The very fact that we have been able to read and comment on this target article proves one of Morin's points: That writing, like no other technology before it, has allowed us to encode and transmit precise information across time and space, opening up almost endless possibilities in human communication and learning. One cannot help but wonder with the author why then, despite these enormous benefits, writing systems arose independently only four times in the history of the world. Furthermore, how come that a fully autonomous ideographic code is yet to be developed? This is what Morin calls the “puzzle of ideography” (target article, sect. 1, para. 4). We are enthusiastic about his masterly review of the topic. Nevertheless, we will attempt to recast his “puzzle” as a question of cultural evolutionary convergence, in a reformulation that leaves room to explore alternative answers to those questions.
Convergent cultural evolution may be generally defined as the independent emergence or invention of similar cultural traits in multiple societies. Design spaces, such as the adaptive landscape of peaks and valleys described in the target article, can indeed help visualize convergence (Peregrine, Reference Peregrine, Sabloff and Sabloff2018). Because the problem of asynchronous communication was solved through writing only in four occurrences, Morin depicts writing as an isolated peak at the end of a single arduous path in the adaptive landscape of graphic codes. In this scenario, writing would be akin to other well-known cultural convergence examples, like the bow-and-arrow, which show that unrelated groups arrive at analogous solutions to common challenges (Carignani, Reference Carignani, Panebianco and Serrelli2016). However, more than one path can lead to evolutionary convergence (Blount, Lenski, & Losos, Reference Blount, Lenski and Losos2018).
One alternative is that populations may develop similar outcomes, yet as a means to solve different problems. It is possible that this was one of the paths taken toward writing. For instance, cuneiform might have emerged in Mesopotamia as a response to the administrative need of recording goods, whereas Chinese writing seemingly originated as a divinatory aid, each thus occupying a separate niche originally (Schmandt-Besserat & Erard, Reference Schmandt-Besserat, Erard and Bazerman2007).
Another path, which will be our main focus, is that populations may settle on a lower adaptive peak, and hence fail to reach the most optimal solution to a problem. As Morin mentions, this could be caused by the availability of “good enough” alternatives. But it could also be as a result of social or material constraints, like taboos or competition with neighboring groups, which may hold back the development of a technology. Let us look at Classic period Mesoamerica, where artistic traditions, cultural practices, and religious beliefs largely converged, but writing did not. Teotihuacan, the most powerful city of the region at the time, never adopted formal writing in spite of being in close contact with the Maya and Zapotec groups who had developed comprehensive writing systems (Langley, Reference Langley, Berrin and Pasztory1994). This apparent dismissal of writing has been attributed to religious or political motives (Pasztory, Reference Pasztory, Berrin and Pasztory1994). If correct, this would mean that although the Teotihuacanos were well aware of the most optimal solution for encoding and transmitting information graphically, they settled on their local optimum, dominated by a complex style of visual art and a simple notational system (Langley, Reference Langley, Berrin and Pasztory1994). In addition to problem-solving dynamics, we therefore need to consider that historical contingencies related to population size, contact, conflict, or resources also influence the presence or absence of cultural traits (Sterelny, Reference Sterelny2016), no less so in the case of writing.
Similar to Teotihuacan, the Andean societies of the Moche and Inca were able to establish and sustain sophisticated states without developing formal writing. Instead, their intricate artistic motifs on various media (ceramics, textiles, sculpture, painting) likely filled the economic and ritual niches that writing initially occupied in Mesopotamia and China respectively (Arnold, Reference Arnold1997), and were seemingly effective enough to allow them to build large empires while remaining at a lower adaptive peak in the landscape of graphic communication.
The previous examples invite revising Morin's vision of the adaptive landscape of graphic codes: Not as towered by the isolated peak of writing, but occupied by multiple peaks of adequate solutions made up by a diversity of visual art and notation systems. Visual narratives were long used across the globe to encode and share complex information asynchronously prior to, or in the absence of literacy (Cohn, Reference Cohn and Cohn2016; Straffon, Reference Straffon and Prentiss2019). Some properties of visual narratives, such as sequential comprehension, may in fact have been coopted in writing (Cohn, Reference Cohn2019). As the cases above suggest, even though the principles of writing might have been known and understood in more than those four populations in which it emerged, they would have remained un- or underexploited without a social incentive to assume the costs of developing a new technology (Derex, Reference Derex2021). It seems to us then, that the path to writing as a permanent codified system was constrained not only by transient spoken or sign languages, but also by equally long-lasting forms of visual art.
The few instances in which convergence in writing occurred make it difficult to draw definite conclusions about the specific initial conditions that favored its evolution. In contrast, the many examples of art as an efficient system of asynchronous information exchange even cast doubts on the primacy given to glottographic codes as the supreme mode of visual communication (Brokaw & Mikulska, Reference Brokaw and Mikulska2022). It is our contention that when it comes to encoding and transmitting information graphically, visual art has performed sufficiently well throughout human history to render writing highly contingent rather than most optimal in an otherwise diverse adaptive landscape.
You have
Access
The very fact that we have been able to read and comment on this target article proves one of Morin's points: That writing, like no other technology before it, has allowed us to encode and transmit precise information across time and space, opening up almost endless possibilities in human communication and learning. One cannot help but wonder with the author why then, despite these enormous benefits, writing systems arose independently only four times in the history of the world. Furthermore, how come that a fully autonomous ideographic code is yet to be developed? This is what Morin calls the “puzzle of ideography” (target article, sect. 1, para. 4). We are enthusiastic about his masterly review of the topic. Nevertheless, we will attempt to recast his “puzzle” as a question of cultural evolutionary convergence, in a reformulation that leaves room to explore alternative answers to those questions.
Convergent cultural evolution may be generally defined as the independent emergence or invention of similar cultural traits in multiple societies. Design spaces, such as the adaptive landscape of peaks and valleys described in the target article, can indeed help visualize convergence (Peregrine, Reference Peregrine, Sabloff and Sabloff2018). Because the problem of asynchronous communication was solved through writing only in four occurrences, Morin depicts writing as an isolated peak at the end of a single arduous path in the adaptive landscape of graphic codes. In this scenario, writing would be akin to other well-known cultural convergence examples, like the bow-and-arrow, which show that unrelated groups arrive at analogous solutions to common challenges (Carignani, Reference Carignani, Panebianco and Serrelli2016). However, more than one path can lead to evolutionary convergence (Blount, Lenski, & Losos, Reference Blount, Lenski and Losos2018).
One alternative is that populations may develop similar outcomes, yet as a means to solve different problems. It is possible that this was one of the paths taken toward writing. For instance, cuneiform might have emerged in Mesopotamia as a response to the administrative need of recording goods, whereas Chinese writing seemingly originated as a divinatory aid, each thus occupying a separate niche originally (Schmandt-Besserat & Erard, Reference Schmandt-Besserat, Erard and Bazerman2007).
Another path, which will be our main focus, is that populations may settle on a lower adaptive peak, and hence fail to reach the most optimal solution to a problem. As Morin mentions, this could be caused by the availability of “good enough” alternatives. But it could also be as a result of social or material constraints, like taboos or competition with neighboring groups, which may hold back the development of a technology. Let us look at Classic period Mesoamerica, where artistic traditions, cultural practices, and religious beliefs largely converged, but writing did not. Teotihuacan, the most powerful city of the region at the time, never adopted formal writing in spite of being in close contact with the Maya and Zapotec groups who had developed comprehensive writing systems (Langley, Reference Langley, Berrin and Pasztory1994). This apparent dismissal of writing has been attributed to religious or political motives (Pasztory, Reference Pasztory, Berrin and Pasztory1994). If correct, this would mean that although the Teotihuacanos were well aware of the most optimal solution for encoding and transmitting information graphically, they settled on their local optimum, dominated by a complex style of visual art and a simple notational system (Langley, Reference Langley, Berrin and Pasztory1994). In addition to problem-solving dynamics, we therefore need to consider that historical contingencies related to population size, contact, conflict, or resources also influence the presence or absence of cultural traits (Sterelny, Reference Sterelny2016), no less so in the case of writing.
Similar to Teotihuacan, the Andean societies of the Moche and Inca were able to establish and sustain sophisticated states without developing formal writing. Instead, their intricate artistic motifs on various media (ceramics, textiles, sculpture, painting) likely filled the economic and ritual niches that writing initially occupied in Mesopotamia and China respectively (Arnold, Reference Arnold1997), and were seemingly effective enough to allow them to build large empires while remaining at a lower adaptive peak in the landscape of graphic communication.
The previous examples invite revising Morin's vision of the adaptive landscape of graphic codes: Not as towered by the isolated peak of writing, but occupied by multiple peaks of adequate solutions made up by a diversity of visual art and notation systems. Visual narratives were long used across the globe to encode and share complex information asynchronously prior to, or in the absence of literacy (Cohn, Reference Cohn and Cohn2016; Straffon, Reference Straffon and Prentiss2019). Some properties of visual narratives, such as sequential comprehension, may in fact have been coopted in writing (Cohn, Reference Cohn2019). As the cases above suggest, even though the principles of writing might have been known and understood in more than those four populations in which it emerged, they would have remained un- or underexploited without a social incentive to assume the costs of developing a new technology (Derex, Reference Derex2021). It seems to us then, that the path to writing as a permanent codified system was constrained not only by transient spoken or sign languages, but also by equally long-lasting forms of visual art.
The few instances in which convergence in writing occurred make it difficult to draw definite conclusions about the specific initial conditions that favored its evolution. In contrast, the many examples of art as an efficient system of asynchronous information exchange even cast doubts on the primacy given to glottographic codes as the supreme mode of visual communication (Brokaw & Mikulska, Reference Brokaw and Mikulska2022). It is our contention that when it comes to encoding and transmitting information graphically, visual art has performed sufficiently well throughout human history to render writing highly contingent rather than most optimal in an otherwise diverse adaptive landscape.
Financial support
This work was partly supported by the Research Council of Norway, through its Centres of Excellence funding scheme, SFF Centre for Early Sapiens Behaviour (SapienCE), project number 262618.
Competing interest
None.