Stone Age Mass Graves Reveal Green Sahara 305
iminplaya sends along a New Scientist article that begins: "One of the driest deserts in the world, the Saharan Tenere Desert, hosted at least two flourishing lakeside populations during the Stone Age, a discovery of the largest graveyard from the era reveals. The archaeological site in Niger [is] called Gobero... It had been used as a burial site by two very different populations during the millennia when the Sahara was lush... 'The first people who used the Gobero cemetery were Kiffian, hunter-gatherers who grew up to two meters tall,' says Elena Garcea of the University of Cassino in Italy and one of the scientists on the team. The large stature of the Kiffian suggests that food was plentiful during their time in Gobero, 10,000 to 8,000 years ago... All traces of the Kiffian vanish abruptly around 8,000 years ago, when the Sahara became very dry for a thousand years. When the rains returned, a different population, the Tenerians, who were of a shorter and more gracile build, based themselves at this site... 'The most amazing find so far is a grave with a female and two children hugging each other. They were carefully arranged in this position. This strongly indicated they had spiritual beliefs and cared for their dead,' says Garcea." The research article is at PLoS One.
Water = civilization (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't the history of civilization generally based around water for animals, agriculture, transport, industry?
Maybe time to start treating our seas with respect. I was on a beach in Togo last week and every day the ocean washes up plastic bags.
Re:Water = civilization (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't the history of civilization generally based around water for animals, agriculture, transport, industry?
Yup. In the United States, around 53% of the population lives near the coast[.] [oceansatlas.org] Also, look at any map and notice how many major cities are right on major rivers.
Maybe time to start treating our seas with respect.
I hope we do, though right now I'm pessimistic. See this [sciencedaily.com]
Old lumberjack joke (Score:5, Funny)
Seems to belong here:
One day a little guy wandered into the camp looking for a job as a lumberjack. The head lumberjack looked at him doubtfully, but asked him to cut down a small tree. Zip. The tree was down. Kind of surprised, the head lumberjack told him to cut down a large tree. Zip. One swing, and the tree fell.
"Where did you learn to cut trees like that?"
"In the Sahara Forest."
"What do you mean? The Sahara is a desert!"
"That was afterwards."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I was on a beach in Togo last week and every day the ocean washes up plastic bags.
They're probably the same plastic bags you threw out ten years ago. Please pick up your trash.
Re:Water = civilization (Score:5, Informative)
The salt water isn't nearly as important as fresh water. The oceans only provide seafood, fresh water is necessary for most agriculture and industry. It is also necessary for most terrestrial animal life, including humans.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the oceans and waterways provide transport
Re: (Score:2)
If there were no oceans we'd need no ships. Using them for transport is like using lemons to make lemonade.
Re: (Score:2)
Uf there were no oceans, this planet would be almost uninhabitable. It would be too cold or too hot. The oceans moderate the temperature.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hello... Are we forgetting something important?
I think so. It is called phytoplankton and about half of the Oxygen we need to breathe is produced by this, and guess where it is.... salt water! That is, half of the Earth's oxygen production is handled by these little guys. It is also the base of the oceanic food chain.
other than THAT... I suppose that salt water isn't as important as fresh water... because breathing is of secondary importance to industrial uses of fresh water.
Re:Water = civilization (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not discussing what plant is better at making oxygen.
I'm discussing where most of our current oxygen comes from. Phytoplankton may or may not be less efficient than other plants at producing Oxygen. That fact is irrelevant, since the sheer volume of phytoplankton provides MORE than half (my bad, not "about half" like I said earlier) of the Oxygen that is produced on Earth.
References?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoplankton [wikipedia.org]
Nasa's take on the stuff
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Phytoplankton/ [nasa.gov]
This one claims two-thirds of the photosynthesis on the planet occurs within them
http://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/factsheets/phytoplankton.html [uri.edu]
As a side note...
What started as a desire to create an Algae that would be the perfect fish tank decoration (one that fish would not eat, one that would flourish in a wide variety of waters and conditions, one that would proliferate easily) has turned into one of the world's greatest threats. One that could extinguish us.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/519228.html [uchicago.edu]
In a nutshell, we made the stuff in Germany, it was studied at the Jacque Cousteau Oceanographic Museum of Monaco, and it got out... as it was first discovered in the Mediterranean under this very building. It is extraordinarily hard to kill, and it drives off all other sea life in any area where it grows. It drive off and suffocates other sea plant life, which drives off the little fish that eat that stuff, which drives off the larger fish that eat the small fish.
Go ahead. Search for Killer Algae. See what it has taken to eradicate the outbreak in a lagoon in Australia... and the outbreak in Southern California (I hear it is threatening the Florida coast in some spots). If we destroy the ocean's ecology, we are soon to follow. And apparently our desire for the perfect fish tank may be our downfall.
Also, it is possible to desalinate salt water, making it into fresh water. So sorry, I'm not with you that protecting our fresh water is more important. We've got to get on the ball and protect that which sustains our oxygen production, and ocean life. Else we die with lots of fresh water.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If we don't do it, China and other nations will (and are). If we drill it, not only does our economy keep the oil, but it will be drilled using our regulations, and not the relatively wimpy ones used by many other contries (incl. China).
Again, in case you missed it, our drilling that oil is actually better for the oceans than just leaving it alone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean like, maybe, let's not start drilling for oil off the Florida coast?
If drilling off the FL coast is bad, then drilling of the LA & TX coasts must also be bad. Let's save the oceans and shut down those oil/gas wells, too.
Of course, since a significant amount of hydrocarbons come from LA & TX, this means that:
not too surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not too surprising (Score:5, Informative)
Re:not too surprising (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You don't need to go back very far.
The Romans didn't build stuff like this in a desert.
El Jem was a verdant hub of agricultural life.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Tunisias_Match_for_Romes_Colosseum_in_El_Jem
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but if they dig further, they *WILL* find fragments of human bones! What kind of savages were they?
j/k Thanks Jack Handey
Global Warming (Score:2, Funny)
Were their shamans just as convincing arguing for less water use and building smaller huts to prevent the climate-changes?
This what happened. (Score:5, Funny)
Were their shamans just as convincing arguing for less water use and building smaller huts to prevent the climate-changes?
No, but their chief, Chief Bush, was totally responsible for suppressing the data from the bones and tea leaves that it was happening. Then Chief Bush, along with the paleo-cons started bogus wars with tribes in Mesopotamia and with the Persians in order to promote chiefocracy. But the people eventually saw through the paleo-con lie that it was and realized that it was just a war to secure grain supplies.
In the meantime, a former chief, Gor, showed the populous cave paintings that would show what would happen if they didn't change their wasteful ways.
Really, that's the way it happened.
Re: (Score:2)
full retard (Score:3, Interesting)
Paul is a Libertarian, and therefore, by definition, in a constant state of "full retard".
I used to be a Fascist, then I became a Republican, then I became a Libertarian, now I am a full-blown Anarchist. It is not that I have gone "full retard" as much as my respect for "authority" and the "rule of law" has been continually eroded over time as I have become more and more aware of the futility and idiocy of trying to "solve" problems with government "systems" and "institutions". Forgive my liberal use of quotes, I just don't even respect these ideas anymore.
As well intentioned as people like
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Human beings are social animals who tend by their sheer biological nature to fall into dominance hierarchies. YOu may be able to temporarily short circuit that, but nothing will last for long. Most people are followers, a few are leaders. The best you can produce is a system that balance the excesses that these two extremes tend to create.
Not one society in all our history has ever functioned on libertarian or anarchist principles. Not one.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The leader/follower relationship is an inherently dysfunctional one. The leader engages in it because he believes it will earn him the love of his follower or because he wants to feel powerful. The follower engages in it because he wants someone else to take responsibility for his problems or because he is too afraid to stand up to the leader.
The leader is never a perfect leader, though the follower demands perfection from him and will secretly work to undermine him once his trust has been violated. The
Re:full retard (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the goose or the duck at the head of a flock? Or an ant that finds food and lays down pheremones on its way back to the colony and heads back out to gather more? Sometimes leadership/follower relationships don't require any social or political identity angst. Sometimes, it's simply a matter of efficiency, luck, or natural optimization (i.e. birds expend less energy when they fly in a flock formation, and one of the birds has to take the lead to get the aerodynamics going correctly)
I dunno. You're applying this political identity angst to a topic which often doesn't need it. Occams razor and all that.
Re: (Score:2)
Geese and ducks take turns leading the flock, and do it only to push the air out of the way for the rest of the flock. The "leader" will not judge or punish another bird for not following.
But even if you weren't so disastrously misinformed about the world of animals, it wouldn't mean anything because we are neither birds nor ants, we are people, and this kind of society is not in our nature.
"You're applying this political identity angst to a topic which often doesn't need it."
That's not been my experience.
Re:full retard (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is, leadership is sometimes about somebody simply getting in front to deal with the headwind, and everybody else had better get into line or else they won't get the benefits of flock formation (i.e. can travel further, get to the next watering hole, etc). And this process of somebody getting in front to deal with a headwind doesn't require some political identity angst to explain it. Does that duck in front like dealing with the headwind? Possibly not. Does the head duck expect perfect obedience? Does it need to? Or do the benefits of group behavior justify themselves? I suppose you could apply the political identity argument to the ducks, although it seems to me like you don't need to. Systems are often created or adopted for efficiency purposes, and the added efficiency that a system provides is often justification enough for following the system.
And humans rotate leadership just like ducks do. At least in democracies. We just do it at a less frequent interval. Human affairs have headwinds that we have to deal with also... oil prices, global warming, economy. These are simply the headwinds that our leaders have to deal with.
I do agree that leaders are victimized by the system as much as the followers.
They say that a system applied to an ineffective process will simply magnify the ineffectiveness. Perhaps what we have in our government is simply an efficiency system being applied to ineffective solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
Not one society in all our history has ever functioned on libertarian or anarchist principles. Not one.
Society usually functions despite its principles not because of them.
Clarification (Score:2)
By even asking "why don't you solve the worlds problems?" it is clear that you don't understand what I'm saying. I was not trying to insult you or anyone else. I don't know shit about anything either. Here is what I am saying:
Humans have limited knowledge. None of us has any reason to believe the that he will do a better job than another. I want you to let me try to solve my problems and I want to let you solve yours. If you need help, you can ask me for it and I will give it to you (to the extent that
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The same Gore who owns the very Eco-credit company he 'buys credits' from? The Gore who uses over 10x more electricity to run his mansion than any of us use in a year?
The Gore who can't seem to figure out that the vast majority of carbon released in the world is from natural causes we have no control over?
Yeah, Gore's a genius. Geez. He figured out how to cash in on the eco-craze.
Re: (Score:2)
Your arguments are contradictory. I normally just shrug and move on at these sorts of arguments, but in this case, you are attacking another person - if you don't have solid reasoning to back your arguments up, then you are engaging in defamation.
If natural causes are the dominant producers of atmospheric CO2, any argument you make about Gore's carbon neutrality falls apart because it is ultimately insignificant.
Furthermore, you are required to assume that Gore espouses the position that anthropogenic carbo
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
man made CO2 accounts for just 2.8% of global sources. the GP's argument is still perfectly valid because even at just 2.8% gore still makes a killing convincing people that it's really important and gets government to buy into insane rebate schemes, paying him $$ per ton for credits. this is a man who has made a FORTUNE out of global war
Re:Global Warming (Score:4, Funny)
I've corrected your grammar.
Question: Sapiens or ??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so. Sounds more like the Tutsi vs. the Pygmy.
Re:Question: Sapiens or ??? (Score:5, Interesting)
spiritual beliefs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does this imply spiritual beliefs? Maybe they just felt comfortable with the idea of being buried in the arms of someone they cared about.
Re: (Score:2)
Care = spiritual.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Care != Spiritual (believe it or not, Athiests, Agnostics and the like DO feel love!)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Athiesm" only refers to disbelief in the Christian God - believe it or not, an Athiest can still be a very spiritual person.
Re:spiritual beliefs? (Score:5, Informative)
"Athiesm" only refers to disbelief in the Christian God - believe it or not, an Athiest can still be a very spiritual person.
Uhh, where do you get that, exactly? Have you looked up the word atheist in the dictionary? And it's spelled Atheist. Perhaps you were pointing that out by how you quoted your parent.
Perhaps you are confused with agnosticism. Atheists do not believe in any deity, Christian or otherwise. An agnostic believes it is unknown, undefined. Maybe even believes there's 'something' out there, but doesn't know what, and so rejects organized religion.
To claim Atheism is tied specifically to Christianity... is actually a bit offensive. Perhaps like saying Christianity is defined as simply denial of pagan beliefs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, "atheism" refers to believing that there are no god or gods.
You are correct that an atheist can still be a spiritual person, both in the more typical interpretation of "spiritual" and in the more general sense. However, it has nothing to do with the Christian god specifically.
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably thinking of strict atheist philosophies, which don't permit much spirituality, than atheism in general, which only rejects the existence of any god or gods. (Strictly speaking, an atheist can be religious, provided the religion doesn't assert the existence of a god.)
Re:spiritual beliefs? (Score:4, Insightful)
No it doesn't, Atheism refers to the disbelief in god or gods of any description. Hence Buddhists, for example, are atheist.
While that is its truest sense, it is usually followed up with a disbelief of mystical, spiritual, religious or any of the labels people use to categorise 'knowledge' which has no evidence in its favour. Rare is the atheist who rejects god only to move on and accept 'spirituality' and I suspect the breed is confined to America where evolved camouflage is necessary to avoid predatory evangelicals. I would even argue that the initial presentation of atheism in its strictest sense is somewhat misleading.
Incidentally, as an atheist, I would recommend the book "A Very Short Introduction to Atheism" [amazon.co.uk] for those who are atheist, think they might be or, god forbid, might actually want to understand their neighbour. The same series, incidentally, has very good books on everything from particle physics to Islam.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
(emphasis mine)
Now, it seems to me that, intentional irony or not, someone who claims to be an atheist and uses the term "god forbid" loses some credibility. Those two words actually diluted your previous, quite insightful argument.
Re:spiritual beliefs? (Score:5, Insightful)
BS. I used the term "voila" the other night when I served dinner. Doesn't make me a Frenchman.
Re:spiritual beliefs? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Athiesm" only refers to disbelief in the Christian God - believe it or not, an Athiest can still be a very spiritual person.
Hmm, you're on a roll today. Again, the dictionary disagrees with you:
Atheism - Noun, absence of belief in deities.
I've heard valid arguments that it applies to a lack of belief in the supernatural, versus it applying to a lack of belief only in deities/gods. Using the latter, somewhat accepted definition, atheists can be spiritual, and I imagine a significant number of people who self identify with that title are. Using the former definition, they could not be. I've seen a number of sociological studies now that allow people to identify into the category of "spiritual, but not religious" and people do choose that option, people who do not choose "athiest."
Re: (Score:2)
Bullpucky! Atheism refers to the disbelief in Odin. I say we burn those heretics.
Re:spiritual beliefs? (Score:4, Insightful)
Spiritual != Religion
It is possible for Atheists and Agnostics to be spiritual without having religion.
Caring and spirituality as synonymous in this sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:spiritual beliefs? (Score:4, Insightful)
Non-believers or 'skeptics' as they call themselves (a term I despise since there are many skeptical believers too) also spend their lives living in faith of what they perceive. Faith in their senses not to lie to them. Faith in the consistency and research of others, faith that the universe around them exhibits behaviours that are testable.
This faith may not be unfounded, but to call it anything else is silliness since no one person could ever claim to have lived their lives thoroughly testing every belief they live by.
Re: (Score:2)
thank you.
Re:spiritual beliefs? (Score:4, Insightful)
Care = spiritual.
Technically, spiritual refers to a belief in spirits or souls. The definition is:
Spiritual, adj. - of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things; of or relating to religion or religious belief
Care is not a synonym in the general use, nor do I think it applies in this usage. The implication is that because they buried bodies in a particular way, they had some belief, or potential belief in a resurrection or life after death, because otherwise, why bother arranging corpses in any way?
I don't think that implication is ironclad. For all we know they buried them alive and they simply died in that posture, or these people had no belief in an afterlife, but enjoyed arranging corpses as an art form. Still, spiritual beliefs are the most likely sounding explanation to me.
Re:spiritual beliefs? (Score:4, Insightful)
The implication is that because they buried bodies in a particular way, they had some belief, or potential belief in a resurrection or life after death, because otherwise, why bother arranging corpses in any way?
I don't think that implication is ironclad.
I think you'd be right. Burial or crematory (or whatever death rites) practises are for the living. Yeah, sure, there's a sanitary aspect to it and you don't want the local carnivores (who'll scavenge when available) developing a taste for human meat, but regardless of "religious" beliefs or disbeliefs, there's a little part of everyone that isn't really convinced that death is the end, whatever may come after. So you do nice things like arranging corpses "the way they would have wanted it" partly to respect their memories, and partly in the hope that somebody does something nice for you when you're gone. Doesn't mean you really think that they're out there somewhere watching, or that the position will have some apres vie meaning.
Re:spiritual beliefs? (Score:4, Insightful)
...and partly in the hope that somebody does something nice for you when you're gone. Doesn't mean you really think that they're out there somewhere watching, or that the position will have some apres vie meaning.
If you don't believe in the supernatural, then it is impossible for someone to do something nice for you "when you're gone" because you no longer exist. If I dress up a corpse in a tutu is that doing something nice for Qweblixion, the imaginary person I just made up and who never existed? No. He does not exist and, hence, does not know or care. You can't be nice to someone who doesn't exist, nor can you be nice to someone who no longer exists.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't be nice to someone who doesn't exist, nor can you be nice to someone who no longer exists.
Perhaps not, but you can go through the motions. The ex-person may not care (or even know), but you and those around you will. Some of them may think you're an idiot, some of them will appreciate it. If you're trying to win friends and influence people, or even just make time with the grieving widow, which path do you think will be more successful?
None of it has anything to do with belief in the supernatu
Re: (Score:2)
For all we know they buried them alive and they simply died in that posture, or these people had no belief in an afterlife, but enjoyed arranging corpses as an art form. Still, spiritual beliefs are the most likely sounding explanation to me.
"Most likely"?
I'm an atheist, have been all my life. Yet, I was always nice to my teddy bear. It's not like I believe that the thing is alive, has feelings, has a soul, or anything like that... but still, even today, I'll make sure that it sits in a comfortable spot.
When someone I care about dies, their mortal remains are no more capable of suffering than my inanimate teddy bear, and yet, I'll do my best to give them a decent funeral. Why? Because it feels wrong not to, that's all.
To assume that there
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm an atheist, have been all my life. Yet, I was always nice to my teddy bear. It's not like I believe that the thing is alive, has feelings, has a soul, or anything like that... but still, even today, I'll make sure that it sits in a comfortable spot. When someone I care about dies, their mortal remains are no more capable of suffering than my inanimate teddy bear, and yet, I'll do my best to give them a decent funeral. Why? Because it feels wrong not to, that's all.
This is called Anthropomorphism. You are subconsciously attributing human attributes to nonhumans (a teddy bear and a corpse) and empathizing with the feelings and comfort levels they don't have.
To assume that there is anything spiritual going on in situations like that is facile at best.
I never assumed it was the reason, as I clearly stated in my post. I suggested that spirituality was the most likely explanation because that is the most common reason for funerary preparations, when you look at all the cultures around the world. Thus, it is most likely that is the case for a culture we don't know e
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an atheist, have been all my life. Yet, I was always nice to my teddy bear. It's not like I believe that the thing is alive, has feelings, has a soul, or anything like that... but still, even today, I'll make sure that it sits in a comfortable spot. When someone I care about dies, their mortal remains are no more capable of suffering than my inanimate teddy bear, and yet, I'll do my best to give them a decent funeral. Why? Because it feels wrong not to, that's all.
This is called Anthropomorphism. You are subconsciously attributing human attributes to nonhumans (a teddy bear and a corpse) and empathizing with the feelings and comfort levels they don't have.
I'm not "subconsciously" anything. Life has conditioned me to be nice to living things; when I'm nasty, bad things tend to happen -- I get punished, people take revenge, or, I may reflect on my actions later on, empathize with my victims, and feel guilt or remorse later on.
Treating a doll or a corpse like just any old thing may not have any of these repercussions, but if the object in question is sufficiently similar to a living thing, my trained reflexes may just kick in and make me feel bad anyway, even
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not for everyone. For some people, caring for others is the height of humanism.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Other way 'round. These days, if you do profess membership in some faith, you're a cold-hearted bastard.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, 53% of Americans would not vote for an atheist for president regardless of qualifications.
Reference [gallup.com]
At first I thought this was a rebuttal but maybe American's want a cold hearted bastard for president.
Re: (Score:2)
What about Buddhism?
I think you'd find it hard to argue against Buddhism being intensely spiritual. However, Buddhism's not particularly theist. [wikipedia.org] Does that mean that it shouldn't be treated as a religion?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you buddy, you fellow insensitive-cold-hearted-clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but look at it, just about every atheist in this world has been exposed to some religion be it with the media, general talk, or just how society acts. Without any hint of spirituality we would be more like animals and have no reason to be different.
What's wrong with animals? From my perspective, humans are animals, but that's not an insult. Animals feel emotions and think and empathize with others... if not always to the same degree as most humans. I could even argue some animal societies seem more altruistic and advanced than our own in the ways that matter to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:spiritual beliefs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy crap! The only reason you don't kill weaker people is because your holy book tells you not to?!?
You can't reason it out and come to the conclusion that it's wrong without examining a holy text and/or your local laws?!?
You, sir, are a scary scary scary person.
Re:spiritual beliefs? (Score:5, Interesting)
His argument was incomplete and not well presented. And yet, you still haven't given a reason. That probably means that you really haven't thought about it.
Most people don't kill because they've been told repeatedly that it is a very, very bad thing to do. Personally, I think most people fit here. It becomes a matter of faith, even if it isn't a matter of spirituality. They never stop to think about why killing is bad, they just know that it is. They know that it is because people keep telling them that it is. Faith in established culture, if nothing else.
Some people don't kill because of the legal consequences. These people need to be watched, because they will probably hurt someone at some point.
Some people don't kill because they don't want to live in that type of society. They equate people who kill as people who destroy the freedom or civilization that they enjoy (or want to enjoy). By this definition, they don't want to be a bad person.
And some people don't kill because they fear eternal damnation.
I'm sure there are other reasons. What's yours?
Re: (Score:2)
higher primates - not just humans - all have a basic sense of right vs wrong derived from "fair vs not fair" and how they would like others to act toward them.
Considering murder wrong and promoting a society that agrees is simply self interest at it's finest.
Same thing with stealing
or making it illegal to slander maliciously
or any number of modern laws and religious doctrines.
they can all be traced back to the principle of "i don't want this done to me!"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... any number of modern laws and religious doctrines... can all be traced back to the principle of "i don't want this done to me!"
Not all of them. At least, not the way most people view religious faith. As a more concrete counter point, I've known people willing to obey religious commandments blindly out of their love for God. No, I really mean it. Self interest has nothing to do with it at that stage.
Re: (Score:2)
religion is not required to create laws or morality
failing to understand (or admit this) shows a narrow minded for of subconscious bigotry that far too many religious individuals engage in against those who do not think their evidenceless positions are valid.
People that cannot figure out how morals and laws exist in the absence of religion show signs of sociopathy.
Re: (Score:2)
Humanism is also a form of faith--though it is faith in the goodness or worth of fellow human beings with no need to call on the supernatural.
Unfortunately, it's a faith that my cynicism has denied me.
Re:spiritual beliefs? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And when I looked at the photo, I was struck by how they appeared to have been just tossed into a grave together, with the mother possibly still alive (appears to be reaching for the child).
But I've dug graves and buried large dogs, so I have perhaps a different perspective on how a corpse falls into a hole than does someone who has never done such work.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Viewing people as entities that are meaningful after their death (and thus are buried as a rite or ritual and not simply as a sanitary measure) is spirituality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it obvious that it wasn't for sanitary reasons?
What sanitary reason is there for arranging bodies such that the adult is hugging the children?
Re:spiritual beliefs? (Score:4, Informative)
In archaeology, "spritual" == "no other explanation".
I mean really, every other artifact that they dig up that doesn't immediately have an obvious purpose is a "ritual object" of some "spiritual significance".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My first thought was human sacrifice. Buried alive.
Re:spiritual beliefs? (Score:4, Informative)
The assumption is, if somebody did something special for a person that was already dead, they probably believed that some part of that person was 'still around' to appreciate it - else why go to the extra bother.
It's not invariably true - for example we probably try to honor people's last will and testaments as much for the peace of mind it brings them while they are still alive as for any other reason. This burial could arguably have been done just to give the deceased's survivors a mental image that alleviated some of their sorrow, with no real expectation beyond that.
Many prehistoric cultures have done more than just arranging the dead though, such as burying 'killed' tools with them. This goes back to at least some Neanderthal sites in the range of 60 - 65,000 BC, also shows up in some of our direct ancestors, and some particular symbolic rituals span roughly 50,000 years, making them part of what was probably by far the longest continuous religious system ever. One of the roughly 60,000 year old Neanderthal sites involved the burial of a young girl, about 5 or 6. Her corpse was laid on a sort of rug made of woven flowers, and carefully equipped with bone needles, a waterskin, spools of sinew, flint knapping stones, shell jewelry, and clothing in various sizes from hers at time of death to items which would have fit her fully grown. Many of the items showed signs of being neatly broken or damaged in a ritualistic fashion, as though to send them with her by some form of sympathetic magic.
If the article's writer is inferring spiritual beliefs just from the position of the corpses, they may well be in error, but if this is the opinion of the research anthropologists, they have probably noticed enough similarities to other sites to be confident it's part of the same cultural context.
Re: (Score:2)
Archaeologists always seem to be inferring spirituality on ancients. However, humans today are mostly not that spiritual -- they are a pretty selfish, material greedy bunch, and I don't really believe that humans have got worse (or much better admittedly, though
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
plug for paul sereno (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting tidbits about the guy who led the research:
He left this particular site alone for three years before coming back to it with the appropriate team of people. He commonly does that... goes out in the field, finds something, and leaves it, only to return with the proper team and equipment. He doesn't like to mess up a find, and he'd rather be patient and do a thing right than go for a quick-win and run the risk of screwing something up. He knows how to follow through on super-complex projects better than almost anybody I've ever met before.
His dinosaur laboratory is located across the street from the site of Chicago Pile 1, where the first controlled release of atomic energy occurred, in the racketball court underneath the bleachers of Stagg Stadium. That building, across the street, now know as the Enrico Fermi Institute, holds all sorts of milling equipment, 50 ton hoists, and a "monster garage" that's three stories tall inside. It has all the right equipment to mill graphite into control rods, or hoist dinosaur skeletons onto their scaffolding. It once held the first cyclotron, and they now build dinosaurs and space satellites there. The dino lab is affectionally known as the "Atomic Dino Lab".
He also has a license plate that reads "dinosaur".
All in all, a super cool guy. His class on paleobiology was, hands down, one of the most educational classes I've ever had the opportunity to take. The class was all on phylogenetics and cladistics, with a lab in geostrata and mineral identifications. Who knew?
http://www.paulsereno.org/ [paulsereno.org]
http://www.projectexploration.org/ [projectexploration.org]
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, Paul Sereno is awesome. Modern day Indiana Jones, if there ever was one.
Ooh, sounds exciting!
He commonly does that... goes out in the field, finds something, and leaves it, only to return with the proper team and equipment.
Wow, just like in Indiana Jones and the Patiently Waiting Tomb Hunters. That montage scene when five years went by as Professor Jones assembled his team was incredible!
Re:plug for paul sereno (Score:4, Funny)
Modern day Indiana Jones, if there ever was one... His dinosaur laboratory is located across the street from the site of Chicago Pile 1, where the first controlled release of atomic energy occurred
So did he survive the atomic blast in a refrigerator?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:plug for paul sereno (Score:5, Interesting)
If you've ever worked with binary trees, file systems, or any other type of tree data structure, you're working with tree models, which cladistics is the study of. Phylogenetics is the study of how to take observations of things, markup meta data, and then organize those observations into tree structures. Think when you take a bunch of digital photographs, add meta data to the images when you upload them to your computer, and then try to figure out which pictures should be sorted into which directories. That's a phylogenetic process. Cladistics is figuring out which directories you should have in the first place, which ones should be the root directories, and so forth. ie. Should
And then there's all the stuff about evolution, and learning about natural selection and mutation and extinction and stuff. I won't get into that.
But it was actually pretty useful stuff, and I've been surprised at the number of places that knowledge has come in useful. Particularly in the areas of data analysis, structure, and storage.
Spirituality? (Score:2, Insightful)
This strongly indicated they had spiritual beliefs and cared for their dead,' says Garcea.
"Cared for their dead" I get. This "spiritual beliefs" stuff doesn't make sense. What proves any kind of spirituality in this situation? Posing a corpse isn't proof of spirituality, it's just proof that they moved people around after they died.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Sahara and the Old Kingdom (Score:5, Interesting)
This article [sciencemag.org] in Science Magazine indicates that the Sahara was fully formed by 2300 BCE
To me, the timing between that and the rise of the Old Kingdom in Egypt (~ 2600 BCE) is too close to be coincidental. I think we will find that people migrated from sites such Gobero to the Nile, and that precipitated the formation of political organization in Egypt.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That hypothesis is being investigated, and seems a very likely one, according to the article "Pharaohs from the stone age" published in NewScientist 16 Jan 2007.
Terraforming Earth (Score:5, Interesting)
two meters ?!? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Or, to put it another way, "This was the moment when global warm.. er... climate (yeah that's it) change Jumped the Shark."
Re: (Score:2)
Amazingly enough, thousands of years ago they must have also had a leader who was simultaneously a bumbling idiot and an evil genius.
We know this because Weather doesn't exist since those secret Tinfoil Weather Control Satellites turned it into Climate Change.
Re: (Score:2)
only someone with zero understanding of earth sciences would think that the formation of the Sahara was related to modern climate change.
only someone with no understanding of science what so ever would think that changing the chemistry of the atmosphere (increasing total carbon load in the atmosphere by massive amounts) would not affect the climate of the planet
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, let's blame me instead of the utterly broken moderating system that protects the lazy and the corrupt.