Cro Magnon bone?

[FF7_Yuffie]

A break from the usual dinosaurs, I am quite interested in this as it is an oddity. It is apparently a cro-magnon femur. From the site of a gravel pit along the former San River in Poland.

 

I am waiting to hear the measurements from seller, but my questions are thus

 

A - Is it actually real

B - Is it actually legal

 

Like, selling/buying a bone from a cro-magnon/early human seems like something that shouldn't be legal. Seller is in Europe, would I have any issues exporting it to the UK?

 

 

[FF7_Yuffie]

Size is 26 cm. Found 15 meters down. From a site where other mammal fossils were found.

[Crusty_Crab]

Aren't Cro-Magnon's humans (Homo sapiens)? In that case, the question is- is this human? I have a friend that works in a coroner's office and I've sent them the pictures. I'll let you know what they say.

 

If it is human, how can one be sure it is Cro-Magnon and not a more recent human. Poland has been the site of turbulent history for hundreds of years and the site of the find in a gravel pit says nothing about the age. 

 

On that basis, you need to ask yourself a third question: C. Is it ethical? 

To me, buying and selling human remains is wildly unethical. But thats just my opinion. 

 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

Yes, as I understand it, Cro Magnon is, much like Neanderthals, indeed a subspecies of archaic Homo sapiens. As such, their bones would look very similar to those of a modern human, and I am unsure whether there is any way to differentiate between two. I've seen this advertisement before but do not have the expertise to determine where this is an authentic human bone, though from the limited experience I do have this does look like a human long bone - although based on the flattening of the bone that would say this is a tibia not a femur. Except for based on find context I would say it's impossible to say whether it's indeed Cro Magnon or not.

 

And this then is where @Crusty_Crab's comments on legality and ethics come in, as depending on the age of human remains they may be protected under different legal clauses, with early hominid fossils potentially being considered specimens of special scientific interest, which may grant them more protection other vertebrate fossils of similar age. Otherwise they might fall under laws governing archaeology or various laws and regulations concerning dead bodies and graves. Every country had its own laws and their precise wording may be of extreme importance to determine the relevant laws that may apply to it. And, as was justly pointed out, unless you've got firm and solidly recorded context, it's very well possible that the bone was the result of one of the many sub-recent traumatic episodes the country has witnessed. The bone having been buried is not sufficient proof that this is an ancient specimen, as many individual and mass graves have been dug, even in remote areas, to hide this evidence of Crimes Against Humanity. So while the discolouration of this bone suggests it has been buried for at least a while, and it's generally extremely hard work to dig a pit in unperturbed soil, the fact that we don't know under exactly what circumstances the bone was found and only have anecdotal evidence for its ancient origin makes this piece problematic without application of direct dating - which is both expensive and probably, by now, problematic due to C-14 contamination.

 

And while you might decide to ignore these issue with Polish law since the specimen has already been removed from the country, you'll furthermore need to look into both German law as to the trade in human remains, as well as UK-law on the importation and ownership of it. And with all the grave robbing that went on in Victorian times, I can imagine the laws in the UK being especially stringent on the matter.

 

And then there's of course the question of whether it's ethical for a private individual to own human remains in the first place. There a lot of discussion around this in ethnographic and archaeological museums, where the general trend these days is not to display any human remains at all due to respect for the dead, many non-Western cultures of course preferring to bury their deceased irrespective of age - which is it the case here in the West, where it's typically considered okay to display human remains that date back to before the Middle Ages, which seems to be the threshold of until when people here still associate with the deceased. All the same, a lot of people that acquire human remains as souvenirs on a holiday tend to change their mind over time as the specimen starts to creep them out, or they feel haunted by it, at which point they try and bring it to a museum.

 

The opposite may also happen, though, as I once experienced on an excursion with fellow archaeology students to a prehistory museum that has a pile of Pleistocene mammals bones lying out back in its yard that are dredged from a river, and that visitors can go through to find pieces they might want to buy. One of our fellow students found a human-looking bone and wanted to buy it, and I still consider the ethical discussion on whether he could and whether it could be Neanderthal or Cro Magnon as the guy thought or rather a victim of either a ship wreck or a flood...

 

My advice would therefore be to think twice before taking on the responsibility of custody over a human bone. But if you do want to buy it, have it properly identified as human, and at least check all applicable laws in each of the countries involved. Ask for as many records of provenance as can be given, and may be get in touch with local police or a historian society to rule out any issues with the bone being sub-recent (in the Netherlands, for instance, you would be allowed to keep any human bone found on any of the beaches, given thatched police has verified - often with help of a forensic archaeologist - that the bone is ancient and cannot be tied into a missing person's or crime case, following which museums would likely be interested, however, as true ancient human remains from the Dutch coast are rare). So while it may sound very cool to own a bone of a early human ancestor, in practice it's quite the hassle and ethical pickle...

[Crusty_Crab]

My coroner friend who consulted an anthropologist believes it is not human. 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

5 minutes ago, Crusty_Crab said:

My coroner friend who consulted an anthropologist believes it is not human. 

 

I concur. The slight bend in the bone in the third photograph, unless a sign of malnutrition (in particular rickets), would've also led me away from the human interpretation. Instead, the bone being so hollow, light-weight and slightly curved suggests to me some kind of carnivore, maybe? In any case, the bone doesn't appear solid enough for a grazing herbivore.

 

Maybe @Max-fossils, @JohnJ or @LabRatKing would have an idea in which direction to look?

[JohnJ]

I agree this appears to be a tibia.  Maybe @Harry Pristis or @Shellseeker recognize enough size and form to comment.

[Shellseeker]

Let me start with I am not an expert on random long bones,   but on a path to identifying the bone, 

 

What are the measurements ? They will give us some insights on the size of the animal (not sloth, bear, etc)...my 1st thought is not a long bone from an adult Equus,  it is just to small.  It might be a long bone for something like a pre_Equus horse like Neohipparion. 

 

Next .. what are the possibilities?  Femur, tibia, radius, ulna,  etc and how do I eliminate some of those?

 

What are the "features" of this bone... looks like a slight indentation,  an oval shaped broken end, etc..

 

Line up the bone with other bones from known animals....This is a small sabercat femur. It would have a broken oval on the right sight , and has some widening similarities on the left. It would take a lot of work to identify this bone, but doable I think... Let's wait and see what Harry thinks....

 

 

 

 

 

[FF7_Yuffie]

Thanks very much for taking a look everyone, appreciated. Shame it isn't as described--I would have quite been interested in having a cro-magnon/early hominid bone. I am surprised they are allowed in private ownership and be sold or traded. I thought they would be something that would be quite restricted.  Especially since it brings up the issues of, is actually an old bone or a fairly recent one.

 

Thanks for the help and very interesting.

[Harry Pristis]

I am curious about why anyone feels that bones of long-dead human ancestors should be treated any differently than say Jack's sabercat femur.  What is the source of the sensitivity to human ancestor bones?  

 

Human ancestors often enough didn't share that sensitivity when they cannibalized contemporaries, or carved long bones into flutes or decorated their temples and battlements with bones. 

 

What is the deep feeling that has emerged in modern humans?  Is it spirit belief?  Is it Christian resurrection?  Is it the reminder of our own mortality (sabercat bones are okay, but human bones are too close)?  Why are museums returning Native American bones to tribes for disposal?  Is this the original "woke" manifestation in modern humans?

 

I don't have any definitive answer . . . I'm just wondering if anyone here has the answer.  

[Jared C]

1 hour ago, Harry Pristis said:

What is the source of the sensitivity to human ancestor bones?  

 

 

I don't feel a particular sensitivity, but I think the answer is revealed when one tries to ask the question "where do you draw the line?"

 

Rightly so, anyone would be disturbed and angered if someone dug up someone's grandpa's skeleton and sold it. Many would probably feel the same about a few more generations back as well. The further you move back in successive generations, the closer you get to the grey area of "can i dig up a skeleton this old or not?". This blurry question can't be given a philosophically satisfying answer (there's no 'point' or 'age' where you can assign it as ok or not), and so it just deters some away from the practice all together.

 

Now, given, once a skeleton is several thousand years old, this grey area is mostly passed - I would be intrigued and curious if archaeologists found an ancient ancestor tied to me. But, I'm not everybody. I guess some cultures feel a closer tie in their mind to the idea of their ancestors than others.

 

In terms of selling? That's an easy question to answer. It's a person you're selling, regardless. They're long dead so they obviously don't care, but it still feels innately wrong to treat the remains of a once conscious, thinking, much-like-yourself human as a commodity. I think that that may be a by product of evolution as social, cooperative animals. I think we're disturbed by those who show no sign of sensitivity to death of others because those individuals are more likely to be dangerous to the tribe, or less likely to be selfless in defense of you and the tribe.

 

Just a thought, and would explain why cannibalism and other trophies of human remains were for the most part as a result of war on enemies, and thus aren't applicable in the same social respects.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Jared C

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

1 hour ago, Jared C said:

 

I don't feel a particular sensitivity, but I think the answer is revealed when one tries to ask the question "where do you draw the line?"

 

Rightly so, anyone would be disturbed and angered if someone dug up someone's grandpa's skeleton and sold it. Many would probably feel the same about a few more generations back as well. The further you move back in successive generations, the closer you get to the grey area of "can i dig up a skeleton this old or not?". This blurry question can't be given a philosophically satisfying answer (there's no 'point' or 'age' where you can assign it as ok or not), and so it just deters some away from the practice all together.

 

Now, given, once a skeleton is several thousand years old, this grey area is mostly passed - I would be intrigued and curious if archaeologists found an ancient ancestor tied to me. But, I'm not everybody. I guess some cultures feel a closer tie in their mind to the idea of their ancestors than others.

 

In terms of selling? That's an easy question to answer. It's a person you're selling, regardless. They're long dead so they obviously don't care, but it still feels innately wrong to treat the remains of a once conscious, thinking, much-like-yourself human as a commodity. I think that that may be a by product of evolution as social, cooperative animals. I think we're disturbed by those who show no sign of sensitivity to death of others because those individuals are more likely to be dangerous to the tribe, or less likely to be selfless in defense of you and the tribe.

 

Just a thought, and would explain why cannibalism and other trophies of human remains were for the most part as a result of war on enemies, and thus aren't applicable in the same social respects.

 

I think you pretty much hit the nail on its head with this explanation. This, at least, is the most commonly given explanation within the field of archaeology.

[Harry Pristis]

1 hour ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

 

I think you pretty much hit the nail on its head with this explanation. This, at least, is the most commonly given explanation within the field of archaeology.

Huh?  Nail on its head?  Can you summarize in a nailhead what Jared C wrote?

 

"Disturbed and angered" "Gray area" "Feel a closer tie ... to the idea of their ancestors"  "Feels innately wrong"  These are not explanations, they are descriptions of how we react.  I wanted to know WHY we have these reactions, these feelings.

 

One suggestion that Jared made is interesting;  That people are disturbed by sociopathy because sociopaths "are more likely to be dangerous to the tribe".  Now, this is an explanation for human behavior:  Peer pressure forces everyone to feel something for ancestor remains.  This explanation is unlikely.  In fact, sociopaths thrive in our culture and surely in earlier cultures as well.

 

Kennewick Man who was about 10K years old was handed over to a doubtfully related tribe for disposition out of cultural sensitivity.  Why are we culturally sensitive about Pleistocene human bones and not sensitive about sabrecat bones?  

[Shellseeker]

For those not aware of the issue with Kennewick man back in the 1990s in Washington State.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man has some factual data but it was tightly wrapped in US politics.

The 5000 year old Iceman of the Italian Alps, found in the mid_1990s might be a preferable example to understand. The question is should an individual who happened to find an artifact or a bone from the Iceman be legally required (depends on country laws), compelled by peers, religion, or culture to the authorities or to a group of peoples who claim closest ancestry.

My feeling is that you should understand local laws and comply by them. If there were no laws, I would be happy to keep the bone without regrets or the feeling I was doing anything wrong. My own feeling is that claims for ancestry across 5 or 10 thousand years are foolish and self_serving. I might lend it to a scientific community for study and analysis leading to a research paper.

Others might feel differently but that is normal for the human race.

 

 

[FossilDAWG]

I'd be honored if my femur (or any other bone) were to grace a museum cabinet in 5,000 years.

 

Don

[FranzBernhard]

7 hours ago, Shellseeker said:

Iceman of the Italian Alps

That´s a good example!

I am very disturbed that he is at public display. He should not be buried, he should not be cremated, but treated with respect. Which public display is not.

A copy should be made for display and everything would be fine. But its all about money, I think...

Franz Bernhard

[LabRatKing]

Not humanoid for certain. Sadly, with the ends missing, the likelihood of positive ID of which critter is sketchy at best. An ungulate is about as good as can be stated.

[Harry Pristis]

7 hours ago, FranzBernhard said:

That´s a good example!

I am very disturbed that he is at public display. He should not be buried, he should not be cremated, but treated with respect. Which public display is not.

A copy should be made for display and everything would be fine. But its all about money, I think...

Franz Bernhard

This is exactly what I am asking about.  WHY are you very disturbed at the public display of the iceman?  Why would a wax copy be less disturbing?  Would the display of the frozen newborn mammoth from the Siberian tundra be equally disturbing?

[Fossildude19]

@Harry Pristis

 

I think, Harry, that we are indoctrinated from a very young age to believe that as human beings, we should respect human remains more than those of animals.

We consider ourselves the top of the food chain, and therefore we should (for whatever reason), rate higher in respect than animals.  Our own inflated self worth is what makes us feel this way, I believe.

 

[Tidgy's Dad]

And Homo sapiens, being a social species, feels a connection to others of its kind, an empathetic reaction.

We are not sabre-toothed cats, so feel less of a bond with them, though we feel closer to other 'warm furry' animals than we do to cold blooded beasties. 

Personally, I think that burial is a terrible waste of resources, especially if using a coffin made of wood, and cremation is environmentally unfriendly, at least with burial there is natural recycling. 

I don't care what happens to me after I'm dead, use me for transplants, scientific experiments, put me in a museum or eat me, it doesn't make any difference to me. 

[Harry Pristis]

Species chauvinism, species affinity, maybe.

 

I think that, as human awareness expanded, new explanations for mysteries were required.  One such mystery was death.  The existence of an afterlife, a spiritual realm, offered relief from emotional pain and hope for something after death.  While this idea has primitive roots, it remains powerful today among large groups of humans.

 

If there were a spiritual realm, there must be spirits.  Spirits might have influence in the life of survivors, and fear of, and hope for, that intervention would become established. This might be the foundation of deferential treatment of human remains:  Treat the remains respectfully because his spirit may be lurking.  It also might be the foundation of organized religion -- to entreat positive spirit intervention and to placate upset spirits.

 

I think that this idea of spirits in an afterlife is a significant element in our cultural sensitivity about human remains.  It's an inheritance from our primitive ancestors.  I say inheritance because there is a likely selective advantage for groups that believe in spirits.  But, that's a discussion for another thread.  

[Tidgy's Dad]

Yes, Muslims, including most of my friends and acquaintances here, believe in Akhirah; life after death. The spirit will inhabit the corpse in the grave until Yawm al-din - Judgement Day. So, disturbing bones is upsetting the soul of the deceased.  

Edited April 20, 2022 by Tidgy's Dad

[FranzBernhard]

2 hours ago, Harry Pristis said:

WHY are you very disturbed at the public display of the iceman?

It was a conscious human being.

 

2 hours ago, Harry Pristis said:

Why would a wax copy be less disturbing?

Its a copy.

 

2 hours ago, Harry Pristis said:

Would the display of the frozen newborn mammoth from the Siberian tundra be equally disturbing?

No, it was not a consciousness being.

 

Its just a matter of believe, it has no logic.

 

Franz Bernhard

Edited April 20, 2022 by FranzBernhard

[Auspex]

For comparison:

(From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_European_modern_humans )

 

[Ezio Bonsignore]

"Otzi" (the iceman) is just one of very many examples of human bodies being arranged for public display. Just to start with, there are literally hundreds of Egyptian mummies scattered in musueums all over the world, and the collection in Cairo is astounding to say the least.

 

My personal reaction to this is varied. On the one hand, I was asbolutely thrilled being able to look at, say, Ramses II in his very face, even though he is no longer there. On the other hand, I strongly feel that the exhibitions of plastinated human bodies that are unfortunately multiplying across both Europe and the US are utterly disgusting to say the least, and that the people who organise and prepare these belong firmly to the asile for criminally insane.