Cave Art in the Upper Paleolithic presents a boost of creativity and visual thinking. What can explain these savant-like paintings? The normal brain function in modern man rarely supports the creation of highly detailed paintings, particularly the convincing representation of animal movement, without extensive training and access to modern technology. Differences in neuro-signaling and brain anatomy between modern and archaic Homo sapiens could also cause differences in perception. The brain of archaic Homo sapiens could perceive raw detailed information without using pre-established top-down concepts, as opposed to the common understanding of the normal modern non-savant brain driven by top-down control. Some ancient genes preserved in modern humans may be expressed in rare disorders. Researchers have compared Cave Art with art made by people with autism spectrum disorder. We propose that archaic primary consciousness, as opposed to modern secondary consciousness, included a savant-like perception with a superior richness of details compared to modern man. Modern people with high frequencies of Neanderthal genes, have notable anatomical features such as increased skull width in the occipital and parietal visual areas. We hypothesize that the anatomical differences are functional and may allow a different path to visual perception.

This article explores the possibility of testing hypotheses about art production in the past by collecting data in the present. We call this enterprise “experimental art history”. Why did medieval artists prefer to paint Christ with his face directed towards the beholder, while profane faces were noticeably more often painted in different degrees of profile? Is a preference for frontal faces motivated by deeper evolutionary and biological considerations? Head and gaze direction is a significant factor for detecting the intentions of others, and accurate detection of gaze direction depends on strong contrast between a dark iris and a bright sclera, a combination that is only found in humans among the primates. One uniquely human capacity is language acquisition, where the detection of shared or joint attention, for example through detection of gaze direction, contributes significantly to the ease of acquisition. The perceived face and gaze direction is also related to fundamental emotional reactions such as fear, aggression, empathy and sympathy. The fast-track modulator model presents a related fast and unconscious subcortical route that involves many central brain areas. Activity in this pathway mediates the affective valence of the stimulus. In particular, different sub-regions of the amygdala show specific activation as response to gaze direction, head orientation and the valence of facial expression. We present three experiments on the effects of face orientation and gaze direction on the judgments of social attributes. We observed that frontal faces with direct gaze were more highly associated with positive adjectives. Does this help to associate positive values to the Holy Face in a Western context? The formal result indicates that the Holy Face is perceived more positively than profiles with both direct and averted gaze. Two control studies, using a Brazilian and a Dutch database of photographs, showed a similar but weaker effect with a larger contrast between the gaze directions for profiles. Our findings indicate that many factors affect the impression of a face, and that eye contact in combination with face direction reinforce the general impression of portraits, rather than determine it.

We suggest a later timeline for full language capabilities in Homo sapiens, placing the emergence of language over 200,000 years after the emergence of our species. The late Paleolithic period saw several significant changes. Homo sapiens became more gracile and gradually lost significant brain volumes. Detailed realistic cave paintings disappeared completely, and iconic/symbolic ones appeared at other sites. This may indicate a shift in perceptual abilities, away from an accurate perception of the present. Language in modern humans interact with vision. One example is the McGurk effect. Studies show that artistic abilities may improve when language-related brain areas are damaged or temporarily knocked out. Language relies on many pre-existing non-linguistic functions. We suggest that an overwhelming flow of perceptual information, vision, in particular, was an obstacle to language, as is sometimes implied in autism with relative language impairment. We systematically review the recent research literature investigating the relationship between language and perception. We see homologues of language-relevant brain functions predating language. Recent findings show brain lateralization for communicative gestures in other primates without language, supporting the idea that a language-ready brain may be overwhelmed by raw perception, thus blocking overt language from evolving. We find support in converging evidence for a change in neural organization away from raw perception, thus pushing the emergence of language closer in time. A recent origin of language makes it possible to investigate the genetic origins of language.

In the present contribution, two authors approach a limited part of the iconography in the sanctuary of Santa Maria Antiqua in Rome, painted during the pontificate of John VII (705-707 AD). Two different hypotheses will try to come closer to a solution of a problem concerning the Christ cycle on the sanctuary side walls, where Christ’s appearance to the Disciples on the Road to Emmaus is the concluding motif. This rather reasonable solution stands, however, in huge contrast to John’s Christ cycle in his oratory in Old Saint Peter’s Basilica which concludes with the ʽHarrowing of Hellʼ or Christ’s descent into Hades. Being a novelty, this, so called Anastasis-scene, where Christ liberates the prisoners of Hades, has a strong soteriological, or salvation historical, meaning. Anastasis, which, in fact, appears in two different locations in John’s rich assembly of motifs in S. Maria Antiqua, is wholly absent from the highly ʽcerebralʼ sanctuary iconography. Our two alternative solutions to this absence both include an Anastasis, either as a free hanging icon (Nordhagen), or as a motif included in the vast Adoration scene on the triumphal arch, here located below the Crucifixion on the steep Cliff of Golgotha (Folgerø).

No abstract