For Those Interested in Archaeology

How far back does the English inhabitants go? Many thousands of years...
Inhabitants in Australia 70 000 years ago...no new world here...

 

"How far back does the English inhabitants go? Many thousands of years..."

Here's some gen- http://www.ahobproject.org/AHOBI/index_2.html

 

I thought the English only go back to the Middle Ages. Britons, as the original inhabitants of Britain, are much older.

Regards,
Marc

 

Might interest a few people here-
"After more than 85 years of study and speculation, recent digs have confirmed the presence of a ceremonial road running through the heart of Cahokia, the largest prehistoric city north of Mexico, archaeologists report.
The broad, elevated road, known as a causeway, extends for at least a kilometer through the center of the ancient city, which is situated just east of modern-day St. Louis.
While the existence of such a road had been the subject of debate and conjecture since the 1920s, the excavations finally confirm its presence, potentially changing our understanding of the Mississippian metropolis, said Dr. Sarah Baires of the University of Illinois.
“This is very exciting research, because I have documented and confirmed the existence of a 1 kilometer-long earthen feature that has never been confirmed before,” Baires said in an interview.
“It is a new monument at Cahokia, and one that oriented the rest of the city’s urban plan.”
http://westerndigs.org/ceremonial-axis-road-discovered-in-heart-of-ancient-city-of-cahokia/

 

But then again...
"It is believed that a skeleton discovered on an archaeological dig in East Lothian may be that of an Irish Viking king.
Olaf Guthfrithsson was the King of Dublin and Northumbria from 934 to 941. Archaeologists think the skeleton could belong to him or one of the members of his entourage.
The remains, which were excavated by AOC Archaeology Group at Auldhame in East Lothian in 2005, are those of a young adult male who was buried with a number of items indicating his high rank. These include a belt similar to others from Viking Age Ireland.
This artefact signals that the body was of a man who may have spent time in the household of the kings of the Uí Ímar dynasty, which dominated both sides of the Irish Sea from about 917 until at least the middle of the tenth century."
Olaf Guthfrithsson sacked Auldhame and nearby Tyninghame - both part of a complex of East Lothian churches dedicated to the eighth century Saint Balthere - shortly before his death in 941.
The proximity of the burial to the site of the conflict along with the high-status items found with the body, and the age of the skeleton, has led archaeologists and historians to speculate that it may be that of the young Irish king or one of his followers.
In the absence of known living descendants, DNA analysis cannot be carried out to confirm the identity of the body, leaving archaeologists and historians to rely on circumstantial evidence to reach their hypothesis."
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/277244-skeleton-found-at-east-lothian-site-may-be-olaf-guthfrithsson/

 

Was it found in a car park?

 

I had to think about that one!

 

hehe...those crazy archaeologists and their wishful thinking! Didnt know there even WERE Irish Vikings...wouldnt the picts have something to say about that?

 

"Viking Age Ireland" refers to Ireland as it existed during the Age of the Vikings. (ca 800 AD to 1066 AD). It places the belt in a quite specific time period. It says nothing of the identity of the owner.

As the Vikings were sailing, trading, settling, plundering, and pillaging all across the North Sea, the Baltic Sea, and groups and individuals settled in lands from Greenland / New Foundland to Kiev, and down to Anatolia. Viking bodyguards served with the Emporer in Constantinople.

 

A kiwi mate of mine spoke about the Maori culture in New Zealand...the origins of there tattoos...(very celtic). A long house was discovered by archaeologists...apparently the Maoris have an agreement with the government that any archaeological materials be immediately handed over to them (as it must be maori). This long house was covered up (with other articles according to my mate)...so it not only seems the Maoris are covering any history that doesnt match theirs, but it seems the Vikings may have made it as far south as New Zealand...i realise this may be contoversial to some, this was just a conversation...not fact.

 

"The Vikings conducted extensive raids in Ireland at first they founded Limerick in 812, then established a settlement near Waterford in 853, invaded Dublin and maintained control until 1169, and founded trading ports in Cork in the 9th century. The Vikings and Scandinavians settled down and intermixed with the Irish. Literature, crafts, and decorative styles in Ireland and Britain reflected Scandinavian culture. Vikings traded at Irish markets in Dublin. Excavations found imported fabrics from England, Byzantium, Persia and central Asia. Dublin became so crowded by the 11th century that houses were constructed outside the town walls.
The Vikings pillaged monasteries on Ireland's west coast in 795 and then spread out to cover the rest of the coastline. The north and east of the island were most affected. During the first 40 years, the raids were conducted by small, mobile Viking groups. By 830, the groups consisted of large fleets of Viking ships. From 840, the Vikings began establishing permanent bases at the coasts. Dublin was the most significant settlement in the long term. The Irish became accustomed to the Viking presence. In some cases they became allies and married each other.
In 832, a Viking fleet of about 120 invaded kingdoms on Ireland’s northern and eastern coasts. Some believe that the increased number of invaders coincided with Scandinavian leaders' desires to control the profitable raids on the western shores of Ireland. During the mid-830s, raids began to push deeper into Ireland, as opposed to just touching the coasts. Navigable waterways made this deeper penetration possible. After 840, the Vikings had several bases in strategic locations dispersed throughout Ireland.
In 838, a small Viking fleet entered the River Liffey in eastern Ireland. The Vikings set up a base, which the Irish called a longphort. This longphort eventually became Dublin. After this interaction, the Irish experienced Viking forces for about 40 years. The Vikings also established longphorts in Cork, Limerick, Waterford, and Wexford. The Vikings could sail through on the main river and branch off into different areas of the country.

Battle of Clontarf
One of the last major battles involving Vikings was the Battle of Clontarf on the 23 April 1014, in which Vikings fought both for the Irish over-king Brian Boru's army and for the Viking-led army opposing him. Irish and Viking literature depict the Battle of Clontarf as a gathering of this world and the supernatural. For example, witches, goblins, and demons were present. A Viking poem portrays the environment as strongly pagan. Valkyries chanted and decided who would live and die."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_Age

After the Death of the High-King Brian Boru, at the Battle (which also saw his son Murchad slain, and his grandson Toirdelbach drowned), Ireland would not have another undisputed high-king for 200 years. An estimated 7,000 to 10,000 men died on that day.

High King Brian had 4,900 troops made up 2,000 Munster men, 1,400 Dalcassians (also Munster men), and 1,500 Connacht clansmen. Opposing them were Mael Mordha’s army of 4,000 Leinster men allied to 3,000 Viking warriors.

The battle opened with Plait (the bravest knight of all the foreigners) taunting Domnall mac Eimin, a Scottish ally of Brian. The two men marched out into the middle of the field and fought, and both died, "with the sword of each through the heart of the other, and the hair of each in the clenched hand of the other."

Every single Viking leader was killed. Of High-King Brian's troops, 4000 lay dead, but they possessed the field. It is said only 100 Connachtmen of the 1500 survived.

A millenium ago this year. On Good Friday.

 

While I don't doubt the ability of the Vikings to actually travel so far, had they wanted or needed to, there seems little evidence at all of any such undertaking ever.

It must be remembered that the Moari are only relatively recent arrivals in New Zealand, and that their earlier carvings and tattoos were not so clearly distinctive as they later became.

I think there are a subset of people who'd definitely like the Vikings to be the original settlers of New Zealand, but we can safely assume that they didn't. There is no historical record of them being anywhere near the Indian Ocean, or rounding either Cape Horn or the Cape of Good Hope. Their hardy warrior culture and predominantly tall blonde physiques was hardly one to make an appearance anywhere without leaving a mark.

 

Difficult to say...they have found Tartan and skeletons with red hair in China...their boats could have been built anywhere ie: they could have travelled overland and built a boat at the coast...i dont particularly beleive the idea...but i think its do-able and might disclose a much bigger picture of the Vikings and their offspring...

 

Damn you CAC, you made me learn something- and I try so hard not to...Noticed that Eskimo's may also have tattoo's similar to Maori...http://cardinalguzman.wordpress.com/2013/03/31/the-history-of-tattoo-part-3-the-indians/

 

There were 1,000's of Irish Kings. At least if you translate the term they used even the leader of a tribe or small settlement was a king. Since the Norse established numerous settlements in Ireland and typically adopted many of the customs of the areas they settled in the term was almost assuredly used for them as well.

 

Interesting find.
"KRASNOYARSK, SIBERIA—A human jawbone with teeth thought to be 14,000 years old was uncovered during emergency excavations ahead of bridge construction at the archaeological site of Afontova Mountain. During the Paleolithic period, the site was close to glaciers and was occupied by people who hunted animals such as mammoths. Analysis of the well-preserved jaw could produce information about the early colonization of Siberia. “This site, an ancient camp, has been researched since the late nineteenth century and has given us a lot of material, not just debris, but thousands of complete stone and bone tools."
http://archaeology.org/news/2216-140610-siberia-afontova-jaw

 

"Named ‘Naia’, the remains belong to a 15-16 girl who went underground to seek water 13,000 years ago during the last ice age.
She plunged to her death in a large pit known as ‘Hoyo Negro’, Spanish for ‘black hole’, in Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula."

Maybe she dropped her drum?...History repeats: http://gawker.com/two-dead-three-injured-in-attempt-to-get-cellphone-out-1587066382

 

"Archaeologists were stunned to discover evidence of a Mesolithic settlement alongside the A1, which stretches 410 miles from London to Edinburgh.
The site, near Catterick in North Yorkshire, is believed to have been used by people travelling north and south as an overnight shelter, similar to today’s motorway service stations.
Items discovered at the settlement include flint tools that date back to between 6000 and 8000 BC."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/482078/The-10-000-year-old-motorway-services

 

"An archeological dig has revealed artefacts of early occupation so old they rival the dates of those found at sites of the earliest human settlement in Australia.
The discovery of the artefacts of animal bone and charcoal at the Ganga Maya Cave (named by traditional owners meaning 'house on the hill') in the Pilbara region of Western Australia are the subject of a scientific paper not yet submitted to archaeological journals.
The items analysed through carbon-dating techniques indicate first use of the cave from more than 45,000 years ago.
The cave, close to an active iron ore mine, is of even more significance because it is believed to have been settled continuously and right through the Ice Age up until about 1700 years ago."
http://www.smh.com.au/national/archaeological-cave-dig-unearths-artefacts-from-45000-years-ago-20140614-zs7wd.html#ixzz34wqo4U6R

 

And the earliest skeleton found was 70 thousand years old...(First wave - The second wave of immigrants wiped out the first - the third almost but not quite wiping out the second.) The 70K skeleton is from the first wave, not the "first Australians" (Third wave)...i know, the BS mounts up...