A Comment on Mithen's Ecological Interpretation of Palaeolithic Art

Steven Mithen's ‘Ecological Interpretations of Palaeolithic Art’ ( PPS 57, 103–14) reminded me of a Chinese meal — initially satisfying, but it doesn't stick with you for very long. While I subscribe to broadly similar paradigmatic biases at the level of the metaphysic, the ‘thoughtful forager’ model itself, proposed to relate various aspects of the art under the aegis of a particular kind of adaptationist perspective, seems to be conceptually muddled and operationally problematic. Also, Mithen's starting-point, the notion of an inherent contradiction between human creativity and an adaptationist point of view, is a red herring—wherever did he get it?! I will confine these brief remarks to three points that bear on different conceptions of adaptation and how they effect construals of pattern and the meaning of pattern in Palaeolithic art. I also respond to referees' comments. Mithen takes me, Straus and Gamble to task for omitting the individual and individual decision-making in our conceptions of adaptation (pp. 104, 105). A conception of adaptation that is focused on the group is juxtaposed with one invoking selection operating at the level of the individual organism in a direct analogy with group vs. individual selection in biological evolution.