The eyes have it: human perception and anthropomorphic faces in world rock art.

The eyes have it: human perception and anthropomorphic faces in world rock art. Introduction Anthropomorphic Having the characteristics of a human being. For example, an anthropomorphic robot has a head, arms and legs. faces with prominent eyes are widespread in theprehistoric rock art of hunter-gatherer societies. Although they are notas common as some other recurrent forms of imagery, particularlyanthropomorphic figures, zoomorphs, certain abstract-geometric shapesand patterns, and hand stencils and prints, they are found everywherefrom the caves of south-western Europe, such as those at Le Portel andTrois Freres, France (Lorblanchet 1989: 131), to the rockshelters ofnorthern Australia The term northern Australia is generally considered to include the States and territories of Australia of Queensland and the Northern Territory. The part of Western Australia (WA) north of latitude 26�� south — a definition widely used in law and State government policy and the painted Wandjinas of the Kimberley (e.g.Crawford 1968, 1973; Mowaljarlai & Malnic 1993; Doring 2000). Somefaces with prominent eyes appear in very similar forms in widelyseparated regions, depicted in frontal view, typically exhibiting a highdegree of symmetry and playing down other features such as noses or earsor excluding them entirely. Examples include the archaic facepetroglyphs of the Australian arid zone (Edwards 1968; Dix 1977; Davidet al. 1992; McDonald 2005) (Figure 1); those in several parts of NorthAmerica North America,third largest continent (1990 est. pop. 365,000,000), c.9,400,000 sq mi (24,346,000 sq km), the northern of the two continents of the Western Hemisphere. , such as the many petroglyphs attributed to the prehistoricSalish of the Northwest Coast (e.g. those at Puget Sound Puget Sound(py`jĕt), arm of the Pacific Ocean, NW Wash., connected with the Pacific by Juan de Fuca Strait, entered through the Admiralty Inlet and extending in two arms c. and GeorgiaStrait) (Hill & Hill 1974; Leen 2009) (Figure 2); those in Mongoliain Khanbogd sum territory, Umnugobiaimag (Tseveendorj et al. 2007)(Figure 3); those throughout Siberia and the Russian Far East atSikachi-Alyan and Sheremetyevo, Khabarovsk region (Figure 4); theMakemake faces on Easter Island Easter Island,Span. Isla de Pascua, Polynesian Rapa Nui, remote island (1992 pop. 2,770), 66 sq mi (171 sq km), in the South Pacific, c.2,200 mi (3,540 km) W of Chile, to which it belongs. (Lee 1992) (Figure 5) and otherselsewhere in the Pacific. The similarity of such face motifs in widely separated regions is aphenomenon that has not been adequately explained. What was it that ledhumans to produce them in such similar ways throughout time and space?Without resorting to diffusionist explanations, one means ofunderstanding recurrent rock art imagery is by recourse to neuroscienceand perceptual psychology (Alpert 2009; Watson 2009). This paper followsthis approach and argues that understanding human perception andrecognition of faces may help to explain the manner in which faces areoften portrayed. In particular, it suggests that the human sensitivityto eyes and certain configurations of eye shapes has significantlyinfluenced the ways in which face motifs have been made. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] An ethological approach The approach adopted is partly ethological, seeking understandingof characteristic behaviours of Homo sapiens Homo sapiens(Latin; “wise man”)Species to which all modern human beings belong. The oldest known fossil remains date to c. 120,000 years ago—or much earlier (c. and the role thesebehaviours play in the human species' evolutionary history. Thestudy of animal behaviour is based largely in evolutionary theory ''This article is about the creole theory. You may be looking for the concept of biological evolution. For other uses, see Evolution (disambiguation).Main article: Creole language The evolutionary perspective andconcerned in part with certain ubiquitous behavioural patterns ortendencies that are relatively stable in the human species(Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1975; Hinde 1982). Of particular interest in thepresent context are those that relate to visual stimuli. For example,experiments with infants have demonstrated the predictable reaction ofsmiling at face-like configurations (Kagan et al. 1966). Other studieshave demonstrated that certain visual configurations relating topredatory animals, the curves of a snake, the stalking pose of apredatory cat or eye-spot patterns, can evoke universally appropriateresponses in humans such as fear or excitement, and may be employed inart to evoke similar responses (Coss 1965). Dissanayake (1998: 490)states that, visual arts throughout time and space exploit emotionallycaptivating cap��ti��vate?tr.v. cap��ti��vat��ed, cap��ti��vat��ing, cap��ti��vates1. To attract and hold by charm, beauty, or excellence. See Synonyms at charm.2. Archaic To capture. and cognitively interesting features that ancestrally were(and may still be) relevant to vital interests, and to subject matter ofbiologically-important concern" Such features include the eyes,particularly the schema of two facing eyes, either in isolation or as aprominent aspect of facial depictions. The perspective taken is complementary to existing evolutionary andbehavioural interpretations of rock art, but is explicit indemonstrating how human perceptual and behavioural predispositions arerelevant to the understanding of a specific motif type foundcross-culturally. While ir is necessary to consider the environmentalpressures and adaptive processes that contributed to cognitive evolutionin such an approach, rather than focusing on art origins and theemergence of representation within this context (Hodgson &Helvenston 2006), it is the operation of an inherently modern humanbrain in the creation of rock art and the selection of imagery fordepiction that is of interest. The global approach also addresses a needto extend the application of neuroscientific and ethological theory andshift the emphasis in existing studies on the Upper Palaeolithic ofsouth-western Europe to include the rock art of other regions of theworld. [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] [FIGURE 3 OMITTED] [FIGURE 4 OMITTED] [FIGURE 5 OMITTED] Visual processing and depiction of human faces The head, face and eyes are some of the most important aspects of ahuman being, playing central roles in everyday life, communication andart. The face is deeply ingrained in perception to the extent that theslightest hint of a face (e.g. in the shape of clouds) often results inrecognition and response. The existence of innate human recognition andknowledge of faces is supported by a number of factors, such as theresponse to and imitation of adults' facial expressions by newborninfants, and the preference infants have for realistic abstracted orschematised faces over distorted ones (e.g. Meltzoff & Moore 1983;Johnson & Morton 1991). In addition, several studies with largenumbers of infants confirm that within the first year of life specificregions of the brain employed in facial processing become activated inthe viewing of faces (Nelson 2001). This includes an area of thefusiform gyrus fusiform gyrusn.An extremely long convolution extending lengthwise over the lower surface of the temporal and occipital lobes of the brain. known as the fusiform face area The Fusiform face area (FFA) is a part of the human visual system which seems to specialize in facial recognition.The FFA is located in the ventral stream on the ventral surface of the temporal lobe on the fusiform gyrus. (FFA FFAfree fatty acids. ), which isselectively responsive to face stimuli (Kanwisher & Yovel 2006). Anarea of the superior temporal sulcus superior temporal sulcusn.The longitudinal sulcus separating the superior and middle temporal gyri. (STS (Synchronous Transport Signal) The electrical equivalent of the SONET optical signal. In SDH, the European counterpart of SONET, STS is known as STM (Synchronous Transport Module). ) is also responsive to gazeand eye movements in face stimuli (Puce puce?n.A deep red to dark grayish purple.[French (couleur) puce, flea (color), puce, from Old French, variant of pulce, flea, from Latin et al. 1998; Wicker et al.1998), as well as the processing of facial expression facial expression,n the use of the facial muscles to communicate or to convey mood. particularlyconcerning the eyes (Hoffman & Haxby 2000). In fact, the part of theSTS selectively responsive to faces reacts more strongly when eye-likestimuli are presented (Bentin et al. 1996). Crucially, considerableactivation of the FFA occurs not only when viewing human faces but alsocartoon faces (Tong et al. 2000), as well as when faces are drawn (Solso2000, 2001). It is interesting to note that the human face is one of thefirst representational images produced by children (Kellogg 1969) andthat the activity of drawing it may in fact aid in increasing associatedcortical specialisation (Nelson 2001). Facial recognition in infant chimpanzees further suggests thatfacial preference in hominins is innate and is an aspect of perceptionthat has deep evolutionary roots (Pascalis et al. 2002). Theevolutionary significance of facial recognition might also be evidencedby the red Jasperite cobble from Makapansgat, South Africa, dating to c.2.5-3 million years ago (Dart 1974; Bednarik 1998; Bahn 1999). Thecobble was presumably pre��sum��a��ble?adj.That can be presumed or taken for granted; reasonable as a supposition: presumable causes of the disaster. collected and carried a considerable distance fromits source by an australopithecine aus��tra��lo��pith��e��cine?n.Any of several extinct humanlike primates of the genus Australopithecus, known chiefly from Pleistocene fossil remains found in southern and eastern Africa.adj. (Australopithecus africanus), remainsof which were found in context. The cobble is non-utilitarian andfeatures unusual visual properties, including prominent markingsresembling faces. The collection of the object suggests that it washighly valued due to its facial resemblance. Because the preference forfaces is neurologically determined, viewing face-like stimuli would havebeen as rewarding in the past as it is today, and probably produced apositive response in the emotional (limbic limbic/lim��bic/ (lim��bik) pertaining to a limbus, or margin; see also under system. lim��bicadj.1. Of, relating to, or characterized by a limbus.2. ) system of the brain (Hodgson& Helvenston 2006: 10). The depiction of eyes Deregowski (2007: 89-90) has noted that in some regions, such assouthern Africa, depictions of two facing eyes are comparatively rare inrock art because humans and other animals are typically depicted inprofile, and often silhouetted without eyes ar all. However, in otherregions where anthropomorphic faces occur, the eyes tend to be the mostsalient feature even to the exclusion of all other features. Forexample, in a majority of cases where human facial features arerepresented in Upper Palaeolithic Europe, eyes are the most frequentlyshown (Ucko & Rosenfeld 1972: 183). The depiction of facial featuresother than the eyes is generally rare in Australian petroglyphs andpaintings (Dix 1977: 277). Eyes are present in all archaic faces of theAustralian arid zone analysed by David et al. (1992: 71), whereas otherfeatures such as hair or headdress headdress,head covering or decoration, protective or ceremonial, which has been an important part of costume since ancient times. Its style is governed in general by climate, available materials, religion or superstition, and the dictates of fashion. , nose, ears and mouth are onlypresent in some. Furthermore, many examples of facial depictions haverings or prominent brow lines accentuating the eyes (cf. Figures 1-5). The typical simplicity of facial representations in rock art may beattributed to cultural influences or other unknown factors--the messagecommunicated may have been more abstract. It is also important toconsider that engraving or using a brush or fingers in painting withpigment on rock may to some extent result in difficulties orrestrictions in the execution of fine facial features. Such markings mayalso be anomalous to the coherency co��her��en��cy?n. pl. co��her��en��ciesCoherence.Noun 1. coherency - the state of cohering or sticking togethercoherence, cohesion, cohesiveness of a schematic design. However,difficulties in depiction are clearly not the case with many animaldepictions, the faces of which are often very carefully executed withgreat attention to detail (e.g. the lions of Chauvet Cave, France). Thisclearly indicates that humans in the past did not lack the ability todepict detailed human faces. Indeed, the ability is clearly apparent inthe engraved faces of La Marche, Dance (Lorblanchet 1989: 136). The Wandjina paintings of the Kimberley provide some of the bestexamples of facial representation in Australia, with eyes that are oftenhighly detailed. The small, unpaired eyes of humans and other animalsdepicted in profile do not have the same perceptual effect as the largeaccentuated eyes characteristic of frontal views of the face as in theseexamples (Deregowski 2007: 89). Frontal views of the face may be morecommon than other views in the rock art of some regions because of thelarge number of distinguishing features and because they more readilycommunicate emotional states or other information (Parker &Deregowski 1990: 39-40). Cross-cultural and behavioural studies stronglysupport claims for the universality of emotional expression, whereemotions correspond to a set of human facial expressions that areuniversally recognised (Ekman 1970; Matsumoto & Willingham 2009). Asmentioned, many face motifs also include prominent brow lines. Thisincreases their perceptual salience sa��li��ence? also sa��li��en��cyn. pl. sa��li��en��ces also sa��li��en��cies1. The quality or condition of being salient.2. A pronounced feature or part; a highlight.Noun 1. in accordance with innate neuralstructures and biological preparedness for facial expression stimuli(Aronoff & Barclay 1988; Fox et al. 2000). Facial communication is of course very important in socialrelationships, and central to this is the speed with which visualinformation is processed by the brain. The processing speed of visualinformation is increased by simplifying incoming data according toorganisation principles (Homa et al. 1976). This includes therelationship between the eyes, nose and mouth, identified by specialisedgroups of cells in the brain that are selectively responsive to faces(Barrowclough 2004: 105). Recent research has found that the eyes conveymore reliable information to the brain compared to images of the noseand mouth, suggesting that face recognition mechanisms in the brain arebiased towards the eyes (Keil 2009). The importance of these findings isthat the analysis of faces by the brain appears to correspond closelywith the simplifications and transformations made in their depiction inrock art. Eyes and human ethology ethology,study of animal behavior based on the systematic observation, recording, and analysis of how animals function, with special attention to physiological, ecological, and evolutionary aspects. The human sensitivity to eye shapes means that they areparticularly effective in human and other animal representations. Thisis widespread in the animal kingdom, where eye-spots are imperative incommunication and appear on animals such as moths (e.g. Caligoeurilochus) and fish (e.g. Chaetodon sp.) as a safeguard againstpotential predation predationForm of food getting in which one animal, the predator, eats an animal of another species, the prey, immediately after killing it or, in some cases, while it is still alive. Most predators are generalists; they eat a variety of prey species. (Hinton 1974). Some animals, such as garter snakes,react fearfully or aggressively--depending on the species--whenpresented with models with eye-spots (Bern & Herzog 1994). For mostprimates the direct stare signals a potential attack. Monkeys, forexample, are disturbed by being stared at or when shown drawings of twofacing eyes and, depending on the situation, the stimulus may triggerfight-or-flight responses (Coss 1978). For humans, the signal of twofacing eyes also evokes behavioural response mechanisms that developedduring the course of early hominin evolution in response to theenvironmental pressures of predators. This includes an innate,spontaneous avoidance response or gaze aversion to the staring eye (Coss1970, 1972; Ellsworth et al. 1972; Dziurawiec & Deregowski 2002).Such responses include excitation of the limbic system limbic systemn.A group of deep brain structures, common to all mammals and including the hippocampus, amygdala, gyrus fornicatus, and connecting structures, associated with olfaction, emotion, motivation, behavior, and various autonomic functions. , and the actionof specific neurons in the inferotemporal cortex (Tanaka 1996), amongother areas of the brain. The importance of eyes in schematic drawings of humans is welldemonstrated in experiments measuring eye movements of subjects viewingpictures, revealing that they are repeatedly scanned (Noton & Stark1971). Experiments have also demonstrated that visual fixation on twoblack eye-spots in the horizontal plane horizontal planen.A plane crossing the body at right angles to the coronal and sagittal planes. Also called transverse plane.horizontal planeresults in a significantacceleration in heart rate, compared to other configurations of blackspots (Aikens 1998). Visual fixation on schematic facing eyesrepresented by two sets of concentric circles in the horizontal plane isalso found to cause rapid increase in pupillary pu��pil��lar��yadj.Of or affecting the pupil of the eye.pupillarypertaining to or emanating from the pupil.pupillary aperturethe pupil. dilation dilation/di��la��tion/ (di-la��shun)1. the act of dilating or stretching.2. dilatation.di��la��tionn.1. compared toother configurations (Coss 1965, 1968: 276, 1970, 2003: 99-100) (Figure6). Pupillary dilation is an autonomic response indicative of strongemotional states such as fear or pleasure. The visual properties ofschematic facing eyes are thus shown to evoke such responses. Althoughthe shape of the human face has the potential to evoke arousal undercertain circumstances, eye shapes act as particularly effective signstimuli or triggers of innate neurological and behavioural responses.The natural response in humans to eyes, as in the optimal attraction tothe prototypical face (Langlois & Roggman 1990), is increased by theisolation and exaggeration of their fundamental characteristics to theextent that perceptual mechanisms underlying supernormal su��per��nor��mal?adj.1. Greatly exceeding the normal or average but still obeying natural laws.2. Paranormal.Adj. 1. responses areactivated (Alley & Cunningham 1991; Latto 1995: 88; Barrowclough2004: 105). [FIGURE 6 OMITTED] The strong responses elicited by two sets of concentric circlespositioned side by side is well explained by the phenomenon known as theprinciple of exaggeration or what Ramachandran (Ramachandran &Hirstein 1999; Ramachandran 2003) refers to as the peak shift effect.The peak shift effect is observed in the animal kingdom as a form ofdiscrimination learning. Rats can be taught to discriminate a squarefrom a rectangle and, when rewarded for choosing a rectangle, will learnto respond more frequently to this shape. If they are presented with arectangle that is longer and thinner than the prototype on which theywere trained, the response will be much greater (Ramachandran &Hirstein 1999: 18). A similar phenomenon is observed in herring gull herring gullMost common of the Atlantic gulls in the Northern Hemisphere. The herring gull (Larus argentatus) has a gray mantle, flesh-coloured legs and feet, and black-and-white-spotted wing tips. chicks. The brain of the herring gull chick is stimulated by the redstripe on the mother's beak, and the beak is subsequently tappedfor food. Experiments with artificial beaks show that increasing thenumber of red stripes produces a stronger response from the chicks thanthe natural beak (Tinbergen & Perdeck 1950; Tinbergen 1953).Particular behavioural responses to certain stimuli are in factobservable in many animals (Russell 1943). Experimental studies such asthose by Tinbergen have demonstrated that it is possible to isolate andexaggerate sign stimuli, effectively producing a supernormal stimuluseliciting a supernormal response. The analogy (or homology homology(hōmŏl`əjē), in biology, the correspondence between structures of different species that is attributable to their evolutionary descent from a common ancestor. ) with the brain of rock artists, themodern human brain, is evidenced with the creation of exaggeratedfeatures such as the eyes as large, concentric circles in somedepictions--the equivalent of the red stripes to herring gull chicks.Importantly, this is a common feature of many rock art traditions. Forexample, eyes and eye-like motifs in the form of circles and concentriccircles are the most characteristic types of petroglyphs of theNorthwest Coast, North America (Hill & Hill 1974). In particular,the representation of eyes as large, concentric circles stimulates thebrain's aesthetic response to the eyes, activating strongneurophysiological neu��ro��phys��i��ol��o��gy?n.The branch of physiology that deals with the functions of the nervous system.neu responses. The depiction of faces with eyes of thistype may thus be a natural tendency because the brain is hard-wired togive more attention to the eyes and is more responsive to them in thisform. As a consequence, rock artists may be consciously or unconsciouslybiased towards depicting them in this way. In addition, face motifs withprominent eyes such as the newly reported example from the north-easternSimpson Desert, Australia, commonly appear in prominent positions onvertical rock faces and are highly visible (Ross & Smith 2009),increasing the effectiveness of the imagery. The role of symmetry As noted, figures with prominent, facing eyes in rock art aretypically symmetrical, and it is important to note how perceptualfactors may also account for this characteristic. During evolution, thevisual system became attuned to detect symmetry due to its specialstatus in the perception of form, particularly the detection ofsignificant environmental cues such as animals and conspecifics (beingsof the same species), all of which are usually symmetrical. Sensitivityto bilateral symmetry bilateral symmetryn.Symmetrical arrangement, as of an organism or a body part, along a central axis, so that the body is divided into equivalent right and left halves by only one plane. as a common feature of biological forms isessential for the discrimination of animate and inanimate objects,including the detection of potential predators, prey or mates. Bilateralsymmetry about a vertical axis is most rapidly detected (Barlow &Reeves 1979) and symmetry detection in general appears to be an innateand pre-attentive response, serving as an early-warning system for thepresence of significant environmental cues necessary for survival (Wolf& Friedman-Hill 1992; Beck et al. 2005). The detection of symmetryand the basis for the salience of symmetrical forms is deeply embeddedin the structure of the human perceptual system and neurophysiologicalstructuring of the brain (Corballis & Roldan 1974; Humphrey 2004). Ir is conceivable then, that these factors influence preferencesfor certain pattern types. Indeed, experimental studies demonstrate theinherent ability to detect high and low levels of bilateral symmetry incomplex biological forms or their silhouettes (Evans et al. 2000). Inaddition to their rapid perception and identification, symmetrical formsare more easily remembered than asymmetrical forms (Attneave 1955), andare also more easily reproduced in graphics (Deregowski 1978). Thesefactors help to explain the cross-cultural preference for symmetricalconfigurations (Eisenman & Gellens 1968; Uduehi 1995; Sutterlin2003: 133-5) in combination with the perceptual stability of symmetry,increasing its salience and memorability. Symmetry in art is appealingbecause ir takes advantage of its rewarding nature in motivating theallocation of perceptual resources towards it (Ramachandran &Hirstein 1999). Facial and body symmetry are also generally found to be attractiveto humans. Symmetry in the human face is recognised as a universalaesthetic preference for human beauty and is perceived as moreattractive than asymmetric faces (Grammer & Thornhill 1994; Mealeyet al. 1999). The biological basis for this preference is demonstratedin studies of species that choose healthy potential mates indicated bythe symmetry of their faces and other features (Fink et al. 2006; Rhodeset al. 2007). The attractiveness and preference for symmetry may thus beunderstood as derived from biological and evolutionary mechanismsnecessary for survival, and likely influence the production of rock artmotifs and the ways in which figures with prominent facing eyes arecommonly portrayed. Conclusion Clearly, faces and eyes are important in the neurologicalstructuring of the species and are neurologically special. As a result,faces with prominent eyes are forms of imagery that have the ability toevoke strong neurophysiological responses. This includes the activationof distinct neural structures, and inherent responses in emotionalcentres and reward networks of the brain. Considering the above pointscollectively, it is feasible to argue that the human sensitivity to eyesguided rock artists to select these elements for depiction bycapitalising on a social signal and perceptually salient stimulus. Thenature of certain facial representations in rock art may be understoodas influenced and governed by inherent perceptual processes and theimportance of eye stimuli in the brain. The human sensitivity to eyesmay further explain the recurrence of faces with prominent eyes as awidespread theme in rock art throughout the world, particularly theisolation and accentuation of the eyes through the use of concentriccircles and other graphic devices that intensify the visibility of theimagery and the neurological responses they afford. Although the present investigation has not focused on how motifsmay have been interpreted by their authors, it is important to note thatthese findings do not exclude or reject higher cognitive factors andsocially determined attitudes towards the rock art. Meanings andsignificances ascribed to the imagery also remain culture-laden andculturally specific. The interpretations given by no means imply thatdepictions of faces or eyes have unitary meanings, and such assumptionsshould certainly be avoided, especially in the absence of greatercontext or ethnographic data. In addition, a focus on culturalsimilarities does not deny the existence of significant differences;great variation is certainly evident in rock art and certain motif typesas it is in other aspects of human culture and behaviour. There may beany number of environmental, cultural and socio-economic or otherfactors that account for this variation, including reasons why facesdepicted in frontal view and with prominent eyes are more common in therock art of some contexts (e.g. British Columbia) than others (e.g.southern Africa). These questions are unfortunately beyond the scope ofthis paper, but remain important avenues of inquiry for future research. Acknowledgements I thank Daniel Leen for kindly providing permission to reproducephotographs in Figure 2, and Antiquity referees Paul Bahn and Tim Denhamfor providing comments that helped improve this paper. Received: 4 January 2010; Accepted: 24 February 2010; Revised: 18March 2010 References AIKENS, N.E. 1998. Human cardiovascular response to the eye spotthreat stimulus. Evolution and Cognition 4: 1-12. ALLEY, T.R. & M.R. CUNNINGHAM. 