Archaeologica.org

It would possibly answer some questions if Solutreans were the prototype of Clovis in the new world. Unfortunately, orthodox archaeology has a lot of solid arguments as to why that simply can not be true, and I think genetics, as fledgling a science as it is, is a big part of that argument.

Digit wrote:Having posted on Solutrean man in the New World Charley I have no problem with that possiblity at all. That they may penetrated that far in land I personally find astonishing, to me that suggests long term colonisation rather than a Cook's tour.

If true, it would seem to imply long-term colonization, ey?

Forum Monk wrote:It would possibly answer some questions if Solutreans were the prototype of Clovis in the new world. Unfortunately, orthodox archaeology has a lot of solid arguments as to why that simply can not be true, and I think genetics, as fledgling a science as it is, is a big part of that argument.

Well there is Haplogroup X that appears to have it's origins in Europe, and on back to the Middle east.

Unless the basics of DNA testing are faulty the Solutreans definitely made it to the New World. To fisherman down the ages the only thing that might stop them voyaging anywhere was bad weather, with fishing equipment and a seaworthy boat, they had all that was needed to cross the Atlantic, I see no problems there at all. The fact that they penetrated so far from the coast is to me the only surprise. I take my hat off to them!

The statue is described as a "figurine" which suggests that it could have been an easily transportable talisman even for a small group of hunters.
One can easily imagine a scenario in which they are ambushed and their artifacts taken by existing groups.

But, then what? It is still a long way from the East coast to Idaho. Would such a strange (and therefore valuable) object have been repeatedly traded from one group to another? Does not appear logical at first glance.

Sorry I'm just now getting back to this article - it's been a really hectic week. But, I must say that this one just doesn't ring true for me. It all seems to coincidental and contrived.

Plus it's a pretty fantastic claim.

I think I'll stay doubtful and see if there is more info yet to come.

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/n ... tscan.html

Baadsgaard said she hopes to recover DNA from the skulls. She also wants to draw enamel from the teeth to compare it with remains found in the Indus Valley civilization in India, a trading partner of the Sumerians, to see if the sacrificial victims came from that area.

"Some people have speculated that these victims were actually from the Indus valley or some other location, and that's why they were sacrificed , they were non-local people and, because they didn't have the same links to the area, could be more easily sacrificed," she said.

From yesterdays Archaeologica News. Sumerian skulls to get CT scan.

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-4-17/54224.html

large number of "stone eggs" were recently discovered along with a copper sword at a construction site in Bandeng Hill and Zhanlong Hill, Gongxi Town of Hunan Province. The discoveries were made by highway construction workers while they were digging the foundation for a road.

The origin of the stone eggs is currently unknown as it is reported that further analysis by experts will be required to determine what they are and where they came from.

The stones, it appears, are of natural formation, and not man made. I would much rather hear more about the 1,000 lb. copper sword.
TDG

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/200 ... _6oJJFeQoB

The scientists found the earliest evidence for metallurgy dated back to between 1000 and 1200 AD, after the fall of the Wari but well before the rise of the Inca. Metallurgy then seemed aimed toward copper and copper alloys.

"It's very curious. You normally associate metals and technological development with large states and empires," Cooke told LiveScience. "It's rather strange that the onset of metallurgy occurred just as the Wari Empire disappeared from the scene."

Pre-Incan Metallurgy.
From Arch. News.

the earliest evidence for metallurgy dated back to between 1000 and 1200 AD,

Charlie's got that beat!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04 ... index.html

This story is one of the most incredible I have ever read. Terrifying headlines and yet when you read the article you seriously must wonder how money is allocated for research. I wrote a similar program and posted its results on this forum in about 4 hours. (although I left out the demigraphics). And the startling possible rise in sea level of 20 meters in 500 years is a worry for me. It reminds me very much of the scene in Austin Powers where the guy stands still screaming "no.ooooo" while the steam roller lumbers toward him at a snails pace.

Can't connect to that link Monk, is it me or what?

Dunno - it opens for me. Maybe some one else can say.

Something hiccuped somewhere Monk, it opened this time, but meantime, back to gardening!

Repent! The end is nigh!