Man progressed from the southern tip of africa and continued north then west and east. But what if antartica was closer to africa when man began kicking mamoth arse. Also i question the ice/land bridge idea. Wouldnt the plains indians be more advanced than the incan and aztec societies? its almost like they were also progressing north insted of south. Id love to get my hands on a time machine to see what antartica was like before it was shifted down. Where did antartica fit on the pangea map?
Re: thoughts on Antarctica
Antarctica was south east of Africa and south west of Australia. Of course this was 225 million years ago and man didn’t appear until 150,000 years ago. So there was a pretty good distance between the southern tip of Africa and Antarctica. But even if it was inhabitable at some time during the existence of man and for some reason, man decided to just head south on the hope that they might find something, they would eventually be wiped out. The continent was continually moving south and it would eventually be too harsh for anyone to survive.
Re: North American Indians
I don’t really know what I’m talking about here, but I’ve developed a theory on what you have said.
I’m going to assume this to be true.
So the general theory of man’s migration to the Americas is that they came across the land bridge that connected Russia to Alaska. On the journey south, it looks like some people decided to stop travelling and settle. The Incas and the Aztecs continued moving. Perhaps they thought that if they kept moving south that the climate would keep getting warmer and more pleasant, so they continue south. And perhaps the plains Indians are just content where they are and decide to stay.
The Aztecs and the Incas settle far to the south, near the equator (if I can accurately remember my history from eleventh grade). The life that they start is pleasant. There is a warm climate which temperature fluctuates little. Fertile soil for agriculture (if they’ve discovered agriculture). It rains often so they have fresh water, etc. etc.
The plains Indians don’t have it so ‘easy.’ The temperature fluctuates in throughout the year. They have hot summers and cold winters. Everything dies in the winter. So they have to find a way to get through it. They develop methods to make it through the winter. They have to use their outside resources and their brains to insure their survival.
That’s the best I can do. Sorry to pretend to know what I’m talking about. Were they indigenous people? Did they have agriculture? I guess I could have done some research before writing this. But I’ve already written it…and now I’m posting it.
no you did great.
But I see it as this perhaps differntly than before thanks to you.
The plains indians were Less advanced than the southern variations of indians. Even though the three more famous groups (incans, mians, and aztecs) are in different times they were all more advanced than the northern groups. Thus that shows a natrual progression to the north. Like the killer bees and fire ants.
But that idea only works if antartica contained a population which moved by ship away due to climate changes toward the worse.
But continents move and people adapt so the continent would have had to move with a quickness to scare the people off.
I still hold to it that if the middle east was the cradle of mankind then anartica was the birthplace.
I watched a program on this about 2 months ago made by the BBC. They said that most of the native Americans came across during the last ice age, over by Greenland and into Canada and moved down through the continent. They then found out how to make better spears (I think it was flint headed) and then caused mass extinctions through over hunting. After this they then learnt how to live in balance with nature so as it wouldn’t happen again, until the cowboys showed up and killed all there buffalo.
As you have what evidence? You seem to be ignoring the crucial point, that the continents broke up a long time ago - long before human-like ancestors existed. Ice ages provided the most likely land bridges, and I`m not sure that Antartica was linked to Africa during the last one.
The idea that Not Stoic Enough is trying to get across is that equatorial climates are more suited to agricultural development than those at northern latitudes - particularly in the breeding of crops with high carbohydrate/protein yields (essential for a strong diet for both humans and livestock). Cultures based in fertile regions maintained greater stability/had more resources to work with and so modernised faster than those in northern climes, who relied more on hunting.
This doesn`t really answer the “out of Africa” question, but that is many years previous to this example - you seem to be having issues to to confusion in your timeline. It has been proposed that mobile bipeds followed the coast for fertile fishing ground, so the Med would have been attractive - as would southern Africa. I dont think your Antartica theory has very much going for it at all - though I would like to hear you try to explain it on a coherent timeline. 