| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
| Hyperboreans: General Principles Human beings are a cold-adapted species. |
Did you cover this? I wouldn't have thought it is so.
| While all life presently on Earth is to some extent cold-adapted in its evolutionary history, human beings are among those species that experienced radical change during the latest inter-glacial period or periods. |
OK
| During this latest inter-glacial period, humans in the northern hemisphere were unable to reach the southern hemisphere (as were many other warm-blooded species). Various groups of humans settled into ecological niches associated with bands of latitude. |
I suppose this can be argued.
| Human civilization, and the character traits associated with civilization, were birthed during the last great inter-glacial period when a large number of humans settled in the northern polar region, despite its seasonal hostility. |
If you are going to use technical terms like 'civilisation' you'll have to accept orthodox dating. Civilisation ('living in cities') happened c 3000 BC. Unless you are saying we are living in the last great interglacial, which I suppose we are.
| The polar zone, though subjected to periodic cold and darkness, enjoyed the advantage of relative sterility, in terms of disease. Bacteria, and the insects on which it thrives, was there greatly reduced (as it is today). |
Definitely a USP for your theory.
| During this latest inter-glacial period, those most northern human beings "transformed from a naked creature that could use simple throwing weapons (spears with stone tips), into fully-clothed creatures who had mastered complex weaponry and machinery with a fully-functional textile industry." |
OK. There certainly was a transformation between what orthodoxy calls the the Old Stone Age and the New Stone Age, in the period 100,000 to 30,000 BC, and it seems to have happened to the north of the torrid zone.
| These "Hyperborieans" likely mastered stellar navigation, however, their range was limited, as the ecological zones beyond the polar zone grew increasingly hostile to them in terms of the bacteriological environment. |
Orthodoxy believes it was getting colder.
| Hyperborean civilization collapsed at the onset of the last glacial period (an extinction period). |
OK, ex hypothesi.
| During that ice-age, the Hyperboreans, along with other northern species) moved southward. This move was enabled by a general drop in global temperature but also necessitated by the ecological collapse of the northern environment (it being swallowed up by ice-caps). |
And presumably they could replace the current occupiers by dint of their technical advances.
| Hostile bacteria limited the Hyperboreans to coastal environments. Even there, disease decimated their numbers (the far north being a uniquely sterile environment). These same diseases all but eliminated any possibility of their penetrating continental interiors |
Is this strictly necessary? It will be a hard argument to sustain.
| (these coast line settlements would later be swallowed up by the sea, when the ice caps melted). |
Along with their archeological evidence, if this will help.
| Wherever they settled, the Hyperboreans adapted by interbreeding with local, more robust human populations. |
Droit de seigneur.
| Human beings present on the Earth today are mixtures of various local stock with Hyperboreans. No pure Hyperboreans survive. They, and all other human species existent at that time, went extinct during this most-recent glacial period. However; the vast majority of the genetic makeup of humans today is Hyperborean in origin. All these changes took place north of the equator. "For generations after the northern polar zone became uninhabitable, the equator itself continued to prove impenetrable to the Hyperborean genome." |
OK
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Hyperboreans: General Principles Human beings are a cold-adapted species. |
Did you cover this? I wouldn't have thought it is so. |
It was one of the first points I made.
Our instinct to wear clothing. That's the big one.
But I listed a number of characteristics that we share with many other species, all of which are clearly adaptations to the cold.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | If you are going to use technical terms like 'civilisation' you'll have to accept orthodox dating. Civilisation ('living in cities') happened c 3000 BC. Unless you are saying we are living in the last great interglacial, which I suppose we are. |
Civilization began in the north during the last inter-glacial period (before the ice age). All its remains were destroyed by glaciers. I'm avoiding dates. I think they're all wrong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | OK. There certainly was a transformation between what orthodoxy calls the the Old Stone Age and the New Stone Age, in the period 100,000 to 30,000 BC, and it seems to have happened to the north of the torrid zone. |
These were not the Hyperboreans. All these people were getting what technology they had via trade with the Hyperboreans or via cultural osmosis. The Hyperboreans remained in the north. Deseases at lower latitudes kept the Hyperboreans at sterile latitudes (above the arctic circle).
Keep in mind that the arctic circle was warm but cooled for half the year and produced no food for half the year.
Nowhere else on Earth was there any impactful seasonal cooling.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| THE HYPERBOREANS: HUMAN ORIGINS PART VI When modern humans evolved, like the Placentals, they emerged exclusively in the northern hemisphere. Any human beings that may have been present in the south were wholly isolated from these influences, cut-off from the north by the impassable torrid zone. |
OK
| But were there, during that inter-glacial period, any humans isolated in the southern hemisphere? |
Neither the dates not the names are entirely to be trusted (I agree with you there) but officially in Australia it was c 50,000 BP, in South America it was c 15,000 BP and in Africa... maybe, 20,000.
| I believe there were. And what happened to them affords the strongest evidence that all I've told you is true. |
I look forward to it. You will have to produce un peu evidence.
| Europeans did not explore the Southern Hemisphere until the near modern age. The Southern-most continent, Antarctica, was not discovered until the 18th century. Even the coast of Australia, which is located a considerable distance to the north of Antarctica, was not fully mapped until about that same time. |
OK
| There are many anomalies associated with the settlement of the global south---some of which we shall shortly examine---but one in particular has to do with the people Europeans encountered below the equator. While most of these peoples were equipped with simple machinery---the bow and arrow being virtually universal---one group was not. The Aborigines of Australia. |
True. Politically charged. Have you ruled out Polynesians, Ainu, SE Asian hill people, Siberians and Esquimaux?
| While no peoples living below the equator possessed even the most simple technology of the wheel, all employed the bow. All except the aboriginal population of Australia. In fact, Australia's aborigines lacked not just simple machinery. They lacked something else as well. Clothing. |
Intriguing. Could you check out Patagonia? I have a folk memory of something similar there from (?) Beagle literature.
| When the Europeans arrived in Australia, they were shocked to find apparent human beings living there who wore not a stitch of clothes but ran about as naked as our first parents in Eden: Not wearing even loin-cloths or even waist-bands to bind their genitals. The aborigines lived as freely as did the wildlife. Aside from their spoken language (which certainly makes them human), about all that was separating them from animals was their use of weapons. Specifically, throwing weapons. |
Before reading on, boomerangs and knobkerries (?) were something of a revelation to Europe.
| Indeed; the aborigines were the true masters of the throwing weapon, having created one that returns to the hand of the man who hurls it, a feat accomplished by no other race of human on the planet. It is almost as though the Aborigines had enjoyed tens of thousands of years in which to perfect the throwing weapon, after everyone else had adopted more sophisticated hunting implements. |
Including throwing via slings.
| What can account for the stark differences between aboriginal "culture" and that of every other human being then alive on the planet? Of course, the answer is the Wallace and Weber lines: That same invisible border that seemingly isolates the marsupials of Australia. |
Ingenious. Though they would need boats of some kind to get that far so, given the geography of Indonesia, they shouldn't have been as isolated as marsupials.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
BACTERIA IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE BARRIER
It was my experience in Africa that made me realize just how monumental is the role of bacteria (disease) in the history of Humanity. Within my first two years on the continent, I came down with an infection that would have killed me were it not for penicillin, and I was relatively near the coastline.
It was disease that had Arab slavers locked away on Zanzibar (just offshore of Dar) for so many centuries and, if the ruins of their mosques are any testament, they never ventured more than 100 yards ashore on the mainland.
It was medicines that enabled Europeans to penetrate Africa and, even then, these medicines were of questionable impact. The average lifespan of a White man on the African interior conformed to my experience: Just two years.
What I realized was that all continental interiors are Africas. The phenomenon of disease isn't something unique to Africa, though it is perhaps far worse there; for heat increases the virulence, abundance, variety, and transmissability of disease. Nevertheless; all continental interiors are inherently hostile places.
Graham Hancock wanted a global, coastal civilization but, despite his travels around the world, he never hit upon the (now seemingly) obvious reason why civilization could be nowhere else: Disease. If his Atlantean hypothesis was correct, those Atlanteans would have had no chance any deeper into any heartland than the Arabs ventured in Africa.
My Hyperborean hypothesis makes the danger to our originators that much greater. By placing the origin of Civilization, and much of the modern human genome, north of the Arctic Circle, I place it within what has always been Earth's most sterile environment. Humans originating there, having adapted to that environment over tens of thousands of years (perhaps hundreds of thousands), could have survived nowhere else on the Earth.
I realized what happened to them (and us) also from my experience in the cattle industry in Africa. No European cattle can survive in Africa. None. They all die out within a few generations. The only way to create a cow or bull suitable for quality beef production is to breed it with local stock. The ideal is to obtain the robustness without sacrificing the fattiness and flavor.
The ideal for the Hyperboreans (presumably unintentional) was to obtain the robustness of the local stock without sacrificing intelligence, creativity, and their egalitarian nature. Across the globe, they obtained varying degrees of success.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Ingenious. Though they would need boats of some kind to get that far so, given the geography of Indonesia, they shouldn't have been as isolated as marsupials. |
Not necessarily. That entire region has been a giant subcontinent from time to time in ages past.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| THE HYPERBOREANS: HUMAN ORIGINS PART VI: Continued... I do not mean, of course, that the Aborigines and Marsupials are holdovers from the same time period. This is obviously not the case as the Aborigines are placental creatures. What I do mean is that both types have managed to find themselves isolated in the same territory as the last redoubt of their kind. They found themselves isolated together there in this same age only because humans managed to spread more rapidly and to a greater extent than had any other species before them. This was true of the early humans of the early inter-glacial period but even more so true of modern humans of the post-glacial world. |
OK
| The "civilized" human beings of the post-glacial world (our own era) proved far more efficient at rapidly spreading themselves globally than did any other species before them: Humans from the north raced over the same territory in centuries that had taken placental mammals millennia to conquer, catching up with marsupials on the continent of Australia. |
So the Torrid Zone had lost all force. As it does in all interglacials.
| But they caught-up there also with something more interesting than Kangaroos. What they found, in the aborigines of Australia, were humans who had not been influenced by exposure to the polar zone during the last inter-glacial period. |
OK
| The Aborigines of Australia are humans much as they were prior to the last interglacial period. These are the last remnants of the kind of creature we once were, before the torrid zone arose at the equator and separated the humans of the north from the humans of the south. These last of the southerly humans, due to the geographical composition of the southern hemisphere, never had opportunity to migrate to a polar zone and were thus never subjected directly to its influence, nor subjected indirectly to the influence of those humans that migrated to the polar zone. |
This must have been true of all -- shall we say, hominids -- in all the glacial aeons. Who therefore were wiped out by the ingress of northern hemisphere types each time. Yet the marsupials/placentals eem to be operating by different rules.
| This is why the Aborigines never adopted clothing and never developed even simple machinery. When discovered, they lived as once did our ancestors: Wearing no clothes and utilizing no weapons more sophisticated than those that could be hurled from their hands. |
OK
| These are not the only differences between them and the rest of the human race. To this day, the humans of the north that settled in Australia heap scorn upon the Aborigines, regarding them often as little more than beasts. Until 1967, Aborigines in Australia were officially classed as "wildlife." |
On the other hand they were the only 'aborigine humans' exclusively in contact with WASPs. Are they so different from hottentots, Amazonian amerindians etc?
| To this day, many Australians (indeed, many people the world over) have a visceral reaction of disgust both toward the behavior of aborigines and toward even their physical appearance. It is often difficult to perceive them as human. |
I lived with one once. She seemed OK to me but then again she was post-1967.
| My own view that Aborigines represent an isolated pocket of a primitive human type is not novel. Many have suggested it. Culturally, I have zero doubt of it. However; the genetic studies are unclear. |
As they always are.
| I have read recently that the Aborigines are more genetically related to Europeans than they are to Black Africans. |
I tend to this (unscientific) view myself.
| Assuming these results have not been manipulated to suit the liberal morals of our age, I suggest that this is attributable to interbreeding; for contact between Europe and Australia may have occurred far earlier than is presently believed (a topic I hope to raise in the Mud Flood thread). |
It is certainly true that it is as difficult to find 100% Australian aborigines as, say, North American black Africans.
| Regardless; what is happening in Australia is a process similar to what happened in the northern hemisphere when the Hyperboreans first came south: Northern genes eventually mix with those of the local, robust populations. This time, however, due to advances in modern medicine, the mixing is less driven by necessity and may take far longer to fully effectuate. |
As a general comment, it seems to me this is a much less profitable area to explore than your original, starker, geographical theory. Unless it is essential to establishing it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | The "civilized" human beings of the post-glacial world (our own era) proved far more efficient at rapidly spreading themselves globally than did any other species before them: Humans from the north raced over the same territory in centuries that had taken placental mammals millennia to conquer, catching up with marsupials on the continent of Australia. |
So the Torrid Zone had lost all force. As it does in all interglacials. |
The torrid zone loses its force during glacials. I often get the terms mixed up in my own head as well. I think we should just switch to using terms like "warm periods" and "cold periods."
Warm periods are the norm and last longer. Cold periods are brief and always precipitated by catastrophe: Catastrophe that wipes out massive swaths of vegetation on the global surface.
| These last of the southerly humans, due to the geographical composition of the southern hemisphere, never had opportunity to migrate to a polar zone and were thus never subjected directly to its influence, nor subjected indirectly to the influence of those humans that migrated to the polar zone. |
This must have been true of all -- shall we say, hominids -- in all the glacial aeons. Who therefore were wiped out by the ingress of northern hemisphere types each time. |
Bingo!
| Yet the marsupials/placentals seem to be operating by different rules. |
I say the same rules. Humans/hominids are just much better at getting about. The marsupials are doomed but we've managed to catch the process just prior to completion (it needs perhaps another few tens of thousands of years to finish).
| On the other hand they were the only 'aborigine humans' exclusively in contact with WASPs. Are they so different from hottentots, Amazonian amerindians etc? |
They seem to be the only humans on the planet who never developed simple machinery and it is that that marks them as true southerly types, which is to say: Humans never exposed to the direct influence of the extreme north nor to the indirect influence of those humans in the extreme north. They are living fossils of what we were prior to the last long inter-glacial/warm period. Human (not hominids) but not "modern" humans.
| As a general comment, it seems to me this is a much less profitable area to explore than your original, starker, geographical theory. Unless it is essential to establishing it. |
The existence of humans on the planet, within the historical period, who demonstrated no shame in nakedness and no knowledge of weaponry other than throwing weapons, is a remarkable shock given that this is the anticipated condition of human development just prior to the last inter-glacial/warm period. It is also particularly significant to the Hyperborean Hypothesis as a whole when these humans happen to have been discovered only on Earth's southern-most inhabited landmass.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
I will await your comments on "HUMAN ORIGINS PART VI: Continued..." and "HUMAN ORIGINS PART VII" before continuing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
THE HYPERBOREANS: HUMAN ORIGINS PART VII - Continued....
[OK...I couldn't hold back from moving forward, but don't forget to read those other posts]
The simple Hyperborean model would have us classify the Australian Aborigines, like the marsupials that share their island, as the last remaining "southerly types" of their kind, and classify all other humans as "hybrid northerly types" who have both slowly and (more recently) rapidly invaded the southern hemisphere over the thousands of years since the beginning of this last glacial/cold period (ice age).
I say that this simple model is both true and inaccurate. It is true in the broad strokes but inaccurate for failing to account for the wide variety of traits evident among many peoples, particularly those native to our post-glacial southern hemisphere.
Given that Australia's Aborigines represent the typical "southerly" human, we can conclude that northerly humans exclusively developed and adopted machinery (indeed; our aim is to attribute to "northern exposure," the need to develop machinery). The use of the bow, which requires the design and manufacture of two independent components (bow plus arrow) and also twine (useful also for textile making), thus immediately marks a human as a northerly type. Thus, every human being that presently lives in the global south, excepting the Australian Aborigines, is a northerly type.
It can be no coincidence then that the Wallace and Webber lines separate not just marsupials and placentals but also southerly and northerly types of humans. North of the lines, all humans have the bow; south of the lines, no humans have the bow. Clearly; there is something about this region of Indonesia that slows the progress of all invasive species (though what that is remains elusive to me). The Wallace and Webber lines are indeed a "front" (in keeping with my initial insight), marking the current limit of the southward progress of northerly species, but the region of these lines clearly functions also as an insulator, if not an impregnable barrier.
We may yet discover the nature of this insulator but I've not yet gotten that far.
Nevertheless; the human beings that are present on Planet Earth appear to be of more complex composition than the mere binary division my hypothetical equatorial barrier facilitates. "Northerly" types, which are infinitely more numerous than the remaining southerly types, come in many varieties. Some of that variety I account for with interbreeding between Hyperboreans and the local robust humans, which were originally stratified at various northern latitudes. But, given this origin, how did those northerly types that spearheaded the invasion of the global south---and which are now native to those lands immediately north of the Wallace and Webber Lines (but range as far and wide as Brazil and Paupa New Guinea)---come to inherit at least some Hyperborean genetics and technology and yet so few of the other characteristics we generally associate with civilization?
One characteristic in particular is strikingly absent among them.
An aversion to cannibalism.
An uncomfortable truth about the Aborigines, not yet mentioned, is that they were not only given to nakedness when discovered, they were also partial to eating each other. Strangely, despite sharing little else culturally or genetically with those humans to their immediate north, they did share with the Indonesians this same propensity. The natives of the southwestern Pacific were known man-eaters into the 20th century. And this trait they shared with the far-away natives of Brazil who, to this day, are still not so finicky as to refuse a morsel of man-flesh.
All of those peoples are known also for their extreme hostility to outsiders. The hate they have for one another is what enabled tribes sharing the same hunting acreages to develop not only divergent costuming but also mutually indecipherable languages. That would be impossible except they went millennia without cause or desire even to speak with one another! I doubt they differentiate between outsiders and beasts, hunting and consuming everything but family members.
These are not northerly traits. Canibalism, in particular, is known only in the global south. It doesn't exist in the north, except perhaps as ritual and then only among the most southerly peoples.
We seem to have then a second type of human, in addition to Aborigine, which is not fully "modern." This second type of non-modern man, however, is also not truly Southerly.
I am unaware of any name for these peoples---one that encompasses their types all the way from Brazil to Cambodia (and possibly Southern Africa)---so I will have to invent one. I propose we call them "bowmen." Men with bows---and little else but loincloths.
The question is: What is the origin of these bowmen?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I have given myself a sound thrashing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| THE HYPERBOREANS: HUMAN ORIGINS PART VI: Continued... The simple model of the Hyperborean Hypothesis has the Earth divided at the middle during the long inter-glacial period preceding the last ice age. This divide separated humans in the northern hemisphere from humans in the southern hemisphere, Australian aborigines being the last remaining population of true southerly humans. Those humans in the north alone had access to a polar zone and migrated there in great numbers, though other humans remained at various latitudes closer to the equatorial zone. |
OK
| Humans in the polar zone were deeply altered by this exposure, developing there every characteristic we today recognize as prerequisites to civilization. When the last ice age began, these humans were forced southward to spread over the whole world, surviving only by interbreeding with other, more robust local humans. |
A bit of push-pull here. They're innovating because of the cold but then being forced southwards by... er... the cold.
| That is the basic model and it works well to account for the general characteristics of various human groups. However; there is much evidence to suggest that the real story is far more complex. |
A bit of cake and eat it here.
| The Aborigines of Australia may be identified as a southerly human population by their lack of clothing and lack of even simple machinery. However; there are many more human groups nearly so primitive. Are we to conclude that the Hyperboreans headed south during the ice age armed only with fish hooks and bows? Outside of Europe and the Orient, that's about all the technology we have any real evidence for. Could these primitives really be descendants of the Hyperboreans? |
They are already hybrids, 'surviving only by interbreeding with other, more robust local humans'.
| And though Aborigines are virtually unique in their preference for total nudity, other human groups are certainly less demure about nakedness than typical Londoners (or even Sweeds). |
I resent being compared to typical Londoners.
| Brazilian tribes often make due with little more than a cord of string to restrain their erections. Assuming the Brazilians are not themselves South American "Abos" and share our northerly ancestry, this hardly fits our model of southward-moving shy Hyperboreans ashamed to go about without their furs and frocks. |
This is an unexpected rod you have found to beat yourself with.
| It is obvious that the simple model, though perhaps useful in accounting for human origins in broad strokes, doesn't do well in accounting for the details. If everyone is a Hyperborean, why doesn't everyone act like one? |
I still feel there are simpler, more racist, assumptions you could make but I assume you have a reason...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| THE HYPERBOREANS: HUMAN ORIGINS PART VII One of the great anomalies of history is the shockingly vacant nature of much of the southern hemisphere into the near-modern age. |
Good spot.
| Watching recently a documentary on South Africa, I was confronted once again with the surprising fact that, when the Dutch first settled there in the 18th century, they found no "Blacks." The land was empty but for a small number of hunter-gatherer "bushmen," more closely related to Indonesians than to "Black Africans." While the Dutch were settling the cape and moving north, the Blacks were settling the coasts and moving south. Where the two groups met is still identifiable today and is even now called "the border." |
This was all regarded as Afrikaner nationalist propaganda at the time, but (at the time) I recognised it to be true.
| The same phenomenon is seen in the vast South Pacific. Oddly, the Polynesians were spreading from island to island at about the same time the Europeans were sailing round the horn in whaling ships. Captain Cook was beaten to Hawaii by the Polynesians who killed him only by perhaps a couple of centuries at best. |
This I did not know. I trust you have checked it all out thoroughly and didn't stop while it was still being helpful.
| We can understand why it might have taken Europeans so long to move below the equator (simple distance from their indigenous lands being the principle factor) but what could have kept the Blacks out of South Africa? It certainly wasn't the Bushmen. And what kept the Polynesians out of the South Pacific? |
Are you satisfied that the equatorial torrid zone barrier was the same in Africa as in the Pacific? And it seems not to have applied in the Americas--or at least not at this late date. (Unless it did!)
| The Hyperborean Hypothesis posits a barrier of high temperature existing at the equator during the last great inter-glacial period. However; the emergence of the ice-caps could have been made possible only by a dramatic reduction in temperature globally, which must have eliminated any such barrier. The global south should have been accessible to humans as soon as the ice-age began. |
See my last thought. I am assuming you have a clear timeline in your own head. Your Hyperboreans are taking on the role of 'Atlanteans' in extravagant revisionist pre-history. They sort of pop in and pop out of the story (not to mention vaginas), giving Mankind a nudge here, a helping hand there, before disappearing.
| Nevertheless; this same Hyperborean Hypothesis obviously draws inspiration from the writing of the ancients who testified that, within their living experience, the southern hemisphere was inaccessible to them due to the presence of a "torrid zone" at the equator. The settlement patterns of the modern age appear to attest to the accuracy of their reporting. The whole phenomenon uncomfortably suggests the persistence of an equatorial barrier into near historical times: A barrier that sheltered southern Africa and the South Pacific from those humans in the northern hemisphere. |
I accept the phenomenon more than I accept the tall tales.
| The clear implication of this conclusion is that the torrid zone barrier, which the Hyperborean Hypothesis posits to have existed during the last inter-glacial period, either survived into near-modern times or was revived sometime after it failed when the ice-age began. |
Either or.
| There is some climate-related evidence for a revival of the torrid zone: We have the tantalizing "record" of what scholars call the "Medieval Warm Period." |
I've heard of the Little Ice Age but not this one.
| The pattern of colonization of the global south hints of the possibility that this so-called warm period was longer-lasting than climate science acknowledges and might it have been warmer still than now believed. Let us assume so and see if we might make better sense of human population distribution world wide. |
Wilco.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| BACTERIA IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE BARRIER It was my experience in Africa that made me realize just how monumental is the role of bacteria (disease) in the history of Humanity. Within my first two years on the continent, I came down with an infection that would have killed me were it not for penicillin, and I was relatively near the coastline. |
I have just finished a course myself. It seems not to have been made otiose by bug evolution as they are always telling us antibiotics most assuredly will. Despite it being the first one. We got lucky, I guess. However from a world history perspective, the one you are operating with, humans eventually do it under their own steam.
| It was disease that had Arab slavers locked away on Zanzibar (just offshore of Dar) for so many centuries and, if the ruins of their mosques are any testament, they never ventured more than 100 yards ashore on the mainland. |
That wouldn't save them from infectious diseases, would it? Unless mosque is short for mosquito-free.
| It was medicines that enabled Europeans to penetrate Africa and, even then, these medicines were of questionable impact. The average lifespan of a White man on the African interior conformed to my experience: Just two years. |
Unless maybe they kept to the White Highlands, the High Veldt etc.
| What I realized was that all continental interiors are Africas. The phenomenon of disease isn't something unique to Africa, though it is perhaps far worse there; for heat increases the virulence, abundance, variety, and transmissability of disease. Nevertheless; all continental interiors are inherently hostile places. |
I'll go for it. The Greeks, the Carthaginians etc were always going on about the natives 'in the interior'. Cripes, that's not very far in Sicily.
| Graham Hancock wanted a global, coastal civilization but, despite his travels around the world, he never hit upon the (now seemingly) obvious reason why civilization could be nowhere else: Disease. If his Atlantean hypothesis was correct, those Atlanteans would have had no chance any deeper into any heartland than the Arabs ventured in Africa. |
I just watched a YouTube which claimed we're still hugger-mugger near the coast.
| My Hyperborean hypothesis makes the danger to our originators that much greater. By placing the origin of Civilization, and much of the modern human genome, north of the Arctic Circle, I place it within what has always been Earth's most sterile environment. Humans originating there, having adapted to that environment over tens of thousands of years (perhaps hundreds of thousands), could have survived nowhere else on the Earth. |
You will be in direct opposition to my Reindeer Thesis but I will crush you at a moment of my own choosing.
| I realized what happened to them (and us) also from my experience in the cattle industry in Africa. No European cattle can survive in Africa. None. They all die out within a few generations. The only way to create a cow or bull suitable for quality beef production is to breed it with local stock. The ideal is to obtain the robustness without sacrificing the fattiness and flavor. |
Well, cattle have been around for thousands of years. It's strange they didn't hit on the idea themselves. But that may be one for you so I shall say no more.
| The ideal for the Hyperboreans (presumably unintentional) was to obtain the robustness of the local stock without sacrificing intelligence, creativity, and their egalitarian nature. Across the globe, they obtained varying degrees of success. |
And you and me are the end-product. Well me, anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
