by Jon Lackman | 8 January 2008 | Ancient, Books
A recent issue of the South African Archaeological Bulletin (62:185) includes a lively exchange of letters. We can’t do them justice here; nonetheless, some excerpts:
J.D. Lewis-Williams writes:
With attacks in (remarkably) two successive issues of the South African Archaeological Bulletin Anne Solomon has raised the boredom rating of her current dispute about San rock art to intolerable levels … Solomon creates the illusion of a lone Lewis-Williams fighting for discredited ideas … I therefore point out that most southern African researchers accept, with whatever reservations and useful, positive additions, that San religious beliefs and practices … demonstrably inform much, but not all, southern African San rock art … Readers will be interested in David Whitley’s account of how pseudo-debates about rock art like the present one are generated and sustained. As he shows, writers make a career out of criticizing hands-on researchers, while offering no, or very little, original, theoretically and empirically sound research of their own …
David Pearce writes:
Anne Solomon published a review of a book David Lewis-Williams and I wrote (San Spirituality: Roots, Expressions, and Social Consequences) … In presenting this rebuttal, I should not like to mislead readers into believing that this is a legitimate debate concerning the arguments we made. Solomon has advanced no empirical methodological or theoretical points of relevance to our arguments. I simply correct some of the many erroneous statements that she made … In both installments of her review, Solomon’s main contention is that Lewis-Williams and I do not sufficiently address the issue of the origins of modern human behaviour, modern human consciousness, the development of language and brain evolution. These are all fascinating issues that deserve discussion. They have, however, nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of our book …
Anne Solomon responds:
…. Lewis-Williams and Pearce’s refusal to engage suggests an inability to debate the issues my questions raise. No concession of merit in dissenting views is expected from that quarter, but are these responses scholarly? … Lewis-Williams resorts to frequencies, claiming “most southern African researchers” accept his views … he should know that the size of the fan base (and student cohort) does not prove his interpretation … [Their] neurological determinism masquerading as cultural analysis reduces San history to a biologistic account of stimulus and response, the former overblown, the latter neglected. Dissenting, independent thinking is derided.
The editors conclude:
Discussion of San Spirituality is now closed.
