Craig's science topics: #2. Why did cavemen paint on the walls?

[Craig234]

What do we know, what can we infer, about the reasons for the cavemen to paint bison and other things on cave walls?

Their existence was quite primitive - hunt, eat, sex, sleep, as far as I know. So, what was the early reason
for them to decide, hey, let's invent paint and draw pictures?

No other animals do that - they were clearly more advanced. But it seems an early case of such an activity.

Was it aesthetic, 'hey, let's pretty up the home'? Was it part of some ritual? One thing we can say is likely, it wasn't ' let's do this to entertain archeologists'.

It's interesting, the evolution of non-animalistic activities.

 

[ElFenix]

same reason football coaches chalkboard plays, maybe?

 

[sandorski]

same reason football coaches chalkboard plays, maybe?

Could be. Could also be a story telling device or something.

 

[Craig234]

Could be. Could also be a story telling device or something.

Begging the question why cavemen would be telling stories. "The fish I almost caught was so big!"

 

[agent00f]

What do we know, what can we infer, about the reasons for the cavemen to paint bison and other things on cave walls?

Their existence was quite primitive - hunt, eat, sex, sleep, as far as I know. So, what was the early reason
for them to decide, hey, let's invent paint and draw pictures?

No other animals do that - they were clearly more advanced. But it seems an early case of such an activity.

Was it aesthetic, 'hey, let's pretty up the home'? Was it part of some ritual? One thing we can say is likely, it wasn't ' let's do this to entertain archeologists'.

It's interesting, the evolution of non-animalistic activities.

Clearly modern human visual-representation abilities are irreducibly complex since there's no evolutionary advantage to half-assed drawings.

 

[sandorski]

Begging the question why cavemen would be telling stories. "The fish I almost caught was so big!"

Maybe or someone fought valiantly to slay the beast or died saving others.

 

[Craig234]

Maybe or someone fought valiantly to slay the beast or died saving others.

Perhaps - which has implications about the development of the cavemen that they'd care to tell such a story. Who knows if that was the reason?

 

[cbrunny]

when you say "cavemen" do you mean Neanderthals (Homo Neanderthalensis)?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/s...ind-may-rival-oldest-known-cave-art.html?_r=0

Earliest known cave art is 40,800 years old.

also see this: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive

So, it seems pretty unlikely that you are referencing Homo Sapiens, though it is theoretically possible that some Neanderthals did some cave art stuff too. Homo Neanderthalensis went extinct an estimated 40,000 years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinction).

So given this, and knowing that cave art has been found that was created more recently than 40,800 years old, it seems to me that cave art was most likely created for the same reasons that any modern person would create anything that communicates a message to anyone. The messages would have just been simpler, presumably due to lack of technology or linguistic evolution.


Edit: I suppose this does not preclude Neanderthalensis from having done some cave art stuff too, but since archaeologists haven't really found much (that i'm aware of), assuming they also did it and trying to understand why they did it is about as useful as a poopy flavoured lolly pop.

 

[Craig234]

The reason "any modern person" would do it is quite different, in that the modern person has had a lot of CULTURAL evolution making art a normal thing.

The people - whether Neanderthals or early Homo Sapiens - who painted caves had lifestyles of hunt, eat, sex, sleep pretty much - not eat cavier at the art show.

It's a big change from all the animals before who did not do anything like that.

So, it's interesting to determine what made 'animals' - early man - for the first time decide painting on caves was something to do.

 

[cbrunny]

Did not know you were an anthropologist.

Nothing of what you said are reasons why it would be unusual, fwiw.

 

[flexy]

The people - whether Neanderthals or early Homo Sapiens - who painted caves had lifestyles of hunt, eat, sex, sleep pretty much - not eat cavier at the art show.

I could see many reasons why they started to "paint on the walls", not all functional, some even for "decorative purposes" or simply because they could.
We can also speculate that the ability to paint developed (way) earlier than language.(??) So we can assume that their communication abilities were limited, and LONG before language was developed, painting something on the walls would have come in very handy.

We can safely assume that hunting (and survival!) was probably the most important thing in their life, so how better how to explain to someone the hunt...the shape of animals...or communicate to someone that you just saw this or that animal.....etc...with some related drawings. Then other purposes like story telling (teaching) etc...I can see unlimited uses really.


PS. they were not as primitive as you think, by a long-shot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blombos_Cave

Archaeological material and faunal remains recovered from the Middle Stone Age phase in Blombos Cave – dated to ca. 100,000–70,000 years BP – are considered to represent greater ecological niche adaptation, a more diverse set of subsistence and procurements strategies, adoption of multi-step technology and manufacture of composite tools, stylistic elaboration, increased economic and social organisation and occurrence of symbolically mediated behaviour.

 

[Craig234]

Did not know you were an anthropologist.

Nothing of what you said are reasons why it would be unusual, fwiw.

I bet some of the cavemen could even communicate civilly.

Funny, evolution seems to go backwards sometimes.

 

[Craig234]

I could see many reasons why they started to "paint on the walls", not all functional, some even for "decorative purposes" or simply because they could.
We can also speculate that the ability to paint developed (way) earlier than language.(??) So we can assume that their communication abilities were limited, and LONG before language was developed, painting something on the walls would have come in very handy.

We can safely assume that hunting (and survival!) was probably the most important thing in their life, so how better how to explain to someone the hunt...the shape of animals...or communicate to someone that you just saw this or that animal.....etc...with some related drawings. Then other purposes like story telling (teaching) etc...I can see unlimited uses really.


PS. they were not as primitive as you think, by a long-shot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blombos_Cave

But I'm not sure how useful a drawing of a bison on a cave wall was in 'teaching someone to hunt'. Wolves are pretty sophisticated in their pack hunting - perhaps more than cavemen in their
hunting - and it's done more by instinct. There would have been plenty of chance for teaching hunting by doing hunting for cavemen.

If it was decorative... that seems new for animals. Birds make nests, beavers make dams, but they aren't decorative. Something had evolved for them to want to paint pictures for some reason. Beyond the animal functions. What evidence do we have the paintings were used in storytelling, that they had language for it, why they'd do it? That'd be an interesting development also.

 

[cbrunny]

OP, you're just going in circles. I still don't understand why you think it would be unusual in the first place. Because no animals did it before? To my mind, that's not unusual at all. In fact that is expected.

Homo Sapiens. Just like us. We do all kinds of stuff that my dog at my feet doesn't do. Why should it be unusual for other Homo Sapiens to also do things that a genetic ancestor wouldn't do?

 

[Craig234]

OP, you're just going in circles. I still don't understand why you think it would be unusual in the first place. Because no animals did it before? To my mind, that's not unusual at all. In fact that is expected.

Homo Sapiens. Just like us. We do all kinds of stuff that my dog at my feet doesn't do. Why should it be unusual for other Homo Sapiens to also do things that a genetic ancestor wouldn't do?

They were in an environment that was still essentially an animal like existence. They didn't have civilization. What affected them was the same thing as animal - as I said, eat, sex, sleep. So, it's a development for them to see some need for a new behavior - like the article flexy linked discussed. Sorry you are not on the same page on it.

 

[cbrunny]

They were in an environment that was still essentially an animal like existence.

This doesn't actually mean anything though. It only means what you think it means, which you still haven't said.

They didn't have civilization.

At best, this is an assumption that you are making with no supported evidence and is wholly unsubstantiated. At worst, it's just outright false. More likely, "civilization" means something specific to you that you haven't explained.

What affected them was the same thing as animal - as I said, eat, sex, sleep.

Yet another assumption. See note above.

So, it's a development for them to see some need for a new behavior - like the article flexy linked discussed. Sorry you are not on the same page on it.

So what? Even if there was a need, I still don't understand why having a new need would still make the cave paintings unusual. They're still Homo Sapiens.

 

[agent00f]

So what? Even if there was a need, I still don't understand why having a new need would still make the cave paintings unusual. They're still Homo Sapiens.

People who phrase evolution in terms of "need" don't understand how it works, which is necessary to understanding any answer to this question.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

in that the modern person has had a lot of CULTURAL evolution making art a normal thing

Citation needed.

Culture is relative. 10k years of culture to draw paintings on a wall isn't much different than 100k years of culture to draw paintings on paper to a being with 100M years of culture. There ain't as much difference between the cave-drawers and the paper-drawers from a mental perspective as you might think.

 

[HumblePie]

Even cave men had TPR reports to deliver. Everyone knows this.

 

[mitchelt]

Because the cave-women had too much hair on their backs and did not make for a good writing surface?

 

[Craig234]

Citation needed.

Culture is relative. 10k years of culture to draw paintings on a wall isn't much different than 100k years of culture to draw paintings on paper to a being with 100M years of culture. There ain't as much difference between the cave-drawers and the paper-drawers from a mental perspective as you might think.

I don't think a 'citation is needed' to compare the cultural history of modern man to that of cavemen.

The thing is, what triggered the desire of cavemen to want to pain, that is different than any other animal? Monkeys aren't about to start painting, despite some copying and some acts of 'painting' that aren't representations - they don't paint 'things' like bison or the modern equivalents.

The early humans didn't have things different than other animals, in their needs and environment involved hunting, sex, sleeping. Something led to their interest in painting. What?

Orangutans have an interesting similarity in some ways - based on copying:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFACrIx5SZ0

There's even 'elephant painting' that is remarkable at first glance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foahTqz7On4

But look closer, and it's a lot more about cruel conditioning - if still remarkable that it's even possible:

http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/why-making-an-elephant-paint-is-cruel-not-cute/

People seem to want to look at the issue the wrong direction - explaining cavemen by what came later, rather than by what came earlier.

 

[cbrunny]

FFS man.... Homo Sapiens are Homo Sapiens. It's explaining cavemen by what cavemen were.

 

[Craig234]

FFS man.... Homo Sapiens are Homo Sapiens. It's explaining cavemen by what cavemen were.

Why did they become what they were, in the same eat/sleep/sex environment as other mammals?

 

[cbrunny]

Why did they become what they were, in the same eat/sleep/sex environment as other mammals?

What do you mean by 'were' here? That seems to be the root of your confusion. What do you think they were?

What they were is Homo Sapiens. If you're asking how they became Homo Sapiens, I'd refer you to your other thread.

 

[agent00f]

Why did they become what they were, in the same eat/sleep/sex environment as other mammals?

Evolution isn't a procedural/iterative process, and as long as you keeping thinking of it as one these questions will remain mysterious.

There doesn't need to be some absolute benefit to painting, only that individuals of the species could still adequately reproduce in spite of it. Same as with the wings.

Then one day some other change, like a smarty caveman figures out how to use the drawings to better communicate, and his kin go on to wipe out competitors (thus reducing the latter's ability to adequately reproduce). Or in some alternative scenario, the competitors better use their efforts instead of dicking around with paint and wipe out said cavemen, and we wouldn't be here writing script about it.