Forgotten Human History

While reading some references on earlier Egyptian periods, I came across how some speculated that the reason why Egypt and more importantly the Nile river became so important was due to changes in North Africa. Possible mass migration to the region, where people settled and became builders of great monuments, Were all ancient Egyptians simply migrants from the drying North African Sahara? No, not all. But this period is so far back that it does make one wonder what were these people up to before they made it to the Nile region.

Let's take a look at the present day Sahara.



That present day map shows a much dryer and a much less inhabitable environment. Now, I'm not going to go into the why's and how's of the changes that occurred, that's for the more familiar than I to post. My questions, speculation and points of interests arise from these articles...

Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated

Some 12,000 years ago, the only place to live along the eastern Sahara Desert was the Nile Valley. Being so crowded, prime real estate in the Nile Valley was difficult to come by. Disputes over land were often settled with the fist, as evidenced by the cemetery of Jebel Sahaba where many of the buried individuals had died a violent death.

But around 10,500 years ago, a sudden burst of monsoon rains over the vast desert transformed the region into habitable land.

This opened the door for humans to move into the area, as evidenced by the researcher's 500 new radiocarbon dates of human and animal remains from more than 150 excavation sites.

"The climate change at [10,500 years ago] which turned most of the [3.8 million square mile] large Sahara into a savannah-type environment happened within a few hundred years only, certainly within less than 500 years," said study team member Stefan Kroepelin of the University of Cologne in Germany.

What would a greener North Africa look like?


I know, it's pretty to look at but doesn't give us much in the way of details, But, I wanted to shake up perspectives. Science tells us that Homo Sapien migrated out of Africa and then breed with other genetic cousins. North Africa has gone through a few environmental changes well within that timeline. We see 'Cradle Civs' and very ancient ruins all around the Mediterranean both above and below present sea levels and of course the Fertile crescent. Egypt, Sumer and all points East and North in Europe, both East and West.

Now, If we take a look at ancient fresh water Rivers and lakes now buried under the shifting sands of the present day Sahara it reveals that there is a very real possibility that part of our collective past is still unknown to us. While the circular migration around the Mediterranean into Europe and points East is fairly well known and proven. There may be a lost and forgotten migration 'Out of Africa' which if true, it's possible cultural impact has yet to be understood, this massive now dried and abandon previously occupied location may still yield valuable insight into a lost and forgotten period of humanity.

They may have navigated the Mediterranean, possibly out into the Atlantic and beyond, all in prehistory. They had plenty of food available to them. Why wouldn't an advanced culture/early civilization develop there? We've seen it happen in much less habitable locations.

Fish swam in the Sahara, Bolstering out of Africa theory

The cradle of humanity lies south of the Sahara, which begs the question as to how our species made its way past it. The Sahara is the largest hot desert in the world, and would seem a major barrier for any humans striving to migrate off the continent.

Scientists have often focused on the Nile Valley as the corridor by which humans left Africa. However, considerable research efforts have failed to uncover evidence for its consistent use by people leaving the continent, and precisely how watery it has been over time is controversial.

Now it turns out the Sahara might not have been quite as impassable as once thought — not only for humanity, but for fish as well.

I know it's speculation on my part but if science is willing to flirt with the idea that the Neanderthal may have sailed to Crete, then why would it be impossible for some now forgotten Ancient Saharan Homo Sapiens to do the same, not just to Crete but elsewhere?


Neanderthals May Have Sailed to Crete

Neanderthals, or even older Homo erectus("Upright Man") might have sailed around the Mediterranean, stopping at islands such as Crete and Cyprus, new evidence suggests. The evidence suggests that these hominid species had considerable seafaring and cognitive skills.

"They had to have had boats of some sort; unlikely they swam," said Alan Simmons, lead author of a study about the find in this week's Science. "Many of the islands had no land-bridges, thus they must have had the cognitive ability to both build boats and know how to navigate them."

Faces of our Ancestors

Simmons, a professor of anthropology at the University of Nevada, added that there is no direct evidence for boats dating back to over 100,000 years ago. If they were built then, the wood or other natural materials likely eroded. Instead, other clues hint that modern humans may not have been the first to set foot on Mediterranean islands.

On Crete, for example, tools such as quartz hand-axes, picks and cleavers are associated with deposits that may date to 170,000 years ago. Previously, this island, as well as Cyprus, was thought to have first been colonized about 9,000 years ago by late Neolithic agriculturalists with domesticated resources.

So, Neanderthals, or even older Homo erectus("Upright Man") could have possibly sailed around the Mediterranean but our specific more intelligent ancestors living in a very hospitable zone couldn't have? Now, are there still yet to be found advanced cultures/early civilizations buried under the massive bone dry Sahara region?

I guess the only real way to find out is to simply start digging...

I guess the only real way to find out is to simply start digging...

The pic almost conveys what a daunting task that would be.

Maybe a survey by ground penetrating radar would help narrow the search areas.

a reply to: butcherguy

What I don't understand is why it takes decades to unearth a village. I understand trying to preserve history and all, but if an institution finds a archaeological site, it seems to take years to unearth it since they seem to just pick at it for years.

And all the while, what was once protected by the elements is now exposed for years as they continue to dig.

Yea, I know, it's expensive as well.

a reply to: TDawgRex

They use tents and such, so no exposure to the elements for the invaluable findings.

Apropos invaluable: as anything can only be dug up once and for all, every, really every small step has to be documented - otherwise it wouldn't be science but diggin' in the dirt to find stuff to sell for moneyz..

In other words: it just takes time.

a reply to: SLAYER69

And the rest is under the sea! What were the sea levels like around Africa then, I wonder? Environmental change is hard to keep in mind (for me, anyway) when I'm trying to think about what life could have been like back then. It's too easy to imagine it was the same as now.

S&F for a thought-provoking post.

B x

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: butcherguy

What I don't understand is why it takes decades to unearth a village. I understand trying to preserve history and all, but if an institution finds a archaeological site, it seems to take years to unearth it since they seem to just pick at it for years.

And all the while, what was once protected by the elements is now exposed for years as they continue to dig.

Yea, I know, it's expensive as well.

It is something that I used to ask, then I found out some of the previous pratice of digging at sites. Such as The Ggantija Temples in Gozo, excavated in 1827 by Col. Otto Bayer. They litterally dug up everything without fully documenting anything that they were doing. Many Historians in the Maltese Isles beleive that these ancient sites would have looked very different if the proper time and care was taken when excavating.

A Site like Tarxien in Malta was found by Farmers and the actual site, when it was dug was falling apart as they were removing large quantities of earth. Where massive parts of the complex gave way and fell. Then the Archeaologists as best they could 'rebuilt' the sites to what they 'assumed' was the placing of the stones.

Most sites in Malta and Gozo where like this, where many were excavated in the early 1800s

New sites now are taking the time to unearth because of this, rushing the project could destroy everything it held to begin with.

Ggantija Site
Temple Sites in Malta

a reply to: SLAYER69
Just my opinion Slayer, but I think there are some massive and surreal surprises waiting to be unearthed in places like this, as well as underwater. Finds that will completely rewrite what we think we know about this planets history. But sometimes, I get the impression they don't really want to know.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Great thread Slayer, I am on the same lines that there is most likely whole sections of groups scattered all over north africa and the Med yet to be discovered.

It is even easier than I first thought, a couple of years ago I had to have Underground Sonar tests being done on a plot of land of mine and my brothers and the test was to actually check incase any possible sites of historical interest was beneath the land before given permission to build. As in the near by area was other sites recently found dating back several thousand years. The one issue I find is... MONEY, it costs alot for these tests, the final bill was over 30 thousand Euros. That was only a single plot of land. Imagine the cost of miles upon miles of vast wasteland with little or no idea where to look.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Excellent post; there are numerous missions going on/planned for that area, unfortunately delayed or hampered by the political difficulties of most of the nations/former natilons in that area.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: SLAYER69
Just my opinion Slayer, but I think there are some massive and surreal surprises waiting to be unearthed in places like this, as well as underwater. Finds that will completely rewrite what we think we know about this planets history. But sometimes, I get the impression they don't really want to know.

'They' don't seem to have told the scientist that. lol

a reply to: Maltese5Rhino

Sites excavated prior to the establishment of archaeological practices did destroy lots of stuff. Archaeology by its nature is destructive of all sites. Such expeditions were more looting digs than scientific but they have to be judged in the context of their times. At one time the 'Indiana Jones or bulldozer/dynamite' excavation was all the rage.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Great thread! There's much to be discovered in Africa. It was only last year that scientists reported on evidence of controlled cooking fires a million years ago in Wonderwerk Cave, in South Africa’s Northern Cape province. Evidence in Wonderwerk points to occupation by our primitive ancestors going back two million years and as recently as the 1900's by our own species.

a reply to: butcherguy

Yeah hopefully they'll develop even more advanced satellite tech that might help see through the upper layers.

The ones they are using now are pretty good though

a reply to: beansidhe

Yes, the now submerged North African/Atlantic coastlines are possible sites to further explore, especially around the Mediterranean with hundreds/ *thousands? of known submerged sites.

I'm pretty sure not all sites have been found nor are they all as young as presently believed.

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Maltese5Rhino

Sites excavated prior to the establishment of archaeological practices did destroy lots of stuff. Archaeology by its nature is destructive of all sites. Such expeditions were more looting digs than scientific but they have to be judged in the context of their times. At one time the 'Indiana Jones or bulldozer/dynamite' excavation was all the rage.

Too right there Can't blame them, even in recent history 'restorers' used Concrete to repair/complete the stone work. Having no idea that once that concrete breaks away it takes half the stone with it. Much like a filling can do to a tooth. There is probally loads of methods we use today that in 50 or so years would be deemed detremental to site preservation.

a reply to: SLAYER69

I thought I heard they have that already. It's military though. Could have been bs but a guy told me he's seen it. Supposedly walked into a room and there was the whole earth. And you could see right through it.

Anyway, I like the theory you float here. Makes a lot of sense. The best place to start looking imo, would be around aquifers, assuming that they are old enough.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: SLAYER69
Just my opinion Slayer, but I think there are some massive and surreal surprises waiting to be unearthed in places like this, as well as underwater. Finds that will completely rewrite what we think we know about this planets history. But sometimes, I get the impression they don't really want to know.

IF there are sites revealed 'They' will have no choice but to reexamine their perspective, Just like how Göbekli Tepe made some switch gears.

originally posted by: Maltese5Rhino

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Maltese5Rhino

Sites excavated prior to the establishment of archaeological practices did destroy lots of stuff. Archaeology by its nature is destructive of all sites. Such expeditions were more looting digs than scientific but they have to be judged in the context of their times. At one time the 'Indiana Jones or bulldozer/dynamite' excavation was all the rage.

Too right there

Can't blame them, even in recent history 'restorers' used Concrete to repair/complete the stone work. Having no idea that once that concrete breaks away it takes half the stone with it. Much like a filling can do to a tooth. There is probally loads of methods we use today that in 50 or so years would be deemed detremental to site preservation.

Yep; many archaeologist now follow the rule of leaving part of a site untouched - so if a new technique or device comes about more info can be obtained.

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: SLAYER69
Just my opinion Slayer, but I think there are some massive and surreal surprises waiting to be unearthed in places like this, as well as underwater. Finds that will completely rewrite what we think we know about this planets history. But sometimes, I get the impression they don't really want to know.

IF there are sites revealed 'They' will have no choice but to reexamine their perspective, Just like how Göbekli Tepe made some switch gears.

Lets not forget the Jungle - one of the hardest above water places to excavate. It is no matter of happenstance that many discoveries comes out of arid areas - its just so much easier than trying to do work in heavy forest and jungle.

In the year 2000 anthropologists discovered the remains of people that were over six feet tall, with dense bones which indicated they were exrtremely muscular, which also indicated they ate lots of proteins. They lived in the Sahara aprox. 9000 years ago and did not die violently, as none of the remains had many scars or injuries. Their graves contained no goods in them (such as bones, beads, arrow heads, etc), which caused all questions about them to go unanswered. Anthropologists also don't know how they have died.

Who were these incredibly muscular and tall people? Where did they go? What happened to them?
LINK