Prehistoric Desert Town Found In Western Sahara (15,000 Years Old)

Reuters ^ | 8-19-2004 | Reuters

[blam]

Prehistoric Desert Town Found in Western Sahara

Thu Aug 19, 2004 01:52 PM ET

RABAT (Reuters) - The remains of a prehistoric town believed to date back 15,000 years and belong to an ancient Berber civilization have been discovered in Western Sahara, Moroccan state media said on Thursday. A team of Moroccan scientists stumbled across the sand-covered ruins of the town Arghilas deep in the desert of the Morocco-administered territory.

The remains of a place of worship, houses and a necropolis, as well as columns and rock engravings depicting animals, were found at the site near the town of Aousserd in northeastern Western Sahara.

The isolated area is known to be rich in prehistoric rock engravings but experts said the discovery could be significant if proven that the ruins were of Berber origin as this civilization is believed to date back only some 9,000 years.

"It appears that scientists have come up with the 15,000-years estimate judging by the style of the engravings and the theme of the drawings," Mustapha Ouachi, a Rabat-based Berber historian, told Reuters.

Berbers are the original inhabitants of North Africa before Arabs came to spread Islam in the seventh century.

The population of Western Sahara, seized by Morocco in 1975 when former colonial power Spain pulled out, are mostly of Berber and Arab descent.

[Junior]

Why not? It had to have happened sooner or later; it just happened to have happened later.

[Junior]

You do realize, of course, that there are people living in South America who never discovered agriculture until contacted by explorers?

[Junior]

Channeling Sam Kennison?

[DannyTN]

It had to have happened sooner or later; it just happened to have happened later.

No, it happened sooner. The start point just wasn't 300,000 years ago.

[DannyTN]

"You do realize, of course, that there are people living in South America who never discovered agriculture until contacted by explorers?"

You have a reference? That's pretty hard to believe given the ancient empires of South America. It is easier to believe that a jungle people might choose not to use much agriculture, simply because the Jungle provides sufficiently. But to not even be aware of it, I think is suspect.

[Junior]

A few years ago a tribe was discovered in the Amazon that was living a basically stone-age hunter/gatherer existence. They'd never had contact with the outside world until their discovery. And, they weren't the first tribe found in that region who'd never encountered more civilized races.

Hell, in Africa, we have the bushmen of the Kalahari who still lead a stone-age hunter/gatherer existence despite having frequent contact with their more civilized neighbors. IIRC, there are still tribes of pygmies in the central parts of Africa that haven't made the leap from the stone age yet either.

[DannyTN]

In the latter example, that's a choice. They choose to live a hunter\gatherer lifestyle.

I suspect that is the case in the former example too. I doubt seriously they had never had contact with the outside world. They chose to minimize it.

[Junior]

And, your point?

[DannyTN]

That the liklihood that all people would choose not to embrace agriculture for 300,000 years is infinitely small.

It's human nature to have one group not adopt certain advances, i.e. the Menonites with Electricity.

But it is also human nature to explore and expand, even to the point of leaving the tribe to do your own thing.

That a tribe chooses not to embrace certain cultural advances, is far different, from assuming that in 300,000 years ALL men would reject such obvious advances.

[TalonDJ]

They got 15,000 from the 'style' and theme' of some engravings? yeah right... Might as well throw a dart at a timeline posted on the wall.

[VadeRetro]

They can tell it's 15,000 years old by the style of the engravings???

Yes, with a plus-or-minus 5,000 years error bar.

[VadeRetro]

5,000

Thinking it over, I'll go for ten thousand.

[DannyTN]

"Thinking it over, I'll go for ten thousand"

LOL, yeah, me too.

[Junior]

Typically, when food is plentiful, there is little need for agriculture. Secondly, people don't necessarily equate planting seeds with growing plants -- and it's evident there are groups who, until recently, never made that connection. Most folks want to eat the seeds as they are a ready source of nutrients; burying potential food in the ground in the off chance you'll get something out of it much later might seem a bit queer. Besides, hunters typically don't stay in an area for more than a season (hunter groups typically have a circuit of camps they use throughout a year -- c.f., the plains Indians), and agriculture presupposes plopping yourself down for an extended period of time to work your fields.

Now, I'm inclined to think domestication of farm animals came first before agriculture. Herders are a lot like their hunter forebearers in that they typically move around from seasonal camp to seasonal camp (c.f., the Mongols of central Asia). I read of one anthropologist who believes people did not equate sex to childbearing until after the domestication of animals, making the connection through years of observation. After that, it might have occured to them that plants did something similar.

Even after agriculture was discovered, it wouldn't have been terribly attractive. Raising crops is time consuming for the amount of nutrition garnered. Hunter/gatherers can typically acquire their daily requirement in calories in just a few short hours (two to four, according to some anthropologists). Farmers work from sun up to sun down -- and even after harvesting most crops require additional work (threshing) to be made edible. Skeletons of farming folk in Europe from about 9000 B.C. show their lives were typically short and extremely painful, especially among the females whose skeletons show evidence of long periods kneeling (probably while grinding grain).

Agriculture would not have been attractive, and was probably taken up when population pressures depleted ready supplies and forced people to begin to grow their own food or starve.

I once read an interesting interpretation of the Fall in Genesis, in which it was an allegory for the transition from the hunter/gatherer existence (food readily available, not really much to worry about) to farming with all its commensurate drudgery.

[DannyTN]

"Agriculture would not have been attractive, and was probably taken up when population pressures depleted ready supplies and forced people to begin to grow their own food or starve."

Agriculture would have started just as soon as someone ran out of something like watermelon that they wanted more of.

Besides, how long would it have taken for population pressures to mount? Assuming the population doubles every 100 years, in 2000 years (50 generations) you have 2 million people. In 4000 years (100 generations) you have 2 trillion.

[Junior]

Populations don't double every 100 years. Indeed, prior to a couple of hundred years ago, it took forever and a day for the population to double.

Historical Estimates of World Population

Google is our friend.

[DannyTN]

"prior to a couple of hundred years ago, it took forever and a day for the population to double."

Based on what records? They are guessing based on an old earth mentality. "It had to be slower because everyone knows man has been around 300,000 years."

Reality is there have been periods where the population decreased. After the first 2000 years, there was this huge flood that decreased the population to 8.

Plagues, wars and famine have slowed down the growth periodically.

Even if the population only doubled every 1000 years, that still only leaves you about 100,000 years before you are in astronomical populations.

[VadeRetro]

Based on what records? They are guessing based on an old earth mentality. "It had to be slower because everyone knows man has been around 300,000 years."

It had to be slower because hunter-gatherer technology takes a lot more real estate to support a few people than does agriculture. It basically won't support cities at all.

Only a creationist would make an argument like yours. Most people have more pride.

[DannyTN]

"It had to be slower because hunter-gatherer technology takes a lot more real estate to support a few people than does agriculture. It basically won't support cities at all."

If it won't support them then the pressure is on to start agriculture.

What? People are going to stop having babies? I don't think so. They might start wars over resources and that might keep the population down. But then that sounds kind of familiar....

Genesis 6:13 - And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

[VadeRetro]

If it won't support them then the pressure is on to start agriculture.

The pressure is on us to start interstellar space travel. We don't know how to do it. Hello?

What? People are going to stop having babies? I don't think so. They might start wars over resources and that might keep the population down. But then that sounds kind of familiar....

War, disease, famine. The population will stay down to the level supported by the food supply. The food provided by a plot of land depends upon how you are using it. If you don't have much technology, you won't get much food. That means you won't have that many people. Slowly, as your technology improves, your food supply improves and your population density can rise. You can have cities, specialists, schools, and even more technology. Success generates more success after a while, but it takes a lot of groundwork before you get a real visible liftoff.

I shake my head at how you support creation, Dan.