Human evolution: Oldest hand-crafted flute so far is 35,000 years old

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 15, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The pieces of the ancient flute

comprise a 22-centimetre instrument with five holes and a notched end. Conard said the flute is 35,000 years old.

“It’s unambiguously the oldest instrument in the world,” said Conard. His findings were published online Wednesday by the journal Nature.

Other archeologists agreed with Conard’s assessment.

Well, that’s reassuring.

The Hohle Fels flute is more complete and appears slightly older than bone and ivory fragments from seven other flutes recovered in southern German caves and documented by Conard and his colleagues in recent years.

Now, here’s the interesting part:

Roebroeks said it’s difficult to say how cognitively and socially advanced these people were. But the physical trappings of their lives — including musical instruments, personal decorations and figurative art — match the objects we associate with modern human behaviour, he said.

“It shows that from the moment that modern humans enter Europe … it is as modern in terms of material culture as it can get,” Roebroeks said.

That’s the thing about the evolution of human culture. It never actually seems to happen. Someone just makes a flute and starts playing it, and soon every tribe has a flute.

A bit like the history of mathematics, I suppose. Someone just invents an idea like the Pythagorean theorem or zero, and everyone just picks up from there.

Comments

If the flute is really that old, then it's reasonable to assume that we had language at that time. I wonder why it took us so long after that to start writing?Davem_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT}

#35 Whey do they call it the “Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence” if they are only going to be able to reach a conclusion of “I Don’t Know”, and can make no reasonable inference of intelligent origin regardless of the nature of the anomalous signal? William I did not mean to imply that they cannot make a reasonable inference of intelligent origin. I am sorry if that was the impression you got from comment #32 - although I cannot see how you get the impression. Possibly it was based on my comment #31 to ScottAndrews. I should expand on that a bit. If there is an outcome with no known natural cause and we know that people did not cause it, then we don't know the cause. So we need to examine hypotheses about unknown causes both natural or intelligent. The exact nature of the hypotheses would depend on the nature of the outcome and the context. For example, a strong simple signal with no known natural cause coming from a planet of similar characteristics to ours would cause us to examine the possibility of a life form similar to ours. The same signal coming from the centre of the Sun would incline us to look for unknown natural causes.Mark Frank_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial and hdx seem to suggest that ideas evolve in a way which is not fundamentally different from the evolution of genes in organisms, because they are capable of being modified and improved over time. However, there are some profound differences between ideas and genes, and I personally think that the evolutionary metaphor for the history of an idea is unhelpful. Genes have a material substrate. They are made of DNA. We can measure the number of changes in a gene over the course of time, in terms which are mathematically quantifiable. Ideas, by contrast, don't have a material substrate, and changes or refinements in ideas are not quantifiable. (If you still can't see why, try this: "the concept of a flute is currently evolving at a rate of 1.2 noumons per century.") Ideas are also not divisible, unlike genes. You can splice a gene - try doing that with an idea. Ideas are things you either get or you don't. Of course, once you've got an idea, there is nothing to stop you from getting a better one. But that's not evolution. That's progress. And that's another big difference between ideas and genes. Ideas get better. Genes don't.vjtorley_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

You should endevour to be more accurate in your thinking. These are not humans, but apelike creates pre-dating man.
You should endeavor to do some research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu They aren't that different, and besides, we're extremely apelike ourselves. Also, which cave paintings are you referring to? There are hundreds of sites containing prehistoric art, in various styles and dating to various times. They're also not the earliest evidence of artistic thinking, just among the most unambiguous. There are hints of it dating back to the time of Homo Sapiens Idaltu, those creatures you've decided can't possibly be human (based on evidence you've failed to cite).dbthomas_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

Mark 28 I read your reference: "The skulls look almost human, but retain some slight primitive features and so the team has given them their own subspecies - Homo sapiens idàltu. The skulls, from two men and a child, are also very large by human standards suggesting the adults cut an imposing figure." You should endevour to be more accurate in your thinking. These are not humans, but apelike creates pre-dating man. Recall the turmoil the cave paintings caused evolutionists because there was no evolution of the human mind, only of the techniques that improve over time. I can see why evolution seems plausible to you. But if you closely examine the evidence you will find the truth, that life couldn't have evolved. I must be the result of The creator.Peter_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

How do we know this flute is 35000 years old apart from someone's say-so?mad doc_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

Mark, Whey do they call it the "Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence" if they are only going to be able to reach a conclusion of "I Don't Know", and can make no reasonable inference of intelligent origin regardless of the nature of the anomalous signal?William J. Murray_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
The ID logic is - known natural cause cannot explain it therefore a designer.
Perhaps you should check the glossary under ID.ScottAndrews_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

#31 ScottAndrews Then the only rational, sane, and scientific conclusion is to assume that chance and natural forces are obviously responsible. Not at all. If we cannot see a natural cause and it is clear that people did not create it then the rational conclusion is that we don't know what made it. Ignorance is an option. The ID logic is - known natural cause cannot explain it therefore a designer. To do the reverse - no known designer therefore natural - would equally be a fallacy.Mark Frank_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

#30 SETI is a bit different because we know of no potential intelligence. So the astronomers have to make assumptions about why and how an alien intelligence would produce signals. See http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=73 for a brief discussion. Of course, it is also important that they look for a signal that is not caused by known natural phenomena or there would no way of knowing that it came from an intelligence. It is all about comparing possible causes and making hypotheses about how and why. As I remember, the result is that SETI astronomers actually look for very simple signals (can't find the reference for this). I would have no problem with comparing an ID hypothesis with a natural hypothesis about the cause of some living phenomenon. But we are never given the ID hypothesis to compare.Mark Frank_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank @26: This does come up about once a month. Given an object that demonstrates the complexity and function of a designed object, if * People are ruled out as possible designers * People have never been observed to design such objects * Reasons for such a design are unknown * No mechanisms for its artificial creation are known then the only rational, sane, and scientific conclusion is to assume that chance and natural forces are obviously responsible. You'll still be lacking the cause and mechanism, and you'll be ignoring logic and evidence to the contrary, but then your default assumption will be ideologically correct. Nothing can be designed by an unknown designer. It's been decided. The end.ScottAndrews_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

Mark, Then what is SETI looking for? Do we know humans exist in outer space?William J. Murray_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

#26 I see no difference in finding an ancient object and inferring that it might be artificial, and finding a microscopic manufacturing facility and inferring that it, too, might be artificial. This comes round about once a month but I might as well summarise some of the differences: * People are known to exist at an appropriate time and place * People are observed to make objects such as flutes * There are reasons why people might have wanted to make flutes * There are plausible mechanisms by which people might have made flutesMark Frank_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

#27 What is interesting is that the dating of this flute’s creations is near the time estimated for the creation of man. Shortly after man was created a large number of intelligently designed objects were created. This is just one more example of the many ‘big bangs’ in the history of life. 35,000 years ago is nowhere close to the time that homo sapiens first appeared. The oldest human remains are well over 100,000 years old. See for example: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3814-dawn-of-human-race-uncovered.htmlMark Frank_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial "The flute first began as a bone or wooden tube and later evolved to a reed type instrument with finger holes. Many primitive tribes used it." As this report clearly shows the first flute was created 35,000 years ago, well before these instruments were used. What is interesting is that the dating of this flute's creations is near the time estimated for the creation of man. Shortly after man was created a large number of intelligently designed objects were created. This is just one more example of the many 'big bangs' in the history of life.Peter_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Joseph, Indeed. What's interesting is that I.D. isn't I.D. when "real scientists" use it (arachaeology, forensics, SETI, etc.); it's only I.D. when it is applied where they don't want it to be applied. I see no difference in finding an ancient object and inferring that it might be artificial, and finding a microscopic manufacturing facility and inferring that it, too, might be artificial.William J. Murray_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

but she always deals with facts and evidence, not personal attacks.
I think the 'ol brit-toff would disagree.BillB_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

dbthomas: I didn't utilize an analogy.William J. Murray_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

nullasalus,
Does anyone else find it damn amusing that all Denyse has to do is quote an article and make a vague, offhand comment to stir up various people who are -certain- she was attacking something?
Yes, and I have no idea why this is the case. Are other science journalists treated similarly for simply doing their jobs? I doubt it. Granted, Denyse does actually have _opinions_ on certain matters (such as the evo psychos), but she always deals with facts and evidence, not personal attacks.herb_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

William, Archaeologists are failed geologists. "Failed" because they have given up on trying to find a "natural" cause for the object/ structure in question. (end sarcasm)Joseph_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

A bit like the history of mathematics, I suppose. Someone just invents an idea like the Pythagorean theorem or zero, and everyone just picks up from there.
This is also incorrect. The concept of the number 0 has a long history. http://math.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_number_zerohdx_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

What many commenters seem to have missed is that the history of culture often does not feature long, slow evolutions.
Like the flute:
The flute first began as a bone or wooden tube and later evolved to a reed type instrument with finger holes. Many primitive tribes used it. In the Stone Age, the people bored through foot joints of reindeer to fashion a primitive pipe with penetrating notes. Bone flutes later progressed in Denmark to have finger holes. In about 200 B.C., a flute was made which was designed to give the Dorian mode. At the time of the Middle Ages, the panpipes or “Syrinx Reeds” were used. They consisted of several tubes of different lengths with no finger holes, bound together and played at the open end very much like blowing across a soda bottle to achieve the sound. Although it was easy to make, it was difficult to play. The recorder was about the first real step to the true flute. It is a long, hollow tube with finger holes and a blocked end, played vertically. Its upper end is beak-like, but blocked except for a narrow channel. Through that slit, air is directed in a flat stream against the sharp edge, setting up the vibrating air column and producing the sound. The recorder has several names. It is referred to as a blockflöte or schnabelflöte (German); flûte-a-bèc (French); and a “fipple-flute” (English). Other discoveries include fragment of an ivory flute found at the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus (1867). Its embouchure, though similar to that of the modern flute, produced a softer tone. In 1511, Virdung gave the first detailed information. The flute at that time was a cylindrical tube with six equidistant finger holes. It had an embouchure and stopper, and was in one piece without joints. Held crosswise, it was given bass, tenor and descant fingerings by Virdung. Seventeen years later, Agricola gave a more accurate fingering table. He too, developed it in three sizes: bass, in C; tenor, in G; and the descant in C, which developed into the present flute of today. In 1620, Praetorius wrote of the three identical flutes, but a fifth higher. Marin Marsenne and Rafi (16th century France) should also be noted for similar variations made in the flute. Attempts were made to revise the flute so that each note would play in tune. This was not possible with the equal spacing prevalent in the D descant flute. “Lipping,” or directing the air stream up or down was not sufficient. Between 1660 and 1832, necessary improvements were made. The bore of the tube was altered, and additional holes were added by the present ones, but were covered with closed keys to regulate them. The holes themselves were changed in diameter and the surrounding bore was enlarged or contracted. The complete reconstruction by Boehm in 1832 added the respacing of finger holes to permit the playing of the diatonic scale, and the replacing of closed keys by open ones to prevent overtones caused by an incorrectly closed hole. A D# key, which never played clearly, was also added to the freedom of the other notes. The transverse flute was first given notice when Jacques Hotteterre wrote about the flute in its new form in 1707. From 1637 until the early 19th century, box wood was used as the material for a flute, ornamented with ivory securing the joints, an ivory stopper, a silver or brass D# key, and produced a very sweet tone, although it absorbed too much moisture. Ivory, too, was used, but produced an inferior tone. Jean Baptiste Loeillet, in 1705, first played the flute in its new form in England. Consequently, Bach and other great composers began to compose for it more so than for the recorder. Incidentally, the reason shy Mozart disliked the flute so intensely is now very obvious. The recorder was still used in the orchestra as well as the transverse, but parts were indicated. In the 18th century, the intonation of the flute was worked on. The middle section was divided into two parts, so that if the flute were too sharp, a joint would be added to lengthen it and therefore lower the pitch. If the flute was too flat, a shorter joint was used. When this device proved insufficient, Quantz developed a longer head joint and foot joint, which could be pulled out from the middle joint and adjusted. This was called the tuning slide and is still used today. Instead of a cork stopper, the screw stopper, consisting of a pin, which was threaded and stuck into the cork, was used, and it, too, is used today, but without the cork. In about 1750, Richard Potter devised a means of numbering the gradations of the tuning slides and stopper to correspond with each other. In 1770, cross fingering and its veiled notes that caused bad intonation were literally thrown out. This movement caused much opposition. The “New Instructions for the German Flute”, included lengthening the flute to “c” by increasing the length of the foot joint. Cross-fingering to cover holes not needed for a particular note became obsolete with the invention of covering certain holes with keys, so that the player could close them at will. There were other keys, which, when an initial one was pressed, in turn triggered the closing of another hole at the other end of the flute. Springs were used to aid the keys. Thus, it can be seen how cross fingering and its consequent poor intonation were abolished, at least part of the way. Between 1770 and 1882, improvements were made, but it is unknown by whom. However, it was through these that the one-keyed flute evolved its other keys. By the beginning of the 19th century, all eight keys were intact, but not arranged acoustically. The flutist literally had to be a contortionist to reach the correct fingerings and achieve good intonation, but the sound always suffered. It could not be rich and full and in tune because of the poor position of the keys. Boehm, born in 1794, the son of a goldsmith, is responsible for the flute of today. Boehm revised the flute completely. The entire position of the keys was rearranged to provide a chromatic scale. In order to avoid stretching fingers, he devised long axles, which connected the other hole at top, which may have been needed to play a note that also required a hole at the other end. To conquer the task of closing 13 holes with only 9 fingers, he invented a “ring” for a key, connected to a spring which could be pressed by the smallest fingers and still get the effect of the large hole. The axle, the key, and the correct placement were really quite a feat – but then, it must have been quite a feat to play the flute before these improvements! Boehm played this flute in 1836, but although the improved tone was noted, flutists would not accept the change of fingerings. Nevertheless, in 1837, when the flute was exhibited in the Academy of Sciences in Paris, it was highly commended. Because Boehm did not patent his flutes, other people made improvements on it. Buffet introduced the needle spring used today, and the clutch, which closed two keys simultaneously. After 1832, Godfroy, Buffet, and Laurent of Paris, and Rudall and Rose of London continued to perfect it. In 1846, Boehm returned to improve the flute even more. This was the final revision, which is the basis of all modern flutes. It consisted of a cylindrical tube with a parabolic head, larger tone holes and keys instead of rings. It was not really used, however, until the end of the 19th century, since accomplished flutists weren’t willing to learn everything in a new way. Germany stayed true to the old form of the flute for many years. Later on, the Bb key was added, and eventually the piccolo, alto, bass, tenor and Eb flutes evolved. There have been many improvements upon the original scale, first with Cooper, later with Deveaux.
Diffaxial_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

nullasalus @ 10 Lol. You see this too uh? /headsploding.IRQ Conflict_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

That’s the thing about the evolution of human culture. It never actually seems to happen. Someone just makes a flute and starts playing it, and soon every tribe has a flute.
Is Denyse implying that nothing has changed since the first human made a primitive flute and played it half naked (or maybe naked, who knows) around a campfire to a flute being played in a modern day symphony orchestra with people dressed in formal evening wear? /facepalm Things like motives for playing music (religious/entertainment/artistic/commercial) Or how the instrument is played either solo, with a few other individuals, coordinated music in a large group. Introduction of musical notes/ sheet music. Various forms of flutes.hdx_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Re #14 What many commenters seem to have missed is that the history of culture often does not feature long, slow evolutions. Someone gets an idea and does it, and pretty soon everyone is doing it. After that, it is just refinement. But we don’t go from a quarter of an idea to half an idea, to … I think you could have made it clearer that this was the point of your post. However it is clear now - thanks. Some ideas evolved gradually - some sprang into being overnight. Universal suffrage, the decimal number system and money are ideas that evolved gradually. Money is particularly interesting because for most of its development no one designed it. It more or less evolved by natural selection - shells didn't work so well let's try with metal.Mark Frank_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Analogy fail, William.dbthomas_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

I'm not aware of anybody who actually means going "from a quarter of an idea to half an idea, to …" when they talk about cultural evolution. In fact, that's a pretty horrible definition of biological evolution to boot, one which you typically get from the "half an eye" variety of creationists.dbthomas_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

I must have missed the part where they scientifically determined that the object they call a "flute" was generated by an intelligent designer and not natural forces and chance. I guess nobody told them that ID wasn't science. Until they can prove that object was in fact generated by an intelligent designer, we should all assume that it is the product of natural forces and chance. We certainly shouldn't fill our minds with fanciful inferences about supposed "cultures" of "intelligent designers" that might have created that object, nor should we infer any design purpose to it. Archaeology is obiviously just so much pseudoscience.William J. Murray_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

Denyse (15), "What many commenters seem to have missed is that the history of culture often does not feature long, slow evolutions." And often it does. Like language, for instance. "Someone gets an idea and does it, and pretty soon everyone is doing it. After that, it is just refinement." True. And sometimes both go together - long slow evolutions and within them there are subsets of sudden ideas that propagate quickly. "But we don’t go from a quarter of an idea to half an idea, to …" Only in the sense that an idea is an idea is an idea in the same way that a hole is a hole is a hole. But if you have a small hole you can make it into a bigger hole, or maybe a wider one, or maybe deeper, or maybe a different shaped edge, or maybe combine it with a different hole..... So I guess I just don't know what you are getting at. Please let me know.Gaz_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

What many commenters seem to have missed is that the history of culture often does not feature long, slow evolutions. Someone gets an idea and does it, and pretty soon everyone is doing it. After that, it is just refinement. But we don't go from a quarter of an idea to half an idea, to ...O'Leary_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply