Neandertal snorkel
Marc Verhaegen
Dear Bigelow, if you don't want to tell 'just-so' stories, the comparative
data are the only reliable ones.
In mammals, well-developed external noses are seen in: humans, proboscis
monkeys, elephants, tapirs, elephant seals, hooded seals. Neandertals had
even bigger noses with more apical nostrils than we have (as Otto Hauser
remarked before the soft tissues fell apart when he dug up the Moustier
fossil in 1908). Elephants and proboscis monkeys (and possibly others as
well) use their external noses as snorkels when crossing rivers or when
swimming. External noses are not seen in: fully aquatic mammals, most
semi-aquatic mammals, arboreal mammals, terrestrial mammals (eg, savanna),
australopithecines, apes.
For the sinuses, read Blanton & Biggs 1968 Am.J.Anat.124:135 & my papers.
Phillip Bigelow
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> Dear Bigelow, if you don't want to tell 'just-so' stories, the comparative
> data are the only reliable ones.
If this is so, then please give us your synopsis of a good
methodology, based *only* on comparative anatomy of living animals,
that effectively addresses the phylogenetic relationships and
identification of the last common ancestor of.....birds.
How "reliable" are your results going to be?
Now, compare your methodology with that of researchers who
utilize the fossil evidence for temporal and evolutionary
interpretations.
And speaking of fossils and phylogeny....are you still of the
belief that today's great apes evolved from some type of
australopithicene ancestor? (In spite of a *huge* number
of cladistic analyses that *clearly* show that australopithicenes
were our ancestors; i.e., they are placed solidly on the hominid stem).
> In mammals, well-developed external noses are seen in: humans,
Which is presently not living in an aquatic niche...
> proboscis monkeys,
Which likes to swim, but is not living in an aquatic niche...
> elephants, tapirs,
Like to swim, but are not living in an aquatic niche....
> elephant seals, hooded seals.
Well, you at least named two that are aquatic....
Too bad about the ambiguity regarding the others you mentioned...
> Neandertals had
> even bigger noses with more apical nostrils than we have (as Otto Hauser
> remarked before the soft tissues fell apart when he dug up the Moustier
> fossil in 1908).
Your point being what? Their external noses were also wider than ours.
What conceivable aquatic adaptation (e.g., the "Verhaegan snorkel") would
a wide, low, large-nostriled Neanderthal have? More ambiguity.
Furthermore, take into consideration the shape of the protrusion itself.
A low, wide, large-nostril nose on neanderthals....whereas:
A very elongated, heavily-muscled, proportionally narrow-nostril nose
on the other animals.
The morphologies are vastly different. More ambiguity.
> Elephants and proboscis monkeys (and possibly others as
> well) use their external noses as snorkels when crossing rivers or when
> swimming.
True, but what does this utilization actually tell us for certain?
Is it a secondary adaptation of the nose (which may have
evolved for other, more prosaic terrestrial reasons)?
Since these animals are not presently aquatic animals
(any more than are zebras and wildebeast when they go to
water), you quickly become sucked-in to circular reasoning
regarding the aquatic-ness issue.
As I have noted before; it's all a pile of ambiguity.
> External noses are not seen in: fully aquatic mammals,
Tell that to the manatee and dugong.
> most
> semi-aquatic mammals, arboreal mammals, terrestrial mammals (eg, savanna),
Elephants are frequent inhabitants of the savanna,
and they have external noses (at least that is what I have been told).
> australopithecines, apes.
The traditional view is that the external nose on Homo developed as the
internal nares were becoming crowded out from a steadily increasing
brain capacity (particularly in the frontal lobe areas). We actually
have fossil evidence for this traditional view. This is compatible
with the physical evidence. Australopithicenes and apes have
a smaller frontal cortex than do modern humans, neanderthals, and
Homo erectus. Ergo, they had little adaptive need for an external
nose.
> For the sinuses, read Blanton & Biggs 1968 Am.J.Anat.124:135 & my papers.
I have.
So what? The comparative anatomy of both the intracranial sinuses and
soft tissue sinuses has ambiguous meaning when studying aquatic adaptation
in vertebrates.
Uses for enlarged sinuses in endothermic animals:
1) For H2O retention/recycling (via turbinates). (elephants, and all other
land mammals)
2) Warming of in-coming air in cold climates.
3) As resonating chambers to increase low-frequency range in vocalization.
(elephants)
A hallmark of AAT(H) evidence is it's inherent ambiguity regarding
what it implies. One character trait can have a myriad of explainations
other than that of a soley aquatic adaptation. Those purely- and
unambiguously-aquatic adaptations that *can* be used for comparative
anatomy are summarily ignored by proponents of the AAT(H), because
they know that those features are missing in humans.
<pb>
--
remove "X" for e-mail
http://www.scn.org/~bh162/index.html
Gerrit Hanenburg
"Marc Verhaegen" <Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
>In mammals, well-developed external noses are seen in: humans, proboscis
>monkeys, elephants, tapirs, elephant seals, hooded seals.
As they are in macroscelids, suids, coatis, chiropterans (in
particular the tube-nosed bats and the sword-nosed bats).
It should also be noted that the external nose in proboscis monkeys
and elephant seals is highly sexually dimorphic, which puts a purely
respiratory function in doubt.
>Neandertals had
>even bigger noses with more apical nostrils than we have (as Otto Hauser
>remarked before the soft tissues fell apart when he dug up the Moustier
>fossil in 1908).
This I don't believe.
I'd like to see a reference to Hauser's remark in the literature.
>Elephants and proboscis monkeys (and possibly others as
>well) use their external noses as snorkels when crossing rivers or when
>swimming.
Proboscis monkeys do not use their noses as snorkels. They simply keep
their heads above the water, and none of these animals swim on their
backs.
>External noses are not seen in: fully aquatic mammals, most
>semi-aquatic mammals, arboreal mammals, terrestrial mammals (eg, savanna),
>australopithecines, apes.
Well-developed external noses are seen in savanna animals like
elephants, forest animals like tapirs, and arboreal animals like
proboscis monkeys.
Gerrit
Philip Nicholls
>Dear Bigelow, if you don't want to tell 'just-so' stories, the comparative
>data are the only reliable ones.
>
>In mammals, well-developed external noses are seen in: humans, proboscis
>monkeys, elephants, tapirs, elephant seals, hooded seals. Neandertals had
>even bigger noses with more apical nostrils than we have (as Otto Hauser
>remarked before the soft tissues fell apart when he dug up the Moustier
>fossil in 1908). Elephants and proboscis monkeys (and possibly others as
>well) use their external noses as snorkels when crossing rivers or when
>swimming. External noses are not seen in: fully aquatic mammals, most
>semi-aquatic mammals, arboreal mammals, terrestrial mammals (eg, savanna),
>australopithecines, apes.
>
>For the sinuses, read Blanton & Biggs 1968 Am.J.Anat.124:135 & my papers.
>
Recently I had occasion to review articles on the behavior of the
"proboscis monkey" and while I did find references to swimming I did
not find any observations that the nose was used as a "snorkel."
The human nose projects forward compared to other primates NOT because
the nose is more developed but rather because the face has become
flattened. In neandertals there is mid-facial prognathism ... the
entire middle part of the face projects forward relative to the rest
of the face.
Those who can, teach. Those who can't teach
become libertarians.
pn...@capital.net
Visit Mr. Nicholl's Web Page of Science at
www.capital.net/~pnich
Dan Barnes
In article <35259B...@Xscn.org>, bh...@Xscn.org says...
>
>Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>
I'd just like to jump in on the discussion of the Neanderthal nose.
>> Neandertals had
>> even bigger noses with more apical nostrils than we have (as Otto Hauser
>> remarked before the soft tissues fell apart when he dug up the Moustier
>> fossil in 1908).
>
I'm not aware of this (in fact it would probably be one of the best preserved Ns
yet found) - Marc do you have a reference?
>Your point being what? Their external noses were also wider than ours.
>What conceivable aquatic adaptation (e.g., the "Verhaegan snorkel") would
>a wide, low, large-nostriled Neanderthal have? More ambiguity.
>
>Furthermore, take into consideration the shape of the protrusion itself.
>A low, wide, large-nostril nose on neanderthals....whereas:
>
>A very elongated, heavily-muscled, proportionally narrow-nostril nose
>on the other animals.
>
>The morphologies are vastly different. More ambiguity.
>
SNIP
>Uses for enlarged sinuses in endothermic animals:
>
>1) For H2O retention/recycling (via turbinates). (elephants, and all other
>land mammals)
>
>2) Warming of in-coming air in cold climates.
>
SNIP Phillip's last point.
The N's nose is indeed large and wide which goes against modern human cold
adaptations which favours a small nose to lessen the amount of air drawn into
the nasal cavities and hence decrease the loss of heat and moisture. However,
the large anterior teeth and the general facial projection meant that the N's nose
was already wide (technically its ancestors nose) and the only other solution to a
cold adaptation is to go to the other extreme (a classic example of exaption)
and develop an huge nose which could warm the air before it comes in contact
with the frontal sinuses (points 1 and 2). An interesting feature of the Ns nose
(which has recently been discovered) are a number of bumps and ridges in Ns
noses which would help with the heat exchange process (Milford Wolpoff
informed that this feature isn't unique to Ns though and occurs in some
eskimoes):
Schwartz, J.H. & Tattersall, I. (1996) Significance of some previously
unrecognised apomorphies in the nasal region of Homo neanderthalensis.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of
America. 93 (20). 10852-4.
What we can see (as Phillip pointed out above) is that the N nose was an
excellent adaptation to the rigorous climate of Ice Age Europe and nothing to do
with an aquatic lifestyle.
See also:
Franciscus, R.G. (1989) Neanderthal mesosterna and noses: Implications for
activity and biogeographical patterning. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology (abstract). 78 (2). 223.
Marc Verhaegen
Dear Bigalow,
Please try to spell my name correctly.
I just read your message of April 4.
Definitions of aquatic/semi-aquatic/terrestrial...?
Proboscis monkeys, forest elephants, tapirs do live in a semi-aquatic niche,
and need much more water than zebras or wildebeasts.
Manatees and dugongs don't have external/protruding noses like the species I
mentioned.
>The traditional view is that the external nose on Homo developed as the
>internal nares were becoming crowded out from a steadily increasing
>brain capacity (particularly in the frontal lobe areas).
Do you believe this? If you repeat it a few times, it may become a
traditional view.
>We actually
>have fossil evidence for this traditional view.
Do you believe this? If you repeat it a few times, it may become a
traditional view.
>This is compatible
>with the physical evidence. Australopithicenes and apes have
>a smaller frontal cortex than do modern humans, neanderthals, and
>Homo erectus. Ergo, they had little adaptive need for an external
>nose.
Do you believe this? If you repeat it a few times, it may become a
traditional view.
(If you really believe this, I think there is no need for further
discussions.)
>Uses for enlarged sinuses in endothermic animals:
>1) For H2O retention/recycling (via turbinates). (elephants, and all other
>land mammals)
Evidence?? Crocodiles?? Swine?? As you know, airflow in sinuses in minimal.
>2) Warming of in-coming air in cold climates.
Evidence?? Elephant? Mammoth? Airflow in sinuses in minimal.
>3) As resonating chambers to increase low-frequency range in vocalization.
Evidence?? Sinuses are no trumpets nor bagpipes.
Please read Blanton & Biggs again.
Phillip Bigelow
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> Dear Bigalow,
> Please try to spell my name correctly.
Dear Marc,
Now now, calm down. We are only having a discussion.
Your career is safe. I won't hurt you.
You will note, if you stay on Usenet for any length
of time, that I have a somewhat "creative" spelling
style. I try, but sometimes fail.
I wrote earlier:
> >Uses for enlarged sinuses in endothermic animals:
> >1) For H2O retention/recycling (via turbinates). (elephants, and all other
> >land mammals)
Marc answered:
> Evidence?? Crocodiles?? Swine?? As you know, airflow in sinuses in minimal.
Marc, please read a good science textbook on soft tissue physiology
of nasal sinuses in mammals and birds. You seem to be confused regarding
my point. Crocodiles are not mammals.
> >2) Warming of in-coming air in cold climates.
> Evidence?? Elephant? Mammoth? Airflow in sinuses in minimal.
Elephants? No. Mammoths? Probably not. Their external noses
and great bulk (gigantothermic endothermy) probably gave the
sinuses a minimal role in these cases.
But in most mammals, the soft tissue of the external nose, and even
in the frontal sinuses to some extent, do indeed warm incoming
air in cold climates. As far as any evolutionary adaption, specifically
for cold climates, I doubt it. Because they
are homeothermic endotherms, mammals do quite fine in most any
climate.
> >3) As resonating chambers to increase low-frequency range in vocalization.
> Evidence?? Sinuses are no trumpets nor bagpipes.
No they are not. And I never said they were.
Sorry. I was thinking about two different phenomenon at
once, and typing at the same time. I was refering to
the highly derived nasal passageways of lambeosaurs,
which have been hypothesized to have been resonating
chambers for low-frequency calls.
But *you* used the term "snorkel" in describing a neanderthal
nose. In a publication, none-the-less. Sinuses and the external
nose on hominids are not in any way associated with what
most of us would call a "snorkel".
Marc Verhaegen
>But *you* used the term "snorkel" in describing a neanderthal
>nose. In a publication, none-the-less. Sinuses and the external
>nose on hominids are not in any way associated with what
>most of us would call a "snorkel".
By "snorkel" I just meant something that lengthens the airway so that the
entrance can project above the water surface.
Steve Barnard
Right. Snorkel. That's what a snorkel is.
Steve Barnard
Phil Nicholls
Marc Verhaegen wrote in message <6h8fu6$2ip$1...@xenon.inbe.net>...
>
>>But *you* used the term "snorkel" in describing a neanderthal
>>nose. In a publication, none-the-less. Sinuses and the external
>>nose on hominids are not in any way associated with what
>>most of us would call a "snorkel".
>By "snorkel" I just meant something that lengthens the airway so that the
>entrance can project above the water surface.
>
Which in no way describes neanderthals.
Steve Barnard
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> Phil Nicholls heeft geschreven
> >Marc Verhaegen wrote
> >>>But *you* used the term "snorkel" in describing a neanderthal
> >>>nose. In a publication, none-the-less. Sinuses and the external
> >>>nose on hominids are not in any way associated with what
> >>>most of us would call a "snorkel".
> >>By "snorkel" I just meant something that lengthens the airway so that the
> >>entrance can project above the water surface.
> >Which in no way describes neanderthals.
> If you float on your on the water on your back, your nose projects above the
> surface, as everybody can see in the swimming pool, and just as in sea
> otters floating on their backs, cracking shellfish. If a Neandertal floated
> on his back, his nose projected further above the surface as in humans, only
> because:
> -his paranasal air sinuses were larger
> -his midface projected more anteriorly than in the human skull
> -his nostrils were more apical (as Otto Hauser described after the discovery
> in 1908 of the Moustier fossil: soft tissues can often still be discerned
> after unearthing, in the seconds or minutes before the soft tissues fall
> apart)
This is a joke, right?
Steve Barnard
Marc Verhaegen
Robert Gotschall
In article <353AC0...@megafauna.com>, st...@megafauna.com says...
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> >
> > Phil Nicholls heeft geschreven
> > >Marc Verhaegen wrote
> > >>By "snorkel" I just meant something that lengthens the airway so that the
> > >>entrance can project above the water surface.
> > >Which in no way describes neanderthals.
> > Why not?
> > If you float on your on the water on your back, your nose projects above the
> > surface, as everybody can see in the swimming pool, and just as in sea
> > otters floating on their backs, cracking shellfish. If a Neandertal floated
> > on his back, his nose projected further above the surface as in humans, only
> > because:
>
> This is a joke, right?
>
> Steve Barnard
Oh sure, It has to be a joke, just because you wouldn't want then
swimming in your Cromagnon country club pool and eating filet mignon.
Why some of my best friends are er . . . . wait. This isn't The Ancient
Tribe of Guinnesses thread is it?
Never mind.
--
rg
remove spam from email address
Philip Nicholls
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> Phil Nicholls heeft geschreven
>Marc Verhaegen wrote
> >>>nose. In a publication, none-the-less. Sinuses and the external
> >>>nose on hominids are not in any way associated with what
> >>>most of us would call a "snorkel".
> >>entrance can project above the water surface.
> >Which in no way describes neanderthals.
> Why not?
> If you float on your on the water on your back, your nose projects above the
> surface, as everybody can see in the swimming pool, and just as in sea
> otters floating on their backs, cracking shellfish. If a Neandertal floated
> on his back, his nose projected further above the surface as in humans, only
> because:
> -his midface projected more anteriorly than in the human skull
> -his nostrils were more apical (as Otto Hauser described after the discovery
> in 1908 of the Moustier fossil: soft tissues can often still be discerned
> after unearthing, in the seconds or minutes before the soft tissues fall
> apart)
All true, but none of this describes a snorkel. It describes
midfacial prognatism. Why get the whole mid-facial area involved?
I suggest you (or anyone interested in a more data driven, less "just
so" approach) see Demes (1987) "Another look at an old face;
biomechanics of the neandertal facial skeleton reconsidered," Journal
of Human Evolution: 16: 297-305 and Demes and Creel (1988) Bite
force, dient and chrnail morphology of fossil hominids, JHE 17:
657-670.
Marc Verhaegen
>> If you float on your on the water on your back, your nose projects above
the
>> surface, as everybody can see in the swimming pool, and just as in sea
>> otters floating on their backs, cracking shellfish. If a Neandertal
floated
>> on his back, his nose projected further above the surface as in humans,
only
>> because:
>> -his paranasal air sinuses were larger
>> -his midface projected more anteriorly than in the human skull
>> -his nostrils were more apical (as Otto Hauser described after the
discovery
>> in 1908 of the Moustier fossil: soft tissues can often still be discerned
>> after unearthing, in the seconds or minutes before the soft tissues fall
>> apart)
>All true, but none of this describes a snorkel. It describes
>midfacial prognatism. Why get the whole mid-facial area involved?
They all describe a snorkel: lengthening of the airway. The airway begins,
as you know, at the nostrils, ie, midfacially.
But you probably mean: why also the face & not only the nose?
I guess it's because the para-nasal midface is filled with paranasal sinuses
(maxillary, frontal, ethmoidal) which make the nose/snorkel to float. This
midfacial protrusion not only lengthens the airway, but also helps to keep
it above the water. In fact, the dense occipital bones do exactly the same.
(It's clear that this midfacial prognathism has nothing to do with chewing.)
Dan Barnes
In article <6ht8g2$t1f$1...@xenon.inbe.net>, Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be
says...
breathing in choppy waters. The problem with the nose is that the nostrils run
along most of the length of the nose - if this design where incorporated into
snorkel design it would be useless. The only way the Neanderthal nose could
have acted as a snorkel is if the nostrils migrated to the tip of the nose! Equally
the larger sinuses and heavy occipital would mean that the Ns would be best
adapted to swimming on their backs - which would not be the most efficient
method of swimming. I explained in a previous post about how the N nose was
a superb adaptation to the cold climate of Europe (and it is described in detail
in Wolpoff, 1996) and this kind of adaptation can be seen in the Ns postcranial
adaptations (Holliday, 1997a, b; Holliday and Trinkaus, 1991; Ruff, 1991, 1993,
1994) as well as in the lumps and ridges within the Ns nose (Schwartz and
Tattersal, 1996). Since a longer nose would not be anymore effective than a
short one (unless the nostrils migrated) and there are good reasons to to
explain the N nasal morphology as one of a suite of climatic adaptations - it is
difficult to see how this evidence could be used as support for aquatic Ns.
Refs:
Holliday, T.W. (1997a) Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and
modern human origins. Journal of Human Evolution. 32 (5). 423-48.
Holliday, T.W. (1997b) Postcranial evidence of cold adaptation in European
Neandertals. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 104 (2). 245-58.
Holliday, T.W. & Trinkaus, E. (1991) Limb/trunk proportions in Neandertals and
early anatomically modern humans. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
(Supplement). 12. 93-94.
Ruff, C.B. (1991) Climate and body shape in hominid evolution. Journal of
Human Evolution. 21. 81-105.
Ruff, C.B. (1993) Climatic adaptation and hominid evolution: The
thermoregulatory imperative. Evolutionary Anthropology. 2 (2). 53-60.
Ruff, C.B. (1994) Morphological adaptation to climate in modern and fossil
hominids. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology. 37. 65-107.
Schwartz, J.H. & Tattersall, I. (1996) Significance of some previously
unrecognised apomorphies in the nasal region of Homo neanderthalensis.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of
America. 93 (20). 10852-4.
Wolpoff, M.H. (1996) Human Evolution. McGraw Hill, London.
Marc Verhaegen
If you float on your on the water on your back, your nose projects above the
If a Neandertal floated on his back, his nose projected further above the
surface as in humans, only because:
-his paranasal air sinuses were larger
-his midface projected more anteriorly than in the human skull
-his nostrils were more apical (as Otto Hauser described after the
discovery in 1908 of the Moustier fossil: soft tissues can often still be
discerned after unearthing, in the seconds or minutes before the soft
Why did also the midface project & not only the nose?
I guess it's because the para-nasal midface is filled with paranasal sinuses
(maxillary, frontal, ethmoidal) which make the nose/snorkel to float. This
midfacial protrusion not only lengthens the airway, but also helps to keep
it above the water.
In fact, the dense occipital bones do exactly the same.
(It's clear that this midfacial prognathism has nothing to do with chewing.)
>The only way the Neanderthal nose could have acted as a snorkel is if the
nostrils >migrated to the tip of the nose!
That's what Otto Hauser saw when he unearthed the Moustier
Neandertal:"apparently the nostrils were not directed downward, but much
more forward" (P Moerman 1977 Op het spoor van de Neanderthal-mens.
Boekerij, Baarn, Neth.)
There's not the slightest comparative evidence for the external nose being
an adaptation for a cold climate, as is often supposed. Why don't other
arctic or cold-adapted mammals have long noses?? Grizzlies have no longer
noses than sloth bears. Arctic foxes have shorter noses than fennec foxes,
etc.
Long noses can freeze. That's why arctic mammals have shorter ears etc.
External noses are only seen in (some) semi-aquatics.
Steve Barnard
Neanderthals had much larger bones that H.s., and H.s. has almost
neutral buoyancy. (I'm a sinker.) I'll bet H.n. sank like a rock.
Oh, I know -- the soft-tissue air sacs didn't fossilize.
Steve Barnard
Marc Verhaegen
Steve Barnard heeft geschreven in bericht <354668...@megafauna.com>...
>Neanderthals had much larger bones that H.s., and H.s. has almost
>neutral buoyancy. (I'm a sinker.) I'll bet H.n. sank like a rock.
No, see discussion in Verhaegen 1991 "Aquatic features in fossil hominids"
pp.75-112 in M Roede ed. The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction? Souvenir London.
Dan Barnes
In article <6i5h5u$1db$1...@xenon.inbe.net>,
"Marc Verhaegen" <Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
SNIP
> Why did also the midface project & not only the nose?
> I guess it's because the para-nasal midface is filled with paranasal sinuses
> (maxillary, frontal, ethmoidal) which make the nose/snorkel to float. This
> midfacial protrusion not only lengthens the airway, but also helps to keep
> it above the water.
> In fact, the dense occipital bones do exactly the same.
> (It's clear that this midfacial prognathism has nothing to do with chewing.)
>
Despite the fact that it is clear to the vast number of researchers who have
looked at and modelled the face.
> >The only way the Neanderthal nose could have acted as a snorkel is if the
> nostrils >migrated to the tip of the nose!
> That's what Otto Hauser saw when he unearthed the Moustier
> Neandertal:"apparently the nostrils were not directed downward, but much
> more forward" (P Moerman 1977 Op het spoor van de Neanderthal-mens.
> Boekerij, Baarn, Neth.)
>
Is this a direct quote from his 1909 paper?
Since he reburied the Le Moustier skeleton and rediscovered it again in front
of witnesses (twice!) I would assume the he found the soft tissue when he
originally excavated it - unfortunately without credible witnesses (which is
why he went through the farce of 'discovering' it twice). The fact that soft
tissue was preserved is unique for a N (as far as I'm aware) and it would
suggest that the preservation at this site was exceptional (suggesting water
logging) - a factor that has never been mentioned since even though the site
has been excavated a number of times and none of the other finds (N or animal)
have been reported as having soft tissue preservation (to the best of my
knowledge). If true wouldn't it be mentioned a little more often in palaeoanth
circles?
Lets have a look at Hauser himself as he merits a number of pages in Trinkaus
and Shipman (1993: 174-8):
"Otto Hauser was by many accounts a difficult and unpleasant person; it is
said he had been a sickly child with a lame leg and that his boyhood illnesses
accounted for his boorish , quarrelsome ways. Whatever the cause, he irritated
and offended almost everyone... One of the reasons for his unpopualrity was
that he was both an amatuer, having no academic affiliation or training, and a
commercial archeologist. That is he dug and then sold the antiquities he found
to museums or private collectors. His first ventures, in Switzerland, caused
such resentment and scorn among his compatriots that he swore he would
never work there again."
They quote contemporary French accounts (granted they are biased by
anti-German feeling) as saying "once he had procured his documents and
papers for working in the Dordogne and the general region of Les Eyzies, his
attitude changed. He became proud, arrogant, fatter still, and showed himself
immediately to be a jealous rival...He would do anything for anyone when he
was seeking his authorization and permits. Money, promises, threats, orgies
offered and shared in..."
Boule (in his Fossil Men) says "The scientific value of this relic is markedly
diminished by the poverty of significant stratigraphic or palaeontological
data, and especially by the deplorable manner in which it was extricated and
stored."
Even allowing for considerable bias against the Germans as a whole and
Hauser as their representative we can see that Hauser was an opportunist who
would go to considerable lengths to get expert witnesses to witness his faked
(re)discovery of the Le Moustier finds - it is not beyond the imagination that he
could have exaggerated (or even lied) about the quality of his find, if only
to increase the price of the specimen when later sold - and he did receive
125,000 francs for the Le Moustier and Combe Capelle skeleton (which back
then amounted to a very large amount indeed).
Unfortunately the only evidence for this nostril migration is Hauser's word
and the evidence (conveniently enough) fell apart very quickly after it was
excavated.
> There's not the slightest comparative evidence for the external nose being
> an adaptation for a cold climate, as is often supposed. Why don't other
> arctic or cold-adapted mammals have long noses?? Grizzlies have no longer
> noses than sloth bears. Arctic foxes have shorter noses than fennec foxes,
> etc.
The important thing to bear in mind is that Ns evolved from a Middle
Pleistocene population which itself had large anterior teeth which meant a
correspondingly large nasal breadth. A cold adaptation (or more strictly, I
believe, exaption) would have had to work with the material at hand. A
completely different facial architecture could not be evolved especially if anterior
tooth use had strong controls over facial features. From the hard (rather than the
very dubious soft) evidence we have we can see that the N nose and face are
cold adapted. The lumps and ridges in the nose are also found in Eskimos and
the increased number and size of the facial foramen also testify to an increased
blood flow to keep the face and nose warm.
> Long noses can freeze. That's why arctic mammals have shorter ears etc.
>
The point is that whether in or out of the water the N's nose would still be
susceptible to the colder climate of Europe so by your argument it would have
to evolve to be smaller in either scenario (unless, of course it couldn't do
that due to the initail starting conditions of wide nasal breadth). Also
considering the European climate (esp. as the North Atlantic Drift Current was
defelcted much further south) the Ns would have been at a great disadvantage
with a semi-aquatic lifestyle emerging from cold seas into a cold environment.
Would this mean they required extra layers of fat? All weight estimates put
them in a lean muscular category.
As far as I can tell (outlined above) there is nothing in the hard evidence to
suggest an aquatic lifestyle for the Ns and it looks like the 'soft' evidence must
be taken with a large pinch of salt.
Marc Verhaegen
>> Why did also the midface project & not only the nose?
>> I guess it's because the para-nasal midface is filled with paranasal
sinuses
>> (maxillary, frontal, ethmoidal) which make the nose/snorkel to float.
This
>> midfacial protrusion not only lengthens the airway, but also helps to
keep
>> it above the water.
>> In fact, the dense occipital bones do exactly the same.
>> (It's clear that this midfacial prognathism has nothing to do with
chewing.)
>Despite the fact that it is clear to the vast number of researchers who
have
>looked at and modelled the face.
>> That's what Otto Hauser saw when he unearthed the Moustier
>> Neandertal:"apparently the nostrils were not directed downward, but much
>> more forward" (P Moerman 1977 Op het spoor van de Neanderthal-mens.
>> Boekerij, Baarn, Neth.)
>Is this a direct quote from his 1909 paper?
No, I haven't read Hauser directly.
>Since he reburied the Le Moustier skeleton and rediscovered it again in
front
>of witnesses (twice!) I would assume the he found the soft tissue when he
>originally excavated it - unfortunately without credible witnesses (which
is
>why he went through the farce of 'discovering' it twice). The fact that
soft
>tissue was preserved is unique for a N (as far as I'm aware)
No, I've read somewhere - I forgot where - that often the soft tissues fall
apart when they come to the air.
>If true wouldn't it be mentioned a little more often in palaeoanth circles?
Because at first sight it looks very curious?? Facts that don't fit are
easily forgotten.
>Unfortunately the only evidence for this nostril migration is Hauser's word
>and the evidence (conveniently enough) fell apart very quickly after it was
>excavated.
Yes, but how could Hauser invent such details, and why would he do so?
>> There's not the slightest comparative evidence for the external nose
being
>> an adaptation for a cold climate, as is often supposed. Why don't other
>> arctic or cold-adapted mammals have long noses?? Grizzlies have no longer
>> noses than sloth bears. Arctic foxes have shorter noses than fennec
foxes.
>The important thing to bear in mind is that Ns evolved from a Middle
>Pleistocene population which itself had large anterior teeth which meant a
>correspondingly large nasal breadth. A cold adaptation (or more strictly, I
>believe, exaption) would have had to work with the material at hand. A
>completely different facial architecture could not be evolved especially if
anterior
>tooth use had strong controls over facial features. From the hard (rather
than the
>very dubious soft) evidence we have we can see that the N nose and face are
>cold adapted. The lumps and ridges in the nose are also found in Eskimos
and
>the increased number and size of the facial foramen also testify to an
increased
>blood flow to keep the face and nose warm.
A semi-aquatic adaptation does not exclude a cold adaptation.
>> Long noses can freeze. That's why arctic mammals have shorter ears etc.
>The point is that whether in or out of the water the N's nose would still
be
>susceptible to the colder climate of Europe so by your argument it would
have
>to evolve to be smaller in either scenario
No, the advantages of a long nose could outweigh the disadvantages.
>Also considering the European climate (esp. as the North Atlantic Drift
Current was
>defelcted much further south) the Ns would have been at a great
disadvantage
>with a semi-aquatic lifestyle emerging from cold seas into a cold
environment.
>Would this mean they required extra layers of fat?
I think so. They must have been slow divers (shellfish), and all slow diving
species have very thick fatlayers. (Fast diving aquatics are leaner, eg, fin
whales have much less fat than true whales.)
>All weight estimates put them in a lean muscular category.
Unknown. Fat tissue is usu. not discussed.
>As far as I can tell (outlined above) there is nothing in the hard evidence
to
>suggest an aquatic lifestyle for the Ns and it looks like the 'soft'
evidence must
>be taken with a large pinch of salt.
The hard evidence suggest a diving lifestyle:
-The auditory exostoses in Ns prove that those people frequently dived in
water colder than 19°C.
-The thick bones & narrow medulla are typical of slow-diving aquatics like
walruses, sirenians..
-Ns are always found at seacoasts or near rivers.A study of Italian cave
sites showed that whereas most of the terrestrial small species were prey
elements in the diets of a variety of small carnivores and raptors, most of
the marine molluscs and turtles were collected and eaten by Neandertals
(Stiner, 1995).
-Letter to Science, not published:
The Research News article “Did Neandertals lose an evolutionary ‘arms’
race?” (1) is based upon the presupposition that Neandertals and modern
humans ‘hunted the same prey’, but this seems highly improbable.
There are two independent indications that Neandertals, more than modern
humans, relied on water resources. Mary Stiner, in a recent study of cave
sites in west-central Italy, showed that whereas most of the terrestrial
small species were prey elements in the diets of a variety of small
carnivores and raptors, most of the marine mollusks and turtles were
collected and eaten by Neandertals (2). This is confirmed by the presence of
extensive and bilateral auditory exostoses in Neandertal skulls such as
those of Shanidar I and La Chapelle-aux-Saints (3). 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 (4), 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 (3).
The finding of Eric Trinkaus and colleagues that Neandertals had much
stronger arm, but not leg, bones than modern humans (1) is compatible with
swimming habits or cracking shells with stones. The Neandertal longer and
more horizontal femoral necks (1), which facilitate thigh abduction and exo-
and endorotation (5), and their stockier build (1) are also compatible with
more frequent swimming.
References
1. A. Gibbons, Science 272, 1586 (1996).
2. M. C. Stiner, Honor among Thieves (Princeton University Press, Princeton,
NJ, 1995).
3. G. E. Kennedy, Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 71, 401 (1986).
4. P. H. Rhys Evans, J. Laryng. Otol. 106, 214 (1992).
5. W. Spalteholz and R. Spanner, Handatlas der Anatomie des Menschen
(Scheltema en Holkema, Amsterdam, 1966), vol. 1, pp. 178-193.
Phillip Bigelow
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> >> That's what Otto Hauser saw when he unearthed the Moustier
> >> Neandertal:"apparently the nostrils were not directed downward, but much
> >> more forward" (P Moerman 1977 Op het spoor van de Neanderthal-mens.
> >> Boekerij, Baarn, Neth.)
Dan Barnes queried:
> >Is this a direct quote from his 1909 paper?
Marc responded:
> No, I haven't read Hauser directly.
>
groan.....
Dan Barnes mused:
> >Since he reburied the Le Moustier skeleton and rediscovered it again in
> front
> >of witnesses (twice!) I would assume the he found the soft tissue when he
> >originally excavated it - unfortunately without credible witnesses (which
> is
> >why he went through the farce of 'discovering' it twice). The fact that
> soft
> >tissue was preserved is unique for a N (as far as I'm aware)
> No, I've read somewhere - I forgot where - that often the soft tissues fall
> apart when they come to the air.
>
> >If true wouldn't it be mentioned a little more often in palaeoanth circles?
> Because at first sight it looks very curious?? Facts that don't fit are
> easily forgotten.
> >Unfortunately the only evidence for this nostril migration is Hauser's word
> >and the evidence (conveniently enough) fell apart very quickly after it was
> >excavated.
> Yes, but how could Hauser invent such details, and why would he do so?
>
Your question is scientifically irrelevent. (although it may make an
interesting chapter ina biography on Hauser and his character).
I have a more relevant question for you, Marc:
Why are *you* using anecdotal claims that are unconfirmed by peer review?
Worse yet, why are you using anecdotal claims in which the evidence, itself,
isn't even in existance?
In my opinion, unsubstantiated claims without museum-held physical evidence
is a waste of time to consider seriously. To use these claims as "evidence"
is an example of sloppy science (IMHO).
Can't we get back to talking about *real* physical evidence, and get away
from perpetuating non-evidence?
<pb>
--
remove "X" for e-mail.
http://www.scn.org/~bh162/index.html
Marc Verhaegen
>> >> That's what Otto Hauser saw when he unearthed the Moustier
>> >> Neandertal:"apparently the nostrils were not directed downward, but
much
>> >> more forward" (P Moerman 1977 Op het spoor van de Neanderthal-mens.
>> >> Boekerij, Baarn, Neth.)
>
>
>> >Is this a direct quote from his 1909 paper?
It's a quote from Moerman's book.
Anne Gilbert
It's interesting that Marc Verhagen tries to use Otto Hauser to buttress
his argument for the Aqautic Ape Theory. I can't think of *anyone*, who
subscribes to *any* paleoanthropological theory, who takes Hauser's find
seriously as science, for just the reasons Barnes outlined --- it was
reburied several times.
As for the "cold adaptation" of Neandertal noses, Erik Trinkaus claims
that the large noses may actually have functioned to cool the face and
body off --- in the heat of the summer.
Anne Gilbert
--
Anne Gilbert
keb...@scn.org, avgi...@hotmail.com
Visit my website at http://members.tripod.com/~kebara and read about my
Great Science Fiction Masterpiece
Marc Verhaegen
Phillip Bigelow >Marc Verhaegen >
>> >> That's what Otto Hauser saw when he unearthed the Moustier
>> >> Neandertal:"apparently the nostrils were not directed downward, but
much
>> >> more forward" (P Moerman 1977 Op het spoor van de Neanderthal-mens.
>> >> Boekerij, Baarn, Neth.)
>I have a more relevant question for you, Marc:
>Why are *you* using anecdotal claims that are unconfirmed by peer review?
>Worse yet, why are you using anecdotal claims in which the evidence,
itself,
>isn't even in existance?
Who used more anecdotal claims than Darwin & who made greater science?
Moerman 1977 is a very sound book, better than much that has been written
later, very detailed, a lot of literature (& Moerman has nothing to do with
the aquatic theory).
Moerman read the whole literature - why would I do the effort?
As for Hauser: as you know, having a bad character doesn't mean making bad
science. When Hauser said the nostrils were more apical, you have no reason
to deny that.
The apical nostrils of Neandertals (not proven, of course) is only a minor
indication of their diving habits.
A real proof is the auditory exostoses, see Kennedy 1986 AJPA 71:401.
A strong argument is the dense bones.
Marc Verhaegen
>As for the "cold adaptation" of Neandertal noses, Erik Trinkaus claims
>that the large noses may actually have functioned to cool the face and
>body off --- in the heat of the summer.
>Anne Gilbert
foace, for moistening the incoming air, for dust filtering, for water
retention of expired air, etc. etc. (for a summing up of possible
explanations see Verhaegen in M Roede ed 1991 The aquatic ape: fact or
fiction? Souvenir London).
These ar all just-so explanations.
Only comparative data can provide a serious "explanation".
Gerrit Hanenburg
"Marc Verhaegen" <Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
>The apical nostrils of Neandertals (not proven, of course) is only a minor
>indication of their diving habits.
>A real proof is the auditory exostoses, see Kennedy 1986 AJPA 71:401.
>A strong argument is the dense bones.
Auditory exostosis is not proof of aquatic habits in Neandertals. The
etiology of auditory exostosis is more complex than that.
See Hutchinson, D.L. et al. 1997. A Reevaluation of the Cold Water
Etiology of External Auditory Exostosis. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 103: 417-422.
Neither are their "dense" bones such proof. Increased skeletal
robusticity (if that is what you mean by "dense") in general is a
response to increased mechanical loading of the bone. (Ruff, C.B. et
al. 1993. Postcranial Robusticity in Homo I: Temporal Trends and
Mechanical Interpretation. Am. J. Phys. Anth. 91: 21-53)
Gerrit
Gerrit Hanenburg
On Sun, 3 May 1998, "Marc Verhaegen" <Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be>
wrote:
>Yes, some believe the long nose was for warming up the air, for cooling the
>foace, for moistening the incoming air, for dust filtering, for water
>retention of expired air, etc. etc. (for a summing up of possible
>explanations see Verhaegen in M Roede ed 1991 The aquatic ape: fact or
>fiction? Souvenir London).
>These ar all just-so explanations.
>Only comparative data can provide a serious "explanation".
Well, in that case the AAT gets little support since large noses are
not specifically correlated with being (semi)aquatic.
(you are practically the only one who regards elephants, tapirs and
proboscis monkeys as semi-aquatic)
Gerrit
Marc Verhaegen
>Auditory exostosis is not proof of aquatic habits in Neandertals.
>The etiology of auditory exostosis is more complex than that.
>See Hutchinson, D.L. et al. 1997. A Reevaluation of the Cold Water
>Etiology of External Auditory Exostosis. American Journal of Physical
>Anthropology 103: 417-422.
There's no doubt among ENT specialists that ear exostoses occur "exclusively
as a direct result of exposure to relatively cold water in swimmers" PH Rhys
Evans 1992 J Laryng Otol 106:214-225.
Hutchinson etc. don't question the cold water factor, but say it doesn't
explain everything & discuss the mechanism of formation of AEs.
This means AEs underestimate aquaticness, since AEs only develop in cold
water <18°C & perhaps only in some predisposed persons.
The presence of AEs proves diving habits, their absence does not.
>Neither are their "dense" bones such proof.
I said they're a strong indication.
>Increased skeletal
>robusticity (if that is what you mean by "dense") in general is a
>response to increased mechanical loading of the bone. (Ruff, C.B. et
>al. 1993. Postcranial Robusticity in Homo I: Temporal Trends and
>Mechanical Interpretation. Am. J. Phys. Anth. 91: 21-53)
I mean denser bone plus thicker cortex - typically seen in slow divers like
walruses & sea-cows.
Mechanical stress strengthens the bone & can explain localised hypertrophy
(right arm in tennis players) but not the general denser bone & thicker
cortex.
Marc
Marc Verhaegen
>>Yes, some believe the long nose was for warming up the air, for cooling
the
>>foace, for moistening the incoming air, for dust filtering, for water
>>retention of expired air, etc. etc. (for a summing up of possible
>>explanations see Verhaegen in M Roede ed 1991 The aquatic ape: fact or
>>fiction? Souvenir London).
>>These ar all just-so explanations.
>>Only comparative data can provide a serious "explanation".
>
>Well, in that case the AAT gets little support since large noses are
>not specifically correlated with being (semi)aquatic.
>(you are practically the only one who regards elephants, tapirs and
>proboscis monkeys as semi-aquatic)
Question of definition. Forest elephants, many Indian elephants, tapirs &
many proboscis monkeys spent a lot of time in the water & get their food in
the water or have to cross water to get their food.
All elephants & proboscis monkeys use the nose as a snorkel to cross rivers
or to swim.
Gerrit Hanenburg
"Marc Verhaegen" <Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
>There's no doubt among ENT specialists that ear exostoses occur "exclusively
>as a direct result of exposure to relatively cold water in swimmers" PH Rhys
>Evans 1992 J Laryng Otol 106:214-225.
>Hutchinson etc. don't question the cold water factor, but say it doesn't
>explain everything & discuss the mechanism of formation of AEs.
>This means AEs underestimate aquaticness, since AEs only develop in cold
>water <18°C & perhaps only in some predisposed persons.
>The presence of AEs proves diving habits, their absence does not.
Hutchinson et al. (1997) clearly state that "Any pathological state
affecting the normal homeostasis of the external ear (e.g., otitis
externa, eczema, trauma, infection, and mechanical and chemical
irritation) may cause an auditory exostosis" and "cold water is not a
sufficient exclusive etiology for external auditory exostoses"
(p.421).
How do you know that Shanidar I and La Chapelle aux Saints didn't get
their EAE's through infection unrelated to cold water?
>>Increased skeletal robusticity (if that is what you mean by "dense") in general is a
>>response to increased mechanical loading of the bone. (Ruff, C.B. et
>>al. 1993. Postcranial Robusticity in Homo I: Temporal Trends and
>>Mechanical Interpretation. Am. J. Phys. Anth. 91: 21-53)
>I mean denser bone plus thicker cortex - typically seen in slow divers like
>walruses & sea-cows.
>Mechanical stress strengthens the bone & can explain localised hypertrophy
>(right arm in tennis players) but not the general denser bone & thicker
>cortex.
Increased activity DOES result in an increase in overall skeletal
robusticity, almost certainly mediated by hormones.
See Lieberman, D.E. 1996. How and Why Humans Grow Thin Skulls:
Experimental Evidence for Systemic Cortical Robusticity. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 101: 217-236.
Gerrit
Gerrit Hanenburg
On 4 May 1998, "Marc Verhaegen" <Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be>
wrote:
>>Well, in that case the AAT gets little support since large noses are
>>not specifically correlated with being (semi)aquatic.
>>(you are practically the only one who regards elephants, tapirs and
>>proboscis monkeys as semi-aquatic)
>Question of definition. Forest elephants, many Indian elephants, tapirs &
>many proboscis monkeys spent a lot of time in the water & get their food in
>the water or have to cross water to get their food.
>All elephants & proboscis monkeys use the nose as a snorkel to cross rivers
>or to swim.
Proboscis monkeys spend most of their time in the trees and do not use
their noses as snorkels. If they're not completely submerged they
simply keep their heads above the water as much as possible. Also, the
nose of Proboscis monkeys is highly sexually dimorphic which casts
more doubt on its aquatic function.
Elephants too spend most of their time out of the water. Feeding
occasionally in a swamp or taking a bath in the waterhole doesn't make
an animal (semi)aquatic.
I'm sorry Marc but to me it seems you're stretching the concept to
make it fit the AAT.
Gerrit
Dan Barnes
In article <6ie232$gf1$1...@xenon.inbe.net>, Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be
says...
>
>>> >> That's what Otto Hauser saw when he unearthed the Moustier
>>> >> Neandertal:"apparently the nostrils were not directed downward, but
>much
>>> >> more forward" (P Moerman 1977 Op het spoor van de
Neanderthal-mens.
>>> >> Boekerij, Baarn, Neth.)
>>
>>
>>> >Is this a direct quote from his 1909 paper?
>
>
translated it from the French then there is, potentially, considerable room for
error. It would be preferable if the original French could be checked from Hauser
(1909). Unfortunately although the Archaeology Library here does have a large
number of old books and journals 'L’Homme Préhistorique' isn't one of them (it
would take a few weeks for interlibrary loans to find the paper - if they can). If
anyone has access to this journal then it might be quicker if they could post the
actual quote here (with the rest of the paragraph so as to avoid any problems
with taking it out of context - another potential error) then we all could check the
validity of the translation. Until then its best to reserve judgement on what
Hauser believes he saw (if we can believe his word). There is also the potential
problem that lacking any experts until the third 'discovery' he may purely have
been mistaken.
Ref:
Hauser, O. (1909) Découverte d’un squelette du type du Néandertal sous l’abri
inférieur de Moustier. L’Homme Préhistorique. 7 (1). 1 - 9.
Marc Verhaegen
Gerrit Hanenburg >"Marc Verhaegen"
>>There's no doubt among ENT specialists that ear exostoses occur
"exclusively
>>as a direct result of exposure to relatively cold water in swimmers" PH
Rhys
>>Evans 1992 J Laryng Otol 106:214-225.
>>Hutchinson etc. don't question the cold water factor, but say it doesn't
>>explain everything & discuss the mechanism of formation of AEs.
>>This means AEs underestimate aquaticness, since AEs only develop in cold
>>water <18°C & perhaps only in some predisposed persons.
>>The presence of AEs proves diving habits, their absence does not.
>Hutchinson et al. (1997) clearly state that "Any pathological state
>affecting the normal homeostasis of the external ear (e.g., otitis
>externa, eczema, trauma, infection, and mechanical and chemical
>irritation) may cause an auditory exostosis" and "cold water is not a
>sufficient exclusive etiology for external auditory exostoses"
>(p.421).
Hutchinson etc.: "clinical investigators have demonstrated that swimming &
other aquatic activities are associated with AEs". At least 99% of AEs are
seen in swimmers.
The cooling, maceration & pH changes of diving predispose to ekzema,
infection & other complications which sometimes develop into AEs.
>How do you know that Shanidar I and La Chapelle aux Saints didn't get
>their EAE's through infection unrelated to cold water?
Because clinically otitis externa never becomes an AE in non-divers.
However, the presence of AEs in some Neandertals proves that they were not
fully adapted for an aquatic lifestyle. They must have had a mixed
lifestyle. Perhaps only the males dived (Shan.I & Chap. were probably males)
& only in certain seasons.
>
>>>Increased skeletal robusticity (if that is what you mean by "dense") in
general is a
>>>response to increased mechanical loading of the bone. (Ruff, C.B. et
>>>al. 1993. Postcranial Robusticity in Homo I: Temporal Trends and
>>>Mechanical Interpretation. Am. J. Phys. Anth. 91: 21-53)
>
>>I mean denser bone plus thicker cortex - typically seen in slow divers
like
>>walruses & sea-cows.
>>Mechanical stress strengthens the bone & can explain localised hypertrophy
>>(right arm in tennis players) but not the general denser bone & thicker
>>cortex.
>Increased activity DOES result in an increase in overall skeletal
>robusticity, almost certainly mediated by hormones.
>See Lieberman, D.E. 1996. How and Why Humans Grow Thin Skulls:
>Experimental Evidence for Systemic Cortical Robusticity. American
>Journal of Physical Anthropology 101: 217-236.
Yes, but Lieberman: "the hypothesis that differences in vault thicknes.. are
attributable to local responses to loading form either running or chewing is
neither rejected nor strongly supported" - "that systemic hormones are the
primary cause of variation in CVT is not rejected but is instead partially
supported".
How does "overall skeletal robusticity" explain the localised occipital (vs
frontal) skull thickening in H.erectus?
In any case, the comparative evidence still supports diving habits in
H.erectus as the most likely explanation for their extremely thick & dense
bone cortices.
In fact, the combination of AEs (<1% non-aquatic) & dense bones (<10%
non-aquatic) suggests that the probability of total non-aquaticness in
H.erectus was less than 1:1000.
How much time exactly they spent in the water is of course unknown. But
since we also know they crossed Gibraltar & Flores Strait, their remains are
found on seacoasts all over the Old World (Boxgrove, Terra Amata, Hopefield,
Rabat, Mojokerto..) & they're found next to molluscs, we may suppose that
shellfish diving was an important part of their existence.
Marc
Marc Verhaegen
Gerrit >..."Marc Verhaegen"
>>>(you are practically the only one who regards elephants, tapirs and
>>>proboscis monkeys as semi-aquatic)
>>Question of definition. Forest elephants, many Indian elephants, tapirs &
>>many proboscis monkeys spent a lot of time in the water & get their food
in
>>the water or have to cross water to get their food.
>>All elephants & proboscis monkeys use the nose as a snorkel to cross
rivers
>>or to swim.
>Proboscis monkeys do not use their noses as snorkels.
They do. See films.
>If they're not completely submerged they
>simply keep their heads above the water as much as possible.
Of course, that's why semi-aquatics sometimes develop external noses.
>Also, the nose of Proboscis monkeys is highly sexually dimorphic which
casts
>more doubt on its aquatic function.
A does not exclude B.
>Elephants too spend most of their time out of the water. Feeding
>occasionally in a swamp or taking a bath in the waterhole doesn't make
>an animal (semi)aquatic.
Not occasionally, several hours per day. See films of forest elephants.
But of course: inertia of evolution.
Marc
Marc Verhaegen
Dan Barnes >>>> >> That's what Otto Hauser saw when he unearthed the
Moustier
>>>> >> Neandertal:"apparently the nostrils were not directed downward, but
>>much more forward" (P Moerman 1977 Op het spoor van de
>Neanderthal-mens. Boekerij, Baarn, Neth.)
>>>> >Is this a direct quote from his 1909 paper?
>>
>>It's a quote from Moerman's book.
>>
>My point being that if you've translated that quote into English and
Moerman
>translated it from the French then there is, potentially, considerable room
for
>error.
Indeed. Moerman: "De neusgaten zouden bij de Neanderthaler niet naar
beneden, doch veel meer naar voren gericht moeten zijn geweest!"
>It would be preferable if the original French could be checked from Hauser
>(1909). Unfortunately although the Archaeology Library here does have a
large
>number of old books and journals 'L’Homme Préhistorique' isn't one of them
(it
>would take a few weeks for interlibrary loans to find the paper - if they
can). If
>anyone has access to this journal then it might be quicker if they could
post the
>actual quote here (with the rest of the paragraph so as to avoid any
problems
>with taking it out of context - another potential error) then we all could
check the
>validity of the translation. Until then its best to reserve judgement on
what
>Hauser believes he saw (if we can believe his word). There is also the
potential
>problem that lacking any experts until the third 'discovery' he may purely
have
>been mistaken.
Of course, that's still possible.
Phillip Bigelow
Gerrit wrote:
> >Proboscis monkeys do not use their noses as snorkels.
Marc wrote:
> They do. See films.
Oooooo...good reference. I think I have "See Films" in my
video collection.
Gerrit espoused:
> >Also, the nose of Proboscis monkeys is highly sexually dimorphic which
> casts
> >more doubt on its aquatic function.
Marc retorted:
> A does not exclude B.
But it certainly casts doubt on it's aquatic *adaptation*, which is
what
the AAT(H) is claiming: our aquatic past caused morphologic changes.
A sexually dimorphic nose on elephant seals and on Proboscis monkeys
cannot unambiguously be assigned as an "aquatic adaptation", any more
than the sexually dimorphic presence/absence of antlers on deer
can be unambiguously assigned as a "terrestrial adaptation".
Gerrit mused:
> >Elephants too spend most of their time out of the water. Feeding
> >occasionally in a swamp or taking a bath in the waterhole doesn't make
> >an animal (semi)aquatic.
Marc interjected:
> Not occasionally, several hours per day.
So what you are claiming, Marc, is that "several hours per day"
of standing/soaking in water is the defining criterium for what
makes an animal "semi-aquatic"???!
<pb>
--
remove "X" for e-mail
Gerrit Hanenburg
"Marc Verhaegen" <Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
>>Hutchinson et al. (1997) clearly state that "Any pathological state
>>affecting the normal homeostasis of the external ear (e.g., otitis
>>externa, eczema, trauma, infection, and mechanical and chemical
>>irritation) may cause an auditory exostosis" and "cold water is not a
>>sufficient exclusive etiology for external auditory exostoses"
>>(p.421).
>Hutchinson etc.: "clinical investigators have demonstrated that swimming &
>other aquatic activities are associated with AEs".
Yes, but the relationship is not an exclusive one, and THAT is the
point of the Hutchinson et al. paper.
>At least 99% of AEs are seen in swimmers.
I'd like to see a reference.
>The cooling, maceration & pH changes of diving predispose to ekzema,
>infection & other complications which sometimes develop into AEs.
Again, the relationship is not exclusive.
>>How do you know that Shanidar I and La Chapelle aux Saints didn't get
>>their EAE's through infection unrelated to cold water?
>Because clinically otitis externa never becomes an AE in non-divers.
I'd like to see a reference.
>However, the presence of AEs in some Neandertals proves that they were not
>fully adapted for an aquatic lifestyle. They must have had a mixed
>lifestyle. Perhaps only the males dived (Shan.I & Chap. were probably males)
>& only in certain seasons.
>>Increased activity DOES result in an increase in overall skeletal
>>robusticity, almost certainly mediated by hormones.
>>See Lieberman, D.E. 1996. How and Why Humans Grow Thin Skulls:
>>Experimental Evidence for Systemic Cortical Robusticity. American
>>Journal of Physical Anthropology 101: 217-236.
>How does "overall skeletal robusticity" explain the localised occipital (vs
>frontal) skull thickening in H.erectus?
As far as I know the vault bones of Homo erectus are thick overall
(e.g. frontal thickness in OH9 is 9 mm near bregma and the occipital
bone is 10 mm near asterion) with some areas being more prominent,
such as the supraorbital torus, occipital torus, angular torus, etc.
There can be several reasons for differential growth of bone tissue,
one of the most important being structural reinforcement at sites that
are subject to mechanical stress (from the nuchal musculature in the
case of the occipital bone).
On the other hand, such differential growth may be for no functional
reason at all.
>In any case, the comparative evidence still supports diving habits in
>H.erectus as the most likely explanation for their extremely thick & dense
>bone cortices.
>In fact, the combination of AEs (<1% non-aquatic) & dense bones (<10%
>non-aquatic) suggests that the probability of total non-aquaticness in
>H.erectus was less than 1:1000.
This kind of abuse of statistics sends shivers down my spine.
Let's see where that can get us: the combination of long legs and arms
(0% in aquatics) and the pattern of spinal kyphosis and lordosis (0%
in aquatics) gives a probability of 0 that H.erectus was aquatic.
Q.e.d.?
>How much time exactly they spent in the water is of course unknown. But
>since we also know they crossed Gibraltar & Flores Strait, their remains are
>found on seacoasts all over the Old World (Boxgrove, Terra Amata, Hopefield,
>Rabat, Mojokerto..) & they're found next to molluscs, we may suppose that
>shellfish diving was an important part of their existence.
That's also the case for many remains of anatomically modern humans.
So, that doesn't imply that H.erectus or H.neanderthalensis were any
more "aquatic" than we are.
Gerrit
Marc Verhaegen
Gerrit Hanenburg >"Marc Verhaegen"
>>>Hutchinson et al. (1997) clearly state that "Any pathological state
>>>affecting the normal homeostasis of the external ear (e.g., otitis
>>>externa, eczema, trauma, infection, and mechanical and chemical
>>>irritation) may cause an auditory exostosis" and "cold water is not a
>>>sufficient exclusive etiology for external auditory exostoses" (p.421).
>
>>Hutchinson etc.: "clinical investigators have demonstrated that swimming &
>>other aquatic activities are associated with AEs".
>Yes, but the relationship is not an exclusive one, and THAT is the
>point of the Hutchinson et al. paper.
ones??
When I see ear exostoses, it's in a diver.
>>At least 99% of AEs are seen in swimmers.
>I'd like to see a reference.
PH Rhys Evans 1992 J Laryng Otol 106:214.
(If you have access to AJPA, see also, eg, VG Standen etc.1997 AJPA 103:119
&
G Manzi etc. 1991 AJPA 85:253)
>>The cooling, maceration & pH changes of diving predispose to ekzema,
>>infection & other complications which sometimes develop into AEs.
>Again, the relationship is not exclusive.
PH Rhys Evans 1992 J Laryng Otol 106:214-225.
>>>How do you know that Shanidar I and La Chapelle aux Saints didn't get
>>>their EAE's through infection unrelated to cold water?
>>Because clinically otitis externa never becomes an AE in non-divers.
>I'd like to see a reference.
PH Rhys Evans 1992 J Laryng Otol 106:214-225.
>>However, the presence of AEs in some Neandertals proves that they were not
>>fully adapted for an aquatic lifestyle. They must have had a mixed
>>lifestyle. Perhaps only the males dived (Shan.I & Chap. were probably
males)
>>& only in certain seasons.
Moreover it seems to develop only after years. Shanidar-1 & La Chapelle were
probably over 40 years old & must have dived for more than 30 years.
(By the way, I read here of LaChap., "His nose opening was situated very
superior and it was exteremely broad. The nose must have been very big and
protruding" - rather improbable in a cold land climate.)
>>>Increased activity DOES result in an increase in overall skeletal
>>>robusticity, almost certainly mediated by hormones.
>>>See Lieberman, D.E. 1996. How and Why Humans Grow Thin Skulls:
>>>Experimental Evidence for Systemic Cortical Robusticity. American
>>>Journal of Physical Anthropology 101: 217-236.
>>How does "overall skeletal robusticity" explain the localised occipital
(vs
>>frontal) skull thickening in H.erectus?
>As far as I know the vault bones of Homo erectus are thick overall
>(e.g. frontal thickness in OH9 is 9 mm near bregma and the occipital
>bone is 10 mm near asterion) with some areas being more prominent,
>such as the supraorbital torus, occipital torus, angular torus, etc.
>There can be several reasons for differential growth of bone tissue,
>one of the most important being structural reinforcement at sites that
>are subject to mechanical stress (from the nuchal musculature in the
>case of the occipital bone).
See, eg, SC Gauld 1996 Allometric patterns of cranial bone thickness in
fossil hominids. AJPA 100:411.
Again, why ignoring the comparative evidence & the most likely explanations
for bone thickness and desparately seeking far-fetched causes?? (Abundant
bee brood consumption & liver eating have been proposed in "serious"
scientific journals!)
>>In any case, the comparative evidence still supports diving habits in
>>H.erectus as the most likely explanation for their extremely thick & dense
>>bone cortices.
>>In fact, the combination of AEs (<1% non-aquatic) & dense bones (<10%
>>non-aquatic) suggests that the probability of total non-aquaticness in
>>H.erectus was less than 1:1000.
>This kind of abuse of statistics sends shivers down my spine.
>Let's see where that can get us: the combination of long legs and arms
>(0% in aquatics) and the pattern of spinal kyphosis and lordosis (0%
>in aquatics) gives a probability of 0 that H.erectus was aquatic.
You don't have to shiver, you have to think a bit in terms of probabilities.
I said total non-aquaticness (ie, creatures that almost never
swim/dive/wade). The pattern of spinal kyphosis & lordosis is unique to
humans (100% ex-aquatic), long legs+arms are seen in semi-aquatics like
frogs, flamingos & proboscis monkeys. Moreover, our very long legs could
well be post-aquatic.
(Your way of reasoning would have given 0% probability of total
non-terrestriality - which I fully agree: I have no doubt that H.erectus
spent most of his time on land.)
>
>>How much time exactly they spent in the water is of course unknown. But
>>since we also know they crossed Gibraltar & Flores Strait, their remains
are
>>found on seacoasts all over the Old World (Boxgrove, Terra Amata,
Hopefield,
>>Rabat, Mojokerto..) & they're found next to molluscs, we may suppose that
>>shellfish diving was an important part of their existence.
>That's also the case for many remains of anatomically modern humans.
Not for "many".
>So, that doesn't imply that H.erectus or H.neanderthalensis were any
>more "aquatic" than we are.
How many modern people could cross Gibraltar or Flores Strait?
And there is the other evidence (ear exostoses, dense skeleton, proboscis,
very strong arms, broad thorax). Everything fits with frequent diving, at
least the males, most probably for shellfish. And that's what I always have
claimed. For instance, I never said they did not walk on land.
We need better definitions of semi/aquatic etc.
Marc
JTHURB
In article <35540f0...@news.kijfhoek.nl.net>,
G.Han...@inter.nl.nomail.net (Gerrit Hanenburg) writes:
>Yes, but the relationship is not an exclusive one, and THAT is the
>point of the Hutchinson et al. paper.
>
>
That's contrary to the experiences I've had at all the ENT clinics I've ever
been to. AE is associated exclusively with cold water diving by all of the
practicing ENT doctors I've ever seen. I've had AE for at least 20 years
during which it has been diagnosed at least ten times by various military and
civilian physicians. They have no doubt that it was caused by my diving too
much in cold water. This pathology is rare even in cold water divers and some
of the less experienced doctors have never see it at all! I remember once at
Oak Knoll Naval Hospital they were so excited about my AE that the senior
physician insisted that all his subordinates come have a look.
Interestingly, I've never heard of AE being associated with cold-water surfers
most of whom-in California-are generally exposed to cold water much more than
divers. Makes one wonder if AE needs both the cold water and the pressure to
occur. This would definitely be another reason to suspect that fossils showing
evidence of this pathology were engaged in diving on a regular basis.
See National Geographic, March 1985, page 72.
As rare as AE is in modern man to begin with, Hutchinson's data indicating that
it sometimes results from other causes must be infinitesimal.
Thurber
Phillip Bigelow
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> We need better definitions of semi/aquatic etc.
That is an understatement. My advice to you is to use the definitions
of ecologists and zoologists. Don't invent your own definition
to suit your end-goals. The Hardy/Morgan/Verhaegen ideas
of what is a "semi-aquatic" animal are somewhat divergent
from established definitions.
So, my chastisement is not just of you; it's also of Hardy/Morgan.
Mis-categorizations of taxa as "semi-aquatic", such as elephants
and tapirs, is not only inaccurate, but it is scientifically
counterproductive.
<pb>
--
remove "X" for e-mail.
http://www.scn.org/~bh162/index.html
Marc Verhaegen
Phillip Bigelow >Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
>> We need better definitions of semi/aquatic etc.
>
>of ecologists and zoologists. Don't invent your own definition
>to suit your end-goals. The Hardy/Morgan/Verhaegen ideas
>of what is a "semi-aquatic" animal are somewhat divergent
>from established definitions.
"We" was not "the aquaticists", but all who study human evolution.
What is the definition of ecologists & zoologists?
The only ecology professor I know uses the term in the same sense as I do,
eg,
Derek Ellis 1991 Is an aquatic ape viable in terms of marine ecology and
primate behaviour? In M Roede ed. The aquatic ape: fact or fiction? Souvenir
London.
Gerrit Hanenburg
"Marc Verhaegen" <Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
>>>Hutchinson etc.: "clinical investigators have demonstrated that swimming &
>>>other aquatic activities are associated with AEs".
>>Yes, but the relationship is not an exclusive one, and THAT is the
>>point of the Hutchinson et al. paper.
>Why looking for possible obscure explanations & neglecting the most probable
>ones?? When I see ear exostoses, it's in a diver.
But the presence of EAE does not imply the level of aquaticness
suggested by the AAT. Modern humans with EAE as a result of regular
diving/swimming do not even approach that level.
Futhermore, Standen et al. (1997) found a correlation between EAE and
coastal populations, but they also found a high incidence at two
inland valley cemeteries (21.4% and 20%). Both Shanidar and La
Chapelle aux Saints are inland sites and that should make us wary of
premature conclusions about the etiology of their EAEs, even more so
with relation to their supposed semi-aquaticness.
>Moreover it seems to develop only after years. Shanidar-1 & La Chapelle were
>probably over 40 years old & must have dived for more than 30 years.
>(By the way, I read here of LaChap., "His nose opening was situated very
>superior and it was exteremely broad. The nose must have been very big and
>protruding" - rather improbable in a cold land climate.)
Last time I checked a cast of La Chapelle aux Saints the external
nasal opening was still in front of the face, below the orbits.
Allen's rule is not a law, the nasal cavity does have an important
function in homeothermic animals.
>>>How does "overall skeletal robusticity" explain the localised occipital
>>>(vs frontal) skull thickening in H.erectus?
>>As far as I know the vault bones of Homo erectus are thick overall
>>(e.g. frontal thickness in OH9 is 9 mm near bregma and the occipital
>>bone is 10 mm near asterion) with some areas being more prominent,
>>such as the supraorbital torus, occipital torus, angular torus, etc.
>>There can be several reasons for differential growth of bone tissue,
>>one of the most important being structural reinforcement at sites that
>>are subject to mechanical stress (from the nuchal musculature in the
>>case of the occipital bone).
>See, eg, SC Gauld 1996 Allometric patterns of cranial bone thickness in
>fossil hominids. AJPA 100:411.
>Again, why ignoring the comparative evidence & the most likely explanations
>for bone thickness and desparately seeking far-fetched causes??
Because in the case of the AAT the comparative "evidence" is of
dubious quality. In the case of hominids the relationship between
skeletal robusticity and activity is less far-fetched than any aquatic
explanation.
>(Abundant bee brood consumption & liver eating have been proposed in "serious"
>scientific journals!)
This has only been suggested in the case of the clearly pathological
KNM-ER 1808, a possible case of hypervitaminosis A.
>>>In fact, the combination of AEs (<1% non-aquatic) & dense bones (<10%
>>>non-aquatic) suggests that the probability of total non-aquaticness in
>>>H.erectus was less than 1:1000.
>>This kind of abuse of statistics sends shivers down my spine.
>>Let's see where that can get us: the combination of long legs and arms
>>(0% in aquatics) and the pattern of spinal kyphosis and lordosis (0%
>>in aquatics) gives a probability of 0 that H.erectus was aquatic.
>You don't have to shiver, you have to think a bit in terms of probabilities.
>I said total non-aquaticness (ie, creatures that almost never
>swim/dive/wade). The pattern of spinal kyphosis & lordosis is unique to
>humans (100% ex-aquatic),
The claim of 100% ex-aquatic is unproven.
>long legs+arms are seen in semi-aquatics like
>frogs, flamingos & proboscis monkeys.
Again, proboscis monkeys are not semi-aquatic. They are arboreal.
Occasional swimming and diving does not make them semi-aquatic.
(i.e. they are not more aquatic than the Talapoin Monkey or Allen's
Swamp Monkey). We do not need a redefinition of the concept to make it
fit the AAT.
Frogs have relatively much longer legs (not arms) for reasons other
than aquaticness (saltational locomotion), a derived feature relative
to primitive frogs such as Triadobatrachus.
Flamingos are wading birds whose arms are long for reasons totally
unrelated to aquaticness, a character already present in
Archaeopteryx. (have you ever seen a flamingo dive?).
>Moreover, our very long legs could well be post-aquatic.
>(Your way of reasoning would have given 0% probability of total
>non-terrestriality - which I fully agree: I have no doubt that H.erectus
>spent most of his time on land.)
How is that compatible with all those "aquatic" adaptations that seem
to indicate that hominids spend almost as much time in the water as
sirenians and cetaceans (nakedness, dense bones, etc., features that
are absent in many semi-aquatic animals)?
>>That's also the case for many remains of anatomically modern humans.
>>Not for "many".
>>So, that doesn't imply that H.erectus or H.neanderthalensis were any
>>more "aquatic" than we are.
>How many modern people could cross Gibraltar or Flores Strait?
>And there is the other evidence (ear exostoses, dense skeleton, proboscis,
>very strong arms, broad thorax).
Proboscis?! Give me a break.
Broad thorax and strong arms are features that also characterize the
extant nonhuman hominoids and so are no indication of aquaticness.
>Everything fits with frequent diving, at
>least the males, most probably for shellfish. And that's what I always have
>claimed. For instance, I never said they did not walk on land.
>We need better definitions of semi/aquatic etc.
I already suspect what that'll be.
Gerrit
Robert Gotschall
In article <6j1q8u$61v$1...@xenon.inbe.net>, Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be
says...
> When I see ear exostoses, it's in a diver.
> At least 99% of AEs are seen in swimmers.
But are you looking at a population of humans living 'outside' with a
climate comparable to the one in which the Neanderthal lived?
> Moreover it seems to develop only after years. Shanidar-1 & La Chapelle were
> probably over 40 years old & must have dived for more than 30 years.
> (By the way, I read here of LaChap., "His nose opening was situated very
> superior and it was exteremely broad. The nose must have been very big and
> protruding" - rather improbable in a cold land climate.)
Well you know what they say about big noses and big hands? But
seriously, what does snorkeling on your back have to do with diving? You
are suggesting that Neanderthal swam face up for such great lengths of
time that large protruding nostrils became a selective advantage. Do you
think that they dove for shells, then ate them while floating face up
like sea otters?
And I already hate myself for asking.
> they're found next to molluscs, we may suppose that
> >>shellfish diving was an important part of their existence.
> >That's also the case for many remains of anatomically modern humans.
> Not for "many".
> >So, that doesn't imply that H.erectus or H.neanderthalensis were any
> >more "aquatic" than we are.
> How many modern people could cross Gibraltar or Flores Strait?
I could, if I had a floating tree to hold unto. Evolution does indicate that
we had ancestors who were really good at hanging onto trees. Besides,
they all had plenty of time to walk around the long way. Its not like
they had jobs or anything.
> And there is the other evidence (ear exostoses, dense skeleton, proboscis,
> very strong arms, broad thorax). Everything fits with frequent diving, at
> least the males, most probably for shellfish. And that's what I always have
> claimed. For instance, I never said they did not walk on land.
> We need better definitions of semi/aquatic etc.
The trouble is that semi-aquatics, seals, walruses and such, spend months
continuously in the water, and are very poor walkers. You never see any
of them more then a few miles from water. Crossing Gibraltar on a raft
by a Neanderthal is a piece of cake compared to walking the length and
breadth of Western Europe and Russia by any remotely semi-aquatic mammal.
>
> Marc
>
--
rg
"We sure know that Robert Gotschall is not a journalism grad."
Ed Conrad
Marc Verhaegen
Gerrit Hanenburg >"Marc Verhaegen" >
>>>>Hutchinson etc.: "clinical investigators have demonstrated that swimming
& other aquatic activities are associated with AEs".
>>>Yes, but the relationship is not an exclusive one, and THAT is the
>>>point of the Hutchinson et al. paper.
>>Why looking for possible obscure explanations & neglecting the most
probable ones?? When I see ear exostoses, it's in a diver.
>But the presence of EAE does not imply the level of aquaticness
>suggested by the AAT.
What is the level of aquaticness suggested by "the" AAT??
It's simple: ear exostoses are seen in year-long cold-water divers.
Their presence strongly suggests diving. Their absence says nothing.
>Modern humans with EAE as a result of regular
>diving/swimming do not even approach that level.
>Futhermore, Standen et al. (1997) found a correlation between EAE and
>coastal populations, but they also found a high incidence at two
>inland valley cemeteries (21.4% and 20%). Both Shanidar and La
>Chapelle aux Saints are inland sites and that should make us wary of
>premature conclusions about the etiology of their EAEs, even more so
>with relation to their supposed semi-aquaticness.
Premature??? see previous discussions.
All Neandertals are found next to rivers or seas.
Auditory exostoses probably cannot be explained by wading alone (salmon
fishing...), but only by diving in colder water. Probably it's the
maceration & cooling (chronic irritation of the skin in the ear canal) that,
after years of diving, can give AEs - probably without much acute infection.
Ask John Thurber.
(Shells (as ornamentation) are remarkably frequent in many prehistoric
finds - cf. previous occupations with shellfish?)
>>Moreover it seems to develop only after years. Shanidar-1 & Chapelle were
>>probably over 40 years old & must have dived for more than 30 years.
>>(By the way, I read here of LaChap., "His nose opening was situated very
>>superior and it was exteremely broad. The nose must have been very big and
>>protruding" - rather improbable in a cold land climate.)
>Last time I checked a cast of La Chapelle aux Saints the external
>nasal opening was still in front of the face, below the orbits.
Yes, but somewhat higher than in modern humans.
And, as you know, his nasal bones are remarkably protruding.
>Allen's rule is not a law, the nasal cavity does have an important
>function in homeothermic animals.
Again: why not an external nose in chimpanzees, oryxes, foxes...?
Don't they have to cool warm air, or to moisten dry air, or to warm cold
air, or to filter dust, or...?
>>Again, why ignoring the comparative evidence & the most likely
explanations
>>for bone thickness and desparately seeking far-fetched causes??
>
>Because in the case of the AAT the comparative "evidence" is of
>dubious quality. In the case of hominids the relationship between
>skeletal robusticity and activity is less far-fetched than any aquatic
>explanation.
The relationship with activity (which I don't deny) cannot explain the
extreme density & thickness of H.erectus' bones.
Such densities & thicknesses are only seen in slow bottom-divers like
walruses & sea-cows.
See discussion in Verhaegen 1991 Aquatic features in fossil hominids?
ed.Roede The aquatic ape: fact or fiction? Souvenir London.
>>(Abundant bee brood consumption & liver eating have been proposed in
"serious" scientific journals!)
>This has only been suggested in the case of the clearly pathological
>KNM-ER 1808, a possible case of hypervitaminosis A.
(Wasn't it ER-1801?) Clearly pathological?
"Normal" Neandertal features were also once proclaimed pathological.
>>>>In fact, the combination of AEs (<1% non-aquatic) & dense bones (<10%
>>>>non-aquatic) suggests that the probability of total non-aquaticness in
>>>>H.erectus was less than 1:1000.
>>>This kind of abuse of statistics sends shivers down my spine.
>>>Let's see where that can get us: the combination of long legs and arms
>>>(0% in aquatics) and the pattern of spinal kyphosis and lordosis (0%
>>>in aquatics) gives a probability of 0 that H.erectus was aquatic.
>
>>You don't have to shiver, you have to think a bit in terms of
probabilities.
>>I said total non-aquaticness (ie, creatures that almost never
>>swim/dive/wade). The pattern of spinal kyphosis & lordosis is unique to
>>humans (100% ex-aquatic),
>The claim of 100% ex-aquatic is unproven.
The coincidence of so many independant probably aquatic features in
humans(nakedness, obesity... see Verhaegen 1993 Nutr.Health 9:165) simply
proves our partial aquatic history.
(As the independancy of dense bones & AEs allowed me to multiply 10% x 1% =
0.1%).
>>long legs+arms are seen in semi-aquatics like
>>frogs, flamingos & proboscis monkeys.
>
>Again, proboscis monkeys are not semi-aquatic. They are arboreal.
Of course, they are very arboreal, but have to cross waters to reach other
trees.
And they have been found swimming kilometres out in the open sea (males,
when seeking a new place to live).
>Frogs have relatively much longer legs (not arms) for reasons other
>than aquaticness (saltational locomotion), a derived feature relative
>to primitive frogs such as Triadobatrachus.
>Flamingos are wading birds whose arms are long for reasons totally
>unrelated to aquaticness, a character already present in
>Archaeopteryx. (have you ever seen a flamingo dive?).
Again, diving does not exclude wading or walking. The long legs is not my
argument for ex-aquaticness. You used it in trying to give an argument
against the AAT. It simply suggests that our aquaticness was not exclusive,
and we both agree on that.
>>(Your way of reasoning would have given 0% probability of total
>>non-terrestriality - which I fully agree: I have no doubt that H.erectus
>>spent most of his time on land.)
