70,000 to 40,000 BC

Jan 2016
34
Driffield
#1
Haven't been on here for ages. But here I am with Part 2 of Timeline of World History where the migration out of Africa to colonise Asia, Australia and Europe begins. There are various theories as to what happened but the main consensus is that a single migration occurred through the Sinai rather than the alternative theory of crossing the Red Sea. Despite that humans would reach Australia tens of thousands of years earlier than in Europe even though the year we reached Europe has been pushed back to approx 45,000 BC.

https://timelineofworldhistory.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/70000-bc-to-40000-bc/
 
Dec 2016
6
Florida
#2
I don't mean to be argumentative, so if I come across as such - give me 10 lashings and I will think before I reply again. If humans didn't begin agriculture until 10,000 - 8,000 BC or BCE are you talking about the Neanderthals crossing Pangaea?
 
Jan 2016
34
Driffield
#5
I don't mean to be argumentative, so if I come across as such - give me 10 lashings and I will think before I reply again. If humans didn't begin agriculture until 10,000 - 8,000 BC or BCE are you talking about the Neanderthals crossing Pangaea?
I think u need 10 lashings with the cat o nine tails. Unless of course Neanderthals bumped into Dinosaurs like in The Flintstones lol.
 

Asherman

Forum Staff
May 2013
3,277
Albuquerque, NM
#6
Zarak, I hope that your intent is to discuss human history (70000-40000 BCE) here, and not merely luring our members to your site. The period of you post is long before any written records were made beyond some surviving Rock Art. So we expect you will confine yourself to Rock Art, and the physical evidence left from the Paleolithic forward. This seems a more natural fit for a site focused on Anthropology than History, but lets see if you can make it work. I would want to see links to your site very often, if at all.

Carry on.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
34,397
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#7
I don't mean to be argumentative, so if I come across as such - give me 10 lashings and I will think before I reply again. If humans didn't begin agriculture until 10,000 - 8,000 BC or BCE are you talking about the Neanderthals crossing Pangaea?
Pangaea broke up 175 million years ago - long, long before the Neanderthals.
 
Jan 2016
34
Driffield
#8
Zarak, I hope that your intent is to discuss human history (70000-40000 BCE) here, and not merely luring our members to your site. The period of you post is long before any written records were made beyond some surviving Rock Art. So we expect you will confine yourself to Rock Art, and the physical evidence left from the Paleolithic forward. This seems a more natural fit for a site focused on Anthropology than History, but lets see if you can make it work. I would want to see links to your site very often, if at all.

Carry on.
Unfortunately I have to start somewhere and that somewhere is prehistory when humans first appear on the scene. It is not my intention to lure members to my site from here. As it is likely that I will not get to proper history until the classical Greek period for say at least 2 years, it is probably best if I don't post any future links on to this site and leave. All I can say is that Learning History does not get many articles anyway and the idea for this was for people to learn whether it is prehistory or history. Take some history podcasts as an example.
 

Von Ranke

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
6,377
Thistleland
#10
History begins with the invention of writing.

Everything before that is pre-history.
That is the general consensus of most historians and one that I have vigorously defended on threads which have discussed exactly this. However, it would be foolish in the extreme to argue that prehistory is somehow beyond the pale on our forum simply because the evidence of anthropologists, archaeologists, osteoarchaeologists et al base some of their findings of human activity in a pre literate society on a different set of standards. The human past did not start with the emergence of the written word and, although that is our comfort zone, history is increasingly becoming an inter-disciplinary activity. Provided the OP submits his posts in the correct forum and follows the rules I see no reason why he should not be allowed to broaden discussion on the human past.