After digging to a depth of 100 meters last year, russian sceintists found traces of coper wire dating back 1000years, and came to the conclusion that their ancestors already had a telephone network one thousand years ago.
So, not to outdone, in the weeks that followed American scientists dug 200 metres and headlines in the US papers read:
"US scientists have found traces of 2000 year old optical fibres, and have concluded that their ancestors already had advanced high-tech digital telephone 1000 years earlier than the Russians."
One week later, the Ugandan newpapers reported the following:
"After digging as deep as 500 metres, Ugandan scientists have found absolutely nothing. They have concluded that 5000 years ago, their ancestors were already using wireless technology. :-O

...Just kidding:icon_cheesygrin:

commented: Nice one. +2

"US scientists have found traces of 2000 year old optical fibres, and have concluded that their ancestors already had advanced high-tech digital telephone 1000 years earlier than the Russians."

An interesting trick, considering that those present at that time in the area that would become America are really only the ancestors of a reasonably small portion of the populace.

or rather of no portion of the population at all as the people living there that long ago died out before the current "native americans" arrived from Asia (probably following the Aleutans from Japan) a few hundred years at most before Columbus...

well wired connection could be shown as 2 tin cans connected along some string.......

haha, nice one J.

or rather of no portion of the population at all as the people living there that long ago died out before the current "native americans" arrived from Asia (probably following the Aleutans from Japan) a few hundred years at most before Columbus...

Would you be willing to please point me at a reference source backing up your claim? If I'm wrong, I'd rather be corrected in detail than get little bits and pieces, and I'd rather get it from a source that can be brought forth if/when I do change my mind, then get challenged. I seriously doubt I'd be able to bring you forward at that point, but a reference source could probably be pulled up, either online of via the nearest library. Is this request too much to ask?

Why is 100 meters= 1000 years?

Probably just to give a nice, even transition between depth and time distance. I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it's for any 'real' archaeological reasons.

I was gonna toss in something about depth to the K-T Boundary relating on the 1-10 range, but ran into an interesting point on Wikipedia refering to fossils found 1.3 meters above the Boundary as being 40,000 years younger. I guess compaction works over time.

Hey people -- it's a JOKE!!!! :icon_rolleyes:

> Hey people -- it's a JOKE
...a thing which most of the people here find it difficult to digest. :-)

Hey people -- it's a JOKE!!!! :icon_rolleyes:

I am quite surprised at the kind of response that this tread had generated at what was supposed to be a joke!:-O

Hey people -- it's a JOKE!!!! :icon_rolleyes:

I knew it was a joke, but I was just wondering why he decided to make 100m=1k years.. :-/

because 100 and 1000 are easy to remember, similar etc.