55 of 56 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
The World of the Neolithic, April 20, 2006
This review is from: Inside the Neolithic Mind: Consciousness, Cosmos, and the Realm of the Gods (Hardcover)
A praiseworthy attempt to understand what was going on in the Neolithic era - in particular the thinking behind the construction and decoration of megaliths.
The authors take us from Turkey to Ireland, from Neolithic to Bronze Age. They investigate the "religious" thinking of the era. We are frequently reminded that the three dimensions of religion are "experience, belief, and practice". Neolithic monuments and often houses are related to the cosmos in its separate layers.
Catal Huyuk, Bryn Celli Ddu, Newgrange and Knowth, and Brittany are given particularly detailed treatment. The rock scribings of these and other monuments are looked at in depth. The explanation is put forward that the designs represent the visions experienced by people undergoing a "religious" experience as in a trance-like state. In this the authors reject the concept that the designs relate to astronomical phenomena.
At the end a comparison is made between the age of the neolithic and our own times with our reliance on science, and the part played by Aristotle and the Greek philosophers in changing human thinking.
The book is very readable,well presented and illustrated.
Desmond Johnston.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
27 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Compelling, thought provoking, and yet understated, February 14, 2007
This review is from: Inside the Neolithic Mind: Consciousness, Cosmos, and the Realm of the Gods (Hardcover)
It wasn't until having completed this book and put it away when I realized the full impact of it's narrative. Mostly, because it is so understated. It's speculations about the Neolithic psyche are compelling and with the reminder that we can't underestimate in our secular world-view the interweaving of altered-states, cosmological beliefs, and eventual early human advancements. For example, we like to think of early domestication as a reasoned development to provide easy availability of food, milk and hides. Yet, it is likely, if not highly probable that domestication of aurochs, for example, was a product of a dominating supernatural cosmology. To quote the authors, "The associated assumption that rational decision-making and processes, such as sensible adaptation to the environment, can account for all past human behaviour is groundless. It imputes contemporary Western values to past societies. We must be more alert to the irrationality of the past (and of the present.)"
The main thesis of this book is that altered-states of consciousness and our beliefs in and attempts to control supposed supernatural forces may have played a significant role in some major technological advancements from the Neolithic age. Moreover, these altered state experiences are not only central to the development of religious beliefs, but are also neurologically hard-wired into our central nervous systems. The archeological evidence and arguments are worth the effort of understanding, if just to get a speculative glimpse of the Neolithic world. What is less convincing, however, is the scant neurological backing the authors provide. This is one of the major shortfalls of this book.
Still, the argument that stayed with me was the one suggesting that religion as we know it entails an often unquestioning belief in the supernatural and supernatural forces, and this belief, albeit universal across the peoples and across the ages, is a misreading of what is simply our own neurological processes. Our march as a species is toward giving up our superstitions, our beliefs in the supernatural, and recognizing them for what they are -- anachronistic resonances from the neolithic mind. The authors end with the question, "Is it possible to have a religion that does not entail a belief in the supernatural?" If you have an interest in religion, human prehistory, and even cognitive psychology I'd highly recommend this book. If you are coming at it with an interest in neuroscience, however, you'll be more than likely disappointed in its offerings.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
80 of 93 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Proceed with caution, September 15, 2006
This review is from: Inside the Neolithic Mind: Consciousness, Cosmos, and the Realm of the Gods (Hardcover)
The book is definitely an intriguing one. I was impressed with the amount of newer information on the Neolithic, especially that about Mellaart's old site at Çatalhoyuk in Turkey. I had read something of it in another book, but Lewis-Williams' work definitely gave me more of a sense of venue.
The discussion of modern work on hallucinogens and what it has to say about the neurology of perception and spiritual experience was very interesting also and in line with some of the books on mind/brain studies I've read. That one can look at the development of religious experience in an evolutionary manner has been suggested by other authors as well, most notably by Newberg in Why God Won't go Away.
I do have some reservations with respect to the author's approach, however. While I can appreciate that Neolithic thought made no distinctions between the spiritual world and the natural one, since many present people still don't, I find it difficult to accept that we can actually "know" the content of their thoughts, especially the emotional significance of them.
The author insists that by examining the cultural remains left by Neolithic groups one can come to an understanding of how they thought about their world. He uses the frequency of specific concepts in art found among a variety of people, both past and present, which suggest a degree of continuity. Somehow I'm doubtful.
First and foremost, one culture often has no real understanding of the significance of cultural items outside of their specific culture. Sometimes we don't even know how different individuals perceive these items within a shared culture.
For instance, my feelings about Christmas and Christmas icons, like pine trees, wrapping paper and blinky lights, are very upbeat. This is because I had a happy childhood and Christmas was a very special time at our house, one to which I enjoy returning in my mind's eye when I'm feeling a little blue. However, I have a friend whose family was very dysfunctional and who hates Christmas and it's various paraphernalia. This is because during her childhood, the holiday meant discord and unpleasantness because she had alcoholic parents. Even as a young child she ended up the peacemaker and referee. We share the same culture, but we don't have the same feelings about Christmas and its visible cultural insignia.
Likewise, I have lived in Saudi Arabia during Ramadan and shared, to the best of my understanding, the events of the holiday. I've watched the TV shows about the followers of Mohamed, shared the special holiday treats, and gave and received gifts. I've read somewhat extensively, at least for a Westerner, about Islam and have Egyptian friends who are Moslem. But my take on Islam is not my friend Fatma's. Nor is hers necessarily like those of other members of the Islamic community.
I think that the degree to which we clearly don't understand another culture's feelings about their spiritual and social artifacts is abundantly apparent by the recent upsurge in intolerance for the "different," particularly in the realm of religion and behavior. This given for modern times with living people, I find it difficult to believe that the situation can possibly be improved by up to 10,000 years of separation, an incomplete data set, and no written information!
My second objection is that the data used to propose some degree of continuity between now and the past, especially in religious concepts, is highly selective. If one wishes to exclude all the data points that don't agree with ones theories, one can "prove" just about anything. A sounder position might be one that looks at all extant examples of cultural artifacts and the degree to which they correlate to one another and to the past. To make a valid statement about what is "common" among humans, the research must look at what all humans do. There has been a fairly extensive attempt in anthropology over the past 100 years to study what is common to the human as creature. Perhaps that is the data to which we must look in making statements about shared meaning.
My final objection to the author's position is that it cannot be proven wrong. By this I don't mean that he is actually correct, and I have nothing with which to refute it, but that there is simply no definitive evidence at all. At present we cannot go back in time to verify the author's beliefs about the Neolithic mind. One could say almost anything from negative evidence. For all I know, he could be entirely correct. It would be nice to think that we could "connect" with past people in this way. Unfortunately, especially in the realm of the human mind, there is no way of proving that he's right either. Note that the interpretation of the cultural meaning of Stonehenge is also very vague and changes through time. The interpretations in vogue at any given time, however, have had more to say about the people making them than about the builders of the monument.
In general, I find the author's proposals intriguing. There is something very attractive about the notion that one can share meaning and experience with people from the past by way of their artifacts. I certainly enjoyed the book--but I'd still advise the reader to proceed with caution.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
