Time and Mind:

The Journal of Introduction:

Archaeology,
Consciousness
Anthropologies of
and Culture Consciousness
Volume 3—Issue 2 The issue of what are the “anthropologies of consciousness” is
July 2010 complicated by both the many subfields of anthropology and
pp. 125–134 the diversity of perspectives regarding consciousness. This
DOI
introduction provides a systems perspective on the elements
10.2752/175169610X12632240392677
of consciousness to provide a context for addressing explicit
Reprints available directly and implicit anthropologies of consciousness.
from the publishers
Photocopying permitted by Consciousness as a Neuroepistemological
licence only System
Linguistic and etymological perspectives illustrate that the
© Berg 2010 term “consciousness” is used to refer to a wide range of
phenomena (Winkelman 1993, 1994, 2000). Definitions of
being conscious include: not asleep; awake; awareness of
one’s own existence, sensations, thoughts, and environment;
subjectively known; capable of complex response to the
environment; intentionally conceived or done; deliberate.
The ancient Indo-European roots provide a broader view of
consciousness’ original meanings and connotations. These
meanings of consciousness are based upon the Latin root
conscius, which means “knowing something with others.” The
roots of the Latin conscius include scire (to know) and con
(with). The conventional interpretation is that the Indo-
European root of consciousness is expressed in skei, the
extended root of sek, which means to cut, split, or divide,
implying knowing by making differentiations.
The meaning of “con” in consciousness has been
generally interpreted as referring to the communal
dimension, as socially shared knowledge, reflected in the
Latin meanings of con- “with” and “jointly.” The communal
dimension of consciousness is illustrated in the alternative
form conscience, which shares a common origin in the Indo-
European root skei. The making of a differentiation is also
implied by conscience—the faculty of knowing the difference
between right and wrong. This communal dimension creates
the context suggested by the meaning of consciousness
as critical awareness of one’s own identity and situation.
Consciousness has its basis in the relationship between
individual and community. The fundamental social dimension

Time and Mind Volume 3—Issue 2—July 2010, pp. 125–134

126 Introduction: Anthropologies of Consciousness
of consciousness reflects the fact that human
survival and coordination necessitated
intensive social behavior and the ability to
attribute meaning and intentionality to others,
to be able to predict their mental states
and future behavior, and to role-play. Con
also has additional root meanings of general
ability, skill, and power for action, learning, and
memory. The English root of can and con is
gene, gno, or gen, with meanings of “to know,”
“to beget,” “to be able mentally,” “to commit
to memory,” with a common original meaning
of “to know”—gnosis.
The meanings associated with the roots
and definitions of consciousness indicate
a broad semantic domain, ranging from
biologically based abilities and interactional
potentials for awareness, experience, and
learning, to culturally derived emotional,
personal, social, and mental awareness and
activities which create relationships with
and understandings of the environment
and self. These include: awake, aware,
feelings, thoughts, capacity or power,
capable of complex intentional responses,
self-awareness, internal knowledge or
conviction, communal knowledge, social
awareness/conscience, to know, to learn,
to teach, skill, and knowledge. These
meanings, as well as a range of other uses
of the term consciousness in the cognitive,
artificial intelligence, philosophical, and
other scientific traditions, indicate that
the concept of consciousness refers to
a large number of interrelated behaviors
characteristic of complex systems which
respond to their environment. There is
not one consciousness, but many kind of
consciousness.
A communality underlying the diverse
meanings of “consciousness” as constituting
Time and Mind Volume 3—Issue 2—July 2010, pp. 125–134
Michael Winkelman
“knowing systems” is explicit in the
etymological roots. The many meanings
of consciousness are all fundamentally
concerned with an informational relationship
between an organism and its environment.
Consciousness involves the interaction
between knower and known, making
epistemology—the study of the nature
and processes of knowing—an essential
aspect of the science of consciousness.
Laughlin et al. (1992) have suggested that
the dependence of consciousness upon
both brain and experience necessitates a
neurophenomenological epistemology.
Genetic Epistemology as a
Neurophenomenological Approach
to Consciousness
The genetic epistemology approaches to
consciousness integrate scientific knowledge
and phenomenal experience (see Winkelman
1996, 2000, 2004; Laughlin 1992a, b).
