David Kowalewski has a doctorate and, judging by the blurb on the back of the book, a reasonably distinguished scholarly background, which includes two NEH awards and two rounds as a Fulbright scholar. Dancing with Ancestors, nevertheless, is written not for academics, but for a general audience, consisting, it appears, primarily of New Age participants interested in connecting with their ancestors. Accordingly, that is the audience for which this work will be most valuable.

The main argument of Kowalewski´s work is that, as living humans, we need a connection with our ancestors and that not having such a connection subjects us both individually and societally to spiritual harm. Shamanic techniques and recourse to the assistance of shamanic specialists are the best ways to develop those relationships. The first several chapters develop these ideas.

The book, however, is intended largely as a how-to manual, so the argument is not the central point of the book, but rather makes a case for the recommended action of renewing the connection with our forebears. The remainder of the book is devoted largely to discussion of how to do that. Kowalewski includes both actions that can be undertaken in the everyday world (such as creating shrines, making offerings of food, or researching family history) and more spiritual approaches (such as shamanic journeying, recreating the spiritual practices of one’s ancestors, or vision quests). Kowalewski also includes a chapter on problems that can arise in the relationship with the dead and how to prevent them or, if they do arise, how to deal with them.

The book´s non-academic focus notwithstanding, some aspects of Dancing with Ancestors may be of use to scholars approaching it through an academic perspective. Kowalewski brings the strengths of his scholarly background to the book. He has reviewed and synthesized considerable academic material about shamanism. He also draws on a wide variety of other sources, including material about related professions, non-academic works by revival participants, his own personal experience, and that of other participants.

The most significant failing of this book from an academic perspective is that Kowalewski weighs and uses this material differently than a typical scholar would. In particular, he accepts non-academic works of revival participants uncritically. So far as I could tell from his notes and bibliography, for instance, he considers such material to be just as valid in its description of shamanic and spiritual practices from specific cultures many generations in the past as scholarly ethnographic works are in describing traditional communities contemporaneous to the ethnographer. (See, for instance, pages 29-30 and corresponding notes on pages 119-120 for some sense of how he uses both types of information.) He also accepts personal experience narratives of near-death experiences as literally true and hence appropriate evidence for some of his truth claims about the ancestors (see, for instance, pages xxii, xxiii, 29-30).

That said, scholars interested in traditional forms of shamanism are likely to find Kowalewski’s bibliography and notes useful for locating relevant sources. The book might also be of use to academics interested in researching revivals of shamanic and related traditions, both as the product of such a revival and as a source of additional references.

Another strength of the work that might arise in part from Kowalewski´s academic background is a nuanced approach that acknowledges more than one possibility. He notes, for instance, that traditional cultures report both good and bad interactions with their ancestors and report differences in the practices and beliefs of different cultures. While his book focuses on relationships with blood kin, Kowalewski makes a point of acknowledging that people who are not literal ancestors may also have been important in our lives and may also be available for ongoing relationships following their deaths.

While, from an academic point of view, Kowalewski’s uncritical approach to the material he incorporates undercuts his argument, most members of his intended audience (judging by my own participation in and knowledge of an adjacent and somewhat overlapping group, the contemporary Pagan community) are unlikely to care. Instead, many will see the material in question as validating their own interest in shamanic practices and, in some instances, as verifying the participation of their own ancestors in such practices.

Adrian Bott, in an interview with Liz Williams that was published in The Wild Hunt: Pagan News and Perspectives, describes the accretion of additional unsubstantiated material to a particular legend in the contemporary Pagan context as “a sort of communal fanfiction project as applied to religion.” Although Bott is focused on that particular legend, the concept of communal fan fiction can be applied usefully to much of the material that circulates both orally and in writing in contemporary Pagan contexts and probably to similar material in adjacent revival communities, as well.

Considered as a work of fan fiction in a communal context, the task that Kowalewski has taken on is not to write an accurate scholarly account, but to write a compelling narrative encouraging more in-depth engagement with ancestors. In that task, I think he has succeeded.

Work Cited

Williams, Liz. 2017. “UK Pagans Respond to Question on Eostre and Ostara.” The Wild Hunt: Pagan News and Perspectives. https://wildhunt.org/2017/04/uk-pagans-respond-to-questions-on-the-origins-of-easter-and-ostara.html

--------

[Review length: 854 words • Review posted on November 11, 2021]