A Human Paradox

[Senethro]

How is that a paradox though?

 

[Birdjaguar]

What other source did you have in mind? I can think of only (rock) art which is more subject to dating and interpretive problems. Of course the belief in an afterlife could be older, but burial practices are the best indicator of such a belief in the archaeological record.

I don't have anything in particular in mind, but burial is a consequence of belief in an afterlife and likely to show up sometime after the belief is already established. We could say that burial shows that such a belief is already in place. Burials do not tell us when the belief was established only its existence. Prior to the use of burials, perhaps bodies were ceremonially laid out on hill tops to be devoured by birds; or simply covered with softball sized rocks. Similarly, the appearance of spear points tells us that killing was going on, but not when killing began or what was being killed.

 

[warpus]

How is that a paradox though?

It's definitely not a paradox. If we were adapted to life in Africa we did what most species do and stayed where our usual food sources were. Even if we left for another reason, it wouldn't be a paradox unless we managed to leave Africa before we got there or whatever.

 

[Synobun]

It's definitely not a paradox. If we were adapted to life in Africa we did what most species do and stayed where our usual food sources were. Even if we left for another reason, it wouldn't be a paradox unless we managed to leave Africa before we got there or whatever.

Also important to keep in mind that this doesn't mean we didn't leave Africa earlier. It just means we didn't leave it in a capacity that allowed there to be physical evidence of that fact. There being remains and artifacts is a tremendously fortuitous circumstance we find ourselves in, and this becomes more and more difficult the further back you go with limited populations. It could be the case that there was a regular 'exodus' of a few thousand people from Africa every few seasons and there not being a trace of it because they either died out quickly or simply didn't live in a way that would provide future evidence.

 

[Berzerker]

How is that a paradox though?

We spent far too long in Africa

I don't have anything in particular in mind, but burial is a consequence of belief in an afterlife and likely to show up sometime after the belief is already established. We could say that burial shows that such a belief is already in place. Burials do not tell us when the belief was established only its existence. Prior to the use of burials, perhaps bodies were ceremonially laid out on hill tops to be devoured by birds; or simply covered with softball sized rocks. Similarly, the appearance of spear points tells us that killing was going on, but not when killing began or what was being killed.

Burials do have 'secular' purposes, but excarnation - allowing 'nature' to debone the dead before burial (or not) - is found all over the world. Scaffolds were used in both the new and old worlds to hold the bodies until the bones were ready for burial or further rituals.

 

[Synobun]

We spent far too long in Africa

Too long? How is this even a remotely viable concept to argue? Too long compared to... what? Was there a deadline?

 

[Hygro]

We spent far too long in Africa

Exponential growth looks like that.

 

[Berzerker]

It's definitely not a paradox. If we were adapted to life in Africa we did what most species do and stayed where our usual food sources were. Even if we left for another reason, it wouldn't be a paradox unless we managed to leave Africa before we got there or whatever.

Our ancestors had been leaving for over a million years, but a paradox is a contradiction - in this case a mobile species with human agency took more time to leave Africa than it took to occupy the rest of the world.

Also important to keep in mind that this doesn't mean we didn't leave Africa earlier. It just means we didn't leave it in a capacity that allowed there to be physical evidence of that fact. There being remains and artifacts is a tremendously fortuitous circumstance we find ourselves in, and this becomes more and more difficult the further back you go with limited populations. It could be the case that there was a regular 'exodus' of a few thousand people from Africa every few seasons and there not being a trace of it because they either died out quickly or simply didn't live in a way that would provide future evidence.

We left Africa ~100-90kya and occupied the Near/Middle East probably meeting up with Neanderthals, but that group either died out or retreated back to Africa. Maybe... But people were reaching Australia ~65kya, so possibly another wave left around 90-70kya. I imagine if any technology expedited the process, it was boating. People needed them to reach it. Unfortunately coastlines during ice ages are lower (except for hinges) so evidence of peoples over much of the last 100,000 years is under water.

Too long? How is this even a remotely viable concept to argue? Too long compared to... what? Was there a deadline?

Compared to how long we took to fill the world

 

[Berzerker]

Exponential growth looks like that.

Do have evidence for this growth?

 

[Hygro]

Yeah. We were smaller before, we're bigger now, and it didn't happen linearly.

 

[Berzerker]

Yes, but do you have evidence for this growth... Dont you need actual numbers? Sounds like you're making the argument I made (offered as a possibility) in the OP - that density drove expansion.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I don't have anything in particular in mind, but burial is a consequence of belief in an afterlife and likely to show up sometime after the belief is already established. We could say that burial shows that such a belief is already in place. Burials do not tell us when the belief was established only its existence. Prior to the use of burials, perhaps bodies were ceremonially laid out on hill tops to be devoured by birds; or simply covered with softball sized rocks. Similarly, the appearance of spear points tells us that killing was going on, but not when killing began or what was being killed.

Burial does not always indicate belief in an afterlife. It's merely one out of several ways to dispose of dead bodies. What attracted the notice of the anthropologists regarding the Neanderthal burials was that there were man-made/man-carved objects placed in the grave with the dead person - presumably for the dead individual to use in their new existence.

 

[Birdjaguar]

We spent far too long in Africa

Burials do have 'secular' purposes, but excarnation - allowing 'nature' to debone the dead before burial (or not) - is found all over the world. Scaffolds were used in both the new and old worlds to hold the bodies until the bones were ready for burial or further rituals.

Since there was no central authority making the decision about leaving Africa, I think we can say that humans left at just the right time to facilitate their eventual take over of the world.

Recent excarnation may be about cleaning bones for later interment. It would be tough to determine the purpose of any prehistoric excarnation. Of course, we do not know if that was a practice or if so, if it was connected to a belief in afterlife.

 

[warpus]

Our ancestors had been leaving for over a million years, but a paradox is a contradiction - in this case a mobile species with human agency took more time to leave Africa than it took to occupy the rest of the world.

That's not a paradox though.

What this is: I took 5 minutes to walk to the door because I was on my phone, and 10 seconds to walk down the stairs.

What a paradox would be: I teleported in space-time to the bottom of the stairs and arrived 5 minutes before I started walking

There is nothing paradoxical about people taking their sweet time moving from A to B. Unless they're breaking the laws of physics

 

[Berzerker]

Burial does not always indicate belief in an afterlife. It's merely one out of several ways to dispose of dead bodies. What attracted the notice of the anthropologists regarding the Neanderthal burials was that there were man-made/man-carved objects placed in the grave with the dead person - presumably for the dead individual to use in their new existence.

Objects might convey ownership and honoring the deceased too

Since there was no central authority making the decision about leaving Africa, I think we can say that humans left at just the right time to facilitate their eventual take over of the world.

Recent excarnation may be about cleaning bones for later interment. It would be tough to determine the purpose of any prehistoric excarnation. Of course, we do not know if that was a practice or if so, if it was connected to a belief in afterlife.

True... it is interesting the practice of placing the dead on a scaffold for removing the flesh is found all over the world. Something we shared from long ago, perhaps even >100,000 years? Course proving a belief in an after life is a bit trickier, but excarnation and burial rituals designed to facilitate the journey to "heaven" are strong evidence.

That's not a paradox though.

What this is: I took 5 minutes to walk to the door because I was on my phone, and 10 seconds to walk down the stairs.

What a paradox would be: I teleported in space-time to the bottom of the stairs and arrived 5 minutes before I started walking

There is nothing paradoxical about people taking their sweet time moving from A to B. Unless they're breaking the laws of physics

Paradox - You describe a situation as a paradox when it involves two or more facts or qualities that seem to contradict each other.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/paradox

Our long stasis in Africa contradicts our rapid and thorough expansion

 

[Hygro]

It would only seem so if you think of a population filling a space over time as a linear process rather than an exponential one. There's no stasis, just the time it took to outgrow Africa.

Africa is a big place. If Africa is sized 1000 units, the rest of the world is an additional 4000 and we start at taking-the-size-of 1, and we grow at 1%/time unit, it will take 695 time units to fill Africa, and 855 time units to fill the entire world. If we start humans even smaller (by measuring Africa at 100,000 size units, humans starting still at 1) it takes 1388 time units to fill Africa and 1550 time units to fill Earth.

The filling of earth and modern stuff is going to pop out at the end, but that doesn't mean there was a trend break.

 

[Perfection]

I would guess that human growth across a landscape is mostly proportionate to the distance to the origin rather than exponential. Hard to imagine Africa's population having much to do with growth rates in southeast asia.

 

[Hygro]

Density over bounty could drive distance, with increasing population growing density.

 

[warpus]

Paradox - You describe a situation as a paradox when it involves two or more facts or qualities that seem to contradict each other.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/paradox

Our long stasis in Africa contradicts our rapid and thorough expansion

But it's not a contradiction.... We weren't always expanding so fast, I don't know why you feel that we had to

 

[civvver]

Anyway, on-topic... the Sahara region wasn't always desert, so some parts of it would have been a nicer, more congenial place to stay - lots of food, adequate water, shelter... so I think it's a safe assumption that unless issues of lack of food or water, an increasingly hostile climate, or even warfare with other groups also competing for resources happened, the early hominids in Africa wouldn't have had any compelling reason to leave.

I just wanted to point out that that's true, the sahara was actually a sea or lake at one point. Maybe that blocked people? I watched bbc's africa series. There are tons of micro plankton or something like that, remains in the soil in parts of the sahara, that are very rich in nutrients. It all turned to dust now and the wind carries it all the way to the amazon which it fertilizes. The sahara is responsible for the rainforests in south america! Amazing huh?

Here's an article I found on it:
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddar...s-how-much-saharan-dust-feeds-amazon-s-plants