Divje Babe flute: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:08, 27 January 2006

Divje Babe I is an archeological site located near Idrija in northwestern Slovenia.

Finds

One of the notable finds at Divje Babe in 1995 is the putative 50,000 year-old flute, known as the Neanderthal Flute. It is a juvenile cave bear femur, broken at both ends, but showing 4 holes in line.

                          File:Image-Divje01.jpg

Who made the Neanderthal flute? -- The debate

Found in 1995 by Ivan Turk in Slovenia, at the Divje Babe site, the juvenile cave bear femur bone, known as the Divje Babe flute, was a major find of recent times.

The reason for that was because it provided significant evidence that Neanderthals may have been the equal of Homo Sapiens in the evolution of humankind. It became the oldest known musical instrument, and the first known instance of a diatonic musical scale sequence.

But soon after it was found, in 1998, the theory was put forward, most notably by taphonomist Francesco d'Errico et al, as well as Philip Chase and April Nowell, that the bone, with four holes in a line, was not a flute, but was a natural object fashioned by random bites from ancient carnivores.

The debate was on. Others entered the debate, and the archaeological and paleo-anthropological community was split. The views of major participants are set out in this article.

Musicologist Bob Fink wrote an essay the year before claiming the bone's holes were "consistent with four notes of the diatonic (do, re, mi) scale," based on the [spacing] of those four holes. The spacing of the holes on a modern diatonic flute (minor scale) are unique, and not evenly spaced. In essence, Fink said, they are like a simple fingerprint. The Divje Babe bone's holes [matched] those spacings very closely to a series of note-holes in a minor scale .

Nowell and Chase in 1998 took issue with Fink's claim the flute matched the tones do, re, mi, fa. Nowell and Chase wrote in Studies In Music Archaeology III (presentations at a 2000 world conference on music archaeology) that the juvenile bear bone was [too short] to play those four holes in-tune to any diatonic series of tones and half-tones. Fink's essay had a passage which originally acknowledged the length required when he suggested there may have been a mouthpiece extension added to the bone before it was found broken at both ends. Three separate museum curators (Prague National Museum; Treasures of the Earth; Birmingham Zoo), experienced with cave bears bones, wrote in 1997 (quoted in the original Fink essay) that an unbroken juvenile cave bear femur, in any event, could have been long enough to meet the "in-tune" playing requirements.

All parties agreed that the bone has been chewed, especially at the ends, but the ongoing dispute centers about [when] chewing occurred, whether during, after or before the larger holes were made.

The issue of bone marrow is also very important in the tapohonomy of the presumed flute, because maing flutes from bone usually includes removing the marrow. Turk, et al (in the monograph Moussterian Bone Flute, p. 160) wrote: "The marrow cavity is basically cleaned of spongiose. The colour of the marrow cavity does differ from the colour of the external surface of the bone....it would be a darker colour of the surface of the bone, as we know from coloured marrow cavities of whole limb bones."

April Nowell was interviewed in [California Wild] -- Journal of the California Academy of Sciences, Summer, 1998, Vol 51:3, "Could Neandertals Carry a Tune?": "At Turk's invitation, [Nowell] and Chase went to Slovenia last year.... They came away even more skeptical that the bear bone had ever emitted music. For one thing, both ends had clearly been gnawed away by something, perhaps a wolf, seeking greasy marrow. The holes could have simply been perforated in the process by pointed canine or carnassial teeth, and their roundness could be due to natural damage after the bone was abandoned. The presence of marrow suggests that no one had bothered to hollow out the bone as if to create an end-blown flute. Says Nowell, '[Turk's] willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, whereas we're not.' " No additional examinations have occured to resolve this matter.

While the taphonomists disagreed about the bone's scarce markings, the bone has become a noted attraction in its Slovenian museum, publicized on official Slovenian websites and is a source of pride in Slovenia. In the West, paintings were made, models constructed, and musicians like Biology Professor and flautist [Jelle Atema] have played them at conventions of flutists and of scientists. New books on related subjects by other scholars have since been published, accepting the bone as the oldest flute known. (Search Amazon.com). Many [University webpages] of professors and science teachers have maintained webpages about the flute.

Although just looking at the flute [shows] that it looks virtually identical to any other flute from prehistoric times, many taphonomists often distrust or dismiss "looks" or prima facia evidence. Then in 1999 Fink was invited to write a [rebuttal] to /d'Errico, Nowell, et al, which was published 2003 in Studies in Music Archaeology III in which he outlined a probability analysis on whether it was reasonable to believe the bone was an accident. Nowell, d'Errico et al had all raised the issue that the interpretation of a carnivore origin was more probable.

Without using any complicated diagrams, or complex mathematics, or relying on knowledge of music and musical terms, a simplified version of the analysis follows. In addition, evidence is summarized from the findings of Ivan Turk et al, d'Errico et al, Chase and Nowell, and others.

Probability Analysis:

Using O's to represent holes in the Divje Babe flute, there is this arrangement of holes (approx):

O___O____O__O

As the holes are not equally spaced, one can think they are a random arrangement, because random or chance measurements are usually unequal and patternless. However, the unequal spacing cannot be assumed automatically to be random, because (as agreed by all in the debate), the holes are also:

Lined-up, four in a row, and also:
Have similar sized diameters, and:
Are nearly all circular (unlike bites which are usually oval);
And like a flute, the holes fit the size of fingertips, and exist on a hollow-bore cylindrical bone.

Those four facts indicate human design and do not square with the unequal spacing which seems caused by random activity. Fink's probability analysis, showing the bone matched the spacing of a known world-wide musical scale sequence, also addressed the question: how likely is that sequence able to occur due to natural processes? His conclusion claims that mathematically, there are several million different ways for holes to be not lined-up, and to have no apparent match to any other usual or purposeful spacing pattern. But there are only few chances in several million that it will line-up in a known scale spacing. And further, for all that to be caused from four separate carnivore bites.

That latter fact of separate bites is not in dispute: The tooth spans were checked by all taphonomists concerned to see if any animals could bite two or more such holes at once. If anyone had found a match to any animals, that could've been cited as prima facia evidence that carnivores made the object. However, all have agreed the holes did not match any animal's tooth span. No two or more holes could've been made by one bite. This was noted by Turk, et al, in his monograph, and noted from the opposing viewpoint by Nowell and Chase in their Current Anthroplogy article in the Aug-Oct 1998 issue.

The actual calculation: Fink explains that on a cylinder about the size of the Divje Babe bone, four holes can be made in line. While keeping the four holes still lined-up in a row, if any one or more of the holes' locations is moved left or right by 1/4 inch or more, then the four holes, as a set, can accumulate about 680 spacing patterns that do not signify a musical scale nor anything else known or which seems clearly purposeful. To understand this visually, here are just five of all the ways to make different arrangements, pictured below. (The unbroken juvenile cave bear femur's length is assumed):

                       File:Image-Divje03.jpg

Only a few would match other musical scale formations or be equally spaced, and these were subtracted in the calculation. [The standard permutation formula used in this analysis, based on the length of the juvenile cave bear bone, was 17!/(14! 3!) = 680.] Further:

If one or more holes is moved up or down the same 1/4 inch, each move will cause the four holes to go out-of-line, as a set, and no longer seem flute-like. There are about 10 possible such places around the Divje Babe bone diameter. That's 10 ways to be "out of line" just moving one hole. As there are four holes that each could be placed up or down 10 different ways, that gives this probability calculation, as follows, using ordinary multiplication: 10 times 10 times 10 times 10, which equals 10,000 ways for the four holes to be not like a flute.

The calculation concludes by multiplying the 10,000 by 680, giving 6,800,000 or close to 7 million different ways in which random arrangements of four holes can appear -- on any similar length and diameter cylinder as is the Divje Babe bone -- without looking like a flute with lined-up holes. Below is a picture of one such possible variant of random holes:

                              File:Image-Divje02.jpg

Opponents of the view that the bone is a flute have offered no rebuttals, nor agreement, to that probability analysis, nor any explanation since 2000 for this object having so many features like a flute simply due to chance processes. They retain the view that its being a natural object is "probable."

A summary of further taphonomic observations

Turk et al; Marcel Otte; d'Errico; Chase and Nowell

Turk conducted laboratory experiments which pierced holes in fresh bear bones in the manner of carnivore punctures, and in every case, the bones split. Turk wrote, in his monograph and in his article in MIT's Origins of Music anthology, the bone shows no "counter-bites" that one would normally expect on the other side of the bone matching the immense pressure necessary for a bite to make the holes. Yet in the Divje Babe instance, the bone did not break, a fact not matching expectations of carnivore efforts, as Turk's results showed.

Turk's 1997 monograph reported the holes have similar diameters; they all fit fingertips; all are circular instead of oval (like most carnivore bites would appear if the holes were made that way). Further, all are in the proper ratio of bore size to hole size found in most flutes; and all are on the kind of bone (femur) usually used for ancient flutes. If calculations could be made of the additional odds for the existence of those orderly patterns (instead of seeing something less orderly), the odds that chance biting of holes making a flute look-alike would be even smaller.

Marcel Otte (director of the museum of Prehistoire, Universite de Liege, Belgium) pointed out in an [April 2000] Current Anthropology article pointed out there was a possible thumb-hole on the opposite side of the Divje Babe bone, which, making 5 holes, will perfectly fit a human hand.

In the original analysis by d'Errico et al, in [Antiquity] journal (March 1998), they used cave-bear bone accumulations, where no hominid presence was known, to interpret the Divje Babe I bone. They published photos of several bones with holes in them, which had more or less "circular" holes similar to any one of the holes found in the Divje Babe bone. Noting that these holes could therefore be produced by animals, and be similar to Divje Babe holes, they concluded by this comparative method that the holes in the Divje Babe bone could likewise have been made by animals.

D'Errico's most recent writing mentioning the Divje Babe object (in Journal of World pre-history Vol 17, #1, March 2003) repeated the original conclusion that while this object could have been used as a flute by a Neanderthal, it was not made to be one.

D'Errico et al, also concluded, in their only comment on probability, that the carnivore origin of the object was "likely." They wrote in 2003, in the Journal of World pre-history: "It has been demonstrated (d'Errico et al., 1998a,b) that holes of the same size, shape, and number as those present on the Divje Babe femur occur on cave bear limb bones from cave bear bone accumulations with no human occupation, and that a number of features described as human-made by the discoverers should more likely be interpreted as the result of carnivore damage."

None of the bones referred to or photographed by d'Errico et al, had the feature of 3 or more holes being lined-up, all with virtually circular and equal diameters, as in Divje Babe's disputed bone, which if made by chance, would be unique.

The resistance about this object being declared a flute made by Neanderthals, and thus also for it being the oldest known instrument and the first instance known of a diatonic scale sequence, remains firm. There are deeply held investments in the views held by different camps in this debate regarding the capacities of Neanderthals (and by musicologists regarding the "Westerness" of the diatonic scale). As Otte added: "The destiny of the Mousterian flute discovered at Divje Babe was preordained: it could be only disputable and doubtful, a priori."

Philip Chase and April Nowell, although they oppose the idea that the object is a flute, concluded (in Current Anthropology, p.552 Vol. 39, #4, August - October, 1998): "We agree with Turk...that it is logically not possible to exclude either a human or a natural explanation for the specimen from Divje Babe." They later wrote (in "The Divje Babe specimen and the diatonic scale" in Studies in Music Archaeology III, p.74): "At this point, it is in fact impossible to disprove either hypothesis" [about whether it was a flute or not]. "Which hypothesis one accepts, then, depends on one's assessment of their relative probability...."

-- January, 2006

References

. ISBN 9616182293. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |Author= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Title= ignored (|title= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Year= ignored (|year= suggested) (help)

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 Nowell and Chase in 1998 took issue with Fink's claim the flute matched the tones do, re, mi, fa. Nowell and Chase wrote in ''Studies In Music Archaeology III''  (presentations at a 2000 world conference on music archaeology) that the juvenile bear bone was [[http://www.calacademy.org/calwild/1998summer/stories/horizons.html too short]] to play those four holes in-tune to any diatonic series of tones and half-tones. Fink's essay had a passage which originally acknowledged the length required when he suggested there may have been a mouthpiece extension added to the bone before it was found broken at both ends. Three separate museum curators ''(Prague National Museum; Treasures of the Earth; Birmingham Zoo)'', experienced with cave bears bones, wrote in 1997 (quoted in the original Fink essay) that an unbroken juvenile cave bear femur,  in any event, could have been long enough to meet the "in-tune" playing requirements.
-All parties agreed that the bone has been chewed, especially at the ends, but the ongoing dispute centers about [[http://www.uvi.si/eng/slovenia/background-information/neanderthal-flute/ when]] chewing occurred, whether during, after or before the larger holes were made.
 All parties agreed that the bone has been chewed, especially at the ends, but the ongoing dispute centers about [[http://www.uvi.si/eng/slovenia/background-information/neanderthal-flute/ when]] chewing occurred, whether during, after or before the larger holes were made.