so you don't even recognise cuneiform the written language of mesopotamia
so your claim that you could read sumerian was what
an idle boast ?
an error ?
a lie !!!!

laughable

Originally posted by Marduk
the bone abnormality is found in 3% of all races
including 3% of Norsemen as they are one of the "all races"
so there is zero evidence for this being an Incan skeleton or any other skeleton except Norse

This has been pointed out on other sites (antropological ones) -- as well as the lack of Incan artifacts.

no one at all is claiming that these are Eskimo bones
your making this up as you go along arent you

That actually was one of my speculations. It's plausible that they're half breeds (which also explains to some extent the position in the graveyard.)

fyi the scandanavians did not go around making memorial stones to dogs

The stone is a gravestone and I can confirm that the inscription in Futhark appears to be the grave of a horseman.

Originally posted by Byrd

no one at all is claiming that these are Eskimo bones
your making this up as you go along arent you

That actually was one of my speculations. It's plausible that they're half breeds (which also explains to some extent the position in the graveyard.)

yeah I saw you say that at HOM and thought you were speculating
heres the real facts of the matter about the interparietal bone
the statement tp the press that it is only found in the Inca was made by the staff archaeologist at Borgarsyssel Museum, Mona Beate Buckholm
she holds no qualifications at all in Human Biology
the interparietal bone is one of those which in human becomes fused with age like the other bones of the skull.
not everyone is the same, Interparietal bones are found in 3% of all human genus
there is also Apert's syndrome which causes irregular skull formation which is also characterised by a interparietal bone being present and this syndrome affects 1 in 16,000 people

so the chances of there being a skull with an interprietal bone present in a graveyard is one in thirty

now St Nicholas church where these bones were found was built in the 12th century
Norway was christianised around 1000CE
so finding non christian bodies buried in unconsecrated ground is far from unusual as conversion in Norway was quite peaceful and people didn't all rush to kneel at the cross as they still don't to this day

of course what really would prove it is the age of the Skeletons and the dna samples taken from the teeth which will tell where the individual grew up, but conbsidering that this story was started by someone making an unqualified statement to a member of the press, after a story I wouldn't lose any sleep over it



[edit on 30-6-2007 by Marduk]

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by tomcat ha
Well incans in scandinavia is more plausible than vikings in latin america. The gulfsteam would be a significant help to anyone travelling from the americas to europe.

Uhm... no.

Gulf stream is only in the northern hemisphere. So niether option is terribly likely.

Actually you are both wrong and you are both right. If you can make it to the straits of Florida you can catch the Gulf Stream north to Europe and be carried along by the current. The traditional sail route to the Americas is to travel south to the Canaries and catch the (I forget the exact name for them) equatorial winds that blow east to west, and allow them to carry you right to Martinque, then catch the gulf stream home. The gulf stream is quite impressive. I have been in the north Atlantic where the water is a steel gray blue then suddenly right in the middle of the ocean is a literal line on which the other side of which the waters are not only considerably warmer but a shade of greenish blue.

As for the Vikings they traditionally hugged the shore and had ships decked out with both sails and oars so if the winds were calm they could row. There are arctic currents that go back and forth between northern Europe and Labrador.

As for the Inca.... This title is misleading.... the Inca as a culture did not exist in 1000 AD.

[edit on 30-6-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by Marduk
the statement tp the press that it is only found in the Inca was made by the staff archaeologist at Borgarsyssel Museum, Mona Beate Buckholm
she holds no qualifications at all in Human Biology

I'll differ with you a bit there. Traditionally, archaeological degrees include coursework on hominid evolution and the forensics of hominids.

there is also Apert's syndrome which causes irregular skull formation which is also characterised by a interparietal bone being present and this syndrome affects 1 in 16,000 people

There's not much there to judge from, but I don't think it's Apert's. The sutures look relatively normal.

so finding non christian bodies buried in unconsecrated ground is far from unusual

That was one of my speculations.

of course what really would prove it is the age of the Skeletons and the dna samples taken from the teeth which will tell where the individual grew up, but conbsidering that this story was started by someone making an unqualified statement to a member of the press, after a story I wouldn't lose any sleep over it

Nothing was said about what else was found with the three bodies.

I agree that she rushed to judgement and will probably be castigated by her peers. But it's an interesting find, anyway.

I don't buy that either. As for the extent of the Incan empire, which BTW barely lasted a century and was already breaking up by the time the Spanish got there, Never extended east beyond the Andes.

Unless genetic markers were found that link the bones with the Inca; the odds are that the remains aren't.

When it comes to mysteries the one that I always find most faciniating is the fact Australian Aborigines and the Irish are so closely related. To this day many Aboriginal children are born with blonde hair and blue eyes that darken as they grow up.

Originally posted by grover


When it comes to mysteries the one that I always find most faciniating is the fact Australian Aborigines and the Irish are so closely related. To this day many Aboriginal children are born with blonde hair and blue eyes that darken as they grow up.

oh please provide some credible evidence of this
i never heard that one before

Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean squat. But I will see what I can find.

I'm aware there's genetic variance. The tricks is, what you're looking for.

If you take, say the Australian Aborigines and try to look for who they're different from, you're going to get a better result than if you try to find out who they share the most similarities with. Either way you're ultimately looking for differences, but in the latter case you can just as easily go "hell with it, they're Irish" and still be pretty damn close, lol

I do find it funny that they were found as "Irish". I'll bet it was an Irish dude who did the study. Ten bucks says they're descended from a "Cherokee princess", too...

[edit on 1-7-2007 by TheWalkingFox]