3 ms·

Homo sapiens started emigrating out of Africa 50k years ago. There is a small incertitude on their emigration pattern (one wave or several), but it doesn't matt

Homo sapiens started emigrating out of Africa 50k years ago. There is a small incertitude on their emigration pattern (one wave or several), but it doesn't matter here. If they had cities in Africa, it is very surprising we found no trace of it, given the numerous archaeological expeditions everywhere in Africa. There was no glaciation or sea change to destroy the evidences. So according to your hypothesis, civilizations would have emerged from hominids other than the homo sapiens, contrary to what we know about them. And their cities would all be in the North of Europe, where the later glaciation could hide some archaeological proofs. And we could not detect anything, though an Ice age doesn't destroy anything. I believe there is no fact to sustain that hypothesis, and many facts against it.

Zuider 8y ago
Don't forget that sea levels have risen some 120 meters since the end of the last ice age. Given that civilizations tend to form close to the ocean, most archeological evidence from tens of millennia ago, if such existed, would be under water. http://theconversation.com/ancient-aboriginal-stories-preserve-history-of-a-rise-in-sea-level-36010 http://theconversation.com/ancient-aboriginal-stories-preser...
RikNieu 8y ago
> Homo sapiens started emigrating out of Africa 50k years ago. Well new evidence suggests that humans colonised Aus around 65k years ago. There is also some evidence of human activity in the Americas thats far older, although the evidence is scant at the moment. > There was no glaciation or sea change to destroy the evidences. No sea level change? With the last glacial maximum the sea level was about 120m lower than now, wasn't it? Is it not reasonable to assume coast settlements or cities would now be submerged? There was continental-sized areas of land lost during that sea level rise. The amount of land lost in Asia alone is staggering. > I believe there is no fact to sustain that hypothesis, and many facts against it. Perhaps, but new evidence keeps on being discovered and lets not forget that lots of facts may simply be submerged under hundreds of meters of seawater. Its fun to keep an open mind.
marci 8y ago
> If they had cities in Africa, it is very surprising we found no trace of it, given the numerous archaeological expeditions everywhere in Africa. > I believe there is no fact to sustain that hypothesis, and many facts against it. At least these archaeologists beg to differ: https://youtu.be/CBMretoTFJg?t=315 https://youtu.be/CBMretoTFJg?t=315 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEtDLBGGQeQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEtDLBGGQeQ Even in Egypt stuff are still being (last pyramid discovered in 2008, a tomb buried under the sand last december). The Sahara is approximately the size of the US and India combined, and we know it was still green during the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt. Lot of place for humans to settle, now all covered in sand.

Zuider 8y ago

Don't forget that sea levels have risen some 120 meters since the end of the last ice age. Given that civilizations tend to form close to the ocean, most archeological evidence from tens of millennia ago, if such existed, would be under water. http://theconversation.com/ancient-aboriginal-stories-preserve-history-of-a-rise-in-sea-level-36010 http://theconversation.com/ancient-aboriginal-stories-preser...

RikNieu 8y ago

> Homo sapiens started emigrating out of Africa 50k years ago. Well new evidence suggests that humans colonised Aus around 65k years ago. There is also some evidence of human activity in the Americas thats far older, although the evidence is scant at the moment. > There was no glaciation or sea change to destroy the evidences. No sea level change? With the last glacial maximum the sea level was about 120m lower than now, wasn't it? Is it not reasonable to assume coast settlements or cities would now be submerged? There was continental-sized areas of land lost during that sea level rise. The amount of land lost in Asia alone is staggering. > I believe there is no fact to sustain that hypothesis, and many facts against it. Perhaps, but new evidence keeps on being discovered and lets not forget that lots of facts may simply be submerged under hundreds of meters of seawater. Its fun to keep an open mind.

marci 8y ago

> If they had cities in Africa, it is very surprising we found no trace of it, given the numerous archaeological expeditions everywhere in Africa. > I believe there is no fact to sustain that hypothesis, and many facts against it. At least these archaeologists beg to differ: https://youtu.be/CBMretoTFJg?t=315 https://youtu.be/CBMretoTFJg?t=315 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEtDLBGGQeQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEtDLBGGQeQ Even in Egypt stuff are still being (last pyramid discovered in 2008, a tomb buried under the sand last december). The Sahara is approximately the size of the US and India combined, and we know it was still green during the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt. Lot of place for humans to settle, now all covered in sand.