A Layman Shoots the Great Ice Age Migration Theory in the Foot

Thousands of years ago the western continents we now know as the Americas were open spaces of land, vegetation and animals. No human had ever stepped foot on these continents until the great ice age migrations around 15 thousand years ago. Scientists believe that the migration happened in two stages, and followed two universally accepted routes, both leading to same destination. The first route passing through the western coastline of the present day United States, and a few thousand years later, the second route by way of the central plains. This is how humans from the Euro-Asian continent, crossed over on ice between the continental plates, entering into North America, and they did not stop there. These migrants continued on until reaching the tropical Yucatan peninsula in Central America, where they settled and founded great cities. Other migrants eventually wandered down as far as the southern tip of Argentina.

The great minds of science and archeology tell us that this is fact. It is taught in schools, and can be quoted in books. Science will present us with artifacts and research to prove these facts. Widely accepted scientific theories rest their validation on these facts. Are they right? Sure they are, as right as anyone else can be, trying to explain what happened fifteen thousand years ago, with nobody around but primitive humans. True, migration is a common trait and aspiration in human beings, and the scientific proof is difficult to dismiss. To science, the facts have been proven to be valid, and these are the present facts. Unfortunately for science, you do not have to be a learned scholar to know that they can get it wrong at times. They have gotten it wrong in the past before. Let us not forget our recent change in the solar system. Now that we no longer have nine 'planets', maybe it is time to reexamine their other scientific facts. We should not reexamine these facts because we suspect scientists of any conspiracy, but because there is no harm in supposing a different thought. Different perspectives often lead to new ideas.

Facts are facts, and theories are theories. Two plus two equals four. That is a fact. Nothing can be rethought or altered to change that fact. Not until humans first wrote down their experiences into coherent language do we have any facts, and even then many early documentation is thought of only as myth. We have calculations and testing from geology, astrology and anthropology, but often times the results cannot be proven when calculating ancient timetables. Even the carved stones and written transcripts can be misleading, or of suspicious origin. As a result, my perspective is a good as any. Despite accepted scientific facts, the migration story does not make any sense. There, I said it, and I feel much better. Call what I am about to say complete rubbish, or call me a lunatic. The migration theory is pure nonsense, because it bears no resemblance to human motivation. It is not in accordance with what humans' value when choosing territory to inhabit. Instead, the migration theory is in complete opposite. Think of it, many of the great civilizations were founded in lands near water, natural resources, vegetation and wildlife. Even Egyptians could grow food. A civilization must be capable of feeding a mass population.

It is not that South America does not meet these same requirements, but migrating there on foot is another matter. In spite of the extreme distance and hardships they faced traveling to get there, the Euro-Asian migrants chose only to build great civilizations in a South American jungle. During the first migration, it is believed that the upper-northern part of the continent was covered in ice, the perfect environment for humans wanting to migrate en-masse. Their journey down the continent would cross through the western coastline of the present day United States. We are also told that in both migrations, like a snail's trail, some of the migrants stayed behind in small, scattered groups along the routes. Both of the main groups continue south through dry and barren land, down a narrowing peninsula, until they reach the humid jungles of another small Central American peninsula.

There are even some who believe that Europeans or Asians came from the west by sea. Let us dispel that notion right away. Ponder this concept for a moment. Pacific islanders barely had enough resources to stay alive, much less send expeditions to create grand cities, as opposed to their humble grass huts. Even if the Asian mainland were to have sent colonists, would they have focused more on, their continual conquer and expansion undertakings on their own land, or land thousands of miles away? How could a small band of sea faring colonists have populated and built magnificent civilizations in such a short time? Were their civilizations even capable of colonizing at the time of the ice age migration? Keep in mind that 15,000 years ago, or even 10,000 years ago, humans were not colonizing by sea. They were too busy conquering their own lands. The result of the sea theory only brings us back to the northern migration, which is the generally accepted explanation.

About 2,500 years after the first one, the second migration begins, apparently with the same destination of South America in mind. How convenient. It is believed that the ice had subsided and created another route into the central plains. The warmth of the sun and wetness of the melted snow in these areas would have resulted in some vegetation, even in the grasslands of the central plains. How long does it take for nature to rebound? Judging by the weeds in my yard every season, it would not take very long on its own. Even so, if the main group bypassed the mostly treeless plains it would be understandable. A few thousand years earlier though, walking through the western coastline is another matter. It is possible that most of Washington and Oregon were still covered in ice. So if they entered what is now northern California, the ice had probably melted by then and nature was rebounding. There are only two valleys there that lead south. They would have walked around the San Francisco Bay to get to them. To the east of these valleys are the Rocky Mountains, a most unlikely route. To the west are jagged cliffs that stretch down the coastline into the sea. The only possible southern routes for the Euro-Asian wanderers are through the Salinas, and larger San Joaquin valleys of central California.

The climate in each valley would have been quite livable in this area. The big San Joaquin valley stretches from Sacramento all the way to Los Angeles. Today the valley is rather dry, and water for their farmlands is supplied by reservoirs. That would have been the worst-case scenario if the travelers entered this valley. Not much trouble if your people can build terrace plantations on the sides of mountains as the Incas did. Even if the San Joaquin valley was as dry as it is today, the Salinas valley would have been lush with vegetation and resources. The Salinas valley is closest to the sea with a mountain range on both sides as protection, and would most likely have been the route of the first migration. Having personally grown up in the Salinas valley, the earth is rich, and the climate averages seventy degrees year round. Even if the climate were different, it would not have been too cold or too hot to inhabit either valley. Scientists agree that this section of the continent was probably free of ice by now. The climate would at least have been similar to the colder climates the travelers supposedly came from. Yet they walked further down the valleys and entered into what is now southern California. Maybe Death Valley is the remains of what was once a great lake. Maybe it rose from the bottom of the sea. If there were any vegetation there at the time of the migration, it would probably not have been much. That, or the area was covered in water. You can understand why they would walk past this place. The hills of Los Angeles and San Diego, Arizona, or even New Mexico and Texas would have been a better choice to live, but both groups of migrants decided to go even further south into what is now Mexico.

They then would walk down what can only be called a dry, narrowing peninsula that connects the two continents. Until you get to the jungles of the Yucatan Peninsula today, there is mostly nothing but desert and very little water. Along the coastlines is some vegetation, but a rocky mountain range stretches down the middle of the continent. Could Mexico have once been a tropical paradise at the time? Enticing the travelers to go further south? During the migration this region would have definitely been free of ice. Could there have been more vegetation here? Maybe it too was at the bottom of the sea and rose to become the almost barren peninsula that it is today. What were in the minds of the first migration when they journeyed through two green valleys, past Death Valley, through the hills of Los Angeles, to the coast of San Diego, and then looked upon these lands? As ignorant and superstitious as scholars think these people were, they would have headed back north for fear of walking into some evil domain. Why would they want to continue on after walking through more hospitable lands? More importantly, land full of resources. For sake of argument, let us suppose that there was at least some vegetation and water in Mexico to convince the travelers to go further south.

They then reached into the jungles of the Yucatan Peninsula and immediately founded great civilizations within a matter of several thousand years. Some say the Mayans began four to five thousand years ago. By this time the people they left scattered behind in the northern valleys were happy to live on deer, acorns and fish. On the plains, the remaining Euro-Asians wandered aimlessly in packs of small groups without horses, both groups never thinking to create civilizations in the fruitful land and better climate. That is another thing. If the South Americans had the mindset to organize and create civilizations, why did the North Americans not eventually aspire to do the same? In spite of the vast amount of resources North America has. These migrants never organized themselves like their cousins to the south did, even though they were cut from the same cloth, as it were. The general belief is that civilization in the Americas began with the Olmec and Mayans. The Incas and the Aztecs came later. That is an odd way of migrating. Travel through lands of forests, animals and water, then continue down through a thin peninsula desert, go into hot humid jungles, create a vast civilization, and then disappear. It just does not make any sense. Were the migrants too stupid to realize the potential of the northern continent? Being cold temperature people to begin with, why did they choose the heated jungles of South America?

This is the accepted theory of science, but it is still only a theory. It cannot be proven. Science can only go back so far before it becomes supposition. As we now know, science can sometimes be wrong. They have found remains in North America recently that have forced scientists to reevaluate how long humans have actually been on the continent. Everything that was thought before now has to be reevaluated and altered to fit the new calculations. If we look at how civilizations evolved in North and South America from a layman's point of view, it would seem that the Maya were always there. Then others later migrated to better climates, such as they were. This conclusion can be made even if given that the Euro-Asian migration crossed over ice and inhabited North America. It could be said that people on the northern continent shared the same traits and aspirations as the nomadic people wandering around aimlessly on ice.

But it makes better sense if the northern continent wanderers came from the south. In the south people were organized, and conquering civilizations ruled the land. What if some were exploring to expand north? What if some people grew weary of the oppression, or feared for their lives, and escaped into the northern desert? Nobody would chase them into that barren land. If people escaped to the north they were probably left for dead and never thought of again. Those who were able to cross the desert would eventually find better environs. Past experience with civilizations would serve to dissuade any aspirations of organizing and forming their own. Maybe they were just happy to be alive. Finding food and water wherever they went, the escapees would scatter into the wilderness and central plains living a nomadic life. It seems plausible, who is to say? Does the Bible not speak of people escaping into the desert wilderness? Could the American natives have their own tribes of Israel?

Organized civilization began in South America with the Maya. That is the accepted scientific supposition. The Olmecs and Maya are the oldest civilization on the continent that built cities on such a grand scale, using current scientific dating. To the south are hot and humid tropical jungles, mixed with rugged mountain ranges. No one thought to make a civilization there. Were the jungles further south too unbearable, the mountain ranges too inhospitable? Inexplicably the Maya abandoned their cities and for the most part, disappeared into the pages of history. By the time the Spaniards arrived, they were a shell of their former selves, and the cities were mostly empty. The Incas and Aztecs, whom we are told rose after the Maya, chose to live in Peru and what is now Mexico, respectively. The Mayans left their cities mostly abandoned. The Incas and Aztecs were conquered before they had a chance to do the same. When the rain forests are completely leveled by greedy corporations, we may find even older civilizations in the jungles of South America.

Anthropologists theorize that the Mayan civilization left their cities because of some unknown calamity. Some believe a drought (?), volcano, earth tremor, or major weather changes caused the exodus. Maybe even a combination of them all. What if the Mayan cities were built during a time when the climate in South America was less tropical? What if their cities were surrounded by fertile farmlands instead of jungle? Maybe the disaster could have been caused by a shift in the continental plate. Did a continental shift cause their downfall? If that were the case, what if the new vegetation that would naturally evolve in such a climate, began to strangle their farmlands? Suddenly the weather is more hot and humid. Think of what would happen to the farmlands of North America if the land suddenly shifted south towards the equator. Which plants would survive the heat and humidity, and what kind of plants would evolve to dominate?

The Mayans would plead in vain for their Gods to save them from this threat, with farmlands being consumed by the jungle. However they prayed, whatever they did, nothing would stop the heat and strangling vegetation. No longer able to produce the essential food they have been growing for thousands of years, they might have scattered north and south. This explains the rise of the Aztecs and Incas, and the same calamity may have befallen their crops, or maybe some other disaster threatened their survival. By the arrival of the Spaniards, the Aztecs and Incas may have been at the end of their rope. They had even resorted to human sacrifice, which was not a new concept to the Europeans. In every culture throughout the ages, human sacrifices have been performed by numerous societies. Only the Incas and Aztecs were so desperate, they turned the affair into a twisted mass ceremony in appeasement to their Gods. The Spaniards only had to bully them with their more advanced weaponry, and more importantly, spread their European diseases, to sufficiently conquer the Aztecs and Incas.

This scenario could have happened. It does sound reasonable. To say that nomadic European travelers spend 12,000 years getting to South America, and only a few thousand years later create three civilizations equal to, or surpassing any on the eastern continents makes less sense. How many years did it take Egyptians and Romans to grow from small nomadic tribes, organize themselves to populate a culture, and then grow to become powerful civilizations? And people such as these made their civilizations in wide, open space, not tangled jungles. Are we to believe that the Euro-Asian migrants evolved more quickly than the other cultures? Is it not possible that they were always in South America? It makes better sense. If humans were already on the western continent before the supposed migration, it would be reasonable that civilization in the Americas would begin in the warmer climate, even though their rise was later than the European countries. But why did they start so late?

If you accept the migration theory, they could have been just late bloomers, or the journey stalled their development. But by using these calculations it would seem that the Aztecs would have been even less evolved than the Spaniards found them. Spaniards noted at the time that the capital city of the Aztecs was larger and held more people than any they saw in Europe. And another equally great civilization rose and fell before the Aztecs, all accomplished by nomadic wanderers from the north within 12,000 years. Scientific data tells us that the South Americans built their civilizations later than their European counterparts. This required evolution and knowledge equal to those on the eastern continents in quicker time. Unless the migrants traveled in extremely large masses of people, it would require centuries of tribal groups vying for dominance until enough conquered people were attained to organize a population big enough to accomplish what they did. The Romans did it in the same amount of time, but they had been there for many thousands of years, and were the dominated people of another preexisting culture The Greeks were not Greeks until the Spartans and Trojans. How many years did it take their cultures to develop before the Greeks took what they did and further it?

Were the South Americans smarter? Yet despite the distance, despite the years of isolation the people of the great migration existed in, the pyramids they built are very similar to others around the globe. All pyramids have their own unique variations depending on where they are found, but it interesting that these great cultures all share the same building designs. And not one of them was constructed for occupation of living people. Does that indicate something? Is there a connection? The Incas were able to master masonry on a grander scale than anything found, in less than a thousand years. It is believed that the previously nomadic Incas came down from the Andes Mountains around 900 A.D. and in five to six hundred years grew into a civilization that engulfed the majority of the western coastline. They built large cities of perfectly fitted, mass proportional stones in mountain regions that even today we would have extreme difficulty in duplicating. Could the Incas have been there longer? By all accounts, the Inca are only as old as the Aztecs. Yet their stone masonry surpasses anything found on any continent.

It is difficult to find logic in the migration theory. The accepted facts still remain inexplicable and uncertain. Is it possible that sometime in the mists of history, the South American natives traveled there another way? Was there some mysterious advanced culture that eluded history, and migrated across the eastern seas? But to travel across the sea en masse would be impossible given their technology at the time. And in order to accomplish what the South Americans did in about 10,000 years would require migration in such numbers. To mass migrate by sea in phases would have taken too long, or would have at least been mentioned someplace in history. Remember, the Vikings have yet to step foot on the northern continent until 1,500 years ago, and we now know of their limited explorations. Here is another very curious thing about South American cultures. None of them built walls for their cities. There are walls that hold up gigantic structures, but not defensive walls in the sense of their European counterparts. Scientists cannot explain this fact, despite their insistence that these cultures were in constant warfare. Here is one possibility. There are no walls because the South American cultures felt safe. They felt safe from the other civilizations across the sea, and later forgot about them. This is why I believe there are no fortified walls in South America.

What I mean is that they had prior contact with their eastern neighbors, and I will take it even one step further. If natives of South America did not have the technology to migrate there themselves, that makes it possible they were brought there by someone else, probably by the same the advanced race who created humans in the first place. Like I said, call me a lunatic, but it makes better sense than immigrants taking twelve or thirteen thousand years to cross over ice, through moderate climate, over open land full of resources, down a desert peninsula, into a humid jungle, erect magnificent stone structures, and build great civilizations. Yeah, call me the lunatic.