Slashdot Mirror


Stone Age Mass Graves Reveal Green Sahara

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.

16 of 305 comments (clear)

  1. Water = civilization by pieterh · · 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.

    1. Re:Water = civilization by pitchpipe · · 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[.] 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

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
  2. not too surprising by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought it was fairly common knowledge that the Sahara used to be a very lush and fertile plain between 10-15k years ago. Or at least that's what I was taught 15 years ago. Still, nice to find anthropological and archeological evidence of the people that lived there.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  3. spiritual beliefs? by techmuse · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:spiritual beliefs? by umbra_dweller · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't necessarily imply complex spirituality on the order of modern religion, but it means that the people who buried them saw them as something other than sacks of meat, that they felt some connection to people even after death - a trait which not all animals share.

    2. Re:spiritual beliefs? by Q-Hack! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Spiritual != Religion

      It is possible for Atheists and Agnostics to be spiritual without having religion.

      Caring and spirituality as synonymous in this sense.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    3. Re:spiritual beliefs? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, 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.

    4. Re:spiritual beliefs? by jabithew · · 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" 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.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    5. Re:spiritual beliefs? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, 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."

    6. Re:spiritual beliefs? by AJWM · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      -- Alastair
    7. Re:spiritual beliefs? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    8. Re:spiritual beliefs? by multisync · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      BS. I used the term "voila" the other night when I served dinner. Doesn't make me a Frenchman.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    9. Re:spiritual beliefs? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, 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.

    10. Re:spiritual beliefs? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  4. Re:full retard by VoidEngineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're looking at leader/follower relationship with a peculiar modernistic cultural/anthro/sociological viewpoint.

    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.

  5. Re:full retard by VoidEngineer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm perfectly well aware that geese and ducks take turns leading the flock. They do it to maintain efficiency. And if a duck or geese doesn't keep with the flock, they're going to have a much rougher time. They won't be able to travel as far, will have more difficulty getting food, and may even die.

    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.