Forgotten Human History

Fantastic thread and because your last pic reminded me;
I've said it before I'll say it again.

I'd love to get about 50,000 people with industrial strength
leaf blowers jet engines and brooms to form a line just west of the Great pyramid
and start blowing. Moving slowly, over the course of a month,
I have a feeling we'd unearth ALOT about our history.

a reply to: Agartha

That is extremely interesting. Two different groups, thousands of years apart but sharing the same burial ground. It makes me think that there was something of particular importance there — perhaps a lake that had lived on as an oasis thousands of years after desertification had begun? One theory put forth in the Nat Geo article linked below is that the later group from the Tenerian culture, came across the graves and recognized the place as being sacred and interred their own dead there.

Here's the link at National Geographic for the original source article.

The older remains were identified in 2005 from potsherds as being individuals of the Kiffian culture, which basically disappears from the archaeological record 8,000 years ago. Among the almost 182 burials identified, 60 or so have presently been excavated and one of the most notable was that of triple burial of a woman and two children, presumed to be a familial burial (mother and children perhaps).

The site is called Gobero and this is the website of Paul Sereno, the Univ of Chicago paleontologist leading the excavations.

Much of the limestone plateau has been cleared of sand at various times, as it is at the edge of desert new sand sweeps in all the time. I was at Mena house one time when a samoom came in out of the desert and covered the pyramids for an hour or so then was gone.

It left a lot of dust and sand.

OR

Did you mean the other direction to the west? Then you are getting into some major amounts of sand!

a reply to: Hanslune
ha ! good points ! yes I meant the very full
of sand direction, west.

originally posted by: SLAYER69
So, Neanderthals, or even older Homo erectus("Upright Man") could have possibly sailed around the Mediterranean

There is a very good reason for the signs that point to Neanderthal being more sophisticated like you said in the linked thread...

This whole Neanderthal thing is a total complete fabrication....

a reply to: beansidhe

Too much probability for me , there are endless possiblities

a reply to: Murgatroid

Thanks for the reply

This thread is open to all members and perspectives.


We do keep the rabbit netting up though.

Nasty little things those cute little fuzzy tailed monstrosities.

originally posted by: SLAYER69
We do keep the rabbit netting up though.

Nasty little things those cute little fuzzy tailed monstrosities.

Lets just hope that Beezer doesn't see that...

a reply to: theantediluvian

Thank you for those links!! I'll have a look at the Sereno's page to read and see pics!

when people migrate or move to an other area they generally like a comfortable climate and better weather for crops and wildlife some places are too cold or too hot too dry humid etc

a reply to: blacktie

Keeping in vein with that logical assessment it would mean that people driven to barren extremes had no choice but to adapt.

The three oldest people imo:

1) the bushmen of (currently) South Africa
2) the aborigines of Australia
3) the Inuit all over the northern arctic circle

Genetic evidence has stated that Australia is the second place Homo sapiens wound up as far as we can tell. How is something of a mystery unless they walked or paddled their. Strong evidence to suggest they walked.

As for the bushmen, I'm a little biased when I say this but I think they are the oldest out of all the more or less pure races of humans. I know that even in Africa Africans admit that according to oral traditions they were there first. It's documented that the only reason they are cornered in SA is because they were driven there by the Bantu and Zulu. They likely roamed the whole of the Savannah's at one time. I don't have a lot of evidence to support my assertion that they are as old as I suspect they are though. They do share extremely similar cultures with the aborigines of Australia including a concept of "dream time."

The Inuit I have to speculate on but I would imagine that they are a very old culture as well.

a reply to: blacktie

Keeping in vein with that logical assessment it would mean that people driven to barren extremes had no choice but to adapt.

The three oldest people imo:

1) the bushmen of (currently) South Africa
2) the aborigines of Australia
3) the Inuit all over the northern arctic circle

Genetic evidence has stated that Australia is the second place Homo sapiens wound up as far as we can tell. How is something of a mystery unless they walked or paddled their. Strong evidence to suggest they walked.

As for the bushmen, I'm a little biased when I say this but I think they are the oldest out of all the more or less pure races of humans. I know that even in Africa Africans admit that, according to oral traditions, bushmen were there first. It's documented that the only reason they are cornered in SA is because they were driven there by the Bantu and Zulu. They likely roamed the whole of the Savannah's at one time. I don't have a lot of evidence to support my assertion that they are as old as I suspect they are though. They do share extremely similar cultures with the aborigines of Australia including a concept of "dream time."

The Inuit I have to speculate on but I would imagine that they are a very old culture as well.

I don't know but based on these three old peoples, when I think about it, a civilization as we think of it is probably an entirely new creature. They had no need to build cities until agriculture created a need to commune and store surplus. Homo sapiens clearly benefit from agriculture but it is not necessary for our survival at all. At least not in the domesticated grain sense.

I think it likely GB in turkey marks the beginning as we understand civilization. Just saying what I think.

I'm not ruling out prior Civs as it's certainly possible but we need domesticated grain. I have heard interesting stories about the history of American corn though.

a reply to: nukedog

they were the ones that claimed to have come from the stars

a reply to: blacktie

Who? The Dogon? It's been proven that their culture is extremely impressionable. That being said many cultures claim to come from the stars and many even speak of "star children." Yeah I'm an ancient alien fan but I take it all with a grain of salt the same way I take my AJ. I won't discuss them or giants in a legitimate thread. J/s

Also the Dogon aren't the same as the bushmen I refer to. I need to provide links to sound like I know what I'm talking about haha. But I kind of do. For one thing the Dogon don't even look like bushmen. Check out the movie, " the Gods must Be Crazy." It's a blast

a reply to: nukedog
Sorry but the Inuit are one of the youngest ethnic groups, having only split from their Asian fore fathers some 600 ish years ago.
The previous pan arctic people ,the Dorset ,were in place for about 5k years before they were replaced by the Inuit.
The Australians are not a homogeneous people, there have been two episodes of more recent movment of people, though mostly into very north Australia, about 4-5 k years ago austronesians moved in and about 2k years ago people from India showed up. Also there ancient Australian populations that have no gentic relationships to any living modern aboriginals, the wilandra lakes people and the kow swamp people, at 50k and 10k years respectively. But that might have to do with loss of lineages after European settlement.
Unfortunately the San of south Africa are not "pure"at all as they have traces of Eurasian introgression, they carry wee little bit of Neanderthal DNA.

The closest thing to a "pure" human would have to be a pre contact aboriginal Tasmanian. They were isolated on the island for more than 7000 years, but they like everyone else in the region had denisovan DNA , so they are not " pure" either.

a reply to: punkinworks10

Interesting. No need for apologies. I was just being an arm chair anthropologist. Truly dangerous pastime lol.

I don't buy the Inuit being 600 years old thing. It's possible they superseded a previous culture. Idk though I'm shooting from the hip.

I am clearly not as informed as you are about the aborigines and bushmen. I tip my hat. I still think the two cultures share a lot of interesting features which I may look up and post here.

As for the original cradle of modern man it may indeed be Eurasian. I know it's racist to think about but I speculate that's where white people came from. I really don't know. Trying to figure out things like that land you in murky google territory lol

a reply to: Murgatroid

Actually Murgatroid Neanderthals are real but your allegation is not. Always glad to see your pseudo nihilistic comments in ever thread.

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: SLAYER69
We do keep the rabbit netting up though.

Nasty little things those cute little fuzzy tailed monstrosities.

Lets just hope that Beezer doesn't see that...

Oh no the majority thinks something called WWII occurred - obviously wrong

Oh double no, the majority thinks it is a bad thing to eat your children - they are tasty with a sweet chili sauce - try it you'll like it.

Oh trice no, the majority holds that you need to breath on a regular basis - just stop breathing and join the correct minority

lol

Love you Murgatroid!

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: nukedog
Sorry but the Inuit are one of the youngest ethnic groups, having only split from their Asian fore fathers some 600 ish years ago.
The previous pan arctic people ,the Dorset ,were in place for about 5k years before they were replaced by the Inuit.
The Australians are not a homogeneous people, there have been two episodes of more recent movment of people, though mostly into very north Australia, about 4-5 k years ago austronesians moved in and about 2k years ago people from India showed up. Also there ancient Australian populations that have no gentic relationships to any living modern aboriginals, the wilandra lakes people and the kow swamp people, at 50k and 10k years respectively. But that might have to do with loss of lineages after European settlement.
Unfortunately the San of south Africa are not "pure"at all as they have traces of Eurasian introgression, they carry wee little bit of Neanderthal DNA.

The closest thing to a "pure" human would have to be a pre contact aboriginal Tasmanian. They were isolated on the island for more than 7000 years, but they like everyone else in the region had denisovan DNA , so they are not " pure" either.

Sitting down to retread this please disregard my previous statement. It's phone handicapped with a two year old running tearing things up.

Wow.

Them some good facts! Where have you leaned this stuff? So knowing what you know what is your opinion on the op?

a reply to: SLAYER69
Another great thread! I haven't been on in days so it was nice to see this Slayer.

I find the desserts in Africa a place to find more of our past that's been buried by sand. I mean look at how the Sphynx was found burned to it's neck. Imagine what else is out there.

I have no doubt the sands of Egypt and even the deep forests on this planet hold many clues to our ancestors and ones we don't even know about yet. Don't even get me started on what is in the ocean!

I have a book by Michael Cremo in Forbidden Archaeology. It's quite fascinating. I always wanted it but it was at least $100 then u found it at a small used bookstore about 30 mins away and bought it. I enjoy reading about these "out of place artifacts."

This planet is extremely old. I believe many civilizations have risen and fallen and sometimes we come across proof if that civilization but it's explained away because we have been conditioned to believe we are the only smart humans to have inhabited this planet. I don't agree. I think there have been many advanced civilizations and due to their own demise or natural the collapsed and started over.

S&F