marine archaeology

[Guest]

btw Arch
do you know what the effective range is for side scan sonar

why do you think i started this topic for??

yes i do know the depth of the titanic but until you start posting credible responses with links and sources, i will ignore you. you have no credibility with me and as far as i can tell you have blown it with others as well.

[stan]

I'm not sure this is the right thread for this information, but it relates to the the idea of what might be found offshore concerning indications of human migration. Except that is stuff was found above today's sea level, not below.

These finds were made by Robert Walter of Case Western Reserve U in
2000:

Although Walter continues to work with hominid discoveries, he has also branched off into a new and independent investigation, studying early human migrations from Africa to other parts of the world. In a 1999-2000 field exploration of an area in Eritrea called the Danakil Depression, Walter found stone tools and animal fossils along an ancient, perched shoreline that he describes as “the bathtub ring of the Red Sea.” These artifacts and fossils were deposited 125,000 years ago, during the last interglacial period when sea levels were six meters higher than they are today and when the climate was warmer and wetter.
This discovery, Walter said, provided “the earliest evidence of human occupation of a coastal marine environment.” The geological context of these tools suggest that early humans butchered large land animals and harvested edible shell fish in what amounts to the earliest “surf and turf” feast discovered so far. An adaptation to a seafood-rich diet by 125,000 years ago marks an important, perhaps defining, shift in early human behavior. This site also provides some of the first evidence of where the migration of Homo sapiens out of Africa might have taken place. Such coastal routes, it is now thought, allowed rapid expansion of human populations throughout Eurasia and even Australia between 100,000 and 60,000 years ago.

I read the original article the other day...was it on this forum or somewhere else?...sorry, I am tired. He found a lot of tools from different eras at different levels, too.

http://www.case.edu/news/2005/3-05/waltersages.htm

[Minimalist]

These artifacts and fossils were deposited 125,000 years ago, during the last interglacial period when sea levels were six meters higher than they are today

Thus, logically, there should be human habitations at the low water mark during the last glacial maximum. I get that, but finding them underwater is still a bitch of a problem.

[marduk]

Thus, logically, there should be human habitations at the low water mark during the last glacial maximum. I get that, but finding them underwater is still a bitch of a problem.

yeah especially as no one was actually living there at that time

you have no credibility with me and as far as i can tell you have blown it with others as well.

ooh yet another personal attack from the resident christian cultist
thats fine by me Arch
other people by now are suddently realising that the Titantic wasn't found with side scan sonar
you can carry on deluding yourself about the real world like you do with the religious one if you like
see if i care

i will start providing links for your perusal when those overdue links of yours show up
you know the ones you claimed you had that conclusively prove that the Biblical flood story is older than the sumerian original
any time this week century would be good

[Guest]

ooh yet another personal attack from the resident christian cultist
thats fine by me Arch

no, not a personal attack, just a statement of where you stand with me.

other people by now are suddently realising that the Titantic wasn't found with side scan sonar

you say this but you don't back it up. then you make a statement that the royal navy found it in '77 but you don't back it up. so why should anyone believe you?

you are beginning to sound like van daniken but with less 'proof'.

i will start providing links for your perusal when those overdue links of yours show up
you know the ones you claimed you had that conclusively prove that the Biblical flood story is older than the sumerian original

please refresh my meomory as i do not recall saying i had links that conclusively proved that. i know i laid out a common sense timeline but i doubt if i put myself that far out on a limb.

[stan]

I get that, but finding them underwater is still a bitch of a problem.

I wish you could read the origina article, an excellent combo of geology and archeo. Once you find a site, you dig down, right?
The artifacts on the sea bottom might be so old that they haven't been
disturbed for eons, if they are under layers of sediment, like these above sealevel. So if there is some way to isolate an area from the tides and currents, why not dig down in a controlled way? Hasn't this been done with shipwrecks?...with coffer dams?
Or even under water, couldn't archeologists vacuum out the site bit by bit? Seems to me its worth trying on some promising site. Are we going to wait for the next ice age to find these things?

[marduk]

you say this but you don't back it up. then you make a statement that the royal navy found it in '77 but you don't back it up. so why should anyone believe you?

because if they were actually interested in the subject Arch instead of sounding off pretending that they had a pair they might actually just do this
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... 1977&meta=
or dont you get google in korea
your excuses at not doing your own research are getting poorer and poorer btw
and yes
you did claim you would provide links in all your posts and then berated everyone else for not doing so
then you said that crap about the sumerian flood story being a later redaction of the Biblical version

did you consider that the sumerians not being semites couldnt be related to Noah at all
so according to the bible they didnt exist
they certainly arent mentioned in it by anything but a much later derivation of an akkadian name
Shinar(hebrew around 650bce) - Shumer akkadian around 2400bce) - SU.MIR (sumerian original)

[Guest]

or dont you get google in korea

probably because you can't. i checked the 1st 10 of those links you coughed up on google and not one credible source (there was one conspiracy site) mentioned that the royal navy discoverying the titanic in 1977.

you are a waste of time and a troll and still with no credibility with me.

p.s. i may not have read all the words in all the pages so there might be the slightest chance that the royal navy floated over the site unknowingly

[marduk]

From the first link from google

"In 1977 the British were conducting top-secret tests of new deep-sea underwater sonar equipment, which was to be used in locating and detecting Russian nuclear submarines. It is now a known fact that these Russian nuclear submarines were hiding in the deep waters off the North Atlantic coast around New Brunswick and Greenland.

During one of these top secret tests in 1977, of the new deep underwater sonar two very large metallic objects were located in the "general" vicinity and "depth" were Dr. Ballard located the wreck in 1985.

During the height of the cold war the United States and the British didn't want the "Russians" to learn how sophisticated our new deep-sea underwater sonar equipment had become. So information on this possible discovery of the "Titanic" was keep "Classified".

It is highly suspected that this 1977 classified information became known to Dr. Ballard and "Cadillac" Jack Grimm. In October 1977, where were Dr. Ballard and Bill Tantum IV of THS they were trying to raise money for an expedition to locate the Titanic in this general area.

its always a non credible source when you don't know anything about the subject isn't it Arch
heres some more credible information for you to chew on while your crying your eyes out at being proved a dullard yet again
Robert Ballard couldn't have found the Titanic with side scan sonar like Min first claimed (notice he hasn't been back to back it up since i posted that advice earlier)

the maximum allowed range for any towed side scan sonar is 100m

the Titanic lies in 13,000 feet of water

now this time i'm not going to bother posting links because when i do you don't believe them anyway because youre an idiot
so why don't you do what everyone else does
and if your interested in knowing the truth check it out for yourself like any normal inquisitive human would do
obviously that doesnt apply to you because apparently you like to be spoon fed infomation which you then weigh up against what you know (i.e. nothing in this case) and then arrive at a hypothesis based on the evidence you have collected (i.e. none)
so its hardly surprising that you are wrong all the time is it
using religious methods to solve scientific enquiry doesnt work
the Titanics depth is not a matter of faith
the effective range of side scan sonar is not a matter of faith
the evidence that teh location of the Titanic was known before Ballard was not a matter of faith because clearly he couldn't use side scan sonar to find it and his claim to have discovered it by towing a camera behind a ship is just a little too unbelievable in the real world don't you think

0/10
must try even harder

[Guest]

From the first link from google

actually that was the second link and that was the conspiracy site i mentioned. there is nothing on that site that officially or otherwise substantiates that claim.

again, you are a time waster and ignored.

[Minimalist]

Or even under water, couldn't archeologists vacuum out the site bit by bit? Seems to me its worth trying on some promising site. Are we going to wait for the next ice age to find these things?

Sure, they could. The question is will they. It's much more expensive to conduct an underwater dig and, as has been noted elsewhere, archaeology is not always well funded in comparison to say....producing video games.

I suspect that lots of people go digging in the ME because the chance of actually finding something is a hell of a lot greater.

The Club likes success.

But then, who doesn't?

[Roberto]

Not up on the exact details, but alot of the so called "early" deep water surveys of the ocean floor are done by a ship with the tranducer mounted on the bottom hull of the ship. The sea floor is then pinged, which echos back up to the ship,as the ship makes a gridded pattern sweep of the floor bottom. Thus a profile of the floor bottom is recorded which in appearance looks like a side wall profile of a trench in 2-D. Any abnormal spikes that stand up on the bottom are then gone back over to see what they are, such as a wreck or natural geological formation. This was the early approach, so your mistaken to think that side scan sonar as being "pulled" by a cable. This early technology evolved with the NAVY, looking for subs during the Cold War. With this technology the Ocean Floors where mapped as we know it today. Military technology, and that is where Ballard comes in.
Once you find something on the bottom today, with side scan, it usually is followed up by pulling a sled across it. This takes what looks more like a pictures in 3-D perspective. It's more visually oriented, and can give you a great picture of a ship wreck. This is where Ballard comes in working for the NAVY and Ocean Holes Institute on the U.S. East coast. So bacially there are two types of approaches to bottom survey, doing side scan survey with a ship mounted with a transducer for VERY DEEP water, or pulling a side scan fish in shallow water, say from 300 meter deep to zero depth. Deeper than 300 meter, used the ship mounted tranducer on the hull. Once all that is done, if it's not too deep they pull a sled and acquire a picture. And if it's REAL DEEP a mini sub goes down to take samples and photo like Ballard did on the Titanic. All Ballard knowledge and equipment evolved out from the NAVY, and as this technology began to loose it "High Security" profile, it was given out to the general public to use and study.
Now in the Black Sea, Ballard is in 300 meters and less. He followed the depth at where the coast line was before the Black Sea was filled.
Along the shelf edge and he has recorded wrecks that have varified where the coast line existed before rising water. He also followed up side scan survey with pulling a sled to see what the abnormalities where. And he took samples with a mini sub I believe.
Along the coast of West Louisiana, and East Texas, side scan surveys have been performed for the Oil Company's. Side scan is pulled behind a small vessel. It's shaped usually like a small torpedo, and it's called a "fish." This is all shallow water less than 100 meters. In this particular reference that I now refer to, probably around 20 to 50 meters, side scan survey have found pockets of shell that resemble shell middens along the side of old river channels that once pushed out to the outer continental shelf, before the sea level rose some some 3,000 or 5,000 years ago. This would be all pre-pottery time in the Southeast. So until some coring is done on these possible shell-middens to varify if they are "man made" or natural shell deposits we want know for sure. Coring is the only way to test something on the seafloor at this time. But they are strongly believed to be early shell middens. Both Paleo and Archaic people most certainly where scattered along these early tributaries, these river banks, that extended out to the continental shelf along the Gulf Coast before the sea level rose to what we know it today. We're a long way off from archaeological excavation on the sea floor except in shallow water. Then it has largely been on ship wrecks, with artifacts scattered atop the sea floor, which is gridded off by string, and then sediment is blown away or pumped back up to a ship where it runs through a water sieve. Trowel work of course out of the question. So stratigraphy would need a core sample to be established.
Long point given. Side scan survey can find abnormalities on the floor in the 2-D perspective, like a trench wall profile. But then additional follow up is needed to see what it is in a 3-D perspective. Side scan by itself is not totally conviencing. But it CAN be performed a various depths.
If you need reference to this, I can followed up with that after work.
CHEERS ...

[marduk]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... 1977&meta=
its the first article Arch
and you are an idiot if you cant see that
everyone else can
and how is responding to a post ignoring someone exactly
not only do you need maths lessons but english too

[Frank Harrist]

The custom stainless steel towfish has been used to search as deep as 850 feet.

http://gralston1.home.mindspring.com/Sidescan.html

[Roberto]

That's interesting Frank. Never heard of side scan being used to find drown victims. But with the right, experience person watching the side scan, it can be easy to pick out such objects as tires, oil drums, and surely a human body. And with the newer equipment coming out, you can even get a nice picture of the object. Ultimately it still takes a human to scuba dive, or take a minin sub down to varify the object found.