This genetic epistemological approach
shows consciousness to be the property
of relations within a system. Concepts of
consciousness are essential to epistemology,
with both concerned with the nature
of knowing. This genetic epistemology
approach to consciousness is exemplified in
Piaget’s concern with the study of the nature,
origin, evolution, and validation of knowledge
and knowing. Piaget viewed cognition,
knowledge, and consciousness as having a
common basis in the epistemic relationships
constructed by the knower with the known.
Knowledge, cognition, and consciousness are
possible because of the necessary epistemic
structures which the subject constructs.
Piaget characterizes consciousness as
being constructed in the interaction between
subject and object, a relationship established
Michael Winkelman
by the knowing subject with that which is
known through epistemic structures which
contribute to the nature of the object known.
A number of structures and processes
mediate the organism’s relationship to
the environment. Social relations play a
fundamental role in blocking the individual’s
personal goals, a frustration which forces a
reflective process to understand the source
of the blockage. Reflective abstraction,
involving operation on and differentiation
from the preceding level, provides for the
emergence of a higher stage, mediated by
symbolic structures that transform the mode
of consciousness. Consciousness requires
a conceptualization or representation
mediated by concepts operating on a higher
level than the experience. The self plays a
central role in this process, identifying with
that new emergent form of consciousness,
and dis-identifying with the previous
structure, permitting transcendence of the
structure and the ability to operate upon
it. These different selves mediate epistemic
relationships of the knower with the reality
known, including physical, psychological,
emotional, and social dimensions. This
dependence of consciousness upon the
brain, self, social experience, and goals
requires a systems approach to articulate
their interrelations.
Consciousness can be understood from
an epistemological perspective as a “Knowing
System,” entailing relationship between knower
and known, a construct mediated self-object
relationship. Some of the most fundamental
characteristics of consciousness as a “Knowing
System” involve (Winkelman 2005):
Awareness, a capacity to process
meaningful information;
Time and Mind Volume 3—Issue 2—July 2010, pp. 125–134
Introduction: Anthropologies of Consciousness 127
Relations with environment;
Representations in perceptions, thoughts
and memories that provide a template
for information;
Reference to the minds and values of
others; and
Self—an organism’s identity and
awareness as knower.
These elements reflect a minimalist
approach to essential elements of a system
that has consciousness, as other systems
posit dozens of elements involved in
consciousness. This perspective provides
us with a framework for understanding
the diversity of forms of consciousness
which we must address in an effort to
provide a comprehensive framework for
the interactions between our inherited
potentials and the sociocultural context
in the formation of our collective and
common and individually unique aspects
of self and experience. It also provides a
system within which we can characterize the
differences among forms of consciousness,
particularly the differences with respect to
those forms called trance, altered states, etc.
Their features in terms of these minimalist
elements include principal concerns with:
• Awareness of internally derived
information, a symbolic internal
environment which is interpreted
as relations with a spiritual or
transcendental world;
• Representations in visual presentational
symbolism with
• Reference to the minds and values of
spiritual others, and with respect to
128 Introduction: Anthropologies of Consciousness
• Self identities related to spirits,
archetypal representations and animals.
This engages an evaluation and development
of the self with respect to the social “others”
provided by animals and mythological
systems of interpretation. These are used
for activation of memories of central
emotional significance to self, particularly
repressed emotional desires, identities, and
complexes; and reprogramming neurognostic
structures of the self with spirit information
from mythological interpretative systems
(Winkelman 2010).
Anthropologies of Consciousness
Anthropological approaches to
consciousness address various processes of
knowing that are embedded in a wide range
of interdisciplinary concerns with human
nature and cognitive capacities, including
memory, representation, self, and others. This
interdisciplinary and multifaceted systemic
nature of consciousness involves both explicit
and implicit anthropologies of consciousness.
The explicit approach is directly
concerned with consciousness studies and,
often, some concept of altered states of
consciousness in particular. The implicit
approach addresses concerns relevant to
consciousness in other terms (perception,
cognition, thought, worldview, etc.) without
an awareness or consideration of the
relationship of these elements to broader
questions of consciousness (e.g. separate
investigations of self, emotions, memory).
An “occult” anthropology of
consciousness has explicitly focused upon
aspects of consciousness related to the
transpersonal and spiritual dimensions, while
a mainstream anthropology of perception,
Time and Mind Volume 3—Issue 2—July 2010, pp. 125–134
Michael Winkelman
learning, memory, cognition, identity, and
self has engaged indirectly in the study
of aspects of consciousness, neglecting
consciousness as a paradigm, but addressing
key aspects of consciousness. This more
direct engagement with consciousness is
addressed by Throop and Laughlin (2007).
There is a long history of anthropological
engagement with consciousness in concerns
with cultural influences on perception,
cognition, learning, and memory, as well
as more recent concerns with political,
social, ethnic, cultural, and other forms of
identity-based consciousness. Questions
regarding the biological bases of altered
states of consciousness associated with
religious rituals and their adaptive effects
(Winkelman 2000, 2010) has straddled the
occult and conventional anthropologies of
consciousness.
A Mainstream Anthropology of
Consciousness
Throop and Laughlin (2007) detail a
mainstream anthropology of consciousness
across more than a century, including Adolf
Bastian’s engagement with the psychic unity
of mankind; Franz Boas’ study of culture and
perception; Emile Durkheim’s understandings
of the elementary forms of consciousness;
Lucien Lévy-Bruhl’s notion of different modes
of consciousness; Edward Sapir and Benjamin
Whorf ’s linguistic relativity hypothesis; and
Irving Hallowell’s concern with the behavioral
environment and cultural construction of
perception. More recent concerns are also
found in Clifford Geertz’s interpretivist
approach, Pierre Bourdieu’s concerns with
consciousness in terms of embodiment and
habitus; and Victor and Edith Turner’s focus on
the anthropology of experience. In addition,
Michael Winkelman
a wide range of concerns in cognitive
anthropology, psychological anthropology,
and transpersonal anthropology also address
consciousness under the guise of cognition,
thought, perception, and other elements
necessary for consciousness.
The anthropology of consciousness is also
about the ways in which the social context
drives our development of consciousness,
providing the social forces that drive our
awareness. As illustrated by the contributors
to Bronson and Fields (2009) So What? Now
What? The Anthropology of Consciousness
Responds to a World in Crisis, an anthropology
of consciousness is also an anthropology of
conscience. This reflects an awareness of
the numerous effects of our engagement
with the planet, one in which we need to
take responsibility for collective well-being.
Clearly anthropologists of many backgrounds
have been leaders in this process of
“conscientization” that leads us to a sense
of personal and collective responsibility for
the planet on which we live. This collective
conscience is heightened by the millennial
transition through which we are passing
which has made us more aware of the voices
and consciousness of the ancient, non-
western “others.”
The Implications of an Occult
Anthropology of Consciousness
Different, ancestral ways of knowing have
provided a virtually separate subdiscipline of
the anthropology of consciousness involving
the study of occult phenomena. These
included experiential approaches to mystical,
spiritualist, and psychic phenomena that long
predated Carlos Castaneda infamy. Early
anthropologists such as Andrew Lang and
W.Y. Evans-Wentz (1967) engaged in a variety
Time and Mind Volume 3—Issue 2—July 2010, pp. 125–134
Introduction: Anthropologies of Consciousness 129
of studies of occult traditions, providing a
deep basis for the anthropological opening
to the basic assumptions of the worldview
of the non-Western “other” by engaging
in experiential studies of consciousness
alteration. These practices have remained
at the margins of anthropology because a
materialist bias interferes with appropriate
interpretations of non-Western religions.
These rationalist influences are quite
different from the views of religion found
across human history. All too often the
Western perspective discounts the claims and
statements made by religious practitioners as
non-factual, irrational, and deluded.
The anthropological encounter with
the epistemology of the “other” demands
an acceptance of animism, a mentality of
causality that is automatically excluded in
the materialist ethos of Western science.
Whether conceptualized as spirit, mana,
or magic, the “other” has persistent sets
of assumptions about causal actors and
forces that fall outside of the domains of
scientific theory. Winkelman and Peek
(2004) explore divination as alternative
epistemological systems regarding the nature
of knowledge. Concepts of the spirit world
and psi/psychic powers claimed as aspects of
reality in much of the world are still generally
neglected—even tabooed—in mainstream
considerations of interpretation of the
behaviors of the past.
Ethnographic, Ethnological
and Biological Approaches to
Interpretation of the Past
Interpretation of the past has been
hampered by Western biases inherent to the
archaeological enterprise. As Fogelin (2007)
notes in the Annual Review of Anthropology,
130 Introduction: Anthropologies of Consciousness
archaeologists’ approach to interpretation of
religious beliefs of the past often has been in
terms of the assumption that a set of myths
and beliefs were to be explained. In contrast
many religions emphasize the importance of
some incredible altered experience involving
an engagement with mythical and spiritual
powers.
The religions of our own complex
societies have been the inevitable model
for inquiry into the unknown, but this has
been fraught with many problems. Cultural
variation in religious beliefs—even with
constant forms—should make us cautions
about interpreting beliefs of those in the past
with reference to our own practices. Where
religion has an arbitrary cultural aspect, it
may mislead our interpretation.
Interpretation of apparent religious
behaviors of those in the past has generally
been based on ethnographic analogies. This
analogy poses some parallels between those
practices presumed to have occurred in
the past and those of some directly known
near-contemporary culture. This approach
is embodied in the use of hunter-gatherer
societies as a general model for human
life in the past. But the application of the
hunter-gatherer model has often been
more based on intuition than on cross-
cultural data on the actual similarities in
such societies. Valid interpretations of the
past cannot be justified on selective cultural
examples; rather, it requires an ethnological
model based in empirically determined
cross-cultural patterns, as illustrated in the
Winkelman article in this issue on shamanism.
Ethnological analogies, based on the patterns
revealed by cross-cultural research, provide
sounder bases for interpretation.
Time and Mind Volume 3—Issue 2—July 2010, pp. 125–134
Michael Winkelman
Biological Approaches to Religion
The nature of religion has been
misunderstood by archaeologists in part
because of the presumed incompatibly
of religion’s ideological nature with the
materialist approaches to explanation
characteristic of archaeology. Assuming
that religion was an arbitrary mental
phenomenon, archaeologists have been slow
to give attention to materialist approaches
to religion, specifically the biologically
based approaches to religion as a natural
phenomenon. Yet the universality of many
aspects of our religious impulses leads us to
the inevitable conclusion that it is part of our
biological nature and evolved characteristics.
The concept of an evolved religious capacity
with a biological basis has taken several
different foci, including the behavioral bases
of religion in ritual and in the cognitive
aspects of religious belief and experience,
particularly altered states of consciousness.
Here we find a new model in which
evolution and religion are not irreconcilable
alternatives, but rather partners in a co-
evolutionary process linking the mental and
the material (Winkelman and Baker 2008).
These biological approaches have
emphasized cognitive interpretations
based on the assumption of inherent
psychophysiological aspects of the human
brain that provide a neurological paradigm
for interpreting the past. These approaches
include concerns with the stages of evolution
of human consciousness which cross-cut
the subdisciplines of anthropology and a
vast interdisciplinary field that grapples with
the ability of the human brain and mind to
understand their own origins. Key questions
include the different forms of consciousness
across the animal kingdom, and how our own
Michael Winkelman
human past led to the evolution of uniquely
human forms of consciousness. A central
feature about interpretation of religion in the
past involves a biological capacity for altered
states of consciousness associated with
religious rituals and their adaptive effects
(Winkelman 2000, 2010). These cognitive
approaches also include a significant focus
on the specific aspects in the evolution
of our uniquely human consciousness, a
concern with the evolutionary stages in the
emergence of our modern consciousness.
Biogenetic Structuralism and
Neurophenomenology
Prominent biological approaches in the
anthropology of consciousness are based
on biogenetic structuralism (Laughlin and
d’Aquili 1974; d’Aquili et al. 1979; Laughlin
et al. 1992; Winkelman 2000; Winkelman
and Baker 2008). Laughlin and Loubser’s
article here in this issue illustrates the deep
scientific and intellectual basis for addressing
consciousness in biological terms.
The behavioral approaches exemplified
in biogenetic structuralism examine human
ritual dynamics in the relationship to the
broader functions of ritualized displays in
the animal world. This reveals a common
dynamic of ritual across all species, the
coordination of social groups for common
good. This biological and functional dynamic
of ritual is complemented in the domains of
experience, where a neurophenomenological
approach examines the ways in which
neurological foundations of knowing—
neurognosis—are the basis for a variety
of cross-cultural patterns of shamanic
and mystical and shamanic experiences.
The neurophenomenological approach
illustrates how cross-cultural uniformity to
Time and Mind Volume 3—Issue 2—July 2010, pp. 125–134
Introduction: Anthropologies of Consciousness 131
the phenomenological nature of spiritual
experiences reflects the dynamics of
functional biological systems that support
overall consciousness. As biology and brain
processes develop in interaction with cultural
factors, both universal patterns and social
patterns emerge in the structuring of human
consciousness. These reciprocal relationships
between biology and experience are at
the basis of the neurophenomenological
approaches which attempt to explain
the regularities in spiritual and mystical
experiences in terms of the underlying
biological structures.
The methodologies of the biogenetic
and neurophenomenological approaches
are deliberately interdisciplinary, not merely
engaging biology and culture, body and mind,
but also other comparative perspectives
based in phylogenetic, ontogenetic, and
sociogenetic development (Laughlin et
al. 1992). These comparative approaches
examining cross-species, cross-cultural, and
developmental regularities help to establish
the neurognostic paradigm of consciousness
(Winkelman 1996, 2000, 2010).
Consciousness encompasses a wide
range of subsystems that together
manage organisms’ relationships with the
environment through epistemological
and self systems. The multiple aspects of
the systems underlying the production
of consciousness permit a multiplicity of
forms of consciousness. These include
developmental levels, cross-cultural
differences, and phasic differences, such
as spontaneous and deliberate entry into
alternate mental states. Explaining these
diverse manifestations of consciousness
requires a systems perspective based in the
approaches of genetic epistemology. This
132 Introduction: Anthropologies of Consciousness
approach provides a general theoretical
framework for consciousness that reveals the
biological bases of diverse phenomenological
experiences associated with the
anthropologies of consciousness.
Altered States and the Past
These biological and cognitive approaches
to the past of religion have a perennial
concern with the nature of the altered
consciousness that is central to shamanism,
possession, and mystical phenomena. A
central feature of understanding altered
states of consciousness is the shaman.
Variously conceptualized, the shaman
represents a complex of ancient human
institutions that engaged in ritual alterations
of consciousness. A growing recognition of
this common primordial form of human
spirituality and consciousness has come from
many disciplines. This notion of a cross-
culturally valid concept of the shaman is well
grounded in cross-cultural (Winkelman 1986,
1990, 1992), psychobiological (Winkelman
2000, 2002; Winkelman and Baker 2008),
and evolutionary findings (Winkelman 2009,
2010). This implicit shamanic paradigm
has been a central feature of the works
of Clottes’s, Dawson’s, Lewis-Williams’s
and Whitley’s numerous publications on
shamanism.
The roles of shamanism in interpreting
human consciousness and the past are
addressed in this issue in the articles by
Winkelman and Loubser. Winkelman
outlines the shamanic paradigm as a
biopsychosocial framework for understanding
the nature, origins, and functions of
shamanism, while Loubser considers the use
of such frameworks to interpret religious
activities in African and aboriginal America.
Time and Mind Volume 3—Issue 2—July 2010, pp. 125–134
Michael Winkelman
A “Five-field” Anthropology of
Consciousness
A comprehensive view of the anthropology
of consciousness must take a “five-
field” perspective of the discipline of
anthropology, explicitly examining the
roles of consciousness within the fields of
paleontology, archaeology, and linguistic,
cultural, and applied anthropology. A set of
primary concerns as well as a diversity of
topics exists within each of the subfields:
Paleontology: the evolution of
consciousness in general, and human
consciousness in particular; stages in the
evolution of consciousness; changes in
consciousness across hominid evolution;
and factors in the emergence of uniquely
human consciousness
Linguistic: the role of language in the
evolution of consciousness, the role of
language in the formation of experience,
perception, and consciousness
Archaeology: different forms of
consciousness in the past of modern
humans; the role of an etic concept of
shamanism in guiding interpretation of
the human past
Cultural: explaining the cultural roles
of shamanistic traditions for altering
consciousness; ethnic, social, class, political,
historical, and other variant forms
of consciousness; and the nature of
consciousness
Applied: using ethnographic knowledge of
technologies for altering consciousness
to address modern problems, such as the
Michael Winkelman
therapeutic applications of psychedelics
and the potential roles of shamanic
ritual in addressing drug addiction,
contemporary soul loss, and other
modern conditions
All that can be done within the space
limits of one issue of this journal is to offer
a preliminary exploration of some of the
explicit aspects of the anthropologies of
consciousness. As the topics listed above
illustrate, there is a much broader set
of concerns about consciousness within
anthropology. These topics generally are
not recognized as explicitly concerned
with consciousness because of the lack
of a paradigm for linking these disparate
areas together. This shortcoming of the
anthropologies of consciousness can be
addressed with an explicit paradigmatic
approach based in biogenetic structuralist
and neurophenomenological approaches.
Michael Winkelman
References
Bronson, M. and Fields, T. (eds), 2009. So What? Now
What? The Anthropology of Consciousness Responds
to a World in Crisis. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
d’Aquili, E., Laughlin, C., and McManus, J. (eds),
1979. The Spectrum of Ritual. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Evans-Wentz, W.Y., 1967. Tibetan Yoga and Secret
Doctrines. New York : Oxford University Press.
Fogelin, L., 2007. “The Archaeology of Religious
Ritual.” Annual Reviews of Anthropology 36: 55–71.
Laughlin, C., 1992a. “Consciousness in Biogenetic
Structural Theory.” Anthropology of Consciousness 3(1
and 2): 17–22.
Time and Mind Volume 3—Issue 2—July 2010, pp. 125–134
Introduction: Anthropologies of Consciousness 133
Laughlin, C., 1992b. Scientific Explanation and the Life-
world. A Biogenetic Structural Theory of Meaning and
Causation. Sausalito, CA: Institute of Noetic Sciences.
Laughlin, C. and d’Aquili, E., 1974. Biogenetic
Structuralism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Laughlin, C., McManus, J., and d’Aquili, E., 1992. Brain,
Symbol, and Experience Toward a Neurophenomenology
of Consciousness. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Throop, C. and Laughlin, C., 2007. “Anthropology
of Consciousness.” in P. Zelazo, M. Moscovitch and
E. Thompson (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of
Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 631–69.
Winkelman, M., 1986. “Magico-religious Practitioner
Types and Socioeconomic Analysis.” Behavior Science
Research 20(1–4): 17–46.
Winkelman, M., 1990. “Shaman and Other ‘Magico-
religious Healers:’ A Cross-cultural Study of their
Origins, Nature, and Social Transformation.” Ethos
18(3): 308–52.
Winkelman, M., 1992. “Shamans, Priests, and
Witches. A Cross-cultural Study of Magico-religious
Practitioners.” Anthropological Research Papers No. 44.
Arizona State University.
Winkelman, M., 1993. “The Evolution of
Consciousness: Transpersonal Theories in Light of
Cultural Relativism.” Anthropology of Consciousness
4(3): 3–9.
Winkelman, M., 1994. “Multidisciplinary Perspectives
on Consciousness.” Anthropology of Consciousness
5(2): 16–25.
Winkelman, M., 1996. “Neurophenomenology and
Genetic Epistemology as a Basis for the Study of
Consciousness.” Journal of Social and Evolutionary
Systems 19(3): 217–36.
Winkelman, M., 2000. Shamanism the Neural Ecology
of Consciousness and Healing. Westport: Bergin and
Garvey.
Winkelman, M., 2002. “Shamanism and Cognitive
Evolution.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12(1):
71–101.
134 Introduction: Anthropologies of Consciousness
Winkelman, M., 2004. “Spirits as Human Nature and
the Fundamental Structures of Consciousness.” in
J. Houran (ed.), From Shaman to Scientist: Essays on
Humanity’s Search for Spirits. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow
Press.
Winkelman, M., 2005. “Understanding Consciousness
Using Systems Approaches and Lexical Universals.”
Anthropology of Consciousness 15(2): 24–38.
Winkelman, M., 2009. “Shamanism and the Origins of
Spirituality and Ritual Healing.” Journal for the Study of
Religion, Nature and Culture (forthcoming).
Winkelman, M., 2010. Shamanism: A Biopsychosocial
Paradigm of Consciousness and Healing. Oxford: ABC
CLIO (forthcoming).
Winkelman, M. and Baker, J., 2008. Supernatural as
Natural: A Biocultural Theory of Religion. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Time and Mind Volume 3—Issue 2—July 2010, pp. 125–134
Michael Winkelman
Winkelman, M. and Peek, P. (eds), 2004. Divination
and Healing: Potent Vision. Tucson, AZ: University of
Arizona Press.
Winkelman, M., and White, D., 1987. “A Cross-cultural
Study of Magico-religious Practitioners and Trance
States: Data Base.” in D. Levinson and R. Wagner
(eds), Human Relations Area Files Research Series in
Quantitative Cross-cultural Data, Vol. 3. New Haven,
CT: HRAF Press.
This is a Special Issue of Time & Mind,
edited by Michael Winkelman, focusing
on the theme of “Anthropologies of
Consciousness,” a comprehensive overview
of which has yet to be written.