about that St. Cesaire Neanderthal

[M.B.]

Since there is that much stirring in the fog of a web news by
the top experts of this ng, it might be worth adding some
details of Zollikofers article.

What there are talking about is the heavily fragmented remains
of the right side of a neanderthal skull. About 70% is missing
- I guess to assemble these pieces was a true
paleoanthro-puzzle.

To account for taphonomical deformations they reconstructed
the skull aided by an appropriate computer programm, followed
by computer tomography of the fragments. It was this analyses
which revealed a healed injury. The scar is 68mm long but
likely reached into the parts of the skull which are missing.
Since the slash has a straight-lined morphology its cause is
attributed to a "blade-shaped object", IOW no horns, no
stalactites, no rodeo jumping whatever.

What kind of tool or weapon actually was used remains unclear.
Because the bone had been partially penetrated which demands a
particular kinetic energy chatelperronian stone tools from
this site appeared too small and not sharp enough. Hence it
seems to be more likely that compound tools were used which
allows for nice speculations about the nature of this weaponry
and its makers.

Michael

[Rich Travs]

"M.B." wrote:
>
> Since there is that much stirring in the fog of a web news
> by the top experts of this ng, it might be worth adding some
> details of Zollikofers article.
>
> What there are talking about is the heavily fragmented
> remains of the right side of a neanderthal skull. About 70%
> is missing - I guess to assemble these pieces was a true
> paleoanthro-puzzle.
>
> To account for taphonomical deformations they reconstructed
> the skull aided by an appropriate computer programm,
> followed by computer tomography of the fragments. It was
> this analyses which revealed a healed injury. The scar is
> 68mm long but likely reached into the parts of the skull
> which are missing. Since the slash has a straight-lined
> morphology its cause is attributed to a "blade-shaped
> object", IOW no horns, no stalactites, no rodeo jumping
> whatever.

Actually, some antlered can have blade like segments. Moose
come to mind.

Megaloceros (Irish elk) could be a likely candidate. Nice pic
of a mount:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/pin/largeelk.gif

> What kind of tool or weapon actually was used remains
> unclear. Because the bone had been partially penetrated
> which demands a particular kinetic energy chatelperronian
> stone tools from this site appeared too small and not sharp
> enough. Hence it seems to be more likely that compound tools
> were used which allows for nice speculations about the
> nature of this weaponry and its makers.
>
> Michael

[Philip Dei]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:08:25 -0600, Rich Travsky
<traRvskyE@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote:

>> To account for taphonomical deformations they reconstructed
>> the skull aided by an appropriate computer programm,
>> followed by computer tomography of the fragments. It was
>> this analyses which revealed a healed injury. The scar is
>> 68mm long but likely reached into the parts of the skull
>> which are missing. Since the slash has a straight-lined
>> morphology its cause is attributed to a "blade-shaped
>> object", IOW no horns, no stalactites, no rodeo jumping
>> whatever.

Do you know what the error and assumptions that these types of
programs. See thats the dif, I write programs, so I kind of
know how the programs try to make, or coincidentally make
strait lines out of fuzz or make fuzz out of strait line. Back
in the days when I was doing 3-D transformations and fourier
analysis of structures if comes to the point of resolution.
IOW when you say something is a strait line what is your
resolution (IOW how statistically strait is the line). In the
case where you have an injury depostfacto after the injury and
healing depost facto after death, 30% of a skull, heavily
fragmented what is left, what is you statistical confindence.
3 choices.

1. Mediocre
2. Poor
3. Rediculously poor.
4. [Sounds of statisticians laughing their asses off]

The point is I can tweek a program to produce a more refined
structure than what the data allows, the basic problem is that
my reconstruction is
psuedo reality, its a guess of things between data points.
This is a guess at things between data points, they have
forced the computer to generate something that would be
invisible in a physical context.

BTW, the skull is not strait, its curved, even in neadertals
its curved, so strait line, as in a strait line between two
points, is not germane.

Philip [pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu]
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth

[M.B.]

Rich Travsky <traRvskyE@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote:

> "M.B." wrote:
> >
> > .....Since the slash has a straight-lined morphology its
> > cause is attributed to a "blade-shaped object", IOW no
> > horns, no stalactites, no rodeo jumping whatever.
>
> Actually, some antlered can have blade like segments. Moose
> come to mind.
>
> ......

