### Post by Human on Dec 30, 2004 10:43:47 GMT -5

The age and maturity pace of Neanderthals

This evaluation is based on the information provided by Jack Couzzo's in his book Buried Alive : The Startling Truth About Neanderthal Man. There are both strengths and weaknesses in his reasoning. The main problem is that he tries to fit Neanderthal onto the biblical creation myth.

Let's start with children & young adults. That's where his evidence is impressive. On page 185 there is a table estimating the years Between Pech (a very young child) and Le Moustier

Linear or Angular Meassurement Average Rate/Yr Years

1. Michigan Angular Variable 50 0.85 27

2. Bolton Angular No. 13 0.57 26

3. Michigan Linear Variable 88 1.2mm 26

4. Bolton Linear No. 5D 1.2mm 26

5. Bolton Angular No. 3 0.66 27

6. Michigan Linear Variable 182 1.3mm 29

7. Michigan Linear Variable 185 1.8mm 26

Average: 26.7 +/-1

This 7 meassures are different rates of growth, using large modern studies. It's quite remarkable that all of them gives very similar results for the age differences between Le Moustier and Pech. Using dental dating methods, Pech is believed to be between 2 and 2.5 years old. I'll use the mean 2.25 years. Le Moustier is assumed to be between 16 and 18 years old. I'll use 17 for his age. The difference in age based on dental datings therefore is 14.75 years. This would mean there is a discrepancy between general skull growth and teeth growth of 1.81 (26.7 / 14.75). This can be explained by assuming seasonal wear of their teeth. If teeth eruption & wear is proportional to the effective usage-time of teeth, this would be a legal assumption. This means Neanderthals would use their teeth for 1 / 1.81 or 55% of the time, and would not use them for 45%. That translates to 6.5 active months and 5.5 months of hibernation or general inactivity. Using those assumptions, let's calculate the age of various Neanderthals. The general rule for children & young adults would be to multiply the traditional ages by 1.81. This would mean Pech would be 4 years, Gibraltar II 7 years and Le Moustier would be 31 years.

Next, comes the fallacy of Jack's reasoning. Age of adults. The real problem here is that we don't know the exact age of maturity. Le Moustier cannot be assumed to be mature. The exact time of maturity matters a lot, since skull growth in the measures used in the book beyond maturity falls 20 - 30 times. He assumes maturity and Le Moustier is the same thing, but it's most likely not. The most reliable way to calculate age of maturity, is to estimate average life-span. Since Neanderthals matured 81% slower, they should also have lived correspondingly longer. This means realistic life-spans should range between 100 and 150 years. Using that span, it's possible to use 3 of the measures in the book, and estimate an age of maturity that is realistic. Several iterations proved this age is 36, but I won't go into the calculations, just show that it gives reasonable results.

Gonial angle

On page 306, there is a specification of gonial angles, and the rates. LM (Le Moustier): 110, LC (La Chapelle): 105, LF (La Ferrassie I): 104. Rate in adulthood is 0.026/year. Rate before maturity is 0.86/year (p185). This gives the following table:

Gonial angle Estimated age

Le Moustier 110 31 years

Mature Neanderthal 105.75 36 years

La Chapelle 105 65 years

La Ferrassie 104 103 years

Lower jaw length

On page 306, variable 194, specifies LM: 116.3, LF: 131.3 and LC;132.3. Rate is 0.071mm/year. On page 180, it's stated that the lower jaw grows 1.8mm/year before maturity. This gives the following table:

Lower jaw length Estimated age

Le Moustier 116.3 31 years

Mature Neanderthal 125.3 36 years

La Chapelle 131.3 120 years

La Ferrassie 132.3 135 years

The book claims ages of 211, 225, 231 and 192 for the above. This is because of the assumption of LM being mature. It's very clear you can come up with almost any age with this method, since maturation time is not known. I think 36 +/- 2 of maturation is supported by the data. Outside of this range, age of death of LC and LF is becoming unrealistic.

Lower face height

This is the third measure that can evaluated both in children and adults, as is required when maturity is 5 years after LM. This is the most interesting of them. Neither the traditional dating method, nor the presumed in this book, would explain this. On page 212, there are estimates for this parameter. Modern adults grow 0.063mm/year. Between 16 and 18, there is an increase of 1.98mm, which roughly corresponds to 1mm/year, which I will use as an estimate before maturity. He also discusses the fact that modern humans with heavy tooth-attrition, DECREASE lower facial height. This is because passive tooth eruption is smaller than teeth wear. On page 215, he gives the figures for our Neanderthals. LM: 58.3, LF: 75.8 and LC: 78.7. The problem here is that we have to assume a very high increase in lower facial height of 0.15mm/year to obtain realistic results. Here is a table based on 0.15mm/year:

Lower face height Estimated age

Le Moustier 58.3 31 years

Mature Neanderthal 63.3 36 years

La Chapelle 78.7 139 years

La Ferrassie 75.8 120 years

If Neanderthal had such a large growth as 0.15mm/year, which is over twice the modern rate with SOFT diet, how is this possible? I think

the answer once more is hibernation. If we assume they had the modern rate during active periods (55%), and only passive eruption during the rest of the year (45%), we could end up at 0.15mm/year. If their passive eruption was 0.25mm/year, this would contribute to 0.112mm/year of growth (0.25 * 0.45), and the active 0.038mm/year (0.07 * 0.55). On page 211, there is an study that gives rates as high as 0.18mm/year for this parameter, with "no wear".

On page 76, there is an excellent summary of Gibraltar II by Dorothy Garrod:

A. Remarkable jaw muscle development old

B. Well-worn teeth old

C. Infantile forehead slow

D. Big head old

E. Infantile ear bones slow

F. Bulbous upper jaw slow

G. Small young-looking lower jaw slow

F and G is explained by slow-developing teeth, and is the reason for the wrong age-estimates by paleoanthropology. Slower ear development might be related to Neanderthals obvious preference for visual information processing instead of verbal (as evidenced by occipital bun). The forehead is most likely explained by a less advanced social system.

This evaluation is based on the information provided by Jack Couzzo's in his book Buried Alive : The Startling Truth About Neanderthal Man. There are both strengths and weaknesses in his reasoning. The main problem is that he tries to fit Neanderthal onto the biblical creation myth.

Let's start with children & young adults. That's where his evidence is impressive. On page 185 there is a table estimating the years Between Pech (a very young child) and Le Moustier

Linear or Angular Meassurement Average Rate/Yr Years

1. Michigan Angular Variable 50 0.85 27

2. Bolton Angular No. 13 0.57 26

3. Michigan Linear Variable 88 1.2mm 26

4. Bolton Linear No. 5D 1.2mm 26

5. Bolton Angular No. 3 0.66 27

6. Michigan Linear Variable 182 1.3mm 29

7. Michigan Linear Variable 185 1.8mm 26

Average: 26.7 +/-1

This 7 meassures are different rates of growth, using large modern studies. It's quite remarkable that all of them gives very similar results for the age differences between Le Moustier and Pech. Using dental dating methods, Pech is believed to be between 2 and 2.5 years old. I'll use the mean 2.25 years. Le Moustier is assumed to be between 16 and 18 years old. I'll use 17 for his age. The difference in age based on dental datings therefore is 14.75 years. This would mean there is a discrepancy between general skull growth and teeth growth of 1.81 (26.7 / 14.75). This can be explained by assuming seasonal wear of their teeth. If teeth eruption & wear is proportional to the effective usage-time of teeth, this would be a legal assumption. This means Neanderthals would use their teeth for 1 / 1.81 or 55% of the time, and would not use them for 45%. That translates to 6.5 active months and 5.5 months of hibernation or general inactivity. Using those assumptions, let's calculate the age of various Neanderthals. The general rule for children & young adults would be to multiply the traditional ages by 1.81. This would mean Pech would be 4 years, Gibraltar II 7 years and Le Moustier would be 31 years.

Next, comes the fallacy of Jack's reasoning. Age of adults. The real problem here is that we don't know the exact age of maturity. Le Moustier cannot be assumed to be mature. The exact time of maturity matters a lot, since skull growth in the measures used in the book beyond maturity falls 20 - 30 times. He assumes maturity and Le Moustier is the same thing, but it's most likely not. The most reliable way to calculate age of maturity, is to estimate average life-span. Since Neanderthals matured 81% slower, they should also have lived correspondingly longer. This means realistic life-spans should range between 100 and 150 years. Using that span, it's possible to use 3 of the measures in the book, and estimate an age of maturity that is realistic. Several iterations proved this age is 36, but I won't go into the calculations, just show that it gives reasonable results.

Gonial angle

On page 306, there is a specification of gonial angles, and the rates. LM (Le Moustier): 110, LC (La Chapelle): 105, LF (La Ferrassie I): 104. Rate in adulthood is 0.026/year. Rate before maturity is 0.86/year (p185). This gives the following table:

Gonial angle Estimated age

Le Moustier 110 31 years

Mature Neanderthal 105.75 36 years

La Chapelle 105 65 years

La Ferrassie 104 103 years

Lower jaw length

On page 306, variable 194, specifies LM: 116.3, LF: 131.3 and LC;132.3. Rate is 0.071mm/year. On page 180, it's stated that the lower jaw grows 1.8mm/year before maturity. This gives the following table:

Lower jaw length Estimated age

Le Moustier 116.3 31 years

Mature Neanderthal 125.3 36 years

La Chapelle 131.3 120 years

La Ferrassie 132.3 135 years

The book claims ages of 211, 225, 231 and 192 for the above. This is because of the assumption of LM being mature. It's very clear you can come up with almost any age with this method, since maturation time is not known. I think 36 +/- 2 of maturation is supported by the data. Outside of this range, age of death of LC and LF is becoming unrealistic.

Lower face height

This is the third measure that can evaluated both in children and adults, as is required when maturity is 5 years after LM. This is the most interesting of them. Neither the traditional dating method, nor the presumed in this book, would explain this. On page 212, there are estimates for this parameter. Modern adults grow 0.063mm/year. Between 16 and 18, there is an increase of 1.98mm, which roughly corresponds to 1mm/year, which I will use as an estimate before maturity. He also discusses the fact that modern humans with heavy tooth-attrition, DECREASE lower facial height. This is because passive tooth eruption is smaller than teeth wear. On page 215, he gives the figures for our Neanderthals. LM: 58.3, LF: 75.8 and LC: 78.7. The problem here is that we have to assume a very high increase in lower facial height of 0.15mm/year to obtain realistic results. Here is a table based on 0.15mm/year:

Lower face height Estimated age

Le Moustier 58.3 31 years

Mature Neanderthal 63.3 36 years

La Chapelle 78.7 139 years

La Ferrassie 75.8 120 years

If Neanderthal had such a large growth as 0.15mm/year, which is over twice the modern rate with SOFT diet, how is this possible? I think

the answer once more is hibernation. If we assume they had the modern rate during active periods (55%), and only passive eruption during the rest of the year (45%), we could end up at 0.15mm/year. If their passive eruption was 0.25mm/year, this would contribute to 0.112mm/year of growth (0.25 * 0.45), and the active 0.038mm/year (0.07 * 0.55). On page 211, there is an study that gives rates as high as 0.18mm/year for this parameter, with "no wear".

On page 76, there is an excellent summary of Gibraltar II by Dorothy Garrod:

A. Remarkable jaw muscle development old

B. Well-worn teeth old

C. Infantile forehead slow

D. Big head old

E. Infantile ear bones slow

F. Bulbous upper jaw slow

G. Small young-looking lower jaw slow

F and G is explained by slow-developing teeth, and is the reason for the wrong age-estimates by paleoanthropology. Slower ear development might be related to Neanderthals obvious preference for visual information processing instead of verbal (as evidenced by occipital bun). The forehead is most likely explained by a less advanced social system.