The Lost Cradle of Civilization

Hanslune

FreeMason

The Mediterranean dried up during the last ice age, at least I considered this a settled fact, but perhaps it is debated? At the least, the Mediterranean's connection to the Ocean and the Black Sea were severed, and the major rivers which flowed into it were largely dry except the Nile. So the water there would have been in the process of drying up.

I think you are mistaking the Messinian period for the Ice age. Will put this link in now and be back later

Med

phys.org...

So it would seem, would have been one hell of a white water rapid tho...300km per hour.

I must have thought at some time that the "Zanclean Flood" occurred more recently and never corrected the position.

reply to post by FreeMason


How many known flooded sites in the Med again? Those are mostly the ones we are aware of in recorded history. What about prehistory?

Great discussion everyone.

reply to post by FreeMason


It would have been impressive - it is possible that an early hominid might have witnessed it

Lots of information around and as it constantly changes it gets hard to remember it all and which is current. I regularly catch myself remembering 'status quo' positions of the late 60's, 70, 80, 90, etc. and then saying to myself, 'oh wait x and y study or conference Z did that theory in and its now theory w.

Or Slayer, Harte, Ms Byrd or another bludgeons me with a correction.

Everybody knows that human civilization first arose in North America, near where the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers join now. Then the Ice Age came along and glaciated the continent and scraped away all evidence of the earliest civilization, and forced the evacuation of all the people to North America into Europe and Asia. Hard to find fossils and artifacts when they're all ground up under tons of ice and washed into the Gulf of Mexico.

Blue Shift
Everybody knows that human civilization first arose in North America, near where the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers join now. Then the Ice Age came along and glaciated the continent and scraped away all evidence of the earliest civilization, and forced the evacuation of all the people to North America into Europe and Asia. Hard to find fossils and artifacts when they're all ground up under tons of ice and washed into the Gulf of Mexico.

Interesting, do you have any links that point to evidence of this? Why would people migrate from central N. America all the way to Asia and Europe when they could just go south? Logistically it would seem easier to do that as opposed to making a hazardous trek in the face of advancing Ice Sheets without the tech to do so. Or are you implying that people were here in N. Amrica and left prior to the last period of glaciation? How did the glaciers destroy all evidence continent wide when they never penetrated farther south than where the ohio river valley currently lies, which is pretty well north of present day St. Louis(where the Mississippi and Missouri meet). There was still an awful lot of continent for people to have left cultural remains and we've not found anything in the Americas that even looks older than 40,000 BCE(Monte Verde and even that date is still somewhat contentious, though I'm hopeful it pans out). How do you account for the extreme age of African remains and their documented continuity if your thesis is correct? And finally who is "everybody"? I've never heard serious talk about anything pertaining to an American origin for H. Sapiens

reply to post by peter vlar


Hey peter,

I am a proponent of "not all out of Africa", and at least some culturally modern humans arose in north America, and did in fact back migrate to Eurasia and east Asia.
There is a growing group work showing that the out of Africa model is somewhat lacking.
For a solid critique of out of Africa
check out Dr. Dziebel's blog

anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org...

reply to post by peter vlar


One other thing, there other sites with ages in excess Monte verde, in north america. Their ages are so old they are automatically discounted, such as the 45k year old mammoth cache in Colorado, the 50k year old mammoth kill site in Burnham ok., and a 68k year old mammoth tooth found in a shell midden in central cal. add that to the calico hills/manix lake complexes and valsequillo/hyuateco.

punkinworks10
reply to post by peter vlar

 

Hey peter,

I am a proponent of "not all out of Africa", and at least some culturally modern humans arose in north America, and did in fact back migrate to Eurasia and east Asia.
There is a growing group work showing that the out of Africa model is somewhat lacking.
For a solid critique of out of Africa
check out Dr. Dziebel's blog

anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org...

edit on 15-10-2013 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)

I thought that had come up once before, perhaps you mentioned it in the Solutrean thread, but I digress... I certainly don't discount anything of the sort and as we've seen human and even proto-human ingenuity is something to marvel at. In hindsight I probably came off a little gruff in my reply while it was more playing devils advocate to see why the other poster thought the way they did as well as hoping for some info to peruse. I'll try to check out the blog you mentioned soon. I've been knee deep in Neanderthals for the past couple of months so I could use a break and a fresh topic for a moment or two. As well, thanks for the info on some of the mammoth sites. I wasn't even aware of the one you referenced in Cali. At the end of the day as much as I'd love to see our current paradigm shattered, I've got to stick to not just what I know, but what I can verify and back up. Maybe in a few years when the kids are gone and I can start doing som field work again I'll be able to con someone into sponsoring me and taking a look at some of the more contentious site in N. America. It's good to have a dream right?

P.S. looking at the blog now... you've ruined me. I'm not going to be getting any sleep tonight as I read through all of this. Thanks again.

Blue Shift
Everybody knows that human civilization first arose in North America, near where the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers join now. Then the Ice Age came along and glaciated the continent and scraped away all evidence of the earliest civilization, and forced the evacuation of all the people to North America into Europe and Asia. Hard to find fossils and artifacts when they're all ground up under tons of ice and washed into the Gulf of Mexico.

Actually very few people know that it's a theory with as of yet weak evidence.

As Peter noted the glaciers never got that far south so a claim using them as an excuse for no evidence is about as successful as Vice-Admiral Sir George Tryon orders to Captain Bourke.

reply to post by peter vlar


Lets us know what you think on this matter after you read the materials.

reply to post by Hanslune


That might take me a day or two to read through all of this and check source material but absolutely, I'll be pleased to share my opinion. I definitely think modern humans have been in the Americas for longer than many think and even in high school I didn't really buy into 'Clovis First'. However, it will take some convincing to get my mind out of Africa and into the new world so to speak.
From the few articles I've gone through so far there are intriguing thesis presented so we shall see how it all pans out. Maybe I'm wrong but my first impression was that some good science is being done, but in the name of Eurocentric guilt. 150 years ago I would whole heartedly agree that science in general and biological sciences in particular were paved with a certain degree of bias from a Eurocentric POV. At this point though I'm pretty confident that most people out there doing field work are truly interested in finding the correct answer to the question as opposed to coming up with the question to fit the answer they already know. anyway all the small people in the house are asleep so back to reading!

reply to post by peter vlar


Yeah I think small groups were wandering around well before Clovis the problem is finding them. The best hope is to find coastal sites or 'intra-coastal riverine sites' (I've forgotten the actual term but it's the area where a river enters the sea, so they have plentiful fresh water but can easily access the coast also).

Hanslune
reply to post by peter vlar

 

Yeah I think small groups were wandering around well before Clovis the problem is finding them.

What's your take on the Hueyatlaco/Valsequillo site, Hans?

Hueyatlaco/ Valsequillo Archaological Site
The Stratigraphic Debate at Hueyatlaco, Valsequillo, Mexico
Corroboration of Sangamonian Age of Artifacts from the Valsequillo Region, Puebla, Mexico by means of Diatom Biostratigraphy

reply to post by Tsurugi


Complex site badly managed with difficult strat problem

reply to post by Hanslune

A fair assessment.

Though I think maybe I'd say it has a difficult date problem rather than strat problem. The strat is fairly clear-cut; it is only because of the extreme age it appears to indicate that it has been so heavily questioned(which is as it should be). But the heavy questions have been answered, and the strat data stands uncontested, leaving the problem of the dates.

reply to post by Tsurugi


If you got consensus on the strat then you run into the geofact question.

reply to post by Hanslune


Really? I thought there were too many artifacts uncovered at the excavation for that to be a consideration. I could see how the original find--the "etched" mammoth bone with the bi-facial point embedded in the fracture--might have been considered a possible geofact...

Tsurugi
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Really? I thought there were too many artifacts uncovered at the excavation for that to be a consideration. I could see how the original find--the "etched" mammoth bone with the bi-facial point embedded in the fracture--might have been considered a possible geofact...

Sorry I made my reply to vague. I was replying with what I thought would be the next level of complaint, not my own opinion.

I've seen the tools and they are legit for the most part - there are some fragments that may not be, however only another find of the same age/same area/will cause them to be reconsidered-investigations on that have been occurring sporadically over the last decade

If you are interested in the subject I can suggest Chris Hardarkers book on the subject, a tad bias but contains lots of info.

Hanslune
Sorry I made my reply to vague. I was replying with what I thought would be the next level of complaint, not my own opinion.

Ah, ok. No problem.

I've seen the tools and they are legit for the most part - there are some fragments that may not be, however only another find of the same age/same area/will cause them to be reconsidered

I agree with you on this, but I don't understand why this is the case.

reply to post by SLAYER69


sorry , but i just saw this thread and would like to share these findings that were published last year and might help you in your research :

Settlers once moved to the emirates for the rain

Archaeologists find historical secrets beneath Sharjah

Sharjah's 3,000-year-old clue to the first domesticated camels

good luck with them