On Palaeo-astro-gynaecology

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

All,

Here is a short BBC blurb written by “Dr.” (emphasis mine) David Whitehouse, the BBC News Online science editor, on a recent, very seminal interpretation, by “Dr.” (emphasis mine) Michael Rappenglueck, of what is obviously a pregnant German, Aurignacian object.

BBC - Science/Nature  
Tuesday, 21 January, 2003, 10:50 GMT
'Oldest star chart' found

Carvings

The carvings have been interpreted as a star map
By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor
The oldest image of a star pattern, that of the famous constellation of Orion, has been recognised on an ivory tablet some 32,500 years old.

The tiny sliver of mammoth tusk contains a carving of a man-like figure with arms and legs outstretched in the same pose as the stars of Orion.

The claim is made by Dr Michael Rappenglueck, formerly of the University of Munich, who is already renowned for his pioneering work locating star charts painted on the walls of prehistoric caves.

The tablet also contains mysterious notches, carved on its sides and on its back. These could be a primitive "pregnancy calendar", designed to estimate when a pregnant woman will give birth.

Man-like figure
It was found in 1979 in a cave in the Ach Valley in the Alb-Danube region of Germany. Carbon dating of bone ash deposits found next to the tablet suggest it is between 32,500 and 38,000 years old, making it one of the oldest representations of a man ever found.

It was left behind by the mysterious Aurignacian people about whom we know next to nothing save that they moved into Europe from the east supplanting the indigenous Neanderthals.

The ivory tablet is small, measuring only 38 x 14 x 4 millimetres, but from the notches carved into its edges archaeologists believe that it was made that size and is not a fragment of something bigger.

On one side of the tablet is the man-like being with his legs apart and arms raised. Between his legs hangs what could be a sword and his waist is narrow. His left leg is shorter than his right one.

Rappenglueck has found other evidence
From what is speculated about the myths of these ancient peoples before the dawn of history, archaeologists have suggested that the man-like figure could be praying or dancing, or be a half-man, half-cat, or a divine being.

But Michael Rappenglueck thinks it is a drawing of the constellation of Orion that is nowadays, and was perhaps also 32,000 years ago, called the hunter.

The proportions of the man correspond to the pattern of stars that comprise Orion, especially its slim waist - which corresponds to its famous belt of three stars and the left "leg" of the constellation being shorter.

The "sword" on the ivory tablet also corresponds to a famous and well-know feature that can be seen in Orion.

There are also other indications that Dr Rappenglueck may be correct.

The stars were in slightly different positions 32,000 years ago because they are moving across the sky at different speeds and in different directions, a phenomenon called "proper motion".

Dr Rappenglueck allowed for this effect by using a computer program to wind back the sky and found evidence for a particular star in Orion that was in a different place all those years ago.

Human gestation period

The tablet may also be a pregnancy calendar.

There are 86 notches on the tablet, a number that has two special meanings.

First, it is the number of days that must be subtracted from a year to equal the average number of days of a human gestation. This is no coincidence, says Dr Rappenglueck.

It is also the number of days that one of Orion's two prominent stars, Betelguese, is visible. To ancient man, this might have linked human fertility with the gods in the sky.

Orion is one of the most striking constellations. The Ancient Egyptians identified it with their god Osiris and it has a special significance for many cultures throughout history throughout the world.

The actual article (together with an image of this Aurignacian object) can be found at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2679675.stm

Note that it is not a first for Rappenglueck who has, over the last few years, and with the help of the BBC, been rewriting or revising the true meaning of Upper Palaeolithic “art”.

Jacques Cinq-Mars

[colin]

Well, I dont know much about astronomy, let alone gynaecology.....
so I'll confine myself to observing that the good Doctor seems very sure in the article that the "Aurignacian people" (presumed to be AMH) displaced the neanderthals. I only ask: Are we still sure that people of neanderthal persuasion never used the Aurignacian?
Some years ago we were very sure that AMH were solely responsible for upper palaeolithic industries, the Chattelperronian included. Neanderthals only did Mousterian. Except now we know different.

The trouble is there have not been many finds of undisputed AMH remains beyond 30kbp - one of the few is at Okladnikov in Siberia, dated 37 or 38 kbp, but that was associated with the Mousterian.  And, OTOH, am I totally off the wall  in thinking that had the  elegant bone points found at Vindija  not been associated with neanderthals, they might have been ascribed to the Aurignation?

The last few years perhaps should have taught us to be more wary of automatically equating a certain style of tool with a particualar morphology.

So, finally: can we be quite sure that this ivory figure, dated at between 32.5 and 38kbp, was not made by a neanderthal?
Cheers
Colin

[Isabelle]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the link between the presumed constellation of Orion and the presumed pregnancy calendar? According to the claims in this article the number is significant because it represents the average number of days of human gestation and the number of days the star is visible. Leaving aside the assumption being made that these people conceptualised time the same way we do, what is the link between birth and Orion?

(btw, I'm tempted to classify this in the same category as the article in today's Sun that we are descended from aardvarks)

[Isabelle]

While on the subject of Rappenglueck and astral things...

have a look at:

http://www.artepreistorica.it/articoli/articolo.asp?idarticolo=25

This is another of his articles, in English, entitled "Palaeolithic Shamanistic Cosmography: How is the Famous Rock Picture in the Shaft of the Lascaux Grotto to be Decoded?" - access to this article requires free registration. It's 9 pages long, plus images.

And he has more to say on cosmology...

http://www.artepreistorica.it/articoli/articolo.asp?idarticolo=39

"Ice Age People Find their Ways by the Stars: A Rock Picture in the Cueva de El Castillo (Spain) May Represent the Circumpolar Constellation of the Northern Crown (CrB)"

Oh well.

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

<snip>

So, finally: can we be quite sure that this ivory figure, dated at between 32.5 and 38kbp, was not made by a neanderthal?
Cheers
Colin

After passing on the BBC note, the fact that I may have seen the (illustrated) object in question came back to me. During the Rome, "The World of Elephants" Congress: preliminary proceedings available at: http://www.cq.rm.cnr.it/elephants2001/.

Unless I am wrong, most if not all of the Ach Valley (Swabian Jura) cave sites are primarily known for their UP remains and, more particularly for their relatively rich Early Upper Palaeolithic (EUP), Aurignacian deposits which yielded both organic and lithic material. I do not have time to follow this up further, but the chance are pretty good that the object was found in an actual Aurignacian context that, in addition, provided the dates referred to in the note. As to whether or not these EUP wanderers interested in astronomy and gynaecology were of the Neanderthal or AMH persuasion, well... you should patiently wait for another BBC revelation.

Jacques Cinq-Mars

[lagarvelho]

Colin:

"[I only ask: Are we still sure that people of neanderthal persuasion never used the Aurignacian?
Some years ago we were very sure that AMH were solely responsible for upper palaeolithic industries, the Chattelperronian included. Neanderthals only did Mousterian. Except now we know different. "

I remember sitting in an anthropology class many moons ago and having the instructor sort of slide over the Chatelperronian.  It was sort of assumed that it was some sort of "transitional" industry created by AMH.  But transitional to what?  

"The trouble is there have not been many finds of undisputed AMH remains beyond 30kbp - one of the few is at Okladnikov in Siberia, dated 37 or 38 kbp, but that was associated with the Mousterian.  And, OTOH, am I totally off the wall  in thinking that had the  elegant bone points found at Vindija  not been associated with neanderthals, they might have been ascribed to the Aurignation?"

I believe Fred Smith and an associate(can't recall his name now), wrote a piece in JHE to that effect.  I believe that was back in 1998  or so.  I can remember reading the article, and they showed the points, but there has been considerable skepticism about this.  And IIRC, Smith just said they were "Aurignacian-like".  

"The last few years perhaps should have taught us to be more wary of automatically equating a certain style of tool with a particualar morphology."

Agreeed, but . . . .

"So, finally: can we be quite sure that this ivory figure, dated at between 32.5 and 38kbp, was not made by a neanderthal?"

You bring up an important point, that in paleoanthropology and prehistoric archaeology, we cannot, and should not, be "sure" of anything.
Anne G

[lagarvelho]

Isabelle:

<Pardon my ignorance, but what is the link between the presumed constellation of Orion and the presumed pregnancy calendar? According to the claims in this article the number is significant because it represents the average number of days of human gestation and the number of days the star is visible. Leaving aside the assumption being made that these people conceptualised time the same way we do, what is the link between birth and Orion?>

Don't ask me.  I don't know either.  Maybe it has to do with Orion rising in the winter and setting in the spring, when most births were presumed to take place in the Northern Hemisphere?  BTW, Orion is just about the only constellation I can recognize despite the "competition" of all those glaring city lights, but that's another story.

(<btw, I'm tempted to classify this in the same category as the article in today's Sun that we are descended from aardvarks)>

Well, maybe we *are* all descended from aardvarks!  It makes about as much sense as some of the other evolution stories I've heard, human and otherwise.
Anne G

[John Hawks]

... And, OTOH, am I totally off the wall  in thinking that had the  elegant bone points found at Vindija  not been associated with neanderthals, they might have been ascribed to the Aurignation?"

I believe Fred Smith and an associate(can't recall his name now), wrote a piece in JHE to that effect.  I believe that was back in 1998  or so.  I can remember reading the article, and they showed the points, but there has been considerable skepticism about this.  And IIRC, Smith just said they were "Aurignacian-like".  

They are split-based bone points like other Aurignacian points. The skepticism is not about their form, but about whether they are Neandertal-associated and if so, whether they really indicate an Aurignacian assemblage. The first point is about whether (a) the bones are really Neandertal (they are fragmentary with Neandertal features, but date to <29,000 years), and (b) there was an cryoturbation or other factors that could jumble materials from different layers. The second concerns the small number of artifacts and whether they are sufficient for associating the assemblage.

--John Hawks

[Daryl Habel]

<snip>

So, finally: can we be quite sure that this ivory figure, dated at between 32.5 and 38kbp, was not made by a neanderthal?
Cheers
Colin

After passing on the BBC note, the fact that I may have seen the (illustrated) object in question came back to me. During the Rome, "The World of Elephants" Congress: preliminary proceedings available at: http://www.cq.rm.cnr.it/elephants2001/.

Unless I am wrong, most if not all of the Ach Valley (Swabian Jura) cave sites are primarily known for their UP remains and, more particularly for their relatively rich Early Upper Palaeolithic (EUP), Aurignacian deposits which yielded both organic and lithic material. I do not have time to follow this up further, but the chance are pretty good that the object was found in an actual Aurignacian context that, in addition, provided the dates referred to in the note. As to whether or not these EUP wanderers interested in astronomy and gynaecology were of the Neanderthal or AMH persuasion, well... you should patiently wait for another BBC revelation.

Jacques Cinq-Mars

The object in question (illustrated in the BBC article) is from Geissenklosterle (Germany) and is also illustrated in:

Bolus, M. & Conard, N.J. (2001). The late Middle Paleolithic and earliest Upper Palaeolithic in Central Europe and their relevance for the Out of Africa hypothesis. Quaternary International. 75. 29-40.

see Fig. 6, no. 16, wherein it is described as being recovered from Geissenklosterle Upper Aurignacian Archaeological Horizon II (AH II). Geissenklosterle  AH II is dated mean age of 33.5 +/- 0.35 kyr BP by 14C-AMS and mean 37 kyr BP by TL on burnt silex.

Dar

[lagarvelho]

Jacques:

"As to whether or not these EUP wanderers interested in astronomy and gynaecology were of the Neanderthal or AMH persuasion, well... you should patiently wait for another BBC revelation."

It sounds to me as if we shouldn't waste our time holding our breath.
Anne G

[skeptical1]

All,

Here is a short BBC blurb written by &#8220;Dr.&#8221; (emphasis mine) David Whitehouse, the BBC News Online science editor, on a recent, very seminal interpretation, by &#8220;Dr.&#8221; (emphasis mine) Michael Rappenglueck, of what is obviously a pregnant German, Aurignacian object.

BBC - Science/Nature  
Tuesday, 21 January, 2003, 10:50 GMT
'Oldest star chart' found

BIG SNIP

Human gestation period

The tablet may also be a pregnancy calendar.

There are 86 notches on the tablet, a number that has two special meanings.

First, it is the number of days that must be subtracted from a year to equal the average number of days of a human gestation. This is no coincidence, says Dr Rappenglueck.

It is also the number of days that one of Orion's two prominent stars, Betelguese, is visible. To ancient man, this might have linked human fertility with the gods in the sky.

[...]

Jacques Cinq-Mars

Problems I have:

1) What are the chances that a pre-agricultural people would have calculated the exact length of a year (when even the early Romans thought it was 360 days, and that was long after the Neolithic transition)?

2) What are the chances that a people of 30,000 years ago would have worked out the (statistical) average length of a pregnancy, or even what caused a pregnancy and when any given pregnancy might have begun?

3) There is little chance that any people other than those navigating at sea or in the desert would be able to locate the true horizon so as to determine the precise period of visibility of Betelguese. The astrolabe was invented in 200 BC.

Am I alone in considering these to be entirely unlikely speculations?

Harry (Skeptical1)

[colin]

Harry
You are certainly not alone.
Still, the BBC got us posting, didn't it? Worth paying the license fee after all. It's good to see the list alive and kicking despite some adverse comments.
Cheers
Colin

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

I don't think this has been mentioned this before.

People who (for one -- hopefully --curable reason or another) have been taken in by Rappenglueck's highly creative "scientific" licence and by the BBC report on it, should have a look at Paul B. Pettitt's sobering comments.

CLICK HERE to read and download the short article in PDF format.

Jacques Cinq-Mars