Ogygos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I have drawn the great circle. It crosses over
> Canada, Alaska, New Guinea, Australia, Antarctica.
> It is not near any ancient sites.

Really? I know sometimes I over focus on terms and usages, but really?

For one thing, there appears to be definite lack of underwater archaeological expeditions - understandable given the scarcity of documents pertaining to potential sites but nonetheless.

For another, archaeology in the area around Austrailia isn't near as focused as say Africa or even Europe, much less N.A.

However, that doesn't mean there is nothing there...

New Guinea is possibly the sketchiest - both in terms of experts & findings. Still something there though...
[www.stonepages.com]

In Austrailia, much controversy surrounds sites in the NE as to chronology, but ULURU is a serious consideration.
[askville.amazon.com]

New Zealand has, potentially, the most interesting formations when you speak of sites.
[www.unexplained-mysteries.com]


So i don't think you should say you found 'nothing'... perhaps not 'sites' as you are looking for with a more sophisticated criteria for qualification. However, these are significant sites, they are ancient, they do exist That is, assuming your great circle covers these sites of course. I suspect if you choose your start point correctly, you could wind up in the pacific too.

However, as Jammer already pointed out, when you conclude that most civilization is north of a certain point, you are seemingly eurocentric. Could you perhaps try a different point, one that can't be claimed to be Euro-Centric?