Keeping your feet dry, 8,000BC

Current topics

Re: Keeping your feet dry, 8,000BC

Postby TisILeclerc » 12:49 pm

It doesn't all go into Chinese landfill.

Lots of it is recycled, cleaned up and sold back to us.

And as for documents like letters, bank statements and other such trifles, I bet they are made good use of.

Assuming they haven't already been taken out of the bin bags by back street entrepreneurs who get paid in drugs to do the job here.
TisILeclerc
 
Posts: 786
Joined: 11:40 am

Re: Keeping your feet dry, 8,000BC

Postby Boreades » 10:12 pm

As an update on the Robert John Langdon material I first mentioned three years ago, it's worth mentioning he's updated his material to include Durrington.

The River Avon (at the time of Stonehenge’s Phase I construction -ditch & Bluestones) was 96m high, rather than the 65m height of today. This is a decrease of 48% over the last 10,000 years (average 3.1mm per annum) – which 30 - 40% is probably due to isocratic rebound from the last ice age. Consequently, if we take these statistics and look at other sites around the same River Avon, such as Durrington Walls, we can now conduct our first Landscape Analysis.

The Avon at Durrington is 8m higher than its nearest point at Stonehenge and hence will be 8m higher. This Mesolithic level of 104m (96m + 8m) fills the site as a prehistoric harbour – filled to the newly discovered postholes found last month under the soil. Not only do the shorelines match both the post holes of Stonehenge and Durrington Walls – so are the sizes of the post holes, clearly showing their association.


Image

This suspected shoreline was revealed ten years ago (without any announcements as it contradicted the existing ‘theories’) when a standard Magnetometry Survey was conducted on the site Sheffield University in 2006.


Image

This the allows us for the first time to date this site accurately as 8500 BCE (the same as Stonehenge Phase I) for the Durrington Walls harbour and the Western / Northern walls, which are still visible today. It is now apparent that as the Waters dropped towards the Neolithic Period, that the inner ditch was dug to preserve the boat access to the site and during the middle of the Neolithic Period, the South Eastern and eastern ditches were added for the same purpose, but clearly of a different specification (much smaller and unnoticed, except on geophysical mapping).


http://www.the-stonehenge-enigma.info/
Boreades
 
Posts: 1995
Joined: 2:35 pm

Re: Keeping your feet dry, 8,000BC

Postby Mick Harper » 10:22 pm

is probably due to isocratic rebound from the last ice age.

Although isocratic rebound is possible -- indeed logical -- after the weight of a few thousand feet of ice is lifted, the problem here is that this area of southern England was never under ice. The glaciation only extended to the line of the Thames Valley. It is possible to argue that such nearby unglaciated land will also get a lift but this would be theoretical rather than logical. Does Langdon address this point?
Mick Harper
 
Posts: 861
Joined: 10:28 am

Re: Keeping your feet dry, 8,000BC

Postby Boreades » 10:34 pm

Mick Harper wrote:Does Langdon address this point?


Don't ask me, ask him.

Post a comment here:

http://www.the-stonehenge-enigma.info/2 ... venue.html
Boreades
 
Posts: 1995
Joined: 2:35 pm

Re: Keeping your feet dry, 8,000BC

Postby Mick Harper » 11:01 pm

I'm too shy.
Mick Harper
 
Posts: 861
Joined: 10:28 am

Re: Keeping your feet dry, 8,000BC

Postby TisILeclerc » 6:25 pm

Keeping your feet wet a million years ago. Or thereabouts.

Image

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 14151.html

When the papers published the pictures of the human footprints revealed at Happisburgh and declared them the oldest ever found in Europe you would have thought that would cause quite a stir.

Of course the experts quickly denied they were our kind of human, just some ancient type that could live in ice ages but couldn't survive all that long after it. Perhaps there were too many wild animals around and they were all eaten up. Although apparently they were skilled toolmakers and even at that remote age knew all about flint and pointy things.

We know they didn't know how to make a fire because we didn't find one. Ah well.

But the archaeologists were on the case and took photographs of them, measured them and did computer thingies that look meaningless to somebody low down in the pecking order like me.

What they didn't do was to make casts of them or even dig them up so that the evidence could be examined in greater detail at some point in the future. Instead they did nothing for two weeks and then said, 'oh dear, the sea's washed them away. Ah well.'

https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/ ... rints.aspx

Imagine a copper telling his boss 'I found a smoking gun and photographed it. Unfortunately when I returned a fortnight later it had been washed away.'

Is there something curious about how humans 'left Africa' ? According to the Daily Mail they first arrived in Europe 80,000 years ago.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... s-ago.html

National Geographic tells us they only left Africa 60,000 years ago

https://genographic.nationalgeographic. ... n-journey/

Fortunately we can say these were not humans. Because humans didn't leave Africa until much later. Even though their feet look human and their average height appears to be more or less human.

Prof Chris Stringer at the Museum said the humans who made the footprints may well have been related to people of similar antiquity from Atapuerca in Spain, assigned to the species Homo antecessor, or 'Pioneer Man'.
......

'These people were of a similar height to us and were fully bipedal,' Prof Stringer said. 'They seem to have become extinct in Europe by 600,000 years ago and were perhaps replaced by the species Homo heidelbergensis. Neanderthals followed from about 400,000 years ago.'

Dr Nick Ashton from the British Museum said, 'This is an extraordinarily rare discovery. The Happisburgh site continues to rewrite our understanding of the early human occupation of Britain and indeed of Europe.'

Unfortunately the footprints have now been washed away, but it is hoped the site will reveal new footprints in the future.


http://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/scienc ... beach.html

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/the-origi ... ecies.html

But we know that they can't have been human so we call them pioneers or something like that. The question is how many races of humanity were there splodging about in the waters of Europe at that time? It would appear that Africa just had humans and we had the rest.

Which could possibly mean that humans started in Norfolk and eventually emigrated south before finishing up in Africa.
TisILeclerc
 
Posts: 786
Joined: 11:40 am

Re: Keeping your feet dry, 8,000BC

Postby Boreades » 10:17 pm

How long before some radical anthropologists stick their career heads above the consensus parapet and come out with an "Out Of Happisburgh" theory?

Footprints of early humans discovered

The discovery was made on the foreshore at low tide where heavy seas had removed the beach sand to reveal the normally flat estuarine muds. But in one area a series of elongated hollows were cut into the compacted silts. It was only after recording the surface through photogrammetry, a technique that stitches together digital photographs to create a 3D record, that confirmed these were indeed ancient human footprints.

Within two weeks the prints had eroded away, but analyses of the digital images show in some cases the heel, arch and even toes of a range of adults and children. Measurement of the prints suggests that their heights varied from about 0.9 m to over 1.7 m and they appear to have been heading in a southerly direction.


Heading south on their summer hols?

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/r ... rints.aspx

Not sure why they have to be naked, but perhaps that fits the "primitive Norfolk" agenda?

Image

Happisburgh, on the north Norfolk coast, has a remarkable concentration of early Stone Age sites, all of which have been discovered since 2000. These sites are buried under thick glacial sediments and are only exposed as a result of coastal erosion.

Site 1
Discovered by Mike Chambers in 2000, where his most spectacular find was a flint handaxe, excavated from marsh sediments exposed on the foreshore at low tide. Subsequent excavations have unearthed more artefacts, together with butchered large mammal bones and biological remains indicating human occupation during a cool period, about 500,000 years ago.

Site 2
Simon Parfitt, Natural History Museum, discovered a handaxe at Site 2 in 2004. It was excavated from a shallow gravel-filled channel, sealed beneath a layer of sediment known as the Happisburgh Till. The Happisburgh Till and associated glacial sediments were laid down by the movement of ice known as Anglian ice, about 450,000 years ago.

Site 3
Discovered in 2005, when artefacts were found during exploratory excavations. Between 2005 and 2010, large-scale archaeological excavations at the site have recovered about 80 stone tools.


http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/r ... _site.aspx
Boreades
 
Posts: 1995
Joined: 2:35 pm

Re: Keeping your feet dry, 8,000BC

Postby TisILeclerc » 10:35 pm

Was Happisburgh named after the Egyptian god Hapi?

Some of the titles of Hapi were, Lord of the Fish and Birds of the Marshes and Lord of the River Bringing Vegetation. Hapi is typically depicted as an intersex person with a large belly and pendulous breasts, wearing a loincloth and ceremonial false beard


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapi_(Nile_god)

He was usually painted with blue or green skin.

Image

Would that add anything to the Out of Norfolk argument?
TisILeclerc
 
Posts: 786
Joined: 11:40 am

Re: Keeping your feet dry, 8,000BC

Postby Boreades » 10:50 pm

TisILeclerc wrote:Would that add anything to the Out of Norfolk argument?


Might do, if we can compare ancient Norfolk and Egyptian haplogroups?
Boreades
 
Posts: 1995
Joined: 2:35 pm

Re: Keeping your feet dry, 8,000BC

Postby TisILeclerc » 11:23 pm

Well there was a test done on Tutenkhamun's dna and it found that he was R1b2 which is common right across Europe.

The Egyptians didn't like it.

Nor the more recent tests which show that he was the result of incest. His grandparents had blond hair by the way.

A new "virtual autopsy" of Egypt's King Tutankhamun portrays him as a broad-hipped, big-breasted, weak-boned pharaoh who died in his teens due to congenital problems brought on by incest — but that depiction has some Egyptian archaeologists complaining that the boy-king is being slandered 3,300 years after his death.


http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science- ... te-n239166
TisILeclerc
 
Posts: 786
Joined: 11:40 am

PreviousNext

Return to Index

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest