January 21, 2016
Remains of earliest known massacre victims uncovered in Kenya
Scientists say they have uncovered the remains of the earliest known massacre victims, dating from approximately 10,000 years ago.
Archaeologists believe the victims were members of an extended family group of hunter-gatherers who were slaughtered by a rival group.
According to the scientists' report in the journal Nature, parts of 27 skeletons were discovered near Lake Turkana in northern Kenya. Ten of the twelve relatively complete skeletons showed signs of a violent death, including smashed skulls and faces, broken ribs and evidence of arrow wounds.
Partial remains of 15 other skeletons were also found and are believed to belong to victims of the same attack. The group included the skeletons of at least eight women and six children. A fetal skeleton was also found in the abdomen of one of the female skeletons.
"The ... massacre may have resulted from an attempt to seize resources – territory, women, children, food stored in pots – whose value was similar to those of later food-producing agricultural societies, among whom violent attacks on settlements became part of life," said lead study authorDr. Marta Mirazón Lahr of the University of Cambridge.
The find offers compelling evidence in the scientific debate about whether human aggression was passed on to us from our primate ancestors or emerged after the development of agriculture and settled, hierarchical human societies. The earliest known so-called "war grave" before the latest discovery was found in Germany and dated to approximately 5000 B.C.
"I’ve no doubt it is in our biology to be aggressive and lethal, just as it is to be deeply caring and loving,” study author Robert Foley of the University of Cambridge told the Daily Telegraph. "A lot of what we understand about human evolutionary biology suggests these are two sides of the same coin."
>he doesn't have neanderthal DNA
Seeing as I'm Polish (American) I in fact do have Neanderthal DNA and the Neanderthals were all gone by 10,000 B.C. anyways.
They actually do. Neanderthalis died out around 20-30k years ago during the end of an ice age.
That being said bows and arrows where already being used 10,000 years ago as well as horse riding, however this was in ooga booga land so that may not have been the case
>That being said bows and arrows where already being used 10,000 years ago as well as horse riding
The clearest evidence of early use of the horse as a means of transport is from chariot burials dated c. 2000 BCE. However, an increasing amount of evidence supports the hypothesis that horses were domesticated in the Eurasian Steppes approximately 3500 BCE; recent discoveries in the context of the Botai culture suggest that Botai settlements in the Akmola Province of Kazakhstan are the location of the earliest domestication of the horse.
Very interesting. I wonder how early they invented saddles. The classic theory was that saddles came after chariots, but perhaps that's just because the evidence rotted away. Saddles can be made entirely from perishable material, unlike chariots which need some metal parts.
This is false. That is near the Ethiopic heartland and these are the examples of that group of people.
>at the time
I was referring to the bantus and similar expansions that occurred thousands of years after the massacre
>The first inhabitants of present-day Kenya were hunter-gatherer groups, akin to the modern Khoisan speakers. Cushitic language-speaking people from northern Africa moved into the area that is now Kenya beginning around 2000 BC. The Bantu expansion is estimated to have reached during the 1st millennium BC or the early centuries AD.
Some of them are still around, but they aren't the same group
Khoisan is a very generalized term, the Sandawe and Hadze are not the same as Khoe and Tuu of Southern Africa.
Intact they are the most divergent people genetically ever recorded.
Ethiopics still are found in most communities around that particular region.
Don't be one of those people who base Africans on language alone, it's far too stupid to do that.
>Don't be one of those people who base Africans on language alone, it's far too stupid to do that
I agree, but the page cited genetic and linguistic sources
here's one of them:http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/7/1581.full
That merely talks about Bantu divergence and later expansion.
Ethiopics are not Bantu.
They like ethio-somalis and ancient North Africans like I posted are part of a single back-crossing over 30k years ago where they henceforth diverged.
By modern parlance they are "black", which itself is an umbrella term that is phenotypical.
He's been BTFO for a long time.
I wonder how related population size/density is to war. because the period before the development of agriculture was good climatically, there were lakes in the Sahara even.
>Ethiopics are not Bantu.
That's what I've been saying or at least that's what I meant. Go up the reply chain, anon was referencing ebonics, but West Africans more than likely didn't occupy the area at the time. I was trying to point out some sort of irony, but I guess I was being too broad with the label "black" to begin with
>Countless unknown massacres through out history
>Nobody will ever hear about suffering and pointless deaths of those people
>Ashes to ashes, dust to dust
>Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.8 in adulthood. One proposed explanation is that people with different genes tend to seek out different environments that reinforce the effects of those genes.
Also, heritability isn't as simple as it sounds. And 10 000 years isn't that much time considering evolution of a species. While the human gene pool was not exactly the same, it was not that decisively different.