Ancient Britons Were Cannibals

Watch out Caribs. Your reputation could be under threat. This group of tribal people found in the West Indies when explorers first arrived were given the "badge" of real cannibals. It now seems cannibalism was practised elsewhere, in Britain as a matter of fact. Yes, in jolly old blighty.

Ancient Britons sat around the fire enjoying bloody drinks from skulls. They reached out to grab pieces of human flesh from the spit. Human remains from a dig at Glough's Cave show dismemberment of some bodies. There is evidence of butchering with bone marrow being removed. This is the most nutritious substance that can be obtained from a body. The edges of skulls were also smoothed to make them more comfortable to drink from.

While using skulls as drinking vessels is not evidence in itself that ancient Britons drank human blood from craniums - some non-meat eating people in Asia used them - prying damage of the skeletons clearly points to cannibalism occurring.

http://www.adventure--australia.blogspot.com/
http://www.tysaustralia.blogspot.com/
http://www.feeds.feedburner.com/AdventureAustralia
http://www.technorati.com/blogs/http://adventure--australia.blogspot.com

~~~~~History~~~~~

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ancient Britons Were Cannibals

Watch out Caribs. Your reputation could be under threat. This group of tribal people found in the West Indies when explorers first arrived were given the "badge" of real cannibals. It now seems cannibalism was practised elsewhere, in Britain as a matter of fact. Yes, in jolly old blighty.

Ancient Britons sat around the fire enjoying bloody drinks from skulls. They reached out to grab pieces of human flesh from the spit. Human remains from a dig at Glough's Cave show dismemberment of some bodies. There is evidence of butchering with bone marrow being removed. This is the most nutritious substance that can be obtained from a body. The edges of skulls were also smoothed to make them more comfortable to drink from.

While using skulls as drinking vessels is not evidence in itself that ancient Britons drank human blood from craniums - some non-meat eating people in Asia used them - prying damage of the skeletons clearly points to cannibalism occurring.

http://www.adventure--australia.blogspot.com/
http://www.tysaustralia.blogspot.com/
http://www.feeds.feedburner.com/AdventureAustralia
http://www.technorati.com/blogs/http://adventure--australia.blogspot.com

~~~~~History~~~~~

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Kind Human Found Which Challeges Darwinian Theory

A new find of human remains challenges Darwinian theory. Science was absolutely certain that for the past 80,000 or so years only humans and Neanderthals wandered the earth. First the "hobbit" on the island of Flores was found which showed that other hominids lived almost to the present time in remote parts of the world. Now a new human species has come to light in Mongolia. The DNA from a child's finger indicates a separate species. Denisova is the name given to the new humans after the region where it was found.

For many years it was believed animals with a different number of chromosomes could not interbreed. This premise is now brought into question. Neanderthal DNA has been identified in human DNA. This finding makes the discovery of our origins almost impossible. With no clear distinction between species how do you put them into categories?

Denisova and humans diverted from a common ancestor about a million years ago. Neanderthals and humans separated from their ancestor half a million years ago. If interbreeding was commonplace Man's history will be blurred. The offspring of parents from two types of hominids will carry traits from both variations. Finding remains of distinct species will be more difficult. For the most part, however, bones and fossils of different hominids are being found. Perhaps cross breeding was not the norm.

http://www.adventure--australia.blogspot.com/
http://www.tysaustralia.blogspot.com/
http://www.feeds.feedburner.com/AdventureAustralia
http://www.technorati.com/blogs/http://adventure--australia.blogspot.com

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Kind Human Found Which Challeges Darwinian Theory

A new find of human remains challenges Darwinian theory. Science was absolutely certain that for the past 80,000 or so years only humans and Neanderthals wandered the earth. First the "hobbit" on the island of Flores was found which showed that other hominids lived almost to the present time in remote parts of the world. Now a new human species has come to light in Mongolia. The DNA from a child's finger indicates a separate species. Denisova is the name given to the new humans after the region where it was found.

For many years it was believed animals with a different number of chromosomes could not interbreed. This premise is now brought into question. Neanderthal DNA has been identified in human DNA. This finding makes the discovery of our origins almost impossible. With no clear distinction between species how do you put them into categories?

Denisova and humans diverted from a common ancestor about a million years ago. Neanderthals and humans separated from their ancestor half a million years ago. If interbreeding was commonplace Man's history will be blurred. The offspring of parents from two types of hominids will carry traits from both variations. Finding remains of distinct species will be more difficult. For the most part, however, bones and fossils of different hominids are being found. Perhaps cross breeding was not the norm.

http://www.adventure--australia.blogspot.com/
http://www.tysaustralia.blogspot.com/
http://www.feeds.feedburner.com/AdventureAustralia
http://www.technorati.com/blogs/http://adventure--australia.blogspot.com

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Finds of Early Humans Do Not Change the Basic Theory

Darwin got it right. Well actually he may not have. Fossils of early humans do not alter basic scientific thought in relation to evolution, Finds do not show a linear development toward advanced Man. Evolution though does tend to predict what new discoveries show. Claims that a particular fossil find is a breakthrough are just not true.

New dinosaur fossils, however, tend to be groundbreaking with regular identification of new type of dinosaurs. Indeed, they seem to have roamed on every continent. The book on dinosaur evolution has not yet been written. Time will tell how clear an understanding of it we can get.

New research teams need to be formed to go to all parts of the world and seek answers to evolution of mammals and reptiles, if indeed dinosaurs were reptiles. Some specialists today even question this view.

http://www.adventure--australia.blogspot.com/
http://www.tysaustralia.blogspot.com/
http://www.feeds.feedburner.com/AdventureAustralia
http://www.technorati.com/blogs/http://adventure--australia.blogspot.com

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Finds of Early Humans Do Not Change the Basic Theory

Darwin got it right. Well actually he may not have. Fossils of early humans do not alter basic scientific thought in relation to evolution, Finds do not show a linear development toward advanced Man. Evolution though does tend to predict what new discoveries show. Claims that a particular fossil find is a breakthrough are just not true.

New dinosaur fossils, however, tend to be groundbreaking with regular identification of new type of dinosaurs. Indeed, they seem to have roamed on every continent. The book on dinosaur evolution has not yet been written. Time will tell how clear an understanding of it we can get.

New research teams need to be formed to go to all parts of the world and seek answers to evolution of mammals and reptiles, if indeed dinosaurs were reptiles. Some specialists today even question this view.

http://www.adventure--australia.blogspot.com/
http://www.tysaustralia.blogspot.com/
http://www.feeds.feedburner.com/AdventureAustralia
http://www.technorati.com/blogs/http://adventure--australia.blogspot.com

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bigger Bone

"You know this bone is bigger than both of us!"

http://vistacomputersolutions.blogspot.com/

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bigger Bone

"You know this bone is bigger than both of us!"

http://vistacomputersolutions.blogspot.com/

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dinosaurs Found in Australia - What is Fact?

Australia is a very old continent. It seems the ancestors of Tyrannosaurus rex lived here. A hip bone has been found here that dates to 110 million years ago which is 40 million years before T.rex roamed elsewhere on earth. Until now it was believed that T.rex only lived on Northern continents.

Many of the things stated as fact by scientists are indeed just matters of faith until they are proven otherwise. Scientists argue about when dinosaurs developed feathers and why. They claim that birds today are direct descendants from dinosaurs. This is like saying humans are descended from dinosaurs. Much evidence points to birds having a line of descent completely separate from dinosaurs.

The same rings true with the Hobbit people of Flores Island. Some scientists will not accept that people different from humans survived until 18,000 years ago alongside humans. Neanderthals lived until 50,000 years ago, so why not another type of human? Science is much like religion. What is just theory is put forth as fact. Ah, the dangers of religion - and science!

http://www.adventure--australia.blogspot.com/
http://www.tysaustralia.blogspot.com/
http://www.feeds.feedburner.com/AdventureAustralia
http://www.technorati.com/blogs/http://adventure--australia.blogspot.com

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dinosaurs Found in Australia - What is Fact?

