Shamans/ Neo-Shamans: Ecstasy, alternative archaeologies, and contemporary Pagans

Reviewed by A. B. Graves

Postscript

It has been a long time coming, but here is an academic text which attempts to describe modern pagan beliefs and practices in terms which can be understood by the archaeological community; something one would hope might improve the chances of meaningful dialogue between two groups which, while not always in absolute opposition, nonetheless find themselves frequently at odds. Problems arising from the differing approaches of these groups to access, treatment, and use of ancient sites have increased considerably over the past two decades, with media coverage and publicity to match. The ‘Seahenge' debacle in particular showed archaeologists and heritage managers in a poor light, and continuing problems at Stonehenge and many less well publicised locations highlight the very real need for archaeologists - as a body of trained professionals - to understand other interested mindsets than their own.

Wallis begins by setting out his own position in writing as an ‘autoarchaeologist', using a style deriving from modern anthropology and social sciences with which interested academics will be familiar, and running through the arguments for and against an experiential approach. He displays a slight tendency to over-generalise: not all high-street bookshops juxtapose anthropological, archaeological, and neo-Shamanic publications (p.2); I checked. More worryingly he seems unwilling to mention the history of organisations such as Wicca (pp.6, 82) whose actual origins – as opposed to the claims made by certain Wiccans – have been well known since its inception, but receive no mention here. It is always pleasant to find an academic professing the need for honesty in his own approach to research (pp.20-21), but this reader found himself wondering why in that case Wallis should prove so reticent concerning his own involvement in the neo-Shamanic scene. By the end of the book I was none the wiser when it came to the author's own approach to shamanism (which path or paths he personally follows) apart from the occasional participation in rituals, workshops, and courses cited as research. To be frank in the context of writing a book such as this one that seems a serious omission.

The first two chapters cover the sources and development of modern neo-Shamanism, covering the obvious suspects: Eliade, Castaneda, and Harner. Wallis makes some good points: in particular ‘when does a new religious path or set of paths become traditional and authentic?' (p.31), which is, I would suggest, at the crux of many misunderstandings between pagans and archaeologists. Many pagans would not consider their religious paths new; many archaeologists would not consider any religious views valid or even appropriate with regard to ancient sites. This is uncomfortable territory since analyses hinge on the link between political power and the fabrication of history, with implications that are easier to ignore than to make use of for both sides in the debate. Wallis also makes some poor points. His defence of shamanism as a commodity (pp.60-61) is unlikely to sway any critics of commercial spirituality, myself included. His easy acceptance of statements by those with an obvious ‘career' interest in what they are saying (e.g. Wiger, p.73, who has written a book and now teaches the techniques for which she is making claims) does his own arguments no favours. These chapters will however be of considerable use as an overview to those who are unfamiliar with ‘new age' (apologies for using that term) spirituality, and will provide some food for thought for those who are.

Chapters three and four go into some detail concerning recent developments in ‘northern' shamanisms – those derived from ‘Celtic' (druidic), Anglo-Saxon and Norse (heathen) traditions. Be warned: there is some disturbing material here and Wallis is at one point reduced to defending the repackaging (in Norse form) of a set of Afro-American Umbanda techniques on the basis that Umbanda itself is based on ‘a variety of sources' (p.101). It still looks like theft, and to see a defence of what seems to be a commercially rooted cultural plagiarism in an academic text is galling to say the least; detracting as it does from some worthwhile arguments for the existence of old European traditions involving possession phenomena. Curiously enough while there is considerable hand wringing throughout this text about the appropriation of ideas from Native American and other ‘shamanic' cultures, the same does not seem to apply to black American or Caribbean cultures (generally deemed non-shamanic, though these definitions seem to be getting stretched today). Many academics will, I think, be startled (if not actually horrified) by the origins and development of the belief systems described in these two chapters, and I hope will recognise some of the voices of reason which emerge from various informants. I was particularly struck by the sense and sensitivity to issues shown by Philip Shallcross, and would be interested to check out his published work.

Chapters five and six cover controversies over access, use, and damage to ancient sites, and introduce many points of view: some reasonable, some less so, some downright suspect. Wallis unfortunately continues to accept claims without proof (e.g. p.146: Kaledon Naddair's claims to have discovered ‘new Cup and Ring mark sites long buried', the veracity of which go unquestioned), and he is at times flippant or uninformed regarding archaeological interpretations: when, for example, did any archaeologist last seriously argue for cup and ring marks to be ‘art for art's-sake'? (p.149). Or have I missed some recent development? These irritations aside Wallis does a good job in presenting the complex issues arising from the competition of rival ideologies at ancient sites, and gets across the important point that the pagan ‘community' is by no means unified by the specifics of belief, but contains a cross-section of approaches to life ranging from ascetic spirituality to political agitation. The same can, of course, be said for archaeologists.

Chapter seven explores the impact of western ‘cultural consumerism' upon some of those communities that have borne the brunt of it, and a sad postscript to the imperial/colonial past it is too. To see what amounts to a modern reiteration of Manifest Destiny (pp.201-2) being used as a justification for these activities (not, I must add, by the author) is truly appalling; while the actions of some neo-Shamans in appropriating Native American sacred sites for their own use (pp.214-18) are as shameful as they are scandalous. The argument put forward with respect to changes in local traditions resulting from close contact with western spiritual consumerism (p.200: that shamans have always adapted to ‘new social and cultural circumstances') does not seem to do justice to the nature of the problems thrown up by such cultural imperialism: this is quite a different challenge to any that these traditions have faced before. This is an issue which could bear exploration in much greater depth, and the author provides a variety of perspectives from which such exploration can be approached. Well done Wallis too, for conceding (rather beautifully) that there are such things as ‘genuinely fake neo-Shamans' (p.206). A nice touch.

The conclusion of the book is relatively brief. Wallis has already made his points and here reappraises his own position to some extent in the light of his research, while sensibly tidying up a number of points touched upon in the rest of the text. Oddly though he chooses to devote half the conclusion to a further discussion of the curious Norse/Caribbean hybrid seiðr – a minority activity at best (as yet) among modern pagans – which might rather more appropriately have been placed in chapter four. Does this reviewer detect here the influence of one J. Blain: much-quoted informant (see text), sometime co-author with Wallis (see bibliography), and herself a vocal devotee of this group? I note from the acknowledgements (p.xvii) that she appears to have had considerable influence on the text, and from the ‘plug' on p.93 that she has recently published a book promoting this very subject.

There is much to be applauded here. It is a brave academic who delves into this field, which has been kept at arms length by academia in general for too long. Some tightening up here and there would help Wallis' case, since the clear subtext is to make further academic explorations of the themes he has covered and the methodology he has used both more acceptable and more desirable. Despite the reservations noted in this review (and I suspect I am relatively sympathetic compared to much of his target audience) I would say that he has succeeded in that aim.

Postscript: A very personal view: A. B. Graves

Since this reviewer is only a marginally published academic (of sorts) it seems only fair to Wallis, after using the stick on him here and there, to come clean. A friend who knew something of my background in paganism and the occult, with various forms of which I was involved for many years, approached me to write this piece in the hope that I could provide something of an insider perspective. While I would no longer call myself a pagan, and never did have the cheek to call myself a shaman (neo- or otherwise), consider what follows to come from a voluntary independent informant rather than from a reviewer.

There are many forms of paganism, witchcraft, shamanism, and wizardry available for public consumption in most bookshops in the UK. An ever-increasing number of forms in fact: Wallis has only scratched the surface in concentrating on neo-Shamanism, though the sample he covers demonstrates the phenomenon. I am quite willing to believe that many of the books dealing with these subjects are written by sincere people: obsessive perhaps, but with sincerely held beliefs. Unfortunately sincerity does not necessarily equate with veracity: we have all honestly believed falsehoods (Santa Claus, pre-election tax pledges, evidence of WMD) at some point in our lives, and doubtless will again. Personal accounts, personal adaptations of traditions, personal interpretations: all have some intrinsic value, but however sincere the writers may be they are not all the truth. To an undiscriminating consumer, though, that is what they appear to offer. Add into the mix the fact that much of this literature derives inspiration (at least) from those ‘genuine fakes' (among others) noted by Wallis, and the reader will begin to see what a complexity of paths are available in the spiritual marketplace. Without considerable background knowledge it is difficult to discern between the spiritual snake-oil salesmen – and women – and those with worthwhile insights to offer. Try a few definitions of ‘worthwhile' to see what I mean by complexity.

Likewise there are many sorts of pagans, and I do not mean simply in the diversity of spiritual beliefs covered by the term. Wallis draws his UK informants almost exclusively from one stratum of the pagan scene: that is to say from those who write about and/or teach the ‘traditions' with which they are concerned, and those who make the most obvious public spectacle of themselves at gatherings: the loud shouters and self-promoters, as I came to think of them during my own years of involvement. This is rather like taking the views of Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson and assuming that they are representative of the views of non-party-member grass-root Labour supporters. ‘Ordinary' pagans may sample the writings and teachings of these individuals (what else, after all, is available); they may feel an obligation to show solidarity with their pronouncements; but only a small proportion would consider their views to be accurately represented by them. A great many pagans simply get on quietly with what seems to them to work and to be appropriate to their own sense of the spiritual, and feel no need or desire to publicise themselves or their views. A dilemma for researchers such as Wallis here is that these people can be quite as reticent with respect to their beliefs when questioned as any ‘native' shaman confronted by importunate anthropologists. A dilemma for archaeologists – and pagans – concerned with the conservation of ancient sites is that any of these publicity-shy groups or individuals may be responsible for activities causing damage, deliberately or in ignorance, at these sites. However you look at it, this is not an area that invites easy solutions.

Personally I would welcome a greater engagement between archaeologists and pagans (though not necessarily with their self-appointed representatives) over those sites which have become centres of dispute. Talking over a few drinks would, I suspect, reveal far more common ground than the usual shouting over fences has ever achieved. Archaeologists could (if willing) learn much from those who see these places as living, working spiritual sites: this is, after all, assumed to be in some way the manner they originally functioned. Pagans could (if willing) learn much from those who have studied the material culture associated with such sites (and with others in which pagans show little interest) in depth: the reality is often far stranger than popular accounts suggest.

The Reviewer

A B.Graves is a Masters graduate of the Landscape Archaeology department at the University of Sheffield , currently working on a fictional reconstruction of Neolithic life. Any comments regarding the above can be forwarded to him at the discretion of the editors of Assemblage.