Posted on 09/28/2010 3:45:43 PM PDT by Palter
Chemical tests on teeth from an ancient burial near Stonehenge indicate that the person in the grave grew up around the Mediterranean Sea.
The bones belong to a teenager who died 3,550 years ago and was buried with a distinctive amber necklace.
The conclusions come from analysis of different forms of the elements oxygen and strontium in his tooth enamel.
Analysis on a previous skeleton found near Stonehenge showed that that person was also a migrant to the area.
The findings will be discussed at a science symposium in London to mark the 175th anniversary of the British Geological Survey (BGS).
The "Boy with the Amber Necklace", as he is known to archaeologists, was found in 2005, about 5km south-east of Stonehenge on Boscombe Down.
The remains of the teenager were discovered next to a Bronze Age burial mound, during roadworks for military housing.
"He's around 14 or 15 years old and he's buried with this beautiful necklace," said Professor Jane Evans, head of archaeological science for the BGS.
"The position of his burial, the fact he's near Stonehenge, and the necklace all suggest he's of significant status."
Dr Andrew Fitzpatrick, of Wessex Archaeology, backed this interpretation: "Amber necklaces are not common finds," he told BBC News.
"Most archaeologists would say that when you find burials like this... people who can get these rare and exotic materials are people of some importance."
Chemical record
Professor Evans likened Stonehenge in the Bronze Age to Westminster Abbey today - a place where the "great and the good" were buried.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
Club Med, ping.
Most likely Roman. They did not surrender to Islam like the English.
People in the ancient world traveled in an age without passports or currency exchanges.
It shouldn’t be that surprising.
Of course neither Islam nor Rome existed 3550 years ago.
No kidding. In the last 1,000 years Italy, Greece, Germany, Poland, Austria did the heavy lifting.
The UK let the BBC, Blair, Murdoch and the Saudis destroy Great Britain without firing a shot.
Rome was established before Islam was a gleam in some demon’s eye...and they occupied all of England before Mohammed had raped his first little boy.
Romans weren’t around 3500 years ago and Rome could never have surrendered to Islam.
Rome fell in 476AD and Islam was founded around 610AD.
I know. The Romans built pretty much everything in the UK.
Chemical tests on fabric from an ancient burial near Stonehenge indicate that the person in the grave grew up around the Mediterranean Sea due to spaghetti sauce residue
found on his shirt.
This makes the kid, as far as kids go and early patriarchs go, a near contemporary of Father Abraham, one way or the other by a couple of hundred years.
Islam was nowhere around in those days.
Still, the Phoenicians knew where Brittain was by that time, as did the people who lived along the coast of what is now called Portugual.
The amber almost certainly comes from Scandinavia although other minor deposits are known. At that time no Indo-Europeans lived in Scandinavia, so this would likely have started out as a direct trade by the Sa'ami to one of the more primitive tribes in the European interior ~ maybe the proto-Germans or proto-Celts, who would have traded it over the years, back and forth, until it ended up around the Black Sea becoming a trophy for some wealthy Mediterranean trader.
It seems the evidence keeps piling up.
To me it seems that if every possibly human habitable island on the planet pretty much has and has had human habitation for long ages - people got around.
In the famous case of the mutiny on the Bounty, their hope was a small island that some English sailor thought he saw once but wasn't drawn on any maps. They got there and damned if there were not people already on it!
Interesting point about the Sa’ami and Indo-Europeans.
I read an interesting thing that attempted to ‘reconstruct’ Indo-European culture from the words in common from Ireland to India (minor exceptions aside). Lots of words for sheep, horses, and the parts to a chariot (axle, wheel, etc); thus they surmised that they most likely rode horses, herded sheep, and had chariots.
One of the most negative consequences of the contact between Islam and the Eastern Roman Empire was the Moslem adoption of a form of government popular among the Romans ~ the "emperor" or "dictator". Sharia law, right up to 1000 AD or thereabouts when "the book was closed" drew heavily from the worst elements of Eastern law.
To a considerable degree the Ottoman Empire and the Roman Empire had the same faults for the same reasons.
The Western Empire technically "fell" in the 400s, but that was simply a change in dynasty since the replacements sought to preserve the Western Empire.
The Dark Ages happened with a bang in the mid 500s and had NOTHING to do with wandering bands of savages!
Impossible. Tomatoes are a New World plant. Couldn’t have happened pre-Columbus. Oh, you were kidding? Never mind.
Consequently they'd hook up a couple of horses to a chariot and you could pull two men in battle ~ although those same two men would be too big for the horses to ride, and would wear out quickly.
Later, through adroit use of animal husbandry (eat the small ones, breed the big ones) horses got big enough to ride.
During the early stages of horse culture guys on chariots rode back and forth from China to Central Europe on chariots ~ various improvements were invented all along the way. They have literally dug up some of the very first axle rigs ever manufactured ! This stuff is that new ~ it's not Ice Age work.
The Greeks, Romans, Persians, Egyptians and Chinese would have been astounded at the big Belgian horses developed for the carriage of armored knights! Those guys are about as big as the elephants in use in Hannibal's time.
Indo Europeans "received the horse" from others ~ but I think they put them to use faster and more effectively than any other group. Hence the successful spread of their language(s).
Yeah, maybe ...
The face that a person buried in the Mediterranean basin somewhere had such-and-such in his teeth does not prove that people who lived and died in other areas of the world did not also have such-and-such in their teeth.
The amber necklace clearly indicates trade with continental Europe, but the origin of the person is a lot of guesswork.
Not only that but the Saudis didn't own Fox News then. /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.