>>45 kyr Neanderthal flute Divje Babe I, Slovenia H.s.n.
50
>
>This was a not so much a "flute" as a bone whistle. BTW if
>Neandertal was no relation to Homo sapiens (see my post
>"Neanderthals no relation?"), then either this "flute" was made by
>Homo sapiens or it is irrelevant to the question of Homo sapiens
>origins.
No, it is not a bone whistle, A bone whistle has 1 hole. This has a flute
which has the same 7 note diatonic scale as all subsequent European music
does. This is discussed at length by musicologist Bob Fink at
http://www.webster.sk.ca/greenwich/fl-compl.htm
>
>>50 kyr shaman's cape Hortus, France H.s.n.
52
>>70-80 kyr musical instrument-flute Haua Fteah, Libya H.s.n.
56
>
>As has been pointed out to your many times, there is no evidence that
>this was a "musical instrument", much less a "flute", in the sense we
>use the term today. Anthropologists refer to these class of
>artifacts as bone whistles.
>
This too is a flute and you have not examined the original literature on
this object. McBirney gives the measurements for the two holes (which makes
it a flute not a whistle). C.B.M. McBurney, Haua Fteah
(Cyrenaica),(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), p. 90
>>330 kyr Depiction of human form Berekhat Ram, Israel H.
e./a.H.s 78
>
>Or just a lump of lava? We never did hear the result of Marshack's electron
>microscope examination of this so-called "Golan Venus".
Boy do you have this all wrong. Marshack didn't say he was doing the
report, but that Goren-Inbar and Peltz were. Here is what Marshack said
"Peltz reported that it was clear that 'human hands had worked a
fragment of pyroclastic rock, namely an indurated tuff.' The illustrations and
arguments presented by Pelcin therefore do not apply. To complement my
microscopic analysis, Peltz and N. Goren-Inbar are preparing an analytical
paper on the geology of the site and the pyroclastic nature of the figurine.
Until publication of these analyses, the debate on possible pre-Upper
Paleolithic symboling may perhaps best be addressed not by suppositions at a
distance but through the microscopic analysis of a late Middle Paleolithic
incised composition from the site of Quneitra, Israel. I pointed to the
Quneitra analysis in my recent criticism of the Eurocentric presumption that
there was a punctuated, apparently genetic 'species' shift in symboling
capacity at the Middle/Upper Paleolithic transition."~Alexander Marshack, "On
the "Geological' Explanation of the Berekhat Ram Figurine," Current
Anthropology, 36:3, June, 1995, p. 495.
Here is the report that you want. If you are really interested in
objectively analysing these things, why don't you occasionally go to the
library and ask for a literature search. This article is easily available
to any who want to find it. Goren-Inbar and Peltz write:
"We conclude that the figurine was modified on a rock
fragment of a pyroclastic deposit which consists mainly of
scoria, welded in part; specifically, the raw material of the
figurine is not worked scoria, but is basaltic lapilli tuff
incorporating scoria clasts."~N. Goren-Inbar and S. Peltz,
"Additional Remarks on the Berekhat Ram Figurine," Rock Art
Research 1995, 12:2, p. 131
They also remark of Pelcin's criticism (which would apply to any criticism
you or I would level also):
"Reporting and describing finds recovered in excavations is
the most fundamental obligation of an archaeologist; it is
extremely annoying that individuals who never examined the
figurine and failed to read the detailed reports of the site and
its finds, express their doubts concerning the excavators'
observations and hence cast doubts on their abilities as
archaeologists."~N. Goren-Inbar and S. Peltz, "Additional Remarks
on the Berekhat Ram Figurine," Rock Art Research 1995, 12:2, p.
132
>
>BTW, you've got the date wrong - it was 230 kyr ago, not "330 kyr":
>
>"In his note on the Berekhat Ram figurine, excavated from a late
>Acheulian level and dated at ca. 230,000 B.P. CA 3 5: 674-75),
>Pelcin argues that the figurine is scoria, as it was generically
>described in the initial publication. He documents the fact that scoria
>can acquire odd shapes and natural grooving and therefore
>recommends that the Berekhat Ram figurine be subjected to
>microscopic analysis. I performed such microscopic analysis in the
>summer of 1994 and am preparing the results for publication."
>(Marshack A., "On the `Geological' Explanation of the Berekhat Ram
>Figurine," Current Anthropology, 36:3, June, 1995, p495).
No I don't have the date wrong, Stephen. The article which performed the
dating dated the basalt above the figurine as being 233+/-3 kyr. The basalt
under the sediment dated at around 470 kyr. 233 is the youngest limiting
date, but is not the date of the object. Here is what the pile of sediment
at Berekhat Ram looks like,
Basalt 233 kyr
sediment
figurine
sediment
basalt 290-780 kyr (most likely 470 kyr
"These results give a well-defined younger limit to the age of the
Acheulian industry at Berekhat Ram of 233+/-3 kyr. The palaeosol appears to
be a cumulic soil formed by slow accretion by wind and/or water, and may
have taken a considerable length of time to accumulate. If it accumulated
at a fairly constant rate, then the site would have been occupired close to
the age of the underlying basalt, here estimated to lie between 290 and 800
kyr." ~G. Feraud et al, "40Ar/39Ar age limit for an Acheulian site in
Israel," Nature,July 221, 1983, p. 265.
The object might be as old as 800,000 years old! 330 kyr seems to be a
reasonably conservative estimate of the age for the figurine. This figure
(330 kyr) comes from Desmond Morris's discussion of the object.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm