Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Prehistoric flute in Germany is oldest known

Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:00 PM EDT
world-news, science, eu, germany, prehistoric, flute
Patrick McGroarty, Associated Press Writers
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 3 photos
<p>Professor Nicholas Conard of the University in Tuebingen shows a flute during a press conference  in Tuebingen, southern Germany, on Wednesday, June 24, 2009. The thin bird-bone flute carved some 35,000 years ago and unearthed in a German cave is the oldest handcrafted musical instrument yet discovered, archeologists say, and offers the latest evidence that early modern humans in Europe had established a complex and creative culture. A team led by Conard assembled the flute from 12 pieces of griffon vulture bone scattered in a small plot of the Hohle Fels cave in southern Germany. (AP Photo/Daniel Maurer)</p>

Professor Nicholas Conard of the University in Tuebingen shows a flute during a press conference in Tuebingen, southern Germany, on Wednesday, June 24, 2009. The thin bird-bone flute carved some 35,000 years ago and unearthed in a German cave is the oldest handcrafted musical instrument yet discovered, archeologists say, and offers the latest evidence that early modern humans in Europe had established a complex and creative culture. A team led by Conard assembled the flute from 12 pieces of griffon vulture bone scattered in a small plot of the Hohle Fels cave in southern Germany. (AP Photo/Daniel Maurer)

Advertise | AdChoices

BERLIN — A bird-bone flute unearthed in a German cave was carved some 35,000 years ago and is the oldest handcrafted musical instrument yet discovered, archaeologists say, offering the latest evidence that early modern humans in Europe had established a complex and creative culture.

A team led by University of Tuebingen archaeologist Nicholas Conard assembled the flute from 12 pieces of griffon vulture bone scattered in a small plot of the Hohle Fels cave in southern Germany.

Together, the pieces comprise a 8.6-inch (22-centimeter) instrument with five holes and a notched end. Conard said the flute was 35,000 years old.

"It's unambiguously the oldest instrument in the world," Conard told The Associated Press this week. His findings were published online Wednesday by the journal Nature.

Other archaeologists agreed with Conard's assessment.

April Nowell, a Paleolithic archaeologist at the University of Victoria in Canada, said the flute predates previously discovered instruments "but the dates are not so much older that it's surprising or controversial." Nowell was not involved in Conard's research.

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.

Another flute excavated in Austria is believed to be 19,000 years old, and a group of 22 flutes found in the French Pyrenees mountains has been dated at up to 30,000 years ago.

Conard's team excavated the flute in September 2008, the same month they recovered six ivory fragments from the Hohle Fels cave that form a female figurine they believe is the oldest known sculpture of the human form.

Together, the flute and the figure — found in the same layer of sediment — suggest that modern humans had established an advanced culture in Europe 35,000 years ago, said Wil Roebroeks, an archaeologist at Leiden University in the Netherlands who didn't participate in Conard's study.

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 behavior, Roebroeks 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 told The AP. He agreed with Conard's assertion that the flute appears to be the earliest known musical instrument in the world.

Neanderthals also lived in Europe around the time the flute and sculpture were made, and frequented the Hohle Fels cave. Both Conard and Roebroeks believe, however, that layered deposits left by both species over thousands of years suggest the artifacts were crafted by early modern humans.

"The material record is so completely different from what happened in these hundreds of thousands of years before with the Neanderthals," Roebroeks said. "I would put my money on modern humans having created and played these flutes."

In 1995, archaeologist Ivan Turk excavated a bear bone artifact from a cave in Slovenia, known as the Divje Babe flute, that he has dated at around 43,000 years ago and suggested was made by Neanderthals.

But other archaeologists, including Nowell, have challenged that theory, suggesting instead that the twin holes on the 4.3-inch-long (11-centimeter-long) bone were made by a carnivore's bite.

Turk did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment.

Nowell said other researchers have hypothesized that early humans may have used spear points as wind chimes and that markings on some cave stalactites suggest they were used as percussive instruments. But there is no proof, she said, and the Hohle Fels flute is much more credible because it's the oldest specimen from an established style of bone and ivory flutes in Europe.

"There's a distinction between sporadic appearances and the true development of, in this case, a musical culture," Nowell said. "The importance of something like this flute is it shows a well-established technique and tradition."

Conard said it's likely that early modern humans — and perhaps Neanderthals, too — were making music longer than 35,000 years ago. But he added the Hohle Fels flute and the others found across Europe strengthen evidence that modern humans in Europe were establishing cultural behavior similar to our own.

___

On the Net:

Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Patrick McGroarty's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: ArchaeoVine
  • Regions: Slovenia , Turkey , Austria , Netherlands , Germany , Canada , Berlin
  • Public Discussion (37)
Antonio GarciaDeleted
Michael Sautter

Wow, interesting.

  • 3 votes
Reply#2 - Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:48 PM EDT
Brandon-801865

It is extremely exciting to have found Stone Age instruments.

I was amazed to find sites that had replicated the anatomy of Bronze Age instruments 3400 B.C.E).

The following link provides samples of Bronze Age instruments used to play specific notes....If only we could hear the resonance of Stone Age technology.

http://homepage.eircom.net/~bronzeagehorns/sounds.html

  • 2 votes
#2.1 - Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:13 PM EDT
Reply
fifesrhappy

How about someone maybe showing proof of dating instead of assuming. Nor does it mean it was carved 30,000 years ago. Could've been someone forced to higher ground, or fleeing authorities or persecution 500 years ago.

While the bone might be 30,000 years old, it doesn't mean it was carved then, nor can any dating method prove that. Wonder what they'd say if they found rawhide strings? We believe neandethals wore Nikes.

Can't imagine what some of these guys will think 500 years from now when my property becomes a subdivision and they find the bones of farm animals when digging the sewerlines, "we believe we came across 1 of the earliest american indian settlements in history , they even had barbed wire we believe to keep their cattle confined"!

and we think we found out why they died off, their cistern (my septic) for drinking water somehow got contaminated and they died from e-coli', might have been done by a warring neighbor tribe.

  • 3 votes
#3 - Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:38 PM EDT
jameseg

You make some good points, fifesrhappy! I also have serious doubts about the reliability of dating methods scientists use for things thousands of years old (or older).

Regardless though, I am impressed by this amazing discovery!

  • 4 votes
#3.1 - Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:19 PM EDT
Aunk (The Cultural Health Guy)

Hetep and Respect fifesrhappy, interesting find and you make some interesting counter points.

  • 3 votes
#3.2 - Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:59 PM EDT
The Incredulous One

How about someone maybe showing proof of dating instead of assuming.

are you assuming that scientists publishing in one of the most respected journals did not date these artifacts, but are merely guessing? That's not my assumption, and I haven't even read their paper yet.

Btw, from a different publication:

Although radiocarbon dates earlier than 30,000 years ago can be
imprecise, samples from the bones and associated material were tested
independently by two laboratories, in England and Germany, using
different methods. Scientists said the data agreed on ages of at least
35,000 years old.

Of course someone 500 years ago, or last week, could have picked up the bone, carved some holes, etc. but that would not be consistent (apparently) with what they found, flint knapping debris, other artifacts. It's the entire picture taken as a whole that tells the story, not any one piece of evidence taken in isolation.

Anyway, after you read the paper, you'd be in a better position to guess whether these scientists are just complete idiots and fools as I infrer from your comments.

  • 2 votes
#3.3 - Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:28 AM EDT
fifesrhappy

and again, I'll say what you refused to address, theres no way to PROVE when the carving took place, so twist it as you may, the proofs in the pudding or should I say lack of testing or proof on who, what, where, or when it was carved.

Religious persecution and people fleeing to caves, the mountains or remote regions was common, people have used flint for fires all the way up to.....well now!

If someone found a mastedon bone whittled by an artist into a flute would you believe neanderthals played the blues before going on the hunt?

    #3.4 - Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:43 AM EDT
    BoobyBillyBubba

    Excuse me do not take this personally --- You are an example fife whatever --- of someone who never came out of a cave to read a book. Yes you can test this flute and yes it gives an idea of when it was carved. Just like experts can tell if a Monet is forged. But if you want to believe humans only began 4 thousand years ago this is a free country.

    • 1 vote
    #3.5 - Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:48 AM EDT
    fifesrhappy

    Hmmmm, looks like someone from the bucket and pail brigade is needing more grant money to play in the sand again.

    Sorry bubba, but no you can't, the area to be tested isn't a controlled environment and hence would already be contaminated. Not to mention whatever was used for the boring doesn't establish a carve date. So in your infinite book reading wisdom, maybe you'd like to rewrite the half-life of flint. Anybody can pick up a 2 million year old stone and hack, bore or smash a tree limb or bone, but it doesn't neccesaarily mean it was done 2 million years ago.. Just because the bone is 35,000 years old doesn't mean thats when it was carved......nor would any fragments found on the said bone mean that....comprende?

    • 1 vote
    #3.6 - Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:15 AM EDT
    fifesrhappy

    Not to mention your monet analogy isn't even on the same page. Unless your saying carbon dating on recent artwork is accurate.........which if you even know about carbon dating you would know couldn't be used on a painting as recent as a monet..............but nice twist to justify what you can't answer bubba.

    • 1 vote
    #3.7 - Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:18 AM EDT
    BoobyBillyBubba

    Use the other half of your brain and get out of your biblical cave. No I am saying modern science is more accurate then your biblical myth. The way you are talking I am thinking you made the flute 35000 years ago. I am putting you on ignore because you spout an ignorance of the world around you.

    • 1 vote
    #3.8 - Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:25 AM EDT
    fifesrhappy

    Well how could I have carved it? Being you wrongly assumed with your deformed brain mentality that I am a creationists...................why because I don't drink the kool-aid like like you? Now run off the cliff with the rest of the lemmings

    Nice twist on saying I don't believe in science, but again refute the question neandertard, and show me you've somewhat evolved else I think billybob is your real name.

    • 1 vote
    #3.9 - Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:35 AM EDT
    The Incredulous One

    fifesrhappy

    You made the following comment, didn't you?

    How about someone maybe showing proof of dating instead of assuming.

    I replied in #3.3 with a link claiming two independent labs, using different methods, came up with the date. Not good enough? Then, read the paper. I haven't yet, have you?

    ...theres no way to PROVE when the carving took place, so twist it as you may, the proofs in the pudding or should I say lack of testing or proof on who, what, where, or when it was carved.

    proof? You want a 35000 year old mpeg or something? You want eyewitness testimony? Ancient photographs? The evidence is taken in totality. If it adds up, the conclusion is drawn. Subsequent evidence may confirm it, or not.

    If someone found a mastedon bone whittled by an artist into a flute would you believe neanderthals played the blues before going on the hunt?

    Is the flute in your car's glove compartment? Then, I don't think so.

    Did you read the paper in Nature? Maybe these stupid scientists who published in a highly regarded scientific journal aren't as naive as you think. Maybe they even address your criticism. Make sense?

    • 2 votes
    #3.10 - Fri Jun 26, 2009 5:32 AM EDT
    fifesrhappy

    Am I disputing the age of the bones? NO and you know that,.....nice twist though.

    Oh,, they found flint, so the carving date must be accurate, no wait maybe its the big-boobed ivory figurine.....there you have it.....its official, big-boobed ivory figurines now validate all carving dates.

    Sad thing is, if you did find it in your glovebox people would probably believe it because you said so.

    Nobodies not saying its not a significant find, but you know as well as I do, there is no way to PROVE when it was carved, and being there is no way to prove it, in no way proves it was carved around the said date. All kinds of other scenerios could've happened or been the source centuries later.....presumptions aren't scientific fact.

    • 1 vote
    #3.11 - Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:17 AM EDT
    The Incredulous One

    Nobodies not saying its not a significant find...

    milk just shot out my nose. Good thing you didn't say 'nobodies not saying is not an insignificant find' or I'd still be re-reading the sentence. And good thing I wasn't drinking coffee.

    Am I disputing the age of the bones? NO and you know that,.....nice twist though.

    yes, you were. You said: How about someone maybe showing proof of dating instead of assuming. Nor does it mean it was carved 30,000 years ago.

    NOR, you said, NOR as in: 'hey dude, not only the bones, but the carving of the bones, too.'

    Ok, so you accept the bones dating but not the carving. I certainly understand your point about the carving. What I'm saying is read the damn paper or crtique the entire archeo-paleo-thang. Critique their methods and conclusions. But it can't be a critique of this one finding. You know those Native American arrow heads? They were all carved by your next door neighboor. Do you know where he was 12000 years ago?

    • 2 votes
    #3.12 - Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:52 AM EDT
    fifesrhappy

    Cool find, hows that? Because its utterly ridiculous to say that it was made and played by someone 35,000 years ago with NO proof on when it was carved. All the testing in the world doesn't validate that..........................so I understand you need for wordplay.

    and actually my neighbor is native American and makes hand carved arrowheads out of shale, but I'm sure your scientist could test the stone and prove he really carved it 35,0000 years ago right? Heck I need to tell him start burying them and take people out on expeditions......he could make some serious jack......maybe even get a grant!

    • 1 vote
    #3.13 - Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:02 PM EDT
    The Incredulous One

    As I suggested, your critique is independent of this discovery. It seems to criticize the entire field by claiming that it is not possible to know when someone picked up a million year old rock and poked holes in it, so therefore it's not possible to know when anyone made anything because all the materials of construction are older than they were, and anyone at any time could constuct something out of old materials. It's not possible then, according to your view, to know much about the creation of human artifacts dating from pre-writing. It's sheer guesswork. Why don't you just say that, instead of wasting time criticising one specific find?

    • 2 votes
    #3.14 - Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:50 PM EDT
    fifesrhappy

    Maybe you should try rereading my first post #3!

    While the bone might be 30,000 years old, it doesn't mean it was carved then, nor can any dating method prove that.

    Here's your wordplay saying what you want to believe and once again making false presumptions.

    It seems to criticize the entire field

    Once again YOU saying that.

    It's not possible then, according to your view, to know much about the creation of human artifacts dating from pre-writing.

    Once again another false presumption, based on what you said. Because yes there are ways to date somethings prior to prewritten history. But to assume someone carved, played music, and was adept to the liberal arts 35,000 years ago is not only hypothetical but quite presumptuous.

    There, does that clarify your cesspooling of what I said. Or would you like to throw in another american indian arrowhead comment arguing in defense of this scientific musical presumption.............but say that your not defending it right?

    Kind of good these scientist didn't find car keys, otherwise we might have been told the maker of the flute played while driving.

    • 1 vote
    #3.15 - Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:22 AM EDT
    The Incredulous One

    Once again another false presumption, based on what you said. Because yes there are ways to date somethings prior to prewritten history. But to assume someone carved, played music, and was adept to the liberal arts 35,000 years ago is not only hypothetical but quite presumptuous.

    you want me to assume you're limiting your criticism to the construction of old flutes? Didn't think so. Anyway tell me, would it ever be possible to know whether a 35000 year old flute was found or not? 30,000? 10,000? 5000? What is the oldest flute that could be PROVEN according to your standards to date from that time?

    Btw, do you suppose you are the first person to whom it has occurred that an old bone could be carved by a much younger person? Say it ain't so. And what is the response of the researchers to such a criticism? Did you read the paper yet?

    • 2 votes
    #3.16 - Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:03 AM EDT
    fifesrhappy

    you want me to assume you're limiting your criticism to the construction of old flutes? Didn't think so.

    Nice personal opinion.......again, I understand why you resort to wordplay. Just reread what you typed next.

    What is the oldest flute that could be PROVEN according to your standards to date from that time?

    Try more like, what would you like to hear, percieve, or interpret? I'll be sure to tell my neighbor that there is no way he just hacked those arrowheads from million year old shale...............impossible right?

    The oldest written form of human language not drawings to my knowledge is about 13,000 years old, so while most tribes were blowing on yackhorns to signal or communicate your saying this prodigal cave person/tribesman was carving big busted ivory figurines and mastered the musical scale...................okaaay.

    Did you read the paper yet?

    Nope, don't have too, they said it,.......and now you on this website, so I'm just going to have to believe it..................there hows that?

    I'm sure they take checks so can I get their address from you?

    • 1 vote
    #3.17 - Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:39 AM EDT
    The Incredulous One

    Stop weasling. I asked you: What is the oldest flute that could be PROVEN according to your standards to date from that time? "I dunno" would be a perfectly good answer.

    I ask because if you don't have a specific reason for rejecting a particular finding, then your objections is in general to any finding. So what's your criterion? Is your point that nothing older than 13000 years could be known about when carvings or flutes might have been made because there was no written language before then?

    What's your point, and stop making me have to guess.

    I'll be sure to tell my neighbor that there is no way he just hacked those arrowheads from million year old shale...............impossible right?

    There's a way, and when he tells you the way, you might suggest another impossibility, and he will respond. And if that's not convincing to you that he did it, he'll make another argument, and this will go back and forth until he convinces you, or you convince him that he didn't make the flute. That's how it works.

    So what do the researchers say when confronted with the argument that someone from 1000 years ago, say, picked up the 35000 year old bone and made a flute?

    Something like: "Holy crap, that thought has never occurred to us or anyone else in the field before. Thank you for pointing it out."

    Maybe you can contact those dummies so they can express their gratitude.

    • 2 votes
    #3.18 - Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:24 PM EDT
    Dowser

    I'm not an archaeologist, so I can not address the archaeological issues of precise dating methods used for any time younger than 1 million years. However, as a geologist, we date things all the time.

    That being said, however, in geology, we look at the whole picture. Older sediments are lower in the geologic column than younger sediments. There are many clues to decipher when determining the age of a sediment-- after all, this was not found in a void-- the discovery of the flute was more likely found during a 'dig'. It had to have some form of sediments around it that would yield information about the pollen of the plants, the climate, the general geologic and biologic history.

    Not to mention-- why would someone go to the trouble of locating a vulture bone 500 years ago, carving it, and burying down into the sediments just to fool some archaeologist 500 years in the future? That isn't a logical assumption.

    Some geologists use carbon dating and other precise radioactive element dating techniques to place a fossil within a time area, that is probably accurate within a span of 5,000 years with more recent deposits. Pleistocene paleontology is fairly advanced, because we have a lot more evidence readily accessible to study. Not so the older deposits. However, unless someone can really prove them wrong, I have a tendency to believe the scientists that performed the dating.

    That being said, I do not know what other materials were found at the site, nor do I know the degree of assumption about the materials found on the site. Archaeologists, (and geologists, paleontologists, etc.) come to blows at professional meetings when a 'new' theory is presented. Who knows if it was a Neanderthal or a Cro-magnon? Or just an early human?

    If these guys weren't fairly sure of the their data, we wouldn't have heard doodley squat about it.

    • 3 votes
    #3.19 - Mon Nov 2, 2009 6:07 PM EST
    Reply
    Nasty Liberal

    e-coli', might have been done by a warring neighbor tribe

    Could they have been Nanticokes? That sort of trick was about their speed.They say you could smell them coming,

    they carried the bones of their dead with them.

    • 3 votes
    Reply#4 - Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:55 PM EDT
    Retiredsam

    So that's where I left that thing

    Gee, I hope they don't find my guitar made out of coconut shells

    • 2 votes
    Reply#5 - Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:36 PM EDT
    demo scout

    When we were kids we would take a straight green stick and cut the bark lengthwise and peel it off in one peice. Then we would put a line of holes in the bark and flatten one side of the stick and tie it all back together with the holes over the flat side of the stick and the seem on the bottom. It made a pretty good flute. We were an ancient (60 yrs) musical culture! This article is pretty cool.

    • 2 votes
    Reply#6 - Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:43 PM EDT
    demo scout

    What is really interesting is the choice of material for the flute. Bird bones are hollow allowing for a minimum of work to prepare the flute. But still they must have had some sort of awl to make the holes and or some sort of long needle like tool to clean out the inside of the bone. I would like to know if the archeologists have any clues on the toolwork used to make the instrument.

    • 3 votes
    Reply#7 - Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:15 PM EDT
    Metal Guitarist

    What's that flute worth?

    • 2 votes
    Reply#8 - Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:28 PM EDT
    demo scout

    Technology update. In my reverie I have now remembered that if the stick was green enough and the sap was flowing you could peel enough of the stick to get a good grip on it and you could pull off a section of bark not longer than 4 or 5 inches in one piece. Then you cut the stick down to the length of bark you had. Flatten one side of the stick. Slide the bark back on and cut the holes. Oilah! Flute! Or, at least, whistle. But the big daddy of our ancient kid band was my cow horn with a mouth piece carved from the tip.

    • 2 votes
    Reply#9 - Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:33 PM EDT
    ViewPoynt

    Obviously archaeologist Nicholas Conard and his team have never heard of or been to Africa. We won't wake them up, we'll let them keep dreaming that they've found the oldest anything. Organized humanity was thriving in Africa long before that little flute was carved in Germany.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#10 - Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:58 PM EDT
    aliveinsd

    True. But no flutes.

    • 2 votes
    #10.1 - Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:03 PM EDT
    Reply
    aliveinsd

    Great article. Thanks.

    If given the opportunity, Humans of 100K or more years ago should function similarly with modern counterparts. Same brain and body. Each generation builds on the accomplishments of those gone before.

    The flute is touching to contemplate. Its image brings the flute's owner closer in a way, as it expresses a kinship in the understanding and beauty of music. One knows that the flute's owner was Human. The slim line, small holes, and spacing between each hole are designed for slender Human hands.

    So much of Human history is missing. Ice Ages and changes in sea levels have impacted Human settlement and technology of eons ago. We are a species with amnesia. A small bone flute brings our past a bit closer to to us.

    • 3 votes
    Reply#11 - Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:33 PM EDT
    millerb-1023348

    If it turns out to be true, which I think Tuebingen is fairly reputable , what an amazing thing, to think that people that long ago were playing tunes.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#12 - Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:04 AM EDT
    BoobyBillyBubba

    Kinda makes you think about life and our written history promoting only 4 to 5 thousand years of human history. I am sure some think these folks did not have human souls.

    • 3 votes
    #12.1 - Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:24 AM EDT
    Dowser

    Well, gee, I have read that evidence points to the worship of animistic Gods... That sounds fairly human to me.

    • 1 vote
    #12.2 - Mon Nov 2, 2009 6:09 PM EST
    Reply
    breelaboyDeleted
    breelaboyDeleted
    Leave a Comment:
    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
    Newsvine Privacy Statement
    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
    FUN STUFF:
    • Leaderboard |
    • E-Mail Alerts |
    • Top of the Vine |
    • Newsvine Live |
    • Newsvine Archives |
    • The Greenhouse
    COMPANY STUFF:
    • Code of Honor |
    • Company Info |
    • Contact Us |
    • Jobs |
    • User Agreement |
    • Privacy Policy |
    • About our ads
    LEGAL STUFF:
    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com