1991. Average faces areattractive, but very attractive faces are not average. PsychologicalScience 2: 123-5. ALPERT, B.O. 2009. The creative ice age brain: cave art in thelight of neuroscience. Santa Fe (NM): Foundation 20-21. ARONOFF, A. & A.M. BARCLAY. 1988. The recognition ofthreatening facial stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (often referred to as JPSP) is a monthly psychology journal of the American Psychological Association. It is considered one of the top journals in the fields of social and personality psychology. 54(4): 647-55. ATTNEAVE, F. 1955. Symmetry, information and memory for patterns.American Journal of Psychology 68(2): 209-222. BAHN, P.G. 1999. Face to face with the earliest art object, in M.Strecker & P.G. Bahn (ed.) Dating and the earliest known rock art:papers presented in symposia 1-3 of the SIARB Congress, Cochabamba,Bolivia, April 1997 (Oxbow Monographs in Archaeology 101): 75-7. Oxford:Oxbow. BARLOW, H.B. & B.C. REEVES. 1979. The versatility and absoluteefficiency of detecting mirror symmetry in random dot displays. VisionResearch 19: 783-93. BARROWCLOUGH, D.A. 2004. How little does it take to represent aface? Archaeological Review from Cambridge 19(1): 99-113. BECK, D.M., M.A. PINSK & S. KASTNER. 2005. Symmetry perceptionin humans and macaques. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(9): 405-406. BEDNARIK, R.G. 1998. The australopithecine cobble from Makapansgat,South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin 53(167): 4-8. BENTIN, S., T. ALLISON, A. PUCE, E. PEREZ & G. MCCARTHY. 1996.Electrophysiological studies of face perception in humans. Journal ofCognitive Neuroscience 8: 551-65. BERN, C. & A. HERZOG. 1994. Stimulus control of defensivebehaviours of garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis): effects of eye-spotsand movement. Journal of Comparative Psychology 108: 353-7. CORBALLIS, M.C. & C.E. ROLDAN. 1974. On the perception ofsymmetrical and repeated patterns. Perception and Psychophysics psychophysicsBranch of psychology concerned with the effect of physical stimuli (such as sound waves) on mental processes. Psychophysics was established by Gustav Theodor Fechner in the mid-19th century, and since then its central inquiry has remained the quantitative 16:136-42. COSS, R.G. 1965. Mood provoking visual stimuli: their origins andapplications. Los Angeles (CA): University of California Press "UC Press" redirects here, but this is also an abbreviation for University of Chicago PressUniversity of California Press, also known as UC Press, is a publishing house associated with the University of California that engages in academic publishing. . --1968. The ethological command in art. Leonardo 1: 273-87. --1970. The perceptual aspects of eye-spot patterns and theirrelevance to gaze behaviour, in C. Hutt & S.J. Hutt (ed.) Behaviourstudies in psychiatry: 121-47. London: Pergamon Press. --1972. Eye-like schemata: their effect on behaviour. UnpublishedPhD dissertation, University of Reading. --1978. Perceptual determinants of gaze aversion by the lessermouse lemur (Mirocepbus murinus): the role of two facing eyes. Behaviour64: 248-70. --2003. The role of evolved perceptual biases in art and design, inE. Voland & K. Grammer (ed.) Evolutionary aesthetics: 69-130.Berlin: Springer. CRAWFORD, I.M. 1968. The art of the Wandjina. Melbourne: OxfordUniversity Press. --1973. Wandjina paintings, in R.M. Berndt & E.S. Philips (ed.)The Australian Aboriginal heritage: an introduction through the arts:108-117. Sydney: Australian Society for Education through the Arts, UreSmith. DART, R. 1974. The waterworn australopithecine pebble of many facesfrom Makapansgat. South African Journal of Science 70: 167-9. DAVID, B., N. CHANT & J. FLOOD. 1992. Jalijban 2 and thedistribution of pecked faces in Australia. Memoirs of the QueenslandMuseum 32(1): 61-77. DEREGOWSKI, J.B. 1978. Role of symmetry in pattern reproduction.British Journal of Psychology 69: 217-24. --2007. About rock art, perception and the Bushmen of southernAfrica, in P. Chenna Reddy (ed.) Exploring the mind of ancient man:festschrifi to Robert G. Bednarik: 88-100. New Delhi: Research IndiaPress. DISSANAYAKE, E. 1998. Komar and Melamid Komar and Melamid is an artistic team made up of Russian graphic artists Vitaly Komar (born 1943) and Alexander Melamid (born 1945). In an artists’ statement they said that “Even if only one of us creates some of the projects and works, we usually sign them together. discover Pleistocene taste.Philosophy and Literature 22(2): 486-96. DIX, W.C. 1977. Facial representations in Pilbara rock engravings,in P.J. Ucko (ed.) Form in indigenous art: schematisation Noun 1. schematisation - providing a chart or outline of a systemdiagramming, schematizationrepresentation - an activity that stands as an equivalent of something or results in an equivalent2. in the art ofAboriginal Australia and prehistoric Europe (Prehistory prehistory,period of human evolution before writing was invented and records kept. The term was coined by Daniel Wilson in 1851. It is followed by protohistory, the period for which we have some records but must still rely largely on archaeological evidence to and MaterialCulture series 13): 277-85. Canberra: Australian Institute of AboriginalStudies. DORING, J. (ed.) 2000. Gwion Gwion: secret and sacred pathways ofthe Ngarinyin Aboriginal people of Australia. Koln: Konemann. DZIURAWIEC, S. & J.B. DEREGOWSKI. 2002. The eyes have it: aperceptual investigation of eyespots. Perception 31: 1313-22. EDWARDS, R. 1968. Prehistoric rock engravings at Thomas Reservoir,Cleland Hills, western central Australia. Records of the SouthAustralian Museum The South Australian Museum is a museum in Adelaide, South Australia, founded in 1856. It occupies a complex of buildings in the cultural precinct of Adelaide in the North Parklands on North Terrace. 15 (4): 647-70. EIBL-EIBESFELDT, I. 1975. Ethology: the biology of behavior. NewYork New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of : Holt, Rinehart and Winston. EISENMAN, R. & H.K. GELLENS. 1968. Preference forcomplexity-simplicity and symmetry-asymmetry. Perceptual and MotorSkills 26: 888-90. EKMAN, P. 1970. Universal facial expressions of emotion. CaliforniaMental Health Research Digest 8: 151-8. ELLSWORTH, P., M. CARLSMITH & A. HENSON. 1972. The stare as astimulus to flight in human subjects: a series of field experiments.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 21: 302-311. EVANS, C.S., P. WENDEROTH & K. CHENG. 2000. Detection ofbilateral symmetry in complex biological images. Perception 29:31--42. FINK, B., N. NEAVE, J.T. MANNING & K. GRAMMER. 2006. Facialsymmetry and judgements of attractiveness, health and personality.Personality and Individual Differences 41 (3): 491-9. Fox, E., V. LESTER, R. RUSSO, R.J. BOWLES, A. PUICHLER & K.DUTTON. 2000. Facial expressions of emotion: are angry faces detectedmore efficiently? Cognition and Emotion 14(1): 61-92. GRAMMER, K. & R. THORNHILL. 1994. Human (Homo sapiens) facialattractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry andaverageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology 108(3): 233-42. HILL, B. & R. HILL. 1974. Indian petroglyphs of the PacificNorthwest. Seattle (WA): University of Washington Press. HINDE, R.A. 1982. Ethology. London: Fontana. HINTON, H.E. 1974. Natural deception, in R.L. Gregory & E.H.Gombrich (ed.) Illusion in nature and art: 96-159. London: Duckworth. HODGSON, D. & P.A. HELVENSTON. 2006. The emergence of therepresentation of animals in palaeoart: insights from evolution and thecognitive, limbic and visual systems of the human brain. Rock ArtResearch 23(1): 3-40. HOFFMAN, E.A. & J.V. HAXBY. 2000. Distinct representations ofeye gaze and identity in the distributed human neural system for faceperception. Nature Neuroscience 3: 80-84. HOMA D., B. HAVER haverVerb1. Scot & N English dialect to talk nonsense2. to be unsure and hesitant; dither [origin unknown] & T. SCHWARTZ. 1976. Perceptibility ofschematic face stimuli: evidence for a perceptual gestalt Gestalt(gəshtält`)[Ger.,=form], school of psychology that interprets phenomena as organized wholes rather than as aggregates of distinct parts, maintaining that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. . Memory andCognition 4(2): 176-85. HUMPHREY, D. 2004. Symmetries in development: the eye is quickerthan the hand, in D.K. Washburn (ed.) Embedded symmetries: natural andcultural'. 7-18. Albuquerque (NM): University of New Mexico Press The University of New Mexico Press, founded in 1929, is a university press that is part of the University of New Mexico. External linkUniversity of New Mexico Press . JOHNSON, M.H. & J. MORTON. 1991. Biology and cognitivedevelopment: the case of face recognition. Oxford: Blackwell. KAGAN, J., B.A. HENKER, A. HEN-TOV & J. LEVINE. 1966.Infants' differential reactions to familiar and distorted faces.Child Development 37(3): 519-32. KANWISHER, N. & G. YOVEL. 2006. The fusiform face area: acortical region specialized for the perception of faces. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, or Phil. Trans., is a scientific journal published by the Royal Society.Begun in 1665, it is the oldest scientific journal printed in the English-speaking world and the second oldest in the world, of London, Series B, BiologicalSciences 361(1476): 2109-2128. KEIL, M.S. 2009. I look in your eyes, honey: internal face featuresinduce spatial frequency preference for human face processing. PLoSComputational Biology PLoS Computational Biology is an open-access computational biology journal published by the nonprofit organization Public Library of Science in association with the International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB). 5(3): e1000329. http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi. 1000329 (accessed 4 March2010). KELLOGG, R.M. 1969. Analyzing children's art. Palo Alto (CA):Mayfield. LANGLOIS, J.H. & L.A. ROGGMAN. 1990. Attractive faces are onlyaverage. Psychological Science 1: 115-21. LATTO, R. 1995. The brain of the beholder, in R.L. Gregory, J.Harris, E Heard & D. Rose (ed.) The artful eye: 66-94. Oxford:Oxford University Press. LEE, G. 1992. The rock art of Easter Island: symbols of power,prayers to the gods. Los Angeles (CA): UCLA UCLA University of California at Los AngelesUCLA University Center for Learning Assistance (Illinois State University)UCLA University of Carrollton, TX and Lower Addison, TX Institute of Archaeology The Institute of Archaeology is an academic department of University College London (UCL), in the United Kingdom. The Institute is located in a separate building at the north end of Gordon Square, Bloomsbury. . LEEN, D. 2009. A gallery of northwest petroglyphs: Shamanic art ofthe Pacific Northwest. http://www.danielleen.org/petroglyphs.html(accessed 4 March 2010). LORBLANCHET, M. 1989. From man to animal and sign in Palaeolithicart, in H. Morphy (ed.) Animals into art (One World Archaeology 7):109-143. London: Unwin Hyman. MATSUMOTO, D. & B. WILLINGHAM. 2009. Spontaneous facialexpressions of emotion and congenitally and noncongenitally blindindividuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96(1): 1-10. MCDONALD, J. 2005. Archaic faces to headdresses: the changing roleof rock art across the arid zone, in E Veth, M. Smith & P. Hiscock(ed.) Desert peoples: archaeological perspectives: 116-41. Malden (MA)& Oxford: Blackwell. MEALEY, L., R. BRIDGESTOCK & G. TOWNSEND. 1999. Symmetry andperceived facial attractiveness. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 76: 151-8. MELTZOFF, A.N. & M.K. MOORE. 1983. Newborn infants imitateadult facial gestures. Child Development 54(3): 702-709. MOWALJARLAI, D. & J. MALNIC. 1993. Yorro Yorro: spirit of theKimberley. Broome: Magabala Books. NELSON, C.A. 2001. The development and neural bases of facerecognition. Infant and Child Development IntroductionAs baby's grow from Infants to children, Psychologists wonder, How will their environment effect them?. What role will genetics play in their development?. 10(3): 3-18. NOTON, D. & L. STARK. 1971. Eye movements and visualperception. Scientific American 224: 35-43. OKLADNIKOV, A.P. 1969. The petroglyphs of Siberia. ScientificAmerican 221 (2): 74-82. --1981. Art of the Amur: ancient art of the Russian Far East. NewYork: Harry N. Abrams; Leningrad: Aurora Art Publishers. PARKER, D.M. & J.B. DEREGOWSKI. 1990. Perception and artisticstyle. Amsterdam: North-Holland. PASCALIS, O., M. DE HAAN & C.A. NELSON. 2002. Is faceprocessing species-specific during the first year of life? Science 296:1321-3. PUCE, A., T. ALLISON, S. BENTIN, J.C. GORE & G. MCCARTHY. 1998.Temporal cortex activation in humans viewing eye and mouth movements.Journal of Neuroscience The Journal of Neuroscience (Online ISSN 1529-2401) is a weekly scientific journal published by the Society for Neuroscience. The journal publishes peer-reviewed empirical research articles in the field of neuroscience. 18:2188-99. RAMACHANDRAN, V.S. 2003. The neurological basis of artisticuniversals. Paper presented at the Euro-Edu Association Art andCognition Online Virtual Conference, Nov 2002-Feb 2003.http://www.interdisciplines.org/artcog/papers/9 (accessed 4 Match 2010). RAMACHANDRAN, V.S. & W. HIRSTEIN. 1999. The science of art: aneurological theory of aesthetic experience. Journal of ConsciousnessStudies 6(6/7): 15-51. RHODES, G., S. YOSHIKAWA, R. PALERMO, L.W. SIMMONS, M. PETERS, K.LEE, J. HALBERSTADT & J.R. CRAWFORD. 2007. Perceived healthcontributes to the attractiveness of facial symmetry, averageness andsexual dimorphism Sexual dimorphismAny difference, morphological or behavioral, between males and females of the same species. In many animals, the sex of an individual can be determined at a glance. . Perception 36(8): 1244-52. ROSS, J. & M. SMITH. 2009. An engraved archaic face in thenorth-eastern Simpson Desert. Australian Archaeology 69: 68-70. RUSSELL, E.S. 1943. Perceptual and sensory signs in instinctivebehaviour. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London The Linnean Society of London is the world's premier society for the study and dissemination of taxonomy. It publishes a Zoological Journal, as well as Botanical and Biological Journals. 154: 195-216. SOLSO, R. L. 2000. The cognitive neuroscience of art: a preliminaryfMRI observation. Journal of Consciousness Studies 7: 75-85. --2001. Brain activities in a skilled versus a novice artist: anfMRI study. Leonardo 34: 31-4. SUTTERLIN, C. 2003. From sign to schema to iconic representation:evolutionary aesthetics of pictorial art, in E. Voland & K. Grammer(ed.) Evolutionary aesthetics: 131-70. Berlin: Springer. TANAKA, K. 1996. Inferotemporal cortex and object vision. AnnualReview of Neuroscience 19: 109-139. TINBERGEN, N. 1953. The herring gull's world: a study of thesocial behaviour of birds (New Naturalist monograph 9). London: Collins. TINBERGEN, N. & A.C. PERDECK. 1950. On the stimulus situationreleasing the begging response in the newly hatched herring gull chick.Behaviour 3: 1-38. TONG, E, K. NAKAYAMA, M. MOSCOVITCH, O. WEINRIB & N. KANWISHER.2000. Response properties of the human fusiform face area. CognitiveNeuropsychology 17: 257-79. TSEVEENDORJ, D., Y. TSERENDAGVA & B. GUNCHINSUREN. 2007. Someimages of the Javkhlant Khairkhan petroglyphs (Mongolia). InternationalNewsletter on Rock Art 47:15-20. UCKO, P.J. & A. ROSENFELD. 1972. Anthropomorphicrepresentations in Palaeolithic art, in M. Almagro Basch & M.A.Garcia Guinea (ed.) Santander Symposium: actas del SymposiumInternacional de Arre Rupestre: Santander-Asturias, 14 al 20 septiembre1970:149-211. Santander & Madrid: Consejo Superior deInvestigaciones Cientificas. UDUEHI, J. 1995. A cross cultural assessment of the Maitland GravesDesign Judgement Test using US and Nigerian subjects. Visual ArtsResearch 13: 11-18. WATSON, B. 2009. Universal visions: neuroscience and recurrentcharacteristics of world palaeoart. Unpublished PhD dissertation,University of Melbourne AsiaWeek is now discontinued. Comments:In 2006, Times Higher Education Supplement ranked the University of Melbourne 22nd in the world. Because of the drop in ranking, University of Melbourne is currently behind four Asian universities - Beijing University, . WICKER, B., F. MICHEL, M. HENAFF & J. DECETY. 1998. Brainregions involved in the perception of gaze: a PET study. Neuroimage 8:22-7. WOLF, J.M. & S.R. FRIEDMAN-HILL. 1992. On the role of symmetryin visual search. Psychological Science 3: 194-8. Ben Watson, Centre for Classics &Archaeology, University ofMelbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia (Email: watson, benjamin@hotmail. com)