Slashdot Mirror
Oldest Modern Humans Found
DrLudicrous writes "Anthropologists have reconstructed and dated three skulls from Ethiopia that they believe to be the oldest anatomically modern human skulls in existance. They date to 160,000 years ago, in agreement with genetic studies that pin the arrival of modern humans to at least 150,000 years ago. The skulls also demonstrate evidence of ritual burial." UC Berkeley has the original release as well.
The Herto skulls were not found with other bones from the rest of the bodies, which is unusual, White said, leading the researchers to infer that the people "were moving the heads around on the landscape. They probably cut the muscles and broke the skull bases of some skulls to extract the brain, but why, whether as part of a cannibalistic ritual, we have no way of knowing."
I was rather surprised by the possibility of ritualistic brain-eating amongst the earliest ancestors of our species. Maybe they were extracting the brains not for appetizers, but for the same reasons Egyptians removed the brains prior to mummification: so that dead would not be encumbered by the useless grey gunk inside their head on the journey to the afterlife.
Well, why didn't we have computers 10,000 years ago? Afterall, there were modern humans back then too. The problem I think you are having is the definition of civilization. Just because the tribes living in the Amazon don't have the same civilization as we do doesn't mean they don't have a civilization.
Many reasons. First, most places on Earth didn't have what we'd call "civilization" until well beyond 6-10,000 years ago, and most of them got it from the Egyptians/Babylonians. There just isn't a need for people to form complex societies when populations are small, and resources are abundant. In the middle east/Africa, conditions were such that large groups were better able to survive - read up on the history of agriculture sometime.
:)
Hell, most of North America was populated with hunter/gatherers until Europeans came, and it's not like they weren't 'smart' enough or anything. Sometimes people just don't need it.
Or, take the easy route: the Earth is only 6/12,000 years old, and don't bother asking the important questions
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Why does this just not quite add up to me.
How many times in your life have you changed the world? The concept to stop chasing wildlife, and to settle down and grow crops is revolutionary, and would be a scary step (since you're betting on crops coming in right until you can build up enough storage) even for those who have plenty of knowledge in the subject. The combination of knowledge, wisdom and courage to take that step is not commonly found, and even when the step was take, the society might easily disappear if there were a short drought. I have a harder time imagining why someone would do this, then why they wouldn't.
If you belive the bible hasnt changed in thousands of years maybe you should either read the bible, or go to church. Better yet go to a few different churches that use the 'same' bible. There are HUNDREDS of niche's of christianity and each one has a slightly different bible.
Oh, and btw, the dead sea scrolls arnt written in english....
-Bill
-Bill
I feel I must correct you here.
The bible has most certainly changed over the last few thousand years, especially in the first few centuries after Jesus' supposed crucifixion. The Dead Sea Scrolls pose some interesting contradictions to the bible, as well-- many pertaining to the Nephilim described in the old testament. Over the years those who had the power (kings and churches) sought to enhance and secure their position by keeping the people dumb and manipulating them by altering passages from the bible in their favour. So many bits and pieces have changes, been ommitted or added, that you don't even know anymore what parts were actually in the original scriptures and which not.
That said, someone else pointed out the way science works: these are theories and they work from the basis of that. Nothing is 100% sure and when somebody finds out this and that is more true than the other thing, no one will feel shamed when this fact becomes the generally accepted one.
Do I need to understand and appreciate the koran before I condemn 9/11?
No, you don't. But, you do need to understand it in order to realize that the nut cases who commited that act of terror were about as "mainstream" as the Christian nut cases who blow up abortion clinics.
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
> Is that, Okay, Great^n Grandpawas around 160,000 years ago, complete with stone tools and burial practices. Yet Civilization only 'started 6-10,000 years ago.
Depends on what you mean by "civilization", of course.
> Why does this just not quite add up to me. I mean, our ancestors were not stupid, they posessed the same intuition and logic that we do today. Whay did it take so long to get where we are now though?
Because technology and social structures are cumulative inventions. I don't know how technology should be measured, but qualitatively speaking it appears to be growing at an exponential rate. And if you trace an exponential curve far out into the past it gets really flat.
That is to say, I don't think there's really any mystery here that needs explaining.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Or is this more of the overly simplistic logic that starts by assuming the Bible is false and then proceeds to construct some alternative scenario?
How do we know anything is true, we must and do on a daily basis make assumptions about the world around us from what we observe. I see a table, i walk up to it, touch it, i know it's a table. We use simple logic to assume things are right or wrong, true or false. If i am told something is true i do not believe it unless i can verify it for myself.
As such, i believe there is a book called the bible with many secular variations. Having read some of it, I know it contains some fascinating insights into human nature and accounts of historic events. But my wider knowledge allows me to put it in picture with the history of the roman occupation of the area, simultaneous Chinese philosophy, Mayan empires, etc. And my knowledge of human nature, culture, behaviour; to come to the simple logical conclusion that it is most likely that Jesus existed and was immensely insightful into human nature and further evolved a system of living by which humanity and all it's individuals could prosper. However i see no good evidence for divine intervention.
What your parents tell you to believe in ... isn't always right
My spelling isn't bad, I'm evolving the language
> Don't you mean revise science, the Bible hasnt changed in thousands of years (note the dead sea scrolls which are the same as the current versions of the Bible). It is science that changes its mind everytime something new is discovered, cant they stick with one story.
And there's the difference between science in religion. Religion wants to preserve a tradition, so its adherents stick to their story regardless of what the evidence says. Science wants to understand the universe, so it goes whereever the evidence demands.
Of course... it only takes a casual familiarity with history to see that religion slowly changes its views over the generations as well, however much the practitioners want to pretend otherwise.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Why is it that whenever the Creationist Vs Evolutionist debate rages its always between the Bible and science, are these the only two schools of thought on this subject? What about any other world religions belief structures?
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
> If they "don't even know anymore what parts were actually in the original scripture" they how do they know they have changed?
History.
> Do you have any proof of your assertion that people changed the Scriptures to fit their needs, and those changes have not been caught and reversed?
How about the fact that even today not all sects agree on the same canon, let alone on the translation and interpretation of its contents?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
....nod, ....smile, ....slowwwly back away...
> Sixth, the idea that the rulers wanted to "keep the people dumb" is just propaganda.
When you have a bit of idle time, visit the talk.origins newsgroup and ask about the role of religion in the Neocon "wedge document". As one guy puts it in his
IIRC their philosophy goes at least back to Plato, who (IIRC) suggested a model state where the "guardians" knew religion was a hoax, but espoused it anyway in order to control the masses.
Notice in passing how convenient it is for a government to send soldiers to their deaths and then assure the public that they have a secure spot in Heaven (as if the politicians would know!), or to shrug off "collateral damage" when everyone 'knows' that God won't let the innocent suffer in the afterlife.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
~400 yrs ago - handguns: different from artillery in the sense that it allowed mostly anyone to possess an accurate, small deadly weapon. The democratization of the modern state occurred. See: The United States of America
See also: Ancient Greece (and, according to the writers of the time, numerous earlier cultures)
~50 yrs ago - aircraft and missles: this enables us to effectively coerce non-cooperating persons on the other side of the planet. We are in the midst right now of a formation of a pan-global coalition.
Um... there's nothing new about global civilisations or empires.
History is not linear, chaps!
The fact is that people in the Middle Ages believed in Christianity. Thousands of people devoted their lives to it, including rulers, which according to your theory should have known better. Some of the greatest saints were rich and powerful men who gave up their wealth and power to become monks. For example, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Anthony of Padua. St. Thomas Aquinas was imprisoned for two years by his aristocratic family for wanting to turn his back on his wealth and become a monk.
Yeah, they can never be sure. After all, sexual dimorphism almost always leads to larger males, and all the femur, hip-bones and other skeletal remains with good sexual indicators have been accompanied by skull casings which are consistent with larger brains.
It's quite possible that men had birthing hips and would bear children. Of course they would need vaginas and breasts, and women would need penises, but that doesn't make the men less manly or the women less womanly.
The bottom line is that the skulls are probably those of males. It would be remarkable if they turned out to be female, but there's no direct evidence either way, and since no other hominid has larger females than males, it's a reasonable assumption.
Saying that there is a patriarchal bias, is to say that you percieve something inherently better about a larger brain. This advantage you attribute to sexual lines. That's not only sexist, but it belittle both men's and women's contributions to anthropology.
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that cultures evolve to the technological level that they need to survive.
In the classical "Cradle of Civilization", the Tigris-Euphrates valley, there were few animals to eat, and plants didn't grow regularly. So, the people needed to learn how to make the plants grow regularly. Irrigation developed. Wait, we grew too much, we need something to store all this food in! I found this clay over here, let's make some pottery.
Many native american tribes didn't go any higher than stone age in some technologies, because they didn't need to.
Yes and no... there are some ambiguities about translation of the bible. Some words only appear a few times, or even once, making their meaning impossible to know for sure. The meanings of words also change over time, so a word that meant something when the bible was translated into greek, say, might have been given a different meaning than when it was first written down.
This is not to say that translation is impossible or a useless effort. It's just to say that the exact meaning of a given word is often ambigous. Often, these (in my view, somewhat silly) arguments about what the bible says center around individual words.
For example, does "four corners" mean four geometric corners? Does it mean "prominent places", or was it a colloquial expression?
(My favorite one is when the Israelites were building the Tabernacle in the desert, and they used "Dolphin Skins". Where did they get Dolphin skins from? It's a funny little thing, and you wonder if the text is really refering to the skins of animals we call dolphins, or something else. But dolphin skins? From Egypt?)
The whole topic of translating ancient texts (not just the bible) is a facinating one. If you're interested in an alternate english translation of the bible, the Jewish Publication society put one out under the name "Tanakh" (the Jewish word for the bible). Every page there are footnotes with the comment "meaning of original hebrew uncertain" , or providing an alternate translation.
DISCLAIMER - I am not a linguist or biblical scholar. (IANALOBS)
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
> > And there's the difference between science in religion. Religion wants to preserve a tradition, so its adherents stick to their story regardless of what the evidence says. Science wants to understand the universe, so it goes whereever the evidence demands.
> While it's true that religions tend to stick to their stories regardless of the evidence, the same tendency has been observed among scientists as well. If you had asked Einstein about non-local effects in quantum physics, I imagine you'd have gotten the same kind of response you'd get by asking Jerry Falwell about evolution.
Yes, science is practiced by humans and therefore all the usual human follies can be observed among scientists.
However, scientists are well aware of that fact, so science as a "field" or "institution" is based on the notion of sanity checks and second opinions. The bad stuff like Piltdown Man and Cold Nuclear Fusion eventually get weeded out, because although they appeal strongly to individual's follies they can't stand up to the checks.
I.e., ultimately Einstein's personal opinion doesn't matter.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> We seem to be referring to do different things.
Yes, to a big extent we are talking past each other.
> There's no question that the arrangement of the Bible has changed. It's well documented and most certainly admitted by any reputable biblical scholar. In fact, anyone suggesting otherwise is flat wrong, without question, and should be removed from your list of critical thinkers.
> However, the contents of the scripture, the individual lines of scripture and the message that the scripture conveys, is remarkably true to the original. You should check out Geisler's book "Christian Apologetics" for some interesting information on the reliability of scripture and for a comparison of how well the original manuscripts stack up against the commonly accepted translations of today.
I don't have any problem with that; I just think it's odd that you're focusing on the fact that the sentences haven't changed within such-and-such a book, but whole books have been swapped in and out of the canon.
What ultimately matters is that the canon was established by men by a combination of formal and informal negotiations that lasted over centuries. Is it really so hard to see that the end result represents "a change", and that the process was subject to the pressures of special interest groups?
E.g., some wanted to exclude St. John's Revelation, not because they didn't think it was inspired, but because they observed that it was a keystone of competing traditions.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The concept to stop chasing wildlife, and to settle down and grow crops is revolutionary, and would be a scary step
What's worse, there seems to be evidence that growing crops put individuals at a short-term disadvantage over hunter-gatherers, giving them a poorer diet for more work! The primary advantage of crop growing, though, is that it supports a higher population density, so even if your hunter-gatherer tribe may be living better than the nearby village growing crops, the village can feed ten times as many people and so they can expand faster than you and win any conflict between you.
For those interested in really seeing what the Bible teaches and how science the Bible compliment one another nicely, please visit Reasons To Believe
You will never "find" time for anything. You must "make" it.
> It is true that religion can be used to manipulate masses of people - however this speaks nothing as to whether any particular religion is "true" or not.
I don't offer it as an argument about religious truth. As I understand this thread, someone claimed that the Bible had been manipulated in order to manipulate people, someone else replied that such a claim was preposterous on the face of it, and I tried to show that such a claim was not preposterous.
What I find preposterous and somewhat irksome is that a politician would speak at the funeral of a soldier who died in a dubiously motivated war and make a bald-faced claim that the soldier is now enjoying a bit of R&R with his maker. Surely that's beyond the competence of judgement even for the president of a superpower, even if the Bible is true in every word?
It pays to consider why politicians would make such claims, so regularly.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You must define God before you can make this claim. I cannot say that I have a million dollars, just because I am thinking of it right now and telling you about it, then expect to have it. It does exist, naturally, but do dragons? Yes, in my imagination. Fantasy dragons do exist and have a very clear definition. If you mean God in the Christian sense, then no. He doesn't exist simply because I was discussing it. It doesn't work that way as far as I know.
> I don't know what Bible you are reading, but mine says nothing about any staircase or rope breaking.
Whoops - spank me for the staircase; that's what I get for relying on memory rather than looking it up. But if you delete the staircase and procede from there, my post should still make sense.
And yes, the broken rope is an extra-biblical fiction. That was part of my point. (I suspect the staircase was also an extra-biblical fiction that I was taught as a child, with some Sunday School teacher thinking he needed somewhere to "fall headlong".)
> As for the Bible contradicting archeology, this is simply not true. For example, just recently, the a city was unearthed that fits perfectly with the Bible's description of Jericho, and even the walls were still intact, with one section of them broken down. What they found in the structures fit with the Jews taking over the city.
Ah, Jericho has long been excavated; even as a child I was fed nonsense about the archaeologists finding that "the walls had fallen outward, rather than inward as would have happened in an ordinary seige".
And BTW, the oldest walls a Jericho are older than the universe, at least according to the dates derived from the Bible.
But more to the point, finding archaeological sites that correspond to Bible stories does nothing to validate the bigger claims of the Bible. I mentioned elsewhere in this thread earlier that The Illiad guided an archaeologist to historical Troy, but no one concludes from that fact that The Illiad is a true story.
> The scientific community is just as guilty of trying to disprove the Bible as the so-called "Christian scientists"
There may be some scientists pursuing such a grudge, but by and large that's not what's going on at all. Scientists (by and large) are just trying to find out about the universe. That endeavor fell afoul of the Bible over two centuries ago, even though the scientists of the day were (by and large) religious men.
The Bible no longer falls within the goals of science in general, although recent political pushes to have it substituted for a real science curriculum are causing more and more scientists to speak out on that topic.
"Christian scientists", OTOH, correctly understand that over the last couple of centuries the facts have refuted their religious beliefs over and over again, so they busy themselves with discrediting mainstream science, or at least forcing open a small gap that they can hide their God in, because they perceive that their religion would be falsified otherwise. (Notice that most Christians outside Fundamentalist sects simply take the findings of science in stride. It's only those who take biblical literalism as an article of faith who have problems with science.)
> There will always be people who believe in God because when you see REAL miracles in response to prayer, speculation over a skull in Africa seems irrelevant.
"REAL miricales in response to prayer" suffer the same problem that unconstrained biblical interpretations do. People pray for rain and they get it, so they credit God with it; other people pray for rain and don't, and they conclude that God is trying to teach them patience. I.e., people think they get "REAL miricales in response to prayer" whether anything actually happens or not. Substitute peace, health, etc. for rain, and the same observation still holds.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade