Remember the Divje Babe?

To Jacques:

   Thanks for the welcome. Thanks for the PDF
from Horusiztsky. It was mostly in French, and my
BabelFish made a mess of it -- but I was able to get
the gist of it. It made me happy to start seeing the
tide turn.

   The new tests by Turk using multi-slice tomo-
graphic-imaging may prove to be an irresistable clos-
ing of the debate not too long from now.

   I hope to learn more about this (usually
medical) type of tomographic imaging technology as
soon as possible.

   Here is a quote from the Turk article (you
may have seen it on Anne's list):

   Turk has concluded from the results of the
test that there are indeed 4 holes! Further, this part
of the Turk abstract: "at least 2 (holes) were made prior
to the damage to the proximal and distal ends of the
diaphysis; and that carnivores could not have made
all the holes, but one at the most," -- seems to vindi-
cate all parts of my own assumptions about the flute
holes, and of course, vindicates Turk's original views.

   Turk says "the origin of the holes is no longer
doubtful," they are artificial and the object is a flute.
He wrote he believes the paleolithic community will be
compelled to accept this conclusion "sooner or later" in
light of this new evidence. [Of course, few people accept
anything they don't want to believe.] But more scholars
may come to realize they need to look closer at d'Er-
rico's, Chase & Nowell's arguments, and review their own
premature willingness to take the carnivore origin as
an official given in the field.

   For my part, I believe the "looks-like a flute"
view is *real* evidence, just as the spacing between
holes -- if they had *matched a toothspan* of some carni-
vore (which none of the holes did) -- it would have been
considered bonafide taphonomic evidence. The "biter" in
this case turned out to be human.

   The odds that nature could imitate a nearly
complete tuned flute are so miniscule (equivalent
diameters, known unique scale-spacing, in-line, mostly
round rather than oval, et al), that those odds should
have "trumped" the taphonomy, especially as so many
taphonomic experts still widely disagree.

   I was invited to write an article on it for a
new musicology journal in Turkey, due out by 2007,
replying to Morley's remarks [in the Oxford Journal
of Archaeology] about my views, and who omitted some
1997 evidence I published which could interfere with
his claim the bone was too short to produce the diatonic
sequence which is there.

   Even if you "call" two holes "damage" rather
than holes. Nature still has to buck the odds to
mimic a flute, no matter what you call the openings.

   I expect I'll be able to know more about the
reliability of the tomography to offer that information
into the debate.
-- Best wishes,
Bob Fink