Homo sapiens began about 200,000 BC

>WTF were we doing for ~197,000 years??? We just suddenly up and civilized?

Depends greatly on the climate and geography. Aboriginals in Australia have the longest continuing culture (60,000 years) but didnt develope what most would consider civilisation

Egyptians sailed to Australia in ancient times. Aboriginals were fine till Europeans came and started genociding them.

>197,000 years?
Hunt, gather, migrate, reproduce

/pol/ is that way.

You can't troll Veeky Forums with that WE WUZ KANGS shit.

Sorry. 0/10.

Holy fucking shit look at this retarded muthafucker.

>Egyptians sailed to Australia in ancient times,
They didnt leave any civilisation or if they settled there they degraded.

>Aboriginals were fine till Europeans came and started genociding them.
They were fine but not civilised and would be considered outright barbaric compared to Egypt

Just hunting and gathering user, its pretty comfy since humans had already mastered it it thousands of years ago.

/pol/ is beyond saving. They could never take the truth about our past because it shows that white people are subhuman neanderthal monkey cousin fuckers.

Do you have an actual argument cumskin?

They left some glyphs in Australia.

Read this:
realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Egypt/Australia.htm

>They left some glyphs in Australia.
Are you saying that Aboriginals would be considered civilised before euro contact?

Are aboriginals decedents of egyptians or that they only visted left some glyphs then left?

This.

Agriculture didn't arise before the holocene when wild grasses and other potential domesticates expanded in regions like the Fertile Crescent, China and Mesoamerica. Though it varies from region to region, in general a colder Earth means less life and a warmer Earth means more, and more life means more food, resulting in affluent hunter-gatherer societies like the Natufians or Tlingit, and eventually agriculture. Agriculture then spread to other regions like Europe, India and Southeast Asia.

This all happened after 10,000 BC. Regional variation and isolation meant some places only developed agriculture much later (eg West Africa, the Mississippi region) or just didn't at all (eg Australia, the Pacific States).

First off, they are not called "Aboriginals" That is a European colonizer name.

They are not descended from the Egyptians but were not barbarians. Europeans were the real barbarians who pillaged and genocided them. "Civilized" is a European term that should not be used.

For most of this time the majority of the population was in Africa and numbered around 50000 over some 20 million km^2 south of the Saharra. If they were arranged into groups of 20 and these groups were evenly distributed across the continent they would have to travel around 100 kms to visit their neighbors. Population density would have been higher in some regions of course, tribes may have met at the same spot annually to trade and conduct their mating rituals, there may have been trade networks between tribes and tribal elders who retained information and negotiated with each other. This would have all been a very slow process however and involved only a small proportion of the population.

How many geniuses are there among 50000 people? Would they have ever met any others? What was their life expectancy? Would they have recorded any discoveries they made?

>First off, they are not called "Aboriginals" That is a European colonizer name.

Would you prefer first nations? The term aboriginal is technically more accurate and less prejudicial than terms such as nunga which whilst their own would seem like slure here

>They are not descended from the Egyptians
How so?

>Europeans were the real barbarians who pillaged and genocided them.

Are you trying to imply that they had the levels of development in the fertile cresent prior to europeans?

>"Civilized" is a European term that should not be used.

Only using the language of the OP, would you prefer the term urbanisation/ agriculturally developed?

Black tribes have lived in Egypt forever.
realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Egypt_Pre_historic.htm

>How so?
Egyptians only led an expedition there. Europeans destroyed a lot of the stuff they had made and many white historians try to fabricate that they never even discovered fire. This is simply not true.

Fins will never rise again, no worries

>Egyptians only led an expedition there.
How do we know it wasnt more than that or in other places?

>Europeans destroyed a lot of the stuff they had made

You didnt actually answer my question here "Are you trying to imply that they had the levels of development in the fertile cresent prior to europeans? " from what you seem to be saying its almost as if you are arguing that their nomadic lifestyle came after euro contact.

>This is simply not true.
No one here is saying it was, however it seems rather clear that the aboriginal/firstnations/nunga people were vastly less devleoped in technology and urbanisation than NA and the ME

Why bothering with the WE WUZ nigger man.

Because there is only one recorded expedition which cumskins started covering up once they realized it would reveal the truth about Egypt. First Nations were living peacefully till the Europeans came, colonized them, and lied about them.

>peace
>blacks
HAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHhaahhahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Because there is only one recorded expedition which Shitskins started covering up once they realized it would reveal the truth about Fried Chicken. The USA were living peacefully till the Niggers came, colonized them, and lied about them.

Only cumskins resort to dirty tricks like impersonation. Go back to your trailer, monkey.

also none of those stereotypes are true while the stereotypes about you cousin fucking cumskins are all true

Only Shitskins resort to dirty tricks like impersonation. Go back to your trailer, monkey.

also none of those stereotypes are true while the stereotypes about you Shanaynay fucking Shitskins are all true

So... Instead of what were we doing for 197,000 years, what were we doing for 191,000 years?

Someone wanna post me the info message on how to filter out this namefag cracker who is roleplaying an obstinant nigger?

>forever
The oldest human skeleton found in Egypt is the 33000 year old Nazlet Khater man. Until the migration out of Africa I don't think there were many humans in Egypt.

utdallas.edu/geosciences/remsens/Nile/geology.html

The Nile apparently formed 120000 years ago.

I'm not opinionated and arguing for anything one way or the other, the Nile is a potential migration route, but what happened between 120000 and 33000 years ago is a mystery. Maybe humans faced competition from another hominid.

Meh,

Archaeology consistently turns up things that are much older than we would have estimated and such.

Humans have probably gone through various collapses and rises of their civilisations of which records were lost due to some sort of event.

Atlantis was probably real and is one of the few that records of which remained and it became a myth for us.

Things like Teothicuan were not built by the Incans. They themselves said that they inherited it.

every couple years they find some archeological site that pushes things like agriculture or urban living back a thousand years or so, places like mohenjo daro or catalhojuk are older than 3000 bc

its highly likely there have been developed human cultures way way back, but for one thing theres little concensus on what realy constitutes a 'developed human culture' or as people like to call it a 'civilisation', which realy is a political/ideological issue more than anything, for another theres a problem similar to the whole fosil gap thing, in the sense that you cant realy dig up every inch of the planet, most finds are acidental, so since theres no evidence its not considered a polite subject, because it rapidly devolves into ancient aliens and wewuzism type bullshit

but the question is a good one, obviously human populations have a tendency to develop culture and technology and build stuff and so on, so one would expect that it happened over and over again, especialy since such human systems display a equaly habitual tendency to colapse and dissapear, over and over again

What's the oldest city in the world? Eridu?

WE WUZ KANGS AND SHEIT

If you try to begin a dialogue on these issues with academics, you get laughed out of the room, but the fact is that our official version of history doesn't make sense. It's all mud huts and caves for almost 200,000 years, then suddenly pyramids all over the world.

On top of that, the Abrahamic religions spent centuries in a concerted effort to destroy the knowledge of the ancient world. The burning of the Library of Alexandria, etc. We've blindly accepted their version of history that ancient people were relatively primitive, because they destroyed the evidence to the contrary.

FFS, some random Greek merchant vessel had a computer on it 2,000 years ago. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

We only know about it because it sat underwater while everything else was being destroyed by savages. What the fuck else did ancient civilizations have that we don't know about?

Dealing with an ice-age IIRC. Staying still and building gets easier in warmer climes.

>first analog computational device
woah

The Greeks were black men. Whites fabricated evidence that they were white in the 20th century

More: realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Minoan_Greece_1.htm

...

Is it really far fetched?

The prehistoric economy had a very small surplus and populations were tiny. They were as intelligent as us but they simply lacked the means to play around with massive furnaces and such like we do.

It took 1000s of years of gradual selective breeding to make crops productive enough for the first nonmeme civilizations to appear, this is the period you are imagining. When populations had grown it opened up a whole host of opportunities and progress skyrocketed.

This.

ruling sumeria

source: sumerian king list

How is this any different from Nordicism which a significant portion of /pol/yps subscribe to?

>b-but whites did invent Indian and Chinese civilization!

I hate you faggots with a passion, all of you historical revisionists who have such shitty histories you have to claim other peoples' histories.

>then suddenly pyramids all over the world.
If you had even the slightest understanding of scale of time in history you wouldn't be saying that. It took a long time for us to build them as well as we did the biggest and latest of them. Besides, looking at human history, have we not proved ourselves of capable of massive progress in short amounts of time?

>On top of that, the Abrahamic religions spent centuries in a concerted effort to destroy the knowledge of the ancient world
Nigger did you forget that the absolutely only effort ever done to preserve antique information during the medieval age was the church itself? Kinda contradicts your grand theory, doesn't it?

>It's all mud huts and caves for almost 200,000 years, then suddenly pyramids all over the world.
The reason for that has already been said in this very thread but you're too absorbed in your fairytales to even notice.

The reason civilizations popped up so suddenly was because the climate made them possible. They would've spawned earlier but the climate was too cold.

Neolithic revolution motherfucker, you speak it? That's why you'd get laughed out of the room. Cause you're an ill informed ignoramus who gets his creativity and fantasy in the way of known evidence.

>some random Greek merchant vessel
Judging by what the ship carried (besides Antikythera mechanism) it was anything but "some random merchant vessel".

>What the fuck else did ancient civilizations have that we don't know about?
Not much. If you're gonna imply there was a great unknown civilization with shiny technology and whatnot, then just kys. There'd be tons of evidence instead of "look this rock is shaped almost perfectly, therefore AINSHINT ALIUMS!!"

user literally told you the answer to your question after mentioning the first bits of civilization cropping up.

Shit takes time, user, makes the skyrocketing development of past 250-300 years all that more impressive

>hurr durr

>hurr durr

50,000 years old sea faring reaching Australia
"The Bradshaw Paintings are incredibly sophisticated, yet they are not recent creations but originate from an unknown past period which some suggest could have been 50,000 years ago." Peter Robinson, Project Controller of the Bradshaw Foundation.

>obviously human populations have a tendency to develop culture and technology and build stuff and so on

But they don't. There is a reason why European Enlightment and simialr episodes are considered to be rare in history,

For thousands of years after the invention of civilisation, most of the world's populations still lived as hunter-gatherers, pastoralists or simple agrarian tribes.

If a culture is sufficient to meet people's needs, it usually stays stable, and this changed only during the Scientific Revolution.

more likely they resorted to wheat during a "famine", but it never ended because the ice age was over

t. ishmael

Living the life in absolute freedom.

Glacial periods, homo sapiens nearly went extinct due to a volcano eruption.

all of human civilization, as we know it, has existed in a 12,000 year interglacial period of the current ice age. In 50,000 years, regardless of any man made climate change, the glaciers will return and wipe out human civilization in the northern hemisphere.

Civilization began in Egypt because the desertification of north Africa forced the population of the Nile to shift from hunter-gathering to agriculture.

Incredibly sophisticated? Seriously?

>If they were arranged into groups of 20

Not possible. Any group of humans under 100 individuals would almost certainly go extinct.

Wait until he posts the infograph exploring all the mathematical shapes and their relations to each other in these pictures...

this is so true it hurts

As if in 50,000 fucking years human won't be able to prevent that

That specific one isnt 50,000 years old indeed its vastly younger

>he Bradshaws are not the regions' earliest paintings. The earlier art consists of crude animal drawings that are believed to be up to 40,000 years old. The Bradshaws have nothing in common with this earlier art and first appeared following the peak of the most recent Pleistocene glacial maximum, which is dated between 26,500 and 20,000 years ago.[22]

>Since the mid-1990s, scientific dating methods have been used to determine the ages of the Bradshaw paintings. The methods have included, Accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon dating (AMS) and Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL). This was used when mud wasp nests have been built over paintings, and it gives a minimum age rather than an actual age of the painting. The results of this have revealed some inconsistency with Walsh's chronology. Experimental OSL dates from a wasp nest overlaying a tassel Bradshaw figure has given a Pleistocene date of 17,500±1,800 years BP. The academic community generally accepts 5,000 BP for the end of the artistic style. If the date ranges are correct, this may demonstrate that the Bradshaw tradition was produced for many millennia.[23] Geoarchaeologist, Alan Watchman posits that the red paint used on a tasselled Bradshaw image near the Drysdale River is "likely to be only about 3,000 years old."[30] Using the AMS results from accreted paint layers containing carbon associated with another figure, gives a date of 3,880 BP[31] making Bradshaw art contemporaneous with, and no older than, Wanjina art.[32] Around 15,000 years ago, the archaeological record shows that Aboriginals in the Kimberleys began using stone points in place of multi-barbed spears, but there is no record of this change of technology in the Bradshaw paintings. The most recent paintings still depict the use of multi-barbed spears.[22]

Agriculture wasn't viable until after the Ice Age.

The ice age is likely a factor, but I don't think it'd satisfy most people, as it doesn't cover all of humanity, and most folks live under the assumption that progress is inevitable.

Progress isn't inevitable.

Civilization is one of those very rare things that requires a very specific confluence of circumstances to occur, but once it does, spreads like a virus. You aren't anymore likely to get civilization, on any scale, from a bunch of humans all living in the same place, than you are to create life just by having a bunch of RNA and mud in a tub left outside. It *might* happen, and if it did, it'd spread so far and wide so quickly, you'd have trouble telling where the source was afterwards, but much more likely, you'll just be left with a stinking mess.

Granted, there were probably all manner of fantastical cultures, nations of tribes, and such, lost to history, that may have even developed agriculture on one level or another, but never thought it in their interest to settle down so resolutely in one place as to build cities, and thus left behind little to no evidence of their existence. It's also true that civilizations often tend to be coastal, and a lot of the coast has since vanished, so there maybe a few more ancient cities to be found under the water. It's entirely likely, however, there are no more than a handful of such proto-civilizations predating Samaria left to be found. Agriculture also always faces a major hurdle, as it often creates a population explosion that it can't compensate for, as one tends to stop letting soil rest in order to attempt to keep up with said population explosion, and what follows is salted land, and famine, preventing your civilization from reaching the heights where it can create cities, or falling to dust directly afterwards. There's several great filters any would-be civilization has to overcome before it can leave behind evidence of its existence that would last for hundreds of thousands of years.