Archaeologica.org

From today’s news page.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/St ... higan.html

This is just the latest, but maybe the most important find it the Traverse City area.
Traverse Bay is a good sized good shelter from the west winds coming across Lake Michigan.

Here is another site of above water stuff.

http://www.rae.org/sanilac.html

More “out of place artifacts.”

Wouldn't that mean that the circle had to be built before the last glaciation reached the Chicago area?

That seems like a hell of a long time ago.

There are no out of place artifacts - if you have an artifact, you have an artifact. If your theory can not account for the artifact, then your theory is out of place, not the artifact.

Besides this, however, there is a thriving market in fraudulent artifacts made by fools for fools.

Min, given that a mammoth is shown in the submerged petroglyph (not to be confused with the above ground ones), then you have a petroglyph from before 10,900 BCE.

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas

then you have a petroglyph from before 10,900 BCE.

Right. However the ice was supposed to be a mile thick...

Which means, it seems to me, that it would have had to be built

a) before Lake Michigan formed, and
b) during the previous inter-glacial period.

No?

I have my doubts.......

There is a above water level stone circle on Beaver Island, at the very north end of Lake Michigan.
(Along with a lot of other stuff)

http://www.beaverisland.net/Projects/Th ... circle.htm

We are talking about 350 miles north of Chicago.

But does it have an engraving of a mammoth?

Minimalist wrote:But does it have an engraving of a mammoth?

Only in someone's fevered imagination.

Good point, Sam. A photo of the original find would be a nice touch.

Some other sites on this :

http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/st ... -lake.html

http://www.nowpublic.com/u-s-archeologi ... higan-rock

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_article ... ryid=80355

There are PICs of the rock as well as PICs of the sonar showing the circle layout on the site.

Note the "surprisingingly under reported" opinion of one writer.

I couldn't draw that well. Will be interesting to see what they have to say about the authenticity.

Minimalist wrote:

then you have a petroglyph from before 10,900 BCE.

Right. However the ice was supposed to be a mile thick...

Which means, it seems to me, that it would have had to be built

a) before Lake Michigan formed, and
b) during the previous inter-glacial period.

No?

The extent of the sheet varied:

http://130.91.80.97:591/PDFs/46-2/Book%20Reviews.pdf

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:L79 ... cd=3&gl=us

Another nice image:

http://encarta.msn.com/media_701509131_ ... outes.html

If that petroglyph is not a fraud, then it would appear to be very old -
an accompanying stone henge would indeed make the site very very interesting

But isn’t henge making a north European thing?
Not a northeast Asia thing.
I would expect the people making it were coming across the Atlantic by boat, not walking from Alaska.
Dating will be fun to watch.
We know men were hunting and eating mastodons in Wisconsin apx 11,000 BP
(Or mammoths? Just what is the difference anyway?).

http://www.sunstar-solutions.com/AOP/Ma ... _bones.htm

http://www.woollymammoth.org/Fenske.htm

http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_200 ... index.html

Another freezing day here in Illinois, so here goes:

kbs2244 wrote:But isn’t henge making a north European thing?

No, it's an early man thing, as can be seen at Nabta

kbs2244 wrote:Not a northeast Asia thing.

That seems right - but Siouxian peoples did have medicine wheels

kbs2244 wrote:I would expect the people making it were coming across the Atlantic by boat, not walking from Alaska.

Correct - coming across the Atlantic by boat from Africa. Yuchi and other peoples' henges were covered in "Man and Impact in the Americas". Haven't you read it yet?

kbs2244 wrote:Dating will be fun to watch. We know men were hunting and eating mastodons in Wisconsin apx 11,000 BP (Or mammoths? Just what is the difference anyway?).

Easy way to remember - Mammoths ate tree leaves and were taller, while mastodon ate bushes, and were shorter.

Thanks for the links:

kbs2244 wrote:http://www.sunstar-solutions.com/AOP/Ma ... _bones.htm

http://www.woollymammoth.org/Fenske.htm

http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_200 ... index.html