreimportanttoemphasizehereLewis‑Williams’sideaaboutthematerialityofimagesfoundonthewallsofbuildingsatÇatalhöyük.Hesuggeststhatthroughtheactsofre‑plastering (sometimesup to 80–100 layers) andrenderingofthevarietyofimages,thiscommunityexposed the presence of the parallel netherworldfrom the verywalls they inhabited (2004). This isa powerful idea and it may be reinforced by theexistenceofanobsessiveandrepetitivepracticeofrebuildingwallsatthissiteaswellasbythepracticeofplacinganimalremains,suchashornsorteethofwildanimals,intothewallsofbuildingsatthissite(cf.Hodder1990).Especially largepredators,suchasbearsorleopards,anotheranimalthatwasinnu‑merousinstancesfoundasapartofthemythologicaluniverseatthissite(Hodder2006),werethefocusofaDention.Thisconstantnegotiationwiththeanimalrealmthatcameoutofthebuildingwalls(asifthesebuildingeffortswentbeyondthepracticalutility)andthestructuringofthedailyroutinesinthedomesticareasatÇatalhöyükmighthavebeeninterconnectedprocessesofmaintainingaproperhuman identitythreatenedbyaninherentmetamorphiccapacityofallbeings.

Conclusion

Functionalist approaches to the study of the ‘pre‑historicmind’insistontheunderstandingofprehis‑toricart(andreligion)asamediumof‘informationtransmission’ andareviewedas inadequatedue totheirprimary relianceon evolving intelligence andrationality in explaining the impetus for image‑making. Contrarily, shamanistic interpretations ofearlyarthaveintroducedanelementofirrationalityand ‘esotericism’ into the explanation of religiousthought and the origins of image‑making. Yet the

shamanisticexplanationreducestheabundantimagesof animals andhuman–animal hybrids in early arttoaneurologicalsensationthatoccursinthestateofalteredconsciousnessas‘wired’inthebrainofmodernHomosapiens.

Figure7.13.Stampsealrepresentingahybriddeitywithitsfrontandhindlegsraisedupwardsandwithananimal(bear?)head(11652.X1,Summit),Çatalhöyük.(Photo:JasonQuinlan,(c)ÇatalhöyükResearchProject.)

Figure7.14.ReliefoftwosplayedfiguresatÇatalhöyük.(Photo:JamesMellaart.)

104

Chapter7

Inthispaper, Ihavetriedtoargueforplacingshamanistic explanations in the context of a moreencompassing concept of animality. Animality asevokedbyGeorgesBataillerelatestotheanimalexist‑ence(animalcorporeality,body)thatisatthebasisofhumanexistence.Inthissenseanimalityisopposedto the world of human consciousness and reason.Yet, this departure from the world of ‘prehistory’(sensuHorkheimer&Adorno2000),the‘passagefromanimaltoman’,persistsinthedichotomiesthatchar‑acterizehumanthought:bodyandmind,natureandculture.RecentaccountsofAmerindianperspectiv‑ismchallengethisconceptualfixture.Here,thebodyisthemainsiteofdifferentiationandthechangeofperspectiveimplicatesthechangeofone’sbody,i.e.ametamorphosiscausedinthepredator–preyinterac‑tion.Thenegotiationofanimalityandhumanity inAmazonianethnography is related to theeverydaydespitetheimportanceofshamanismfortranscend‑ingtheconfinesofone’sbodilyperspective.Suchanunderstandingthatemphasizesaconstantmundanedialoguewiththe‘exterior’and‘other’underminesuniversalistic shamanistic interpretations of image‑making. The abundance of hybrid images in earlyprehistoricartseemstoindicatethatinthesesocietiesthecorporealityofthebodywasconsideredthemostimportantsourceofagencyandintentionality.

Following Bataille and Ingold, I suggest thatearlyprehistoricart,ratherthannaturalisticallyrepre‑sentingtheobservednaturalworldasanexpressionoftherealmoftheeveryday,rationalityandunderstand‑ing,wasanaDempttoopenupanetherworld,orthereality that liesbeyondandbeneath the superficialworldof appearances.This ‘supernatural’ reality isfrequentlyunderstoodasdivineandsacred.Shaman‑isticreligiouspracticeisatoolof‘transgression’(sensuBataille),usedtoapproachthisrealm,whilevisualorotherartisticcreationsmighthavebeenunderstoodasentrypointsintothisworldofanimality,immediacyandimmanence.

Acknowledgements

Iwouldliketothankconferenceorganizersfortheinvitationtopresentthispaperatthe‘ImageandImagination:MaterialBeginnings’conference.ItisnecessaryheretoacknowledgetheinfluenceofAmerindianperspectivismonthefinalshapeofthispaperandtothankAparecidaVilaçaforherinitialin‑troductiontothisspecificanthropologicalperspective.IalsothanktheÇatalhöyükprojectandparticularlyShahinaFaridforthepermissiontoreproducetheimageofnewstampsealdiscoveryfromthissite.IwouldalsoliketothankMaryKateBoughtonforherediting.ThispaperwaswriDenduringmypostdoctoral fellowshipaspartof theLeverhulme‑fundedproject‘ChangingBeliefsoftheHumanBody:aCompara‑

tiveSocialPerspective’ at theDepartmentofArchaeology,UniversityofCambridge.

References

Althusser,L.,1971.Ideologyandideologicalstateappara‑tuses(notestowardsandinvestigation),inLeninandPhilosophyandOtherEssays,ed.L.Althusser.London:NewLexBooks,121–73.

Astuti,R.,1998. ‘It’saboy,’ ‘it’sagirl!’Reflectionsonsexand gender in Madagascar and beyond, in BodiesandPersons:ComparativePerspectives fromAfrica andMelanesia,eds.M.Lambek&A.Strathern.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,29–52.

Bataille,G.,1955.LascauxortheBirthofArt.Geneva:Skira.Bataille,G.,1970.OeuvresCompletes.Paris:Gallimard.Bataille,G.,1989.TheoryofReligion.NewYork(NY):Zone

Books.Bataille,G.,2005.TheCradleofHumanity:PrehistoricArtand

Culture (ed. StuartKendall).NewYork (NY):ZoneBooks.

Bergson, H., 1981.Maver and Memory. New York (NY):ZoneBooks.

Bois,Y.‑A.&R.Krauss,1997.Formless:aUser’sGuide.NewYork(NY):ZoneBooks.

Bonsall,C.,R.Lennon,K.McSweeneyetal.,1997.MesolithicandEarlyNeolithicintheIronGates:apalaeodietaryperspective. Journal of European Archaeology 5(1),50–92.

Borić,D.,2002a.LepenskiVirconundrum:areinterpreta‑tionoftheMesolithicandNeolithicsequenceintheDanubeGorges.Antiquity76,1026–39.

Borić,D.,2002b.Seasons,LifeCyclesandMemoryintheDanubeGorges,c.10000–5500~�.UnpublishedPhDDissertation,UniversityofCambridge.

Borić,D.,2005.Bodymetamorphosisandanimality:volatilebodiesandboulderartworksfromLepenskiVir.Cam‑bridgeArchaeologicalJournal15(1),35–69.

Borić, D. & V. Dimitrĳević, 2005. Continuity of foragingstrategies in Mesolithic–Neolithic transformations:datingfaunalpaDernsatLepenskiVir(Serbia).AvidellaSocietàper lapreistoriaeprotoistoriadellaregioneFriuli‑VeneziaGiuliaXV,2004–05,33–80.

Borić,D.&V.Dimitrĳević,2007.Whendidthe‘Neolithicpackage’ arrive at Lepenski Vir? Radiometric andfaunalevidence.DocumentaPraehistoricaXXXV.

Borić, D. & P. Miracle, 2004. Mesolithic and Neolithic(dis)continuitiesintheDanubeGorges:newAMSdatesfromPadinaandHajdučkaVodenica(Serbia).OxfordJournalofArchaeology23(4),341–71.

Borić,D.&S.Stefanović,2004.Birthanddeath:infantburialsfromVlasacandLepenskiVir.Antiquity78,582–601.

Borić,D.,G.Grupe,P.Joris&Ž.Mikić,2004.IstheMesolith‑ic–Neolithicsubsistencedichotomyreal?NewstableisotopeevidencefromtheDanubeGorges.EuropeanJournalofArchaeology7(3),221–48.

Brevil,H.,1979.FourHundredCenturiesofCaveArt.NewYork(NY):HackerArtBooks.

Cauvín,J.,2000.TheBirthoftheGodsandtheOriginsofAgricul‑

105


ture.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Csordas,T.,1999.Thebody’scareerinanthropology,inAn‑

thropologicalTheoryToday,ed.H.Moore.Cambridge:Polity,172–205.

DaMaDa,R.,1976.Ummundodividido:aestruturasocialdosíndiosApinayé.Petrópolis:Vozes.

Davenport,D.&M.A.Jochim,1988.ThesceneintheShaxatLascaux.Antiquity62,558–62.

Dowson, T.A., 1998. Rock art: handmaiden to studies ofcognitiveevolution,inCognitionandMaterialCulture:the Archaeology of Symbolic Storage, eds. C. Renfrew& C. Scarre. (McDonald Institute Monographs.)Cambridge: McDonald Institute for ArchaeologicalResearch,67–76.

Eliade,M.,1972.Shamanism:ArchaicTechniquesofEcstasy.NewYork(NY):Routledge.

Fausto,C.,2000.Ofenemiesandpets:warfareandshamanisminAmazonia.AmericanEthnologist26,933–56.

Gamble,C.,1982.InterpretationandallianceinPalaeolithicsociety.Man17,92–107.

Gamble,C.,1991.ThesocialcontextforEuropeanPalaeolithicart.ProceedingsofthePrehistoricSociety57(1),3–15.

GargeD, A., 2002. Vampire: George Bataille and the phi‑losophy of vampirism.The Richmond Review, www.richmondreview.co.uk

Gell,A.,1998.ArtandAgency:anAnthropologicalTheory.Ox‑ford:ClarendonPress.

Habermas,J.,1987.ThePhilosophicalDiscourseofModernity:TwelveLectures.Cambridge:PolityPress.

Heidegger,M.,1979.Nietzsche,vol.1:TheWilltoPowerasArt.SanFrancisco(CA):Harper&Row.

Hodder, I., 1990.TheDomestication ofEurope:Structure andContingencyinNeolithicSocieties.Oxford:Blackwells.

Hodder,I.,2006.Çatalhöyük,theLeopard’sTale:RevealingtheMysteriesofTurkey’sAncient‘Town’.London:Thames&Hudson.

Hodder,I.&C.Cessford,2004.Dailypracticeandsocialmem‑oryatÇatalhöyük.AmericanAntiquity69(1),17–40.

Horkheimer,M.&T.W.Adorno,2000.DialecticofEnlighten‑ment.NewYork(NY):Continuum.

Hugh‑Jones,S.,1979.ThePalmandthePleiades:InitiationandCosmology inNorthwestAmazonia. Cambridge:Cam‑bridgeUniversityPress.

Ingold,T.,2000a.Acircumpolarnight’sdream,inThePercep‑tionof theEnvironment:EssaysonLivelihood,Dwellingand Skill, ed. T. Ingold. London&NewYork (NY):Routledge,89–110.

Ingold,T.,2000b.Totemism,animismandthedepictionofanimals,inThePerceptionoftheEnvironment:EssaysonLivelihood,DwellingandSkill,ed.T.Ingold.London&NewYork(NY):Routledge,111–31.

Kendall,S.,2005.Editor’sintroduction:thesedimentofthepossible,inTheCradleofHumanity:PrehistoricArtandCulture,byG.Bataille.NewYork(NY):ZoneBooks,9–31.

Kirchner, H., 1952. Ein archälogischer Beitrag zur Urges‑chichtedesSchamanismus.Anthropos47,244–86.

Krell,D.F.,1990.OfMemory,Reminiscence,andWriting:On

theVerge. Bloomington& Indianapolis (IN): IndianaUniversityPress.

Kwinter,S.,2001.ArchitecturesofTime:TowardaTheoryoftheEventinModernistCulture.Cambridge(MA):TheMITPress.

Lewis‑Williams,D.,2002.TheMindintheCave:ConsciousnessandtheOriginsofArt.London:Thames&Hudson.

Lewis‑Williams,D.,2004.Constructingacosmos:architecture,power and domestication at Çatalhöyük. Journal ofSocialArchaeology4(1),28–59.

Lewis‑Williams,D.&D.Pearce,2005.InsidetheNeolithicMind.London:Thames&Hudson.

Mellaart, J.,1967.ÇatalHüyük:aNeolithicTowninAnatolia.London:Thames&Hudson.

MiDhen,S.J.,1988.Lookingandlearning:UpperPalaeolithicartandinformationgathering.WorldArchaeology19(3),297–327.

MiDhen,S.J.,1989.Tohuntortopaint:animalsandartintheUpperPalaeolithic.Man23,671–95.

MiDhen,S.J.,1991.EcologicalinterpretationsofPalaeolithicart.ProceedingsofthePrehistoricSociety57(1),103–14.

Overing,J.&A.Passes(eds.),2000.TheAnthropologyofLoveandAnger:theAestheticsofConvivialityinNativeAma‑zonia.London:Routledge.

Radovanović,I.,1997.TheLepenskiVirculture:acontributiontointerpretationofitsideologicalaspects,inAntidoronDragoslavoSrejović completisLXVannis ab amicis, col‑legis,discipulisoblatum.Beograd:Centarzaarcheoloskaistraivanja,filozofskifakultet,85–93.

Ricoeur,P.,2004.Memory,History,Forgeving.Chicago(IL)&London:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.

Srejović,D.,1969.LepenskiVir—NovapraistorĳskakulturauPodunavlju.Belgrade:Srpskaknjiževnazadruga.

Srejović,D.,1972.Europe’sFirstMonumentalSculpture:NewDiscoveries at Lepenski Vir. London: Thames&Hud‑son.

Srejović,D.&L.Babović,1983.UmetnostLepenskogVira.Bel‑grade:Jugoslavĳa.

Srejović, D. & Z. Letica, 1978.Vlasac. Mezolitsko naselje uĐerdapu (I arheologĳa). Belgrade: Srpska akademĳanaukaiumetnosti.

Taussig,M.,1993.MimesisandAlterity:aParticularHistoryoftheSenses.London&NewYork(NY):Routledge.

Taussig,M.,1999.Defacement:PublicSecrecyandtheLaboroftheNegative.Stanford(CA):StanfordUniversityPress.

Taylor,A.C.,1996.Thesoul’sbodyanditsstates:anAmazo‑nianperspectiveonthenatureofbeinghuman.JournaloftheRoyalAnthropologicalInstitute(N.S.)2,201–15.

Vilaça,A.,2002.MakingkinoutofothersinAmazonia.JournaloftheAnthropologicalRoyalInstitute(N.S.)8,347–65.

Vilaça,A.,2005.Chronicallyunstablebodies:reflectionsonAmazoniancorporalities.JournaloftheAnthropologicalRoyalInstitute(N.S.)11,445–64.

ViveirosdeCastro,E.,1998.CosmologicaldeixisandAmer‑indianperspectivism.JournaloftheAnthropologicalRoyalInstitute(N.S.)4,469–88.

ViveirosdeCastro,E.,2004.Perspectivalanthropologyandthe method of controlled equivocation. Tipití 2(1),3–22.

106

Chapter7

images of animality

Documents