Skip to comments.UK's Oldest town revealed: Amesbury dates back more than TEN millenia
Posted on 05/07/2014 6:42:45 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Carbon dating from an archaeological dig by the university shows that the parish of Amesbury has been continually occupied for every millennia since 8,820BC. The origins of Amesbury have been discovered as a result of carbon dating bones of aurochs - twice the size of bulls, wild boar and red deer - following a dig at Vespasian's Camp, Blick Mead, a mile-and-a-half from Stonehenge.
It dates the activities of the people who were responsible for building the first monuments at Stonehenge, made of massive pine posts, and show their communities continuing to work and live in the area for a further 3,000 years, close to the dawn of the Neolithic when Stonehenge was first built...
The findings provide evidence which suggests that Stonehenge, rather than being seen as a neolithic new build in an empty landscape, should be viewed as a response to long-term use of the area by indigenous hunters and home-makers.
Further findings appear to shed light on the persistent use of domestic farming techniques at Blick Mead, now believed to be used by settled communities rather than nomadic peoples...
During a six-week dig, 31,000 flints were discovered in a 16 sq m (172 sq ft) area and more than 2,000 were found in a 1 sq m (11 sq ft) - the largest concentration of such finds in Europe.
(Excerpt) Read more at express.co.uk ...
Back then it was just called the town, because everyone knew what town you were talking about - the only one
Amesbury and Boscombe Down
May have moved there from Doggerland — after their antediluvian civilization was swallowed up by the sea.
It is nice to read someone use the term, ‘B.C. rather than B.C.E. Sheesh!
Wow! Evidence that there’s still something left of Britain.
Yes. But they already knew that from the remains of the green dome.
I read the article, but found no mention of what the image in the upper left corner is.
How many generations back might that be? If we assume the average age at first pregnancy was 15 then that’s about 66 generations per 1,000 years.
Average age at first pregnancy could have been 15, first successful pregnancy probably a little higher; 600+ generations must be close. It would be nice to have some more complete information as to life expectancy based on actual remains that old, but probably not going to get that.
They mentioned auroch remains, and that would be my guess, even now as I really look at it the first time close up.
So in 10,000 years, the number of, ah, couplings, to result in you and me is a mind-blowing 2^6000.
Yup, looks like a vertebrae of a BIG animal.
BTW would you please post a picture of an artist’s rendering or a picture of a skeleton of an Auroch?
The Auroch looked similar to a longhorn, but was bigger and broader. The last known specimen died in the 1700s in Poland, not that long ago, and mind boggling to think that it was hunted, and then herded, in the last ice age.
Even more, I’m sure they did it every chance they got. ;’) The possible chromosome combos of a single human mating pair (assuming no extras, or Turner Syndrome) is 2^23. Practically speaking, humans can’t achieve that. :’)
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.