Aquatic Neanderthals and other barnyard oddities

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Dan Barnes

unread,
Feb 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/2/99
to
Marc,
I've tried to check DejaNews for your reply to me previous post on
Neanderthals and their alleged aquatic adaptations but I can't find a reply (which
means I may have missed it and its disappeared into the electronic ether). I
know you are a busy man (posting many times a day just to this NG) so I'll cut
out the bits that really need to be addressed and leave out the parts where the
arguement will just be knocked backward and forward with no unequivocal result
(which is boring, repetative and unproductive).

So here are the sections that I think are important:

>It seems likely that they hunted or scavenged land mammals.
>There's no doubt they fished and ate shellfish.
>Their ear exostoses suggest male shellfish diving.
>
This is not true. The best evidence for shellfish gathering is (as you know) from
Moscerini, Italy. Stiner (1994) has done the most detailled study of this and
concludes "whether procuring shellfish, tortoises, or seals, Middle Paleolithic
and Middle Stone Age hominids appear to have limited their forays to what
could be obtained in littoral habitats, not from the deeper waters beyond"
(Stiner, 1994: 197). This is shown up by the changes between rock and sand
dwelling species which it seems change with minor changes in sea level
affecting the littoral environment. We can argue back and forth about anatomical
features but all the archaeological evidence clearly disproves your ideas about
an aquatic lifestyle for the Neanderthals and the most explicit evidence against
your ideas comes from the very evidence you cite as supporting AAT!

Also I'll condense the other question I asked a lot:

Why is it that if erectus was a deep diver and Neanderthals were
reterrestrialising do we see the development of long wading legs in erectus and
not Neanderthals while we see the Neanderthals (at a time when selection for
aquatic features would be relaxing due to their reterrestrialisation) do we see
the pnuematisation of the Neanderthal face and lengthening of the face to
produce the 'snorkel' effect (esp. as Neanderthals had the same lifestyle as their
ancestors from at least 500 ka onwards)? Why do your predictions and their
aquatic features not correspond when applied to the fossil record?

I'd just like to clear up these fundamental flaws in your theory that
Neanderthals had aquatic adaptations.

Thanks,
Dan


Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Feb 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/2/99
to

Dan Barnes heeft geschreven in bericht ...


I said:
>>It seems likely that they hunted or scavenged land mammals.

No problem, OK?
(though I think it might underestimate their plant food)

>>There's no doubt they fished and ate shellfish.

No problem, OK?
(in spite of very difficult fossilisation, eel, tench, trout, carp are found
with Neand.remains at Salpêtre de Pompignan, S-France)

>>Their ear exostoses suggest male shellfish diving.


No problem, OK?


>This is not true.

what is not true? that they hunted or scavenged land mammals?

>The best evidence for shellfish gathering is (as you know) from Moscerini,
Italy. Stiner (1994) has done the most detailled study of this and concludes
"whether procuring shellfish, tortoises, or seals, Middle Paleolithic and
Middle Stone Age hominids appear to have limited their forays to what could
be obtained in littoral habitats, not from the deeper waters beyond"
(Stiner, 1994: 197). This is shown up by the changes between rock and sand
dwelling species which it seems change with minor changes in sea level
affecting the littoral environment. We can argue back and forth about
anatomical features but all the archaeological evidence clearly disproves
your ideas about an aquatic lifestyle for the Neanderthals and the most
explicit evidence against your ideas comes from the very evidence you cite
as supporting AAT!
>

Stiner says that this group of neandertals ate seals, tortoises,
shellfish... What's your problem?
What I said: IMO neandertals are generally nearer to more wading/diving
ancestors than we are. Is that too difficult?
That the males of some neand.groups frequently & life-long dived is beyond
doubt: see their ear exostoses (as you know, I'm not claiming that the males
of all neand.groups dived).
(I'm reading about the footprints of the Bàsura cave (Italian riviera): Coon
said they resembled most those of the Alakaluf indians that walk naked &
barefoot & swam in icecold water.)


>Why is it that if erectus was a deep diver and Neanderthals were
reterrestrialising do we see the development of long wading legs in erectus
and not Neanderthals while we see the Neanderthals (at a time when selection
for aquatic features would be relaxing due to their reterrestrialisation) do

we see the pneumatisation of the Neanderthal face and lengthening of the


face to produce the 'snorkel' effect (esp. as Neanderthals had the same
lifestyle as their ancestors from at least 500 ka onwards)? Why do your
predictions and their aquatic features not correspond when applied to the
fossil record?