Australia is a very old continent. It seems the ancestors of Tyrannosaurus rex lived here. A hip bone has been found here that dates to 110 million years ago which is 40 million years before T.rex roamed elsewhere on earth. Until now it was believed that T.rex only lived on Northern continents.

Many of the things stated as fact by scientists are indeed just matters of faith until they are proven otherwise. Scientists argue about when dinosaurs developed feathers and why. They claim that birds today are direct descendants from dinosaurs. This is like saying humans are descended from dinosaurs. Much evidence points to birds having a line of descent completely separate from dinosaurs.

The same rings true with the Hobbit people of Flores Island. Some scientists will not accept that people different from humans survived until 18,000 years ago alongside humans. Neanderthals lived until 50,000 years ago, so why not another type of human? Science is much like religion. What is just theory is put forth as fact. Ah, the dangers of religion - and science!

http://www.adventure--australia.blogspot.com/
http://www.tysaustralia.blogspot.com/
http://www.feeds.feedburner.com/AdventureAustralia
http://www.technorati.com/blogs/http://adventure--australia.blogspot.com

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hobbit a Small Human on Flores Is Proven

Many people have written off the "hobbit" find as being just a joke, a sad hoax played on society. However, finding tiny "humans" is, apparently, real. Most scientists have accepted it though some still scoff at the whole issue without looking into it.

In 2004 archaeologists in Indonesia found skeletons, not fossils, skeletons of small human-like creatures who lived on the island of Flores as recently as 18,000 years ago. While humans spread around the world, these small "humans" carried on hunting pygmy elephants and other local species in isolation. Flint flakes found in million year old volcanic sediment show hobbit activity there a very long time ago.

The question is - When did the early humans leave Africa? Considering Man left the continent no more than 100,000 years ago why did other excursions of early man end in extinction? At least one group survived long enough to enlighten us about the numerous times humans left Africa. Evidence from bone structure shows that the hobbit descended from an earlier type of human than the small-brained Homo erectus which left two million years ago.

Spending time considering how hobbit came to be on Flores is quite irrelevant. Whether they went by boat, raft or just walked when a land bridge appeared, they got there and thrived.

http://www.adventure--australia.blogspot.com/
http://www.tysaustralia.blogspot.com/
http://www.feeds.feedburner.com/AdventureAustralia
http://www.technorati.com/blogs/http://adventure--australia.blogspot.com

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hobbit a Small Human on Flores Is Proven

Many people have written off the "hobbit" find as being just a joke, a sad hoax played on society. However, finding tiny "humans" is, apparently, real. Most scientists have accepted it though some still scoff at the whole issue without looking into it.

In 2004 archaeologists in Indonesia found skeletons, not fossils, skeletons of small human-like creatures who lived on the island of Flores as recently as 18,000 years ago. While humans spread around the world, these small "humans" carried on hunting pygmy elephants and other local species in isolation. Flint flakes found in million year old volcanic sediment show hobbit activity there a very long time ago.

The question is - When did the early humans leave Africa? Considering Man left the continent no more than 100,000 years ago why did other excursions of early man end in extinction? At least one group survived long enough to enlighten us about the numerous times humans left Africa. Evidence from bone structure shows that the hobbit descended from an earlier type of human than the small-brained Homo erectus which left two million years ago.

Spending time considering how hobbit came to be on Flores is quite irrelevant. Whether they went by boat, raft or just walked when a land bridge appeared, they got there and thrived.

http://www.adventure--australia.blogspot.com/
http://www.tysaustralia.blogspot.com/
http://www.feeds.feedburner.com/AdventureAustralia
http://www.technorati.com/blogs/http://adventure--australia.blogspot.com

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .