Some time ago, April Nowell sent a
message
to my e-mail, by accident, thinking it belonged to someone else. In it
she mentioned her paper given at The Archaeology of Sound conference
in Germany in the Fall of 2000 given by the Music Archeology Group. She
wrote:
"I also presented a paper with Philip
Chase at the Music conference outside of Berlin and not only did our research
support Dr. d'Errico's taphonomic analysis but we showed quite clearly
why the holes do not correspond to a diatonic scale. It is basic biology
and basic music theory/math."
In that paper, authored by her and Philip Chase, as I later learned,
she & Chase spent about half the paper attempting to refute my
arguments regarding the Neanderthal flute being consistent with notes of
the do, re, mi scale.
I wrote back to Nowell, letting her know she reached me by mistake,
but that I would very much like to see her paper's latest arguments against
my view.
I was never afforded the courtesy of a reply to that. Nowell doesn't
appear to want me to see her paper -- but I expected it will be published
some time soon in the proceedings of last year's conference. However, I
searched the Internet hoping to find something about her paper or similar
views if not something about the paper itself.
I found a number of results, including an article, called "California
Wild" in the Summer, 1998 journal Horizons in which
she made a similar argument as she made earlier to other media in 1998
that the bone was too short to support "all" the notes of the
do, re, mi scale (one of her first of many inaccuracies in characterizing
what my views were).
In the Horizons interview, the writer reported that
"Nowell
and Chase teamed with a more musically inclined colleague to show that
the bear bone would need to be twice its natural total length to conform
to a diatonic scale." The writer also quoted her thus: 'This
is a gnawed bone,' " said archaeologist April Nowell at a recent
meeting of the Paleoanthropology Society. "'There's no evidence
to suggest that it's a flute.' "
Really! -- "No evidence" to suggest that??
Finally after a long, long search, I actually found the Chase/Nowell
paper itself around March or April at http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~pchase/.
(In the event this page eventually
becomes
no longer available, please see relevant excerpt at the bottom
of this article.)
One should be careful when quoting others' views, to read material
carefully, and give credit and attempt to be accurate, without exaggerations,
if one is to be scholarly. I feel Nowell & Chase have been at best
sloppy in their arguments and quotes, failing to give credit for statements,
views and images, and I can only wonder if it goes beyond sloppy to being
deliberate.
In the paper, titled: Is a cave bear bone from Divje Babe, Slovenia
a Neanderthal flute? half of it was entitled: "The Divje
Babe specimen and the diatonic scale," directed at what they think
are my views.
As they did before, Nowell & Chase in this paper again challenged
the view I proposed in my essay on the Neanderthal Flute. They wrote that
the specimen bone was too short or would need an extension to play its
notes in tune with any diatonic series of tones. They also provided
an image to illustrate their point about an extension.
This image, shown below, is compared to another image that I had in
my original 1997 essay on the Neanderthal Flute, well before Nowell
and Chase entered debate on this issue.
It's clear that my image was adapted from my essay by Chase & Nowell
for their own purposes [without any mention of the source].
However, even this adaptation is less accurately complete than it is
convenient for their point of view, as they seem to be proposing the length
required only to play "Match 2 " in my essay, namely (using the
key of C), Eb, F, G, Ab, in a minor C-scale.
However, I also proposed a "Match #l," almost as good a match,
but for the notes C D E F (or do-re-mi-fa), in a major scale. The bone-lengths
Nowell and Chase would have to depict in the graphic, to play this match
in tune, could be significantly shorter (although still requiring an extension
to the flute) than the lengths they illustrate.
Nowell & Chase have accepted the bone-length offered by Turk.
But
an extension may not have even have been necessary at all: See the views
of several paleontologists below,
all
agreeing the bone could have been much longer.
In general, it appears my views were misrepresented.
Nowell & Chase saw my image, which proposed a visual match of
spacings
on the bone to a diatonic series of notes. The length of my flute image
(shown) implies my awareness of the length needed to play these tones
in tune. But forget implications. I also wrote, in the 1997-1998 Internet
publication of my essay that an extension might be needed:
"How long was the original flute? 37
centimeters (+1 /-5cm) -- is our present estimate based on empirical measurements
of commercial flute-lengths and interpolating these to the bone segment,
which may have been extended to reach the required
length...."
"NOTE: We have no idea, however,
how
long a mouthpiece would have been. It could have been any significant length
--especially if the femur was too short to support lower, richer tones."
(This latter quote also is in the original hardcopy edition
that went to major libraries throughout 1997 and early 1998, prior to
any of Chase & Nowell's articles. ) It looks like they didn't
even seriously read my essay, which also had an "UPDATE"at the bottom of the page that clearly admitted the bone may have been
too short.
Nowell & Chase therefore knew (or should have known) that
I realized the flute had to be extended for the notes to be playable in
tune. I even calculated the lengths in the first paragraphs of
my essay (quoted above) which, I guess, they took to be bone length rather
than extension length.
Nevertheless, they again calculated extension lengths that would be
required, which came out to be virtually the same as those I earlier calculated
in my original essay, but they wrote this up leaving the reader to easily
(and incorrectly) conclude I had little awareness that the flute even needed
to be longer -- even though I earlier calculated the same approximate
lengths!
The impression left then, in attempting to refute my view, is that
it was "they" who had first figured out the flute had to be longer
or extended (two or three times longer, they stressed in their
calculations).
Therefore, Nowell & Chase imply that these calculations and ideas
were newly developed by them, and it implies that I didn't know these facts,
or that I had proposed that a short flute could play those hole-tones in
tune, or that in general, they implied I had no idea of the "mistake"
I had made (dummy that I am -- uh duh).
At least, whenever the required length including the idea of an
"extension"
was mentioned, they never accurately attributed to me any prior awareness
of these ideas about needed length.
If they HAD acknowledged that the calculations had already been made
by me; and that the idea that the flute had to be longer (either a longer
bone, or extended with an added mouthpiece) already had been proposed in
my original 1997 essay, then the whole impact of their "refutation"
case against me seems to vanish, and one wonders what would have remained
of the whole point in their paper on the scale, other than to try to portray
me as incompetent.
All they finally wrote about was the "news" that an extension
would be needed, but that there was "no evidence" an extension
was used. While that lack of evidence is only true regarding taphonomy
(an inexact science at ranges of 5o,ooo years ago), this is yet
another fact I earlier recognized (see my quote above, and which
Chase and Nowell also failed to acknowledge was in my essay). Indeed, I
readily labeled it an "assumption," and that nothing was
"proven."
The grounds I gave to justify making the assumption was that it perfectly
and simply explains the holes-spacings that were "consistent"with
spacings on a diatonic flute, and it would be more comfortable to blow.
Flutes made in sections, or extended, or with added mouthpieces, are not
uncommon in the evolution of flutedom.
Without that assumption, the holes would remain a very coincidental
mystery -- and extreme coincidence is not a scientific explanation
of anything when a simple assumption can avoid it. No Occam's Razor
there! [See calculations of the odds
against
chance producing such a flute-like bone.]
Which assumption would you rather believe? That a flute could have
been extended by another bone or mouthpiece -- or that a one-in-millions
event served to bring into being, by sheer accident, a nearly complete
diatonic flute with 4-holes neatly lined-up, spaced diatonically, on a
hollow femur, with virtually round holes, equal diameters -- the size of
finger-tips...?
This is what Nowell says is "NO evidence to suggest a flute"??
What an extreme and unbelievable statement. At the end of her paper below,
perhaps being more moderate in her view there than she was with the media,
she wrote: "At this point, it is in fact
impossible disprove either hypothesis" (about
whether it was a flute or not).
In accepting d'Errico's comparison to
individual
holes in other bones found only where animals existed, both d'Errico and
Nowell & Chase have focussed in on the holes, but not on the whole;
they see the holes, but not the line-up or a scale; like seeing the trees,
but not the forest.
(For more detail on matters of taphonomy, & Ivan Turk's views,
see Chewchip)
When Nowell & Chase wrote about the length of the bone, they further
mentioned absolutely nothing of my earlier quoted material in which the
views of several paleontologists indicated the original complete juvenile
cave-bear femur bone could itself have been much longer, or even long enough
(without an added extension) to accommodate the holes being able to play
"in tune" a diatonic series of tones, and even long enough to
add more holes. These quotes were also published as a possibility of length
of the bone in April, 1997 both in library hardcopies and on the Internet
-- prior to Chase and Nowell writing anything.
Quotes
on Length of the Bone
From: Boylan P., P.Boylan@city.ac.uk "Since [my letter]
of 11 March, I managed to work on quite a few immature cave bear bones
in the collections of the Zarodny (National) Museum in Prague and there's
no problem about getting your required length [37cm) so far as I can see
from various bones from the same region."
From: treasure@CTCnet.Net Organization: Treasures of The Earth Ltd.
"Thanks for the clarification [I had provided Jay the
width dimension). Yes, a juvenile bear femur could be 37cm or
longer."
--Jay (Treasures of The Earth Ltd. )
From: Wm Nolen Reeder, wreeder@Traveller.COM
"According
to both our mammal curator and our director, the femur of a black bear
cub (less than two years old) would easily be long enough. A two year old
cub is about two thirds grown but still remains with the mother so therefore
is still considered a cub." --Wm Reeder, Birmingham Zoo
Webmaster.
The attempt to diagram a completed femur by Turk was done using a Brown
(or Black) Bear cub femur, rather than an actual cave bear cub's femur
(although both bears are certainly similar). Two of the opinions above
are based on actual juvenile cave bear femurs -- that is, after being given
the minimum across-width of the found Neanderthal bone, the paleontologists'
opinions say the length -- based on the ratio of width-to-length in their
experience with cave-bears -- could be long enough, thus being able to
play the four holes in tune (without an extension/mouthpiece being added).
It could even provide room for additional holes.
In the Turk diagram, the suggested completion of the black bear bone
shows a width slightly larger than the width of the found bone. Placing
it up close to the found bone does create the "short" length
Turk's people suggest for the femur, but it also prevents a smooth line
being drawn to connect the two widths together. There is an abruptness
there. This could be a drawing error, but is likely not. (In addition,
there are two Turk chapters in which a diagram of a completed flute is
made, each slightly different in length using a Brown Bear juvenile femur.
I don't know what to make of these differences, if anything).
Therefore, that completed end could be pulled much further away
from the found bone, and still have its width connected to the found bone
with a smoothly curved line, still appropriate to the kind of curve that
nature usually imparts to femurs. How much further may never be knowable.
But it could allow a playing of the flute being well in tune, without my
assumption of an extension, and even allow a complete scale.
But even if all this is rejected or wrong, nevertheless, with the
assumption of an extension more comfortable to fit the mouth, it remains
true that the 4 hole scale in the bone could be played relatively in tune
-- or as I originally concluded -- "consistent with" a series
of the first 4 tones from a common diatonic scale.
I do not believe, although no actual experiment has been done to my
knowledge, that these tones would be appreciably different in pitch, within
even a fraction of a half-tone, due to the minor non-cylindrical aspects
of the actual bone. Such an experiment with an actual replica of the bone
should be done, but Turk has not seemed interested in that. His own experiments
have provided musical tones that were useable to play modern tunes (see
Origins of Music, MIT Press, 2000), but his only interest and focus
was simply to prove that musical sounds of any kind could be elicited from
the bone, and for this, he used its broken length only. No attempt to reconstruct
a full length femur flute to play sounds -- even a short one -- was made.
Regarding the spacing of the 4 holes: That is indisputable to anyone
who is not literally myopic -- a look at any any simple Irish flute, or
other historical flute able to play the diatonic, will exhibit exactly
the same unique 4-hole spacing within its several scale holes, a spacing
that is not equidistant, and hardly imitable by nature.
{Note: Most of the figures
& images
cited below are missing in the original Nowell webpage
and captions appear
mislabelled in
some cases.
Annotations by myself are
shown in
brown italics
-- B.F.}
It has been suggested on the World Wide Web
by
Bob Fink that the Divje Babe specimen was tuned to a diatonic scale. This
suggestion has not been published in the traditional academic sense, but
it has made its way into the secondary literature [Wolpoff 1999, 700].
Fink bases his interpretation on the spacing of the holes. The distance
between the "partial hole" at the proximal end and the nearest
complete hole is approximately one-half the distance between the two complete
holes: 18 mm versus 35 mm.[Turk et al. 1997b, 161] On a flute, the
distance between the holes representing a semitone is - at least schematically
- about one half the distance representing a whole tone. Thus Fink's observation
is suggestive.
In fact, however, the spacing of the holes on
the Divje Babe specimen cannot be related to the whole and half tones of
a diatonic scale for the simple reason that the spacing between them is
far too great relative to the maximum possible length of a flute made from
a cave bear femur of this size. [This
fact
dominates the bulk of the material and diagrams placed in my original Essay,
which is still on the net and in libraries in unchanged format. Why not
report that my essay already established this fact? The implication here
is that my scholarship omitted this calculation.]
If we ignore certain complicating factors (see
below), then the theoretical locations of finger holes in a flute tuned
to a diatonic scale are simple to calculate. The distance between the mouthpiece
and the nearest hole is 1/2 the acoustic length of the flute. From that
point on, a note a whole tone lower can be obtained by making a hole 9/8
of the distance from the mouthpiece to the most distant hole already drilled.
A note one semitone lower can be obtained by making a hole 256/243 of the
distance from the mouthpiece to the most distant hole already
drilled.
In this way, it is possible to calculate, for
a flute of any given length, the maximum distance between holes representing
a whole tone; and it is then easy to calculate this as a fraction of the
whole length of the flute. [Again, this
is not news -- my original essay, prior to any work done by Nowell, already
came up with this whole length estimate. A range of length was offered
to account for tolerance of the ear as to what is 'in tune' and for other
factors, such as wall thickness, flare, hole and bore sizes. However, only
one estimate of length was given, not several, as claimed by
Nowell.]
If we do this for a major scale, we see that
the maximum distance between holes, expressed as a fraction of the total
length of the flute, is 0.099 (figure 5 missing). The distance between
the two complete holes of the Divje Babe specimen is 0.308 of the total
length of the specimen (35 ÷ 113.6).[Turk et al 1997b, 161]
In other words, this distance (0.308 of total length) is approximately
three times too large to produce a whole tone.
[See the comparison images reproduced
above
which includes Nowell version of flute length]
The distance from the last hole (re) on a
open-ended
flute to the end of the flute (do) is actually slightly larger (0.111 of
total length) than is the distance from re to mi in the major scale. However,
since the bone extends beyond the two "partial holes" at both
ends of the Divje Babe specimen, it is clear that neither represents 'do'
[of the scale].
In any case, 0.111 is still much less than 0.308.
Fink raises the possibility that the flute was
actually tuned to a minor rather than a major scale. However, the maximum
distance representing a whole tone on a minor scale is never greater than
that of a major scale. [Red herring --
No claim was made in my Essay that a "minor" whole tone is different
from a major -- so why raise it? This implies that I did say this, and
therefore makes me appear as an ignoramous. Further, the possibility of
it matching part of a minor scale had nothing to do with defending it was
a flute, as this issue -- that it wasn't a flute -- hadn't even been raised
at the time of the writing of my essay.]
With either scale, the Divje Babe specimen is
much too short to represent a complete flute tuned to a diatonic scale.
[Only at the end of Nowell's paper
does
she admit an extension would have made it possible to play it in tune --
a point I raised much earlier (March-April, 1997) which Nowell does not
report that I already raised in the initial publication of my essay --
as an assumption needed regarding length of the complete flute, and the
playing of the holes in tune.]
In order for a spacing of 35 mm between holes
to represent a whole tone, the flute would have to be 353.5 mm long. (Fink
provides different estimates of total length, ranging from 360 to 415 cm,
depending on different matches between the holes on the bone and specific
the notes of the scale.) [As said,
nowhere
do I give different estimates of length. Further, the range I suggest was
not for such reasons as Nowell describes. I can only assume a misreading
by Nowell of the essay, or even a non-reading of whole sections the
essay.]
Now it is clear that a considerable part of the original bone is missing
in the Divje Babe specimen (figure 6a). However, most of the missing portion
of the bone would not have been useable for a flute.
As was noted above, long bones consist of
spongy
tissue at the ends, and of a shaft containing the marrow cavity. The spongy
tissue is covered by only a very thin membrane of bone, while the shaft
has thicker walls of dense bone. The only part of the long bone that is
suitable for making a flute, therefore, is that part of the shaft that
is surrounded by dense bone. This varies according to the bone, the species,
and the age of the individual (figure 7).
If we estimate that the useable part of the
original
Divje Babe femur was actually 25% longer than the existing specimen, we
get a potential length of 142 mm. The 35 mm between the two holes represents
0.246 of this presumed length, still more than double the maximum for a
whole tone.
Fink mentions the pentatonic scale, although
he does not actually suggest that the Divje Babe specimen was tuned to
this scale. However, pentatonic scales include larger intervals (1½
tones) than does the full 7-note diatonic scale. The largest inter-hole
gap for such an interval is in the minor pentatonic scale (figure 5), and
represents 0.133 of the total length of the flute. This also occurs next
to a gap approximately one-half that size (0.063). Nevertheless, this is
still far smaller than the gap between the holes on the Divje Babe
specimen.
In short, it is quite clear that it would have
been impossible to make a flute from the femur of which the Divje Babe
specimen is a portion that would have been long enough so that the space
between the existing holes would represent a whole tone - or even a whole
tone plus a semi-tone. In order to construct such a flute, it would have
been necessary to add extensions to both ends of the flute (figure 6b).
There is no evidence that this was done, and it is hard to conceive of
any reason that anyone would construct a flute by adding tubes to a fragment
of bear femur. [Not so: Reasons,
including
a more comfortable sized mouthpiece, were already given, especially in
the discussion webpages following my essay.]
By far and away the most parsimonious explanation is that, if the Divje
Babe specimen is a flute, it was never intended to produce a diatonic
scale.
As noted above, a large number of
complicating
factors have been left out of the above discussion. Most notably, the acoustic
length of a flute is greater than its physical length by an amount that
depends on the diameter and form (cylindrical, conical) of the
bore,
[this fact was clearly noted in my essay]
and the exact locations of finger holes depends in part on the diameter
of the finger holes and their depths (i.e., the thickness of the flute
wall).[Nederveen 1969] However, these effects would not be large enough
to affect the conclusions drawn above. Fink, in fact, argues that such
variables have minimal effect on tuning. Nevertheless, given that the bore
shape, bore diameter, and wall thickness of most mammalian long bones are
both very uneven over the length of one bone and very variable from one
bone to another, it seems that such irregularities would undoubtedly made
it very difficult to decide, a priori, where to make holes in order, to
tune such a flute to a particular scale.
It is much more likely, if the Divje Babe
specimen
is indeed a flute, that either it was not played to any specific scale,
or else that the use of finger holes was combined with other methods of
altering pitch [Kunej 1997] in order to produce the desired results. In
any case, the physical dimensions of this specimen provide no evidence
for the use of either a diatonic or pentatonic scale.
It is important to note that we are not arguing
that the Divje Babe specimen is not a flute simply because it does not
conform to either a diatonic or pentatonic scale. We are arguing, however,
that one cannot use the spacing of the holes to claim that they conform
to such a scale and then use this argument to support the hypothesis that
this object is a flute. [This logic
appears
to be grossly false, perhaps due to a tendency of the field to ignore or
trivialize any corollary work in other fields, e.g., musicology, statistics.
For example, if the bone had a slit that could serve as a mouthpiece, should
that also be ignored??] More to the
point,
the Divje Babe specimen, even if it is in fact a flute, does not document
the use of a diatonic or pentatonic scale 43,000 years ago.
Conclusion
The specimen from Divje Babe is, to say the
least,
an intriguing and potentially very important object. If it is a flute,
it would document the existence of music at about 43,000 years ago. Because
this probably predates the arrival of anatomically modern Homo sapiens
in Europe, it would also document the making of music by Neanderthals.
If Fink's interpretation were correct, it would also document the use of
a diatonic scale at this early date.
While a difference of opinion is possible
concerning
the status of the Divje Babe specimen as a flute, in our opinion the evidence
against the Divje Babe specimen as evidence for the existence of a diatonic
scale 43,000 years ago is conclusive. Given the dimensional requirements
of a flute tuned to a diatonic scale, there is simply no way that the spacing
of the holes on this specimen reflects the existence of adjacent whole-
and semi-tones, and there are therefore no grounds for inferring tuning
to a diatonic scale.
Nevertheless, there are a number of things
about
this bone that make it appear that it was in fact a deliberately manufactured
flute. On the other hand, there are also things about it that indicate
it is simply the product of natural processes. There is little dispute
about the observations that have been made on the specimen itself. There
are, however, disagreements about the interpretation of these observations.
At this point, it is in fact impossible disprove either hypothesis. Which
hypothesis one accepts, then, depends on one's assessment of their relative
probability, as well as one's assessment of the level of confidence necessary
if one is to document the origins of music. It should be clear from the
brief discussion above, as well as an earlier more detailed and technical
analysis, [Chase/Nowell 1998] that we feel the taphonomic explanation is
the more probable one. We also feel that documenting the early date of
a major development in human behavior demands of the evidence a rather
high degree of certainty.
Others will certainly disagree with our
assessment.
Moreover, new analyses and experiments will provide more information about
this specimen. [Turk et al. n.d.] The major point we wish to make
here, however, is that in cases such as this, human workmanship cannot
be assumed lightly on the basis of appearance alone. It is essential to
investigate alternative, taphonomic hypotheses. Only after doing so is
one able to accept or reject an artifact as evidence for the existence
of a phenomenon such as music.
REPLY
TO D'ERRICO'S SEPT, 2000 (publ. 2003) PAPERS
AT THE
ARCHAEOLOGY OF
SOUND CONFERENCE
AND
FURTHER REPLY TO
NOWELL, ET AL,
ON THE
LINE-UP OF THE
HOLES
By Bob Fink,
updated July,
2003
PREFACE:
Before going into my reply, I would like to quote from Nowell &
Chase from "The Divje Babe specimen and the diatonic scale" in
Studies in Music Archaeology III, p.74:
"At this point, it is in fact impossible
disprove either hypothesis (about whether it was a flute or not). Which
hypothesis one accepts, then, depends on one's assessment of their relative
probability...." [Note the word "probability."]
And this similar quote from "Current Anthropology,"
p.552 Vol. 39, #4, August - October, 1998:
"We agree with Turk...that it is
logically
not possible to exclude either a human or a natural explanation for the
specimen from Divje Babe."
We also need to be reminded of the following, from the same source:
Holes in the specimen "were almost
certainly
made sequentially rather than simultaneously and that the distance between
them has nothing to do with the distance between any two teeth in a wolf's
jaw."
In his paper published in February 2003 [Studies In Music Archaeology
III], Francesco d'Errico again took up the issue of whether the Neanderthal
flute was a flute or just a bone.
The issue of explaining its holes being lined up is again ignored by
d'Errico, or if he has ever actually written or said anything about it
elsewhere, he is reported totally dismissing the line-up of the 4 holes
along the central axis of the bone line-up as evidence of it being the
result of intelligence (as did Nowell & Chase).
The line up of 4 circular holes -- on any object, especially a cylindrical
one -- is usually prima facia evidence of intelligence at work.
NOTE! It is "evidence." I didn't write: "proof." After
all, a line-up in a straight line of the 4 holes is "possible"
to occur by chance.
Just as in the case of a Las Vegas "one-armed bandit," so
too, in the case of this Divje Babe bone, the line-up could occur by blind,
dumb chance. Namely: Once in about 10,000 or more trials, or once in 10,000
instances of finding a four-hole femur. (See odds
)," or my article in the "Studies in Music Archaeology
III," p.83).
That rareness means that the line-up of the holes in the bone is
"likely"
to have been deliberate -- note again, I write the word "likely,"
not "proof" -- because on the bone, it happened in one initial
find without the benefit of many hundreds or thousands of other prehistoric
4-holed bones being found to allow the event to unfold under normal chance
expectations [as happens in a gambling casino]. I recall a report
that fewer than 30 similar multiple-hole bones exist.
Additionally, if you also look at the spacing between the holes and
see that it also matches the spacing of a do-re-mi-fa scale spacings on
a flute -- the odds of that happening by chance (on that size bone) are
only once in 640 cases, as was calculated in my 1997 Neanderthal Bone essay's
Appendix. See: [Appendix]
NOTE:
If the hole spacing had matched a spacing
between the teeth of any carnivore, that would have quite loudly
been considered evidence of a carnivore origin to the bone!
Therefore, why wouldn't the spacing of the
holes
being a match to a very unique spacing within a world-wide historic musical
scale (the "diatonic" scale) -- from among hundreds of otherwise
meaningless spacing possibilities -- also be considered evidence
(of intelligent origin), rather than be totally
dismissed?
Now we must ask: What are the chances the holes could line up AND be
spaced diatonically? That is, take a simple cylinder about the size of
the Divje Babe bone and simply calculate: "How many different ways
can 4 holes be spaced on it (whether lined-up & "diatonic"
or not) without repeating any arrangement?"
To answer, we have to multiply the odds of the two events, the axial
line-up and the horizontal spacing -- which tells us that the chances of
random chewing, one hole at a time, being what makes the match without
intelligent help, are only about one chance in 7 million. (Again, see odds
.)
This calculation -- again -- is evidence that the "look"
of the holes on that bone is designed by intelligence, not by chance.
This tends to overwhelm all the taphonomic evidence, especially
d'Errico & Nowell's et al weak evidence about which many experts
disagree.
And again, this is only "evidence" -- not "proof"
-- because, after all, it could happen by chance, once, provided
we sorted through enough millions of 4-hole bones that did not line up
nor match a musical scale's spacing.
Now readers should consider the terminology: "relative
probability,"
used by Nowell & Chase, prefaced above.
D'Errico's reasoning appears to be thus: Since there IS a real 1- in-
a- 7 million chance for it to happen without input from a designing brain,
therefore, he thinks it's "probable" that in fact it did happen
by chance, rather than by design -- and that the look of it being like
a flute is "simply coincidence."
This is reasoning that seems to say that what is "possible"
[no matter how small the possibility] is also "probable"!!!
-- There is a big difference between "possible" and
"probable"
in simple mathematical statistics. Maybe we need a trip back to statistics
classes!
I don't call that "reasoning." I call that an outright dismissal
of pertinent evidence staring d'Errico et al in their faces,
or if they have in fact said nothing at all to explain the line-up in any
document or speech anywhere else, then it marks a refusal to look at
real evidence of intelligence behind the making of the holes,implying
the line-up needs no explanation.
But I'm mindful of more: What are the additional odds that the holes
(again by "chance") would be separately bitten [one at a time,
as all agree -- see preface quote above], and be of similar diameters (AND
all circular rather than a tooth-like oval)? The answer is to calculate
the many thousands of ways the holes could benon-circular
and of apparently different diameters (or from different animal
teeth). We then must again multiply those results -- which could be hundreds,
or thousands, of possibilities -- by the 7 million we already have, and
we'll get a one-out-of-billions for the chance the bone could have
been randomly-bitten to becoming a "flute look-alike."
Let's do go even further! Even if they were similar diameters, what
are the chances that accident would have made them similar to human finger-tip
size? Calculate that, and multiply again.
Still further onward!! What are the chances all this would happen also
on the very type of hollow, long, cylindrical bone usually used
for making flutes (femurs)? And also in the proper ratio of hole
diameter-to-bone diameter that is found in most flutes? Calculate that,
and multiply yet again. We are now approaching an event whose odds for
happening by chance may be smaller than one in trillions!
But we are asked, quite nonchalantly, to accept that it did happen
so, by coincidence, and we're asked to dismiss that being evidence,
and believe it is likely of no consequence of intelligence.
D'Errico is not known as doubting the capacity of Neanderthals to make
a flute. But the controversy surrounding Neanderthals is such that there
may be reluctance to pronounce on artifacts unless the proof is virtually
absolute (which rarely occurs in any event). Many others have pointed out
that if the bone had been found at a homo sapiens site, it would long
ago have been classified as a flute.
Such opinions are held by Marcel Otte, Bjorn Merker (an editor of the
recent 2000 Massachusetts Institute of technology book of essays "Origin
of Music"), Prof. Bonnie Blackwell, and many other scholars, including
archaeologists, musicologists, paleontologists, etc.
Dealing with the taphonomy, we note the holes were claimed as having
bite marks around them; and that the holes being circular were explained
by Nowell & Chase as having originally been oval, then weathered by
erosion into a rounder shape -- but we ask: Is this not a self-destructing
argument? If the erosion could render them circular, then so
could the erosion erase both teeth marks as well as tool marks,
leaving marks that could only be ambiguous at best after
so many thousands of years.
Again, I also refer the reader to Ivan Turk et al taphonomic
analysis provided in summary in my article, Chewchip
The Divje Babe bone is likely (using the word "likely"
properly)
the world's oldest known musical instrument and especially the earliest
known diatonic-like sequence of hole spacings, which could have been
sounded with a mouthpiece extension, especially if the bone was longer
than presumed, as the opinions quoted by several museaum paleontologists
indicated.
[Click on footnote
numbers to read
the footnote. Click "back" to return to place in
text.]
A. G. wrote:
"To All: (but especially Bob):
"I have read the d'Errico piece (again, this is especially
for Bob), and he [footnotes] Bob's Neanderthal Flute article. I guess under
the circumstances, that's progress."
Reply (Bob Fink):
I have that article (from the Journal of World Prehistory, Vol.
17, No. 1, March 2003) on my hard drive -- it is also a paraphrased copy
of an article that appeared by d'Errico and others in the Studies in
Music Archaeology III conference proceedings, 2003) (See end of Notes,
below for citation.)
Apparently d'Errico et al are fighting to preserve his analysis
about the Divje Babe bone (Neanderthal Flute) with repetitive publishings,
but in doing so, he et al, further reveal their mistakes. The authorship
here looks to me now even like downright fibbing, and cracks in d'Errico's
(and April Nowell's) integrity (or competence & consistency) seem to
be showing up. Take your choice which.
To wit: D'Errico et al, wrote this:
"It has been demonstrated (d'Errico
et
al., 1998a,b) * that holes of the same size, shape, and number as
those present on the Divje Babe femur occur*on cave bear limb bones
from cave bear bone accumulations with no human occupation, and that a
number of features described as human-made by the discoverers should more
LIKELY be interpreted as the result of carnivore damage."
[
I have added the * and caps for emphasis in the quote.]
Any ordinary student or other person reading that section could easily
assume from this passage that there were other [non-human-made]
bones found in d'Errico's chosen site that looked similar to the Divje
Babe flute as a whole.
Ah yes! That's the beauty of language -- that it can strongly IMPLY
what isn't even remotely true, without resorting to bald-faced
fibbing!!
The truth is, NONE of the bones d'Errico found there looked anything
like the N-flute.1
Only individual holes or marks were matchable, on occasion,
to these bones when compared to the Divje Babe bone's holes and marks.
But even Ivan Turk, who found the bone and still believes it is a flute,
readily admitted that.
An author with scientific competency or integrity would have added
a phrase like this in the d'Errico article: "...although NOT
ONE of the bones we found at our site had 3 or more of its holes 'lined-up'
in the same way as Divje Babe."
But d'Errico didn't add that important observation. He didn't
do it despite all the 'baiting' provocations of him (and Nowell) that I
have relentlessly done regarding them refusing to even mention the
"line-up" -- a phrase and fact too scary and obscene for their
mouths to dirty-up by actually uttering it, not to mention putting it in
writing. [I guess they're afraid if they do, they'll all turn into
salt.]
They still refuse to mention it even in this latest of their
articles. Guess why? It's because it means that their notion of "likely"
becomes suspect once they call attention to the (dare I again write the
dreaded phrase?) -- "line-up" -- that exists.
Their conclusions about what is "likely" will die a quick
death in the minds of impartial and intelligent readers once the line-up
is scrutinized regarding how "likely" it is that 4 (or
even 3) holes could line-up from the chance-biting by carnivores -- not
to mention that the holes also match the unique spacing 2
of do-re-mi-fa flute holes.
This had to happen one hole at a time, as all agree, because
no two hole's pattern match any carnivore's tooth-span.3
You can bet if the hole spacings matched
the
tooth-span of any carnivore, they'd have made you notice that taphonomic
feature in spades!! As if you were hit with their shovel. But
NOT mentioned is when the measured spacings are both in-line and
match a known worldwide scale's unique spacings -- which is just
as much a taphonomic piece of evidence as any match to a known
carnivore's tooth spans would be!
For her part, Nowell's lack of consistency or integrity exposes itself
when she agrees to be a co-author of the article after arguing in her own
earlier paper why the holes appear relatively "round." (Roundness
is not a feature of any carnivore teeth able to bite through thick bone).
She argued: It's due to long erosion, which rounded out the ovalness.
D'Errico's pictures and references in the article (shown below) to
teeth marks and scratches are things that would also have eroded
away if she's right. Does she join d'Errico in the current article by writing
she was wrong to suggest erosion as an explanation for roundness?
If these marks came later, then they mean nothing for d'Errico's case.
If they didn't come later, and were not eroded away, they still aren't
very strong proof of anything about the holes (as bones are known to be
chewed on after they were made into artifacts),4
but then, how do they now explain the rounding of the holes? ...Silence.
Why wouldn't Nowell bring up this problem of consistency in the signing
of this new article?
Guesses, anyone??
More on Nowell's consistency, competence and integrity at the top
of this article.
Here is what Turk wrote:
"The probability that an undetermined carnivore [or carnivores]
pierced a bone several times and gave it the coincidental form of a flute
without fragmenting it into pieces 5 is very
small.
"If this probability were greater [and of course it isn't],
it is likely that there would have been more such finds, since there were
at least as many beasts of prey in the middle Paleolithic as people. In
addition, such carnivores in cave dens were at least as active on bones,
if not more so, than people in cave dwellings...."
Without attempting a measure, Turk and Kunej's general judgement is:
"...it is highly probable that the pierced bone from Divje babe
I site is the product of human hands ...; this is a *great deal more probable*
than that it was heavily chewed." Turk & Kunej, in Wallin,
N. L./Merker, B./Brown, S. (eds.): The Origins of Music. MIT Press, Cambridge,
London, 235-268 [Emph. added.]
But here is a rough order of magnitude for this: Just as in
the case of a Las Vegas "one-armed bandit," so too, in the case
of this Divje Babe bone, the line-up of 4 holes could occur by blind,
dumb chance. Namely: Once in about 10,000 6
or more trials, or once in 10,000 instances of finding a four-hole femur.
Additionally, if you also look at the spacing between the holes and
see that it also matches the unique spacing of the scale holes on a do-re-mi-fa
flute -- the odds of that happening by chance (on that size bone) are only
once in 640 cases, as was calculated in my 1997 Neanderthal Bone essay's
"Appendix." See Fink, The Neanderthal Flute, or
see: [http://www.greenwych.ca/fl-compl.htm#(See
]
When we multiply the odds of the two events, both the axial line-up
and the horizontal spacing -- that tells us that the chances of random
chewing, one hole at a time, being what makes the match without
intelligent
help, are only about one chance in 7 million!
More: What are the additional chances all this would
happen, with approximately equal diameters of all 4 holes, also
fitting finger sizes, and also on the very type of hollow, long, cylindrical
bone usually used for making flutes (i.e., femurs)? And also in a proper
ratio of hole-to-bone diameter that is found in most flutes?
Calculate all that, and multiply yet again. We are now approaching
an event whose odds for happening by chance may be smaller than one in
trillions!
But we are asked, quite nonchalantly, to accept that it did happen
so by coincidence, and what leaves one speechless and gaping, d'Errico
et al add that this is "likely" or
"probable"!!7
Using the word "likely" properly, Divje Babe is likely
the world's oldest known musical instrument, and especially, the earliest
known diatonic-like sequence of hole spacings, which could have been sounded
with a mouthpiece extension, especially if the bone was longer than presumed,
as indicated in the 1997 opinions of 3 paleontologists quoted in my Studies...III
article.8
1. Letter from a member of the Swedish Institute
of Biomusicology:
"Bob:
"...I have not seen your argument against d'Errico - I guess
that's the publication in Antiquity arguing against the ‘flute' on the
basis of thousands of bones, some with holes in them, yes?
"I read it and was appalled at the bias that pervaded their
write-up (and wrote Turk about it). Their bone collection convinced me
in favor of Turk, because the one thing they maintain studious silence
about is the linear arrangement of the holes -- they do not have a single
bone among those thousands which comes even close to the striking linear
alignment of Turk's holes (I gather from what you say that this is part
of your argument against them), and not to discuss this central and crucial
issue is just bad scholarship and bad science.
But [ there are] academic theories about the status of Neanderthals...at
stake, and so they fight with the fury of theologians... The strange thing
about science is that it progresses despite the biases of its practitioners,
but that can be a long process in which lives are ruined along the way....
-- Bjorn Merker 1/9/2000,Sweden,
-- Editor of the Mass. Instit. of Technology (MIT,
2000) book of essays: Origins of Music.
2. The holes are not evenly spaced. Four holes are
lined-up, but they are spaced unequally -- not evenly -- and to
one not familiar with a traditional do-re-mi flute -- the holes could
appear to be "randomly" spaced.
But the measurements of the Divje Babe holes that I made in my
Neanderthal
essay almost perfectly match the unique proportional spacings found
on any simple Irish do-re-mi whistle/flute (which are, again, not
"evenly"
spaced).
There are about 640 different ways to space 4 aligned holes
on any similar sized tube or bone, almost all of which would seem
meaningless or random. Only a few of those hundreds of spacings
could match a known musical do-re-mi scale's spacings. That's why it's
"unique" spacing. It's just like a unique fingerprint!
(The additional fact of the 4 holes being also aligned makes
that uniqueness into being one in millions of possibilities, not just one
in hundreds.)
3. Holes in the specimen "were almost
certainly
made sequentially rather than simultaneously and that the distance between
them has nothing to do with the distance between any two teeth in a wolf's
jaw." -- Nowell & Chase, in Current Anthropology, p.552
Vol. 39, No. 4, August - October, 1998.
4. "We are familiar with examples in which
indisputable bone artifacts, such as Upper Paleolithic bone points, were
greatly chewed by beasts after people ceased to use them (Turk and Stele
1997: figure 57; Lopez Bayon et al. 1997: photo 1 )" -- Turk &
Kunej, in Wallin, N. L./Merker, B./Brown, S. (eds.): The Origins of
Music. Cambridge, London, 235-268 [Emph. added.]
This quote makes the scratches cited by d'Errico in his latest article
meaningless as proof of anything, not even indicative of the holes
being carnivore-made -- because they are not sufficiently large enough
nor located appropriately to seriously serve as counter-bites to the
force necessary to bite 4 such large holes into existence (and without
splitting the bone), nor are they similar to the larger hole sizes
(i.e., where are there any smaller or partial holes that one might expect
as well as the 4 equally-sized large hole diameters?)
To see these scratches, see the pics above of d'Errico's best
"evidence."
These could easily be explained as just chewing done afterward, especially
if the discarded bone had, for one of many examples, simply been used to
scoop food before being discarded.
5. Turk et al point out the bone was
remarkably not shattered despite the presumed heavy chewing and despite
several holes presumed punctured by powerful carnivore teeth. This is also
very rare. "..compact bone regularly splits longitudinally when
a tooth penetrates this deep, as was the case with the holes in the suspected
flute. [Strength was measured at the Laboratory of Non-linear Mechanics...using
steel points, bronze casts of wolf and hyena dentition, and fresh thigh
bones of brown bear. In widening the experimental holes to the size
of those on the suspected flute, exerting the same force as for piercing,
all juvenile bones cracked. We thank
Profs.
J Grum and F. Kosel for their help.]" "...The ultimate goal of
every bone-eating carnivore is to split a bone into two pieces to get at
the marrow. The question is why this goal was not achieved after so
many attempts, when most of the necessary energy had been invested in piercing
the cortical shell and widening the holes." -- Turk &
Kunej, in Origins... op. cit. [Emph. added]
D'Errico never mentions this, although he knew of this evidence prior
to writing his paper for the 2000 conference in Germany.
If no one could get a bone to be repeatedly punctured [as animal bites
would do], without splitting the bone, isn't that significant evidence
against carnivore origins? Did d'Errico try to experiment to get this to
happen? Did d'Errico ever find any naturally made cylindrical
bones with 3 or 4-holes (of similar diameters as on the Divje Babe bone)
that weren't split?
Why didn't d'Errico deal with this evidence? Is he an incompetent or
suddenly lacking in brain power? Of course not. Therefore, it appears to
me he is deliberately ignoring this, and evidence like it, because it doesn't
"fit" the prescribed and pre-judged conclusions.
6. See XC No.190 / OR article in the Studies in
Music Archaeology III, p.83. Citation in note 8.
7. Nowell & Chase, "The Divje Babe
specimen
& the diatonic scale" in Studies in Music Archaeology III,
p.74 wrote:
"At this point, it is in fact impossible disprove either hypothesis
[about whether it was a flute or not]. Which hypothesis one accepts, then,
depends on one's assessment of their relative probability...." [Note
the word "probability."]
And this similar quote: Current Anthropology, p.552 Vol. 39,
No. 4, August - October, 1998:
"We agree with Turk...that it is logically not possible to
exclude either a human or a natural explanation for the specimen from Divje
Babe."
8. Ellen Hickmann, Anne D. Kilmer and Ricardo
Eichmann
(ed.), Studies in Music Archaeology III, VML Verlag Marie Leidorf,
Germany, 2002-3.
=================
Relevant background material to
understand
this issue:
Essay: The Neanderthal Flute, 1997;
Also: Essay: The Origin of Music
and
Stages in the Evolution of Melody, Scales &
Harmony.
