Cognitive archaeology: Resposes to David Lewis Williams?

Question

What do you think of the theories he presents on upper palaeolithic art?

Stong/weak aspects of the theories?

Any good links to sites that have responses to his work?

Serious answers please!

Answer 1

Good answer ed, I'm with you all the way on that one.

Answer 2

About all I know about Williams is that he seems to find an element of the supernatural (Shaman) in every drawing he sees.  While he may indeed be correct in many cases, his hypothesis is too open to interpretation &, in my opinion, makes far too many unsupported assumptions.  However, I can't discount the possibility that some of his assumptions are correct... but many other assumptions may be made from the same evidence.

One cannot argue that the supernatural was not an important part of prehistoric society.