Hauser's neanderthal and Verhaegen's "Neandertal Snorkel": New Data!!!!
Phillip Bigelow
neandertal skull, see the reference below. It also appears in my
monthly update to this newsgroup on the _Journal of Human Evolution_
table of contents.
Thompson, J.L., and B. Illerhaus. 1998. A new reconstruction of the Le
Moustier 1 skull and investigation of internal structures using 3-D-uCT
data. _Journal of Human Evolution_, vol. 35, no. 6: 647-665.
This paper is an example of *good* science. (as opposed to some garbage
spewed out by Verhaegen in the "Neanderthal Snorkel" threads). Read it
and learn, Marc.
As I noted earlier, Hauser is definately an unreliable source for
Verhaegen's "Neanderthal snorkel" nonsense. This paper also appears to
be the first comprehensive English-language review of the Hauser
controversy (see references, below).
Here are a few excerpts of interest:
"The Le Moustier 1 specimen was discovered in 1908 by Otto Hauser
(Hauser, 1909; Klaatsch, 1909a,b,c,d; Klaatsch and Hauser, 1909) in the
Lower cave at the site of Le Moustier in the Dordogne region of
France....."
"The skull was excavated by the anatomist Hermann Klaatsch over several
days beginning on 12 August 1908 (Klaatsch, 1909a). Hauser has been
much criticized in the literature since he allowed the skull to be
covered and recovered several times between 7 March and 12 August (e.g.,
Schott, 1989) making the exact provenance of the specimen unclear...."
"The skull has undergone several reconstructions in the past [see Figure
1(a)-(d)]. The first was done in 1908 in Breslau by Klaatsch (1909a),
but the bones moved when they were cast and a second reconstruction was
required. Klaatch's view of human evolution involved the supposition
that modern humans evolved from Orang-utans while Neandertals evolved
from the Gorilla (Weinert, 1925). This notion is reflected in his
second reconstruction [see Figure 1(b)] which emphasized the supposed
primitive features of Neandertals."
"...a third reconstruction was attempted by E. Krause, a museum
preparator, in collaboration with H. Klaatsch, and E. Kallius
(Schuchhardt, 1912) and W. Diek, a dentist, who reconstructed the
dentition. Unfortunately, in the process, Dieck broke away the alveolar
bone to gain access to the teeth and that bony material was lost. It is
also worth noting that Dieck positioned the third molars as if they were
erupting, not in their original position...."
"...the fourth major reconstruction of the cranial and dental remains
was carried out in the early 1920's by Weinert (1925) [see Figure
1(d)]. By this time, several bones had been lost, including the left
coronoid process, parts of the zygomatic bones, the nasal bones, the
vomer, the ethmoid, the maxilla, and hard palate. According the
Weinert, Krause made several additions to the skull from plaster, which
were painted to resemble fossilized bone. A new alignment of the upper
and lower dentitions and a readjustment of the facial and neurocranial
skeleton were then carried out. While this resulted in the most
accurate reconstruction to that date, it was still the subject of some
criticism (Teger, 1930). This criticism is due mainly to the lack of
symmetry, primarily due to taphonomic forces that caused some plastic
deformation to parts of the skull, and the incorrect positioning of the
basioccipital affecting all measurements taken from basion. The history
of the skull is outlined in Hoffmann (1997)."
End of selected quotes.
The authors then provide CAT scans of the material, to reconstruct the
skull without the adhering artificial material that was used earlier to
attempt to reconstruct the skull. The CAT-scanned skull, indeed, shows
that all of the bones around the nose are missing. Although Hauser
claims that the nasal bones were preserved at discovery, it is still
unclear whether the nasal bones were *structurally*-intact at the time
of discovery. It will forever remain a mystery.
References:
Hoffmann, A. 1997. Cur Geschichte des Fundes von Le Moustier. _Acta
Praehistorica et Archaeologica_ 29:7-16.
Hauser, O. 1909. Decouverte d'un squelette du type du Neandertal sous
l'abri inferiur du Moustier. _L'Homme Prehistorique_ 7: 1-9.
