Archaeologica.org

Genesis Veracity wrote:The Nile was lapping at the paws of the Sphinx during the Old Kingdom, covering the current flood plain, the Nile rive valley is now "underfit," as the river flow reduced perhaps four-fold within a several centuries at the time that the Old Kingdom ended, so what kind of rainfall must have supported that much greater Nile River flow during the Old Kingdom?

All this happening in pre-Clovis America. I see your connection now...

This, http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/geography/nile.htm

does not agree with you.

When the Nile failed to rise or when it rose too much [15], it caused hardship even during the most prosperous periods. And when the climatic disturbances in the Nile's catchment area were prolonged, the whole fabric of society might fall apart:


10000 BCE: 500 years of excessive flooding caused the abandonment of early attempts at agriculture and a return to a nomadic existence of fishing, hunting and gathering until the end of the 6th millennium.
3000-2800: The decline in the flooding of about 1 to 1.5m, ca. 30% of the flow, was followed by widespread unrest and the depopulation of Nubia.
2250-1950: Low inundations [7], causing the drying out of Lake Moeris, signalled the end of the Old Kingdom
1840-1770: High inundations weakened the central power of the Middle Kingdom dynasties, which was exploited by the Hyksos to take over large parts of Egypt.
1170-1100: Low inundations accompanied the decline of the New Kingdom

Right around 1500 B.C., disaster hit Egypt, and much of the rest of the ancient world, as vast swaths of land began to dry-out, volcanoes were blasting as the earth's crust adjusted to the rapidly melting Ice Age icepacks, and there were mass migrations of people groups, the "Sea People," the "Aryans," and the Teutons and Goths into northern Europe (where the Ice Age icepack used to be), among others.

Evidence?

If you piece together the evidence from various, usually compartmentalized, disciplines, this scenario is what fits the evidence, not to mention the circa 2000 B.C. megalithic ruins which are now on the shallow seafloor in many parts of the world.

In 1500 BC the Egyptians were in the process of driving out the Hyksos and freeing themselves from foregin domination.

Far from being a period of disaster it was a time of restoration of Egyptian dominance and the beginning of the New Kingdom.

Okey dokey.

Pre-Clovis America anyone?

Starflower wrote:Pre-Clovis America anyone?

Yeah I could go for some of that.

How about Monte Verde? Pretty amazing site huh?

Monte Verde is interesting. What I'd like to know is how did they get to southern Chile before they got to North America? When I went to school the accepted date for the first people to come here was sometime around 12,500bce and Monte Verde had people living there around 13,000+ bce.

Me thinks that maybe we had more than one group involved and some of them were pre-Bering land bridge. Especially since some of the bone tools found in Canada have been carbon dated to around 22,000.

Starflower wrote:Pre-Clovis America anyone?

well well well.

let's look at our assumptions, and i'll focus on a single, simple point.

the concept of migration.

when we speak of birds, or whales, or caribou "migrating" we speak of a yearly cycle, driven by seasonal change.

i think it is safe to say that when the golden plover leaves the arctic for points many thousands of miles south, it is for two reasons.

1.) the arctic summer, short as it is, provides a fantastic amount of food for successfully gestating and rearing the next generation of golden plovers.

2.) when the arctic winter sets in, the plovers are hardwired to head south to another location which is at peak food availability.


and we are hardwired in terms of associating migratory patterns with the seasons.

with one exception.

ourselves.

yes, of course, there are many descriptions of the seasonal paths of primitive peoples, but seldom, if at all, do i see this described as migration.

instead, the word migration - when associated with humans - is used as a term to describe "going a long way away, not to return".

it appears not to include in its associative values the cyclical value.

it is a one way street.

so why do we reserve this exceptional definition of migration for ourselves, only?

and could this have something to do with the entire out of africa hypothesis, and subsequent "migrations" in the next couple 100k years?

could this have something to do with how we, as a species, are hardwired?

john

Nice topic thread, but lest we forget:

http://www.kessler-web.co.uk/History/Fe ... umans4.htm

by Martin Redfern, BBC Radio Science, 16 January 2006



It was a sensational discovery - human footprints said to be 40,000 years old, preserved by volcanic ash in an abandoned quarry in Mexico.
The announcement, in July last year, created a flurry of excitement, but was then promptly dismissed by a second team of researchers who re-dated the rocks at 1.3 million years old, impossibly ancient to bear human traces.
The original claim has not gone away, however

The dating on these footprints have still not been refuted. 40,000 years ago Neandertal was alive and kicking.

I looked at that story when I was researching my paper but I couldn't find anything that could be cited as an appropriate source (nothing published, peer reviewed etc, just some press release type of articles). Have they published a site report yet?

The word migration in this context is a bit misleading on a couple of fronts.

1 - as said earlier, it suggests a return is expected

2 - it suggests that everyone just picked up and left the same day. I don't think for a minute this was the case. I believe small HG groups dribbled over the exposed Beringian land mass over thousands of years.

yes, of course, there are many descriptions of the seasonal paths of primitive peoples, but seldom, if at all, do i see this described as migration

John, I have always felt that humans, like wolves, only follow the migratory patterns of the animals they are hunting. Small wonder that humans and wolves teamed up at an early point.

Animals do what they do because of instinct.

Humans are supposed to think about what they are doing.


(Now, I realize that frequently that is not apparent but still...)