Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T18:40:25.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Symmetry and humans: reply to Mithen's ‘Sexy Handaxe Theory’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Derek Hodgson
Derek Hodgson*
Affiliation:
*2 Belle Vue Street, York, YO10 5AY, UK (Email: dehogson@googlemail.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In reply to Machin's criticism of Kohn and Mithen's (1999) 'Sexy Handaxe Theory' in a recent Antiquity debate (Machin 2008: 761-6), Mithen (2008: 766-9) states that sexual selection is still relevant to the symmetry of Acheulean handaxes because this provides the only theory that can account for the various features typical of such artefacts. This conclusion may be misconceived, however, due to the conflation of the various factors relating to symmetry, attractiveness, and health. Crucially, recent studies have not found a genetic link based on sexual selection for physical traits based on symmetry. For example, Koehler et al. (2002) established that there was no difference in preference for the symmetry of male faces by females nearing conception compared to those females taking contraceptives. Similarly, Rhodes et al. (2001) found that, although there might be a link between facial symmetry and perceived health, there was no correlation between facial symmetry and actual health.

Type
Debate
Information
Antiquity , Volume 83 , Issue 319 , March 2009 , pp. 195 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beck, D. M., Pinsk, M. A. & Kastner, S.. 2005. Symmetry perception in humans and macaques. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(9):405–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyer, P. & LiéNard, P.. 2006. Why ritualized behaviour in humans? Precaution systems and action-parsing in developmental, pathological and cultural rituals. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29(6):595–613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Driver, J., Baylis, G. C. & Rafal, R.. 1992. Preserved figure-ground segregation and symmetry detection in visual neglect. Nature 360:73–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enquist, M. & Arak, A.. 1994. Symmetry, beauty and evolution. Nature 372:169–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiske, A. P. & Haslam, N.. 1997. Is obsessive-compulsive disorder a pathology of the human disposition to perform socially meaningful rituals? Evidence of similar content. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 185(4):211–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodgson, D. 2005. More on Acheulean tools. Current Anthropology 46(4):647–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, D. In press. Evolution of the visual cortex and the emergence of symmetry in the Acheulean techno-complex. Comptes rendus Palevol.Google Scholar
Kalick, S. M., Zebrowitz, L. A., Langlois, J. H. & Johnson, R. M.. 1998. Does human facial attractiveness honestly advertise health? Psychological Science 9(1): 8–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koehler, N., Rhodes, G. & Simmons, L. W.. 2002. Are human female preferences for symmetrical male faces enhanced when conception is likely? Animal Behaviour 64(2):233–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohn, M. & Mithen, S.. 1999. Handaxes: products of sexual selection? Antiquity 73: 518–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A. & Musselman, L.. 1994. What is average and what is not average about attractive faces? Psychological Science 5(4):214–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machin, A. J. 2008. Why handaxes just aren't that sexy: a response to Kohn & Mithen (1999). Antiquity 82:761–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithen, S. 2008. ‘Whatever turns you on’: a response to Anna Machin, ‘Why handaxes just aren't that sexy’. Antiquity 82:766–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polak, M. (ed.) 2003. Developmental instability: causes and consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ramachandran, V. S. & Hirstein, W.. 1999. The science of art: a neurological theory of aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies 6(6-7): 15–51.Google Scholar
Reber, R. 2002. Reasons for the preference for symmetry. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25: 415–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, R., Schwarz, N. & Winkielman, P.. 2004. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review 8(4):364–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhodes, G. 2006. The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology 57: 199–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhodes, G., Sumich, A. & Byatt, G.. 1999 Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry? Psychological Science 10(1):52–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, G., Zebrowitz, L. A., Clark, A., Kalick, S. M., Hightower, A. & Mckay, R.. 2001. Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health? Evolution and Human Behavior 22(1): 31–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swaddle, J. P. & Cuthill, I. C.. 1995. Asymmetry and human facial attractiveness: symmetry may not always be beautiful. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 261(1360): 111–16.Google Scholar
Tomkins, J. L. & Simmons, L. W.. 2003. Fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection: paradigm shifts, publication bias and observer expectation, in Polak, M. (ed.) Developmental instability: causes and consequences: 231–61. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, C. W., Baseler, H. A. & Wandell, B. A.. 1998. Cortical regions responding to long-range symmetry patterns. Available online: http://www.ski.org/CWTylerlab/CWTyler/PrePublications/SFN1998/SymmNatureNeuro.html.Google Scholar
Valentine, T., Darling, S. & Donnely, M.. 2004. Why are average faces attractive? The effect of view and averageness on the attractiveness of female faces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11(3): 482–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Der Zwan, R., Leo, E., Joung, W., Latimer, C. & Wenderoth, P.. 1998. Evidence that both area V1 and extrastriate visual cortex contribute to symmetry perception. Current Biology 8(15/16): 889–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagemans, J. 1997. Characteristics and models of human symmetry detection. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1: 346–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfe, J. M. & Friedman-Hill, S. R.. 1992. On the role of symmetry in visual search. Psychological Science 3: 194–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar