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.
not too surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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]
Re:spiritual beliefs? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:spiritual beliefs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Care != Spiritual (believe it or not, Athiests, Agnostics and the like DO feel love!)
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: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:1, Insightful)
Maybe they were buried alive, and she was just hugging her children.
Re:spiritual beliefs? (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Other way 'round. These days, if you do profess membership in some faith, you're a cold-hearted bastard.
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.
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: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: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:Spirituality? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Spirituality? (Score:1, Insightful)
are you serious?
Just because people don't believe in spirits doesn't mean that they automatically care nothing about the body, I mean hell, they probably didn't know the difference between a "soul" and the body anyway!
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: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 enough about. It could still be any of the other reasons I listed.
Just because someone's dead is no reason to be mean to them, that's all.
Without spirituality, you can't harm the dead. They are dead and gone. All the corpse is is lifeless meat. Obviously not all people logically think that through though, so empathy and anthropomorphism are a potential motivating factor.
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:full retard (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:Water = civilization (Score:3, Insightful)
the oceans and waterways provide transport
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:Water = civilization (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: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:Water = civilization (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: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:spiritual beliefs? (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:Water = civilization (Score:2, Insightful)
You know, drilling off the coast isn't in itself bad, except maybe from an aesthetic standpoint and that is very subjective. I know that through the 4 decades or so that I have lived in California, the offshore rigs have caused less tar to wash up on the beach and the structures themselves act like little reefs, bringing lots of wildlife around.
But the fact that they are feeding both our SUV addiction and the environmental impacts of using oil pisses me off on a daily basis. Less people, greener energy. Other than that, the earth is fucked.
Re:spiritual beliefs? (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 supernatural, but rather with habits of behaviour and the persistence of memory that make people act, sometimes, as if the deceased is still somehow present.
Re:Water = civilization (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:
But it's ok to pollute Venezuela, Russia and Saudi Arabia, because they aren't in our back yard...
Re:spiritual beliefs? (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Sure, it's impossible to do something nice to you in your death as your not there any more. Really..
That means that since you're going to die anyway why don't you go in a blaze of glory and make everyone hate you. After all, since you're dead, you wont care if those people who were dear to you while living (mothers wives, daughters, sisters, husbands, brothers, fathers), will be gang raped, tortured and finally sent after you to where ever it is that those who killed you think that you are already headed towards.
Why is religion, spiritualism and all that shit always drawn first into the equation when we can't know how things were at any given time. If my two daugthers who always are hand-hand would suddenly die, I'd definitely feel such a huge loss about it that I'd feel some comfort in placing their bodies in an embrace I so often saw them in..
Now, 5-10K years ago these dudes probably didn't have any of our more modern shit cluttering their mental life (we can hope, rip) and they were perhaps more intellectually capable than we today. To treat them as monkies just because they had to create the first switches and programming languages, work slowly with assembler instead of more modern tools doesn't make to a good claim about their intellectual capacity except it highlights that they were succesful where as we still must prove to be so.
Re:Water = civilization (Score:2, Insightful)