In the course of our discussions, I wrote:
><< Gargett was not well received by his commentators. You
>should read the comments after his article.>>
>
and Jim replied,
>I was waiting for this. Eventually, any expert I cite who disagrees with you
>gets the "not well received" treatment. Well, YOU are not well received by
>certain commentators. Does that mean I shouldn't take you seriously?
>
I thought the first rule of being a good lawyer was to never ask a question
you didn't know the answer to and never make a statement that you couldn't
support. You are failing to heed this adage when you start talking anthro.
Your statment above proves that you do not read the primary anthro literature
because if you had read Gargett's article and the comments behind it, you
would know that I can back up what I said about Gargett's article. Perchance
you are psychologically projecting what you do on to me?
Current Anthropology has a marvelous format. A guy presents his paper and
several others comment on it immediatly after. A reader can thus see both
side of the issue. For Gargett's article there were 11 separate commentators.
The commentators below are 9:2 against the article and its contents. However,
I doubt that I will see a public statement that I was correct in what I said
anymore than I saw a public acknowledgement that it was Hugh Ross who mangled
the quotation in the recent Facts and Faith. and I had been correct in the way
I handled it. You are full of charges but short on retractions.
Here is what the commentators said:
David W. Frayer and Antra Montet-White, Kansas Univ.:
"We have difficulty finding any scientific merit in this paper. Gargett
appears to have no direct familiarity with the sites he reviews, is selective
in the cases he covers, lacks historical perspective, and ignores important
discoveries that demolish his argument. Recent finds resulting from modern
excavation procedures at Saint-Cesaire and Kebara and earlier cases from Roc
du Marsal and Amud indicate the intentional burial of specimens posessing a
Neanderthal morphology. Gargett makes no mention of these, concentrating on
older finds more vulnerable to criticism by modern standards."
"~David W. Frayer and Antra Montet-White,,"Comments" Current Anthropology,
30:2 Apr. 1989, p. 180
and
"Moreover, in a review of these old excavations Vandermeersch has summarized
the evidence for Neanderthal burials as follows:'Despite a certain lack of
information-sketchy plans, absence of photographs, etc.-the French Mousterian
sites demonstrate beyond a doubt that burial was practiced by Neandertals.'
Given the consensus of French prehistorians who have worked at the sites and
the other evidence reviewed here, why should anyone take seriously this paper
written from the armchair!"
"David W. Frayer and Antra Montet-White,"Comments" Current Anthropology, 30:2
Apr. 1989, p. 181
Harvey M. Bricker, Tulane:
"If reexamination shows that long-accepted 'facts' are not based on solid
data, the consequent revision is a clear contribution to knowledge. Gargett's
conclusions have prompted me to look more closely at these data for La
Ferrassie. with respect to at least two of its reported burials, I am forced
to conclude that our traditional understanding rests on something quite a bit
more solid than what Gargett describes as 'a pre-1960s disciplinewide naivete'
and that no considerations raised by him either force or, indeed authorize us
to believe that our predecessors got things all wrong."Harvey M. Bricker,
"Comments" Current Anthropology, 30:2 Apr. 1989, p. 177
Geoffrey Clark and John Lindly, Arizona State like the article and conclusion
(notice this Jim, I am not hiding or misrepresenting a point that differs from
my belief). However, they critice Gargett as follows:
"Gargett mistakenly assumes that morphologically modern humans in general had
a symbolic component to their behavior and the lack of evidence for purposeful
burial by Nandertals can be used to clarify behavioral distinctions between
these hominids. This line of reasoning is unwarranted."~Geoffrey Clark and
John Lindly,"Comments" Current Anthropology, 30:2 Apr. 1989, p. 178
and
"In sum, Gargett has presented a convincing reanalysis of the
depositional contexts in which many well-known Neandetal 'burials' occurred.
We do not disagree with this results. However, the argument that his study
helps to clarify cultural differences between Neandertals and morphologically
modern humans is unfounded. Neither Neandertals nor pre-Upper Paleolithic
morhologically modern humans purposefully buried their dead. An understanding
of this aspect of symbolic behavior must be sought outside such a
dichotomy."~Geoffrey Clark and John Lindly,"Comments" Current Anthropology,
30:2 Apr. 1989, p. 178
If you take their tack then there are non-spiritual, morphologically modern
humans--animals that looked like us but weren't us.
Catherine Farizy and Claude Masset, Sorbonne:
"Neandertal remains consist of a few more or less well preserved
skeletons and numerous dislocated bones in non-funerary contexts. Strangely,
we observe exactly the same situation during the middle Neolithic in northern
France and western Germany, where no scholar has called into question the
sapiens sapiens nature of the populations concerned. Because he often
confuses ritual and burial, Gargett does not prove anything about Neandertal
behavior."~Catherine Farizy and Claude Masset,"Comments" Current Anthropology,
30:2 Apr. 1989, p. 179
The neolithic starts 10-12000 years ago. Does this mean that there is no
evidence of burial until the Egyptians?
They also state,
"Furthermore, we cannot understand why the new discoveries from the southern
Levant[palestine] and from France, such as Kebara, Qafzeh, and St. Cesaire,
have not been reported and why there is no word about La Quina, Skhul, Tabun,
or Amud. We are somewhat disappointed by the conclusion, too. 'Something
special' happened in the Middle Paleolithic fossil records to preserve some
complete specimens. Gargett suggests that this 'something special' may not
have been purposeful burial, but he fails to tell us what it was.""~Catherine
Farizy and Claude Masset,"Comments" Current Anthropology, 30:2 Apr. 1989, p.
180.
Clive Gamble, Southampton Univ. agrees that Neanderthals are not human, but
criticises Gargett for premature conclusions:
" I would like to have seen him tackle the Near Eastern sites, where
documentation for the skeletons/burials is generally better. Since he does
not deal with these, I think it premature for him to conclude that 'there is
no physical evidence for burial in the archaeological record of the Middle
Paleolithic.'"Clive Gamble, "Comments" Current Anthropology, 30:2 Apr. 1989,
p. 181
Antonio Gilman, Cal State Northridge
"It is also quite clear that in all the principle cases of burials proposed
for the Middle Paleolithic the excavators paid no detailed attention to the
process of sedimentation. This should lead Gargett to the conclusion that
some doubt must adhere to the claims which have been made for deliberate human
burials in the Middle Paleolithic, but he insists upon going further. He
argues that the absence of probative evidence of Neandertal burials may
reflect their relative cultural limitations compared to their Upper
Paleolithoc successors." ~Antonio Gilman, "Comments" Current Anthropology,
30:2 Apr. 1989, p. 182
Some modern human groups today do not bury their dead.
Arlette Leroi-Gourhan, Musee de l'Homme,
"The 3 samples from the dark-brown loamy soil directly beneath Shanidar
IV were unique in the cave in containing numerous (145) clusters of anthers.
None of the other 50 samples from occupational deposits from Mousterian to
Mesolithic contained any anthers, even though ,more than 6,000 pollens were
identified.
"Pollens are transported in two ways: by wind and by animals (mostly
insects, sometimes birds). Wind-transported pollens enter caves only if there
is a draft. Animal-transported pollens come from brightly colored or perfumed
flowers and are carried into caves on animals' fur or feet. Anthers may be
found in rock shelter sediments where the plants were near or within the cave
entrance, carried there by rodents along with fruits. Gargett imagines the
wind's having blown the flowers just into the Neandertal burial soil and
having chosen bright-colored flowers belonging to five different genera. it
is a pity that he has constructed his argument without considering the
dispersion of pollens and without reading my paper on the subject instead of
Solecki's."~Arlette Leroi-Gourhan, "Comments" Current Anthropology,
30:2(April 1989), pp 157-190, p. 182
M.I. Martinez Navarrete, Madrid,
"Gargett should at least have compared Neandertal burials with those of the
earliest modern humans (middle Aurignacian).
"With respect to the individual sites, Gargett gives unequal weight to
the stratigraphic interpretations contained in the monographs. He assumes
that observations are valid but those concerning hi=uman agencies are not.
Because of this, he simply dismisses the contextualized, firsthand impressions
of the archaeological deposits that the excavators were privileged to
have."~M.I. Martinez Navarrete, "Comments" Current Anthropology,
30:2(April 1989), pp 157-190, p. 183
Paul Ossa, La Trobe University,Australia:
"Old data are debunked for lacking modern method and interpretation, and new
data are neglected. I shall cite only two examples:
1. Capitan and Peyrony's excavations at La Ferrassie did not have advantage of
modern sedimentological technique, but the excavators were highly experienced.
Some of their interpretations are admittedly hypothetical, but these refer
mainly to the actions of the Neanderthals rather than to the results of their
excavations. The set of circumstances is too extraordinary to accept as
accidental.
2. The Mousterian/Neanderthal burial from the uppermost portion of Unit 12 at
kebara is not mentioned.
"I cannot accept any review of the evidence for Neanderthal burials that
neglects these points."Paul Ossa, "Comments" Current Anthropology,
30:2(April 1989), pp 157-190, p. 183
Erik Trinkaus, University of New Mexico,
"It is relatively easy to claim, on the basis of excavation reports from
early in the 20th century and geologically complicated sites like Regourdou
and Shanidar, that there is no evidence for intentional burial among the
Neandertals. However, Gargett fails to explain how a number of Neandertal
mature and especially immature skeletons(...[he lists them-grm and Jim, check
out my use of the ellipsis]) managed to be preserved in highly accessible
Upper Pleistocene rock shelters and caves in near anatomical position and over
all skeletal-part frequencies identical to those of recent cemetery
samples."~Erik Trinkaus, "Comments" Current Anthropology,
30:2(April 1989), pp 157-190, p. 183
and
"Gargett has simply failed to make a convincing case that all or even
most so-called Neandertal burials are the fortuitous results of natural
processes."~Erik Trinkaus, "Comments" Current Anthropology,
30:2(April 1989), pp 157-190, p. 184
Andrzej Weber, Western Stae College Colorado, liked the article but said,
"It is unjustifiable, then, to draw conclusions for all the Neanderthals that
ever lived. Gargett has examined the archaeological evidence for Neanderthal
burial from La Chapelle-aux-Saints, Le Moustier, La Ferrassie, Teshik-Tash,
Regourdou, ad Shanidar, and this allows him to conclude only that Neanderthal
did not bury his dead at these six locations. His approach and methodology
leave no room for doubt, however, on this slightly though significantly
modified conclusion."~Andrzej Weber, "Comments" Current Anthropology,
30:2(April 1989), pp 157-190, p. 184.
The score is 2 liked it, with reservations; 9 didn't. I think this qualifies
as proving my point that Gargett's article was not well received. Why didn't
Tattersall tell you this? Why are you so gullible when it comes to believing
Tattersall? Is he tickling your ears by telling you what you WANT to hear?
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm