>>JB> As for the "flute": "The three Slovenian archeologists who
>>made the discovery addressed, and reasonably dismissed, the idea
>>that the holes might have been bored by the teeth of a large
>>carnivore rather than by a bipedal primate. However, the seem to
>>overlook some more obvious considerations. The bone was found near
>>a hearth with charcoal and many burnt fragments of animal bones.
>>One of the holes goes all the way through the bone and the other
>>does not.
>
>IMHO this almost certainly rules it out as a flute, or even a
>whistle. I am not a musician, but AFAIK wind instruments rely on
>asymmetry of hole spacing for musical effect. Something with a hole
>drilled right through it sounds like an ornament with a cord passed
>through it, or some sort of implement.
>
I don't know how many times I must say this but there is no hole drilled all
the way through it. But i bet we will soon find this "fact" in Christian
books.
>JB>These facts suggest at least some likelihood that the
>>bone was an instrument for lighting fires (by twirling a twig in or
>>through one of the holes with a bow). The holes may result from
>>the bone's use as a hammer head or an axe head. Other
>>possibilities abound. Most importantly, the researchers apparently
>>did not construct a bear femur flute according to this bone's
>>specifications to test whether or not it is capable of producing
>>music....
>
>This is exactly what I suggested to Glenn. It is difficult to
>understand why they don't carry out this simple test.
>
"In addition, dance and song leave no traces at all, and such things as
reed-pipes, wooden instruments, and stretched-skin drums will have
disintegrated; however, a few musical instruments have survived from the Upper
Palaeolithic--there are about 30 'flutes', spanning the Aurignacian and
Gravettian (18), the Solutrean (3) and the Magdalenian; a handful come from
Hungary, Yugloslavia, Austria and the USSR, but most are from France, with 14
from the supersite of Isturitz alone. The majority are broken; the French
ones are made of hollow bird-bones, while the eastern specimens are of
reindeer or bear-bone; they have between three and seven finger-holes along
their length, and are played like penny-whistles rather than true flutes.
Experiments with a repolica by a modern musicologist have revealed that, once
a whistle-head is attached to direct the air-flow, one can produce strong,
clear notes of piccolo-type, on a five-tone scale. "Paul G. Bahn and Jean
Vertut, Images in the
Ice, (Leichester: Windward, 1988), p. 68-69
Of course you will make this same charge again Because you made it before;
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:19:13
From: grmorton@gnn.com (Glenn Morton)
To: sejones@ibm.net,evolution@Calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Music of the Ages 1/2
You wrote:
>Unless it could be played, it could have been something else. Holes
>in a piece of broken bone could mean anything. For example, it could
>have been an ornament with holes to thread cord through.
>
I replied
>>Anything to avoid having to agree that the anthropological experts might
know what they are talking about when they identify these as flutes, eh Steve?
But you forget something here. The Isturitz flute broken as it is, was found
with modern man with whome unbroken flutes are also found. So, if a flute is
broken we can't recognize it as a flute as we would be totally unable to
recognize a broken saxophone if we found one of those in an attic. >>
And if you had been reading the exchange between Jim and I you would have
known that on
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 18:09:08
From: grmorton@gnn.com (Glenn Morton)
To: 70672.1241@compuserve.com,evolution@Calvin.EDU
Subject: Re: Morton v. Ross
Jim wrote:
>>1. Why hasn't a model been constructed to test whether the "flute" can
>>actually make noise?
I replied:
>Some do. Some are found in mint condition and can play notes. Others are
>found broken (just like the broken clarinets you can find at a flea market)
>and they can't play because the reed and mouth piece are missing. The
>Neanderthal flute has the tips broken off and so is unable to play. But that
>does not mean that it wasn't a flute anymore than a broken clarinet means it
>was never a clarinet.
>>JB>"[W]e may also question to what degree of certainty music an be
>>declared a manifestation of the spirit. Some music may simply
>>express the soulishness we share with bird and mammal species.
>>Neurobiologists Albert Yu and Daniel Margoliash have just published
>>a paper documenting the amazing musical abilities of zebra finches
>>[Yu and Margoliash, "Temporal Hierarchical Control of Singing
>>Birds," Science, vol. 273 (1996) pp. 1871-1875], advancing the
>>JB>theme of a recent book on bird songs by C. K. Catchpole and P.J.B.
>>Slater [Catchpole and Slater, Bird Song: Biological Themes and
>>Variations (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995)]."
>>(Facts & Faith, Vol 10, No. 4, Fourth Quarter 1996 at p. 11).
>
>Yes. No doubt the religion of the Canaanites was big on music too,
>but that does not necessarily mean it was spiritual!
What a funny definition of spiritual. if it was part of their religion,
whether their religion was true or false, it was still spiritual.
Living with two
>children and a niece in their twenties, I can definitely confirm
>that music is *not* a diagnostic of spirituality! :-)
>
>>JB>*** In a sidebar:
>>
>
>Indeed, the evidence is that anatomically modern humans actually
>existed *before* Neanderthals:
>
>"In the late 1980s, however, this neat sequence was overturned.
>Researchers from Britain and France employed new methods of
>dating, known as electron spin resonance and thermoluminescence,
>on some of these fossils; both techniques depend on the decay of
>certain radioisotopes common in many rocks-a process that acts as an
>atomic clock for minerals in the rocks. The researchers found that the
>modern human fossils from Skhul and Qafzeh were older than most
>of the Neanderthal fossils, by as much as 40,000 years. If these results
>are correct, Neanderthals can not be ancestors of modem humans, as
>the multiregional evolution model demands. What, then, is the
>alternative? Instead of being the product of an evolutionary trend
>throughout the Old World, modern humans are seen in the alternative
>model as having arisen in a single geographical location . Bands of
>modern Homo sapiens would have migrated from this location and
>expanded into the rest of the Old World, replacing existing
>premodern populations. This model has had several labels, such as the
>"Noah's Ark" hypothesis and the "Garden of Eden" hypothesis.
>(Leakey R., "The Origin of Humankind", Phoenix: London, 1994,
>pp86-87).
>
No. The oldest neanderthal is from Pontnewydd England and Ehringsdorf Germany
and predates Modern man first found at 120,000 years at Klasies river Mouth
South Africa. Modern man predates Neanderthal only in the Middle East.
" If the Neanderthals did split from the lineage
leading to modern humans, then the Ehringsdorf date of 230,000 years
ago also gives a minimum age for the beginning of the separate
lineage of modern people."~Chris Stringer and Clive Gamble, In Search of the
Neanderthals, (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1993), p. 66
>
>GM>Jim, Thanks for telling me this. In September, I met Hugh
>>Ross.They had specifically e-mailed me asking me to come to a
>>meeting Hugh was having in town. I went an hour early to see if I
>>could talk to him. I was lucky. I gave him a picture of the flute
>>and told him that he was wrong in what he was saying about
>>anthopology.
>
>This from the person who is "saying about anthopology" that: 1
>Homo habolis/erectus lived 5.5 mya; and 2. that he had the technology
>to build a 3-decker Ark; 3. afterwards he forgot all that technology; 4. fol
>lowing
>a gap of 5 my he began to regain the technology!
>
Stephen why do you take this type of sneering approach?
>GM>He told me that that was why he never got into the anthropology
>>issues; it was way out of his field. I wanted to tell him that
>>someone was writing about anthro in his newsletter. But I was
>>polite. I am glad that he is actually saying something about it.
>>But this is getting silly when a being that makes flutes and engages
>>in art is not to be considered human. Get real.
>
>A lot of time and trouble would be saved if Glenn tried to
>understand what Ross means by "human". He defines humanity
>primarily by its *spiritual* qualitities, rather than artistic or
>technological:
>
I am not sure ross understands his view and which view am I supposed to
understand?
Ross's definition is fluid. A year ago Ross said that art was definitely an
indication of the human spirit.
"In the case of the cave drawings and pottery fragments, the
degree of abstractness suggests the expression of something more
than just intelligence. Certainly no animals species other than
human beings has ever exhibited the capacity for such
sophisticated expression. However, the dates for these finds are
well within the biblically acceptable range for the appearance of
Adam and Eve -- somewhere between 10,000 and 60,000 years ago
according to Bible scolars who have carefully analyzed the
genealogies. Since the oldest art and fabrics date between
25,000 and 30,000 years ago, no contradiction exists between
anthropology and Scripture on this issue." Hugh Ross, "Art and
Fabric Shed New Light on Human History," Facts & Faith, 9:3
(1995)p. 2
Now that he must deal with art older than 60,000 years, he is changing:
"The conclusion that art expression can only come from the spirit
of man is the one I would debate.""The Meaning of Music and Art",
Facts & Faith, 10:4, 4th qtr. 1996, p. 6
What this means is that the 60,000 year limit is overriding the observational
data. He felt comfortable using art as a definiton of humanity when it fit
his preconceived idea. Now he must reject it.
>
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm