First off Stephen it is rather inappropriate to jump to the conclusion that
Turk is not 'objective' because someone has suggested that he might be
wrong. You are far too quick to jump to motivations for those who disagree
with you than you should be.
Second, the Nowell and Chase report has yet to be published, so no one can
examine their data and logic yet. I would like to see how they explain the
linearity and spacing relationship of the holes. The holes are aligned in a
spacing that is consistent with that required to produce the diatonic
scale. No animal has teeth spaced in this fashion and animals normally
turn bones as they gnaw on them making carnivore-induced, aligned holes
less likely.
Third, animal puncture marks often have irregular shapes and show cracks
radiating out from the hole which are not seen on this object.
Fourthly, the Science News report says that Nowell and Chase suggest that
the holes became more circularized by wear and tear after the bone was
buried. The abrasiveness of dirt both scratches and polishes bone as the
dirt settles and moves about it. But if there were enough motion in the
dirt to circularize the holes, then there would certainly be enough motion
to polish away any evidence of tooth scratches on the outside of the bone.
So if Nowell and Chase are correct, then it seems to me that they have an
unprovable case, because the evidence of gnawing would also be removed.
They have a self-refuting idea.
Fifth, gnawing is not totally inconsistent with it having been a flute. The
Science news report says: "'Wolves and other animals typically bite off
nutrient-rich tissue at the ends of limb bones and extract available
marrow. If Neandertals had hollowed out the bone and fashioned holes in it
animals would not have bothered to gnaw it,' she says." This of course can
be refuted by observing your dog with an old dry bone. My dog used to gnaw
bones and there was no nutrient value at all in it. So, even if it was a
flute, it doesn't preclude a wolf from gnawing it because it would have
been a flute made out of bone. The wolf would not recognize it as a flute
but would recognize it as suitable bone to bite on.
Sixth, the 'scissor like cheek teeth" of the wolf which the authors claim
made the holes are not circular.
Seventh, the pressure on one side of the bone should have cause punctures
on the opposite side of the bone--there are none.
Eighth, the inside of the flute has been cleared of the spongy bone inside
the marrow cavity allowing the free passage of air. Carnivores would be
unable to do that.
Ninth, there were stone borers and other piercing implements in the stone
tool assemblage capable of peerforming the function.
Tenth, the association of the object with a fire place implies human
intervention at the time.
See I. Turk ed. 1997 Mousterian Bone flute and other finds from Dvje Babe I
cave site in Slovenia
>
>yet a couple of visiting archaeologists inspected the bone and discovered
such
>evidence!
It is amazing how this statement seems to imply stupidity on the part of
the original discoverers. Such contempt should not be used for someone who
has possibly made a great discovery.
>
>GM>The major item which supports the new claims include evidence of
>>gnawing on the ends of the flute. The logic is that if the bone was not
fresh,
>>the animals would not have gnawed on it. However, I once owned a puny
>>little dog and he used to gnaw on old bones in which there was little in the
>>way of nutrients other than calcium. So I find the evidence of gnawing less
>>than devastaing, especially if it requires that no canid gnaw old bones
as my
>>puny little dog used to do.
>
>What a "puny little dog" does today in a suburban backyard is irrelevant
since:
>a) domestic dogs didn't even exist 43,000 years ago; and b) domestic dogs
>don't usually have the option of fresh, meat-filled bones. What *is*
relevant >is what wolves and other wild carnivores do:
here you assume your conclusion. You assume that the bone was nutrient
filled and then conclude that the wolf would only go after nutrient filled
bones. And by the way, dogs behave very similarly to wolves and the
lineage of the dog splits off from the wolf 135 kyr ago. (~ Carles Vila et
al, "Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog," Science, 276(June
13, 1997):1687-1689)
>"The odds that such a match would happen randomly, according to a
statistical
>analysis which musicologists and flute makers have looked over and
critiqued,
>are at most 1 in 35 and are probably closer to 1 in 600." (Rotheisler T.,
"Flute
>concerts in a cave," Alberta Report, May 05, 1997 Internet Edition.
>http://albertareport.com/24arcopy/24a21cpy/2421ar01.htm).
>
>But the odds become a virtual certainty when it is realised that: a) there
are
>several musical scales possible:
No, because the holes are aligned on the same side of the bone.
>
>"Musicologists raise another point: the rest of the flute is missing, and
there
>are an infinite number of other musical scales that the notes could fit.
"It's
>conceivable that other notes on the flute wouldn't conform," says Mr. Fink.
>"Unless we find a complete Neanderthal flute, we can't know whether the rest
>of this flute would confirm my findings." (Rotheisler, 1997).
>
There are decorated upper paleolithic flutes in equal states of disrepair.
Yet they are accepted as flutes. The only difference is decoration.
>GM>I would expect many more pseudo flutes to be reported in
>>the literature if animals were leaving circular puncture marks on bones and
>>that these objects would have holes that never quite aligned. But as it is,
>>objects with round and closely aligned holes are quite rare, there being
>>around 30 of them in the archeological record and the majority of them are
>>also broken as is the one from Slovenia.(Bahn and Vertut, p. 68-69) This
>>rarity seems to me to argue against them being produced via carnivore
>>activity because with the great number of carnivores over the millennia,
>>they should have left a greater horde of punched bones
>
>This would only be a valid point if we knew exactly how many punched bones
>are found and discarded. But in any event Nowell is aware of what sort of
>holes wolves and other carnivores make in old bones:
>All this might mean is that all examples of flutes are suspect, if
>carnivores can
>punch holes similar to a flutes and archaeologists select among them for
those
>that conform to their theories. After all, archaeologists are only human and
>discovery of an ancient flute carries more prestige and grants than old
bones
>gnawed by carnivores!
then in this case, no human made a flute until the Roman era. Interesting
rewrite of history Stephen.
>
>In any event, there is no problem with "flutes made by modern man" since we
>know that modern men make flutes. But we don't know that Neandertals made
>flutes. Even if these latter were flutes, there is no way to be sure that
>Neandertals actually made them. They only appear when modern man could
>also be present. Since we know that modern man made flutes when
>Neandertals were not present and Neandertals did not make flutes when
>modern man was not present, it is a reasonable hypothesis that modern man
>made them.
Talk about assuming the consequence. When you find a suspected flute in a
Neanderthal site, prior to any evidence of modern man being around, one
must assume that the squirrels didn't manufacture the flute and that man
even Neanderthal is more likely than a wolf. Secondly you state that
"Since we know that ...Neandertals did not make flutes when modern man was
not present it is a reasonable hypothesis that modern man made them." This
is laughable. You have assumed what you want to prove. Bad logic. And I
think this clearly shows your bias against Neandertal ever making anything
human.
What about the Skiffle I noted the other day?
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm