The veneration of relics and relic-like objects, e.g. memorabilia, paintings, ruins, and even locations, is a ubiquitous cross-cultural phenomenon that extends to a wide range of human behavior. Relics et al share some common features. Each was in physical proximity to an individual who made a significant contribution to an Admirer’s existence.
The social emotion of admiration/respect is the glue that binds the relic system together as a unit. Individuals evolved to admire the cultural contributions of others and wanted to grant them special privileges. Simultaneously, others are motivated to contribute to earn the respect of the Group, thereby earning the commensurate privileges. This emotional synergy acts to increase the overall cultural intelligence, and by extension, the evolutionary fitness of the culture.
Admiration’s emotional power is invested in social memories of the Contributor. The memories include a reverence for objects that existed within the Contributor’s Aura (historical vicinity). Admirer’s invest these emotion-infused objects and places with numinosity (a special value), thereby granting them the status of a relic. Conversely, replicas don’t have the same value (numinosity) because they were not in the actual field of the admiration memory.
Relics in Physical Proximity to Cultural Contributors
Culture’s Social Emotions: Admiration for Contributor
Relic’s Numinosity: Admiration’s Emotional Power invested in Historical Aura
What are the Implications of the Emotion-based Power of Relics?
Florence's museum of science proudly displays Galileo's relics, i.e. his finger bones. This practice might seem a bit bizarre to those of us born in the Western Hemisphere. Yet the veneration of relics and relic-like objects, e.g. memorabilia, paintings, and ruins, is a ubiquitous cross-cultural phenomenon that extends to a wide range of human behavior. The implications of his empirical, although non-measurable, uniquely human phenomenon are vast, in that they challenge the widely held Material Paradigm. Le us elaborate.
The Catholic Church convicted Galileo of heresy for arguing that the earth circled the sun rather than vice versa. In 1737, nearly a century after his death, Italian Freemasons performed a bizarre ritual that paralleled the sainthood process of the Catholic Church. They extracted relics from his skeleton, i.e. three digits, a molar and a vertebra. The Masons then reburied his body in a Catholic Church in Florence that is known for reconciling Catholicism with secular humanism. At present, Galileo’s relics are prominently displayed in Florence’s science museum.
Relics of Galileo, a man of Science? Seems as unlikely a mix as Catholicism and Freemasonry. The educated might imagine that Galileo would be rolling over in his grave if he knew that his body had been subjected to this ‘superstitious ritual’ and that his body parts were on prominent display in a museum named after him.
But is this really true? After all Galileo was a believer, an Italian Catholic who was dismayed by his conviction for heresy. And how ‘superstitious’ is this ritual? Is it really that strange? To pose some answers, let us first consider the nature of a relic.
What is a relic? Webster’s Dictionary defines a relic in a variety of ways. Following is the definition that is relevant to our investigation. “Relic: an object venerated by the faithful for its association with a saint or other venerated person.”
In this context, Italian Catholics collect and honor the relics of saints. Bones, clothes, and anything else connected with the esteemed individual might be saved. They then place these material objects in reliquaries, which are located in a prominent place in their home, a church, or, in Galileo’s case, a museum.
Orthodox Christians, Hindus and Buddhists engage in similar practices. They collect artifacts, e.g. clothes, bones and teeth, associated with their holy men. Hindus frequently take this process a step further. They place these relics in stone monuments called stupas. The relics are buried at the very center of these monuments to presumably last forever. Buddhist stupas have a similar function with a major exception. Rather than relics, these pyramid-like structures enshrine documents that contain the Buddha’s teachings. Modifying this practice in yet another way, the architects of Borobudur in Java placed nothing at the center of this magnificent monument. This was their way of venerating emptiness, the ultimate Buddhist goal.
Glass reliquaries containing the bones of saints are very foreign to those of us living in the Western Hemisphere, no matter which religion. An enormous ocean separates Latin American Catholics from the Papacy, the center that confers sainthood. Protestants have no saints as intermediaries between them and God. Some, if not many, might even think that this practice of conferring significance to a special individual’s body parts is gross or superstitious, a ‘relic’ of primitive times.
