Giant Archaeological Trove Found Via Google Earth

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Giant Archaeological Trove Found Via Google Earth

Posted by Soulskill on Friday February 4, 2011 @09:03AM from the who-needs-to-go-outside-anyway dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Using detailed satellite imagery available through Google Earth, Australian researchers have discovered what may be tombs that are thousands of years old in remote stretches of Saudi Arabia (abstract). 'Kennedy scanned 1240 square kilometers in Saudi Arabia using Google Earth. From their birds-eye view he found 1977 potential archaeological sites, including 1082 "pendants" — ancient tear-drop shaped tombs made of stone. According to Kennedy, aerial photography of Saudi Arabia is not made available to most archaeologists, and it's difficult, if not impossible, to fly over the nation. "But, Google Earth can outflank them," he says. Kennedy confirmed that the sites were vestiges of an ancient life — rather than vegetation or shadow - by asking a friend in Saudi Arabia, who is not an archaeologist, to drive out to two of the sites and photograph them. By comparing the images with structures that Kennedy has seen in Jordan, he believes the sites may be up to 9000 years old, but ground verification is needed."

126 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Oblig. by bsharp8256 · 2011-02-04 09:05 · Score: 0

They could be OVER 9000!
1. Re:Oblig. by poetmatt · 2011-02-04 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  better not tell nappa
Was it smart? by Z00L00K · 2011-02-04 09:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

To post this on the web? Potential for grave robbers is incredible in that area. And those may be extremely interesting from an archeological point of view.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
1. Re:Was it smart? by Smidge207 · 2011-02-04 09:25 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  Growing up, my dad worked as a longshoreman and my mom was a homemaker. They had seven children and lived on one salary. My dad worked hard, paid the bills and saved whatever was left. If a crisis came, he worked extra hours.
  My mom introduced me to a checking/savings account when I got my first job in high school. But because my dad handled all the finances, she couldn't teach me how much to save or how to choose a bank. She would just say pay yourself first. That was the extent of my personal finance education.
  So once I graduated from college and receive a job offer -- a nice cushy white-collar desk job with a well known company! -- I took my paychecks and did the only thing I knew to do with money: spend it.
  Every week I was at the mall, spending most of my check on clothes, gadgets and shoes. I was looking good, and spending massively.
  My spending fast: I saved $18,000 in one year
  After all, I'd never had a white-collar job like this -- one where I had my own computer, nameplate and phone extension -- and I wanted to blend in. Dressing up everyday in nice clothes made me feel like an executive, like I belonged. Lifestyle inflation crept in.
  Everyone had a nice car and would talk about going to the theater and their home remodels. All I had was a one bedroom apartment and a Corolla. Their parents all went to college. I, of course, was the first to graduate. They all knew what mutual funds to invest in. I invested 3% into my 401(k) and had no idea what funds I owned.
  But I figured I was doing well. I was paying my bills, had retirement savings and was having fun. And as far as a rainy day fund...I had my dad!
  He was so proud of me that he didn't mind me asking for money. He was collecting a pension, the house was paid off and the bills were low, so he could afford to help.
  But it eventually dawned on me: I was making more money than my parents combined and I was asking my dad for money. Despite the degree and swanky job, my parents were richer than me. When you are asking to borrow money from someone who makes less than you, you are the poor one.
  0:00 /3:10Trick yourself into saving more
  By my late twenties, I realized I had nothing to show for my life but multiple pages of debt on my credit report. I was not credit-worthy for purchasing a house or having children.
  And then I met my husband. He was an electrician and made less money than I did, but had more in savings. I was slightly embarrassed. I knew I had to change.
  First I decided to save 2% of my income, and steadily bumped that up to 10% over the course of year. Still, I would save the money and then withdraw it a few days later. So I stopped buying expensive shoes. But I still found myself withdrawing my savings just to make it until payday. So I decided to avoid the mall all together. Target became my best friend.
  Fear of debt: Do I finance my dream?
  As I got that under control, I was able to pay down my student loans and pay off my credit card. I also increased my 401(k) contributions by 1% a month, until, after two years, I was saving 20% of my salary. By doing it in small monthly increases, it didn't hurt as much.
  I set my savings to automatically withdraw and just pretend I had a pay cut. I now have 30% of my paycheck (10% savings and 20% retirement) going to myself instead of stuff.
  In exchange, I'm wearing lower price shoes and clothes. It's not a bad trade. And it became easier once I got over the material things in life. The main hurdle was getting over what people thought.
  Being the first in your family to accomplish something is great, but it also means being the first to make plenty of mistakes.
  But I made them and recovered. By the age of 32, I had a cash cushion, a healthy retirement fund and was no longer deep in debt. I felt like a responsible adult. All it took was changing my relationship with money.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or is eldavojohn an idiot?
2. Re:Was it smart? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 09:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Exactly, now all of Saudi Arabia knows that there are potential archeological dig sites ...... somewhere in Saudi Arabia ...... near some rocks. I'd imagine the whole country is out right now digging everywhere there's rocks.
3. Re:Was it smart? by Suki+I · 2011-02-04 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  To post this on the web? Potential for grave robbers is incredible in that area. And those may be extremely interesting from an archeological point of view.
  Beloved knows how to drive a bulldozer and I know how to be cute and distracting. Private antiquities auctions, here we come!
  
  --
  Home of The Suki Series
4. Re:Was it smart? by elsurexiste · 2011-02-04 09:29 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  If they are over 9000 (*sigh*) years old, and in a desert, chances are whatever they could steal won't have much value, even on the black market. A crude knife that seems made on your backyard won't land you any money unless you could show that's from an archaeological site, and we aren't dealing with honorable people here.
  
  --
  I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
5. Re:Was it smart? by molo · 2011-02-04 09:34 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  And half of them will strike oil.
  -molo
  
  --
  Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
6. Re:Was it smart? by geekoid · 2011-02-04 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe you should build a relationship with 'Not going on and on about irrelevant topics"?
  Sheesh.
  BTW material things are awesome! I enjoy the hell out of material things. Just don't go into debt for them.
  You also seem to neglect the fact that you are now a 2 income house; which makes saving a hell of a lot simpler.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
7. Re:Was it smart? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  If they are over 9000 (*sigh*) years old
  Really not sure why you are sighing. There is tons of evidence that much of civilization which is said to be 6000 years old is actually 9000 years old. Its so strong, a good chuck of archaeologists accept it as fact and frequently dispute Egyptologist. In fact, egyptologists counter is basically, but it means my interpretation of evidence is wrong despite the fact that the basis for my interpretation has been shown to be wrong.
  Like it or not, "civilzation" very likely started roughly 9000-10000 years ago, not 6000 years ago as is frequently taught. And there are far too many cities, which have been proved to be from that point in time, with technology which rivals the "classic" civilizations for it to not be so. Simply put, by far, there is a massive preponderance of evidence which clearly shows "civilization" started 9000-10000 years ago. Period.
8. Re:Was it smart? by Sechr+Nibw · 2011-02-04 09:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If they are over 9000 (*sigh*) years old
  Really not sure why you are sighing
  I'm guessing that it's a sigh related to the meme of [POWER LEVEL] OVER 9000!!!!!11!!!!
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiMHTK15Pik
  http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Over_9000
9. Re:Was it smart? by cflannagan · 2011-02-04 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  I thought he was sighing because of the "OVER NINE THOUSAND!!" meme. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/its-over-9000
10. Re:Was it smart? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 09:43 · Score: 0
  
  I agree, there won't be much real value to them other than museums, he likely wouldn't have been able to keep what he found, it's Saudi Arabia.
  If I were him I'd prefer to be the one that found them all (1975 unconfirmed) first outright than had all the "treasure" that you aren't even able to get anyway. Especially if I were an archaeologist. It's a huge gift to their community.
11. Re:Was it smart? by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · 2011-02-04 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  If they are over 9000 (*sigh*) years old
  Really not sure why you are sighing.
  I learned it by watching Vegeta!
12. Re:Was it smart? by Samantha+Wright · 2011-02-04 09:50 · Score: 2
  
  The paper describes the region as being 17 km by 72.8 km, and there are photographs/screenshots from Google Earth at the end. It's also described as being along the Western side of the peninsula, "similar to Jordan". I'm pretty sure that's enough information to find the region in Google Earth in about half an hour.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
13. Re:Was it smart? by blair1q · 2011-02-04 09:52 · Score: 2
  
  so what do you want us to do? ban grave-googling?
14. Re:Was it smart? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 10:01 · Score: 0
  
  To post this on the web?
  Won't someone think of the children? We need more control over what cannot be allowed on the web.
15. Re:Was it smart? by sortius_nod · 2011-02-04 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  The internets... learn to use!
16. Re:Was it smart? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 10:20 · Score: 0
  
  "I know how to be cute and distracting."
  You seem to believe there are redneck morons guarding the
  site.
  It's much more likely it is guarded by people who would just as soon feed you
  to a pack of dogs. You're a female, and it's Arabia.
  Know your place, bitch.
17. Re:Was it smart? by 517714 · 2011-02-04 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  And the radio or airbag taken from the dash of your car isn't worth 10% of the $1200 the dealer charges to replace it, but that doesn't seem to discourage thieves.
  
  --
  The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
18. Re:Was it smart? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  "I know how to be cute and distracting."
  You seem to believe there are redneck morons guarding the
  site.
  It's much more likely it is guarded by people who would just as soon feed you
  to a pack of dogs. You're a female, and it's Arabia.
  Know your place, bitch.
  Not if her old man is Michael Westen. Could explain why she is bothering to bring him with her.
19. Re:Was it smart? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  Well, some of them might, y'know, use Google Earth, look at some known archaeological sites to figure out what they're looking for, and then repeat his search, find a few locations, grave-rob (shouldn't it be grave-burglarize?) them, repeat...
  Not that I support keeping it quiet on that grounds; this is just like an exploit (in that if you find it, and don't share, the bad guys may find it anyway), _except_ that there's not even an option of disclosing it to the vendor and waiting till they fix it to go public -- because there is no "fix" for this. The _only_ way to keep those sites from grave robbery is to announce them and hope enough archaelogists/government people/whatever get excited enough to get them guarded and/or excavated before the grave robbers get there.
20. Re:Was it smart? by burisch_research · 2011-02-04 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Eh? Where are these screenshots of which you speak? Not on the article, certainly -- and as I don't have access to the scientific paper, I don't know if you mean that the screenshots are in there.
  
  --
  char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
21. Re:Was it smart? by dnwq · 2011-02-04 10:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  More importantly, Saudi's official brand of Wahhabism dislikes anything that may be potentially idolatrous and proactively destroys historical monuments. Buildings found via excavation in Mecca have been bulldozed by royal edict.
22. Re:Was it smart? by Dekker3D · 2011-02-04 11:35 · Score: 2
  
  Grave-burglarize? You don't think these ancient dead folks will come to life the minute someone disturbs them? Haven't you seen the movies?!
23. Re:Was it smart? by Samantha+Wright · 2011-02-04 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  That is most definitely what I mean. Being a university student makes it pretty easy to read articles on Science Direct. I said "the paper," did I not? (Technically, it's still just an "accepted manuscript," also.)
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
24. Re:Was it smart? by HornWumpus · 2011-02-04 12:34 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  They understand they are dealing with Arabs.
  The 'cute and distracting' one is a boy. Beloved is dangerous on the dozer. Her burka limits her vision.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
25. Re:Was it smart? by Nyder · 2011-02-04 13:37 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  More importantly, Saudi's official brand of Wahhabism dislikes anything that may be potentially idolatrous and proactively destroys historical monuments. Buildings found via excavation in Mecca have been bulldozed by royal edict.
  That's because those old building had something that Saudi's officials fear. Probably birth documents saying Saudi's are all Jewish or something. One of the lost tribes. Come to think of it, they are pretty rich...
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
26. Re:Was it smart? by Grishnakh · 2011-02-04 17:04 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, this is exactly why it was stupid to reveal these findings. They should have just deleting all their data and kept quiet, because now the same thing will happen to these as happened to the Buddha statues in Afghanistan.
27. Re:Was it smart? by tyrione · 2011-02-04 18:02 · Score: 1
  
  If they are over 9000 (*sigh*) years old, and in a desert, chances are whatever they could steal won't have much value, even on the black market. A crude knife that seems made on your backyard won't land you any money unless you could show that's from an archaeological site, and we aren't dealing with honorable people here.
  Any artifacts that are found perhaps from inside extended subterranean caverns and other lost structures can easily be preserved from the external elements.
28. Re:Was it smart? by RancidPeanutOil · 2011-02-04 18:19 · Score: 1
  
  I only read the first and last sentence of long posts, and yours makes no sense. How do you make hours for your dad?
29. Re:Was it smart? by Phoghat · 2011-02-05 00:06 · Score: 1
  
  From TFA:
  
  Ground views confirmed what Kennedy was seeing on Google
  
  A pile of rocks
  
  --
  Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
30. Re:Was it smart? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 00:51 · Score: 0
  
  Just for perspective : these people are so hostile to history that they've built toilets over their own religion's heritage sites (even the kaaba itself, the "holy stone allah gave to abraham") is obviously not older than 50 years, even on photos (difficult to find, these photos, but you can easily see why : It's made of plastic). Of course, given the fact that these sites easily illustrate just how human and despicable "allah" the paedophile thief and slaver really was ...
  So let's please NOT tell these people where real archaeological sites can be found. We WILL regret it. More stupid than giving taliban a free visit to buddhist statues. Muslims have destroyed all history whereever they went
31. Re:Was it smart? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 02:22 · Score: 0
  
  "If they are over 9000 (*sigh*) years old, and in a desert, chances are whatever they could steal won't have much value"
  If you believe that I have some of the world's best -- and newest -- wine to sell you.
32. Re:Was it smart? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  Well, if an archeologist can take the pain of browsing through google images and find them, I am sure that someone who wants to profit from it can surely spend some time looking through the same images. He now knows for sure that somewhere there it is present and it will keep him interested.
33. Re:Was it smart? by hesaigo999ca · 2011-02-07 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  I was just thinking the same thing , almost funny that now we are going to get all sorts of people digging around in the desert to find xxx, and be the first to say they found it. I guess though if anything is found, it belongs to the country it is found in, and would go to a museum (should the one's finding it be ethical|).
coords plz by by+(1706743) · 2011-02-04 09:07 · Score: 1

Are the coordinates available? I'd enjoy seeing the primary source, such as it is.
1. Re:coords plz by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  Ye just want to plunder booty, don't yar! You scurvy dog, you.
2. Re:coords plz by Yvan256 · 2011-02-04 09:18 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Here you go.
3. Re:coords plz by theVarangian · 2011-02-04 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  I hope not. I wish people had the good sense to keep a lid on this sort of thing. If you publish this kind of data the bottom-feeders descend on them and they are usually looted out much faster than they can be ever be excavated. I know the looters have access to Google's services too but there is no reason to make it any easier for them than it has to be.
I must not be cut out for archeology... by Luthwyhn · 2011-02-04 09:11 · Score: 3, Funny

From the "confirmation photo" in TFA, all I was able to confirm is that... yes, there are rocks in Saudi Arabia.
1. Re:I must not be cut out for archeology... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 10:20 · Score: 0
  
  Not very scientific. There is possible evidence of rocks in Saudi Arabia. Without hard evidence there is no proof of the rocks in Saudi Arabia. Based on other photographic evidence there is potentially sand in Saudi Arabia but until there is supporting evidence the theory of rocks and sand in Saudi Arabia will have to be placed in the same group as bigfoot sightings. Science requires verification not blurry photos.
I told you... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 09:14 · Score: 0

no rest till they know that I have Aqaba...
up to? by Wicked+Zen · 2011-02-04 09:14 · Score: 2

he believes the sites may be up to 9000 years old
UP TO 9000?
That's not so impressive...
1. Re:up to? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 09:35 · Score: 0
  
  Would you rather they say they're OVER 9000???
2. Re:up to? by Locke2005 · 2011-02-04 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is, "up to 9000" means these stones could have been piled up yesterday, or 9000 years ago. It would be more impressive if we could narrow the date range down a bit.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
3. Re:up to? by Ozymandias_KoK · 2011-02-04 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  When 9000 years old you reach, look as good you will not!
juat one small favor by Coraon · 2011-02-04 09:15 · Score: 3, Funny

If you find the ark, don't look in it. Seriously, don't look into it.

--
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
1. Re:juat one small favor by martin-boundary · 2011-02-04 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  How will you know if it's the ark if you don't look in it?
2. Re:juat one small favor by geekoid · 2011-02-04 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  You let it's locations 'leak' to the Nazis. and once they are on it's trail, you send in you own guy to get it. Eventually someones face will melt.
  Then you have it taken away be 'Top Men'
  G
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
3. Re:juat one small favor by MozeeToby · 2011-02-04 09:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But... if you know the ark doubles as a Nazi face melter then it makes more sense to let the Germans take it back to Berlin and open it during a big ceremony for all the top Nazi brass which was their original plan until you sent some idiot with a fedora and a bullwhip in and screwed everything up!
4. Re:juat one small favor by physicsphairy · 2011-02-04 10:01 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  How will you know if it's the ark if you don't look in it?
  You won't, it will just remain both the ark and not the ark. But you can still sell it on ebay as a 50% superposition of the greatest archaeological find of all time.
  
  --
  When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
5. Re:juat one small favor by ekgringo · 2011-02-04 10:21 · Score: 3
  
  Let me ask you this - Would you be more comfortable opening the Ark in Berlin - for the Fuhrer - and finding out only then if the sacred pieces of the Covenant are inside? Knowing, only then, whether you have accomplished your mission and obtained the one, true Ark?
6. Re:juat one small favor by warGod3 · 2011-02-04 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  Or you can have your dumbass accomplice check it out for you...
  
  --
  "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." General James Mattis
7. Re:juat one small favor by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 15:12 · Score: 0
  
  Book, "Serpents of Western Europe" ......... $20
  Bullwhip ....... $100
  Camels ........ $700 each
  Watching the Ark of the Covenant melt Hitler's face off .... priceless
8. Re:juat one small favor by spongman · 2011-02-04 17:53 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, but if it's just a box full of jelly beans and the nazis eat them all without sharing... where would you be then, eh?
9. Re:juat one small favor by SuperKendall · 2011-02-04 20:58 · Score: 1
  
  How will you know if it's the ark if you don't look in it?
  You shake it and see if the cat yowls.
  In other words, until you look in it is the ark and not the ark.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
9000 years old? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 09:16 · Score: -1

These ruins can't be 9000 years old, the earth is only 5000 years old!
1. Re:9000 years old? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 10:58 · Score: 0
  
  A. From TFS: "up to 9000"; 5000 would qualify
  B. Lame troll is lame, we all know there are no bible-humpers on /.
  C. It's 6000 years, don't you read your fucking Bible? You're going to hell!
Someone call Spielberg.... by AfterThot · 2011-02-04 09:20 · Score: 1

...I have an idea for another Indiana Jones sequel.
Finally, a meme is on-topic by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 09:22 · Score: -1

The age of these tombs: IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAND! ;)
Note to the filters: it's not my fault that every character in that anime talks in all caps.
"Tear drop shaped structures" by Locke2005 · 2011-02-04 09:32 · Score: 0

Couldn't tear drop shaped structures made of stones also be naturally occurring in a riverbed or flood plain? I won't believe these are actually tombs until someone excavates them. Dudes, you're getting excited about a pile of stones!

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
1. Re:"Tear drop shaped structures" by Red+Flayer · 2011-02-04 10:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Get some knowledge, bro.
  
  There have been analogs at other sites that have been explored and have been discovered to have been tombs.
  
  Here's a nice article that explains a lot, with mention of these tombs, and tombs like them, near the end. The pictures help make it obvious that these could not be naturally occurring.
  
  Pendant tombs (including crescent, teardrop, and keyhole tombs) are a pretty well-known phenomenon.
  
  --
  "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
2. Re:"Tear drop shaped structures" by Red+Flayer · 2011-02-04 10:14 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Dammit, the new slashcode ate my link.
  
  No more a tags?
  
  http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200904/desktop.archeology.htm
  
  There's the link.
  
  --
  "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
3. Re:"Tear drop shaped structures" by sortius_nod · 2011-02-04 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  I don't recall ever seeing tear drop shapes in naturally occurring river beds. I've seen quite a few dry ones here in Australia that are over 30 000 years old, none of them have tear drop shapes. You get circular shapes (billabongs) and curves, but the tip of a tear drop shape is far from natural in river courses.
4. Re:"Tear drop shaped structures" by geekoid · 2011-02-04 11:49 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  "Dudes, you're getting excited about a pile of stones!"
  Dude, It's archeology.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
5. Re:"Tear drop shaped structures" by Locke2005 · 2011-02-04 16:26 · Score: 1
  
  My point being, it's not the pile of stones that is significant, it's what is (possibly) inside. Should they be carefully excavated? Of course. But I'm not going to get excited until they find something of archeological value buried underneath those stones. Some of them may very well be the equivalent of Capone's Vaults.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
6. Re:"Tear drop shaped structures" by sortius_nod · 2011-02-04 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose you'll also determine what is of value? The tombs themselves are of great value, excavated or not.
  Then again, you don't seem to care about the impact this will have, whether they contain a few bones or the riches of a tribe, on our current written history. This could change quite a few text books.
  I suppose unless it's a new Android release or a new processor you really don't care right?
Very mixed feelings here... by Slugster · 2011-02-04 09:33 · Score: 1

It is very interesting to find such a site this way--but the place where they were found is probably among the worst.

As I read it,,,, S.A. has no normal tourist industry at all (leaving little hope of outsiders to ever see the sites or anything found there) ....

....and despite having the government wealth to support cultural efforts--since the rise of Islam, they have shown little interest in preserving anything not connected with the Islamic faith.
1. Re:Very mixed feelings here... by Locke2005 · 2011-02-04 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  Saudi Arabia has a HUGE tourism industry... every year it is visited by millions of people on their Haj to Mecca. Connect these sites to the Prophet (peace be with him) and you'd have more money than you know what to do with to examine these piles of rocks. You'd be surprised at how much money people spend to bring back souvenirs from Haj...
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
2. Re:Very mixed feelings here... by CRCulver · 2011-02-04 10:10 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  At least some of these tombs predate Muhammad by centuries. Saudis have never had much interest in such sites, and there is a sense that nothing good can come from the era they term jahilia ("ignorance"). Most archaeological study of pre-Islamic Arabia is carried out by Europeans and North Americans.
3. Re:Very mixed feelings here... by corbettw · 2011-02-04 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  So you remember to say your magic words when reciting the name of your god, but have no compunction about making a buck of him. You must be an American.
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
4. Re:Very mixed feelings here... by Locke2005 · 2011-02-04 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  He's not a God, he's a prophet. And he's not my God, I'm a Buddhist.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
5. Re:Very mixed feelings here... by Monchanger · 2011-02-04 10:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Revered as both are by Muslims, the prophet, Muhammad, is not the same as Allah. You're confusing Islam with the nonsense that is Christian dogma.
  If you're aiming for self-righteously arrogant, at least get your facts straight.
  As for "making a buck off him", that doesn't apply to providing an actual service. If you fake evidence of historical fact then yeah you're going to hell. Otherwise, you're just another businessman selling t-shirts and key chains.
6. Re:Very mixed feelings here... by Locke2005 · 2011-02-04 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  As I non-Muslim, I used terms intended to be respectful of Islam. I would ask you as a non-Christian to please do the same. Let me remind you that Muslims also believe in Jesus the prophet and in the God of the Old Testament. And that Islam, despite being somewhat more logical (e.g. not preaching the concept of the "Trinity", which is nowhere in the bible), also has it's share of dogmatic interpreters.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
7. Re:Very mixed feelings here... by geekoid · 2011-02-04 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  A large people that go are poor and spend nothing. Connect these site to there voodoo master, zombie guy or whatever and all you ahve is people who won't spend any money wondering around in the desert.
  I will restrain myself and not state the obvious joke.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
8. Re:Very mixed feelings here... by Monchanger · 2011-02-04 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  Oh you don't have to tell me- I'm well aware of how idiotic and destructive some parts of Islamic interpretation have been. Same for a certain amount of Jewish thought. All religion shares in the nonsensical especially as it gets further removed from original texts. But I stand by my point of view that the trinity tops it all from my point of view from outside of any faith. If somebody want to launch into a rant reciting dogma they're just as free to do so.
  Respect for religion is very overrated. So long as I stand by your freedom to practice your religion, I'm content with my attitude and don't care for your very respectful suggestion. If someone can't handle such a minor challenge to their faith, they're not worthy of calling themselves a Christian/Muslim/etc, because they're only one by birth rather than choice. I'm not trying to give offense, so I don't care if somebody chooses to be offended. Especially those religious groups who continue to persecute me as a heretic for not bowing and scraping as they do.
9. Re:Very mixed feelings here... by aquila.solo · 2011-02-04 14:21 · Score: 1
  
  I will restrain myself and not state the obvious joke.
  Come on, man! Why would jew leave us hanging like that?!
10. Re:Very mixed feelings here... by Locke2005 · 2011-02-04 16:20 · Score: 2
  
  The point is that insulting someone else's religion serves no constructive purpose. You obviously are not going to change their mind or educate them by doing so. It can only serve to hurt their feelings and stoke the fires of hatred between different faiths -- so why do it?
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
11. Re:Very mixed feelings here... by Monchanger · 2011-02-05 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  Jesus fucking christ. So I used the word 'nonsense'. Who cares? If that was the main point of my post or the thread you'd have something to keep replying about but it really wasn't. I wasn't trying to teach a Christian about their own dogma but pointed out a fundamental fact differentiating it from Islam and more importantly, why selling religious trinkets isn't necessarily sacriligious regardless of the faith to which they pertain. Give it a rest and quit trying to get me to placate fundamentalists who can't handle even the smallest hint of criticism. And don't blame me for them being stupid and picking fights with each other over every stupid little crap their priests make up.
12. Re:Very mixed feelings here... by corbettw · 2011-02-05 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  According to their own definition, he's not a god. But according to any objective reading of their history he's at least a legendary hero and a lesser god. How else do you explain some of the things he supposedly did of a supernatural nature?
  Note: the "god" is only capitalized when referring to a given supreme being as the only god in the universe (or even multiverse). It is grammatically incorrect to randomly capitalize a word that doesn't refer to a specific entity.
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
13. Re:Very mixed feelings here... by corbettw · 2011-02-05 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  See my above comment to Locke2005. The character of Mohammad (as distinct from the historical person) serves the purpose of a lesser god in the Muslim religion. Just because they refuse to acknowledge that fact doesn't make it untrue.
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
14. Re:Very mixed feelings here... by Monchanger · 2011-02-05 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Stating that something silly is a fact doesn't make it true. It just makes you sound silly.
15. Re:Very mixed feelings here... by Monchanger · 2011-02-05 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Prophets do supernatural things- that's part of what makes them credible messengers. Moses did some pretty wild stuff in Exodus. Would you argue he was a god too?
16. Re:Very mixed feelings here... by corbettw · 2011-02-05 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  Using the same definition, yes. Just like Hercules, Gilgamesh, Siddhartha Gautama, and the First Emperor of China, legendary heroes who perform feats that no mere mortal can tend to attract a certain kind of following, or cult. Which gives them status equivalent to a god.
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
17. Re:Very mixed feelings here... by corbettw · 2011-02-05 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Stating that something silly is a fact doesn't make it true. It just makes you sound silly.
  c.f., your post.
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
18. Re:Very mixed feelings here... by Monchanger · 2011-02-05 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  The "power" of prophets is not inherent. It is merely borrowed from God. Hercules is very different because he was supposedly an actual demi-god, being half god and half man. That concept is heretical to Muslims, who don't believe Jesus was anything other than a man (Quran 112:1-4).
  If you're going to skew definitions to suit your argument you'll find yourself without anyone to talk to very quickly.
19. Re:Very mixed feelings here... by corbettw · 2011-02-06 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not "skewing definitions to suit my argument". My argument is that it is irrelevant what someone says is the tenet of their belief, what is important is what that belief appears to be to an outside, disinterested observer. It doesn't matter if you believe your car is green if someone else looks at it and says "no, it's metallic green with blue highlights".
  You're obviously confused about what this conversation is about, as evidenced by your continued capitalizing of a generic word ("god"). Would you agree that animists who practice ancestor worship view their ancestors as gods? If you agree with that, there's no reason (other than some illogical emotional belief) not to agree that Mohammad is, for all intents and purposes, a minor god for Muslims.
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Content-free article by jpvlsmv · 2011-02-04 09:38 · Score: 3, Informative

Having RTFA, there is absolutely no content in there.
There's no example photograph of what they saw through google earth (just an inscrutable picture of a pile of rocks), nothing about the history of why ancient peoples would have built this pattern of structure, not even a link to Wikipedia about anything.
Ok, well, they do link to google.com/earth, but seriously, could they have written less content?
--Joe
1. Re:Content-free article by blair1q · 2011-02-04 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Well, no, it's not content-free.
  It just doesn't have the eye candy you were looking for.
  For that, you'll have to pay the publishers who organized the peer-reviewing and put the paper in context for its scientify community.
  But maybe if you try real hard you can Google it from space...
2. Re:Content-free article by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 10:10 · Score: 0
  
  Welcome to newscientist.com!
3. Re:Content-free article by Sulphur · 2011-02-04 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  Well, no, it's not content-free.
  It just doesn't have the eye candy you were looking for.
  For that, you'll have to pay the publishers who organized the peer-reviewing and put the paper in context for its scientify community.
  But maybe if you try real hard you can Google it from space...
  Its the only way to be sure.
4. Re:Content-free article by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 17:15 · Score: 0
  
  The only reason this non-story made it onto Slashdot is because it has an Australian connection.
5. Re:Content-free article by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 18:49 · Score: 0
  
  there is a link to the abstract in TFS which has a link to the paper. you just have to buy it or login if you are academic.
I see dead people by snsh · 2011-02-04 09:40 · Score: -1, Troll

Seriously, what is the significance of finding a 9000 year old grave? We know people existed 9000 years ago. We also know they're all dead. It's not news.
1. Re:I see dead people by Locke2005 · 2011-02-04 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  You're right; all archeology is a waste of time. Better we burn all those mummies for fuel! It's not like we could learn anything about ourselves by studying them.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
2. Re:I see dead people by Asic+Eng · 2011-02-04 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Well a recognizable grave from 9000 years ago was probably well build. If people put in effort to build the grave well they were probably well off. If they were well off, they could afford to put artifacts in those graves. Those artifacts might enable us to learn something about their culture, about their skills, about their beliefs.
  It comes down to whether we care about knowledge of ancient cultures or not. Some of us do, others don't.
3. Re:I see dead people by blair1q · 2011-02-04 10:00 · Score: 2
  
  Conversely, what's the significance of not learning all we can about them and their culture?
4. Re:I see dead people by GooberToo · 2011-02-04 10:14 · Score: 2
  
  Those artifacts might enable us to learn something about their culture, about their skills, about their beliefs.
  This can't be stressed enough. There are literally massive examples of fairly advanced technology which we still have absolutely no idea how it was achieved. Furthermore, lots would be extremely difficult even using modern technology. A tiny subset,, while not beyond our current technology, is beyond our current tools; meaning specialized and truly massive cranes and tools would need to be created to imitate.
  Many archaeologists believe there is knowledge to be learned by studying our past - and the evidence seems to support such notions.
5. Re:I see dead people by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 10:20 · Score: 0
  
  The "finding" part is a bit important.
  
  We know people existed 9000 years ago.
  That's because archeologists find remains, and determine their age.
  
  It's not news.
  Archeology is a science, and this was "previously unknown information".
6. Re:I see dead people by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2011-02-04 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, what is the significance of finding a 9000 year old grave? We know people existed 9000 years ago. We also know they're all dead. It's not news.
  Turn in your nerd card, leave the clubhouse, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
7. Re:I see dead people by Nyder · 2011-02-04 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, what is the significance of finding a 9000 year old grave? We know people existed 9000 years ago. We also know they're all dead. It's not news.
  The Xians don't think that. Earth is 6000 years old. remember that.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
8. Re:I see dead people by Grishnakh · 2011-02-04 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. That's why we really need to find an intact vimana ship, so that we can regain the secret of anti-gravity technology.
9. Re:I see dead people by Grishnakh · 2011-02-04 17:44 · Score: 1
  
  Some of them believe it's 6500 years old.
No tombs, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 09:41 · Score: 0

I think I found evidence of a giant Pacman invasion force: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=saudi+arabia&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=34.671324,58.271484&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Saudi+Arabia&ll=26.94143,44.182849&spn=0.019052,0.028453&t=h&z=15
Shame on Pacman, Jungle camo in a desert. Shame!
1. Re:No tombs, but... by burne · 2011-02-04 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  You _do_ know that similar forces, albeith slightly mutated, have been observed in Arizona as well?
  http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=&aq=&sll=32.391848,-109.95276&sspn=0.03044,0.032616&g=32.391486,-109.952631&ie=UTF8&ll=32.391848,-109.95276&spn=0.03044,0.032616&t=h&z=15
2. Re:No tombs, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 10:35 · Score: 0
  
  Okay, I'll bite. What the hell are those?
3. Re:No tombs, but... by Grishnakh · 2011-02-04 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  They're called "fields". They're places where people grow things called "crops".
What, 9000? by grimJester · 2011-02-04 09:45 · Score: 1

He originally got over 9000 but crushed his scouter, going

"What, 9000? There's no way that be right!"
Göbekli Tepe by foobsr · 2011-02-04 10:00 · Score: 1

Göbekli Tepe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

11,500 years ago

9000 years? phhh;

Boston Tea Party: December 16, 1773

age of the universe:13.75 ±0.17 billion years

Just to keep things in perspective?

CC.

--
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
1. Re:Göbekli Tepe by foobsr · 2011-02-04 10:45 · Score: 0
  
  Must have been a real American fucktard with no sense of history who modded this down.
  
  CC.
  
  --
  TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
2. Re:Göbekli Tepe by foobsr · 2011-02-04 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  Another fucktard. Too glad I need not post here.
  
  CC.
  
  --
  TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
3. Re:Göbekli Tepe by Guido+von+Guido · 2011-02-05 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're missing the point of the article. It's not the age of the finding, but how they did it. As it says in the article, "it's impossible to know whether we have found a Bedouin structure that was made 150 years ago, or 10,000 years ago" without actually going there.
I tried to drag the little guy in Google Maps... by smackenzie · 2011-02-04 10:12 · Score: 1

I tried to drag the little guy in Google Maps over the location but it wouldn't show me anything. I'm just curious if someone knows if Google is down?
Balance by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 10:39 · Score: 1

So one post says it's dangerous to reveal this because thieves will ransack the sites, and another posts that says there is no useful information in the article. We have achieved equilibrium.
1977 sites by Ukab+the+Great · 2011-02-04 10:43 · Score: 1

"From their birds-eye view he found 1977 potential archaeological sites"
The mass of glitter balls as seen from orbit thus proved the existence of the Lost Disco of Jeddah.
Iram of the Pillars by Barkmullz · 2011-02-04 11:30 · Score: 1

Cthulhu fhtagn!

--
Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
1. Re:Iram of the Pillars by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-06 03:45 · Score: 0
  
  For those whose fever dreams don't take them to the right places of the internet, see Iram. It was discovered using the same techniques as this discovery.
Wonder how this is going to go by pinguwin · 2011-02-04 11:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

Wonder how well this is going to go with the Saudi government. They are pretty touchy about archaeology that pre-dates the Islamic era. For those earlier times, they use the term, IIRC, "time of ignorance" and are reluctant to allow too much knowledge about past times, especially if it is something more advanced, such as a great trading city. I have read about (and the reference escapes me now) where they were ok as long as the research stayed obscure (journals) but once it became more widely know (i.e. popular press), they started to cut off access to the sites. A "treasure trove" might contradict "ignorance".
testing a tag by martin-boundary · 2011-02-04 11:48 · Score: 1

the link in a tag
What I'd like to know is... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-04 12:14 · Score: 0

...just what, exactly, a bunch of Australians were doing poking around a middle-eastern country on Google Earth. What were they really looking for, hmmmm? I think there's much more to this story than we're being told.
</tinfoil-hat>
Corollary of Linus's Law by steveha · 2011-02-04 13:55 · Score: 1

"Given enough eyeballs, all tombs are shallow."
steveha

--
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Reminds me of something... by KingAlanI · 2011-02-04 15:05 · Score: 1

That reminds me of the news stories of Taliban blowing up Buddha statues.

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Security through obscurity by mangu · 2011-02-04 21:09 · Score: 1

This is one case where security through obscurity might actually work.
As long as only the white hats knew about the exploit, they could go there and secretly study the sites. Now that it's public knowledge, it will be a race between the grave robbers and the fanatic muslims to destroy the sites.
1. Re:Security through obscurity by elrous0 · 2011-02-07 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Just a tip, it's not wise to do anything in secret in Saudi Arabia--unless you don't want to come back. Even entering the country is dangerous enough for an outsider, much less doing something this big without Saud approval.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Thanks by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 06:03 · Score: 0

Thanks free Landsat data, Remote Sensing and GIS.