How strong is the evidence for a Green Sahara migration link?

The useful part of a migration hypothesis is that it can make testable predictions. I’d look for clearly dated archaeological material along plausible routes, and for similarities that are specific enough to indicate contact rather than broad resemblance. A proposed connection is a starting point, not a conclusion.

For inscriptions, the dating problem matters a lot. A carved symbol can’t establish when people moved or where they came from unless its context supplies reliable dates and other supporting evidence.

I’d keep the cultural clues in their lane. Amazigh languages and oral traditions are significant evidence about living communities and cultural continuity, but they don’t by themselves demonstrate a particular ancient journey from the Richat Structure to Egypt.

Likewise, similar-looking characters can arise independently. A convincing script connection needs systematic comparisons of forms, usage, chronology, and how the writing developed, not just a few striking matches.

One practical way to assess the papers is to check what would prove the hypothesis wrong. Are the predictions specific, and could discoveries or dates contradict them? Then check whether the evidence actually supports those predictions, rather than being selected because it fits the story.

Summaries can help you find the claims, but I wouldn’t let an AI-generated account stand in for checking the paper’s methods and sources. The distinction between an intriguing proposal and an established account is worth keeping clear.