Yeah. Which means that the _as far as we know_ is ... limited

In the former you'd need a *lead*, you can't just dig up millions of square kilometres of sand and *hope* you find something no evidence exists for.

In the latter... it's covered by water. And still no leads.

there are the eye of sahara theories

and the south america theories

which do not seem entirely unplausible

But are the theories based on what there is actually indicative theories for, or just speculation based on what *could've* been.

The fact the Sahara was not always a desert does not mean the land was suitable for farming.

Most land wasn't until the earth warmed up *following* the Y.D

And even when we invented agriculture it took another five thousand years for the first city to emerge.

And civilisation generally.

Assuming that length of time before the Y.D you'd end up back in the Ice Age.

There are maps that show the Antarcitca, before it was discovered in 17th (?) century.
And the way Antarctica is shown there corresponds to how it would've looked before end of Y.D.

It's an interesting theory I'll grant you and perhaps humans did make some strides immediately in the warming period following the Ice Age which was cut off by the Y.D

maps that are allegedly copied from older maps

from alexandria

But it's not enough time to enable them to create a civilisation as I expect you're imagining it.

I mean for one the world didn't become warm enough for agriculture immediately after the ice age as we defined it ended

it continued to warm until the Y.D when it rapidly cooled for 1,300 years and ever since has been more or less continuously warming

And only then we did we get agriculture on any significant scale. And 5-6,000 years later, urban settlement like Eridu, Ur, and so forth.

I find it exceptionally hard to explain maps of Antarctica as it was in Y.D. without a civilization that existed at that period.

It wouldn't be the first time a landmass was added to a map that didn't exist.

Others speculate that the Ottoman map I think you're referencing actually depicts South America.

Old Worlders weren't even aware of the New World until 1000 AD-ish.

I find it suspicious that it would _randomly_ be so similar to Y.D. era Antarctica

And even then it wasn't widely known to exist until the dawn of the 16th century

Could you show me?

It's definitely appropriate to be sceptical of extraordinary claims

The depictions of Y.D Antarctica compared to the maps that predate the discovery of the archipelago itself.

But it's also appropriate to not dismiss facts which are very hard to explain with the mainstream theories.

I mean, even allowing for a civilisation in the Sahara region,

There's absolutely no reason why they would know Antarctica exists.

Humans have been sedentary for over 12,000 years and it took us the better part of 11,500 to work out that America existed.

I'm skeptical that an as of yet unsupported theory for a civilisation in what is now the Sahara would have the capacity to know Antarctica exists and then map it.

And even if they did those maps would not have survived to the people who ended up drawing new ones.

There was a great thread on 8/pol/ about this (yeah, I know, I was also surprised that there's something besides natsoc larping)

Hm.

I find it an interesting thought exercise.

But to me it just sounds like someone saw a coincidence in map drawing and a theory for what a whole continent might have once looked like,