What if????? A study in human migration.

Cook

Banned
Gosh!

So Stone and Bronze Age civilizations who tend to build out of Limestone and Granite and stack one block on top of another to build as high as they possibly can without it falling down, and because of load bearing limits the top is narrower than the bottom, resulting in roughly the same shape being used by people separated by thousands of kilometres and centuries in time.

They must have been taught by aliens, it’s the only logical explanation!

ufo.jpg
 
You guys are forgetting the Tower of Babel incident in 2425 BCE - we once spoke the same language.;)

you do realize that the tower of babel did not exist, and that this is a forum for discussing actual history.

I'm also curious where the dates come from. I've never seen those attributed to the tower of babel, and even a quick google search will get you a very different set of numbers.

Anyone else remember that insane guy about a month ago who claimed some stuff about an ancient Russian empire and how history was all a lie told by the West?

Why isn't Russia considered the West? It is no less a descendant of Rome than Britain.

Ah, yes. The Fomenko hypothesis. one of my personal favorites.

I'm not sure, to be honest, if this is a joke or not. On the off chance that it is not...

Britain is considered a "descendant" of Rome because, well, Britain was colonized by the Romans. A ton of British cities used to be roman settlements, English has a number of words derived from latin (albiet often for other reasons), etc... Russia, on the other hand, has a trading relationship with the medieval byzantines and a nationalist claim that Moscow is the "Third Rome". There's no real historical, cultural, linguistic, ethnic, or really any sort of direct continuity between Russia and Rome. Even the Russians don't consider themselves Westerners, although at various times they have adopted Western practices.
 

Cook

Banned
you do realize that the tower of babel did not exist, and that this is a forum for discussing actual history.

I had to deal with someone insisting that the entire New Testament was a factual record and that Exodus was a travel brochure on here the other day. The stupid are amongst us and they breed.

I rather think that Sentai1074 was kidding though Atreus. The 2425 BCE is a bit of a give away.

Everyone knows it was really 1st May 2426 BCE.
 

sentai1074

Banned
Indubitably. Seriously guys, I am not talking out my patootie here. I am saying that YES, mankind originated in the 2.5 +/- Million BCE in Africa. Yes mankind evolved there.

This would account for the African migration to the New World {there are testimonies in African Culture that attest to the king who sent 2000 ships across the sea.}

And as I stated, this was about 65,000 to 50,000 BCE. But the migration to the West from the Americas in pre-last ice age is what I am talking about.
 

Cook

Banned
Cook begins to wonder if perhaps he was being a little too kind defending Sentai1074…:confused:
 
This would account for the African migration to the New World {there are testimonies in African Culture that attest to the king who sent 2000 ships across the sea.}

If this really happened, it should have left a considerable genetic imprint in the Americas. However, that doesn't seem to be the case - and it appears that the entirety of the Native Americans is descended from Siberia. Though, there probably have been two waves.
 
Britain is considered a "descendant" of Rome because, well, Britain was colonized by the Romans. A ton of British cities used to be roman settlements, English has a number of words derived from latin (albiet often for other reasons), etc... Russia, on the other hand, has a trading relationship with the medieval byzantines and a nationalist claim that Moscow is the "Third Rome". There's no real historical, cultural, linguistic, ethnic, or really any sort of direct continuity between Russia and Rome. Even the Russians don't consider themselves Westerners, although at various times they have adopted Western practices.

Well, didn't Ivan IV claim Moscow to be the 3rd Rome as he's the grandson of Sophia Palaeologina, niece of the last of the Palaeologi East Roman Emperors (the "2nd Rome")?
 
Anyone else remember that insane guy about a month ago who claimed some stuff about an ancient Russian empire and how history was all a lie told by the West?

Why isn't Russia considered the West? It is no less a descendant of Rome than Britain.

I think he admitted to being GMB :eek:
 
Well, didn't Ivan IV claim Moscow to be the 3rd Rome as he's the grandson of Sophia Palaeologina, niece of the last of the Palaeologi East Roman Emperors (the "2nd Rome")?

Yeah. There's a huge difference between that claim and reality.

The idea of the third rome was a russian attempt to claim cultural continuity from the fall of the eastern roman empire. Said claim basically comes about because the Byzantines and Russians were both eastern orthodox, and because of the sort of dynastic connections that pretty much everybody in the period had with each other. The fact is, there really isn't any reason to pay much attention to this claim. Russia had a substantial but minor cultural connection with the Eastern Roman Empire, which by this point is neither Roman nor an Empire (the eastern bit is another question). Said connection was drummed up by Russians who either wanted to emphasize their connection with the west (Rome being perceived as one of the progenitors of Western Civilization) or who want to emphasize Russian glory (by associating themselves with the Roman Empire). Nothing really of note here. If you really want a successor to the Romans, try the Ottomans.
 

sentai1074

Banned
Boy can some people be offensive when you challenge their set ways of thinking. I mean you show me evidence that the Egyptians didn't show up until after the flood, or Babel, or for that matter the Sumerians. If the Flood was dated as happening in 11,000 - 12,000 BCE, then I can accept it, but EVERY known culture on the planet of any major significance - including the Native Americans, Africans, Chinese, Egyptians, Indians, Sumerians, Babylonians and Romans believed in a universal flood - some say that it occurred as recently as 4,000 BCE.
 
Well, didn't Ivan IV claim Moscow to be the 3rd Rome as he's the grandson of Sophia Palaeologina, niece of the last of the Palaeologi East Roman Emperors (the "2nd Rome")?

Yeah. There's a huge difference between that claim and reality.

The idea of the third rome was a russian attempt to claim cultural continuity from the fall of the eastern roman empire. Said claim basically comes about because the Byzantines and Russians were both eastern orthodox, and because of the sort of dynastic connections that pretty much everybody in the period had with each other. The fact is, there really isn't any reason to pay much attention to this claim. Russia had a substantial but minor cultural connection with the Eastern Roman Empire, which by this point is neither Roman nor an Empire (the eastern bit is another question). Said connection was drummed up by Russians who either wanted to emphasize their connection with the west (Rome being perceived as one of the progenitors of Western Civilization) or who want to emphasize Russian glory (by associating themselves with the Roman Empire). Nothing really of note here. If you really want a successor to the Romans, try the Ottomans.

I wasn't stating that Moscow was the 3rd Rome merely that Ivan used his descent to claim succession (I'm unclear whether he also tried to claim authority over the titles or lands of the "Greek Roman Empire")
I agree that the Ottomans have a better claim ;)
 
Wow!

That was an interesting thread. It reminds me of some of the very nationalistic paleontologists in the 1800s, like the Argentine guy who found a lot of the early fossils of New World monkeys--good fieldwork, but then he claimed that they were early human ancestors, and eventually that most of the world's current crop of mammals were descendants of the stuff he found.

Then of course there was the Miocene-era "Nebraska Man" in North America, which was later determined to have been a distant relative of pigs. The Nebraska Man bit wasn't as stupid as it looks from our perspective. Apparently the teeth did look a bit ape-like, and they were from an era when several mostly tropical species did get from Asia to North America. It seemed logical enough to US paleontologists (who were feeling left out with all of the European and African early man discoveries) that ancestral apes might have come over too, and then developed into something approximating man.

Let's see if we can salvage something from this wreck of a thread. What if Apes had been able to get to North America in the Miocene? That would require enough changes in either the earth's climate or it's configuration that the butterfly affects would undoubtedly make the world unrecognizable, but for the moment let's assume that they got to North America without too much disruption of the rest of the world. How would these North American apes develop? Would there be a suitable habitat for them throughout the period from the Miocene through the ice ages? South America didn't connect to North America until the very late Pliocene or early Pleistocene, and much of Central America was a series of islands, so there may not have been a continuous tropical forest habitat. Could these apes have survived without it? If so, how?

Another option: In the Eocene, North America had a fairly wide variety of both lemurs and tarsiers. They mostly died out in the late Eocene or Oligocene. I've seen one reference to a Tarsier surviving into the Miocene. Given a big enough piece of the right habitat, I could see the Tarsiers or the Lemurs developing into a wide range of primate habitats.

Yet another option: South American monkeys were pretty good at getting across small bits of the ocean. There were monkeys in Cuba, Jamaica, and I think Puerto Rico and Haiti. What if a population of South American monkeys had gotten established in North America in the Miocene? They develop into a range of forms, and then have to face the rigors of the ice ages, which would compress their habitat and force them to either adapt to the cold or go south to compete with the monkeys that had stayed south.
 
Top