Correct, but according to Zollikofer that what caused the
slash has to be sharp, antlers would be too blunt to make this
kind of cut.

Michael

[M.B.]

Philip Deitiker <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:

>
> ....See thats the dif, I write programs....

Oh yeah, you´re an expert in a lot of things =:-D

>
> .......they have forced the computer to generate something
> that would be invisible in a physical context.
>

The usual sloppy assumptions. If you would concentrate on
becoming acquainted with the primary sources instead of
spreading this kind of poor guess fealing then you would know
what the authors actually have done, e.g. that the procedure
already is described at

Zollikofer, Ponce de León, Martin Evol. Anthropol. 6
(1998), 41-54,w

that they supported their case by cross comparison with the
skull of a medieval victim of a similar incident, and you
would have number of additional details at your disposal.

Even you might then realize what´s the difference between well
founded commments and bumptious twaddle.

But that of course would demand to adress a subject in a
scientific way, obviously something entirely out of your
scope.

Michael

[Bob Keeter]

in article
1fb79gu.brsmxp1r6gncwN%musta@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de, M.B. at
musta@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote on 4/27/02 6:54 AM:

> Rich Travsky <traRvskyE@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "M.B." wrote:
>>>
>>> .....Since the slash has a straight-lined morphology its
>>> cause is attributed to a "blade-shaped object", IOW no
>>> horns, no stalactites, no rodeo jumping whatever.
>>
>> Actually, some antlered can have blade like segments. Moose
>> come to mind.
>>
>> ......
>
> Correct, but according to Zollikofer that what caused the
> slash has to be sharp, antlers would be too blunt to make
> this kind of cut.
>
>

Isnt it terrible when a wonderfully interpretive science like
anthropology runs afoul of an almost tradesman-like
experimental science with lots of hard evidence. Forensic
science IS pretty much based on the cold hard facts, making it
much uglier to toss out totally unsupported theories and have
them stick to the kitchen wall just because you happen to have
some piece of paper or just yell the loudest.

We know all too well what blunt and sharp objects do when
applied violently to a human skull based on quite prolific
modern data. Extrapolating that data to an ancient skull is
not exactly a great leap of faith, but it does somewhat close
off one avenue for wild speculation and a few hoity-toity
papers in some "trade rag". ;-)

If the man says it was a sharp fairly stright edge that left
the mark, I would tend to believe him, certainly if he had
watched a few Jack Klugman reruns! ;-)))

Regards bk

[Bob Keeter]

in article
1fbatmg.1lsnsuuw7wk08N%musta@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de, M.B. at
musta@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote on 4/27/02 6:54 AM:

> Philip Deitiker <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> ....See thats the dif, I write programs....
>
> Oh yeah, you´re an expert in a lot of things =:-D
>

Better watch out! Such talk will put you in conflict with the
Lord High Priest himself! After all everyone KNOWS that he is
in fact the absolute source for wisdom and insight into all
things, at least they have had the opportunity to learn that
having been told MANY times!

On the other hand, joining the list of apostates is not
exactly like joining an exclusive club or anything! 8-))

>>
>> .......they have forced the computer to generate something
>> that would be invisible in a physical context.
>>
>
> The usual sloppy assumptions. If you would concentrate on
> becoming acquainted with the primary sources instead of
> spreading this kind of poor guess fealing then you would
> know what the authors actually have done, e.g. that the
> procedure already is described at
>
> Zollikofer, Ponce de León, Martin Evol. Anthropol. 6
> (1998), 41-54,w
>

Ah yes, the "primary literature"! It is somewhat of a two
edged sword there isnt it! Gotta read and study the REAL
information, he's told of of us lesser people that time and
time again! Guess he is exempt! 8-)

> that they supported their case by cross comparison with the
> skull of a medieval victim of a similar incident, and you
> would have number of additional details at your disposal.
>

And possibly a few million modern examples if you include the
"primary literature" to include the mass of modern forensic
science, even perhaps some published outside of the "Quincy"
TV series! 8-))

> Even you might then realize what´s the difference between
> well founded commments and bumptious twaddle.
>

BUT is much easier to be derisive and contemptuous of others
with bumptious twaddle! I can understand all of the ire
though, as best as I can see, this particular issue has
NOTHING to do with the gerome, mtDNA sequencing or anything
even vaguely related. Wonder why he feels so threatened?

> But that of course would demand to adress a subject in
> a scientific way, obviously something entirely out of
> your scope.
>
> Michael

Michael, Michael, Michael! Give the man his due! He DOES
apparently know something or another in his particular field,
he is just contemptuous of most of the rest of humanity (I
must suppose that he has not yet invented a superHSS that he
should rightfully be proclaimed a member!), at least that part
of humanity not genuflecting in the right direction! 8-)

Yeah, Im on his killfile! Welcome aboard!

Regards bk

[M.B.]

Bob Keeter <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
> ..... Give the man his due! He DOES apparently know
> something or another in his particular field....

Well, thats the point. There is something, or another thing,
or nothing ;-> embedded in a matrix of hot air and foggy
explanations. This particular field it´s just harder track for
most people and hence its easier to bedazzle them while
juggling with genetic terms.

Here too, empty accusations based on intimate knowledge of
abstracts are rather the rule than the exception. He
demonstrated this pretty clear just four weeks ago in an
mtDNA-thread
- and I deigned to point this out.... bad, bad 8-)

> Yeah, Im on his killfile!

That´s what I suspected when I saw you called him Batman =;-D

Man, to criticize HIM, based on FACTS & LOGIC ... plus irony,
that couldn´t pass ;-O

>Welcome aboard!

Yeah, I have my cabin there since 4 weeks - but who
cares =:-DD

Michael

[Bob Keeter]

in article
1fbeksm.p35vds1ydkpmsN%musta@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de, M.B. at
musta@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote on 4/29/02 8:35 AM:

> Bob Keeter <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> ..... Give the man his due! He DOES apparently know
>> something or another in his particular field....
>
> Well, thats the point. There is something, or another thing,
> or nothing ;-> embedded in a matrix of hot air and foggy
> explanations. This particular field it´s just harder track
> for most people and hence its easier to bedazzle them while
> juggling with genetic terms.
>

Well, some are impressed with fancy words, others by sheer
volume, even some others by "stature" whatever that happens to
be. Whatever the case, fragile egos find a way to exploit each
and every one of these for their own aggrandizement. Guess Ive
just never felt quite that compelling of a reason (or
obsession!) to feel superior to everybody else. In the case of
this particular fellow, well, its embarassing and all the
worse BECAUSE of his knowledge. A simple netloon has so little
to contribute (other than the basic "irritant" effect of
forcing people to think a bit and rebutt his loon-ery of
course!) that they are easy to just ignore.

> Here too, empty accusations based on intimate knowledge of
> abstracts are rather the rule than the exception. He
> demonstrated this pretty clear just four weeks ago in an
> mtDNA-thread
> - and I deigned to point this out.... bad, bad 8-)
>

What a BOO-BOO! Its that all-important and oh-so-fragile ego
thing you know. The incredible thing is that I dont think he
even realizes how much of a handicap that is. Oh well, its our
loss and his problem.

>> Yeah, Im on his killfile!
>
> That´s what I suspected when I saw you called him
> Batman =;-D
>
> Man, to criticize HIM, based on FACTS & LOGIC ... plus
> irony, that couldn´t pass ;-O
>

Well you see, irony is one of those deep running torpedoes
that hits right at the soft spot. Technically, the man has me
hands down. Im an admitted "dabbler" but I try to learn little
bits and pieces here and there. This fellow, knows SOMETHING,
that much is obvious, but is so personnally offensive and
ego-centric that I found myself just ignoring him, even though
I KNEW that there was information there! As I said, his
problem our loss.

>
>> Welcome aboard!
>
>
> Yeah, I have my cabin there since 4 weeks - but who
> cares =:-DD
>

Well, I suspect from serveral other glancing blows that Ive
been assigned an oar without so much as a view on his ship of
state. PERHAPS as more people show up in his killfile, he will
notice that its HIS loss as well! I know, "Polyanna strikes
again!". . . . . . . .;-)

Regards bk