This article was downloaded by: [University of Glasgow]On: 06 April 2013, At: 16:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

World Futures: The Journal ofGlobal EducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gwof20

Caves: The Origins of theAesthetic MindRaffaella Trigona aa University of Bergamo, Bergamo, ItalyVersion of record first published: 03 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Raffaella Trigona (2009): Caves: The Origins of the AestheticMind, World Futures: The Journal of Global Education, 65:8, 605-612

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02604020903300634

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

World Futures, 65: 605–612, 2009

Copyright c© Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN 0260-4027 print / 1556-1844 online

DOI: 10.1080/02604020903300634

CAVES: THE ORIGINS OF THE AESTHETIC MIND

RAFFAELLA TRIGONA

University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy

In this article, I deal with the concept of aesthetics in its broader sense: theability of feeling, thinking, and creating. My theory is that this aesthetics wasborn 40,000 years ago in the Paleolitical caves and that it has been characterizinghuman creativity from its remote origins up to now. Following this theory, weshould not define human creativity as a greater cleverness than that of otherliving species; however, we should think of it as a refined aesthetic ability ofmind in connecting different worlds, enacting different levels of communication,and creating images and symbols.

KEYWORDS: Aesthetics, creativity, evolution.

THE AESTHETIC MIND

The aesthetics that I will talk about in this article is not the aesthetics belongingto the modern eighteenth-century thought of Baumgartner and Kant; however,starting from its etymological root (aisthetikos, from aisthanomai, feeling), it isthe aesthetics conceived in a broad sense as a way of feeling, thinking, and creating.It is that aesthetics that was born 40,000 years ago in the Paleolithic caves andhas characterized the human mind up to now. It is that peculiar “psychophysicalcondition of happiness, grace, emotion, joy, pleasure” (Morin 2002, p. 120), able togo beyond any utilitarian and practical aim, that seems to have been characterizinghumankind from its remote origins.

The study of evolution allows us to go to the hearth of the deep roots of thisspecific way of our being human. Starting from these studies, my hypothesis isthat not only aesthetics has been characterizing the human mind since its origins—as stated by some recent paleonthological literature and by evolutionary studies(Leakey and Lewin 1994; Tattersal 1998; Arsuaga 1999)1 —but that this conditionhas also kept encouraging up to now the creativity of the human mind, the triggeringof new connections with the reality, the easing of the “games of layouts.”

As Gianluca Bocchi well explained in some conferences (AAVV, 2005), thereflection on the aesthetic mind has to be methodologically placed in a wider an-thropological survey on the human evolutionary process. Bocchi (in AAVV 2005)

Address correspondence to Raffaella Trigona, Post-Doc Fellow, Ph.D. Programme inAnthropology and Epistemology of Complexity, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy.E-mail: raffaella.trigona@unibg.it

605

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

6:07

06

Apr

il 20

13

606 RAFFAELLA TRIGONA

pinpoints aesthetics as an emerging quality of the human mind since the Paleolithicage, which can be described with three key characteristics: the processing, thatis the human ability to perceive changes; the self-referential function, that is theability of men to perceive themselves; and the cosmological character, that is, theability to relate men and cosmos, macrocosm and microcosm. In this case, time isstrictly connected with thinking. The time perception issues from an ability thatmen posses and that they do not share with other species. This ability allows himor her, since his or her remote origins, to perceive changes—in past, present, andfuture—in relation to him- or herself and in connection with the universe wherehe or she is immersed. Moreover, this ability consists in being able to connectand represent the other three, and it has been materialized through the emergingof not only an articulated verbal language—only belonging to our species—butalso of a complex, non-verbal language, able to express feelings and emotions,to produce images, sounds, tales, to create imaginary worlds. Since remote times,human creativity has not been defining itself as a higher cleverness in comparisonwith other living species, but as refined aesthetic ability of mind in connectingdifferent worlds, in enacting different levels of communication, in creating imagesand symbols.

THE CAVE

This is what is thought to have happened in the Paleolithic caves. The cave isa very powerful myth among “hominization myths,” as Edgar Morin calls them(Morin 2002). Through these myths we can get to the heart of our origins, sothat we do not simply conceive the human identity as simple natural or biologicalmechanisms, but, however, we should emphasize the wide range of possibilitieswe posses and of which our biological roots talk about. Caves offer a huge quantityof materials and a great number of images we can draw from in order to interpretthe evolution of the aesthetic mind. In the caves we find the oldest pictures everdiscovered: the wall images of Lascaux.

These pictures not only have been newly dated to a period prior to 30,000years ago, but they have also been reinterpreted in their meaning. They do notsimply seem to be a naturalistic representation of the hunting techniques of thefirst hominids, but they also seem to be a symbolic representation of nature. Theinterpretations about the nature of these images are various. I will linger over someof them later; for now, some examples showing the liveliness of the debate amongthe scholars will be enough.

A first interpretation makes the wall images become an expression of the humancommunicative ability. Caves images would be an advanced way of communica-tion created by hominids. Since remote ages humankind would have developedan aesthetic-imaginative way of expression and communication, able to give itan evolutionary advantage in comparison with other species (Arsuaga 1999).2

Following another interpretation, the birth of symbolic languages has a sacrificialorigin (Girard 1972; Fornari 2001), strictly linked with the domain of the sacred(Eliade 1952).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

6:07

06

Apr

il 20

13

CAVES 607

These different interpretations seem anyway to agree on the importance of con-sidering the images on the walls of the caves as a meaningful sign of discontinuityduring the development of humankind and its characterization as “aesthetic.”

“FIRST THINKERS” SYMBOLS AND SYMBOLOGIES

“In the Sierra of Atapuerco, there is an unique seam, called Sima de los Huesos,where the most ancient burial rite we have ever known about took place: 300,000years ago more than 30 human dead bodies were piled up by other men in thatcave.” This is what the palaeontologist Juan Luis Arsuaga (1999, p. 15) tells usabout the history of the prehistoric man in Europe.

“60.000 years ago, on the rough relieves of Zagros mounts, in North Iraq, anold man died in a cave.” Not only did he die in the cave, but he was buried therewith a funeral rite, characterized by gestures, sounds, and objects with a symbolicvalue. This is what the scholar Roger Lewin (1993, p. 3) tells us by analyzingfossils and soils samples found thirty years ago in the Shanidar cave, in the MiddleEast.

Between 40,000 and 30,000 years ago, a sudden change, considered as a realdiscontinuity in evolution, took place in Europe. Indeed, 300,000 years ago burialrites were already taking place, but it was only in this period of transition thatrefined symbologies characterizing these rites appeared for the first time: thesophisticated custom of adorning the body (painted images, beads, pendants) andthe artistic expression (images painted on objects or on the cave walls).

The man found in the Shanidar cave was a Neanderthalian. The thirty men foundin Spain were Neanderthalian. Nowadays, the case of the man of Neanderthal is stilla mystery to scholars and a real challenge to understand the origins of humankind.What happened 40,000 years ago? Why did Neanderthalians disappear, supplantedby the first representatives of our species? Was the cause a biological and cognitivealteration or an environmental change, or a change in the social organization or,again, a real cultural revolution? What characterized our identity as men?

The debate on these and other questions about our prehistory has developedand is still developing—as I have already stated—along different interpretativelines. The one identifying in the Paleolithic manufacturing some unique and qual-itative different features of our species and some indicators of a period of realdiscontinuity in human development seems to me to allow a new interpretation ofprehistoric traces, from the fossil and archaeological discoveries to the so-calledPaleolithic art.

Whatever the interpretation of the paintings found in the French caves ofLascaux or of those in the Spanish cave of Altamira may be, of course, it isimpossible, in my opinion, not to take into account the enigmatic, mysterious, andoften also paradoxical aspect of some images there represented. I am referring tothe “Unicorn” of Lascaux, to the man bird of Altamira or, again, to the uniquegeometrical designs found in the Castillo caves, in the North of Spain. Theseand others figures could be related with rites of socialization and aggregation;they could be considered as “shamanistic art,” strictly linked with magical andshamanistic practices (still visible among bushmen) (Lewin, p. 155); they could be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

6:07

06

Apr

il 20

13

608 RAFFAELLA TRIGONA

traces of bloody sacrificial rites (Girard 1972; Fornari 2001); finally, an attractivetheory is that the images refer to a celestial mythography and that they belong toa more complex prehistoric cosmology.

The Unicorn you can see in the Bulls room of Lascaux has rightfully beendefined as a “mystery”: two very long horns, seeming to be one, a disproportionatebody; the head, appearing to be ambiguous, at a careful glance is animal and humanat the same time. This figure does not seem to have features typical of any of theanimals known in the Paleolithic age.

Following the astronomical theory, the character, the bison, the lance, andanother object looking like a stick with a bird-like handle, would represent acomplex cosmological pattern and would indicate the north direction and theposition of the sun on the summer solstice.

Finally, the geometrical figures of the Spanish rocky art composed by circles,points, and grids can be interpreted as the representation of venatorial tools ina hunting scene but also, why not, as magical symbols. A similar discourse canbe made for the archaeological discoveries of pendants and beads made of stone,shells, teeth or horns. What were they? Were they exchange goods, body dec-orations? Did they have a social value? In this case as well, the most valuablehypothesis is that they had a symbolic value and that they did not simply representa technical ability of our hunting ancestors (Lewin, pp. 155–157).

Starting from these limited observations, it is important to me to highlight thefact that we are not wondering about the objective meaning of the images, butabout their possibility to be meaningful both for us now and for our ancestors inthe past. It is a real anthropological revolution. What makes the images meaningfulis not the meaning itself, but it is the eye observing them. It is our ability to buildimages once again, the aesthetic ability to symbolize, to sketch outlines.

SACRED SPHERE AND AESTHETIC SPHERE: THE SACRIFICIALHYPOTHESIS

Which is, then, the change characterizing the Paleolithic cavemen? In Morin’sopinion (1973, p. 101–107), “the change produced in the world by sapiens doesn’tconcern, as we thought, society, technique, logic, culture. On the contrary, itconcerns what we have been considering up to now as additional . . . burial andpainting.” Is there any relation among death, burial rites, and painted images? Isthere any relation between the aesthetic sphere and the sacred sphere? MirceaEliade’s studies (1952, 1986) take interest in the mystery of death, myths, sacredrites, and representations of life and death. The concepts of sacred, symbol, myths,and image are their linking thread. This historian of religions defines them asthe most secret conditions of human being. Eliade’s observations on the symbolhighlight the fact that the symbol is the middle element between the sacred andthe man.

The importance of Eliade’s reflection (his work is too wide and complex to givehere a complete synthesis) expresses itself through the underlying of some relevantaspects of the archaic images of the symbolic element and of their close connectionbetween the aesthetic dimension and the sacred dimension of the Neolithic age.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

6:07

06

Apr

il 20

13

CAVES 609

First of all, “symbols can reveal conditions of the real or a world frame that arenot clear on the immediate experience level.” They point out a dark, mysterious,and therefore sacred side of the reality. In the second place, symbols can transfigurethe reality and they allow us to see the everyday reality in a different and unusualway. Moreover, symbols are deeply linked among them; every symbol refers toa string of other symbols and they build a complex symbolic system (Bertagni1999).

So Mircea Eliade finds in the symbol the common element between the sacreddimension and the aesthetic dimension. In addition to this interpretation, there’s thesacrificial theory, stating that the foundation of our species’ origin is the foundingrite of the sacrifice. In Violence and the Sacred (1972), Rene Girard suggests inparticular one of the most original and relevant interpretation of our time. Girard’sinvestigation focuses on the Gordian knot of violence and sacred and on thefunction of the sacrifice. The word sacrifice shows through its root the idea of the“sacred” as an ambivalent and dark expression of the close connection betweensacred and violence. In Girard’s opinion, the sacrificial process represents themechanism thanks to which human violence can find a way out from the viciouscircle produced by the mimetic desire—that is, “the desire of being following theother’s opinion— characterizing the human identity. The human imitative desireproduces a steady condition of rivalry and competition among men, a situation of‘war against everyone,’ that in thousands of years has resulted in the sacrifice orin substitutive mechanisms as that of the ‘scapegoat.”’ (Girard 1972, p. 118)

Girard’s theory shows in a new light the hominization process and the theme ofthe emergence of an aesthetic mind as well. A first investigation led by GiuseppeFornari, from a Girardian point of view, has allowed us, for instance, to differentlyinterpret the finds dating back to 1,800,000 years ago, concerning Homo habilis.As Fornari (2001) reports, in the archaeological site of Olduvai, Tanzania, circlesof stones and traces of red ochre have been found. Following a more traditionalpaleonthological interpretation, we could see in these finds “the roots of thesymbolism and of the art.” (pp. 20–21) Fornari shares this observation; moreover,he underlines that ethnological and paleonthological data, together considered,show that the red ochre is considered as a symbol of human blood and that thering “around the victim” is the most ancient spatial symbolization of humanity.These should become clear signs of primitive sacrificial rites.

The first artistic expression on walls could therefore have a sacrificial originand be considered as an evolution of the sacrifice rite. I think that this hypothesisis very fascinating, but it leaves an unanswered question: Is the sacrificial ritefounding for the human symbolic–imaginative ability? Or, instead, has the humanspecies developed an aesthetic mind able to create a complex network of symbols,including the sacrificial ones?

I think we cannot give an ultimate version, but we can make a further reflection.On one hand, in fact, the archaeological finds support the sacrificial theory; on theother, they confirm that we are facing examples of a new ability for other livingspecies, the ability of transfiguring and symbolizing the sacrificial violence. Thisallows us to clearly think about the fact that sacrifice can simply be a possibledevelopment of the imitative human desire. Men’s aesthetic ability could be a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

6:07

06

Apr

il 20

13

610 RAFFAELLA TRIGONA

different evolution of mimetic desire, which stays at the basis of sacrifice andviolence as well (Girard 2002). This idea has also been developed by Fornarithrough his analysis of the concept of internal mediation, where the “doublebind” structure clearly appears; it is typical of the desiring mimesis and canbe acquisitive and conflictual, but also positive and creative (Bateson 1972). Inanalogy with Gregory Bateson’s concept of double bind, the imitating process isambiguous and ambivalent; it can lead to competition and violence, and to themodern “resentment,” but it can also result in “artistic and aesthetic phenomena,that otherwise would be incomprehensible” (Fornari 2001, pp. 11–36).

Therefore, I think it is right and interesting to highlight this recent evolution ofthe mimetic theory, finding the close connection between the sphere of the sacredand the aesthetic sphere in the dynamism of the mimetic desire (Trigona 2004).

FROM CAVES TO TODAY’S CAVES

In his recently published work, Creativity, Theory, History, Practice, Rob Popesuggests three interesting metaphors of the imagination concept:

� the classical one: “imagination as mirror,” that is, as something mirroring andre-flecting the reality;

� the romantic or post-romantic one: “imagination as a flash inspiration,” that is,an idyllic condition of sudden inspiration;

� the modern and postmodern one: “imagination as a labyrinth of mirrors,” thatis, a place of multiple variations of images, images reflecting images.

I would like to add the metaphor of the imagination as a “cave,” in the sense ofthe Latin cavus, meaning hollow, considered as a threshold marking an outsideand an inside. In fact, caves are physical spaces, but they also represent a thick,metaphorical networkof spaces, times, and mental ways.

“Let’s imagine men living in an underground dwelling place, in a cave. . . .”This is the beginning of Plato’s myth of the cave. This myth tells us about a cavewith a wide entrance toward the light and a long entry tunnel in the dark cave. Thestory describes the interior of the cave, where there are tied men, in the dark, justable to see shadows casting themselves from the outside. In the story there is alsothe exterior of the cave, where the sun shines, where there are other men living inthe light, where there is a big fire.

After reading many times the myth of the cave, I found an aspect that drew myattention and that I had not noticed up to now: an attention for what is inside thecavern and what is outside. The cave has no mouths, is a threshold, is limen, itdefines at the same time an inside and an outside. Plato’s fire is not inside the cave,but outside. Fire is an essential element in human evolution (the use of fire datesback to 700,000/800,000 years ago), not only as a technical acquisition but as amultidimensional innovation. On the fire, the meat of the prey killed by the firsthunters is cooked; fire is used to protect oneself against the wild beasts; fire warmsand lights up the cave, creates the “fireplace, place of protection and shelter,” and,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

6:07

06

Apr

il 20

13

CAVES 611

above all, the fire is inside the cave. Around the fire, the first “communities” metfor painting images on the caves walls and for telling stories (Morin 1974). Plato’scave, however, is the place of the dark, of the shadow. The fire is outside and it isnecessary to go outside the cave, it is necessary to go beyond the threshold.

In Il metodo. Vol. V: L’identita umana (2002, p. 75), Edgar Morin draws on thecaves theme:

Our civilization allows us to single out interior Paleolithic. . . . The interior caveis not Plato’s one. We have to penetrate it through an endless descent, going onthrough shadows and feeble lights, as far as hearing difficult breathing. . . . Goingdown always along the walls covered with children graffitoes, we reach a dumbsanctuary. . . . Movie theatres are big external caves, communicating with ourinternal caves; our soul wanders there as our ancestors roamed through thejungles or the virgin forests; like them, more than they, feeding thanks to humansacrifices, they find their darkness in the anguishes and in the dangers of thenight. . . .

In this passage there are many interesting references that I would like to highlight.First of all, Morin refers to our deepest roots, to the Paleolithic caves, but also toPlato’s cave. From the caves Morin talks about, we do not go out; however, wepenetrate them. The fire does not burn neither inside, nor outside, but darknessalternates with feeble lights. From these caves it is possible to go out and go inagain; caves are exterior and interior at the same time.

Finally, in Morin’s opinion there’s no better metaphor than that of “today’scave” to describe cinema, theater, literature, painting, and all the products of thehuman creativity.

NOTES

1. Following Arsuaga’s opinion, the human artistic creativity has also represented an evolutionaryadvantage for our species compared to Neanderthal species.

2. This theme has to consider the important debate that is still undergoing in evolutionary theories:if the survival of the humans species is to be considered as a process of adaptation (for instance:Arsuaga 1999) or, rather, of ex attation (Tattersal 1998), if this is an adapting character of thespecies or it is the emergence of a contingent event.

REFERENCES

Arsuaga, J. 1999. El collar del Neandertal. Madrid: Temas de Hoy, 2001 it. ed; Milano:Feltrinelli.

VVAA. 2005. La mente estetica. Rovereto.Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind. 1997 it. ed. Milano: Adelphi.————. 1991. Mind and nature: A necessary unity. 1996 it. ed. Milano: Adelphi.Bertagni, G. 1999. Il simbolo in Mircea Eliade. Arkete, 3, pp. 1–20.Bocchi, G. and M. Ceruti. 1993. Origini di storie. Milano: Feltrinelli.Eliade, M. 1952. Images et symboles: Essais sur le symbolisme magique-religieux. Paris:

Gallimard, 1993 it. ed. Tea.———. 1986. Briser le toit de la maison. 1988 it. ed. Jaka Book.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

6:07

06

Apr

il 20

13

612 RAFFAELLA TRIGONA

Fornari, G. 2001. Fra Dioniso e Cristo: La sapienza sacrificale greca e la civilta occidentale.Bologna: Editrice Pitagora.

Girard, R. 1972. La violence et la sacre. Paris: Grasset, 1980 it. ed. Milano: Adelphi.———. 1978. Des choses cachees depuis la foundation du monde. Paris: Grasset, 1983 it.

ed. Milano: Adelphi.Girard, R. 2002. One long argument from beginning to the end. 2003 it. ed. Milano: Cortina.Jacob, F. 1998. Of flies, mice and men. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Leakey, R. 1994. The origin of humankind. NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 1995 it. ed.

Milano: Sansoi.Lewin, R. 1993. The Origin of Modern Humans, NY: W.H. Freeman & Company, 1996 it.

ed. Bologna: Zanichelli.Montuori, A. 1989. Evolutionary competence: Creating the future. Amsterdam: Gieben.Montuori, A. and R. E. Purser. 1999. Social creativity. vol. I and II. NJ: Hampton Press.Morin, E. 1973. Le paradigme perdu. Paris: Le Seuil, 1974 it. ed. Milano: Feltrinelli.———. 2001. La Methode V. L’Humanite de l’Humanite. Tome 1: L’identite humaine.

Paris: Le Seuil, 2002 it. ed. Milano: Cortina.Pope, R. 2005. Creativity, Theory, History, Practice. NY: Routledge.Tattersal, I. 1998. Becoming human: Evolution and human uniqueness. New York: A

Harvest Book.Trigona, R. 2004. Il reale dell’immaginario e l’immaginario del reale. In Imitazione cre-

ativa: Evoluzione e paradossi del desiderio, ed. R. Trigona. Bergamo: Moretti e Vitali.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

6:07

06

Apr

il 20

13