>
>How is that compatible with all those "aquatic" adaptations that seem
>to indicate that hominids spend almost as much time in the water as
>sirenians and cetaceans (nakedness, dense bones, etc., features that
>are absent in many semi-aquatic animals)?
(No dense bones in living cetaceans! except some very localised extremely
dense bone in beaked whales...)
Again: comparative evidence!
(I'm an orthodox Darwininst. Why looking for improbable unique explanations,
where we have animal examples?)
Nakedness in aquatic mammals is seen in 3 groups:
- all fully aquatics (cetaceans, sirenians)
- +-large tropical semi-aquatics (hippos, babirusa)
- very large non-tropical semi-aquatics (adult male walrus, sea-elephant).
(This seems to suggest that the development of nakedness in aquatics is
hindered by the thermoregulatory constraints of the time spent on land, esp.
in cold climates.)
Very dense bones:
- only in sea mammals (density of sea>freshwater)
- only in slow divers (no much premium upon velocity)
- only (?) in bottom-divers (the time spent below is higher than the time
spent at the water surface).
As you know, modern human shellfish divers use weights to descend (these
weights are pulled up by their helpers in boats before ascent).
My claim remains that an important part of their diet consisted of
shellfish... gathered in water.
But I have little doubt that erectus usually slept on land, ie, spent more
time on land than in the water.
(Though even this is not always necessary. See the babies sleeping floating
on the water surface. It would be interesting to know whether among these
floating babies there are more boys than girls.)
>>How many modern people could cross Gibraltar or Flores Strait?
>>And there is the other evidence (ear exostoses, dense skeleton, proboscis,
>>very strong arms, broad thorax).
>Proboscis?! Give me a break.
Joke: nose.
Marc
Gerrit, zou je niet eerst mijn boek lezen, in plaats van alsmaar hetzelfde
te herhalen? Als je eens in België komt, kom me eens opzoeken - niet ver van
Mechelen.
Henk Veldman
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>That's what Otto Hauser saw when he unearthed the
> Moustier> Neandertal:"apparently the nostrils were not directed
> downward, but much more forward" (P Moerman 1977 Op het spoor van de
>Neanderthal-mens. Boekerij, Baarn, Neth.)
and
> Indeed. Moerman: "De neusgaten zouden bij de Neanderthaler niet naar
> beneden, doch veel meer naar voren gericht moeten zijn geweest!"
Being curious I looked up the quote in Moerman (in Dutch): you know how
to mutilate a quote:
Aparently there were no remains of soft tissue whatsoever, the skeleton
was quite badly preserved. Hauser inferred the shape of the nose and the
position of the nostrils from the position of the stone flakes lying
around the skull like a kind of pillow.
Hopefully this will end this part of the discussion.
Henk
Gerrit Hanenburg
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>>That's what Otto Hauser saw when he unearthed the
>>Moustier> Neandertal:"apparently the nostrils were not directed
>>downward, but much more forward" (P Moerman 1977 Op het spoor van de
>>Neanderthal-mens. Boekerij, Baarn, Neth.)
>and
>>Indeed. Moerman: "De neusgaten zouden bij de Neanderthaler niet naar
>>beneden, doch veel meer naar voren gericht moeten zijn geweest!"
Henk Veldman <H.Ve...@lab.azu.nl> replied:
>Being curious I looked up the quote in Moerman (in Dutch): you know how
>to mutilate a quote:
>Aparently there were no remains of soft tissue whatsoever, the skeleton
>was quite badly preserved. Hauser inferred the shape of the nose and the
>position of the nostrils from the position of the stone flakes lying
>around the skull like a kind of pillow.
>Hopefully this will end this part of the discussion.
I also found a copy of the original article by Otto Hauser in "L'Homme
Prehistorique.
That specific part of the text is as follows:
"La moitié droite de la figure reposait sur une sorte d'empierrement
formé de silex. Il est hors de doute que ces silex avaient été mis la
intentionellement, car la figuration de leur surface supérieure et
leurs dispositions sont telles qu'ils s'ajustaient exactement aux
chairs er aux saillies des os. On détacha de la partie de droite de la
voute cranniene des silex qui présentaient une légère concavité;
le nez avait éte protégé par deux morcaux de silex, dont l'un appliqué
sur le dos du nez et l'autre sur sa base. La position de ce dernier
silex, qui est en forme de plaque, montre que 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).
So, as you already said, apparently there was not really any preserved
soft tissue that, according to Verhaegen, came appart after recovery
of the specimen.
Ref:
Hauser, O. 1909. Découverte d'un Squelette du Type du Néandertal sous
l'Abri Inférieur du Moustier. L'Homme Prehistorique 7 No.1 (January
1909)
Gerrit
Dan Barnes
In article <35571c4a...@news.kijfhoek.nl.net>,
G.Han...@inter.nl.nomail.net says...
misinterpretation of the forward projection of the bones around the nasal
aperture (which in the early days could have been could nostrils - remember
this was only about the sixth Neanderthal found and Hauser [at best] was an
amatuer) and the total projection of the face. Instead what we find is misquoting
and a failure to check primary sources (is there a school were such techniques
are taught?) - hardly a level of proof that would go anywhere near academic
standards.
Before we put the Aquatic Neanderthal to bed (until next time) let's just consider
one of the best, unequivocal pieces of evidence about the Neanderthal lifestyle -
the stable isotope analysis of Neanderthal skeletal remains. Now I would
hypothesise that Neanderthals had a variable lifestyle changing from hunting to
scavenging to foraging (including the exploitation of aquatic resources), as has
been shown by the work of Stiner and Kuhn in Central Italy (e.g. Stiner, 1991,
1992, 1994; Stiner and Kuhn, 1992), probably dependent on environment,
availability of resources and geographical location so I wouldn't be suprised if
some Ns show an isotopic signature typical of these subsistence techniques
(although personally I would expect that meat eating would be more prominent -
due to the large body of evidence for it). However, Marc would argue that the
vast majority (if not all) Ns would have had a marine/riverine diet - which is a
testable hypothesis. Fizet et al (1995: 71) in a more extensive follow up to
Bocherens et al (1991) work concluded:
"With a d15N value of 9.3o/oo [apologies for the lack of sophisticated fonts] in
layer #9 and 11.6o/oo in layer #10, the Marillac Neanderthals show d15N values
similar to those of wolves. These d15N values for Neandethal collagen cannot
be explained at Marillac by a supply of food coming from the sea or fresh water.
If this were the case, these d15N values should be higher, as shown by studies
of modern and prehistoric populations (SNIP refs although I can provide them if
required). Moreover, no evidence of consumption of aquatic animals, or of a
lithic industry assocaited with fishing have been found in the Marillac cave. The
sea, which is today 120 km away from Marillac, was probably much farther
away during the Ice Age."
This would appear to completely invalidate the Aquatic Neanderthal hypothesis.
Refs
Bocherens, H., Fizet, H., Mariotti, A., Lange-Badre, B., Vandermeersch, B.,
Borel, J.P. & Bellon, G. (1991) Isotopic biogeochemistry (13C, 15N) of fossil
vertebrate collagen: Application to the study of a past food web including
Neandertal man. Journal of Human Evolution. 20 (6). 481-92.
Fizet, M., Mariotti, A., Bocherens, H., Langebadre, B., Vandermeersch, B.,
Borel, J.P. & Bellon, G. (1995) Effect of diet, physiology and climate on carbon
and nitrogen stable isotopes of collagen in a late Pleistocene anthropic
palaeoecosystem: Marillac, Charente, France. Journal of Archaeological
Science. 22 (1). 67-79.
Stiner, M.C. (1991) The cultural significance of Grotta Guattari reconsidered. 1
The faunal remains from Grotta Guattari: A taphonomic perspective. Current
Anthropology. 32 (2). 103 - 17, 132 - 5.
Stiner, M.C. (1992) Overlapping species “choice” by Italian Upper Pleistocene
predators. Current Anthropology. 33. 433 - 51.
Stiner, M.C. (1994) Honor Among Thieves: A Zooarchaeological Study of
Neandertal Ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Stiner, M.C & Kuhn, S.L. (1992) Subsistence, technology, and adaptive
variation in Middle Paleolithic Italy. American Anthropologist. 94 (2). 306 - 99.
Marc Verhaegen
Dan Barnes
>>silex, qui est en forme de plaque, montre que 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).
means: "...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.
>Before we put the Aquatic Neanderthal to bed (until next time) let's just
consider
>one of the best, unequivocal pieces of evidence about the Neanderthal
lifestyle -
>the stable isotope analysis of Neanderthal skeletal remains. Now I would
>hypothesise that Neanderthals had a variable lifestyle changing from
hunting to
>scavenging to foraging (including the exploitation of aquatic resources),
as has
>been shown by the work of Stiner and Kuhn in Central Italy (e.g. Stiner,
1991,
>1992, 1994; Stiner and Kuhn, 1992), probably dependent on environment,
>availability of resources and geographical location so I wouldn't be
suprised if
>some Ns show an isotopic signature typical of these subsistence techniques
>(although personally I would expect that meat eating would be more
prominent -
>due to the large body of evidence for it). However, Marc would argue that
the
>vast majority (if not all) Ns would have had a marine/riverine diet - which
is a
>testable hypothesis. Fizet et al (1995: 71) in a more extensive follow up
to
>Bocherens et al (1991) work concluded:
I could agree on this, but what follows surprised me. How safe are d15N
values in predicting diets?
>"With a d15N value of 9.3o/oo [apologies for the lack of sophisticated
fonts] in
>layer #9 and 11.6o/oo in layer #10, the Marillac Neanderthals show d15N
values
>similar to those of wolves. These d15N values for Neandethal collagen
cannot
>be explained at Marillac by a supply of food coming from the sea or fresh
water.
>If this were the case, these d15N values should be higher, as shown by
studies
>of modern and prehistoric populations (SNIP refs although I can provide
them if
>required). Moreover, no evidence of consumption of aquatic animals, or of a
>lithic industry assocaited with fishing have been found in the Marillac
cave. The
>sea, which is today 120 km away from Marillac, was probably much farther
>away during the Ice Age."
Okay, this is important evidence. It seems unlikely that the Marillac
neandertals fished or collected shellfish.
I must conclude that, with what we know now, some neandertal groups relied
on land-based diet (cf. wolves, ie, hunting land-mammals). Other groups
relied partly on a water-based diet (ear exostoses, diving males, probably
for shellfish) & probably partly on land-based diets (cf. other evidence of
hunting). This suggests that the dense bones (intermediate between erectus &
sapiens) of the neandertals must mainly be explained by evolutionary inertia
(and/or perhaps by their muscular strength).
Marc
Dan Barnes
In article <6jie92$rvs$1...@xenon.inbe.net>, Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be
says...
>
>Dan Barnes
>
>>>silex, qui est en forme de plaque, montre que 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).
>
>means: "...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.
>
actually means the Neanderthal nose was more ape-like with the nostrils more
visible from the front. Note: no soft tissue preservation and the only evidence
Hauser has for this interpretation is two pieces of flint found next to the head and
a slight dent in the ground. Since he wasn't a professional archaeolgist he could
very easily have been mistaken or just plain wrong (and thats without going into
the issue of his reliability). He infers the position of the nostril from the position
of one of the flint pieces but there is no reason given as to why this should have
occured. The evidence is poor indeed.
Very as far as I'm aware. The technique has been used on the bones of modern
peoples were their diet is know and the results are totally consitent. There has
been a large body of work done in this field and I'm confident in the results. The
only possible problem is when the amount of collagen preserved is low and the
findings are then difficult to interpret. This was the case in Bocherens et al
(1991) were they sampled only one Neanderthal bone and the low collagen
levels meant that it was difficult to exclude a marine diet which is why the tested
more Neanderthals and found higher collagen levels which firmly excluded a
marine diet. The references given in the article (esp. the ones I removed from
the quote) can provide a much better overview than I can in this space.
Apart from the bit about diving (AE is only a sign that they were getting
immersed in cold water not that they were diving - see other posts) this is,
generally, what I've said all along. It would be interesting (collagen preservation
allowing) to do stable isotope analysis on a wider range of Neanderthals (esp.
any that may be found in contexts suggesting they may have exploited aquatic
resources) and see what this shows us about N subsistence - this has been
done for the larger Upper Palaeolithic sample (Hayden et al., 1987) and shows
that it was only in the later UP that fishing became important - which is when
spears are found again. This mixed subsistence suggests that Ns can't have
evolved for an aquatic lifestyle as the evolutionary cost of evolving specific
adaptations would be a decreased ability to compete well in other ecolgical
niches.
SNIP old refs
Ref
Hayden, B., Chisholm, B. & Schwarcz, H.P. (1987) Fishing and foraging: Marine
resources in the Upper Paleolithic of France. In Soffer, O. (ed.) The Pleistocene
Old World: Regional Perspectives. Plenum Press, New York. 279 - 91.
Marc Verhaegen
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
"...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.
And he saw the nose not from the front but in profile: a big neandertal nose
outlined by the silex.
>>How safe are d15N values in predicting diets?
>>
>Very as far as I'm aware. The technique has been used on the bones of
modern
>peoples were their diet is know and the results are totally consistent.
There has
>been a large body of work done in this field and I'm confident in the
results. The
>only possible problem is when the amount of collagen preserved is low and
the
>findings are then difficult to interpret. This was the case in Bocherens et
al
>(1991) were they sampled only one Neanderthal bone and the low collagen
>levels meant that it was difficult to exclude a marine diet which is why
the tested
>more Neanderthals and found higher collagen levels which firmly excluded a
>marine diet. The references given in the article (esp. the ones I removed
from
>the quote) can provide a much better overview than I can in this space.
Okay, thanks.
>>>The sea, which is today 120 km away from Marillac, was probably much
farther
>>>away during the Ice Age."
There is evidence than neandertals were (seasonal?) wanderers. There
sometime re-occupied the same settlements.
There is also evidence that Cro Magnons followed the rivers a few hundred
kilometres inland. Drawings of flatfish (sea fish) & salmon have been found
high in the Pyrenees & the Dordogne. They could have followed the salmon
trek.
>>
>>Okay, this is important evidence. It seems unlikely that the Marillac
>>neandertals fished or collected shellfish.
>>I must conclude that, with what we know now, some neandertal groups relied
>>on land-based diet (cf. wolves, ie, hunting land-mammals). Other groups
>>relied partly on a water-based diet (ear exostoses, diving males, probably
>>for shellfish) & probably partly on land-based diets (cf. other evidence
of
>>hunting). This suggests that the dense bones (intermediate between erectus
&
>>sapiens) of the neandertals must mainly be explained by evolutionary
inertia
>>(and/or perhaps by their muscular strength).
>>
>Apart from the bit about diving (AE is only a sign that they were getting
>immersed in cold water not that they were diving - see other posts) this
is,
?? See Kennedy AJPA. All populations with AEs are shellfish-divers.
>generally, what I've said all along. It would be interesting (collagen
preservation
>allowing) to do stable isotope analysis on a wider range of Neanderthals
(esp.
>any that may be found in contexts suggesting they may have exploited
aquatic
>resources) and see what this shows us about N subsistence - this has been
>done for the larger Upper Palaeolithic sample (Hayden et al., 1987) and
shows
>that it was only in the later UP that fishing became important - which is
when
>spears are found again. This mixed subsistence suggests that Ns can't have
>evolved for an aquatic lifestyle as the evolutionary cost of evolving
specific
>adaptations would be a decreased ability to compete well in other ecolgical
>niches.
In that case, you could never evolve, eg, from frugi to herbivore or vice
versa.
Its always a matter of advantages & disadvantages.
Marc
Dan Barnes
In article <6jq0qs$55m$1...@xenon.inbe.net>,
"Marc Verhaegen" <Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
>
> 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
> "...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.
> >>
> 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.
Not neccesarily.
> And he saw the nose not from the front but in profile
But it would still have been obviously different from the side.
> a big neandertal nose
> outlined by the silex.
>
My point being that he could have easily been mistaken by flints in the soil
which hadn't been put there for a purpose (they could have been in the layer
the N was buried into or been part of the backfill of the grave). My
interpretation closely resembles the nose of the La Chapelle-Aux-Saints
reconstruction Neanderthal commisioned by Boule and published in the same
year as Hauser's paper (the Ns were also both found in the year before) -
reproduced in Stringer and Gamble (1993) and Trinkaus and Shipman (1993).
The nostrils are more horizontal (front to back) than modern nostrils (top to
bottom) - the current thinking at the time was that these were ape-men and
this is what Hauser thought he had found. You can't divorce the findings from the
cultural framework they were originally interpretted in.
>
> >>>The sea, which is today 120 km away from Marillac, was probably much
> farther
> >>>away during the Ice Age."
> There is evidence than neandertals were (seasonal?) wanderers. There
> sometime re-occupied the same settlements.
> There is also evidence that Cro Magnons followed the rivers a few hundred
> kilometres inland. Drawings of flatfish (sea fish) & salmon have been found
> high in the Pyrenees & the Dordogne. They could have followed the salmon
> trek.
Yes but there is no evidence that the Ns at Marillac did.
> >Apart from the bit about diving (AE is only a sign that they were getting
> >immersed in cold water not that they were diving - see other posts) this
> is,
> ?? See Kennedy AJPA. All populations with AEs are shellfish-divers.
>
I'm not sure if expressing this clearly enough. In modern popualtions there is
efficient means of water transport, etc. which would mean that immersion in
cold water is significantly reduced. The only groups which would deliberately
expose themselves to cold water would be shellfish divers because there is no
way around around the problem of cold water exposure. The fact that some Ns
had AE may be purely due to the fact that they had less effective ways of
preventing a dunking in cold water i.e. they lacked efficient canoes.
> >This mixed subsistence suggests that Ns can't have
> >evolved for an aquatic lifestyle as the evolutionary cost of evolving
> >specific
> >adaptations would be a decreased ability to compete well in other ecolgical
> >niches.
> In that case, you could never evolve, eg, from frugi to herbivore or vice
> versa.
If the evidence (e.g. your claims for hard and soft body adaptations in
Ns) suggested that animal was specifically adapted to exploiting one food
source (e.g. in this case shellfish) then I wouldn't expect evidence (d15N, fauna,
tools, etc.) for other food sources where the level of the competion was high. It
would be the equivalent of a herbivore eating a steak.
> Its always a matter of advantages & disadvantages.
>
Once you had evolved very specific adaptations to a niche like slow diving for
shellfish it would mean you were less well adapted to efficiently exploit
other niches. The evidence suggests that Ns (and their ancestors) were
exploiting a generalised subsitence strategy and this could only have been
achieved by staying a generalised omnivore. The move to specialisation would
have entailed hard and esp. soft body part changes - if the Ns were slow
divers they would have been very fat and consequently would have been less
successful competing against wolves, hyenas, etc. for scavenged food and
would not have been able to hunt large animals as well which would have meant
they would have to compensate by evolving better adaptations to the niche and
so on. I assume this is how dolphins and whales evolved - once they had started
to evolve to aquatic conditions they would not have been able to return to the
land and compete as well with other animals and so they became more aquatic.
You can't become a specialist and stay a generalist at the same time. If the
Ns were only exploiting aquatic resources some of the time there would have
been no pressure to evolve adaptations to improve the exploitation of aquatic
resources.
Ref
Stringer, C.B. & Gamble, C. (1993) In Search of the Neanderthals. Thames and
Hudson, London.
Trinkaus, E. & Shipman, P. (1993) The Neandertals: Changing the Image of
Mankind. Alfred A. Knopf Publishing, New York.
Marc Verhaegen
Dan Barnes > "Marc Verhaegen" <Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
Kennedy AJPA. All populations with AEs are shellfish-divers.
>The fact that some Ns
>had AE may be purely due to the fact that they had less effective ways of
>preventing a dunking in cold water i.e. they lacked efficient canoes.
Yes, but swimming alone (not hours but minutes - not every day - not diving)
does not produce ear exostoes.
(Do you think they lacked canoes? Neandertals & later H.erectus
(Bilzingsleben, Schöningen...) had surprising technical levels.)
>
>If the evidence (e.g. your claims for hard and soft body adaptations in
>Ns) suggested that animal was specifically adapted to exploiting one food
>source (e.g. in this case shellfish)
No. Evolution is gradual.
Humans show aquatic adaptations, yet we are not very much aquatic any more.
The neandertals showed somewhat more aquatic adaptations than we.
Marc
Anne Gilbert
<6ie232$gf1$1...@xenon.inbe.net>
Organization: Seattle Community Network
In a previous article, dba...@liv.ac.uk (Dan Barnes) says:
> <EsHn1...@liverpool.ac.uk> <6inu9q$qb9$1...@xenon.inbe.net> <3556A1...@lab.azu.nl> <35571c4a...@news.kijfhoek.nl.net> <Esy57...@liverpool.ac.uk> <6jie92$rvs$1...@xenon.inbe.net>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 13:39:28 GMT
>X-Authenticated-User: dbarnes
>Lines: 115
>
>In article <6jie92$rvs$1...@xenon.inbe.net>, Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be
>says...
>>
>>Dan Barnes
>>
>Apart from the bit about diving (AE is only a sign that they were getting
>immersed in cold water not that they were diving - see other posts) this is,
>generally, what I've said all along. It would be interesting (collagen preservation
>allowing) to do stable isotope analysis on a wider range of Neanderthals (esp.
>any that may be found in contexts suggesting they may have exploited aquatic
>resources) and see what this shows us about N subsistence - this has been
>done for the larger Upper Palaeolithic sample (Hayden et al., 1987) and shows
>that it was only in the later UP that fishing became important - which is when
>spears are found again. This mixed subsistence suggests that Ns can't have
>evolved for an aquatic lifestyle as the evolutionary cost of evolving specific
>adaptations would be a decreased ability to compete well in other ecolgical
>niches.
>
>SNIP old refs
>
>Ref
>
>Hayden, B., Chisholm, B. & Schwarcz, H.P. (1987) Fishing and foraging: Marine
>resources in the Upper Paleolithic of France. In Soffer, O. (ed.) The Pleistocene
>Old World: Regional Perspectives. Plenum Press, New York. 279 - 91.
>
>
I'm going to add something here. Athough Dan has mentioned the shellfish
commented on in "Honor Among Thieves", Stiner, 1996?, I suspect that some
Neandertals actually *did* eat marine or aquatic animals(although not in
great numbers), depending on where they happened to be. Like most
generalists, and the majority of hunter-gatherers, they were probably
opportunistic in their food gathering habits. However, as Dan rightly
points out, marine organisms were probably not a great part of their
diet. Such things as deer, reindeer, ibex, and horses were the majority
of their food supply, along with plant foods, when available. This
doesn't suggest aquatic organisms to me.
Anne Gilbert
--
Anne Gilbert
keb...@scn.org, avgi...@hotmail.com
Visit my website at http://members.tripod.com/~kebara and read about my
Great Science Fiction Masterpiece
Dwight E. Howell
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
>
> (Do you think they lacked canoes? Neandertals & later H.erectus
> (Bilzingsleben, Schöningen...) had surprising technical levels.)
Making a dugout is a very labor intensive task. All known peoples who do
this have some rather special tools to help them none of which have been
reported from NS.
This doesn't mean that they didn't ride logs or make rafts by tying logs
together but there is every reason to doubt dugouts. They might have
made bull boats. A light wooden frame covered by a large hide though
most of these require the careful sowing of hides together and NS tools
for sowing were a bit crude for this. They may have inflated the hide of
a carefully skinned animal to use as a float. Sowing wasn't needed for
this except maybe at the rectum.
Ed031639
Gentlemen/Ladies!
As an engineer I've watched this thread with a great deal of amusement! While
Aquatic Apes "may" have existed, not 1 shred of evidence has been offered to
prove the existance of this ape or humanoid! Having watched the arguments, I'd
say "Name an animal and I'll present arguments as convincing as any you've
produced, on Aquatic Apes, to indicate that it evolved in an Aquatic
environment"! Do I buy the Savanah hypothesis? No, but it is as good as the
Aquatic Ape theory! I've got some ideas of my own, but I'll not advance them
until someone "digs up" a bit of supporting evidence!
If I'd advanced the "Aquatic Ape" theory, I'd be digging up every dry lake bed
in Africa and half of Asia!
Ed in Texas
Anne Gilbert
In a previous article, dba...@liv.ac.uk (Dan Barnes) says:
> <EsHn1...@liverpool.ac.uk> <6inu9q$qb9$1...@xenon.inbe.net> <3556A1...@lab.azu.nl> <35571c4a...@news.kijfhoek.nl.net> <Esy57...@liverpool.ac.uk> <6jie92$rvs$1...@xenon.inbe.net>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 15:23:22 GMT
>X-Authenticated-User: dbarnes
>Lines: 110
>
>In article <6jq0qs$55m$1...@xenon.inbe.net>,
> "Marc Verhaegen" <Marc.Ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote:
>>
>My point being that he could have easily been mistaken by flints in the soil
>which hadn't been put there for a purpose (they could have been in the layer
>the N was buried into or been part of the backfill of the grave). My
>interpretation closely resembles the nose of the La Chapelle-Aux-Saints
>reconstruction Neanderthal commisioned by Boule and published in the same
>year as Hauser's paper (the Ns were also both found in the year before) -
>reproduced in Stringer and Gamble (1993) and Trinkaus and Shipman (1993).
>The nostrils are more horizontal (front to back) than modern nostrils (top to
>bottom) - the current thinking at the time was that these were ape-men and
>this is what Hauser thought he had found. You can't divorce the findings from the
>cultural framework they were originally interpretted in.
>>
I saw the picture commissioned by Boule after he had examined the La
Chapelle aux Saintes fossil. As Dan has noted, it is in *both* "The
Neandertals", and in "In Search of the Neanderthals". But I sure didn't
notice the "apish" nose. Assuming Dan is correct, Boule and his
contemporaries had even odder ideas than I thought they did. I'll have
to check the picture again tonight and see for myself.