Klaatsch, H. 1909a. Der primitive Mensch der Verganenheit und der
Gegenwar. In (A. Wangerin, E.) Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft Deutscher
Naturorscher und Arzte, pp. 95-108. Leipzig: Verlag von F.C.W. Vogel.
______. 1909b. Die neueste Ergebnisse der Palaontologie der Menschen un
ihre Bedentung fur das Abstammungs-problem. _Z. Ethnol._ 41: 537-584.
______. 1909c. Die Fortschritte der Lehre von der Neandertalrasse
(1903-1908) _Ergebn. Anat. Entw.-gesch._ 17: 431-462.
______. 1909d. Preuves que l'Homo Mousteriensis Hauseri appartient au
type du Neandertal. _L'Homme Prehistorique_ 7: 10-16.
Klaatsch, H., and O. Hauser. 1909. Homo mousteriensis Hauseri. _Arch.
fr. Anthro._ 35: 287-289.
Schott, L. 1989. Bergung und Rekonstruktion des "Junglings von Le
Moustier". _Ethnogr. Archaol. Z._ 30: 548-554.
Schuchhardt, C. 1912. Die neue Zusammensetzung des Schadel von Homo
Mousteriensis Hauseri. _Amtl. Ber. aus den Konigl. Kunstsammlungen_ 34:
4-10.
Taeger, H. 1930. Cur Wiederherstellung zerbrochener Schadel mit
besonderer Berucksichtigung der Weinert'sschen Zusammensetzung des
Schadel von Le Moustier. _Zeitschr. fur Morphol. und Anthrop_, 27:
313-343.
Weinert, H. 1925. Der Schadel des eiszeitlichen Menschen von Le
Moustier in neuer Zusammensetzung. Berlin: Springer.
<pb>
--
remove "X" for e-mail
http://www.scn.org/~bh162/index.html
Philip Deitiker
wrote:
>The authors then provide CAT scans of the material, to reconstruct the
>skull without the adhering artificial material that was used earlier to
>attempt to reconstruct the skull. The CAT-scanned skull, indeed, shows
>that all of the bones around the nose are missing. Although Hauser
>claims that the nasal bones were preserved at discovery, it is still
>unclear whether the nasal bones were *structurally*-intact at the time
>of discovery. It will forever remain a mystery.
You know, if this was a chemical of tissue sample, used for
experimentation, given its history, any drawn conclusions including
CAT scan are subject to extreme liberty of analysis. If the sample is
not crucial to placement of the find with respect to other finds, it
probable should be disregarded.
1. Because covering and uncoving may have included bones not specifc
to that individuals remains, it may have included bones of various
sized individuals
2. Because bones were lost, and others may have been included in order
to force a given conclusion, the actors being long dead now and no way
to confirm what actually had taken place. The bias in their approach
and techniques is suspect (if the above paper is correct) one gets the
feeling that there was an effort to decieve at some level, the
question is how far did the deception go.
3. Because the structure was forcibly manipulated.
I will take a look at the paper next time I head across the campus
here, but I wonder if the author was trying to negate a previous
conclusion or basically negate the sample as a comparison point.
One point though, why waste time with Mark anyway. It's quite obvious
he twist every fact out of its context anyway. I don't get why learned
people waste years arguing with him, I simply kill-filed his name and
all the screw-ball words that show-up in titles which include him.
Wouldn't you rather discuss the validity of a stage system of
classfying humans and neadertals, versus a primative/derived system
for multi-nodal examination of finds throughout afroeurasia.
Philip
<pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu>
Michael Clark
>
[snip]
> One point though, why waste time with Mark anyway. It's quite obvious
> he twist every fact out of its context anyway. I don't get why learned
> people waste years arguing with him, I simply kill-filed his name and
> all the screw-ball words that show-up in titles which include him.
Here here! Reading MV is agonizing. Yet, some of the *responses* to
his nonsense have been downwright instructive. It is for this reason
that I read his stuff -aside from the occasional ROTFL's. I think it is
also important to remember that this group is visited by far more folks
than actually post here. They read this group to see what thoughtful
professionals have to say in response to this common,
supermarket-tabloid drivel. Everyone can do as they please, I suppose,
but I think that "learned people" have an obligation to use their
sheepskin for something other than covering up that crack in the wall.
You are one of those thoughtful professionals, Phil, and I hope to
continue to see your stuff.
> Wouldn't you rather discuss the validity of a stage system of
> classfying humans and neadertals, versus a primative/derived system
> for multi-nodal examination of finds throughout afroeurasia.[?]
Yes.
> Philip
> <pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu>
--
Michael Clark ><DARWIN>
mcl...@skypoint.com L L
Minneapolis, MN ><DARWIN> ><DARWIN>
http://www.skypoint.com/~mclark L L L L
Phillip Bigelow
> Philip Deitiker wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > One point though, why waste time with Mark anyway. It's quite obvious
> > he twist every fact out of its context anyway. I don't get why learned
> > people waste years arguing with him, I simply kill-filed his name and
> > all the screw-ball words that show-up in titles which include him.
>
> Here here! Reading MV is agonizing.
What makes it so agonizing is that not only is MV mis-representing other's
research, but he is doing it repetitively. MV's infamous "macro-key"
responses on s.a.p. are often up to a year old. Responding to him can be
like talking to a wall. (but see below).
> Yet, some of the *responses* to
> his nonsense have been downwright instructive. It is for this reason
> that I read his stuff -aside from the occasional ROTFL's.
I agree in principle with Philip Deitiker, (I kill-filed Ed Conrad, James
Howard and a couple others), but I have gotten into the habit of
scrolling-down and reading *only* the responses written mainly by Gerrit,
Nicholls, Barnes, Clark, etc., and saving them to my hard drive. I ignore
Verhaegen's responses (it can be agony...see above). I look for instances
where someone has *nailed* MV to the wall by pointing out his blatant errors
to him. It's a little like watching someone shooting fish in a barrel.
Michael, I agree: all we need is a laugh-track and we could make Verhaegen
discussion threads into a sit-com.
> I think it is
> also important to remember that this group is visited by far more folks
> than actually post here. They read this group to see what thoughtful
> professionals have to say in response to this common,
> supermarket-tabloid drivel. Everyone can do as they please, I suppose,
> but I think that "learned people" have an obligation to use their
> sheepskin for something other than covering up that crack in the wall.
>
I have often wondered, after reading a rational, fully referenced response
by Gerrit, how does he do it. He can crucify MV every time (that is, until
6 months go by and MV mis-states the same garbage again). But we should be
lucky that people like Hanenburg, Barnes, et al. even bother to address the
"alternative-ists". If AATers only talked amongst themselves, new lurkers
on s.a.p. would get the impression that AAT is currently "hot" in the field
of paleoanthropology (in reality, it couldn't be colder). By addressing
Morgan and MV, new and impressionable visitors at least get a more realistic
view.
> > Wouldn't you rather discuss the validity of a stage system of
> > classfying humans and neadertals, versus a primative/derived system
> > for multi-nodal examination of finds throughout afroeurasia.[?]
>
Well, yes, but what little I currently know on the subject (very little)
makes me lean toward primitive/derived. I don't think that hominin
apomorphies and synapomorphies are weak, nor do I feel that there are *many*
character trait reversals in the various data matrices that have been
published.
And I do think OoA has a lot of merit, although I am not firmly convinced
either way yet.
Marc Verhaegen
Moustier 1 skull and investigation of internal structures using 3-D-uCT
data. _Journal of Human Evolution_, vol. 35, no. 6: 647-665.
(snipped Mr.Knows-All's usual sermon and his irrelevant citations (the
contents of which I read already 20 years ago in Moerman 1977) and retaining
the only interesting thing of his post - thanks a lot, BIGelow, but please
try to copy the titles of the articles correctly - I suppose English is the
only language you understand?)
Anne V. Gilbert
Phillip Bigelow wrote in message <3696C14D...@Xscn.org>...
>Michael Clark wrote:
>
>> Philip Deitiker wrote:
>> Yet, some of the *responses* to
>> his nonsense have been downwright instructive. It is for this reason
>> that I read his stuff -aside from the occasional ROTFL's.
>
>I agree in principle with Philip Deitiker, (I kill-filed Ed Conrad, James
>Howard and a couple others), but I have gotten into the habit of
>scrolling-down and reading *only* the responses written mainly by Gerrit,
>Nicholls, Barnes, Clark, etc., and saving them to my hard drive. I ignore
>Verhaegen's responses (it can be agony...see above). I look for instances
>where someone has *nailed* MV to the wall by pointing out his blatant
errors
>to him. It's a little like watching someone shooting fish in a barrel.
>Michael, I agree: all we need is a laugh-track and we could make Verhaegen
>discussion threads into a sit-com.
Well, you have a point there. Unfortunately, until recently, I was using a
system that had no way of "kill-filing" people like Conrad and Verhaegen,
garbagy as they may be. Now I do. . .heh, heh, heh.
>I have often wondered, after reading a rational, fully referenced response
>by Gerrit, how does he do it. He can crucify MV every time (that is, until
>6 months go by and MV mis-states the same garbage again). But we should be
>lucky that people like Hanenburg, Barnes, et al. even bother to address the
>"alternative-ists". If AATers only talked amongst themselves, new lurkers
>on s.a.p. would get the impression that AAT is currently "hot" in the field
>of paleoanthropology (in reality, it couldn't be colder). By addressing
>Morgan and MV, new and impressionable visitors at least get a more
realistic
>view.
It almost seems at times as if s.a.p. is being taken over by racists and
AAT'ers.
>Well, yes, but what little I currently know on the subject (very little)
>makes me lean toward primitive/derived. I don't think that hominin
>apomorphies and synapomorphies are weak, nor do I feel that there are
*many*
>character trait reversals in the various data matrices that have been
>published.
>And I do think OoA has a lot of merit, although I am not firmly convinced
>either way yet.
My own view is that both OoA and MRE explain aspects of human
evolution(although Deitiker will vociferously object to this), and that
neither theory completely explains everything. My point is, they are both
right, and both wrong, IMHO, and that some "middle ground" theory is more
likely to explain various aspects of the human evolutionary story(Dan is
more likely to agree with this). In any case, because of this, I'm
reluctant to "kill-file" anyone. I learn a great deal by looking at the
posts, although, to me, AAT and other such theories are pretty laughable.
Anne Gilbert
Marc Verhaegen
New Data!!!! please instead of blabla
I agree with you that the neandertals were fully human, but sapiens and
neandertals differ and the neandertal skeleton clearly retained or showed
more diving adaptations (denser bones, ear exostoses, heavier body...) than
our skeleton does. There are several independent indications that (some
groups of) neandertals might have relied not only on terrestrial resources,
but also, and more than most modern humans do, on water resources.
Mary Stiner, in a study of Italian cave sites, showed that in her study most
of the terrestrial small species were prey elements in the diets of a
variety of small carnivores and raptors, but most of the marine molluscs and
turtles there were collected and eaten by neandertals (M. C. Stiner 1995
"Honor among Thieves" Princeton UP, NJ).
No doubt, many neandertal males frequently dived (note that I'm not even
claiming any more than all neandertal populations dived). That is shown by
the presence of extensive and bilateral auditory exostoses in male
neandertal skulls such as those of Shanidar I in Iraq and La
Chapelle-aux-Saints in France (G. E. Kennedy 1986, AJPA 71:401). Auditory
exostoses, bony swellings of the ear canal, a condition well-known to
otolaryngologists, occur exclusively as a direct result of long-term
exposure to relatively cold water (P. H. Rhys Evans 1992,
J.Lar.Otol.106:214), and are seen in all human populations that exploit
either marine or freshwater resources (usually shellfish) through diving in
water colder than about 18°C (Kennedy 1986).
Be realistic instead of letting the neandertals do what you want.
Or do you think it was not me who put their ear exostoses in their skulls?
Anne V. Gilbert
Marc Verhaegen wrote in message <77a4tc$t58$1...@nickel.uunet.be>...
>Mary Stiner, in a study of Italian cave sites, showed that in her study
most
>of the terrestrial small species were prey elements in the diets of a
>variety of small carnivores and raptors, but most of the marine molluscs
and
>turtles there were collected and eaten by neandertals (M. C. Stiner 1995
>"Honor among Thieves" Princeton UP, NJ).
I hate to burst your little bubble, Marc, but I can read too, and I've read
"Honor Among Thieves". While Stiner says the Italian Neandertals she
studied made use of shellfish, there is no, I repeat no, indication that
they ever dived for them. In fact, I've gone clamming myself in the
beautiful Pacifc Northwest, and take my word for it, all you have to do is
wait for the tide to go out, and you can dig yourself some quite delicious
clams. The local Native Americans used to do this all the time with the
implements they had at hand, and I'm sure Neandertals were smart enough to
make use of any handy resource(even if the tools *they* had weren't as
sophisticated as those of the local Native Americans). You cannot make
aquatic adaptations out of the fact that a population utilizes shellfish.
>Be realistic instead of letting the neandertals do what you want.
>Or do you think it was not me who put their ear exostoses in their skulls?
Nobody says you put the exostoses in their skulls, but haven't you ever
heard of variations within populations?
Anne Gilbert
Marc Verhaegen
Anne V. Gilbert
>
>I hate to burst your little bubble, Marc, but I can read too, and I've
read
>"Honor Among Thieves". While Stiner says the Italian Neandertals she
>studied made use of shellfish, there is no, I repeat no, indication that
>they ever dived for them.
Ear exostoses, Anne, are only found in populations that dive (usu. for
shellfsh). Of course, Neandertals ate other things too (or even more than
shellfish, why not). EEs prove that several neandertal populations dived.
This fits with their denser bones, broader thoraxes, longer noses etc., and
with Stiner's study. That doesn't mean that all neandertal populations
dived, but it means that they were nearer than modern humans to Homo
ancestors that dived a lot. No AAT-er ever postulated that our ancestors
were full-time aquatics. We always said that our vit.C needs suggest that
our ancestors always needed fruits and vegetables.
Don't force the neandertals into your view because you like that. They were
somewhat different from us.
Dan Barnes
>
>Michael Clark wrote:
>
>> Philip Deitiker wrote:
>> >
>> also important to remember that this group is visited by far mo
>re folks
>> than actually post here. They read this group to see what thou
>ghtful
>> professionals have to say in response to this common,
>> supermarket-tabloid drivel. Everyone can do as they please, I
>suppose,
>> but I think that "learned people" have an obligation to use the
>ir
>> sheepskin for something other than covering up that crack in th
>e wall.
>>
> response
>by Gerrit, how does he do it. He can crucify MV every time (that
> is, until
>6 months go by and MV mis-states the same garbage again). But we
> should be
>lucky that people like Hanenburg, Barnes, et al. even bother to a
>ddress the
>"alternative-ists". If AATers only talked amongst themselves, ne
>w lurkers
>on s.a.p. would get the impression that AAT is currently "hot" in
> the field
>of paleoanthropology (in reality, it couldn't be colder). By add
>ressing
>Morgan and MV, new and impressionable visitors at least get a mor
>e realistic
>view.
>
would stop people (esp. Gerrit) from having to repeat themselves constantly on
a point that has been covered 3 months earlier (although Jim Moore's site does
OK). But which 'brand' of AAT would you try and address? I'm also sure it would
lead to the same endless discussions that a FAQ would be set up to avoid in
the first place. There are good non-AAT explanations for such features as
hairlessness:
Szalay, F.S. & Costello, R.K. (1991) Evolution of permanent estrus displays in
hominids. Journal of Human Evolution. 20 (6). 439 - 64.
as well as the descent of the larynx and the (pre) adaptation for speech:
Aiello, L.C. (1996) Hominine preadaptations for language and cognition. In
Mellars, P. & Gibson, K.R. (eds) Modelling the Early Human Mind. McDonald
Institute Monograph. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University
of Cambridge, Cambridge. 89 - 99.
Aiello, L.C. (1998) The foundations of human language. In Jablonski, N.G. &
Aiello, L.C. (eds) The Origin and Diversification of Language. Memoirs of the
California Academy of Sciences Number 24. Allen Press. 21 - 34.
and I'm sure people don't want to keep having to refer to the same studies (I'm
already tired with the Neanderthal snorkel debate despite the fact this is only the
second time around) again and again - I'm sure we've got better things to do
with our time than deal with people suffering from short term memory loss (for
whatever reason).
Just a thought,
Dan