>uhh.......someone help me out here.......did he answer my question?
>or at least, did he address my concern?
>
Check the next part of my response. I did answer your question.
Since you missed it I will repost it.
>> Is this a musical instrument? Most of the anthropologists I have talked to
>> about it, who have seen it, say it is. These guys have also seen other
>>paleolithic flutes made of bone. The reason it doesn't look like you expect
>> is that it is broken. Lots of objects are found in poor states of repair in
>> the human fossil record. The upper and lower part are missing. This is like
>> finding the middle part of a saxophone in the fossil record. Take the mid
>> part of a saxophone and try to make a sound out of it.
Glenn wrote:
>Could you point me to an artist's conception or reconstruction of what
>this particular bone 'flute' would have looked like in its original state?
>That might help.
>
If the Slovenian article has a drawing I will tell you about it. I don't know
when it will be published though. Most of the ones I have seen pictures of
look somethng like a recorder.
>
>Well, technically speaking, most whistles *I* have ever seen have
>at least *two* holes. :o)
I was speaking of the hole that does not go on your mouth. Obviously a
whistle has two holes; one for the air to be blown through. But as far as
making tunes, one needs holes to change the resonance length of the tube the
flute is made of.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm