Jubal

Umm...duh. There was no ethnocentrism in that example. The point was that primitive, isolated cultures also have musical tradition, clearly indicating that our obsession with music is not rooted entirely in tradition.

Face it, without our technology we are only a small step above most animals, and that's only in our measurements of worth.

GPLindsey

Any suggestion that I may have given that I thought there was an ethnocentric or biological reason why some groups advanced quickly while others didn't was due to the limitations of my prose--apologies. I fully agree that there is virtually no difference between humans of any group that would suggest one is inherently smarter than another. However, I am intrigued by the circumstances that would explain as why people in one part of the world advanced further and faster than in other parts. The Egyptians were building pyramids while most Europeans were living in huts and animal skins--why? Why where there great Indian civilizations in Central or South America, but nothing of similar grandeur in North America, despite its abundant resources?

I think my point, though, regarding evolution still stands, but I will move the setting back a bit. 40,000 years ago, extraterrestrial visitors would not place man that much higher than the other animals, even with our stone tools, primitative language, etc. Now, there seems to be a great gulf between us and the animals. I think evolution gets us to the point where we are successful hunter-gatherers, but other explanations must be sought for what motivated us to advance so much further since then.

On a lighter note--one completely serious theory I saw in the paper regarding what started civilization--it was beer! Some theorist speculated that the ancients hit upon fermentation, and that motivated them to try farming oats. Beer started civilization--I like that idea

snoiduspoitus

<On a lighter note--one completely serious theory I saw in the paper regarding what started civilization--it was beer! Some theorist speculated that the ancients hit upon fermentation, and that motivated them to try farming oats. Beer started civilization--I like that idea.>

Gotta admit I like this one GP.

BLoggins02

GP: thanks for the apology, but I promise I didn't take it as offensive, I was just pointing out what it sounded like.

On the lighter note...

<homer>Mmmmmmmm....beeeeeeerrrrrr</homer>

stonetools

I got to this late(the taxman insisted that I deal with him first) Anyway, here's my two cents.
According to <a href="http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/chron.htm" target="_blank">this page</a>
the earlist musical instrument was a type of flute used by Neaderthals maybe 80, 000 years ago. Moving from the realm of flimsy evidence into pure speculation, it is possible that early humans used these instruments as bird and animal lures by imitating bird calls. Another possibility? the use of such instruments to give signals to coordinate hunts) Later, some guy ( or gal)may have thought it soothing to play the flute round the old campfire. Eighty thousand years on, we have Mozart, Miles Davis, and "Louie, Louie". (The last proves that there can be devolution, as well as evolution ).
I think the use of ryhme and rythym as a mnemonic device is another good suggestion. Most of us remember nursey ryhmes from childhood pretty easily.And I can remember my AE Houseman pretty easily, but have a deuce of a time remembering anything from "The Waste Land".