Tilburg University the Evolutionary

Tilburg University The evolutionary significance of the arts Hodgson, D.; Verpooten, J. Published in: Biological Theory DOI: 10.1007/s13752-014-0182-y Publication date: 2015 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Hodgson, D., & Verpooten, J. (2015). The evolutionary significance of the arts: Exploring the byproduct hypothesis in the context of ritual, precursors, and cultural evolution. Biological Theory, 10(1), 73-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-014-0182-y General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 26. sep. 2021 Biol Theory DOI 10.1007/s13752-014-0182-y LONG ARTICLE The Evolutionary Significance of the Arts: Exploring the By-product Hypothesis in the Context of Ritual, Precursors, and Cultural Evolution Derek Hodgson • Jan Verpooten Received: 9 April 2014 / Accepted: 5 May 2014 Ó Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research 2014 Abstract The role of the arts has become crucial to Keywords Adaptation Á Arts Á By-product Á Evolution Á understanding the origins of ‘‘modern human behavior,’’ Ritual but continues to be highly controversial as it is not always clear why the arts evolved and persisted. This issue is often addressed by appealing to adaptive biological explanations. The arts have recently become fundamental to debates on However, we will argue that the arts have evolved cultur- human cognitive evolution on a number of counts, with many ally rather than biologically, exploiting biological adapta- arguing that they set humans apart from other species and are tions rather than extending them. In order to support this one of the main traits that define modern humans (e.g., line of inquiry, evidence from a number of disciplines will Henshilwood and Marean 2003). As a result, evidence of be presented showing how the relationship between the early artistic behavior has given rise to intense debate. arts, evolution, and adaptation can be better understood by Interestingly, various artifacts have been found that increas- regarding cultural transmission as an important second ingly consign the origins of modern human behavior to a inheritance system. This will allow an alternative proposal period ever closer to when Homo sapiens sapiens first to be formulated as to the proper place of the arts in human appeared as an anatomically modern species (*180,000 BP). evolution. However, in order for the role of the arts to be Partially in response to these recent finds, the debate as to fully addressed, the relationship of culture to genes and whether the arts are biologically adaptive or are more cul- adaptation will be explored. Based on an assessment of the turally derived has intensified. As the arts are central to this cognitive, biological, and cultural aspects of the arts, and debate, it is essential to determine their proper place in evo- their close relationship with ritual and associated activities, lution. The aim of this article is to assess the role of the arts in we will conclude with the null hypothesis that the arts relation to the trajectory of human evolution in order to avoid evolved as a necessary but nonfunctional concomitant of the confusion and pitfalls that have hindered this debate. other traits that cannot currently be refuted. The first part of this article will examine the relevance of aesthetics to the debate, after which we will identify the appropriate context for assessing the role of the arts and, by implication, their natural point of reference. Some recent D. Hodgson (&) theories that attempt to explain the arts from the perspec- Department of Archaeology, University of York, York, UK tive of evolution will then be considered in light of the e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] foregoing. By way of illustration, specific examples from the archaeological record of how the arts were utilized by J. Verpooten Research Center for Marketing and Consumer Science, Faculty ancient peoples will be presented. Having identified the of Economics and Business, University of Leuven, practical and theoretical standpoints for assessing the role Leuven Louvain, Belgium of the arts, the ramifications arising will then be explored in the second part (‘‘Originating Mechanisms’’) with a special J. Verpooten Research Group Ethology, Department of Biology, University of focus on the relationship between biological adaptation, Antwerp, Wilrijk, Belgium exaptation, and by-product approaches that will be assessed 123 D. Hodgson, J. Verpooten within a gene-culture coevolutionary (aka dual inheritance) although a modern individual might see and emphasize the framework. The final section will address the consequences aesthetic value of artifacts from prehistory or those created arising from the possibility that the arts may not be bio- by AMHGs, ‘‘aesthetics’’ (even in Davies’s (2012) broad logically adaptive. More specifically, we will claim that the sense of seeking and valuing beauty) was probably not the evolution of the arts (not their origins) has been tightly main concern for the authors of the original artifact(s). linked to ritual and associated activities throughout the For AMHGs, aesthetic concerns were therefore mainly major part of evolutionary history, to the extent that they subsidiary to the utilitarian purpose of the arts, which is should be regarded as a complex whole. This behavioral borne out by Paleolithic art, where many of the depictions complex, we will argue, has fitness costs for its participants are ‘‘substandard’’ and frequently displayed in a haphazard, that, on average, may overrule any of the evolutionary uncoordinated way. In fact, many of the depicted animals benefits deriving from each of the arts. are often lost in multiple superimpositions resulting in a confused mass of lines, or were defaced, hidden, incom- plete, distorted, poorly executed, or deliberately obliter- Setting the Context ated, with many sculptures intentionally smashed or buried (Bahn and Vertut 1997). The same widespread tendency to Aesthetics and Art obliterate or destroy previously made ‘‘aesthetic’’ artifacts can be found at the pre-Neolithic site of Go¨bekli Tepe Before considering these issues, the relevance of aesthetics dating to around 12,000 years ago (Schmidt 2010) and needs to be clarified, especially as the concept is often Ç atalhoÿu¨k, around 9,000 years old (Hodder 2010). Wes- conflated with ‘‘art’’ with regard to evolutionary explana- tern commentators tend to accentuate the best examples of tions. Brown and Dissanayake (2009) point out that, Upper Paleolithic art because this appeals to their aesthetic although aesthetics may sometimes play a role in the arts, inclinations and therefore foreground the flagship cave art they are neither critical nor essential—a conclusion that of Lascaux, Chauvet, or Altamira, whereas the majority of may be correct yet is somewhat excessive, as we shall see. the art from most of the sites (including the flagship caves) This reflects earlier debates on the subject in which the looks unfinished or is fragmented (see below for a dis- suggestion that aesthetics should be considered crucial to cussion of examples from the Mesolithic and Neolithic). the arts was rejected by anthropologists (Weiner 1994). Thus, even though some of the depictions of AMHGs may The main reason for this dismissal is that an overt concern be regarded as aesthetically pleasing to a modern sensi- for aesthetics as such only became prominent quite recently bility, for traditionally based tribal groups this was not the (principally in post-Renaissance European art, and espe- overriding concern. In what follows, the emphasis will, cially during the 18th century with the idea of refined therefore, be on investigating the art of AMHGs, in which taste), which is in contrast to pre-literate tribal/tradition- aesthetics remain subservient to the perceived utility of the based communities (including both ancient and modern artifacts. By examining the arts from this perspective, we hunter–gatherer groups, hereafter referred to as AMHGs), will be better placed to understand their true provenance. where such a preoccupation is accorded low priority—but which is not the same as saying they had no interest in Placing the Arts in Context aesthetics. To emphasize, AMHGs will have had an interest in ‘‘beauty,’’ and therefore aesthetics, but this was The majority of world art of the past was integral to the an aesthetic intimately linked to artifacts, which involved a daily life of various communities on a number of different concern for balance, order, symmetry, and so on, and not levels. This also applies to AMHGs, where the arts are one of detached contemplation. Aesthetics were therefore connected to the effectiveness of the objects employed in of secondary importance to AMHGs (Dissanayake 2011), rituals related to supernatural thinking, which explains why not least because the arts were employed to meet the there is often no word for art in such cultures (Morphy requirements of a range of activities relating to supernat- 1994; Soffer and Conkey 1997; Dissanayake 1999). ural/magical thinking (Eibl and Mellmann 2008; Carneiro Moreover, even in cases where an object may seem to 2010) and other more immediate concerns.

Load more