Sumeria Older Than Ancient Egypt??

Originally posted by AksumVanguard Now I never said Stonehedge is that old..... archealogist always suspected it to go back further than Neolithic period,around 8000 bce because it is suspected to take very long to construct and it was always annexed in construction.

The Upper-Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic periods are different eras and cannot be vagely lumped together when looking of a non-existent prehistoric Atlantis,

Some of the arguments are based on the faulty orthodox modern evolutionary/geological theoretical constructs and dating methods (ie "ice age/paleolithic -> mesolithic -> neolithic -> dynastic//Sumerian).

Stonehenge had mycenaean and egyptian arefacts.
Lake Dwellings (= Western/Windmill Hill ~ Merimde) had Egyptian wheat [Joseph].
Sumerian (& Indus & pr-Elam) bones were Combe Capelids (Aurignacian).
Cambridge Anc Hist (& Sphinx) evidence that Old kingdom was cooler/wetter, [likewise with Mohenjo-daro].
Atlantis 9000 was 900 [10 month year] of Moeris (ca 1400) in Herodotus.
Ice Age(s)/shifts mentioned by Hopis, in bk of Job, in Thor &/or fimbulvetr myths, etc.
Jim Nienhuis points out 2 submerged delta cities of 12th dyn in Herodotus maybe evidence of end of ice age (rising sea levels).
Uruk 1 can't be after Uruk phase (which contemp with Semainian of Egypt).

Ethiopia/Egypt was Silver Age in classical. (bk of Daniel says Golden was Babel, Genesis says golden was Havilah?)
Bey said lower egypt older than upper not v-v.
Punt[1] was not necessarily sth Arabia or somalia, (the Punt[2] of Hatshepsut at least was Ponape?)
Egyptians called Kush "vile/wretched". (Kush maybe Kur with r/sh intchge [bit-agusi? hindu kush/kushana? cissian/kassi? kish? caucasus?])
proto-dynastic Egypt was invaded by sea (arak knife handle etc) and not necessarily via  sinai/arabia.

cheers,
Sean.

sorry to go slightly off topic.
are you laughing at or with? if at what so funny, correct me if i'm wrong - i dont necessarily know all that much or everything.
source for Stonehenge (#?)/Wessex having mycenaean beads, amber discs, arrowshaft straighteners and gateway similarity are Chadderton (Time Detectives) and Gerald Hawkins (Stonehenge Decoded).
I think the source for Egyptian faience beads at Henge &/or in Wessex was Hawkins too.
(Stonehenge trilithon related to Mystery Hill, Tonga trilithon, mycenaean gateway, and maybe grt pyr trilithon/niche?
henge may perhaps relate to Atlas temple of spheres, Atlantis concentric, ring & cup marks, etc??)
(someone else on this forum in atlantis topic also mentioned egyptian pharaoh name on balearic megalith?)
I once thought that maybe Neanderthals were the labour since Coon says they were pushing heavy loads, or giants.
Stone Age = mega-lithic = giants; or Heliolithic?

About the sphinx I believe the 30000BC is a bit too much.

Last serious and constant "rains" in the area are believed to be around 15-10000BC (strong connection with the ending of the last Glacial period ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period )

Like with all systems there is a certain inertia to it from the constant rain period and constant drought period of the region.

Moreso specific to the rain erosion it would have been nothing left of the sphinx at all if it would have been under the "rain" for 15-20000 years. For what it's worth generally limestone gets dissolved by water quite fast certainly in 5000years of rain it would have been just a shapeless mound.

I didn't look extremely focused on the issue but the rain errosion proof (few pics I've seen) certainly seems the most likely explanation of all I've read so far (I'm a geophysicist myself and have done quite a few geology courses).

Originally posted by pinguin   I don't agree. City means civilization. In any case, Jerico is way older than Sumer an Egypt, and a city in Turkey that I can't recall is even older.

Edited by Vorian - 24-Mar-2009 at 10:00

If cities appeared without agriculture, the opposite is also true. In the highlands of New Guinea, agriculture exists since, at least, 5.000 years ago. No city was ever developed there though, before the arrival of westerners.

Actually it makes sense. Who would choose a lifestyle of hard work in the fields and the unhealthy environment that was the ancient city when there was an abundance of resources to harvest and hunt?

Originally posted by Dacian hunter-gatherers presume a nomadic lifestyle agriculture a sedentary one you cannot have hunter-gatherers building cities as even a small community would definitely strip the surrounding lands pretty fast and as a consequence they would have to move in search of other rich places (rich in food supply that is)

Originally posted by Dacian [QUOTE=Paul][QUOTE=Dacian] the community will exhaust all valuable products the area has to offer, proccesing this they will increase their numbers for sure but at a point they will have to move out or starve to death   how would they cope with the increasing population?