(what do you call "deep" diver? cf. Ama?)
How did the different erectus populations live & how the different
Neand.populations? what was the water temperature? what seasons did they
dive? how deep did they dive? salt or fresh water? what about their
non-marine foods? how much wading did they do? All we can say is what we
see. The thick bones of erectus are only seen in slow marine bottom-divers
like walruses & dugongs. Ear exostoses are the result of life-long diving in
colder water. External noses are typical of species that often swim
(Nasalis), but not of full-fledged divers. Neandertals had bigger & longer
noses, a protruding face, a flattened skull, less basicranial flexion, etc.,
everything that makes their nostrils more anterior. Their nasal cavity was
completely surrounded by large air sinuses. Long legs (shorter in erectus
than modern humans?) are typical of waders. What does not correspond to
fossil record?

Anne V. Gilbert

unread,
Feb 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/2/99
to

Dan Barnes wrote in message ...

>This is not true. The best evidence for shellfish gathering is (as you


know) from
>Moscerini, Italy. Stiner (1994) has done the most detailled study of this
and
>concludes "whether procuring shellfish, tortoises, or seals, Middle
Paleolithic
>and Middle Stone Age hominids appear to have limited their forays to what
>could be obtained in littoral habitats, not from the deeper waters beyond"
>(Stiner, 1994: 197). This is shown up by the changes between rock and sand
>dwelling species which it seems change with minor changes in sea level
>affecting the littoral environment. We can argue back and forth about
anatomical
>features but all the archaeological evidence clearly disproves your ideas
about
>an aquatic lifestyle for the Neanderthals and the most explicit evidence
against
>your ideas comes from the very evidence you cite as supporting AAT!


Marc won't believe this, but the features you mention in Neandertals were
part of a suite of traits for cold adaptation. Also Neandertals, like every
other generalist organism(including ourselves), I've ever heard of, would
have made use of whatever food source they could find, in whatever habitat
they found themselves in.

>Also I'll condense the other question I asked a lot:
>

>Why is it that if erectus was a deep diver and Neanderthals were
>reterrestrialising do we see the development of long wading legs in erectus
and
>not Neanderthals while we see the Neanderthals (at a time when selection
for
>aquatic features would be relaxing due to their reterrestrialisation) do we
see

>the pnuematisation of the Neanderthal face and lengthening of the face to


>produce the 'snorkel' effect (esp. as Neanderthals had the same lifestyle
as their
>ancestors from at least 500 ka onwards)? Why do your predictions and their
>aquatic features not correspond when applied to the fossil record?


These are important questions, Dan, and the answer can be found in their
long adaptation to cold, which, as you have pointed out elsewhere, recalls
the adaptations of other Northern people of today. But you will never
convince an AAT theorist of this. Particularly not Marc.
Anne Gilbert

Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Feb 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/3/99
to

Anne V. Gilbert heeft geschreven in bericht
<798odf$2g48$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...

>>... The best evidence for shellfish gathering is (as you know) from


Moscerini, Italy. Stiner (1994) has done the most detailled study of this
and concludes "whether procuring shellfish, tortoises, or seals, Middle
Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age hominids appear to have limited their
forays to what could be obtained in littoral habitats, not from the deeper
waters beyond" (Stiner, 1994: 197). This is shown up by the changes between
rock and sand dwelling species which it seems change with minor changes in
sea level affecting the littoral environment. We can argue back and forth
about anatomical features but all the archaeological evidence clearly
disproves your ideas about an aquatic lifestyle for the Neanderthals and the
most explicit evidence against your ideas comes from the very evidence you
cite as supporting AAT!
>
>Marc won't believe this, but the features you mention in Neandertals were
part of a suite of traits for cold adaptation.

That's not the point: you have to prove that these Neand.features are only
cold adaptations.
Why such long noses? No cold-adapted mammals have long noses.

(rest snipped: see other post)

Marc

dba...@liv.ac.uk

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to
In article <797sm8$pmm$7...@nickel.uunet.be>,

"Marc Verhaegen" <Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
>
> Dan Barnes heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>
> I said:
> >>It seems likely that they hunted or scavenged land mammals.
>
> No problem, OK?
> (though I think it might underestimate their plant food)
>
> >>There's no doubt they fished and ate shellfish.
>
> No problem, OK?
> (in spite of very difficult fossilisation, eel, tench, trout, carp are found
> with Neand.remains at Salpêtre de Pompignan, S-France)
>
> >>Their ear exostoses suggest male shellfish diving.
>
> No problem, OK?
>
At last you find someone you finally agree with 100%. Unfortunately you
have agreed with yourself. Before Triple L dives in (sorry for the pun)
and claims this as the first sign of madness I'll take the blame for that
as I wasn't specific enough when cutting and pasting the remarks from the
previous post into a new one.

Also do you have a reference to the Salpêtre de Pompignan evidence?

> >This is not true.
>
> what is not true? that they hunted or scavenged land mammals?
>

Again my fault for causing confusion - I was disagreeing to your statement:

> >>Their ear exostoses suggest male shellfish diving.

And then I was following on with:

> >The best evidence for shellfish gathering is (as you know) from Moscerini,
> Italy. Stiner (1994) has done the most detailled study of this and concludes
> "whether procuring shellfish, tortoises, or seals, Middle Paleolithic and
> Middle Stone Age hominids appear to have limited their forays to what could
> be obtained in littoral habitats, not from the deeper waters beyond"
> (Stiner, 1994: 197). This is shown up by the changes between rock and sand
> dwelling species which it seems change with minor changes in sea level
> affecting the littoral environment. We can argue back and forth about
> anatomical features but all the archaeological evidence clearly disproves
> your ideas about an aquatic lifestyle for the Neanderthals and the most
> explicit evidence against your ideas comes from the very evidence you cite
> as supporting AAT!
> >

> Stiner says that this group of neandertals ate seals, tortoises,
> shellfish... What's your problem?

Not seals (as far as I know) - she was referring to the Middle
Palaeolithic and MSA evidence and the MSA evidence suggests that seals
were only exploited when they became beached (see e.g. Klein and
Cruz-Uribe, 1996).

What Stiner points out is that the evidence for tortoise and shellfish
exploitation shows clearly that Ns weren't diving but where exploiting
the beach area (they didn't even need to get their feet too wet).

> What I said: IMO neandertals are generally nearer to more wading/diving
> ancestors than we are. Is that too difficult?

If there's no evidence to support it then yes it is difficult to believe.

> That the males of some neand.groups frequently & life-long dived is beyond
> doubt: see their ear exostoses (as you know, I'm not claiming that the males
> of all neand.groups dived).

I'm sure we've already done the problem with auditory exostses. The cause
of AE is exposure to cold water . Here are a few quotes from Kennedy
(1986: 402) which make it clear that there is no link with the pressure
caused by diving:

"experimentation has confiremed that AE can be produced in laboratory
animals (guinea pigs) by irrigation of the external auditory canal with
cold (19C) water"

"it is clear that in humans significant physiological changes occur in the
ear canal at water temperatures of between 15 and 19C (59-62.2F)"

So it is immersion in cold water that can cause AE. In a previous
post I described a number of ways this could have happened i.e. due to
no (or poor quality) boats and a lack of bridges which would mean that
Ns were occasionally forced to get their head submerged when crossing
rivers, etc. There need be no link with diving at all - the lack of
any evidence for diving in Ns also supports this. Also of importance is
this:

"Fowler and Osman (1942: 464) also found that the formation of new bone
was 'more or less proportional' to the frequency of exposure"

From this we would expect an increasing percentage of AE in Neanderthals
esp. if diving was frequent. However, there are no other reports from
any other Ns other than the two often mentioned 'Old Men' from Shanidar
and La Chapelle-aux-Saints and if I read Kennedy right there is the
suggestion that the latter's AE may be caused by an ear infection. Which
leaves only one report of AE in Ns caused by exposure to cold water. This
strikes me as a very low frequency (esp. if we include the Ns European
ancestors none of whom are reported to have AE) for a group that was
allegedly diving frequently and a more likely explanation is my
infrequent accidental immersion idea.

In this context it is also interesting to point out Ascenzi and
Balistreri's (1975) study which found a sub-adult with AE in the
contexts of a Roman baths which would suggest to me that it was
caused by repeated bathing in cold water than by frequent diving.

I may as well also pre-empt you on the modern human samples used
which are all ones known to dive in cold water. The problem is that
with improved means of crossing rivers, etc. there would be lowered
incident of accidental immersion so that the only modern populations
who now expose themselves to cold water are those that do so
deliberately for subsistence purposes. This need not imply that Ns
were also diving (all other evidence suggests that they were not or
is so they must have been doing so very rarely, or we'd have some
evidence - which is hardly in line with any idea of an aquatic N).

> (I'm reading about the footprints of the Bàsura cave (Italian riviera): Coon
> said they resembled most those of the Alakaluf indians that walk naked &
> barefoot & swam in icecold water.)
>

This is fine except that (to the best of my knowledge) the Basura caves
were never inhabited by Neanderthals and the footprints are much more
recent than the Neanderthals, my recollection is that the footprints date
to somewhere in the region of 6 ka. I am trying to track down the
monograph on Basura (if this is what you are refering too then I'd be
grateful for the reference) but the basics are covered in de Lumley et al.,
1984. So, however, made those footprints may have had feet like Alakaluf
Indians its just that, whoever they were the were not Neanderthals.

> >Why is it that if erectus was a deep diver and Neanderthals were
> reterrestrialising do we see the development of long wading legs in erectus
> and not Neanderthals while we see the Neanderthals (at a time when selection
> for aquatic features would be relaxing due to their reterrestrialisation) do

> we see the pneumatisation of the Neanderthal face and lengthening of the


> face to produce the 'snorkel' effect (esp. as Neanderthals had the same
> lifestyle as their ancestors from at least 500 ka onwards)? Why do your
> predictions and their aquatic features not correspond when applied to the
> fossil record?
>

> (what do you call "deep" diver? cf. Ama?)
> How did the different erectus populations live & how the different
> Neand.populations? what was the water temperature? what seasons did they
> dive? how deep did they dive? salt or fresh water? what about their
> non-marine foods? how much wading did they do? All we can say is what we
> see.

And what we see is no evidence for diving.

> The thick bones of erectus are only seen in slow marine bottom-divers
> like walruses & dugongs. Ear exostoses are the result of life-long diving in
> colder water. External noses are typical of species that often swim
> (Nasalis), but not of full-fledged divers. Neandertals had bigger & longer
> noses, a protruding face, a flattened skull, less basicranial flexion, etc.,
> everything that makes their nostrils more anterior. Their nasal cavity was
> completely surrounded by large air sinuses. Long legs (shorter in erectus
> than modern humans?) are typical of waders. What does not correspond to
> fossil record?
>

Not wishing to go over this again these features are at best equivocal
as I keep repeating their is no archaeological evidence for deep diving.

I'm going to have to repeat the question:

If Neanderthals were reterrestrialising (i.e. selection pressures for
aquatic adaptations were lessening) then why is it that it is the
Neanderthals, and not earlier groups, which developed the 'snorkel'?

Refs:

Ascenzi, A. & Balistreri, P. (1975) Aural exostses in a Roman skull excavated
at the “Baths of the Swimmer” in the ancient town of Ostia. Journal of Human
Evolution. 4 (6). 579 - 84.

Klein, R.G. & Cruz- Uribe, K. (1996) Exploitation of large bovids and seals
at Middle and Later Stone Age sites in South Africa. Journal of Human
Evolution. 31 (4). 315 - 34.

Kennedy, G.E. (1986) The relationship between auditory exostoses and cold
water: A latitudinal analysis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 71
(4). 401 - 15.

Lumley, H. de, Giacobini, G., Vicino, G. & Yokoyama, Y. (1984) New data
concerning the dating and interpretation of human footprints present in the
“Grotta della Basura” at Toirana (Savona, Northern Italy). Results of an
International Round Table. Journal of Human Evolution. 13. 537 - 40.

Dan

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to

dba...@liv.ac.uk heeft geschreven in bericht
<7abv8v$nan$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...


>> Stiner says that this group of neandertals ate seals, tortoises,
shellfish... What's your problem?
>
>Not seals (as far as I know) - she was referring to the Middle Palaeolithic
and MSA evidence and the MSA evidence suggests that seals were only
exploited when they became beached (see e.g. Klein and Cruz-Uribe, 1996).

OK
(recent paper of Stiner etc.1999 "Paleolithic population growth pulses
evidenced by small animal exploitation" Science 283:190: shellfish diet in
Italy until end MSA?)

>
>What Stiner points out is that the evidence for tortoise and shellfish
exploitation shows clearly that Ns weren't diving but where exploiting the
beach area (they didn't even need to get their feet too wet).
>

Yes, they were beach-combers (females & children?), but divers too: see
their ear exostoses (males only?).


>> What I said: IMO neandertals are generally nearer to more wading/diving
ancestors than we are. Is that too difficult?
>
>If there's no evidence to support it then yes it is difficult to believe.
>

Their ear exostoses leave no other choice...


>> That the males of some neand.groups frequently & life-long dived is
beyond doubt: see their ear exostoses (as you know, I'm not claiming that
the males of all neand.groups dived).
>
>I'm sure we've already done the problem with auditory exostses. The cause

of AE is exposure to cold water. Here are a few quotes from Kennedy (1986:


402) which make it clear that there is no link with the pressure caused by
diving:
>
>"experimentation has confiremed that AE can be produced in laboratory
animals (guinea pigs) by irrigation of the external auditory canal with cold
(19C) water"
>

Why do you think the neandertals irrigated their ears with cold water?


>"it is clear that in humans significant physiological changes occur in the
ear canal at water temperatures of between 15 and 19C (59-62.2F)"
>
>So it is immersion in cold water that can cause AE. In a previous post I
described a number of ways this could have happened i.e. due to no (or poor
quality) boats and a lack of bridges which would mean that Ns were
occasionally forced to get their head submerged when crossing rivers, etc.
There need be no link with diving at all - the lack of any evidence for
diving in Ns also supports this. Also of importance is this: "Fowler and
Osman (1942: 464) also found that the formation of new bone was 'more or
less proportional' to the frequency of exposure"

Ear exostoses in human are seen in divers. No need to look for exceptional
causes. We discussed this before. Occasional river crossing does not produce
ear exostoses. We know they ate a lot of shellfish. Is there any reason they
did not dive for shellfish??

>> (I'm reading about the footprints of the Bàsura cave (Italian riviera):
Coon said they resembled most those of the Alakaluf indians that walk naked
& barefoot & swam in icecold water.)
>>
>This is fine except that (to the best of my knowledge) the Basura caves
were never inhabited by Neanderthals and the footprints are much more recent
than the Neanderthals, my recollection is that the footprints date to
somewhere in the region of 6 ka. I am trying to track down the monograph on
Basura (if this is what you are refering too then I'd be grateful for the
reference) but the basics are covered in de Lumley et al., 1984. So,
however, made those footprints may have had feet like Alakaluf Indians its
just that, whoever they were the were not Neanderthals.

OK

What evidence would you expect??


>I'm going to have to repeat the question:
>
>If Neanderthals were reterrestrialising (i.e. selection pressures for
aquatic adaptations were lessening) then why is it that it is the
Neanderthals, and not earlier groups, which developed the 'snorkel'?


??
An external nose is seen in Homo since erectus & probably earlier. Why some
Homo species had longer noses than others, depends on their lifestyle,
descent etc. See above: How did the different erectus populations live & how

dba...@liv.ac.uk

unread,
Feb 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/25/99
to
In article <7acml7$lce$1...@nickel.uunet.be>,

"Marc Verhaegen" <Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
>
> dba...@liv.ac.uk heeft geschreven in bericht
> <7abv8v$nan$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> >> Stiner says that this group of neandertals ate seals, tortoises,
> shellfish... What's your problem?
> >
> >Not seals (as far as I know) - she was referring to the Middle Palaeolithic
> and MSA evidence and the MSA evidence suggests that seals were only
> exploited when they became beached (see e.g. Klein and Cruz-Uribe, 1996).
>
> OK
> (recent paper of Stiner etc.1999 "Paleolithic population growth pulses
> evidenced by small animal exploitation" Science 283:190: shellfish diet in
> Italy until end MSA?)
>
And? I'm perfectly aware of this - I don't get your point. We are not
arguing about whether Neanderthals did or did not exploit aquatic
resources as we both agree that it is an often over looked aspect of
Neanderthals subsistence. However, so is bird exploitation, for example.

If you rememebr the Stiner quote I posted at the start of this thread
the shellfish evidence actually shows that Ns weren't diving but were
exploiting littoral shellfish (which is also mentioned in Stiner et al.,
1999 - littoral molluscs if I remember).


> >
> >What Stiner points out is that the evidence for tortoise and shellfish
> exploitation shows clearly that Ns weren't diving but where exploiting the
> beach area (they didn't even need to get their feet too wet).
> >
> Yes, they were beach-combers (females & children?), but divers too: see
> their ear exostoses (males only?).
>

Not neccesarily (see below).

> >> What I said: IMO neandertals are generally nearer to more wading/diving
> ancestors than we are. Is that too difficult?
> >
> >If there's no evidence to support it then yes it is difficult to believe.
> >
> Their ear exostoses leave no other choice...
>

Only if you are blinded by your own paradigm.

Right lets try this:

AE is caused by exposure to cold water.

Most modern people today who expose themselves to cold water with any
frequency are divers.

Modern divers have AE.

One Neanderthal has AE (not caused by an ear infection).

Does this mean (male?) Ns were divers?

No - it need not.

There are other explanations which I've given which could also explain
the presence of AE which include inferior technology for crossing
stretches of cold water.

You require extra evidence to support you idea and you have none.

> >> That the males of some neand.groups frequently & life-long dived is
> beyond doubt: see their ear exostoses (as you know, I'm not claiming that
> the males of all neand.groups dived).
> >
> >I'm sure we've already done the problem with auditory exostses. The cause
> of AE is exposure to cold water. Here are a few quotes from Kennedy (1986:
> 402) which make it clear that there is no link with the pressure caused by
> diving:
> >
> >"experimentation has confiremed that AE can be produced in laboratory
> animals (guinea pigs) by irrigation of the external auditory canal with cold
> (19C) water"
> >
> Why do you think the neandertals irrigated their ears with cold water?
>

I have given you the accidental immersion theory.

> >"it is clear that in humans significant physiological changes occur in the
> ear canal at water temperatures of between 15 and 19C (59-62.2F)"
> >
> >So it is immersion in cold water that can cause AE. In a previous post I
> described a number of ways this could have happened i.e. due to no (or poor
> quality) boats and a lack of bridges which would mean that Ns were
> occasionally forced to get their head submerged when crossing rivers, etc.
> There need be no link with diving at all - the lack of any evidence for
> diving in Ns also supports this. Also of importance is this: "Fowler and
> Osman (1942: 464) also found that the formation of new bone was 'more or
> less proportional' to the frequency of exposure"
>
> Ear exostoses in human are seen in divers. No need to look for exceptional
> causes. We discussed this before. Occasional river crossing does not produce
> ear exostoses. We know they ate a lot of shellfish. Is there any reason they
> did not dive for shellfish??
>

Yes - there is no evidence for it.


> >
> >> The thick bones of erectus are only seen in slow marine bottom-divers
> like walruses & dugongs. Ear exostoses are the result of life-long diving in
> colder water. External noses are typical of species that often swim
> (Nasalis), but not of full-fledged divers. Neandertals had bigger & longer
> noses, a protruding face, a flattened skull, less basicranial flexion, etc.,
> everything that makes their nostrils more anterior. Their nasal cavity was
> completely surrounded by large air sinuses. Long legs (shorter in erectus
> than modern humans?) are typical of waders. What does not correspond to
> fossil record?
> >>
> >Not wishing to go over this again these features are at best equivocal as I
> keep repeating their is no archaeological evidence for deep diving.
> >
> What evidence would you expect??
>

I would expect shellfish that couldn't be exploited just by wandering
along the shore.

> >I'm going to have to repeat the question:
> >
> >If Neanderthals were reterrestrialising (i.e. selection pressures for
> aquatic adaptations were lessening) then why is it that it is the
> Neanderthals, and not earlier groups, which developed the 'snorkel'?
>
> ??
> An external nose is seen in Homo since erectus & probably earlier. Why some
> Homo species had longer noses than others, depends on their lifestyle,
> descent etc.

Yes and the Ns nose and associated facial pneumatisation increased which
using your criteria would suggest that they were not reterrestrialisng
at all but were at least as, and probably more, aquatic than erectus.

> See above: How did the different erectus populations live & how
> the different Neand.populations? what was the water temperature? what
> seasons did they dive? how deep did they dive? salt or fresh water? what
> about their non-marine foods? how much wading did they do?
>

This isn't an answer.

I've now got my question to my liking so I'll repeat it again:

If Neanderthals were reterrestrialising (i.e. selection pressures for
aquatic adaptations were lessening) then why is it that it is the
Neanderthals, and not earlier groups, which developed the 'snorkel'?

Could the answer be because the 'snorkel' has nothing at all to do
with any N adaptation to an aquatic lifestyle?

Refs:

Stiner, M.C., Munro, N.M., Surovell, T.A., Tchernov, E. & Bar-Yosef, O. (1999)
Paleolithic population growth pulses evidenced by small animal exploitation.
Science. 283 (5399). 190 - 4.

Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Feb 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/26/99
to

dba...@liv.ac.uk heeft geschreven in bericht
<7b4113$600$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

>> >>this group of neandertals ate seals, tortoises, shellfish... What's
your problem?
>> >
>> >Not seals (as far as I know) - she was referring to the Middle
Palaeolithic and MSA evidence and the MSA evidence suggests that seals were
only exploited when they became beached (see e.g. Klein and Cruz-Uribe,
1996).
>>

>> OK. (recent paper of Stiner etc.1999 "Paleolithic population growth


pulses evidenced by small animal exploitation" Science 283:190: shellfish
diet in Italy until end MSA?)
>>
>And? I'm perfectly aware of this - I don't get your point. We are not
arguing about whether Neanderthals did or did not exploit aquatic resources
as we both agree that it is an often over looked aspect of Neanderthals
subsistence. However, so is bird exploitation, for example.

OK, we fully agree

>If you remember the Stiner quote I posted at the start of this thread the


shellfish evidence actually shows that Ns weren't diving but were exploiting
littoral shellfish (which is also mentioned in Stiner et al., 1999 -
littoral molluscs if I remember).

littoral - where else? but not only beach-combing (more traces left) - no
doubt (ear exostoses) also diving - why not??

>> >> What I said: IMO neandertals are generally nearer to more
wading/diving ancestors than we are. Is that too difficult?
>> >
>> >If there's no evidence to support it then yes it is difficult to
believe.
>> >
>> Their ear exostoses leave no other choice...
>>
>Only if you are blinded by your own paradigm. Right lets try this: AE is
caused by exposure to cold water. Most modern people today who expose
themselves to cold water with any frequency are divers. Modern divers have
AE. One Neanderthal has AE (not caused by an ear infection). Does this mean
(male?) Ns were divers? No - it need not. There are other explanations which
I've given which could also explain the presence of AE which include
inferior technology for crossing stretches of cold water.

That's far-fetched & impossible to believe (unless you're blinded by your
own paradigm).
Not one Neandertal, but bilateral & extensive exostoses in adult old males
(as you know AEs only develop in cold water & after life-long diving), but
yes, no evidence AFAIK of diving in female Neandertals.

>You require extra evidence to support you idea and you have none.
>

the dense bones leave no doubt - the Pinocchio nose is a less convincing
argument - other (rather weak, I'm fully aware of that) arguments can be
found in my papers

>> >> That the males of some neand.groups frequently & life-long dived is
beyond doubt: see their ear exostoses (as you know, I'm not claiming that
the males of all neand.groups dived).
>> >
>> >I'm sure we've already done the problem with auditory exostses. The
cause of AE is exposure to cold water. Here are a few quotes from Kennedy
(1986: 402) which make it clear that there is no link with the pressure
caused by diving: "experimentation has confiremed that AE can be produced in
laboratory animals (guinea pigs) by irrigation of the external auditory
canal with cold (19C) water" Why do you think the neandertals irrigated
their ears with cold water?

- irrigate??? dived, of course
- we discussed this before
- for AEs, read the opinion of ORL doctors (not those of
anthropologists...), see Rhys Evans 1992 J.Lar.Otol.106:214


>I have given you the accidental immersion theory.

do you believe such just-so stories yourself?


>> >"it is clear that in humans significant physiological changes occur in
the ear canal at water temperatures of between 15 and 19C (59-62.2F)" So it
is immersion in cold water that can cause AE. In a previous post I described
a number of ways this could have happened i.e. due to no (or poor quality)
boats and a lack of bridges which would mean that Ns were occasionally
forced to get their head submerged when crossing rivers, etc.

not occasional, but life long diving in cold water!

> There need be no link with diving at all - the lack of any evidence for
diving in Ns also supports this. Also of importance is this: "Fowler and
Osman (1942: 464) also found that the formation of new bone was 'more or
less proportional' to the frequency of exposure"
>>
>> Ear exostoses in human are seen in divers. No need to look for
exceptional causes. We discussed this before. Occasional river crossing does
not produce ear exostoses. We know they ate a lot of shellfish. Is there any
reason they did not dive for shellfish??
>
>Yes - there is no evidence for it.

??? Ear exostoses in humans are only seen in divers.

>> >> The thick bones of erectus are only seen in slow marine bottom-divers
like walruses & dugongs. Ear exostoses are the result of life-long diving in
colder water. External noses are typical of species that often swim
(Nasalis), but not of full-fledged divers. Neandertals had bigger & longer
noses, a protruding face, a flattened skull, less basicranial flexion, etc.,
everything that makes their nostrils more anterior. Their nasal cavity was
completely surrounded by large air sinuses. Long legs (shorter in erectus
than modern humans?) are typical of waders. What does not correspond to
fossil record?
>> >>
>> >Not wishing to go over this again these features are at best equivocal
as I keep repeating their is no archaeological evidence for deep diving.
>> >
>> What evidence would you expect??
>>
>I would expect shellfish that couldn't be exploited just by wandering along
the shore.

Think a bit: that evidence is impossible to find. To expect that is not very
wise.

>> >I'm going to have to repeat the question: If Neanderthals were
reterrestrialising (i.e. selection pressures for aquatic adaptations were
lessening) then why is it that it is the Neanderthals, and not earlier
groups, which developed the 'snorkel'?
>>
>> ??
>> An external nose is seen in Homo since erectus & probably earlier. Why
some Homo species had longer noses than others, depends on their lifestyle,
descent etc.
>
>Yes and the Ns nose and associated facial pneumatisation increased which
using your criteria would suggest that they were not reterrestrialisng at
all but were at least as, and probably more, aquatic than erectus.

1) who knows who was more aquatic - we only have the data
2) water density! - freshwater (neand.>erectus) vs saltwater
(erectus>neand.)
3) there's no direction in evolution - at every point you can more easily
evolve backwards (because your genome still incorporates part the needed
equipment) than fore- of sidewards

>> See above: How did the different erectus populations live & how the
different Neand.populations? what was the water temperature? what seasons
did they dive? how deep did they dive? salt or fresh water? what about
their non-marine foods? how much wading did they do?
>>
>This isn't an answer.

the best answer we can get at this moment IMO

>I've now got my question to my liking so I'll repeat it again: If
Neanderthals were reterrestrialising (i.e. selection pressures for aquatic
adaptations were lessening) then why is it that it is the Neanderthals, and
not earlier groups, which developed the 'snorkel'? Could the answer be
because the 'snorkel' has nothing at all to do with any N adaptation to an
aquatic lifestyle?


such prejudiced questions can't be answered:
- who says reterrestrialising? (there's no direction in evolution - at every
point you can more easily evolve backwards (because your genome still
incorporates part the needed equipment) than fore- of sidewards)
- why lessening pressures? (there's no direction in evolution - at every
point you can more easily evolve backwards (because your genome still
incorporates part the needed equipment) than fore- of sidewards)
- why do you think I think neand. evolved "the" "snorkel"??
(as you know, an external nose is obvious since erectus, but is absent in
a'piths)

Marc

Anthro98

unread,
Mar 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/12/99
to
Erectus would have been more aquatic than Ns; they spread throughout the Old
World and crossed water into SE Asian island groups, while N was hanging around
in Europe. Postcranial bone density and muscle mass would have made him/her a
horrible swimmer. Their postcranial anatomy and facial morphology seems to
support terrestrial activities (incisors gripping skins etc.) rather than
aquatic events. Individual's from SE Asian diving cultures fit nicely into
Bergmann's and Allen's rules for aquatic schemes. N anatomy is negatively
correlated with these rules when examined from the aquatic perspective in a
temperate climate. I do have faith, however, that the aquatic phase factored
into earlier evolutionary events at the Miocene-Pliocene boundary. Short legs
etc. fit in nicely with the postcranial requirements for facilitation of this
transition. Erectus was a long distance runner and a swimmer (narrow pelvis a
plus for both), but N was a sprinter. That's what the whole anatomical picture
looks like. Anth...@aol.com

Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Mar 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/12/99
to

Anthro98 heeft geschreven in bericht
<19990311210846...@ng95.aol.com>...

>Erectus would have been more aquatic than Ns; they spread throughout the
Old World and crossed water into SE Asian island groups, while N was hanging
around in Europe. Postcranial bone density and muscle mass would have made
him/her a horrible swimmer.

A horrible swimmer I don't know, slow no doubt (slow diving mammals have
very thick SC fat), but no doubt a good diver. H.erectus had denser bones
than neandertals.

> Their postcranial anatomy and facial morphology seems to support
terrestrial activities (incisors gripping skins etc.) rather than aquatic
events.

"Their": neandertal, you mean, or erectus?
IMO erectus dived frequently. Generally, neandertals were intermediate
between erectus & sapiens. I think their cranial anatomy (less basicranial
flexion, somewhat more dorsal for.magnum, brain behind eyes rather than
above) suggests more frequent pronogrady, ie, IMO they still swam & dived a
lot (looking in the direction where you're swimming, instead of ventrally as
in modern humans). Their long noses & protruding midface as well as the ear
exostoses in some individuals (esp. old males) confirm this. All this of
course does not exclude terrestrial activities (but no fast ones).

>Individual's from SE Asian diving cultures fit nicely into Bergmann's and
Allen's rules for aquatic schemes. N anatomy is negatively correlated with
these rules when examined from the aquatic perspective in a temperate
climate. I do have faith, however, that the aquatic phase factored into
earlier evolutionary events at the Miocene-Pliocene boundary.

much much later IMO: otherwise all their "aquatic" features would have lost
for ages

>Short legs etc. fit in nicely with the postcranial requirements for
facilitation of this transition. Erectus was a long distance runner and a
swimmer (narrow pelvis a plus for both), but N was a sprinter. That's what
the whole anatomical picture looks like. Anth...@aol.com

I don't think so: even humans are no sprinters (only 30 km/h). IMO the
archaics were slow & fat terrestrials that followed the rivers or the beach
with the seasons (eg, turtles, shellfish, salmon besides terr.foods).

Marc


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages