The eyes have it: human perception and

anthropomorphic faces in world rock art

Research
Ben Watson∗

Why do early artists draw eyes? The author argues that they reflect the evolution of the brain in
its expressions of fear, love and behaviour, and invites us to apply this ethological approach more
widely to the study of early symbolism.
Keywords: Palaeolithic art, hominins, ethology, behaviour, facial expression

Introduction
Anthropomorphic faces with prominent eyes are widespread in the prehistoric rock art of
hunter-gatherer societies. Although they are not as common as some other recurrent forms
of imagery, particularly anthropomorphic figures, zoomorphs, certain abstract-geometric
shapes and patterns, and hand stencils and prints, they are found everywhere from the caves
of south-western Europe, such as those at Le Portel and Trois Frères, France (Lorblanchet
1989: 131), to the rockshelters of northern Australia and the painted Wandjinas of the
Kimberley (e.g. Crawford 1968, 1973; Mowaljarlai & Malnic 1993; Doring 2000). Some
faces with prominent eyes appear in very similar forms in widely separated regions, depicted
in frontal view, typically exhibiting a high degree of symmetry and playing down other
features such as noses or ears or excluding them entirely. Examples include the archaic
face petroglyphs of the Australian arid zone (Edwards 1968; Dix 1977; David et al. 1992;
McDonald 2005) (Figure 1); those in several parts of North America, such as the many
petroglyphs attributed to the prehistoric Salish of the Northwest Coast (e.g. those at Puget
Sound and Georgia Strait) (Hill & Hill 1974; Leen 2009) (Figure 2); those in Mongolia
in Khanbogd sum territory, Umnugobiaimag (Tseveendorj et al. 2007) (Figure 3); those
throughout Siberia and the Russian Far East at Sikachi-Alyan and Sheremetyevo, Khabarovsk
region (Figure 4); the Makemake faces on Easter Island (Lee 1992) (Figure 5) and others
elsewhere in the Pacific.
The similarity of such face motifs in widely separated regions is a phenomenon that has
not been adequately explained. What was it that led humans to produce them in such similar
ways throughout time and space? Without resorting to diffusionist explanations, one means
of understanding recurrent rock art imagery is by recourse to neuroscience and perceptual
psychology (Alpert 2009; Watson 2009). This paper follows this approach and argues that
understanding human perception and recognition of faces may help to explain the manner

∗
Centre for Classics & Archaeology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia
(Email: watson.benjamin@hotmail.com)

Received: 4 January 2010; Accepted: 24 February 2010; Revised: 18 March 2010

ANTIQUITY 85 (2011): 87–98 http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/085/ant0850087.htm
87
 Ben Watson

Figure 1. Typical archaic faces with prominent eyes from the Australian arid zone (after McDonald 2005: 129).

in which faces are often portrayed. In particular, it suggests that the human sensitivity to
eyes and certain configurations of eye shapes has significantly influenced the ways in which
face motifs have been made.

An ethological approach
The approach adopted is partly ethological, seeking understanding of characteristic
behaviours of Homo sapiens and the role these behaviours play in the human species’
evolutionary history. The study of animal behaviour is based largely in evolutionary theory
and concerned in part with certain ubiquitous behavioural patterns or tendencies that are
relatively stable in the human species (Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1975; Hinde 1982). Of particular
interest in the present context are those that relate to visual stimuli. For example, experiments
with infants have demonstrated the predictable reaction of smiling at face-like configurations
(Kagan et al. 1966). Other studies have demonstrated that certain visual configurations
relating to predatory animals, the curves of a snake, the stalking pose of a predatory cat or
eye-spot patterns, can evoke universally appropriate responses in humans such as fear or
excitement, and may be employed in art to evoke similar responses (Coss 1965). Dissanayake
(1998: 490) states that, visual arts throughout time and space exploit ‘emotionally captivating
and cognitively interesting features that ancestrally were (and may still be) relevant to vital
interests, and to subject matter of biologically-important concern’. Such features include the
eyes, particularly the schema of two facing eyes, either in isolation or as a prominent aspect
of facial depictions.
The perspective taken is complementary to existing evolutionary and behavioural
interpretations of rock art, but is explicit in demonstrating how human perceptual and
behavioural predispositions are relevant to the understanding of a specific motif type
found cross-culturally. While it is necessary to consider the environmental pressures and
adaptive processes that contributed to cognitive evolution in such an approach, rather than
focusing on art origins and the emergence of representation within this context (Hodgson &
Helvenston 2006), it is the operation of an inherently modern human brain in the creation
of rock art and the selection of imagery for depiction that is of interest. The global approach
also addresses a need to extend the application of neuroscientific and ethological theory and
shift the emphasis in existing studies on the Upper Palaeolithic of south-western Europe to
include the rock art of other regions of the world.

88
 The eyes have it: human perception and anthropomorphic faces in world rock art

Research

Figure 2. Examples of petroglyphs of the Pacific Northwest from (top) Case Inlet and (bottom) Saltspring Island (photographs:
Daniel Leen).

89
 Ben Watson

Figure 3. Examples of petroglyphs from Khanbogd sum territory, Umnugobiaimag, Mongolia (after Tseveendorj et al. 2007:
18).

Figure 4. Examples of petroglyphs from Sikachi-Alyan and Sheremetyevo, Khabarovsk region, Russian Far East (after
Okladnikov 1969: 82, 1981: pls.).

Figure 5. Examples of eye-mask motifs from Easter Island (after Lee 1992: 35, 58, 60, 162).

Visual processing and depiction of human faces

The head, face and eyes are some of the most important aspects of a human being, playing
central roles in everyday life, communication and art. The face is deeply ingrained in
perception to the extent that the slightest hint of a face (e.g. in the shape of clouds)
often results in recognition and response. The existence of innate human recognition and
knowledge of faces is supported by a number of factors, such as the response to and imitation
of adults’ facial expressions by newborn infants, and the preference infants have for realistic
abstracted or schematised faces over distorted ones (e.g. Meltzoff & Moore 1983; Johnson
& Morton 1991). In addition, several studies with large numbers of infants confirm that
within the first year of life specific regions of the brain employed in facial processing become
activated in the viewing of faces (Nelson 2001). This includes an area of the fusiform
gyrus known as the fusiform face area (FFA), which is selectively responsive to face stimuli
(Kanwisher & Yovel 2006). An area of the superior temporal sulcus (STS) is also responsive
to gaze and eye movements in face stimuli (Puce et al. 1998; Wicker et al. 1998), as well
as the processing of facial expression particularly concerning the eyes (Hoffman & Haxby
2000). In fact, the part of the STS selectively responsive to faces reacts more strongly when
eye-like stimuli are presented (Bentin et al. 1996). Crucially, considerable activation of the

90
 The eyes have it: human perception and anthropomorphic faces in world rock art

FFA occurs not only when viewing human faces but also cartoon faces (Tong et al. 2000),
as well as when faces are drawn (Solso 2000, 2001). It is interesting to note that the human
face is one of the first representational images produced by children (Kellogg 1969) and
that the activity of drawing it may in fact aid in increasing associated cortical specialisation

Research
(Nelson 2001).
Facial recognition in infant chimpanzees further suggests that facial preference in
hominins is innate and is an aspect of perception that has deep evolutionary roots (Pascalis
et al. 2002). The evolutionary significance of facial recognition might also be evidenced
by the red Jasperite cobble from Makapansgat, South Africa, dating to c. 2.5–3 million
years ago (Dart 1974; Bednarik 1998; Bahn 1999). The cobble was presumably collected
and carried a considerable distance from its source by an australopithecine (Australopithecus
africanus), remains of which were found in context. The cobble is non-utilitarian and features
unusual visual properties, including prominent markings resembling faces. The collection
of the object suggests that it was highly valued due to its facial resemblance. Because the
preference for faces is neurologically determined, viewing face-like stimuli would have been
as rewarding in the past as it is today, and probably produced a positive response in the
emotional (limbic) system of the brain (Hodgson & Helvenston 2006: 10).

The depiction of eyes

Deregowski
» (2007: 89–90) has noted that in some regions, such as southern Africa,
depictions of two facing eyes are comparatively rare in rock art because humans and
other animals are typically depicted in profile, and often silhouetted without eyes at all.
However, in other regions where anthropomorphic faces occur, the eyes tend to be the most
salient feature even to the exclusion of all other features. For example, in a majority of cases
where human facial features are represented in Upper Palaeolithic Europe, eyes are the most
frequently shown (Ucko & Rosenfeld 1972: 183). The depiction of facial features other
than the eyes is generally rare in Australian petroglyphs and paintings (Dix 1977: 277). Eyes
are present in all archaic faces of the Australian arid zone analysed by David et al. (1992:
71), whereas other features such as hair or headdress, nose, ears and mouth are only present
in some. Furthermore, many examples of facial depictions have rings or prominent brow
lines accentuating the eyes (cf. Figures 1–5).
The typical simplicity of facial representations in rock art may be attributed to cultural
influences or other unknown factors – the message communicated may have been more
abstract. It is also important to consider that engraving or using a brush or fingers in
painting with pigment on rock may to some extent result in difficulties or restrictions in
the execution of fine facial features. Such markings may also be anomalous to the coherency
of a schematic design. However, difficulties in depiction are clearly not the case with many
animal depictions, the faces of which are often very carefully executed with great attention
to detail (e.g. the lions of Chauvet Cave, France). This clearly indicates that humans in the
past did not lack the ability to depict detailed human faces. Indeed, the ability is clearly
apparent in the engraved faces of La Marche, France (Lorblanchet 1989: 136).
The Wandjina paintings of the Kimberley provide some of the best examples of facial
representation in Australia, with eyes that are often highly detailed. The small, unpaired

91
 Ben Watson

eyes of humans and other animals depicted in profile do not have the same perceptual effect
as the large accentuated eyes characteristic of frontal views of the face as in these examples
(Deregowski
» 2007: 89). Frontal views of the face may be more common than other views
in the rock art of some regions because of the large number of distinguishing features and
because they more readily communicate emotional states or other information (Parker
& Deregowski
» 1990: 39–40). Cross-cultural and behavioural studies strongly support
claims for the universality of emotional expression, where emotions correspond to a set
of human facial expressions that are universally recognised (Ekman 1970; Matsumoto &
Willingham 2009). As mentioned, many face motifs also include prominent brow lines. This
increases their perceptual salience in accordance with innate neural structures and biological
preparedness for facial expression stimuli (Aronoff & Barclay 1988; Fox et al. 2000).
Facial communication is of course very important in social relationships, and central to
this is the speed with which visual information is processed by the brain. The processing speed
of visual information is increased by simplifying incoming data according to organisation
principles (Homa et al. 1976). This includes the relationship between the eyes, nose and
mouth, identified by specialised groups of cells in the brain that are selectively responsive
to faces (Barrowclough 2004: 105). Recent research has found that the eyes convey more
reliable information to the brain compared to images of the nose and mouth, suggesting
that face recognition mechanisms in the brain are biased towards the eyes (Keil 2009). The
importance of these findings is that the analysis of faces by the brain appears to correspond
closely with the simplifications and transformations made in their depiction in rock art.

Eyes and human ethology

The human sensitivity to eye shapes means that they are particularly effective in human and
other animal representations. This is widespread in the animal kingdom, where eye-spots are
imperative in communication and appear on animals such as moths (e.g. Caligo eurilochus)
and fish (e.g. Chaetodon sp.) as a safeguard against potential predation (Hinton 1974).
Some animals, such as garter snakes, react fearfully or aggressively – depending on the
species – when presented with models with eye-spots (Bern & Herzog 1994). For most
primates the direct stare signals a potential attack. Monkeys, for example, are disturbed by
being stared at or when shown drawings of two facing eyes and, depending on the situation,
the stimulus may trigger fight-or-flight responses (Coss 1978). For humans, the signal of two
facing eyes also evokes behavioural response mechanisms that developed during the course
of early hominin evolution in response to the environmental pressures of predators. This
includes an innate, spontaneous avoidance response or gaze aversion to the staring eye (Coss
1970, 1972; Ellsworth et al. 1972; Dziurawiec & Deregowski
» 2002). Such responses include
excitation of the limbic system, and the action of specific neurons in the inferotemporal
cortex (Tanaka 1996), among other areas of the brain.
The importance of eyes in schematic drawings of humans is well demonstrated in
experiments measuring eye movements of subjects viewing pictures, revealing that they
are repeatedly scanned (Noton & Stark 1971). Experiments have also demonstrated that
visual fixation on two black eye-spots in the horizontal plane results in a significant
acceleration in heart rate, compared to other configurations of black spots (Aikens 1998).

92
 The eyes have it: human perception and anthropomorphic faces in world rock art

Research
Figure 6. Eye-like stimuli configuration used by Coss (redrawn from Coss 2003: 100).

Visual fixation on schematic facing eyes represented by two sets of concentric circles in the
horizontal plane is also found to cause rapid increase in pupillary dilation compared to other
configurations (Coss 1965, 1968: 276, 1970, 2003: 99–100) (Figure 6). Pupillary dilation
is an autonomic response indicative of strong emotional states such as fear or pleasure. The
visual properties of schematic facing eyes are thus shown to evoke such responses. Although
the shape of the human face has the potential to evoke arousal under certain circumstances,
eye shapes act as particularly effective sign stimuli or triggers of innate neurological and
behavioural responses. The natural response in humans to eyes, as in the optimal attraction
to the prototypical face (Langlois & Roggman 1990), is increased by the isolation and
exaggeration of their fundamental characteristics to the extent that perceptual mechanisms
underlying supernormal responses are activated (Alley & Cunningham 1991; Latto 1995:
88; Barrowclough 2004: 105).
The strong responses elicited by two sets of concentric circles positioned side by side
is well explained by the phenomenon known as the principle of exaggeration or what
Ramachandran (Ramachandran & Hirstein 1999; Ramachandran 2003) refers to as the
peak shift effect. The peak shift effect is observed in the animal kingdom as a form of
discrimination learning. Rats can be taught to discriminate a square from a rectangle and,
when rewarded for choosing a rectangle, will learn to respond more frequently to this shape.
If they are presented with a rectangle that is longer and thinner than the prototype on
which they were trained, the response will be much greater (Ramachandran & Hirstein
1999: 18). A similar phenomenon is observed in herring gull chicks. The brain of the
herring gull chick is stimulated by the red stripe on the mother’s beak, and the beak is
subsequently tapped for food. Experiments with artificial beaks show that increasing the
number of red stripes produces a stronger response from the chicks than the natural beak
(Tinbergen & Perdeck 1950; Tinbergen 1953). Particular behavioural responses to certain
stimuli are in fact observable in many animals (Russell 1943). Experimental studies such

93
 Ben Watson

as those by Tinbergen have demonstrated that it is possible to isolate and exaggerate sign
stimuli, effectively producing a supernormal stimulus eliciting a supernormal response.
The analogy (or homology) with the brain of rock artists, the modern human brain, is
evidenced with the creation of exaggerated features such as the eyes as large, concentric circles
in some depictions – the equivalent of the red stripes to herring gull chicks. Importantly, this
is a common feature of many rock art traditions. For example, eyes and eye-like motifs in
the form of circles and concentric circles are the most characteristic types of petroglyphs of
the Northwest Coast, North America (Hill & Hill 1974). In particular, the representation of
eyes as large, concentric circles stimulates the brain’s aesthetic response to the eyes, activating
strong neurophysiological responses. The depiction of faces with eyes of this type may thus
be a natural tendency because the brain is hard-wired to give more attention to the eyes and
is more responsive to them in this form. As a consequence, rock artists may be consciously
or unconsciously biased towards depicting them in this way. In addition, face motifs with
prominent eyes such as the newly reported example from the north-eastern Simpson Desert,
Australia, commonly appear in prominent positions on vertical rock faces and are highly
visible (Ross & Smith 2009), increasing the effectiveness of the imagery.

The role of symmetry

As noted, figures with prominent, facing eyes in rock art are typically symmetrical, and
it is important to note how perceptual factors may also account for this characteristic.
During evolution, the visual system became attuned to detect symmetry due to its special
status in the perception of form, particularly the detection of significant environmental
cues such as animals and conspecifics (beings of the same species), all of which are usually
symmetrical. Sensitivity to bilateral symmetry as a common feature of biological forms is
essential for the discrimination of animate and inanimate objects, including the detection
of potential predators, prey or mates. Bilateral symmetry about a vertical axis is most rapidly
detected (Barlow & Reeves 1979) and symmetry detection in general appears to be an
innate and pre-attentive response, serving as an early-warning system for the presence of
significant environmental cues necessary for survival (Wolf & Friedman-Hill 1992; Beck
et al. 2005). The detection of symmetry and the basis for the salience of symmetrical forms
is deeply embedded in the structure of the human perceptual system and neurophysiological
structuring of the brain (Corballis & Roldan 1974; Humphrey 2004).
It is conceivable then, that these factors influence preferences for certain pattern types.
Indeed, experimental studies demonstrate the inherent ability to detect high and low levels
of bilateral symmetry in complex biological forms or their silhouettes (Evans et al. 2000).
In addition to their rapid perception and identification, symmetrical forms are more easily
remembered than asymmetrical forms (Attneave 1955), and are also more easily reproduced
in graphics (Deregowski
» 1978). These factors help to explain the cross-cultural preference
for symmetrical configurations (Eisenman & Gellens 1968; Uduehi 1995; Sütterlin 2003:
133–5) in combination with the perceptual stability of symmetry, increasing its salience
and memorability. Symmetry in art is appealing because it takes advantage of its rewarding
nature in motivating the allocation of perceptual resources towards it (Ramachandran &
Hirstein 1999).

94
 The eyes have it: human perception and anthropomorphic faces in world rock art

Facial and body symmetry are also generally found to be attractive to humans. Symmetry
in the human face is recognised as a universal aesthetic preference for human beauty and is
perceived as more attractive than asymmetric faces (Grammer & Thornhill 1994; Mealey
et al. 1999). The biological basis for this preference is demonstrated in studies of species that

Research
choose healthy potential mates indicated by the symmetry of their faces and other features
(Fink et al. 2006; Rhodes et al. 2007). The attractiveness and preference for symmetry may
thus be understood as derived from biological and evolutionary mechanisms necessary for
survival, and likely influence the production of rock art motifs and the ways in which figures
with prominent facing eyes are commonly portrayed.

Conclusion
Clearly, faces and eyes are important in the neurological structuring of the species and are
neurologically special. As a result, faces with prominent eyes are forms of imagery that have
the ability to evoke strong neurophysiological responses. This includes the activation of
distinct neural structures, and inherent responses in emotional centres and reward networks
of the brain. Considering the above points collectively, it is feasible to argue that the human
sensitivity to eyes guided rock artists to select these elements for depiction by capitalising on
a social signal and perceptually salient stimulus. The nature of certain facial representations
in rock art may be understood as influenced and governed by inherent perceptual processes
and the importance of eye stimuli in the brain. The human sensitivity to eyes may further
explain the recurrence of faces with prominent eyes as a widespread theme in rock art
throughout the world, particularly the isolation and accentuation of the eyes through the
use of concentric circles and other graphic devices that intensify the visibility of the imagery
and the neurological responses they afford.
Although the present investigation has not focused on how motifs may have been
interpreted by their authors, it is important to note that these findings do not exclude
or reject higher cognitive factors and socially determined attitudes towards the rock art.
Meanings and significances ascribed to the imagery also remain culture-laden and culturally
specific. The interpretations given by no means imply that depictions of faces or eyes have
unitary meanings, and such assumptions should certainly be avoided, especially in the
absence of greater context or ethnographic data. In addition, a focus on cultural similarities
does not deny the existence of significant differences; great variation is certainly evident in
rock art and certain motif types as it is in other aspects of human culture and behaviour.
There may be any number of environmental, cultural and socio-economic or other factors
that account for this variation, including reasons why faces depicted in frontal view and with
prominent eyes are more common in the rock art of some contexts (e.g. British Columbia)
than others (e.g. southern Africa). These questions are unfortunately beyond the scope of
this paper, but remain important avenues of inquiry for future research.

Acknowledgements
I thank Daniel Leen for kindly providing permission to reproduce photographs in Figure 2, and Antiquity
referees Paul Bahn and Tim Denham for providing comments that helped improve this paper.

95
 Ben Watson
References
AIKENS, N.E. 1998. Human cardiovascular response to
the eye spot threat stimulus. Evolution and
Cognition 4: 1–12.
ALLEY, T.R. & M.R. CUNNINGHAM. 1991. Average
faces are attractive, but very attractive faces are not
average. Psychological Science 2: 123–5.
ALPERT, B.O. 2009. The creative ice age brain: cave art in
the light of neuroscience. Santa Fe (NM): Foundation
20–21.
ARONOFF, A. & A.M. BARCLAY. 1988. The recognition
of threatening facial stimuli. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 54(4): 647–55.
ATTNEAVE, F. 1955. Symmetry, information and
memory for patterns. American Journal of Psychology
68(2): 209–222.
BAHN, P.G. 1999. Face to face with the earliest art
object, in M. Strecker & P.G. Bahn (ed.) Dating
and the earliest known rock art: papers presented in
symposia 1–3 of the SIARB Congress, Cochabamba,
Bolivia, April 1997 (Oxbow Monographs in
Archaeology 101): 75–7. Oxford: Oxbow.
BARLOW, H.B. & B.C. REEVES. 1979. The versatility
and absolute efficiency of detecting mirror
symmetry in random dot displays. Vision Research
19: 783–93.
BARROWCLOUGH, D.A. 2004. How little does it take to
represent a face? Archaeological Review from
Cambridge 19(1): 99–113.
BECK, D.M., M.A. PINSK & S. KASTNER. 2005.
Symmetry perception in humans and macaques.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(9): 405–406.
BEDNARIK, R.G. 1998. The australopithecine cobble
from Makapansgat, South Africa. South African
Archaeological Bulletin 53(167): 4–8.
BENTIN, S., T. ALLISON, A. PUCE, E. PEREZ & G.
MCCARTHY. 1996. Electrophysiological studies of
face perception in humans. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience 8: 551–65.
BERN, C. & A. HERZOG. 1994. Stimulus control of
defensive behaviours of garter snakes (Thamnophis
sirtalis): effects of eye-spots and movement. Journal
of Comparative Psychology 108: 353–7.
CORBALLIS, M.C. & C.E. ROLDAN. 1974. On the
perception of symmetrical and repeated patterns.
Perception and Psychophysics 16: 136–42.
COSS, R.G. 1965. Mood provoking visual stimuli: their
origins and applications. Los Angeles (CA):
University of California Press.
– 1968. The ethological command in art. Leonardo 1:
273–87.
– 1970. The perceptual aspects of eye-spot patterns and
their relevance to gaze behaviour, in C. Hutt & S.J.
Hutt (ed.) Behaviour studies in psychiatry: 121–47.
London: Pergamon Press.
96
– 1972. Eye-like schemata: their effect on behaviour.
Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of
Reading.
– 1978. Perceptual determinants of gaze aversion by the
lesser mouse lemur (Mirocepbus murinus): the role
of two facing eyes. Behaviour 64: 248–70.
– 2003. The role of evolved perceptual biases in art and
design, in E. Voland & K. Grammer (ed.)
Evolutionary aesthetics: 69–130. Berlin: Springer.
CRAWFORD, I.M. 1968. The art of the Wandjina.
Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
– 1973. Wandjina paintings, in R.M. Berndt & E.S.
Philips (ed.) The Australian Aboriginal heritage: an
introduction through the arts: 108–117. Sydney:
Australian Society for Education through the Arts,
Ure Smith.
DART, R. 1974. The waterworn australopithecine
pebble of many faces from Makapansgat. South
African Journal of Science 70: 167–9.
DAVID, B., N. CHANT & J. FLOOD. 1992. Jalijban 2
and the distribution of pecked faces in Australia.
Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 32(1): 61–77.
DEREGOWSKI
» , J.B. 1978. Role of symmetry in pattern
reproduction. British Journal of Psychology 69:
217–24.
– 2007. About rock art, perception and the Bushmen of
southern Africa, in P. Chenna Reddy (ed.) Exploring
the mind of ancient man: festschrift to Robert G.
Bednarik: 88–100. New Delhi: Research India
Press.
DISSANAYAKE, E. 1998. Komar and Melamid discover
Pleistocene taste. Philosophy and Literature 22(2):
486–96.
DIX, W.C. 1977. Facial representations in Pilbara rock
engravings, in P.J. Ucko (ed.) Form in indigenous
art: schematisation in the art of Aboriginal Australia
and prehistoric Europe (Prehistory and Material
Culture series 13): 277–85. Canberra: Australian
Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
DORING, J. (ed.) 2000. Gwion Gwion: secret and sacred
pathways of the Ngarinyin Aboriginal people of
Australia. Koln: Konemann.
DZIURAWIEC, S. & J.B. DEREGOWSKI
» . 2002. The eyes
have it: a perceptual investigation of eyespots.
Perception 31: 1313–22.
EDWARDS, R. 1968. Prehistoric rock engravings at
Thomas Reservoir, Cleland Hills, western central
Australia. Records of the South Australian Museum
15(4): 647–70.
EIBL-EIBESFELDT, I. 1975. Ethology: the biology of
behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
EISENMAN, R. & H.K. GELLENS. 1968. Preference for
complexity-simplicity and symmetry-asymmetry.
Perceptual and Motor Skills 26: 888–90.
 The eyes have it: human perception and anthropomorphic faces in world rock art
EKMAN, P. 1970. Universal facial expressions of
emotion. California Mental Health Research Digest
8: 151–8.
ELLSWORTH, P., M. CARLSMITH & A. HENSON. 1972.
The stare as a stimulus to flight in human subjects:
a series of field experiments. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 21: 302–311.
EVANS, C.S., P. WENDEROTH & K. CHENG. 2000.
Detection of bilateral symmetry in complex
biological images. Perception 29: 31–42.
FINK, B., N. NEAVE, J.T. MANNING & K. GRAMMER.
2006. Facial symmetry and judgements of
attractiveness, health and personality. Personality
and Individual Differences 41(3): 491–9.
FOX, E., V. LESTER, R. RUSSO, R.J. BOWLES, A.
PUICHLER & K. DUTTON. 2000. Facial expressions
of emotion: are angry faces detected more
efficiently? Cognition and Emotion 14(1): 61–92.
GRAMMER, K. & R. THORNHILL. 1994. Human (Homo
sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection:
the role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of
Comparative Psychology 108(3): 233–42.
HILL, B. & R. HILL. 1974. Indian petroglyphs of the
Pacific Northwest. Seattle (WA): University of
Washington Press.
HINDE, R.A. 1982. Ethology. London: Fontana.
HINTON, H.E. 1974. Natural deception, in R.L.
Gregory & E.H. Gombrich (ed.) Illusion in nature
and art: 96–159. London: Duckworth.
HODGSON, D. & P.A. HELVENSTON. 2006. The
emergence of the representation of animals in
palaeoart: insights from evolution and the
cognitive, limbic and visual systems of the human
brain. Rock Art Research 23(1): 3–40.
HOFFMAN, E.A. & J.V. HAXBY. 2000. Distinct
representations of eye gaze and identity in the
distributed human neural system for face
perception. Nature Neuroscience 3: 80–84.
HOMA, D., B. HAVER & T. SCHWARTZ. 1976.
Perceptibility of schematic face stimuli: evidence for
a perceptual gestalt. Memory and Cognition 4(2):
176–85.
HUMPHREY, D. 2004. Symmetries in development: the
eye is quicker than the hand, in D.K. Washburn
(ed.) Embedded symmetries: natural and cultural:
7–18. Albuquerque (NM): University of New
Mexico Press.
JOHNSON, M.H. & J. MORTON. 1991. Biology and
cognitive development: the case of face recognition.
Oxford: Blackwell.
KAGAN, J., B.A. HENKER, A. HEN-TOV & J. LEVINE.
1966. Infants’ differential reactions to familiar and
distorted faces. Child Development 37(3): 519–32.
97
KANWISHER, N. & G. YOVEL. 2006. The fusiform face
area: a cortical region specialized for the perception
of faces. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences
361(1476): 2109–2128.
Research
KEIL, M.S. 2009. I look in your eyes, honey: internal
face features induce spatial frequency preference for
human face processing. PLoS Computational Biology
5(3): e1000329. http://www.ploscompbiol.org/
article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.
1000329 (accessed 4 March 2010).
KELLOGG, R.M. 1969. Analyzing children’s art. Palo Alto
(CA): Mayfield.
LANGLOIS, J.H. & L.A. ROGGMAN. 1990. Attractive
faces are only average. Psychological Science 1:
115–21.
LATTO, R. 1995. The brain of the beholder, in R.L.
Gregory, J. Harris, P. Heard & D. Rose (ed.) The
artful eye: 66–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
LEE, G. 1992. The rock art of Easter Island: symbols of
power, prayers to the gods. Los Angeles (CA): UCLA
Institute of Archaeology.
LEEN, D. 2009. A gallery of northwest petroglyphs:
Shamanic art of the Pacific Northwest.
http://www.danielleen.org/petroglyphs.html
(accessed 4 March 2010).
LORBLANCHET, M. 1989. From man to animal and sign
in Palaeolithic art, in H. Morphy (ed.) Animals into
art (One World Archaeology 7): 109–143. London:
Unwin Hyman.
MATSUMOTO, D. & B. WILLINGHAM. 2009.
Spontaneous facial expressions of emotion and
congenitally and noncongenitally blind individuals.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96(1):
1–10.
MCDONALD, J. 2005. Archaic faces to headdresses: the
changing role of rock art across the arid zone, in P.
Veth, M. Smith & P. Hiscock (ed.) Desert peoples:
archaeological perspectives: 116–41. Malden (MA) &
Oxford: Blackwell.
MEALEY, L., R. BRIDGESTOCK & G. TOWNSEND. 1999.
Symmetry and perceived facial attractiveness.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76:
151–8.
MELTZOFF, A.N. & M.K. MOORE. 1983. Newborn
infants imitate adult facial gestures. Child
Development 54(3): 702–709.
MOWALJARLAI, D. & J. MALNIC. 1993. Yorro Yorro:
spirit of the Kimberley. Broome: Magabala Books.
NELSON, C.A. 2001. The development and neural bases
of face recognition. Infant and Child Development
10(3): 3–18.
NOTON, D. & L. STARK. 1971. Eye movements and
visual perception. Scientific American 224: 35–43.
OKLADNIKOV, A.P. 1969. The petroglyphs of Siberia.
Scientific American 221(2): 74–82.
 Ben Watson
– 1981. Art of the Amur: ancient art of the Russian Far
East. New York: Harry N. Abrams; Leningrad:
Aurora Art Publishers.
PARKER, D.M. & J.B. DEREG ¶ OWSKI. 1990. Perception
and artistic style. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
PASCALIS, O., M. DE HAAN & C.A. NELSON. 2002. Is
face processing species-specific during the first year
of life? Science 296: 1321–3.
PUCE, A., T. ALLISON, S. BENTIN, J.C. GORE & G.
MCCARTHY. 1998. Temporal cortex activation in
humans viewing eye and mouth movements.
Journal of Neuroscience 18: 2188–99.
RAMACHANDRAN, V.S. 2003. The neurological basis of
artistic universals. Paper presented at the Euro-Edu
Association Art and Cognition Online Virtual
Conference, Nov 2002–Feb 2003.
http://www.interdisciplines.org/artcog/papers/9
(accessed 4 March 2010).
RAMACHANDRAN, V.S. & W. HIRSTEIN. 1999. The
science of art: a neurological theory of aesthetic
experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies 6(6/7):
15–51.
RHODES, G., S. YOSHIKAWA, R. PALERMO, L.W.
SIMMONS, M. PETERS, K. LEE, J. HALBERSTADT &
J.R. CRAWFORD. 2007. Perceived health contributes
to the attractiveness of facial symmetry, averageness
and sexual dimorphism. Perception 36(8): 1244–52.
ROSS, J. & M. SMITH. 2009. An engraved archaic face
in the north-eastern Simpson Desert. Australian
Archaeology 69: 68–70.
RUSSELL, E.S. 1943. Perceptual and sensory signs in
instinctive behaviour. Proceedings of the Linnean
Society of London 154: 195–216.
SOLSO, R. L. 2000. The cognitive neuroscience of art: a
preliminary fMRI observation. Journal of
Consciousness Studies 7: 75–85.
– 2001. Brain activities in a skilled versus a novice artist:
an fMRI study. Leonardo 34: 31–4.
SÜTTERLIN, C. 2003. From sign to schema to iconic
representation: evolutionary aesthetics of pictorial
art, in E. Voland & K. Grammer (ed.) Evolutionary
aesthetics: 131–70. Berlin: Springer.
98
TANAKA, K. 1996. Inferotemporal cortex and object
vision. Annual Review of Neuroscience 19: 109–139.
TINBERGEN, N. 1953. The herring gull’s world: a study of
the social behaviour of birds (New Naturalist
monograph 9). London: Collins.
TINBERGEN, N. & A.C. PERDECK. 1950. On the
stimulus situation releasing the begging response in
the newly hatched herring gull chick. Behaviour 3:
1–38.
TONG, F., K. NAKAYAMA, M. MOSCOVITCH, O.
WEINRIB & N. KANWISHER. 2000. Response
properties of the human fusiform face area.
Cognitive Neuropsychology 17: 257–79.
TSEVEENDORJ, D., Y. TSERENDAGVA & B.
GUNCHINSUREN. 2007. Some images of the
Javkhlant Khairkhan petroglyphs (Mongolia).
International Newsletter on Rock Art 47: 15–20.
UCKO, P.J. & A. ROSENFELD. 1972. Anthropomorphic
representations in Palaeolithic art, in M. Almagro
Basch & M.A. Garcia Guinea (ed.) Santander
Symposium: actas del Symposium Internacional de
Arte Rupestre: Santander-Asturias, 14 al 20
septiembre 1970: 149–211. Santander & Madrid:
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas.
UDUEHI, J. 1995. A cross cultural assessment of the
Maitland Graves Design Judgement Test using US
and Nigerian subjects. Visual Arts Research 13:
11–18.
WATSON, B. 2009. Universal visions: neuroscience and
recurrent characteristics of world palaeoart.
Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of
Melbourne.
WICKER, B., F. MICHEL, M. HENAFF & J. DECETY.
1998. Brain regions involved in the perception of
gaze: a PET study. Neuroimage 8: 22–7.
WOLF, J.M. & S.R. FRIEDMAN-HILL. 1992. On the role
of symmetry in visual search. Psychological Science 3:
194–8.