Advertisement

Theory in Biosciences

, Volume 129, Issue 2–3, pp 211–221 | Cite as

Sensory exploitation and cultural transmission: the late emergence of iconic representations in human evolution

  • Jan VerpootenEmail author
  • Mark Nelissen
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Iconic representations (i.e., figurative imagery and realistic art) only started to appear consistently some 45,000 years ago, although humans have been anatomically modern since 200,000–160,000 years ago. What explains this? Some authors have suggested a neurocognitive change took place, leading to a creative explosion, although this has been contested. Here, we examine the hypothesis that demographic changes caused cultural “cumulative adaptive evolution” and as such the emergence of modern symbolic behavior. This approach usefully explains the evolution of utilitarian skills and tools, and the creation of symbols to identify groups. However, it does not equally effectively explain the evolution of behaviors that may not be directly adaptive, such as the production of iconic representations like figurines and rock art. In order to shed light on their emergence, we propose to combine the above-mentioned cultural hypothesis with the concept of sensory exploitation. The concept essentially states that behavioral traits (in this case iconic art production) which exploit pre-existing sensory sensitivities will evolve if not hindered by costs (i.e., natural selection). In this view, iconic art traditions are evolved by piggybacking on cumulative adaptive evolution. Since it is to date uncertain whether art has served any adaptive function in human evolution, parsimony demands paying more attention to the primary and afunctional mechanism of sensory exploitation as opposed to mechanisms of models based exclusively on secondary benefits (such as Miller’s, for instance, in which art is proposed to evolve as a sexual display of fitness).

Keywords

Sensory exploitation Cultural transmission Iconic representations Mimicry Demographic transition Evolution of art 

Abbreviation

SE

Sensory exploitation

UP

Upper Paleolithic

LSA

Late Stone Age

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank one anonymous referee, Johan Braeckman and his research group, Andreas de Block, Tijs Goldschmidt, Yannick Joye, and Alexander Verpoorte for sharing useful suggestions and commenting on earlier drafts. Also many thanks to Lokaal01_Antwerpen (www.lokaal01.org) for the opportunity to discuss our ideas among scientists and artists. Last but not least we thank Nathalie Gontier and the other members of the organizing committee for having us at the conference.

References

  1. Ambrose SH (1998a) Chronology of the Later Stone Age and food production in East Africa. J Archaeol Sci 25:377–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambrose SH (1998b) Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans. J Hum Evol 34:623–651CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Arak A, Enquist M (1993) Hidden preferences and the evolution of signals. Phil Trans R Soc B 340:207–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnqvist G (2006) Sensory exploitation and sexual conflict. Phil Trans R Soc B 361:375–386. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2005.1790 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bar-Yosef O (2002) The Upper Paleolithic revolution. Annu Rev Anthropol 31:363–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bednarik RG (2003) A figurine from the African Acheulian. Curr Anthropol 44(3):405–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyd R, Richerson PJ (1985) Culture and the evolutionary process. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyd R, Richerson PJ (2005) The origin and evolution of cultures. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  9. Brumm A, Moore MW (2005) Symbolic revolutions and the Australian archaeological record. Camb Archaeol J 15:157–175. doi: 10.1017/S0959774305000089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coe K (2003) The ancestress hypothesis: visual art as adaptation. Rutgers University Press, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  11. Conard NJ (2003) Palaeolithic ivory sculptures from South-Western Germany and the origins of figurative art. Nature 426:830–832CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Conard NJ (2009) A female figurine from the basal Aurignacian of Hohle Fels Cave in southwestern Germany. Nature 459:248–252. doi: 10.1038/nature07995 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dart RA (1974) The waterworn pebble of many faces from Makapansgat. S Afr J Sci 70:167–169Google Scholar
  14. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex, 2 vols. John Murray, London (Reprinted in 1952 by Encyclopedia Britannica)Google Scholar
  15. Debeaune SA, White R (1993) Ice-age lamps. Sci Am 268:108–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Delporte H (1977) Paleolithic lamp found at cave-of-Lascaux. Rev Louvre mus Fr 27:94–96Google Scholar
  17. Dissanayake E (1992) Homo sestheticus. Where art comes from and why. University of Washington Press, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  18. Dissanayake E (2001) Birth of the arts. Nat Hist 109:84–91Google Scholar
  19. Endler JA, Basolo AL (1998) Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 13:415–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Floss H, Rouquerol N (2007) Les Chemins de l’Art Aurignacien en Europe/Das Aurignacien und die Anfänge der Kunst in Europa. Éditions Musée-forum Aurignac, AurignacGoogle Scholar
  21. Fuller RC, Houle D, Travis J (2005) Sensory bias as an explanation for the evolution of mate preferences. Am Nat 166:437–446CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Goren-Inbar N (1986) A figurine from the Acheulean site of Berekhat Ram. J Isr Prehist Soc 19:7–12Google Scholar
  23. Guilford T, Dawkins MS (1991) Receiver psychology and the evolution of animal signals. Anim Behav 42:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Henrich J (2004) Demography and cultural evolution: how adaptive cultural processes can produce maladaptive losses—the Tasmanian case. Am Antiq 69:197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hodgson D (2006) Understanding the origins of Paleoart: the neurovisual resonance theory and brain functioning. Paleoanthropology 2006:54–67Google Scholar
  26. Huffman MA, Quiatt D (1986) Stone handling by Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata): implications for tool use of stone. Primates 27:413–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. James HVA, Petraglia MD (2005) Interpreting conflict in the ancient Andes. Curr Anthropol 46(Suppl):3. doi: 10.1086/425660 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kellert SR, Wilson EO (1993) The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  29. Klein R (2000) Archaeology and the evolution of human behavior. Evol Anthropol 9:17–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kohn M, Mithen S (1999) Handaxes: products of sexual selection? Antiquity 73:518–526Google Scholar
  31. Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Morley J (2003) The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:653–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maran T (2007) Semiotic interpretations of biological mimicry. Semiotica 167:223–248. doi: 10.1515/SEM.2007.077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marean CW et al (2007) Early human use of marine resources and pigment in South Africa during the Middle Pleistocene. Nature 449:905–908. doi: 10.1038/nature06204 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. McBrearty S, Brooks AS (2000) The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior. J Hum Evol 39:453–563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. McDermott L (1996) Self-representation in upper paleolithic female figurines. Curr Anthropol 37:227–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mellars P (2005) The impossible coincidence. A single-species model for the origins of modern human behavior in Europe. Evol Anthropol 14:12–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Miller GF (1998) How mate choice shaped human nature: a review of sexual selection and human evolution. In: Crawford C, Krebs D (eds) Handbook of evolutionary psychology: ideas, issues, and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 87–129Google Scholar
  38. Miller GF (1999) Sexual selection for cultural displays. In: Dunbar R, Knight C, Power C (eds) The evolution of culture. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 71–91Google Scholar
  39. Miller GF (2000) The mating mind. Heinemann, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Miller GF (2001) Aesthetic fitness: how sexual selection shaped artistic virtuosity as a fitness indicator and aesthetic preferences as mate choice criteria. Bull Psychol Arts 2(1):20–25Google Scholar
  41. Mithen SJ (1996) The prehistory of the mind: a search for the origins of art, religion, and science. Thames and Hudson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Connell JF, Allen J (2007) Pre-LGM Sahul (Pleistocene Australia-New Guinea) and the archaeology of early modern humans. In: Mellars P, Boyle K, Bar-Yosef O, Stringer C (eds) Rethinking the human revolution. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, pp 395–410Google Scholar
  43. Pasteur G (1982) A classificatory review of mimicry systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 13:169–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Petraglia MD (2007) Mind the gap: factoring the Arabian Peninsula and the Indian subcontinent into out of Africa models. In: Mellars P, Boyle K, Bar-Yosef O, Stringer C (eds) Rethinking the human revolution. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, pp 383–394Google Scholar
  45. Pinker S (1997) How the mind works. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Pinker S (2002) The blank slate. The modern denial of human nature. Viking, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Powell A, Shennan S, Thomas MG (2009) Late pleistocene demography and the appearance of modern human behavior. Science 324:1298–1301. doi: 10.1126/science.1170165 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Power C (1999) ‘Beauty’ magic: the origins of art. In: Dunbar R, Knight C, Power C (eds) The evolution of culture. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 71–91Google Scholar
  49. Ramachandran VS, Hirstein W (1999) The science of art: a neurological theory of aesthetic experience. J Conscious Stud 6:15–51Google Scholar
  50. Ribeiro PD, Christy JH, Rissanen RJ, Kim TW (2006) Males are attracted by their own courtship signals. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Richerson PJ, Boyd R (2001) Built for speed, not for comfort. Darwinian theory and human culture. Hist Philos Life Sci 23:425–465PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Ross J, Davidson I (2006) Rock art and ritual: an archaeological analysis of rock art in arid central Australia. J Archaeol Method Theory 13:305–341. doi: 10.1007/s10816-006-9021-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ryan MJ (1998) Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences. Science 281:1999–2003 (review 1999)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Salzburger W, Braasch I, Meyer A (2007) Adaptive sequence evolution in a color gene involved in the formation of the characteristic egg-dummies of male haplochromine cichlid fishes. BMC Biol 5:51Google Scholar
  55. Sebeok TA (1989) Iconicity. In: Sebeok TA (ed) The sign and its masters. University Press of America, Lanham, pp 107–127Google Scholar
  56. Sebeok TA, Danesi M (2000) The forms of meaning: modeling systems theory and semiotic analysis. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. Sergent J, Ohta S, MacDonald B (1992) Functional neuroanatomy of face and object processing. A positron emission tomography study. Brain 115:15–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Shennan S (2001) Demography and cultural innovation: a model and its implication for the emergence of modern human culture. Camb Archeol J 11:5–16Google Scholar
  59. Stiner MC, Kuhn SL (2006) Changes in the ‘Connectedness’ and resilience of Paleolithic societies in Mediterranean ecosystems. Hum Ecol 34:693–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. ten Cate C, Rowe C (2007) Biases in signal evolution: learning makes a difference. Trends Ecol Evol 22:380–387. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.03.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Tobler M (2006) Die Eiflecken bei Cichliden: Evolution durch Nutzung der Sinne? (The egg spots of cichlids: evolution through sensory exploitation?) Z Fisch 8:39–46Google Scholar
  62. Tsao DY, Livingstone MS (2008) Mechanisms of face perception. Annu Rev Neurosci 31:411–437. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.30.051606.094238 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Ulrich RS (1993) Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In: Kellert RS, Wilson EO (eds) The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press, Washington, pp 73–137Google Scholar
  64. Van Damme W (2008) Introducing world art studies. In: Van Damme W, Zijlmans K (eds) World art studies: exploring concepts and approaches. Valiz, Amsterdam, pp 23–61Google Scholar
  65. van Schaik CP, Knott CD (2001) Geographic variation in tool use on Neesia fruits in orangutans. Am J Phys Anthropol 114:331–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Verpooten J, Nelissen M (2010) Sensory exploitation: underestimated in the evolution of art as once in sexual selection? In: Plaisance KS, Reydon TAC (eds) Philosophy of behavioral biology, volume: Boston studies in the philosophy of science. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  67. Vogelsang R (1998) Middle-Stone-Age-Fundstellen in Südwest-Namibia. Heinrich Barth Institut, KölnGoogle Scholar
  68. Wachtel E (1993) The first picture show: cinematic aspects of cave art. Leonardo 26:135–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. White R (1982) Rethinking the middle/upper paleolithic transition (and comments and replies). Curr Anthropol 23:169–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wilson EO (1984) Biophilia. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpenBelgium
  2. 2.Konrad Lorenz Institute for Cognition and Evolution ResearchAltenbergAustria

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options