While some cultures take relics to a ritualistic level, most humans, no matter which culture, tend to collect and even venerate objects that are associated with memories and significant personages. These physical objects have many similarities with relics. There are a variety of ways in which this veneration occurs.
Most cultures, from the Neanderthal through modern times, venerate the physical remnants of the dead, whether children, parents or ancestors. Ashes from the cremation of loved ones are saved in a significant location. Many visit graveyards where the bones of significant personages are buried. There is even a feeling of violation if the remains are dug up, disturbed, or thrown away. Many Native Americans attempt to preserve graveyards as sacred sites.
This common practice of venerating something physical from past times is not confined to death rituals. On trivial levels, we collect souvenirs from trips or ticket stubs from performances as a remembrance of special, and generally positive, events in our own lives. More significantly, humans are obsessed with visiting the ruins of civilizations that are long gone.
Humans seem to be the only species that have this urge to preserve material objects as memorials to that which has passed. Birds discard or ignore their nests once their usefulness has passed. Utility also determines preservation of hives for bees and ants as well. Relics and relic-like objects are useless, except as a memento.
Why this obsession with something that has no more utility? Temple ruins, such as Angkor Wat, and public ruins, such as the Coliseum in Rome, represent peak achievements of another age – when the Khmer or Roman civilization was at the height of their glory. We imagine the hustle and bustle of crowds assembling around powerful historical personages. Is this desire to be in close proximity to relics or walk through ruins merely because it stimulates our imagination? Does this explain why Galileo’s finger bones are on display in a science museum? Or could there be another factor at play?
Let us consider another type of relic from the past that sometimes commands hundreds of millions of dollars at art auctions – paintings. One might argue that these art objects command astronomical prices because they have intrinsic value, e.g. a painting by Picasso is gorgeous. If intrinsic beauty is the only reason for the value, then why aren’t imitations as valuable? Why are imitations, not matter how well executed, unacceptable to the prosperous collector?
There are many instances where art forgery is so compelling that it fools museum experts. Sometimes scholars even debate whether the painting is real or a forgery. Obviously the intrinsic beauty of the forged painting must be at a similar aesthetic level to the authentic works of the famous artist, else it would not be able to trick experts and collectors.
Yet forgery is not a trivial matter. Wealthy patrons of the arts might love a painting, even proudly boast to guests that it is a Van Gogh or a Rembrandt. However if experts determine that it is indeed a forgery, then those that perpetrated the deception, including the talented forger, are liable for criminal prosecution. Further, the previously esteemed work of art, although its intrinsic value is unchanged, plummets in value. Virtually everyone would agree that producing a beautiful painting signed with a false name is a criminal act. Further, most would concur that an exquisite forgery should not be valued anywhere near that of an authentic, certified painting, by for instance Rembrandt.
This sense that a reproduction, no matter how accurate, no matter how compelling, is not as valuable as the original applies to all the relics we have mentioned. Objects must be physically connected with the saint, painter, or culture to have real value. To be considered an authentic relic, an object must have been in close physical proximity to the saint. The object must either be an actual part of the saint’s body, e.g. teeth, or it must have been touched or worn by the saint. Establishing provenance is an authenticating feature of a relic. Reproductions created in another time or place, no matter how realistic, are considered to be cheap fakes, ‘not worth the material they are created with’.
If the replica is exact, why does its value plummet in comparison to the ‘real’ object? If it isn’t quality, what is the factor that differentiates real from fake? What is the common thread that binds each of these circumstances, e.g. relics, ruins, and paintings, together?
In general, relics and relic-like objects were in the general vicinity of a revered human or culture for a significant duration during their lifetime. The only meaningful difference between reproductions and the ‘real’ thing is the perceived physical proximity to the living individual or culture. For instance, Galileo’s relics were either part of his body or something that he actually touched while he was alive. Relics have proximity, replicas don’t.
Let us employ the word ‘numinosity’ to refer to the special quality that an object acquires due to its intimate proximity to a saint, creator, or culture. For instance, Galileo’s finger bones and teeth possess what could be said to be his unique numinosity. Many revere any physical object that contains Galileo’s numinosity, e.g. his notebooks, any special memorabilia, and, in this case, his bones. In contrast, replicas, no matter how accurate, do not have this same numinosity.
How did these objects attain this numinosity? Or more appropriately, why do people or even cultures invest these objects with numinosity-associated value just because they were in the proximity of a significant individual? For instance, why does the Italian scientific community proudly display Galileo’s finger bone in a museum devoted to science?
We as individuals tend to revere physical objects that were in close proximity to a person or society that we feel has made a significant contribution to human culture or at least to our lives. For example, Master Ni, my decades-long Tai Chi teacher and spiritual mentor, wrote some advice to me upon a scrap of paper. Rather than rewrite it or transfer it to the digital world, I revere this relic and keep it in a safe place. His presence seems to linger behind his unique handwriting and message that provided a shared experience in real time so many years ago.
This all too human response to the object’s numinosity is based upon a reverence for the historical connection between the relic and the living body. This reverence for the relic is grounded in its connection to what we would call the aura of a particular individual or culture. In this context, Galileo’s relics are associated with his aura, which confers perceived numinosity to these historical objects.
It is worth noting the power of the aura is dependent upon the individual and/or cultural appreciation for the historical significance of the particular artifact. Rather than an objective phenomenon, the aura is subjective. For instance, throughout time conquering invaders have regularly destroyed relics and relic-like objects that were deeply revered by the victims of conquest.
Could this notion of a personal or cultural aura be the feature that relics and relic-like objects have in common? Ruins are a remnant of the aura of the culture that created them. Picasso’s paintings and his collectibles, e.g. pencil drawings, sketches et al, are infused with his aura. This intimate connection imparts value.
A saint’s relics, whether Catholic, Buddhist or Hindu, only have real significance if they were associated with the individual’s aura in some way. In the context of this article, the bones in Florence’s science museum are esteemed because they were the fingers that Galileo employed to infuse his creative energy into his science and inventions. In contrast, replicas are not equally esteemed because they were never physically connected to the individual’s actual historical existence.
What is about an individual that motivates admirers to confer numinosity on objects that were within his or her personal aura?
Relics are frequently worshipped as a way of tapping into the saint’s power. The power (spiritual or temporal) of the material object (the relic) is associated with the individual’s aura; a replica does not have this same power. It is as if the saint’s life force imparts the relic with potency. For instance, when the Crusaders possessed what they believed to be the true Cross of Christ, they felt invincible in battle – frequently winning despite the odds being stacked against them. When they lost possession of this sacred relic, they also lost the battle.
What is the source of the power behind relics and relic-like objects, e.g. original paintings, ticket stubs, ruins and bones? The perceived power of relics seems to be proportional to personal respect for an individual’s or a society’s contribution(s) to human culture.
For example, most would agree that Galileo’s creative output furthered human culture. Many of Galileo’s contributions to the human race were scientific, i.e. methods, discoveries and inventions. In addition, Galileo provided an inspirational role model for those who dare to question and challenge traditional authority. It could be said that Galileo noticeably advanced human culture.
Because of these distinct and positive contributions to humankind’s cultural evolution, many humans, especially Italians, attribute significance to Galileo’s numinous bones. Why? His creative energy flowed through these physical bones in order to achieve his accomplishments that furthered the ‘collective life force’ of the species.
It seems that a major motivation for Galileo (his life force) and indeed most scientists and engineers is to further, not merely their individual organism, but rather the collective human culture. Only convoluted arguments can be made in support of the notion that these creative urges and ambitions are driven merely by individual survival. Further, there is a deep cultural appreciation for those who further the general welfare. It is clear that many human beings honor these same individuals and collect their relics and relic-like objects because of their perceived contributions to the collective, not the individual, cause.
The relics of saints and holy men are held to be sacred for a similar reason. These individuals and their relics are presumably venerated because they made a significant contribution to the emotional wellbeing of many people. The same reasoning holds true for political and artistic figures and the physical artifacts associated with them. Those people that appreciated these political or aesthetic contributions choose to honor birth and death dates as well as to collect memorabilia (relic-like objects).
Because they have made an effort to amuse and distract us, we also honor and collect memorabilia from entertainers such as athletes and movie stars. For example only recently (1-20-19), 35 strands of Marilyn Monroe’s hair sold for over $16,000 to a collector. The hairdresser of this iconic movie actress claims that he had saved her relics in a glass case for over 60 years. People continue to value her contribution to their collective entertainment even though she died at the age of 36 in 1962.
It is understandable that we admire and honor those who have enhanced our lives and contributed to human culture. But why do we venerate objects that were within the physical proximity of notable individuals? Why does respect for Galileo’s achievements translate into a reverence for the bones of his fingers?
More generally, what is it that motivates Galileo and generates an appreciation for both his achievements and his numinous remains? These cultural motivations and their subsequent appreciation certainly go far beyond explanations that rely solely upon stimulus-response and/or survival. It seems that the motivations behind the relic system must, at least, include an emotional component. If so, where did they come from?
As exhibited, the system associated with relics and relic-like objects requires a Group Culture, which consists primarily of Contributors and Admirers. Admirers invest objects that were in the physical proximity of the Cultural Contributor with numinosity. What force binds these components together as a cohesive unit?
Emotions seem to be the glue that holds the system together. Three feelings that seem particularly relevant are the urges to belong, to contribute, and to admire. These emotions arise out of social relationships which are uniquely human1. What is the source of these innate human feelings? Where did they come from? And why did they arise?
Emotions = Glue of Relic-system
For most of Life’s evolutionary history, the physical eco-system drove biological evolution. With the relatively recent advent of humans, culture became the new driving force2. In relatively recent times, the changes in the human gene pool are driven far less by the random biological mutations that shape the development of all other species. Rather, our gene pool is driven far more by profound changes in human culture.
The rising power of human culture translates to biology, i.e. our gene pool. A growing segment of the scientific community believe that we can now objectively measure the relative effects of physical and culture-based evolution. These scientists now conclude that culture-based evolution has taken over as the primary force affecting the genetic changes in human beings.
For humans in particular, culture seems to be driving our evolution. Why is culture so important?
Humans have come to dominate our planet’s ecosystem, not because of our biological attributes, but because of our cultural intelligence. Individually we are not particularly strong, large or smart, but our group intelligence far surpasses that of any other species. Evidence of our cultural intelligence surrounds us, from our electronic devices to our manufactured tables and chairs.
What is the basis of this cultural intelligence that enables us to dominate our planet? It started with self-identification with the Group. But many species, including bacteria, have this tendency. One feature that separates us from the rest is our ability to pass on technology. This technological transmission is the root of our cultural intelligence.
Somehow humans (actually the homo species) acquired a genetic propensity3 to pass on their learned knowledge to the next generation - father to son, mother to daughter, elders to younger members of the tribe – professors to their students – me to my reader, whomever that might be. The implicit hope is that this transmitted knowledge will in turn be valuable enough to pass on to a subsequent generation.
For hundreds of thousands of years, the transmission of technology was almost exclusively based upon mimicry. Rooted in imitation, cultural intelligence evolved very slowly. But at a certain point, perhaps some kind of ecological crisis presented new challenges to the survival of this imitative human culture. Consequently, natural selection began to choose humans that possessed the urge to experiment with the materials in their environment. This experimentation facilitated innovation that enhanced the development of new survival strategies.
Certain members of the group began to recognize the value of these experimental contributions to their collective welfare and consequently began to value the individual contributors themselves. Recognizing the value of these individuals, members of the group also began to encourage and support them. At this point, humans began to not just mimic and transmit accumulated wisdom, but to also encourage those individuals who contributed to cultural intelligence.
Ultimately, evolutionary forces favored groups possessing a social environment that supported and encouraged innovative contributors. The individuals in these groups tended to survive and pass on their gene pool. Extending this supportive emotion, natural selection eventually chose humans that had the genetic propensity to not only innovate, but also to respect and even revere those whose innovations contributed to the welfare of Group culture. Humans continue to venerate these cultural contributors, whether the patriarch of a clan, the originator of a religious order, or an Academy award winner.
To have any motivational power, our human tendency to respect the contributions of others must necessarily be linked to the urge to be respected as Contributors. As such, this social emotion inspires us to both respect and even to be a cultural contributor to gain that group respect. For instance, scientists are motivated not only by curiosity, but also by the urge to be respected by the scientific community.
This desire to be respected by the Group for personal contributions would encourage members to both develop and transmit new technologies for the benefit of the Group Culture. In such a way, individuals earn this collective respect. This process would enhance cultural intelligence, hence survival prospects. Accordingly, Groups whose members had acquired this ‘respect for contribution’ gene would presumably be more fit evolutionarily.
Notice that each of these steps is tied to an emotion, not a physiological trait. Standing upright, the opposable thumb, increased brain size and connectivity are all physiological changes due to evolutionary pressures that have nothing to do with emotions. In contrast, the urge to belong, the urge to transmit technology, the urge to experiment, the urge to contribute, the urge to gain the respect of the group, and the urge to respect Cultural Contributors are all emotional responses to complex stimuli.
Each of these emotions is tied to the Group culture in some way. For this reason, biologists deem them to be social emotions. Although there are some reflections in other species, most social emotions tend to be a unique feature of the human species. In contrast, emotions such as fear, anger, happiness and satisfaction are individual matters. For instance, a group is not required for an individual to experience to emotion of fear.
In such a way, culture-based evolution provided the social emotions that link the components of the relic system together, i.e. Culture, Contributor and Appreciator. Further each of these emotions, especially the urge to transmit, the urge to contribute and the urge to appreciate, increased our cultural intelligence, hence our ability to survive and reproduce. As the glue, these emotions are of utmost importance.
What is the process, the causal mechanism, behind this relic-phenomenon? More specifically, why do Appreciators invest objects within the Contributor’s Aura (historical vicinity) with numinosity (special value)? Conversely, why do virtually exact replicas lack the same numinosity as the original?
The last section demonstrated that social emotions are the glue of the relic system. Further, these social emotions are one of the factors that increased the cultural intelligence of our human species, hence our evolutionary fitness. More precisely, the emotion of respect/admiration motivates some individuals to grant special privileges to those who contribute to the Culture and others to contribute in order to gain the respect and consequent privileges of the Group. This dual aspect of respect, i.e. granting and desiring, motivates both Contributors and Appreciators; the former to serve the common good, the latter to honor this community service in some way. In such a way, the emotion of respect/admiration inspires individuals to advance their culture.
How does this emotion-based process translate into the numinosity of relics?
It seems fair to say that the emotion of admiration when applied to Cultural Contributors is triggered by a memory-complex associated with the individual. While we sometimes admire someone’s actual behavior (the live performance of a professional athlete), more frequently we admire the memory of someone’s accomplishments (the historical achievements of a Nobel-prize winner). Although we all admire Einstein, none of us knew him or could even understand his mathematical derivations.
We tend to think of memories as being akin to a movie clip, complete with sounds and smells. However, memories are always invested with emotion, else we wouldn’t remember them. There is no reason to clutter our memory banks with meaningless sensory input. Lacking emotional attachment, sensory input has no staying power, nothing to recommend it to our already crowded brain. Why remember the buzzing of a fly, unless it bothers us?
The boundaries of our emotion-invested memories are fuzzy. For instance, the Galileo memory typically includes his Tower of Pisa experiment, his telescope, and his appearance before the Inquisition. For the scientifically minded, the Galileo memory also includes his scientific achievements. However, we don’t necessarily remember specifics as much as generalities. The Galileo memory is fuzzy.
The fuzzy memories of Cultural Contributors, such as Galileo and his scientific achievements or of Marilyn Monroe and her entertainment accomplishments, are subordinated to the emotion of admiration. Whenever the memory of these individuals is triggered, admiration is evoked and dominates the emotion-behavior complex. Hence the movie memory of Galileo – the sounds, sights, smells, and even historical understanding – evokes the emotion of admiration.
Due to this subordination to emotion, the movie memory of Galileo, while linked with his physical Body, is actually joined more powerfully (motivationally) to his Aura, i.e. everything in his historical vicinity. Rather than physical, the Aura’s power is conceptual. Existing only in our imagination, Galileo’s Aura derives from a complex synergy of multiple memories. All of our Galileo images merge into a general memory of him, as an individual, and his surroundings (his Aura).
The emotions are linked to Galileo’s historical Aura – everything associated with the specific space-time continuum in which he lived. This emotional linkage sweeps up any physical object in his vicinity into the social emotion of reverence.
In such a way, followers, those who appreciate the Contributor, confer numinosity onto anything falling into the Historical Aura, such as Galileo’s finger bones and teeth. The sense-based movie-image of Galileo that exists in the structure of the neural networks in our brain is grounded in admiration – an emotion that evolved to further our collective intelligence. This emotion is connected to Galileo’s aura.
For these reasons, Galileo’s followers conferred numinosity onto his physical remains, thereby granting them relic status. Transforming him into a secular saint in such a manner is a direct manifestation of the emotion of respect/admiration associated with Galileo’s aura.
This brings us back to our original question: Why do virtually exact replicas have so little value in comparison to the original? And a related query, why do we frown upon art forgeries to the extent that we make them illegal?
Could it be that the historical aura of the Contributor has been compromised? Evolutionary forces fixed our emotion-laden memories in a specific location in the space-time continuum for a specific purpose. This temporal and physical specificity ensured that we could return to the correct spot at the correct time to procure food or avoid a specific location at a particular time to avoid being eaten. If this aspect of our memory is tricked in any way, we might miss our prey or be eaten by a predator.
Due to these dire consequences, we would come to have a distaste for, or even revile, imposter memories. Could it be that for these evolutionary reasons, we hate it when our memory-emotions are fooled or deceived in any way?
Plus, the emotion of admiration is intimately connected to the historical space and time of the Contributor. If disconnected from this emotion-laden location, the object loses its motivational potency. Lacking emotional content, the replica is only as valuable as its content. Once exposed as a fraud, a forgery is devoid of the admiration that made the original so treasured to the collector or the general public.
Disconnected from the emotions associated with real temporal and spatial location of the Cultural Contributor, the replica or forgery is stigmatized, and even reviled as an imposter.
It is tempting to think that the personal power of a Cultural Contributor is so great that it actually extends to anything within the vicinity of his or her Historical Aura. It is equally tempting to think that relics and relic-like objects have the actual energy and power of the Contributor within them. Indeed there are many examples of this belief tendency. Wars have been fought to obtain relics and their supposed power.
However, it is more likely that our powerful emotions supported by our imagination create our reality. Matter only provides boundaries. As this discussion has exhibited, it is our internal emotions that invest objects with numinosity. Similarly, when we believe that inert substances are medicinal, they can actually exert health benefits – the so-called placebo effect. Rather than physical, the basis of both cases is mental-emotional. Relics and relic-like objects seem to be a purely emotion-based phenomenon.
But is the explanation of the relic phenomena really so simple? Can relics be explained solely by the emotional interactions between individuals? Or must the Group Consciousness be taken into account?
Read on to find out how groups of individuals have a collective life force along with collective memories. See how these collective memories have motivated humans for thousands of years. How does the Material Paradigm explain the Group’s long-lasting motivational power? Do we need a new Paradigm that includes our interactive relationship with information?
1 Dr. Antonio Damasio, Self comes to Mind, Constructing the Conscious Brain, 2010
2 Dr. Joseph Henrich, Evolutionary Psychology, Harvard, The Secret of our Success, How Culture is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating our Species, and Making us Smarter, 2015. This well-researched book summarizes the conclusions reached by a team of international collaborators. The work is the only source for this section’s comments on cultural evolution.
3 It could be said that this genetic propensity for technological transmission was the addition that led to the split between the Homo species and the preceding Australopithecus species. As evidence, there is an unbroken lithic technology (transforming stones into chopping tools) that extends from homo erectus, the earliest form of the homo species, through the Neanderthal to the Neolithic humans that are our genetic predecessors. This stone tool-making technology is so important that the stages of stone age humans are named after their lithic technology – Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic.