ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Music for cavemen

Posted: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 2:45 PM by Alan Boyle


Daniel Maurer / AP
Click for video: The University of Tubingen's Nicholas Conard holds an ancient
flute during a news conference. Click on the image for a video report on the find.

Scientists say they've found what they consider to be the earliest handcrafted musical instrument in a cave in southwest Germany, less than a yard away from the oldest-known carving of a human. The flute fragments as well as the ivory figurine of a "prehistoric Venus" date back more than 35,000 years, the researchers report.

The findings, published online today by the journal Nature, suggest not only that cavemen and cavewomen could rock the house, but that musical jam sessions may have helped modern humans prevail over their Neanderthal cousins.

"The bottom-line issues are demographics, but behind the demographics are other factors," said Nicholas Conard, an archaeologist at the University of Tubingen and the Nature paper's lead author.

Researchers know that modern humans prevailed over Neanderthals in Europe 20,000 to 35,000 years ago, and that the principal factors behind the Neanderthals' disappearance probably included culture and climate as well as diet. Conard and his colleagues - Maria Malina of the Heidelberg Academy of Science and Susanne Munzel of the University of Tubingen - argue that the musical tradition fostered by Homo sapiens may have contributed by bonding communities more closely together.

"Modern humans seemed to have had much larger social networks," Conard told me today. That networking may have helped facilitate "the demographic and territorial expansion of modern humans relative to culturally more conservative and demographically more isolated Neanderthal populations," he and his colleagues wrote.

The fact that multiple musical instruments turned up in the same area, not far from other artistic artifacts, strengthens the argument that Paleolithic humans developed a relatively rich culture, the researchers say.

Four flutes found
In all, researchers report finding the fragments of four flutes at two excavations in an area of southwestern Germany known as Swabia. Three of the sets of fragments were carved from mammoth ivory, but the real prize is a nearly complete flute hollowed out from the bone of a griffon vulture. That specimen was found in the Hohle Fels cave, just 28 inches (70 centimeters) away from the spot where the prehistoric Venus (or, as some wags have put it, "prehistoric porn") was found.

The figurine's discovery was announced in May, but both finds were actually made last September. "First came the Venus, and a couple of weeks later came the flutes," Conard said.

When assembled, the vulture-bone flute is about eight and a half inches long (21.8 centimeters long) and boasts five finger holes. There are fine lines cut into the bone around the holes, suggesting that the flute's maker was calibrating the holes' placement to produce the nicest tones. One end of the flute is cut into a V shape, and the musician probably blew into that side of the flute. The researchers assume that an inch or two of the flute's far end is missing. You can hear what the flute might have sounded like in this MP3 audio clip.

Conard noted that the fragments of eight flutes have now been found in Swabian geological deposits dating back 30,000 to 40,000 years - deposits known as the Aurignacian layer. Radiocarbon dating indicated that the newly found fragments fit into that time frame, and other dating methods led the researchers to conclude that the flutes were more than 35,000 years old.

They said there were no "convincing" claims that any older musical instruments have ever been discovered.

Reviewing the evidence
Actually, Slovenian archaeologist Ivan Turk and other researchers have pointed to a bear-bone fragment that is about 50,000 years old and appears to have the finger holes for a flute. I wrote about that particular specimen nine years ago in a story on the "sounds of science." But there's still a controversy over whether the holes were made by a Neanderthal or by a bone-chomping scavenger.

"No [outside] scholar who has ever studied it has ever confirmed it's a flute," Conard told me. Turk and his supporters have stood by their story, however.


This bear bone specimen was found in Slovenia in 1995. Is it a 50,000-year-old flute? Such claims have spawned controversy.

Conard said his team's conclusions about the flute found in the Hohle Fels cave are on much more solid ground. "It's a totally different situation here," he said. "We're dealing with finds that have all kinds of indications of cutting with tools and polishing."

The research also meshes with the story told by other finds like the prehistoric Venus. Taken together, the evidence points to a flowering of culture that took place around 35,000 B.C. Could it be that prehistoric partygoers brought their flutes as well as their figurines to the same cave rave?

"It's possible," Conard said. "Let's put it this way: If that were the case, you would find the situation that we have. On the other hand, we can't be sure how much time is represented by the [geological] layer. Let's say that your grandfather played the flute, and your great-granddaughter made the Venus. But it's got to be the same general time period."

Update for 4:30 p.m. ET June 25: I heard back via e-mail from a couple of other knowledgeable fans of ancient flutes. First, here's one of Conard's co-authors, Susanne Munzel, commenting on the Slovenian bear-bone flute (or non-flute):

"I have seen this 'flute' in Ljubljana earlier this year, and in my eyes it is not convincing. As an archaeozoologist I think this is carnivore chewing, which is quite normally found on juvenile cave bear bones. Certainly the bite marks are quite regular and look artificial, but the inside of the shaft is still covered with spongiosa. This makes a sound of the 'flute' impossible. Furthermore the shaft is not very long, and the first 'finger hole' is too close to the mouthpiece. We still don't know why art and music is only proved for Homo sapiens, since very nice Middle Paleolithic stones tell us that Neanderthals were no stupid people. Actually, these flutes and art objects are dated to 35,000 to 40.000 years BP [before present], a time in which in other parts of Europe Neanderthals were still around. So there is no contradiction in dating or the like."

And here's a message from Boston University's Jelle Atema, who made replicas of the bear-bone flute as well as other ancient flutes (and played them quite well, I must say):

"I find the evidence concerning this flute solid, but the inferences weak and misleading. I sense an all-too-common 'Cro-Magnon supremacy' issue here. And once published as a full article in Nature, even inferences become scientific fact. The questions surrounding the Slovenian Neanderthal flute are, in my opinion, throwing sand in the eyes.

"Unfortunately, my main job is as a marine biologist, and my full article is not published in Nature but in the British flute magazine Pan, besides the brief mention in the Science article following the AAAS meeting in 2000. I think it would be most productive at this point to organize a conference where all flute-finders exchange evidence. A real open forum."

Atema also addressed a couple of e-mailed questions I sent him. Here's an edited version of the Q&A:

Q: Is there any way to judge how such flutes might have been used?

A: The article provides no evidence for the way the Hohle Fels flute (carved from a vulture radius) may be played. The authors suggest that V-notches were carved for sound production and that fine lines across the bone surface may have been for measuring the proper distances between finger holes.

I have argued that one V-notch (not 2) could indicate either a quena-type or a broken fipple-type flute. I presented evidence from the deer bone flute for a fipple flute, i.e., what we now call a 'recorder.' The [Slovenian] Divje Babe flute could be either. Line carvings (and fine dot designs) are also found on the beautifully preserved 4,000-year-old vulture bone (here an ulna) which I replicated; these have nothing to do with finger holes. Moreover, I have argued that the player can easily bend the pitch so that precise finger distances are not necessarily of great importance. (This is highly controversial, but once you hear it you can believe it: Finger holes do not fix the pitch, they only suggest a pitch region.)

Finally, the idea that the Divje Babe flute is not a flute but actually a bone with two canine-pressed holes is highly unlikely. Most people agree that the broken third hole is a finger hole. Then there is the fourth 'hole' which may be a finger hole or - in my opinion - the blow hole or notch. And most biologists immediately recognize that scavengers of bone marrow crack the bone with their molars, which have the required leverage for bone crunching. Canines are for grasping, not cracking. (Just imagine how a carnivore would place its canines on a round bone and pierce two holes with its teeth! ... and then leave it alone.)
 
Q: The paper also touches upon the possible role flute-playing might have had in Paleolithic society, and how it might have given an edge to modern humans (in more connected communities) over Neanderthals (who were said to be in more isolated communities). From your perspective, what’s the current thinking on the wider implications of Paleolithic music for modern human and Neanderthal society?

A: This to me is the same speculation people use to justify their cultural superiority all over the world. The problem for some people is to accept that Neanderthals may have been playing flute. Perhaps Cro-Magnon may have adopted originally Neanderthal instument making and music. There is no evidence in either direction. The only way to save the Cro-Magnon musical superiority is to question (and reject) the fact that Ivan Turk found a flute ... therefore the holes were made by cave bears! I believe his and my evidence are clearly favoring the human Neanderthal flute model. (Some would argue that Neanderthals were not even human. No problem; that's a question of definition. But we should be careful. Racial opinions have justified enslaving and eradicating people all over the world.) There is no evidence that Neanderthals, human or not, did not have a musical culture.
 
Q: Is there any way you can assess how this latest research fits into the current thinking on ancient music-making?

A: I believe that this is a case of scientific competition. Who has the oldest flute? Slovenia? France, Germany? The hard evidence presented here is wonderful but limited. Personally, I see a broad pattern of old musical culture all around the edges of the ice-age Alps. Any solid new piece of evidence is welcome. Maybe eventually we will have a picture of the musical origins. What's clear is that the current bone-flute-based evidence is somewhere between 30,000 and 50,000 years old. The sophistication of the flutes suggests that the actual musical culture is much older, particularly if I am right in my fipple flute reconstructions.

Let me know when MSNBC is sponsoring this old bone flute convention.

More science you can hear:


Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about my upcoming book, "The Case for Pluto."

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

To Don from Colorado,
I'm impressed that you are able to dismiss the empirical evidence from radiometric dating, tree ring dating, ice core sample dating, etc. from folks all over the world that agree that the Earth is much older
than 7,000 years old.I read that some time ago some university renegged on granting admission to several science students because they too believed as you do.The university argued that their ability to deny or distort the empirical data made them unqualified.
I couldn't agree more.You are certainly entitled to your beliefs but there can be real world consequences awaiting such antiquated thinking.
Don - the world is not 6000 to 7000 years old. So your concerns are solved.

Alan: at your convenience please post an article about the various dating methods to which you allude in this article. Some people seem to think that the aging of prehistoric artifacts is more a matter of opinion than of evidence.

[ALAN ADDS: I'll quote a few things from the paper: "Several dozen radiocarbon dates from the Aurignacian [layer] of Hohle Fels have been published" ... 10 radiocarbon dates have been calculated for the basal Aurignacian where the flutes were found, based on measurements "made on collagen extracted from anthropogenically modified bone or charcoal at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit and the Leibniz Laboratyr, Kiel. The bones dated were all well preserved and produced good yields of collagen."... The resulting dates were between 31,000 and 40,000 years ago. "Although there is at present no universally accepted calibration for radiocarbon dates earlier than 30,000 years ago, available calibrations and independent controls using thermoluminescence and other methods indicate that dates of approximately 32,000 years ago correspond to roughly 36,000 years ago in calibrated years. This, we can be certain that the flutes from Hohle Fels pre-date 35,000 calendar years ago." Here's more about thermoluminescence, radioisotope dating and other techniques:]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-dating-game

i don't think whatever it is was originally meant to only have 2 holes in it, you can clearly see the edges of two other holes bored into the bone where it currently ends jaggedly. they are in line with the two that are intact, suggesting that whatever it was, it used to be longer and have more holes.
>>It would have been nice for them to mention
>>that,[...]  it has been widely held for decades
>>that the first musical instrument was the bow
>>and arrow,

I expect the reason that they didn't mention is is that the earliest reliable evidence for a bow post-dates these flutes by around 27,000 years.
I can't believe that anyone in the U.S. (or even this planet) still believes that the world is only 6000 years old.  It is truly amazing how difficult it is to rid us of ignorance.
I always say, "People believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts".
Why is it that everyone seems so surprised when an artifact is found, such as this musical instrument. Of course people had music way back when and guess what? They also cooked, with pots and pans, and people back then had the most beautiful artwork. In fact I think it is much then our so called "modern art",. because it made sense. After all, it's not like they were stupid back then and the people living in this day and age somehow are smarter. Unless, of course, you count the weapons of mass destruction, or the many other inventions we have to harm or kill people. Oh, and lets not forget our "state of the art" modern day medicine, as I sit here with my young on-set parkinsons disease, (I'm 44),. But then, they probably didn't have all the wonderful chemicals we have, that can kill all those horrible bugs that eat just a very small portion of crops,.Or the genetically altered meat with the growth hormones that we inject in our cattle then later we feed our
kids,.It's my quess that the people that so many think wern't very smart, were actually geniuses because they could see into the future and know that these "inventions" would only cause a greater harm then what was already going on,.What do you think,.Karen
In response to Mr Bradley above is he sure this planet is only 6000 to 7000 years old? Interested in his source of reference.
So in 34,900 years we have progressed and invented the atomic bomb, credit default swaps, crack and Viagra?
 That music is instictive and that instruments to make it are at the "dawn" of human consciousness should not surprise us. Young humans  in our own time show natural" instictive" singing and dancing which alas, is "taught out" of most of them. They become the adults who believe that music, all the arts are a "frill". Dr. John wilson
Anyone who still believes that the world didn't exist until 6 or 7 thousand years ago, whether religiously motivated or not, needs to have their head examined. The scientific peer review and testing process virtually eliminates all possibility that the dating of the Earth is incorrect. Fine adjustments will occur over time as the technology improves but the basics remain the same. Furthermore, how do you explain the existence of man before they became Jews and wrote the Torah?
It seems to me that a two-hole flute is on VERY shaky ground without some additional indication (of a mouthpiece, for example).  Even if carved intentionally, it could just as easily be a necklace.
Hmmm  I wonder if the parents of the musician thought he was straying and wished he would get a real job, like hunter gatherer, or maybe invent something useful like the wheel.
To Don Bradley, the last thing we need is another "Holy Roller" claiming this Earth is only 7,000 years old. [...]
I agree with Don Bradley Greeley above, but I would go a little further. I think there is a huge flaw in the dating system used. The flaw is that we have not been able to ascertain as of yet, when is it that the planet earth came to be. If we assume for a minute that the big bang theory is true, then, the material of which the earth is made is indeed old, but that doesn't prove that the earth is that old. In that case when people say this is a million year old or whatever, what is exactly are they referring to, since the material that forms the earth is much older than the earth. Furthermore, if big bang was true then, what was before big bang?
So there is a huge confusion of about the aged of the material of which the earth is made and the age of the earth itself.
Don Bradley, I think your dates are off because the world is only about 4000 years old.  Maybe this was a weapon used by man to fend off the dinosaurs that lived around that time.  I think this is a much more plausible explanation.  It's funny how people who are supposedly "scientists" can be so far off.
Given the cultural explosion taking place 35,000 to 40,000 years ago, we can hypothesize that Modern Man first appeared in Eurasia perhaps 50,000 years ago, having evolved within a small population of nearly-modern homo-sapiens that had 20,000 years earlier wandered out of Africa.  Though neither the Neanderthals they met nor any Neanderthal/homo-sapien hybrids seem to have survived to this day, Modern Man remained capable of breeding with the slightly more archaic African homo-sapiens who survive to this day. The interbreeding that scientist proved has occurred probably helped the pre-modern African population partially catch up.
Why is it so hard to believe that people played music for the pure enjoyment of it  just like they new now? Why do antropologists always have to attribute some weird religious or tribal networking gobledegook to it? Music is hardwired into our brain. Just look at children at a live concert sometime. No one taught them how sway and rock to the beat. It's just part of us.
For the Creationists:

You are basing your worldview on a 6,000 year old book of unknown provenence basically because someone told you to. It's as though someone in the year 8009 had found my comic collection and accepted as fact that a spider bite gives you super powers.

For the athiests:

Don't bother calling them stupid, foolish etc. It will do no good. And don't assume it's just Christains, the religiously closed mind comes in many flavors.
Furthermore, if big bang was true then, what was before big bang?
-------

Charles, there was nothing before the Big Bang. Literally nothing, space-time didn't exist. And the dating confusion you refer to doesn't really  exist (although I'll allow for the possibility that you personally find it confusing).

But even if such confusion did exist that's no reason to say "oh, the answer is right here in this anonymously authored 6,000 year-old book. Guess we can stop looking". That's the path back into the dark ages, and though I'm sure many religious people would be just fine with that a whole bunch of us prefer civilization.
Bishop James Ussher determined(?) that the earth was created on Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC by reading his bible.  Hmmm, A Sunday, no less.
It confounds me how, on a daily basis, anyone can look at all the _facts_ about this Earth, it's _true_ age and still so erroneously conclude that our little planet is a mere 6,000-7,000 years old.

To make this statement is the same as saying the statues on Easter Island (Rapa Nui) are natural formations and actually believe it.  How can anyone ignore scientific fact in favor of theological belief?
In fact if you would spend fifteen mins. reading the Bible weither you beleive it or not, You would see and learn that we do now indeed live on a planet in its second making. "In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the EARTH." When was the beginning and who can say how long creating the heavens and the EARTH took. If GOD started at the far end and created from one end to the other, the EARTH being some where in the middle it may have been "with out form and void:" for millons of years before GOD got back to around to creating man. "and darkness was apon the face of the waters" So what face? Could something have evolved here while GOD finished creating the rest of the universe?  It says the spirt of GOD was on the earth BEFORE the light (sun?) was created. Read verce 7 of Genesis where it talks about dividing the heavens from the EARTH so that is two earths that are mentioned in just the frist 7 verces and still GOD hasn't created MAN. We are the "caveman" but who's to say there were not others here before man. If not, who was the clan of "nod" that Cain married into? Man may have been here for 6,000 to 7,000 years but we were the LAST thing GOD created. MAN perceives with his eyes, Truth perceives with his mind.
To Don Greeley and Charles,
With all due respect- there is not confusion about the age of the Earth and the age of material that make up the Earth. Not among scientists and others who study such things.However you do have a point- kind of. Rocks are dated using one of 40 different radiometric methods that tell us how old that rock is.Doesn't really tell us how old the earth is. Common sense tells us that if a rock is found to be 1 million yerars old the Earth has to be at least that old. The material that makes up the dated rock could actually be older than 1 million years but not younger and here's why.When lava/magma cools and solidifies into rock some of the elements in the rock begin to decay and change into a different element.Scientists know how long it takes for each element to change and thus can tell how old that rock is. Potential error might occur if that million year old rock had been laying around for a billion years before it was melted by a lava flow and then solidified for the second time in it's life. Scientists know of this possibility and allow for it.
Here's the kicker though- this margin for error in dating rocks means that the rock material might be older than radiometric dating says-never younger. I learned about this from a  Christian scientist named Dr.Roger Wiens who does radiometric dating as his job.He is concerned about his fellow Christians believing mis-information about radiometric dating. Look him up on the internet- it's called "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective". Pretty cool stuff.
It is always interesting to hear the name calling from the Bible and Science sides of the age of the earth discussion. If you don't know or agree with the other sides point, they must be a Neanderthal!
Seriously though, how many of the Science based commenters here can give a knowledgeable explanation of how carbon dating (or any of the other types) works and what some of it's pitfalls might be? Solar radiation rates in the upper atmosphere, terrestrial carbon to nitrogen ratios, carbon sequestering rates just to name a few that might mess up your C14 incorporation rate.
On the Biblical side, how many have actually sat down with the text and tried to find where the 6,000 year number came from? Try looking up a name, Bishop Usher, if you are interested in following the trail. Put your geology aside for a few moments and just follow the logic of where all the texts lead and you come out to about that number. It is really quite amazing that such a thread could be followed through the accounts and not have any obvious gaps with no way to know. Then of course, consider how the misinterpretations (day/age theories, generational/ patriarch skipping (Luke vs. Matthew), etc.) could be applied given that the purpose of the text was not to nail down calendricals.
By the by Mark Rossmore, Roman calendars have nothing to do with it, all the figures are given in years, which has pretty well been 365 days in every culture and age....
Personally, setting aside the time for a creation "week", the 6,000 biblical years should more accurately be termed "the age of modern man" instead of the age of the earth. Given that the actual written history of man actually fits this period to a T, it is surprising that we so quickly believe "man as we know him" to have been active so long before this based on predictive science models. How are all those future looking models doing with a little tweak here or there eh? -climate change(ing) anyone?
It is amazing at how people want to de-value humanity.  Humans have not "evolved" from anything, and the faintist thought of evolution-in any form or value-being realistic is nothing more than an attack on the true creation of GOD.  If you study evolution, you will find that it is the exact polar opposite of scripture.  It is nothing more than dogma.  Evolution is not able to even be proved by its own worshippers...SCIENCE.  There has been NO PERSON ALIVE that has ever been able to prove the theory of evolution.
Great photos, great find!!  If a man could have been so intuitive and creative to discover and create such a device as a flute 35,000 years ago, why cannot the more modern developed mind see the difference between facts and faith? and or possibly simply accept that before faith becomes a fact, we might need a little more science to help us sort it all out!!!  
I think I might try using the creationist's math to calculate my golf scores. I'll be shooting well under par!
No, Dave, it doesn't make much sense.  You assume that eating comes from hunting (gathering was the primiary source of calories), that men were the primary providers (need I explain?), that a hungry woman would sit around waiting for a man to trade sex for food rather than getting the food herself (hmmm), and that Paleolithic people painted the animals they ate (not so much).  They would have been awfully dim hunters if they had made paintings for sympathetic magic and painted the wrong things.  The fact that we (their descendants--sorry, Biblical literalists) are here is a testament to their genius.  There was no indication 40,000 years ago that our pitiful little species (no fur, no scales, no claws, no fangs, can't run or jump) would take over everyone else's ecological niches.  They were very clever or we wouldn't have the luxury of sitting around and making ridiculous assumptions about them.
First of all, let us give Don a break.  Lack of respect for others' beliefs is one of the chief reasons there is so much misery in the world.

As far as the purpose of the flute goes I am going to advance the idea that it was for self-expression.  It may have started as a desire to capture the song of the birds but the purpose was to self-express like the bird.  Also, playing such an instrument for a long period of time will put you into a zen-like state - for the listener as well as the performer.
Let us not forget either the natural reverberation of cave accoustics.  Playing a flute inside a rock enclosure such as a cave is an extremely sonorous experience.
A flute, with mouthpiece, seems pretty advanced.  I’m wondering what would have been the first dedicated, built to be instrument instruments.

Charles Fontanetti, Maricopa, AZ (6/25, 1314)
We can date the cooling of rocks.  The oldest rocks we find today aren’t necessarily “original” rocks.  They could have cooled into rock, remelted, recooled, etc. several times, and the earth could have been too hot for rock for a long time before any “original” rock.  So yes, there is some confusion about the age of the earth, but there is no confusion about the range.  If you know a lady in her 90s but don’t have her birth records then there is confusion about exactly how old she is.  There is no confusion about whether she’s a toddler or older than 40.  The earth is old.

Ben Jimenez (6/25, 1532)
Your explanation is a bit confused, but you’re on the right track.  If a rock solidified with some resultant nuclides already in it then it would test older than it really is.  That translates to younger than tested.  You could conceivably, from this defect, test lava from a flow last year as being older than the earth.  There may be other dating methods with the potential to fail the other way.  However, in reality, the tests are quite accurate because the resultants that are measured are cast out of the rocks structure at high temperatures.  So as the rock solidifies it has a “clean slate” with a count at zero.  This makes many forms of dating extremely reliable.

Daniel, Ida, Arkansas (6/25, 1652)
You can’t fit the requisite number of all the land dwelling animals we have today plus a year’s worth of food in the ark.  Love the enthusiasm, just try not to look like a dolt.  If creation ended and there is no evolution then the Bible must be a lie.  Or we don’t have all the animals that we do have.  Or a cubit is something like 10 feet.
Does this trump the invention of the wheel?   I say certainly. But then I was always of the artistic bend.  I am certain that others will say " Ohh noo, the wheel is obviously infinitely of more utility than music."
Utilitarian inventions help us conquer our more treacherous environments and survive.  The arts let us enjoy those hostile conditions and give us a reason to live.  I can’t imagine wanting to continue in someplace like Alaska, where you can see Russia from your porch, if the only reason was to continue the struggle tomorrow.  Maybe something primal would kick in, but how depressing.  I’ll vote for the flute over the wheel, too.
Follow this blog is very beautiful and eye-catching day, and I would learn a lot thanks
On further thought this could have been a fertility rite especially since the flute was found in close proximity to the "Venus".  The cave was symbolic of the vagina, the flute symbolic of the phallus.  Was the "Venus" pregnant?  Kokopelli is associated with fertility.  Just how far back does that go?
I do not know what Bible ya all are reading. #1 Adam and eve were not the only people on earth they were given an opportunity to be guardians over a beautiful garden and screwed that up. There is always life before and after what we know.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1976108

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google