Fake Neanderthal noses (WAS: Bias or ignorance against AAT in
Dan Barnes
"Marc Verhaegen" <Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
Marc I'm not sure if these comments are addressed to me (rather than Phillip
Bigelow who, wisely, reposted part of the discussion on 'Neanderthal snorkels'
we had a while ago so that we don't have to go over the same old ground -
although I do notice you have started a thread on neanderthal snorkels) but there
are a couple of extra points worth mentioning.
> Why do you "forget" my answer?
>
> one of my posts:
>
> Dan Barnes
> "...les narines n'étaient pas dirigées de haut en bas, mais d'arrière en
> avant, avec une légère inclinaison de haut en bas. Des empreintes marquées
> dans la terre qui séparait les silex du squelette indiquent encore les
> formes primitives de quelques-unes des parties molles" (pp.6-7).
> "...the nostrils were not directed from high to low, but from rear to front,
> with a slight inclination from high to low. The imprints in the ground that
> separated the silex stones from the skeleton still showed the original forms
> of a few soft tissues" -
> >>No misquoting. Read my other messages.
> >>
> >We could argue all day about what he was implying - my interpretation is
> that he
> >actually means the Neanderthal nose was more ape-like with the nostrils
> more
> >visible from the front.
>
> If Hauser meant that, he would have said the saw an apelike nose.
> And he saw the nose not from the front but in profile: a big neandertal nose
> outlined by the silex.
>
I'm sure I've said this elsewhere but I have now seen a reproduction of
Klaatsch's sketch of the Le Moustier Neanderthal as it was when fully uncovered
(reproduction in: Defleur, A. (1993) Les Sépultures Moustériennes. CNRS,
Paris) and I can see no way that Hauser could have interpretted the flint in the
area around the Neanderthal's head to suggest that it had outlined any soft boby
tissue (but see below for a discussion of the reliability of this drawing).
> (end post)
>
> You must be silly to believe that Hauser invented what he saw: why should he
> do that?
Hauser's only motive in his excavations was money not precise information on
the archaeoligical setting of the find and his lack of training would make any
interpretation of the find difficult to make.
> It's of course possible that Hauser was mistaken...
>
Hauser was probably the least reliable source in palaeoanthropology (for a
review look up Hauser in the index of: Trinkaus, E. & Shipman, P. (1993) The
Neandertals: Changing the Image of Mankind. Alfred A. Knopf Publishing, New
York.) and since he was a commercial excavator 'mining' valuable French sites
for the more important finds that he would then sell to the highest bidder I would
not put it past him to 'talk up' a find to increase its value. Remember it is the Le
Moustier finds that he 'discovered' twice after first excavating it (the first time on
10 April and the second on August 10, 1908). Klaatsch, presumably did his
sketch when he was there for the third discovery in August (although I'm not sure
and will try and check this point) so we can't even begin to imagine the kind of
disturbance that may have occurred in the meantime. Considering the reliability
of Hauser ("who was to become among the most despised scoundrels of all
time" Trinkaus and Shipman, 1993: 174) I can see no merit in basing the
'Neanderthal snorkel' idea on this evidence.
I would take any claims of this sort, from this period, with a pinch of salt and
more so if I discovered that the discoverer was a treasure seeking commercial
excavator. The only way to improve the reliability of this evidence would be if the
skeleton was carefully excavated by people trained in excavation and the taking
of careful notes and I would still require further evidence from other sites to
confirm the interpretation (for example the evidence for the burial of the
Chapelle-aux-Saints Neanderthal, found in 1908, can probably be accepted
because of the numerous other Neanderthal burials that have been found.
I can see no merit in discussing which of our interpretations is correct when it is
based on the worst possible testimony you could find.
Dan
Marc Verhaegen
(I didn't remember who did all the trouble of finding the French text - I
would never have done that effort, since Hauser's words are indeed at the
very best additional evidence - but thanks)
>> "...les narines n'étaient pas dirigées de haut en bas, mais d'arrière en
>> avant, avec une légère inclinaison de haut en bas. Des empreintes
marquées
>> dans la terre qui séparait les silex du squelette indiquent encore les
>> formes primitives de quelques-unes des parties molles" (pp.6-7).
>> "...the nostrils were not directed from high to low, but from rear to
front,
>> with a slight inclination from high to low. The imprints in the ground
that
>> separated the silex stones from the skeleton still showed the original
forms
>> of a few soft tissues" -
......
>>
>I'm sure I've said this elsewhere but I have now seen a reproduction of
>Klaatsch's sketch of the Le Moustier Neanderthal as it was when fully
uncovered
>(reproduction in: Defleur, A. (1993) Les Sépultures Moustériennes. CNRS,
>Paris) and I can see no way that Hauser could have interpretted the flint
in the
>area around the Neanderthal's head to suggest that it had outlined any soft
boby
>tissue (but see below for a discussion of the reliability of this drawing).
>
(Klaatsch wasn't present at the "first" excavation, was he?)
You need the flint only to define the ground where the imprints were. The
nose contours were not indicated by the flint (as I also wrongly interpreted
at first the French text), but in the ground that separated the silex stone
from the skeleton. You have to read: Des empreintes marquées [dans la terre
qui séparait les silex du squelette] indiquent encore les formes primitives
de quelques-unes des parties molles. I should have translated "imprints"
without "the": Imprints in the ground that separated the silex stones from
the skeleton still showed the original forms of a few soft tissues".
Before you provided the French text, I had got the impression that at the
moment of the discovery, before the soft parts fell apart, the nose etc. had
been discernable for a short time (I believe it's less than a few minutes).
In any case, why should Hauser invent *these* details? I can agree with what
you say on his motive and reliability (somebody like LLL?), but not on the
exact details: why these and not other details?
>
>Hauser's only motive in his excavations was money not precise information
on
>the archaeoligical setting of the find and his lack of training would make
any
>interpretation of the find difficult to make.
>
......
>disturbance that may have occurred in the meantime. Considering the
reliability
>of Hauser ("who was to become among the most despised scoundrels of all
>time" Trinkaus and Shipman, 1993: 174) I can see no merit in basing the
>'Neanderthal snorkel' idea on this evidence.
>
I agree it was only minor additional evidence. We have: the Neandertal
midfacial protrusion, Zollikofer's Pinnocchio nose, Le Moustier's "everted"
ossa nasalia, the wide piriform aperture, the platycephaly, the brain's
localisation behind the nose instead or more above it, the less flexed
basicranium, the somewhat more dorsally foramen magnum (IOW, not only the
nose, but the whole skull was snorkel-like). That's evolution and selection
and adaptation: everything works in the same direction, bringing the
nostrils further above the water surface, in parallel.
Marc
Dan Barnes
"Marc Verhaegen" <Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
> Dan Barnes
>
> (I didn't remember who did all the trouble of finding the French text - I
> would never have done that effort, since Hauser's words are indeed at the
> very best additional evidence - but thanks)
>
somewhere) I'm just not sure how good Hauser's evidence is.
> >> "...les narines n'étaient pas dirigées de haut en bas, mais d'arrière en
> >> avant, avec une légère inclinaison de haut en bas. Des empreintes
> marquées
> >> dans la terre qui séparait les silex du squelette indiquent encore les
> >> formes primitives de quelques-unes des parties molles" (pp.6-7).
> >> "...the nostrils were not directed from high to low, but from rear to
> front,
> >> with a slight inclination from high to low. The imprints in the ground
> that
> >> separated the silex stones from the skeleton still showed the original
> forms
> >> of a few soft tissues" -
> ......
> >>
> >I'm sure I've said this elsewhere but I have now seen a reproduction of
> >Klaatsch's sketch of the Le Moustier Neanderthal as it was when fully
> uncovered
> >(reproduction in: Defleur, A. (1993) Les Sépultures Moustériennes. CNRS,
> >Paris) and I can see no way that Hauser could have interpretted the flint
> in the
> >area around the Neanderthal's head to suggest that it had outlined any soft
> boby
> >tissue (but see below for a discussion of the reliability of this drawing).
> >
> (Klaatsch wasn't present at the "first" excavation, was he?)
>
Not to the best of my knowledge. Klaatsch was the only professional who would
work with Hauser and he is only mentioned as being present for the third
uncovering (which is when I assume he made the sketch).
> You need the flint only to define the ground where the imprints were. The
> nose contours were not indicated by the flint (as I also wrongly interpreted
> at first the French text), but in the ground that separated the silex stone
> from the skeleton. You have to read: Des empreintes marquées [dans la terre
> qui séparait les silex du squelette] indiquent encore les formes primitives
> de quelques-unes des parties molles. I should have translated "imprints"
> without "the": Imprints in the ground that separated the silex stones from
> the skeleton still showed the original forms of a few soft tissues".
>
> Before you provided the French text,
I can't claim the credit for that.
> I had got the impression that at the
> moment of the discovery, before the soft parts fell apart, the nose etc. had
> been discernable for a short time (I believe it's less than a few minutes).
>
Where did you get this information from as it is clearly wrong?
> In any case, why should Hauser invent *these* details? I can agree with what
> you say on his motive and reliability (somebody like LLL?), but not on the
> exact details: why these and not other details?
Because my grandmother digs up a Roman coin in her back garden does this
put her in a position to comment knowledgeably on the topic? Hauser was a
commercial excavator and would have not been too concerned with the niceties
of delicate excavation - even with today's meticulous excavation techniques I
would have thought it would still be difficult to locate the impression of a nose in
sediment. My best bet is that he was simply mistaken - not uncommon in that
period.
> >
> >Hauser's only motive in his excavations was money not precise information
> on
> >the archaeoligical setting of the find and his lack of training would make
> any
> >interpretation of the find difficult to make.
> >
> ......
> >disturbance that may have occurred in the meantime. Considering the
> reliability
> >of Hauser ("who was to become among the most despised scoundrels of all
> >time" Trinkaus and Shipman, 1993: 174) I can see no merit in basing the
> >'Neanderthal snorkel' idea on this evidence.
> >
> I agree it was only minor additional evidence. We have: the Neandertal
> midfacial protrusion, Zollikofer's Pinnocchio nose, Le Moustier's "everted"
> ossa nasalia, the wide piriform aperture, the platycephaly, the brain's
> localisation behind the nose instead or more above it, the less flexed
> basicranium, the somewhat more dorsally foramen magnum (IOW, not only the
> nose, but the whole skull was snorkel-like). That's evolution and selection
> and adaptation: everything works in the same direction, bringing the
> nostrils further above the water surface, in parallel.
>
I'm sure you know that I wholey disagree with your interpretation. Other evidence
from the structures inside the nose, to the large head, the wide body, the short
distal limb proportions are all found in modern people living in northern
latitiudes. The Neanderthals have other cold adapted features which include
extra foramen in the mid-face region (to provide extra blood supply to the large
nose) and the pneumatization of the face (Rolland: 594 in his comment to
Cachel's (1997) paper says that this is "analogous, incidentally, with a similar
trait in Saiga tatarica, a cold-adapted antelope"). A large number of N features
all suggest that (similar to other Arctic peoples) they adapted to the cold
northern climate and where they differ is that Ns were probably more adapted to
this climate due to the longer period they and their ancestors had spent in Ice
Age Europe.
This is before we bring in other evidence against an aquatic lifestyle
which includes sites far inland, isotope analysis, evidence of hunting large land
mammals, etc. all of which I've mentioned in previous posts.
Your hypothesis is either flawed or equivocal or plainly contradicted
by other evidence.
Ref
Cachel, S. (1997) Dietary shifts and the European Upper Palaeolithic transition.
Current Anthropology. 38 (4). 579 - 603.
Dan
Phillip Bigelow
> "Marc Verhaegen" <Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
> > (I didn't remember who did all the trouble of finding the French text - I
> > would never have done that effort, since Hauser's words are indeed at the
> > very best additional evidence - but thanks)
> >
I believe it was Gerrit who took the time to find and post that part.
(and I still can't get over the fact that you still put such high regard
on Hauser's rendition....considering that there is absolutely *no*
physical evidence (if there ever was) to back up what he said).
<pb>
--
remove "X" for e-mail
http://www.scn.org/~bh162/index.html
Anne V. Gilbert
Dan Barnes wrote in message ...
>In article <76rptu$rrm$7...@nickel.uunet.be>,
> "Marc Verhaegen" <Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
>> Dan Barnes
would
>work with Hauser and he is only mentioned as being present for the third
>uncovering (which is when I assume he made the sketch).
I, personally, wonder how anyone could take what Hauser said seriously.
Hauser was despised, especially by the French, with good reason. Among
other things, he kept excavating and reburying fossils, just to show
reporters what he had found. This is one of the reasons I find the
"Neandertal snorkels" idea pretty preposterous.
>> In any case, why should Hauser invent *these* details? I can agree with
what
>> you say on his motive and reliability (somebody like LLL?), but not on
the
>> exact details: why these and not other details?
Dan is right. Hauser seems to have invented a lot of things.
My best bet is that he was simply mistaken - not uncommon in that
>period.
This is also true. At that time, most excavations of archaeological and
fossil material was very carelessly done. Certainly this is true by today's
standards.
>I'm sure you know that I wholey disagree with your interpretation. Other
evidence
>from the structures inside the nose, to the large head, the wide body, the
short
>distal limb proportions are all found in modern people living in northern
>latitiudes. The Neanderthals have other cold adapted features which include
>extra foramen in the mid-face region (to provide extra blood supply to the
large
>nose) and the pneumatization of the face (Rolland: 594 in his comment to
>Cachel's (1997) paper says that this is "analogous, incidentally, with a
similar
>trait in Saiga tatarica, a cold-adapted antelope"). A large number of N
features
>all suggest that (similar to other Arctic peoples) they adapted to the cold
>northern climate and where they differ is that Ns were probably more
adapted to
>this climate due to the longer period they and their ancestors had spent in
Ice
>Age Europe.
While European Neandertals looked different in some ways from AMH, I'm not
sure how "cold adapted" they were. Or, to make myself more clear, they were
probably "cold adapted" in somewhat the same way as people living in arctic
and subarctic climates are today, but this doesn't mean they could live
nowhere else, as their residence in Israel and elsewhere suggests.
Incidentally, the Cachel article is a very good one, and I think is worth
reading.
Anne Gilbert
Marc Verhaegen
Dan Barnes
>>
>I can't remember who did either (but the information will be in DejaNews
>somewhere) I'm just not sure how good Hauser's evidence is.
>
>> >> "...les narines n'étaient pas dirigées de haut en bas, mais d'arrière
en
>> >> avant, avec une légère inclinaison de haut en bas. Des empreintes
marquées
>> >> dans la terre qui séparait les silex du squelette indiquent encore les
>> >> formes primitives de quelques-unes des parties molles" (pp.6-7).
>> >> "...the nostrils were not directed from high to low, but from rear to
front,
>> >> with a slight inclination from high to low. The imprints in the ground
that
>> >> separated the silex stones from the skeleton still showed the original
forms
>> >> of a few soft tissues" -
The translation was mine. It should have been "Imprints...", not "The
imprints...".
.....
>> (Klaatsch wasn't present at the "first" excavation, was he?)
>>
>Not to the best of my knowledge. Klaatsch was the only professional who
would
>work with Hauser and he is only mentioned as being present for the third
>uncovering (which is when I assume he made the sketch).
....
>> I had got the impression that at the
>> moment of the discovery, before the soft parts fell apart, the nose etc.
had
>> been discernable for a short time (I believe it's less than a few
minutes).
>>
>Where did you get this information from as it is clearly wrong?
>
I once read it somewhere, and I believe everything what I read, at least
until I find evidence of the opposite. So when you tell me it's wrong, I
believe you. I even believed once that the savanna theory was true...
>> In any case, why should Hauser invent *these* details? I can agree with
what
>> you say on his motive and reliability (somebody like LLL?), but not on
the
>> exact details: why these and not other details?
>
>Because my grandmother digs up a Roman coin in her back garden does this
>put her in a position to comment knowledgeably on the topic?
I don't think your grandmother would have said the Roman had his nostrils
not directed from high to low, but from rear to front, with a slight
inclination from high to low.
.......
>My best bet is that he was simply mistaken - not uncommon in that period.
Certainly not impossible:
>> I agree it was only minor additional evidence. We have: the Neandertal
>> midfacial protrusion, Zollikofer's Pinnocchio nose, Le Moustier's
"everted"
>> ossa nasalia, the wide piriform aperture, the platycephaly, the brain's
>> localisation behind the nose instead or more above it, the less flexed
>> basicranium, the somewhat more dorsally foramen magnum (IOW, not only the
>> nose, but the whole skull was snorkel-like). That's evolution and
selection
>> and adaptation: everything works in the same direction, bringing the
>> nostrils further above the water surface, in parallel.
>>
>I'm sure you know that I wholey disagree with your interpretation. Other
evidence
>from the structures inside the nose, to the large head, the wide body, the
short
>distal limb proportions are all found in modern people living in northern
>latitiudes.
No, Dan, living in cold air does not explain the long nose, the everted ossa
nasalia, the wide piriform aperture, the protruding midface, etc. On the
contrary.
Which "structures inside the nose"??
>The Neanderthals have other cold adapted features which include
>extra foramen in the mid-face region (to provide extra blood supply to the
large
>nose)
No extra foramen, but a bigger a much bigger foramen infraorbitale, AFAIR.
To provide extra blood supply to the large nose? I thought the arteria
infraorbitale was for the skin over the cheeks, not for the nose?
> and the pneumatization of the face (Rolland: 594 in his comment to
>Cachel's (1997) paper says that this is "analogous, incidentally, with a
similar
>trait in Saiga tatarica, a cold-adapted antelope").
No, that's the usual wishful thinking, sinuses of course can't be used for
thermo-isolation against cold, read Blanton PL, Biggs NL. Eighteen hundred
years of controversy: the paranasal sinus. Am J Anat 124: 135-148, 1968.
>A large number of N features all suggest that (similar to other Arctic
peoples)
It's true that when Eskimo features are compared to those of the "mean
human", they (only slightly) diverge in the neandertal direction (but the
neandertal features are far away from the Eskimos').
>they adapted to the cold
>northern climate and where they differ is that Ns were probably more
adapted to
>this climate due to the longer period they and their ancestors had spent in
Ice
>Age Europe.
> This is before we bring in other evidence against an aquatic lifestyle
>which includes sites far inland, isotope analysis, evidence of hunting
large land
>mammals, etc. all of which I've mentioned in previous posts.
I agree that some/many neandertals could have had land-adapted cold
adaptations and hunted large game, but that doesn't exclude that some/many
show undeniable indications of frequent diving (their ear exostoses). X does
not exclude Y. In fact, thermoadaptations to diving (cf. thermoconductive
properties of water vs air) could have predisposed them to live in
non-tropical land milieus.
Marc