The Perfume Maker, Rudolf Ernst
(1854-1932) (Wikicommons)
It
has long been known that we vary not only in our sensitivity to different
smells but also in our preferences for them—the degree to which they seem
pleasant or unpleasant. This variability often contains a large genetic
component (Gross-Isseroff et al., 1992; Karstensen and Tommerup, 2012; Keller et al., 2007; Keller et al., 2012; Weiss et al., 2011). In the case of one
odor, a single gene explains over 96% of the variability in smell sensitivity
(Jaegar et al., 2013). A twin study has similarly found two odorants to be 78%
and 73% heritable (Gross-Isseroff, 1992). This hardwiring is selective,
however, because sensitivity to other odors can show little or no heritable
variation (Hubert et al., 1980). There is also selective hardwiring in smell
preferences. Different individuals will perceive androstenone, for instance, as
offensive ('sweaty, urinous'), pleasant ('sweet, floral'), or odorless (Keller et al., 2007). It seems that selection has produced specific algorithms in the
human brain for specific smells and that these algorithms can differ from one individual to the next (Keller et al., 2007; Knaapila et al., 2012).
This
genetic variability exists between men and women, and also between age groups
(Keller et al., 2012). Does it also exist between different human populations?
The sense of smell does seem to matter more in some than in others,
particularly hunter-gatherers:
People
pay attention to smells when they are important to their daily lives and are
not just part of the sensory and emotional background. This is certainly the
case with the Umeda of New Guinea: in a tropical rainforest scent plays as
important a role as sight in terms of spatial orientation. The Waanzi in
southeast Gabon use odors daily in fishing, hunting, and gathering, thanks to a
kind of 'olfactory apprenticeship' in family life and rituals of initiation. In
Senegal, the Ndut are even more skillful: they are able to distinguish the
odors of the different parts of plants and they are able to give a name to
these odors. In our society, of course, most of us are incapable of this.
(Candau, 2004)
For hunter-gatherers farther away from the tropics, the sense of smell matters less
because the land supports a lower diversity of plant species and has less plant
life altogether per unit of land area. Parallel to this north-south trend, more
food comes from hunting of game animals and less from gathering of plant items.
The end point is Arctic tundra, where opportunities for gathering are limited
even in summer and where most food takes the form of meat. There, the senses of
sight and sound matter more, being of greater value for long-range detection and
tracking of game animals.
Candau
(2004) sees these differences between human groups as evidence for
"cultural influences" rather than "genetic inheritance." The
two are not mutually exclusive: culture itself can select for some heritable
abilities over others. On this point, it may be significant that different
human groups continue to show differences in smell sensitivity and preference
long after their ancestors had moved to very different environments. Thus, in a
study from New York City, Euro-American and African American participants were
exposed to a wide range of odors. It was found that the two groups differed in
their pleasantness rating of 18 of the 134 stimuli, generally floral or
vegetative odors. Moreover in 14 of the 18, the African Americans were the ones
who responded more positively (Keller et al., 2012).
In
addition, the African Americans responded more readily to aromatic metabolites
of the male hormone testosterone, i.e., androstadienone and androstenone. The
authors note: "This is consistent with the finding from the National
Geographic Smell Survey, which found that African respondents were more
sensitive to androstenone than American respondents. This difference is
undoubtedly at least partially caused by the fact that the functional RT
variant of OR7D4 is more common in African-Americans than in Caucasians"
(Keller et al., 2012).
Gene-culture
coevolution during historic times
This
coevolution did not stop with hunter-gatherers. Beginning 10,000 years ago,
some of them became farmers and that change set off a lot of other changes:
population growth, land ownership, creation of a class system, social
inequality on a much greater scale, year-round settlement in villages and then
in towns and cities ... And on and on. We entered new environments—not natural
ones of climate and vegetation, but rather human-made ones.
These
environments offered us new olfactory stimuli: salves, perfumes, incense,
scented oils, aromatic baths ... Havlicek and Roberts (2013) argue that our sense
of smell coevolved with human-made fragrances and that this coevolution went on
for the longest in the Middle East and South Asia, where the use of
perfumes is attested as early as the fourth millennium B.C. (Wikipedia, 2015).
A sort of positive feedback then developed between use of these fragrances and
praise of them in prose, song, and poetry, the two reinforcing each
other and thereby strengthening the pressure of selection. This may be seen in the Bible:
The
Hebrew Song of Songs furnishes a
typical example of a very beautiful Eastern love-poem in which the importance
of the appeal to the sense of smell is throughout emphasized. There are in this
short poem as many as twenty-four fairly definite references to odors,—personal
odors, perfumes, and flowers,—while numerous other references to flowers, etc.,
seem to point to olfactory associations. Both the lover and his sweetheart
express pleasure in each other's personal odor.
"My
beloved is unto me," she sings, "as a bag of myrrh
That
lieth between my breasts;My beloved is unto me as a cluster of henna flowers
In the vineyard of En-gedi."
And
again: "His cheeks are as a bed of spices [or balsam], as banks of sweet
herbs." While of her he says: "The smell of thy breath [or nose] is
like apples." (Ellis, 1897-1928)
In
the 9th century the Arab chemist Al-Kindi wrote the Book of the Chemistry of Perfume and Distillations, which contained
more than a hundred recipes for fragrant oils, salves, and aromatic waters
(Wikipedia, 2015). Today, the names of our chief perfumes are often of Arabic or
Persian origin: civet, musk, ambergris, attar, camphor …
Finally, the
use of perfumes, like kissing and cosmetics in general, moved the
center of sexual interest away from the genitals and toward the face, thereby
creating a second channel of arousal:
[...]
the focus of olfactory attractiveness has been displaced. The centre of
olfactory attractiveness is not, as usually among animals, in the sexual
region, but is transferred to the upper part of the body. In this respect the
sexual olfactory allurement in man resembles what we find in the sphere of
vision, for neither the sexual organs of man nor of woman are usually beautiful
in the eyes of the opposite sex, and their exhibition is not among us regarded
as a necessary stage in courtship. The odor of the body, like its beauty, in so
far as it can be regarded as a possible sexual allurement, has in the course of
development been transferred to the upper parts. The careful concealment of the
sexual region has doubtless favored this transfer. (Ellis, 1897-1928)
Differences
between human populations?
To recapitulate, we humans vary a lot in the degree to which we have been exposed to
perfumes and to a perfume-friendly culture, a possible analogy being the degree
to which we have been exposed to alcoholic beverages. There may thus have been
selection against individuals whose own smell preferences or body chemistry failed
to match the perfumes available, this selection being not only stronger in some populations but also qualitatively different:
[...]
individual communities vary considerably in the substances they employ for
perfume production (in most of the speculations below we deliberately ignore
recent trends such as technological advancement in global transfer of goods and
production of synthetic chemicals used in perfumery: these phenomena appeared
only very recently and one might not expect their immediate effect on
biological evolution which operates on a much longer time scale). The absence
of a specific ingredient in the perfumes of a particular community could be due
to the following reasons: (1) the source of the odour is unavailable in the
area and is not traded from neighbours. For example, we know that aromatic
plants were an important commodity in trading networks in Ancient Egypt or
Greece, but some of the scents routinely employed in that era in India were rare
or absent in Mediterranean cultures. (2) The community is constrained by a
technology. Some of the aromas can be extracted only using a specific
technology which might not be available for or discovered by the particular
community. In ancient Greece, for instance, ethanol distillation was not used
and perfumers instead used mechanic extraction or enfleurage (Brun 2000). (3)
Particular scents or their source (e.g. a particular plant) are believed to be
inappropriate for body adornment. Such beliefs might stem from religious
considerations.
[...]
considering that only some scent ingredients will complement particular body
odours (i.e. particular genotypes) and that a particular community employs only
a restricted variety of scents for perfuming, it is plausible that some
individuals may not be able to select a perfume which complements their body
odour and may therefore suffer a social disadvantage. In the long run, the
frequency of genotypes of such individuals would decrease in the particular
community. (Havlicek and Roberts, 2013)
It
is disappointing that Havlicek and Roberts do not develop this argument further
with plausible evidence for such gene-culture coevolution. For instance, Hall et al. (1968) discussed how smell and touch hold greater importance for Arabs
than for Americans. This point has likewise been remarked upon with respect to
the Gulf countries:
The
importance of good smell in Qatari homes is inherent in the requirement of
cleanness and purity (taharah) in
Islam, both physical and spiritual (Sobh and Belk, 2010). Purity, cleanness,
and good smell are central to Muslims everywhere in the world, but the
obsession with perfuming bodies and homes is something of a fetish in Gulf
countries and is very prominent in Qatar. (Sobh and Belk, 2011)
This
heightened smell sensitivity is all the more striking because plant life is
less abundant and less diverse in the Middle East, certainly in comparison with
the tropics. It seems unlikely, then, that it had been acquired during the
hunter-gatherer stage of cultural evolution, being instead a later development,
possibly through coevolution with the development of perfumes in historic times.
References
Candau,
J. (2004). The olfactory experience: constants and cultural variables, Water Science & Technology, 49, 11-17.
https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00130924/
Ellis,
H. (1897-1928). Studies in the Psychology
of Sex, vol. IV, Appendix A. The origins of the kiss.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/13613/13613-h/13613-h.htm
Gross-Isseroff,
R., D. Ophir, A. Bartana, H. Voet, and D. Lancet. (1992). Evidence for genetic
determination in human twins of olfactory thresholds for a standard odorant, Neuroscience Letters, 141, 115-118.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030439409290347A
Hall, E.T., R.L. Birdwhistell,
B. Bock, P. Bohannan, A.R. Diebold, Jr., M. Durbin, M.S. Edmonson, J.L.
Fischer, D. Hymes, S.T. Kimball, W. La Barre, F. Lynch, J.E. McClellan, D.S.
Marshall, G.B. Milner, H.B. Sarles, G. L Trager, and A.P. Vayda (1968). Proxemics, Current Anthropology, 9,
83-108
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2740724?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Havlícek,
J., and S.C. Roberts (2013). The Perfume-Body Odour Complex: An Insightful
Model for Culture-Gene Coevolution? Chemical
Signals in Vertebrates, 12,
185-195.
http://www.scraigroberts.com/uploads/1/5/0/4/15042548/2013_csiv_perfume.pdf
Hubert,
H.B., R.R. Fabsitz, M. Feinleib, and K.S. Brown. (1980). Olfactory sensitivity
in humans: genetic versus environmental control, Science, 208, 607-609.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/208/4444/607.short
Jaeger,
S.R., J.F. McRae, C.M. Bava, M.K. Beresford, D. Hunter, Y. Jia et al. (2013). A
Mendelian Trait for Olfactory Sensitivity Affects Odor Experience and Food
Selection, Current Biology, 23, 1601 - 1605
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(13)00853-1?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982213008531%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
Knaapila,
A., G. Zhu, S.E. Medland, C.J. Wysocki, G.W. Montgomery, N.G. Martin, M.J.
Wright, D.R. Reed. (2012). A genome-wide study on the perception of the odorants
androstenone and galaxolide, Chemical
Senses, 37, 541-552.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Danielle_Reed2/publication/221859158_A_genome-wide_study_on_the_perception_of_the_odorants_androstenone_and_galaxolide/links/02e7e52b367564a573000000.pdf
Karstensen,
H.G. and N. Tommerup. (2012). Isolated and syndromic forms of congenital
anosmia, Clinical Genetics, 81, 210-215.
Keller,
A., M. Hempstead, I.A. Gomez, A.N. Gilbert and L.B Vosshall. (2012). An
olfactory demography of a diverse metropolitan population, BMC Neuroscience, 13, 122
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/13/122/
Keller,
A., H. Zhuang, Q. Chi, L.B. Vosshall, and H. Matsunami. (2007). Genetic
variation in a human odorant receptor alters odour perception, Nature, 449, 468-472
http://vosshall.rockefeller.edu/reprints/KellerMatsunamiNature07.pdf
Sobh,
R. and R. Belk. (2011). Domains of privacy and hospitality
in Arab Gulf homes, Journal of Islamic
Marketing, 2, 125-137
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rana_Sobh/publication/241699027_Domains_of_privacy_and_hospitality_in_Arab_Gulf_homes/links/54a1374b0cf257a63602614b.pdf
Weiss,
J., M. Pyrski, E. Jacobi, B. Bufe, V. Willnecker, B. Schick, P. Zizzari, S.J.
Gossage, C.A. Greer, T. Leinders-Zufall, et al. (2011). Loss-of-function
mutations in sodium channel Nav1.7 cause anosmia, Nature, 472, 186-190.
Wikipedia (2015). Perfume
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfume
