Rendered at 04:39:57 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
ferrule 1 hours ago [-]
Always assumed those scattered bones were just, well, scattered. It's cool how a new understanding of burial practices provides such a neat explanation.
MadrasTh0rn 7 hours ago [-]
Was subfloor burial common in Neolithic?
treis 3 hours ago [-]
Seems like you'd quickly run out of floor and/or end up with a lot of bodies in one place. And are you chipping up your plaster floor every time someone dies? I'm pretty skeptical that this makes sense as a practice. Seems far more likely that a building was built over a forgotten grave.
AlotOfReading 3 hours ago [-]
We know of many, many cultures that have buried remains under house floors as ritual practice. Sometimes our "common sense" isn't a reliable guide to distant cultures.
throwaway27448 6 hours ago [-]
Estimating "common" is quite difficult, but given that there are pre-colonial aboriginal australian burial sites, we can estimate that it either can be traced to Africa or is sufficiently common to not be surprising. There is even evidence (not proof) of neanderthal burial rituals, fwiw.
gradus_ad 5 hours ago [-]
I suspect it has to do with our advanced capacity for emotion. The death of a loved one is so difficult to bear, having their body sitting out in the open in a rotting state would be horrific. Burying serves the dual purpose of hiding their decomposition and keeping them close to the community.
ASalazarMX 5 hours ago [-]
Also, disposing of corpses means less diseases around. It's possible that communities that carelessly left the dead around unwittingly opted out of the genetic pool.
BurningFrog 3 hours ago [-]
Unless you're going to eat your loved (or hated) one you need to get rid of the body before it starts rotting, for health reasons.
Burial is the standard way for very good practical reasons. Having somewhere to put a flower is also nice.
throwaway27448 1 hours ago [-]
> Burial is the standard way
(Assuming you mean the obvious and immediate semantics of digging a hole and placing the corpse within it...)
It may be now, but there are many ways to provide corpse disposal without risking health. Sky and tree burials are clear evidence of other corpse disposal methods. I imagine cremation is pretty obvious to humans too.
Some people even exhume the bodies and perform rituals with it. I find this nauseous but it wouldn't be a thing if societies were being eliminated from its effects.
mohamedkoubaa 5 hours ago [-]
I think it's likely associated with desert cultures since vegetation nucleates around burial sites due to access to organic material.
pfdietz 5 hours ago [-]
Fun fact: forensic teams locate buried bodies by looking for vegetation that grows above them. There's a lot of fertilizer there.
itopaloglu83 8 hours ago [-]
Some people were quick to jump on the gun and call it a human sacrifice site, I’m glad that they’re all proven wrong now.
tastyfreeze 7 hours ago [-]
The phrase is "jump the gun" or "jumped the gun" as in a fault start in a race started with a gun.
iphonecorridor 5 hours ago [-]
The phrase is “false start.”
scooke 4 hours ago [-]
"False start" refers specifically to races, or an effort that was not sincere or well thought out. "My jumping the gun" is also a race term, but also means coming to an incorrect conclusion based on insufficient evidence (when it's insufficiency is apparent).
hinkley 7 hours ago [-]
I always thought that 'ceremonial room' looked more like a sauna than a sacrificial pit. It reminded me of the Roman ruins at Bath more than anything else.
culi 4 hours ago [-]
More evidence for David Graeber and David Wengrow's reading of the site.
Between Göbekli Tepe, Poverty Point, Cahokia, and other sites we have pretty good evidence of complex urban societies that did not rely on agriculture. And even in these few sites we have abundant evidence of diversity of social structures from radically egalitarian to hierarchical
The linear narrative of the evolution of human societies is dead
lumost 4 hours ago [-]
Out of curiosity couldn’t this also mean that we are missing the agriculture? Or that the practices they used were very different from today.
onlyrealcuzzo 3 hours ago [-]
At a large enough scale and a short enough time horizon, you're not going to miss it.
I don't think anyone is saying they FOR SURE didn't cultivate a couple flowers and magic mushrooms.
If they were an agricultural society resembling anything like the ones we see later, there are several things you'd expect to find.
throwaway27448 39 minutes ago [-]
"The Dawn of Everything"'s interpretation of this is that we only relied on (sedentary) agriculture when we were forced to because of climate change, overpopulation, or threat of violence from other local peoples, so there are several thousand years between evidence of capability and necessity.
ggm 3 hours ago [-]
> More evidence for David Graeber
What little I know of the disputes around Graeber suggest this is not going to end his isolation in the wider community of archeologists, economists, sociologists.
protocolture 1 hours ago [-]
>The linear narrative of the evolution of human societies is dead
This is I guess one of the bigger problems with Graeber, like when he was attacking Silicon Valley he demonstrated he had absolutely no idea what he was arguing against.
Likewise, armchair reading of human social development has never appeared to be linear to me. Palace Economy > Crash > Temple Economy > Crash seems pretty damn standard. I was watching an old documentary on the socioeconomic development of Egypt and it looks like they discovered and rediscovered several important social and economic reforms, that were then lost and rediscovered by themselves and other societies over and over again.
The question is, was Graeber an idiot and just didn't know what he was talking about or was Graeber just another grifter like Hancock who relies on misrepresenting other peoples arguments for financial gain.
jamesforestwest 7 hours ago [-]
That's a much less romantic explanation than the skull cult stuff
scun 4 hours ago [-]
We tried penis cult but there were complaints
throwaway27448 38 minutes ago [-]
I think this is just roman society lol
throwaway27448 6 hours ago [-]
The point of naming it a "skull cult" is really just pointing out people found human remains to be important—something largely true today too, and hardly more romantic than our own understanding of burial.
moron4hire 4 hours ago [-]
And how is this going to help a team of crack scientists at The Smithsonian solve a modern day murder while also navigating the difficulties of having an intimate social life as a professional in DC?
Burial is the standard way for very good practical reasons. Having somewhere to put a flower is also nice.
(Assuming you mean the obvious and immediate semantics of digging a hole and placing the corpse within it...)
It may be now, but there are many ways to provide corpse disposal without risking health. Sky and tree burials are clear evidence of other corpse disposal methods. I imagine cremation is pretty obvious to humans too.
Some people even exhume the bodies and perform rituals with it. I find this nauseous but it wouldn't be a thing if societies were being eliminated from its effects.
Between Göbekli Tepe, Poverty Point, Cahokia, and other sites we have pretty good evidence of complex urban societies that did not rely on agriculture. And even in these few sites we have abundant evidence of diversity of social structures from radically egalitarian to hierarchical
The linear narrative of the evolution of human societies is dead
I don't think anyone is saying they FOR SURE didn't cultivate a couple flowers and magic mushrooms.
If they were an agricultural society resembling anything like the ones we see later, there are several things you'd expect to find.
What little I know of the disputes around Graeber suggest this is not going to end his isolation in the wider community of archeologists, economists, sociologists.
This is I guess one of the bigger problems with Graeber, like when he was attacking Silicon Valley he demonstrated he had absolutely no idea what he was arguing against.
Likewise, armchair reading of human social development has never appeared to be linear to me. Palace Economy > Crash > Temple Economy > Crash seems pretty damn standard. I was watching an old documentary on the socioeconomic development of Egypt and it looks like they discovered and rediscovered several important social and economic reforms, that were then lost and rediscovered by themselves and other societies over and over again.
The question is, was Graeber an idiot and just didn't know what he was talking about or was Graeber just another grifter like Hancock who relies on misrepresenting other peoples arguments for financial gain.