The Virgin Mary Toast and the Neanderthal Mask

[red_awning]

While looking around google for information on dating and Neanderthals I found information about a supposed flute that was found and purported to be that of a Neanderthal. It was a bone seemed made with intent, and there were four holes in the the bone that fit the thumb and fingers and actually played do rei mi when blown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_f...erthal_flute.22

Some people have suggested that it was just a coincidence. The whole debate got me to wondering about the way we determine whether an artifact is made by an intelligent creature or just an accident. The implications of the arguments take on some very interesting perspectives when you discuss this in the same manner that people often discuss religious observers who believe they have “witnessed a miracle” or seen the Virgin Mary etc etc. The article I am posting addresses this concept in its examination of the “Neanderthal Mask”

Here’s info on the mask

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3256228.stm
Nephelococcygia pronounced ne-fê-lê-kak-'si-jee-yê is a term used when people find familiar objects within the shape of a cloud.

Nephelococcygia - Everything2.com

Its very easy to mock a religious person for doing this but I don’t think we’d ever accuse an archaeologist of doing this, we seem to take it for granted that if a person sees something then its really there. But there are controversies in science regarding this. The Bosnian Pyramids are one sort of example that’s been in the news recently.

This article discusses the Neanderthal Mask its a short and interesting read. I recommend that everyone read it before discussing it.
http://www.greenwych.ca/hid-imag.htm

Here’s the part that caught my eye. It echoes some of the Creationist arguments I’ve heard, so this is why I put it in this thread. I thought perhaps it brought up some interesting points regarding where Science and Creationism do seem to overlap in the way people SEE things and ANALYZE the data.

They cannot learn this simple rule: If it (an object or apparent image) lacks orderly detail, that’s evidence of a probable lack of intelligence (or life) in its making; it may even be evidence that it’s naturally made. And vice versa: If it has lots of detail & order, then it cannot prima facie be dismissed as just being naturally made. (E.g., such as the Neanderthal flute). But they act ignorant of this basic biophysics concept of entropy & anti-entropy.

They look at a few dents and scratches and think that’s all that’s needed so they can read the story of the ages. To an extent they can. But they tend to ignore “outside” evidence & concepts. Taphonomy is “it.” But much of “it” has become like the movie dog Lassie who scratches the ground: “Scratch, scratch!”
“What’s she saying?” asks the sheriff. Lassie’s owner replies:

“She says that little Annie fell down the well out at Slayter’s place. Uncle Bart is trying to climb down to get her out, but he doesn 't have enough rope. He needs cousin Jeb to get more rope and drive it up to Bart in his Chevy pickup, pronto! And bring the first-aid kit.”

All that from: “Scratch, scratch…”

Link to the wiki on Taphony Taphonomy - Wikipedia

Thoughts

[Spoke]

Your first link is faulty. Here’s some Wikipedia info on the “Neanderthal flute.”

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Its very easy to mock a religious person for doing this but I don’t think we’d ever accuse an archaeologist of doing this

Archaeologists don’t do this. They know what can occur naturally and what can’t. If they’re not sure, they don’t sy they are. They also never attribute supernatural explanations for anything which is the thing that makes the Madonna toast people extra stupid.

There is a difference between not being sure if something was done by humans (or animals) and actually thinking it’s possible that something was done by magic. Magic can always and forever be ruled out a priori. It’s not analogous to archaeological uncertainty about the provenance of artifacts.

[jjimm]

@red_awning

While looking around google for information on dating and Neanderthals

Kinky!

[DMC]

@red_awning

Thoughts

My initial thought is that you probably won’t return to this thread, just as you didn’t return here, where you posted the same OP, so I’m hesitant to spend a lot of time responding.

[Spoke]

Well, regardless of the OP’s motivations, there is the potential for an interesting debate here. I think archaeologists do have to be on guard against the logical error of “imposing the familiar” in the course of interpreting their finds.

A possible example that comes to mind would be the earthen mounds created by the mound-building cultures in what is now the US. Some of the mounds have a superficial similarity in appearance to the pyramids of Mexico and Central America, and I have seen archaeologists speculating (perhaps with those pyramids in mind) that the mounds were built for “ceremonial purposes.”

Since most (all?) of the mounds are found alongside rivers, I suspect a more practical explanation for the mounds is that they were built as a place of retreat in time of flood. Are archaeologists ignoring this possible practical function in favor of the more familiar ceremonial function?

I look at the “Neanderthal mask” and it puts me in mind of the “Martian face,” which upon closer inspection turned out not to be a face at all.

[John_DiFool]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Archaeologists don’t do this. They know what can occur naturally and what can’t. If they’re not sure, they don’t sy they are. They also never attribute supernatural explanations for anything which is the thing that makes the Madonna toast people extra stupid.

There is a difference between not being sure if something was done by humans (or animals) and actually thinking it’s possible that something was done by magic. Magic can always and forever be ruled out a priori. It’s not analogous to archaeological uncertainty about the provenance of artifacts.

That’s a bit of straw man, isn’t it? The Just-So Story is a well-known trap in many fields (including anthropology, as Wikipedia notes). Doesn’t have to involve anything close to “magic” to still be fallacious.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@John DiFool

That’s a bit of straw man, isn’t it? The Just-So Story is a well-known trap in many fields (including anthropology, as Wikipedia notes). Doesn’t have to involve anything close to “magic” to still be fallacious.

But entertaining the possibility of magic is still orders of magnitude more fallacious and stupid than imposing non-supernatural narratives or explanations, no matter how far off base. The OP made a comparison to ID. I’m not saying archaeologists, anthropologists can’t be wrong or make false assumptions about artifacts but at elast they don’t conclude that a wizard did it, which is what ID does.

[tomndebb]

@spoke-

A possible example that comes to mind would be the earthen mounds created by the mound-building cultures in what is now the US. Some of the mounds have a superficial similarity in appearance to the pyramids of Mexico and Central America, and I have seen archaeologists speculating (perhaps with those pyramids in mind) that the mounds were built for “ceremonial purposes.”

Since most (all?) of the mounds are found alongside rivers, I suspect a more practical explanation for the mounds is that they were built as a place of retreat in time of flood. Are archaeologists ignoring this possible practical function in favor of the more familiar ceremonial function?

Pyramids are long-lasting structures that are within the capacity of any society sufficiently organized to move stone or dirt, so they are found in an enormous number of pre-literate societies as well as a number of more advanced societies.

The mounds in the Ohio and Mississippi valleys were in use as ceremonial places when DeSoto came wandering through, spreading illness and death, so we have European testimony to their uses.

Most of the mounds are above high-water flood stages, making them redundant as shelters.

Many have been excavated and found to contain graves from multiple cultures over prolonged periods, indicating that their ceremonial purposes actually extended through successive cultures.

I do not think that the archaeologists are letting their imaginations or preconceptions run away with them in these cases.

[Spoke]

@tomndebb

Most of the mounds are above high-water flood stages, making them redundant as shelters.

Do you have a cite for that? The ones I’ve seen in Illinois, Georgia, and Iowa are not. They rise above flood plains, hard by rivers. (Not coincidentally, where the most fertile soil is.)

Examples:

Effigy Mounds:

The Sny Magill Unit of Effigy Mounds National Monument contains approximately 100 burial mounds that lie within the floodplain of the Mississippi River.

…The Sny Magill Unit of Effigy Mounds National Monument preserves at least 106 mounds representing the largest group of mounds in one location found in North America.

Etowah Mounds:

Today’s Etowah River was home to a vast village of Moundbuilders. Largest of the mounds constructed by these prehistoric Native Americans rises 63 feet above the fertile flood plain.

Lamar Mounds:

The Lamar Site was a fortified town near the river. It was surrounded by swamps and agricultural fields scattered throughout the floodplain. Here the people built two mounds for their temples, facing each other across a central plaza.

Cahokia Mounds:

Cahokia is the site of an ancient Native American city near Collinsville, Illinois, across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, Missouri in the American Bottom floodplain. The site is composed of a series of man-made earthen mounds.

(Note: Grain storage pits were found atop the Cahokia Mounds, which makes sense if you are trying to protect your food supply from flood damage, no?)

Unnamed mounds in Macon, Georgia

Nine previously unknown ancient archaeological sites, including a complex of 17 mounds, plus villages and workshops, have been found on land owned by Cherokee Brick and Tile Co…They are located on property in the floodplain south of Macon’s Seventh Street industrial district.

Albany Mounds:

Middle Woodland people constructed more than 80 mounds on a high ridge in the Mississippi River flood plain just south of the present town of Albany in Whiteside County.

Wouldn’t you suppose Indians whose cities were built alongside flood-prone rivers might want to have a contingency plan, for when flood waters begin to rise unexpectedly? And a place to store their food supplies to keep floods from destroying them? A mound would be just the thing. (Floods can arrive unpredictably, of course. Rainwater from far upstream can bring a flood on what may be a sunny day downstream. Our network of dams has dulled our memories of this a bit. So other how would a culture living on a flood plain prepare for that ever-present danger?)

It may be true that most surviving mounds are on high ground. (I await your cite for that.) But bear in mind that a lot of mounds in flood plains (where the fertile soil is) have been plowed under over the years. I know from reading early histories of northwest Georgia that there were once many mounds along Chickamauga creek. Those are gone now-- or at least no longer recognizeable as mounds.

@tomndebb

The mounds in the Ohio and Mississippi valleys were in use as ceremonial places when DeSoto came wandering through, spreading illness and death, so we have European testimony to their uses.

Not doubting you, but I would like to see a cite for that.

(By the way, what does DeSoto “spreading illness and death” have to do with anything? Not sure where you’re going with that.)

At any rate, being used for ceremonial purposes doesn’t mean they were built for ceremonial purposes. If you see my meaning. And my earlier post went to the reason for building the mounds.

Here’s an interesting bit on some mounds way out in Arizona:

These agricultural features [terraces built on high ground] apparently fell out of use by the mid-1200s, as the later inhabitants focused their subsistence efforts on the floodplain near their villages. These areas were easy to monitor and protect from outsiders.

During the late 1200s, platform mounds were built in 11 of the irrigation community centers along the 35-mile stretch of the river from Dudleyville near the Gila River confluence to Redington. Although the social function of platform mounds is unclear, they would have been prominent territorial markers on the landscape for each irrigation community.

Hmm. In the same time frame that the focus of agriculture shifts away from terraces and down onto the flood plain, the locals start building platform mounds along the river.

For ceremonial purposes, no doubt.

[red_awning]

My initial thought is that you probably won’t return to this thread, just as you didn’t return here, where you posted the same OP, so I’m hesitant to spend a lot of time responding.

My posting priveledges were revoked so I couldn’t come back to that one. But oooh how very Sherlocky Holmes of you. No point made just lots of susicious eyebrow wiggling. Bravo!

The comparison to ID was interesting to me because of the logic statement I quoted from the link. Its a very interesting articl;e tp read. Theree really isn’t MAGIC being attributed to a “God” that created mankind. Frankly it doesn’t need to be God, it could be aliens or any other number of theories out there. Or it could be something we don’t know and haven’t yet conceived of that is intelligent and created life on earth, like a scientist from another galaxy or something. If we call it the big scientific experiment from planet Zog, does that make it less magic?

Magic is a human construct not a God one, if there were to be a God according to the ID argument (and no I don’t believe in ID or Creationism) but yet the same argument is being made for proof that something is not simply an accident.

The mounds are an interesting example because as we speak there’s the whole Bosnian Pyramids argument going on based on the same issue.

My point is posting this thread is a discussion about the preconceived ideas that DO infiltrate science and carry theory in a specific peer accepted direction.

Thanks to those of you mature enough to actually have the debate without the immature comments.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

That passage you quoted in your OP is actually an argument against ID. Just because something looks “designed” doesn’t mean that it is. That’s why ID is stupid, but that obvious fact doesn’t make the converse true. It does not amount to an argument that something which does not show evidence of “design” might be designed anyway (which is the inference I think you’re trying to draw).

Frankly it doesn’t need to be God, it could be aliens or any other number of theories out there. Or it could be something we don’t know and haven’t yet conceived of that is intelligent and created life on earth, like a scientist from another galaxy or something. If we call it the big scientific experiment from planet Zog, does that make it less magic?

It makes it regressive and non-explanatory. These “aliens” you posit would require even more explanation than the phenomenon you’re inventing them to explain. They would have to be just as “designed” and non “accidental” and another designer would have to be invented to explain them…and another to explain them…and so on, and so on in an infinite regression until you are forced to get to the purely magical regression stopper called “God” (which actually doesn’t stop the regression at all, truth be told).

Magic is a human construct not a God one, if there were to be a God according to the ID argument (and no I don’t believe in ID or Creationism) but yet the same argument is being made for proof that something is not simply an accident.

I’m not sure what you’re saying unless you’re saying that “Face on Mars” type stuff is analogous to ID, in which case, I agree with you. The kind of stuff you’re referring to are not scientific theories or settled conclusions, though. At best, they are hypotheses which are always subject to testing, revision or complete falsification. They are not in the same ball park with verified theories like evolution (which is not “accidental,” by the way).

My point is posting this thread is a discussion about the preconceived ideas that DO infiltrate science and carry theory in a specific peer accepted direction.

This is not true. Scientific method starts with hypotheses (maybe this was an ancient shovel, maybe it was a banjo, maybe it’s just a stick) and looks to confirm or falsify those hypotheses, but the kind of archaeology you’re talking about does not just declare by fiat that “this was an ancient shuffleboard paddle,” and that’s end of it.

While you’re correct that the humnan mind can fool itself into thinking itsees design or intention or organization where there was none, all that demonstrates is why ID is so fallacious.

It’s also a tendency that archaeologists are quite aware of and why they’re so careful and why they leave things open to correction.

[DMC]

@red_awning

My posting priveledges were revoked so I couldn’t come back to that one. But oooh how very Sherlocky Holmes of you. No point made just lots of susicious eyebrow wiggling. Bravo!

We get a LOT of guests here who just witness and run, especially those who have posted the same message almost verbatim elsewhere. You would have been neither the first, nor the last. Not even this week.

I’m also not sure that a 5 second Google search qualifies as detective work.

[DMC]

@red_awning

While looking around google for information on dating and Neanderthals I found information about a supposed flute that was found and purported to be that of a Neanderthal. It was a bone seemed made with intent, and there were four holes in the the bone that fit the thumb and fingers and actually played do rei mi when blown.

Scientists are going about this in a pretty scientific manner, and haven’t come to any sort of consensus last I heard.

Some people have suggested that it was just a coincidence. The whole debate got me to wondering about the way we determine whether an artifact is made by an intelligent creature or just an accident.

Through scientific means is an ideal method.

The implications of the arguments take on some very interesting perspectives when you discuss this in the same manner that people often discuss religious observers who believe they have “witnessed a miracle” or seen the Virgin Mary etc etc.

Which is why we should (and do in the case of the archeological finds) go beyond just discussing it. I’m sure the scientific community would be more than happy to subject “miracles” to the same level of scrutiny, but they have to actually find one first.

Here’s info on the mask

I think the people who are convinced this is a mask are a bit premature at this time, but then I haven’t seen it up close. Determining the level of accuracy of some of their descriptions would do a lot to sway me one way or the other, but that’s not possible to do with the pictures I’ve seen so far.

Its very easy to mock a religious person for doing this but I don’t think we’d ever accuse an archaeologist of doing this, we seem to take it for granted that if a person sees something then its really there.

Again, scientists have been more than happy to apply the scientific method to various religious claims made in the past, such as the Shroud of Turin, much as they’ve applied them to the flute. By the same token, they’ll happily prove their fellow scientists wrong (or right) in cases where they are.

But there are controversies in science regarding this. The Bosnian Pyramids are one sort of example that’s been in the news recently.

Is there even a single archeologist who thinks those are pyramids? I wasn’t aware that there was any controversy surrounding them in the scientific community.

[red_awning]

I see a pattern of wanting to exempt “science” from the realm of human error or wishful thinking.

I don’t believe this is possible because the scientists involved are still always people.

Its significant to me that the scientists fought that the “flute” might not be a flute after all instead of just accepting it. This is a good example of scientific scrutiny at work. Also the Bosnian Pyramids, science is refuting the arguments.

My point however is what about when the general science consensus on a topic, is blind to their own bias and doesn’t question it. Scientific method is not rock solid. Its the most sophisticated, accurate, balanced way of examining information and drawing conclusions that we have. But it still is far from perfect.

Just because its better than leaps of faith or guessing doesn’t mean its perfect.

We can use science conclusively to prove what something is NOT but we can’t really in regard to archaeology prove what something IS. Its not possible. So what happens when scientists forget that and begin to build theory on a previously accepted hypothesis and theory. There is a chance of an error to be made.

My point in suggesting aliens etc was more to the point of “something we haven’t even conceived of” we are assessing the situation based on the data we have available to us, that doesn’t mean that the theory we are constructing is anything remotely close to the truth.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@red_awning

I see a pattern of wanting to exempt “science” from the realm of human error or wishful thinking.

You do? That’s not how I understood “science” was defined - as an eternally self-correcting process. Of course mistakes are made and blind alleys followed. Who’s claiming otherwise?

Anyway, a curious artifact (if that’s what it is) like the “Neanderthal Flute” will always be contentious because no film evidence of its origin has or is ever likely to appear.
…
What’s your point, exactly?

[red_awning]

I don’t have a point. Why so defensive? My comment though is the idea that if scientists are doing it because of the nature of its self correcting system that its designed to catch itself if it makes a mistake. This is the general pattern of dismissal when questions regarding the accuracy of interpretation with regard to archaeology come up.

Except since we don’t really have any sort of way of truly verifying any of the findings or theories or hypotheses regarding archeology, then by accepting any of them as something to build on we’re chosing to believe one interpretation and to build on that one. If that interpretation is based on limited information then part of the process is going to require a somewhat leap of faith that we have made the correct choice of possible interpretations. Not be confused with a religious leap of faith mind you, it is obviously based on more than just a sparkly feeling that this is the answer.
However, I’ve always wondered why we feel so sure in doing that when most of what we are basing our conclusions on amount to bones and artifacts and conclusions based on the analysis of evidence that has managed to survive. Most of the evidence hasn’t managed to survive. Our “leap of faith” is basically that the evidence is representative of a norm rather than an abberation. We’ve no way of really 100 percent being sure of that.

In this regard the interpretation of whether something is an accident or an artifact is quite interesting. That is what I had hoped to explore in this discussion as some people have done here already.

What’s your point?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@red_awning

I don’t have a point. Why so defensive?

Asking you to clarify your point (though apparantly you don’t have one) is defensive? Can you please define “defensive”?

My comment though is the idea that if scientists are doing it because of the nature of its self correcting system that its designed to catch itself if it makes a mistake. This is the general pattern of dismissal when questions regarding the accuracy of interpretation with regard to archaeology come up.

I’m having some difficulty parsing this. Could it be restated as “scientists claim that new evidence can challenge acccepted belief, but in practice they tend to cling to their beliefs even in the face of new evidence” ?

In this regard the interpretation of whether something is an accident or an artifact is quite interesting. That is what I had hoped to explore in this discussion as some people have done here already.

And what conclusions have you made or expect to make about the differences between “accident” people and “artifact” people?

[Spoke]

@Bryan Ekers

I’m having some difficulty parsing this. Could it be restated as “scientists claim that new evidence can challenge acccepted belief, but in practice they tend to cling to their beliefs even in the face of new evidence” ?

I don’t know if that’s what the OP is getting at, but I do think there’s a lot of truth to that.

A related problem is scientists who are so in love with their hypotheses that they couch them as truth in public discourse.

[red_awning]

@Bryan Ekers

I’m having some difficulty parsing this. Could it be restated as** “scientists claim that new evidence can challenge acccepted belief, but in practice they tend to cling to their beliefs even in the face of new evidence” ?**
And what conclusions have you made or expect to make about the differences between “accident” people and “artifact” people?

Kind of but not quite. Hmm I’l used an visual example. If you are building a house of cards and you can only add a card to the house if you think its “true” then you are going to have to make a decision or a choice to believe something is true or not.

Once the opinion has been taken as “true” then you continue to build but don’t really reconsider the lower levels as you move along.

In the way that science works in practice most challanges to theories are going to involve the most recent layer of cards. The ones closer to the bottom tend to not be as intriguing in general.

In addition once the house of cards is beginning to form a recognizable shape or conclusion, then its going to be as you posted less popular to be willing to challange the status quo because we’re actually getting close to forming a picture here.

But in reality we’ve built this on hypotheses and theories that we have no way of verifying ever. So its always a leap of faith of sorts.

The Neanderthal mask and the flute are examples where accepting this either way changes a lot more than just the physicality of the Neanderthal but also the concepts of how they viewed the world.

A neanderthal that made art is a different animal than one that did not? So this is where the interpretation makes a big difference.