Adaptive Art

A Romanesque crucifix was not regarded by its contemporaries as a work of sculpture; nor Climbue’s Madonna as a picture. Even Pheidias’ Pallas Athene was not, primarily, a statue. So vital is the part played by the art museum in our approach to works of art to-day that we find it difficult to realize that no museums exist, none has ever existed, in lands where the civilization of modern Europe is, or was, unknown; and that, even amongst us, they have existed for barely two hundred years. They bulked so large in the nineteenth century and are so much part of our lives to-day that we forget they have imposed on the spectator a wholly new attitude towards the work of art. For they have tended to estrange the works they bring together from their original functions and to transform even portraits into “pictures”. – Andrè Malraux, 1950

Introduction

The subject of art has rarely been analyzed scientifically or even objectively. Most discussion of it centers on either subjective analysis of the “art” itself, or comparative studies used to corroborate known movements in art. Rarely, if ever, has data been generated from art, and that has never used in hypothesis testing to gain meaningful knowledge as to why the energy was expended in its production. This paper will primarily center on explanations for the existence of the earliest examples of a clear, artistic movement; that of the Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic as exemplified in Chavuet, Lascaux, and Altamira. This arises due to unsatisfactory explanations concerning the formation of this early art, which includes art pour l’art (Lewis-Williams, 2002); hunting (Lewis-Williams, 2002), and forms of mating representation (Leroi-Gourhan, 1981; Laming-Emperaire 1959).

The problems with these explanations are specific to each one. Art pour l’art (art for art’s sake) is untestable, a theory that lies in the gaps of our knowledge, which is completely unacceptable scientifically. Hunting was inferred from squiggles and dots that were supposed to represent lines, traps, and weapons (Lewis-Williams, 2002). Once again, the data is conjectural. This same data was used by Leroi-Gourhan to represent male and female fertility symbols (Leroi-Gourhan, 1981), with similar conjectural results. The problems inherent in this are the methods concerning the collecting, or rather, creating data. The reason these are not scientific is that they are explanations, they have no predictive power. In order for a working theory to be made to encompass the phenomenon of Upper Paleolithic art it must be able to predict when art will be made.

Concerning archaeology, many traditional explanations center around subsistence-strategy based explanations. The Garbage Project established that different income-levels are expressed differentially based on the types of consumer goods they dispose of ,the Optimal Foraging Theory utilizes multiple models to determine the most efficient use of resources in a given; and the Warfare and Circumscription Hypothesis for Archaic state, just to name a few (Thomas, 1998). In some cases, this is appropriate as the data simply is not reflective of anything other than subsistence strategy (particularly Optimal Foraging Theory). In most others, it is bullshit and damn near close to criminal negligence of current biological literature. Most archaeologists have missed a boat or two, particularly in evolutionary biology. Attempts have been made to integrate the two, particularly with neo-evolution, which describes human cultural change in the context of “ecological, demographic, and/or technological determinism by stressing dynamic relationships between human cultures and the rest of the ecosystem.” (Thomas, 1998). Closer, but Frodo’s still sailing away to the west (Tolkien, 1954).

Evolution has nothing to do with those things, other than strongly influencing them as secondary after-affects. To realize this, we must understand the principle tenant of evolution in its definition. Evolution is defined as “Changes in allele frequencies over time” (Freeman, Herron, 2004). It does not result from ecological dynamics; it results from the need for each individual to propagate its genes. Whatever traits increase the individual’s reproductive fitness (the amount of offspring carrying a parent’s genes), will be spread to the next generation. On the population level, this disseminates to population traits. In order to satisfactorily explain and, more importantly, predict human behavior, anthropological hypotheses must include logic and rational at this level. This has not occurred to date. This paper will present only a preliminary hypothesis concerning the establishment, formation, and benefits of art. The benefits of using evolutionary biology to describe the emergence of modern human traits cannot be overstated. However, this paper will still attempt to do so.

Hypothesis Testing for Three Primary Theories

1. Art pour L’Art

Nice, but by this definition alone it cannot be tested. This does not mean it can't be true, but it can't be quantified scientifically and is thus outside the scope of this paper. See discussion below for possible applications of this hypothesis.

2. Hunting Magic

It is quite possible that this hypothesis is both valid and testable. The assumption goes that this art represents an attempt to control the Upper Paleolithic environment. To test this, we first need to look at how the statistics break down in terms of the faunal representation concerning art, and the faunal representation in the fossil record.

Andrè Leroi-Gourhan, despite his odd gender-based hypothesis concerning what the art represented, analyzed the percentages of animal forms statistically. He gives the following counts (Leroi-Gourhan, 1981):

1. Equids: 30%

2. Bovines: 30%

3. Red Deer: 11.3%

4. Mammoth: 9.3%

5. Ibex: 8.4%

6. Reindeer: 3.1%

7. Bear: 1.6%

8. Feline: 1.3%

9. Rhinoceros: 0.7%

10. Monsters: 0.4%

11. Fish: 0.3%

12. Birds: 0.2%

13. Boar: N/A

14. Chamois: N/A

15. Saiga: N/A

Now we get to what is represented in the fossil record. Katherine Boyle performed an extensive analysis on Upper Paleolithic faunal representation throughout Southwestern France. Unfortunately this cannot be broken down into simple ratios such as the cave art, as the fossil relevance is specific to time and place. However, I will do my best to represent her data in a form directly comparable to Leroi-Gourhan’s work. These are her results for the Magdalenian (Boyle, 1990):

Equids:2.7 – 2.9% (Lower), 18.7% (Upper)

Bovines: 29.9% (Lower), 2.8 – 26% (8.2%) (Upper)

Red Deer: 0

Mammoth: N/A

Ibex:19.75%

Reindeer: 45 – 89% (Lower), 22 – 88% (Upper)

Bear: N/A

Rhinoceros: N/A

Monsters: N/A

Fish: N/A

Birds:

Boar: 1.2%

Chamois: 0% - 1.7%

Saiga: 1.3% (Lower), 20.1 (Upper)

At first, eyebrows must be raised. This data is confusing and inconclusive, and quite difficult to pinpoint. However, certain statements can be made. Bovine representation both with fossils and art are almost an exact match in the Lower Paleolithic, provided that the fauna does not dramatically change between the two. Horses seem to have an odd correlation, however it is unknown if the relationship with these animals was exclusively predatory. Ibex and Reindeer are obviously disproportionately represented, however this could imply that these were so common as to be taken for granted, thus “Hunting Magic” would not be necessary most of the time. However, this is by no means definitive. Further analysis would be to compare expressions of the art with the actual appearance of the animals in question. Basically, digitally superimpose the known skeletal structure of the animals with their artistic expression. If “Hunting Magic” is correct, than it should predict that the animals should appear more robust and obese than normally seen in the wild.

3. Gender Hypothesis

There’s really very little that can be done at this level, primarily because the data itself is conjectural. How does one determine if a line or a triangle represents a female? It requires the assumption first, that art is the same to them as it is to us, and the second assumption that they would express things the same way if they saw it as we do. Leroi-Gourhan recognizes this even in is analysis as he states that:

“The magic of the hunt, symbols of human fertility side by side on the walls with those of animals, a shaman executing hunting dances, mother goddesses, all these explanatory themes abound, and are based solely on the reminiscences of western thought.” – Leroi-Gourhan

As a result, many dichotomies supposedly drawn between male and female symbols may largely be false dichotomies. As such, they must be viewed critically, and not be confused with actual data collection.

4. Adaptive Art

Given the biological background that this paper will approach, certain conditions must be set to clearly establish something to collect data to test. The primary, underlying assumption is this:

1a. Humans are no different than animals when it comes to either evolution or selective pressures.

There will be no distinction drawn between humans from any other species competing in the Upper Paleolithic. This means that for any trait observed in humans on a wide scale, it must have had a reproductive benefit to be disseminated throughout the species. Art, as current data illustrates, is almost exclusively a trait seen in Homo sapiens or its immediate relatives. Because our closest relatives, Pan paniscus/ Pan troglodytes do not exhibit these traits to any degree without human encouragement (de Waal, 1998) it can be assumed further assumed that:

2a. Art and/or symbolic representation has a genetic basis, either direct or indirect.

This meaning that there is either an “art” gene, or it emerges from a series of other genes affecting cognition. From this, we can further infer that, concerning the emergence of cave art relatively rapidly, it must either:

3a. Confer a reproductive benefit upon the individual creating it, or

3b. Significantly alter the subsistence strategy to make such art contribute to survival and subsequently reproductive fitness of the group.

In other words, it will either benefit the artist directly concerning reproductive fitness, or indirectly through increasing the chances of survival. With these hypotheses clearly stated, we can now examine cave art throughout the Upper Paleolithic, and determine if these hypotheses can stand up to the test of cultural, archaeological, and most importantly, biological evidence.

As stated earlier, the evolutionary perspective (actual biological evolutionary perspective that is) states that in order for art to have emerged and disseminate through a population, it must have done so because it increased the reproductive fitness, either directly through increasing the reproductive fitness of the individual (Hypothesis 3a) or indirectly by enhancing the total survival of the group via contributing to the subsistence strategy (Hypothesis 3b). From a biological perspective, it’s in the bag that this was an adaptive trait for the individual, but how does one determine this from the archaeological record?

The answer is that we have the wrong question.

The archaeological record is the biological record, no different than the dinosaurs excavated in the Mesozoic (though perhaps better preserved). The behavior is radically different, but biological evidence is NOT different than archeological evidence in the sense of what it preserves: organisms, environment, and the combination of the two that can be used to infer behavior. Drawing a distinction between the two is a false dichotomy; they do not play under different rules in the absolute sense. The difference is in the theoretical paradigms employed by biologists and archaeologists, and even at that these seem to be more divisive than expected.

So, what qualifications for determining a new trait in our biological record? There are two possibilities:

1. That the trait evolves slowly, with some indication of variation, but tends toward a specific, functional purpose (think of hominid bipedalism) or,

2. They appear rapidly with no transitional forms (Hey, look! There’s a lot of art in these caves!)

This was a common problem in evolution, which necessitated the punctuated equilibrium theory (Eldredge, Gould, 1972), in which a population can, through selection, evolve new traits rapidly (not necessarily into a new species though). In other words, long periods of stability can be punctuated with times of rapid change. This indicates a strong, directed selective pressure. This is significant as this still meets the test for punctuated equilibrium as set by Levinton, in which most phenotypic trends over time follow phyletic gradualism. It should be noted that punctuated equilibrium does not simply mean fast evolution after long periods of stasis, phyletic gradualism can change in tempo (Levinton, 2001). Due to these criticisms, Gould re-clarified punctuated equilibrium:

“Punctuated equilibrium is not a theory about all forms of rapidity, at any scale or level, in biology. Punctuated equilibrium addresses the origin and deployment of species in geological time. Punctuational styles of change characterize other phenomena at other scales as well – catastrophic mass extinction triggered by bolide impacts, for example- and proponents of punctuated equilibrium would become dull specialists if they did not take an interest in the different mechanisms responsible for similarities in the general features of stability and change across nature’s varied domains, for science has always sought unity in this form of abstraction.” – Stephan J. Gould, 2002

This revised look makes punctuated equilibrium a theory of the emergence of traits within a species. The equilibrium stage of variation would see a passively-passed trait with little effect on the reproductive fitness of the individual possessing the trait. This would be punctuated then by rapid change and dispersal. In our biological record, we should see a distinct difference in either morphology or, as in the case of the high resolution of the archaeological record, a distinct change in behavior. This change, the emergence of highly detailed art in the Upper Paleolithic with few to no transitional forms indicates a strong selective event punctuating an otherwise static history of manifested symbolic representation.

Now, we must make a distinction here. Selective pressure can mean a lot of things. It can be an asteroid falling out of the sky, selecting for the small, feathered dinosaurs and furry mammals, or it could be sexual in nature, based on a change in breeding preference. This has been seen, specifically in ceratopsian dinosaurs in the late Cretaceous where hundreds of variations in triceratops species just appear due almost exclusively to sexual selection of cranial ornamentations (Dodson, 1996). Thus, we return to the original hypotheses stated, and clarify the conditions. The spread of art is due to an increase in reproductive fitness. The evidence suggests that this was rapid, implying a strong benefit to the possessor(s) of this trait. The reasons why are numerous, art as sexual display, art resulting from an act of social cohesion that makes the “hunt” more functional, etc.

Of course, any given selective pressure is only half of the process, the variation must exist initially to be selected upon. How does a trait then spread through a population if there is no selection either for or against? This argument is largely mathematical, and outlined as the Neutral Model of Evolution based on the principle of genetic drift. Developed by Motoo Kimura, it is simply mathematical probability of a gene drifting from high expression to low expression in populations over time. This had the effect of a city bus striking a watermelon to the evolutionary community for two primary reasons:

1. The size of the population didn’t affect the outcome and

2. Positive natural selection did nothing to change it.

And these two claims were then followed by mathematical proof, arguably the only certainties that can be used in science. Simply put, once a mutant trait emerges, it’s survival in the population was based on the following formula:

2Nv * 1/(2N) = v

Where N is a diploid population and v is the rate of selectively neutral mutations per allele per generation (Freeman, Herron, 2004). The diploid alleles have to cancel each other out, forcing v to become the critical variable. This then creates a feedback loop (which is largely the domain of chaos and complexity and far outstretches the boundaries of this already dangerously inflated paper). In a nutshell, this equation, iterated throughout the entire existence of the gene, becomes a dependent series of random numbers eventually fixing at 0 (extinction) or 1 (total dominance). Of course, should the given trait no longer be neutral and become a core tenant of selection it will automatically be lifted from the domain of predictable neutral mathematics to natural selection, basically erase the v variable and replace it with a ?. This is mathematical justification for any given trait to exist at any given genetic frequency in any given population.

Luckily, we don’t have to leave the mathematical realm just yet. For a given trait to be reproductively successful, it must migrate into other populations. This is the arena where archaeology and genetics really coincide. Due to increasing population densities from the Upper Paleolithic to Neolithic (that Mesolithic paper), we have evidence of migration. In genetics, migration is expressed in the following equation:

∆ p1 = m(pC – p1)

Where p1 equals the frequency of an allele on a separate population, m the coefficient of migration and pC the frequency of the allele in the rest of the population (Freeman, Herron, 2004). The equation mediates between two separate populations through the value m. Thus, if m = 0, then there is no change in p1. Mathematically speaking (thus beyond the scope of this paper and highly dubious), we can express the movement of the “art gene(s)” while simultaneously utilizing archaeological data by the following equation:

∆ p1 = E(m(pC – pl)/g

Where m equals the coefficient of migration, pC equals the frequency of the allele in the rest of the population, p1 equals the frequency in the isolated population, and g equals the amount of generations measured (which can be calculated as a rough estimate based on time range of archaeological sites exhibiting the desired trait). For example, let’s say we have small migration of roughly 20% of new individuals containing a slight dominance of the art allele at 60%. The isolated population has this alleles as well (due to neutral theory), but only at 20%. If we assume these are the only variables, then our change in the isolated population’s frequency will be .08%, added to our 20% it becomes 28%. (.2(.6-.2)). If this same migration occurred next year, the new gene frequency would be 34.4%. There has been a 14.4% increase in the gene. Divide by the generation time, and we see a general movement increase by 7.2% based on migration on average. Measure this over 50, 100 generations, and we will see the gene frequencies even out, homogenizing the populations, because as more generations are summated p1 will approach pC as it’s upper limit (excluding all other variables). The trait is thus successfully passed. It is mathematical probability alone that migration will increase the gene frequencies so long as positive selection has occurred for the trait in question within the migratory population. Introducing positive selection on behalf of the isolated population will only increase this value. If this equation proves to be accurate, than I take full credit for developing it, or, if it is inaccurate, I blame it on formulating it at 2:30 in the morning the night before this paper is due. Either way, it supplies a mathematical basis for the Adaptive Art hypothesis.

Furthermore, this hypothesis can thus underlie the aforementioned hypotheses while extending their application. However it acts as the primary reason, it was an adaptation to increase the reproductive fitness of the individuals possessing the trait. The emergence of Upper Paleolithic art qualifies as more than a change in artistic styles, it represents a distinct difference in the way H. sapiens interacted with their environment. Given population increases throughout the later Mesolithic and Neolithic (Gamble, 1993), these new traits provided a substantial benefit to their carriers. With a sound theoretical basing in biology, much of the mystery concerning the massive technological jumps beginning 42,000 is dispelled.

Discussion

The emergence of art based on a genetic model may be considered to be a fantastic and illogical claim (indeed, the writing of this paper did estrange me from a good friend), and as such necessitates fantastic evidence. I would argue that the converse is true, to assume that art is a natural development based on a vague concept of human nature is fantastic. Consider this, the human brain has some 100 billion neurons, and each individual neuron has from 1 to 10 thousand separate connections to other neurons. This forms roughly 1 X 10^12 to 1 X 10^13 different possibilities. As Vintage Ramachandran states: “…the number of brain states, exceeds the numbers of elementary particles in the known universe” (Ramachandran, 2004). That art is a causal probability based on higher forms of intelligence is bunk when one looks at the sheer probability of something such as symbolic representation evolving independent of natural selection, because then the numbers are chance in that vast ocean of possible brain states.

Though art can be learned, to develop it takes something quite different. The popular belief in a plastic brain leading to a “nurture” based input system has largely been falsified scientifically, but as has been shown before that means little when it comes in conflict with what we want to know. Plasticity in many regards shows the biological, predictable nature of our behavior.

“The doctrine of extreme plasticity has used the plasticity discovered in the primary sensory cortex as a metaphor for what happens elsewhere in the brain. The upshot of these two sections is that it is not a very good metaphor. If the plasticity of sensory cortex symbolized the plasticity of mental life as a whole, it should be easy to change what we don’t like about ourselves or other people” Steven Pinker, 2002.

In this case, we can clearly see that the brain is much to complex to be won over by a simple nature vs. nurture dichotomy. Furthermore we can see that something as widely specific as symbolic representation could not have evolved in a population by chance, it must have conferred a specific reproductive benefit to be in all humans. Art is an even more specific form of symbolic representation, and its widespread occurrence in humanity suggests it too conferred a specific advantage, rooted genetically.

The aforementioned 4 hypotheses are not mutually exclusive. The “Adaptive Art” hypothesis forms the necessary underlying theoretical basis to make other explanations plausible, such as Breuil’s “Hunting Magic” or Leroi-Gourhan’s Gender-based explanations. “Hunting Magic” is not refuted by statistical analysis of preserved art vs. preserved faunal remains. By withstanding this test it has value in lending to good predictable models for why art manifests itself so strongly in the Aurignacian. If this is true than it should predict that a significant change occurred between Middle Paleolithic and Upper Paleolithic hunting techniques to necessitate greater degrees of control. Failing that, it is more probable that it is a manifestation of cave art, rather than a cause.

Returning to classical art literature, Andrè Malraux drew a distinction between modern and ancient understandings of art. For the purposes of this discussion, they will be divided into two; functional art and art pour l’art, as seen in a museum. Functional art is symbolic representation that confers a benefit to the artist through its creation, whether it is salvation in making crosses for graves or engraving the animal you are hunting onto your atlatl. Art pour l’art occurs in museums, where the goal is appreciation and by default puts art in competition with each other. In which category does Aurignacian cave art fit? According to Breuil’s “Hunting Magic”, it should be functional. But it must be remembered that the organization of art in caves holds many more ties to museum art than it does to individual pieces of functional art. Thus, could cave art be viewed holistically, much like a museum? Does the arrangement of animals, the distance, does it have a specific meaning of competition? Are the disparities in quality and style of art intentional? Such questions cannot be answered without rigorous analysis with this hypothetical framework in mind. It would require analysis of cave art in groups, not as individual pieces. A few tantalizingly obvious pieces may fit into this observation. In the Shaft of the Dead Man in Lascaux cave, Laming-Emperaire notes that “the central figure is a bird-headed man drawn in black outline and very stiff in contrast with the supple lines of the other figures in the cave” (Laming-Emperaire, 1959). In addition, the bison drawn across bosses in the cave ceiling may also represent intentional group representation. Once again, a systematic analysis of these drawings may reveal double-meanings inherent to the arts’ interpretation. This is largely speculative, however it underlies the principle that we must have specific hypothetical frameworks to test interpretations of the art. Data pour la data simply doesn’t cut it.

Conclusion

Art appears in the Aurignacian period in multiple localities, suggesting a strong benefit to the possessors of this trait, and spread rapidly due to this increase in the possessor’s reproductive fitness. The core hypothesis represented in this paper (Hypothesis 3a) could not be refuted based on current genetic or archaeological literature. This hypothesis fits within known biological frameworks and also forms the most basic and plausible hypothesis in such a context.

“Hunting Magic” may have a sound basis based on statistical comparisons with known faunal record of the Upper Paleolithic, however that data is inconclusive to date. Furthermore, this success may have served as an explicit manifestation of the second hypothesis (Hypothesis 3b) which specified indirect increases of reproductive fitness.

Other hypotheses, such as gender or art pour l’art, lacked either data or the possibility of data (respectively). As such they hold no scientific weight at all, and should be distinguished from working hypotheses such as “Hunting Magic” or Adaptive Art.

Finally, for any hypotheses to work it must conform to both biological and archaeological testing, which ideally should be the same. The discrepancy between the two fields simply cannot be justified due to today’s knowledge, and should be addressed as soon as possible. This is not to whitewash all anthropologists and claim them to be ignorant for a few diligent anthropologists have certainly utilized biological literature effectively, however as a whole the field is moving in the opposite direction, clinging to what it wants to know rather than what the evidence states.

The arguments pertaining to Upper-Paleolithic cave art must look at the emergence as a biological phenomenon to gather any scientifically viable results. This illustrates a larger problem throughout the anthropological field, the distance between biology and anthropology and lack of cross-communication. It has oft been said that “differentiation is a science, integration an art.” If this is true, than our attempts to reconcile the biological sciences with humanistic anthropology may place us closer with the Aurignacian tradition than we would have thought possible.

References

Boyle, Katherine V., 1990, Upper Palaeolithic Faunas from South-West France, a Zoogeographic Perspective, BAR International Series 557, Oxford, England

de Waal, Frans, 1998, Chimpanzee Politics, Power and Sex among Apes, Revised Edition, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

Dodson, Peter, 1996, The Horned Dinosaurs, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey

Eldredge, Niles, Gould, Stephen J., 1972, Punctuated Equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In T. J. M. Schopf (ed.), models in Paleobiology, Freeman, Cooper & Co., San Francisco, California

Freeman, Scott; Herron, John C., 2004, Evolutionary Analysis, Third Edition, Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey

Gamble, Clive, 1993, Timewalkers, The Prehistory of Global Colonization, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Gould, Stephen J., 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Laming-Emperaire, Annette, 1959, Lascaux Paintings and Engravings, trans. Armstrong, Eleanore Frances, Penguin Books Ltd, Baltimore, Pennsylvania

Leroi-Gourhan, Andrè, 1981, The Dawn of European Art, an Introduction to Palaeolithic Cave Painting, trans. Champion, Sara, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England

Levinton, Jeffrey S., 2001, Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England

Lewis-Williams, David, 2002, The Mind in the Cave; Consciousness and the Origins of Art, Thames & Hudson Ltd, London, England

Malraux, Andrè, 1978, The Voices of Silence, trans. Gilbert, Stuart, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey

Pinker, Steven, 2002, The Blank Slate; The Modern Denial of Human Nature, Penguin Books Ltd., New York, New York.

Ramachandran, Vintage S., 2004, A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness, Pearson Education Inc., New York, New York

Thomas, David Hurst, 1998, Archaeology, Third Edition, Harcourt Brace & Company, New York, New York

Tolkien, John Ronald Revel, 1954, The Lord of the Rings, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts

P.S. For an interesting view of the basis of fantasy, visit the following link: http://home.freeuk.net/webbuk2/tolkien-biography.htm. Lord of the Rings, though original, has some frighteningly derived points (Did you know Sam Gamgee is a real person)?