Heh, lots of conspiracies lately :) This is a tough one for writing since people easily disqualify you as crazy. But still, I can't just pass and forget about it. So, today- Stonehenge and American Indians. The first one says they discovered burial remnants in Stonehenge dating back to 3000BC. In the second, there are evidences that the migration on people in Americas happened trough the coasts, no trough the inland. I'm gonna put my comment this time in the beginning rather than in the end, so that we're clear what we're looking for. First of all, Stonehenge...Ok, they found bones. Which for them prove its purpose was to be a graveyard. Now, why did those people have to bring those huge rocks, just to cover someone's grave. How elite can someone be and even more, his offspring to be, because their hypotheses is this is the reason why the burials are more in the later periods. My idea is that this was a sacrificial ground. It makes much much more sense than theirs! And it completes the hypotheses that Stonehenge had spiritual, religious and probably astronomic meaning to its people. Of course, my next thought is that it was some kind of sign for the nephilims, because such large structures make sense only from the air. I won't speculate on that, it's not the point. The point is that once again, archaeologists try to manipulate history. I'm referring to Black Egypt-something that was published in National Geographic and that is an absolute nonsense. Egypt is on geographical crossroad-there are major evidences for the flow of knowledge between Egypt and Mesopotamia, which imply exchange of major groups of people. Not to mention the artefacts we have that has no traces of black race. And please, mind you, I don't say that from any racial point of view, I'm only interested in truth. And I see truth clouded from political correctness. The second article is on spread of people in Americas. The claim is that they claim trough passages of land on the north pole. But obviously those people were coastal people, because they know how to use the fruits of the ocean. Isn't then much easier to suppose they came with ships? The question is where did they come from? For the answer, check the pic in the right :) I'm not going to say it :) SG fans, enjoy :)
The third article speaks of the curious past of Greenland that obviously has a genetic connection with a weird group of islands near Kamchatka. Obviously even 5000 years ago people were quite travelers.
Stonehenge Used as Cemetery From the Beginning
At least part of the mystery of Stonehenge may have now been solved: It was from the beginning a monument to the dead.
New radiocarbon dates from human cremation burials among and around the brooding stones on Salisbury Plain in England indicate that the site was used as a cemetery from 3000 B.C. until after the monuments were erected around 2500 B.C., British archaeologists reported Thursday.
What appeared to be the head of a stone mace, a symbol of authority, was found in one grave, the archaeologists said, indicating that this was probably a cemetery for the ruling dynasty responsible for erecting Stonehenge.
“It’s now clear that burials were a major component of Stonehenge in all its main stages,” said Mike Parker Pearson, an archaeologist at the University of Sheffield in England.
In a teleconference with reporters, arranged by the National Geographic Society, Dr. Parker Pearson described three burials of burned bones and teeth that were dated in recent weeks. Researchers estimated that up to 240 people were buried there, all as cremation deposits. Other evidence from the British Isles shows that skeletal burials were rare at this time and that cremation was the custom for the elite.
Another Sheffield archaeologist, Andrew Chamberlain, noted one reason to think that the Stonehenge burials were for generations of a single elite family. The clue, he said, is the small number of burials in the earliest period and the larger numbers in later centuries, as offspring would have multiplied.
The earliest burial to be tested came from a pit at the edge of the stone monuments; it dates to more or less 3000 B.C. The second burial dates to around 2900 B.C. The most recent one is from around the time the first arrangements of stones appeared on the plain, about 2500 B.C. It was previously believed that the site was a burial ground for only a century after 2700 B.C., well before the distinctive large stones were put in place.
Although most of the cremated remains were uncovered decades ago, Dr. Parker Pearson said, it is only in recent years that improved methods of radiocarbon dating have made it possible to analyze burned bones.
In other recent findings at Stonehenge and adjacent sites, archaeologists uncovered a piece of a red-deer antler that was apparently used as a pick for digging. It was found in what is known as the Stonehenge Greater Cursus, a cigar-shaped ditched enclosure nearly two miles long that is thought to have a sacred significance.
Julian Thomas, an archaeologist at the University of Manchester, who led this investigation, said the antler was dated at 3630 to 3375 B.C. That puts the cursus about 1,000 years before the large stones were erected, meaning, he said, that “this landscape maintains its significance over a long period of time.” source
Seaweed Suggests First Humans in America Took the Coastal Route
It is now largely accepted that humans first entered the Americas over what was then a land bridge in the area of the Bering Strait. There is more of a debate about what they did next, whether they spread southward by inland routes or along the Pacific Coast.
The coastal route would seem more likely. The migrants would have had an obvious direction to travel, full of familiar resources. In fact, some researchers have argued that these ancient people would have spread along the coast rapidly. But there is little archaeological evidence. For one thing, rising sea levels since then would have submerged any sites.
New findings from a 14,000-year-old settlement in southern Chile support the coastal idea. But they also suggest that the migration may have been relatively slow.
The evidence is in the form of seaweed found at Monte Verde, a site that back then was on a small river about 50 miles east of the Pacific and 10 miles north of an inland bay. Tom D. Dillehay, a professor at Vanderbilt University, and colleagues discovered the seaweed, some of which had been chewed into a cud, as well as a stone tool with remains of seaweed on an edge. The findings were reported in Science.
Dr. Dillehay said the work showed that the seaweed was used for food and medicine and “indicates that these people had a very sophisticated knowledge of these marine ecological zones to the west and south.”
Gaining such knowledge takes time and many trips back and forth to the coast, he added. That suggests that rather than traveling steadily southward, early migrants may have occasionally settled upstream along some of the thousands of rivers on the coast. source