Archaeology's Dirty Little Secret

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:56 am

Neither, to your last question, Doug, you need to learn to read for comprehension.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:58 am

Genesis Veracity wrote:When do you think the Ice Age ended, oas, and what is your evidence?

You claim to have graduated with a geology degree

If so - go read your text books. If they don't convinve you of the timing of the Holocene then nothing I can do is going to work.

Doug - To quote Billy Joel...

"You should never argue with a crazy man."

I must keep that principle in mind.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:02 am

Hey Doug,

Submerged sites:

Megalithc paving stones and walls off Huelva, Rota, Chipiona, Tarifa, Lixus, Sliema, Platygiali, Elafonisi, Abdera, Epidauros, Astakos, Alexandria (submerged Menothis and Herakleion), Beirut (submerged Yarmuta and Sidon), Dwarka (submerged old Dwarka), in Gulfs of Kutch and Cambay, off Mahabalipuram down to the tip of India, off Yonaguni, Kerama, Chatan, Okinawa, and off Pohnpei (as well as others off Pacific islands). Go fish.

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:28 am

One good source of underwater archaeological information is a book I have called the British Museum Encyclopedia of Underwater and Maritime Archaeology. It's 1997 though. About 500 pages and almost 200 contributors.

It discusses some of the sites and more that GV mentions. It isn't the case that there hasn't been a lot of work done (although some places it is very hard, eg an area much discussed in the Gulf of Cambay has very serious currents that preclude much work and have obscured what is actually there, eg the piece of wood offered as a method of dating the site almost certainly washed to where it was found in the currents.

Don't let people con you into thinking that there has been no work. There is always room for more, but a lot has gone on (and a lot of nonsense written about some sites, eg Yonaguni).

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:30 am

the gulf of Cambray was totally debunked
its just pseudoscience to mention it now
thats why it appeared on the ghmb

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:30 am

I shouldn't respond to nonsense like this,

Delete all after "like this."

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:35 am

Go look at those sonar scans by the NIO of India, two cities on a now-submerged paleo-river, about 5 miles by 2 miles in extent, with gridded networks of streets, and the foundations of hundreds of buildings, apparently of the Mohenjo-Daro style, so the question is not if they're there, the queston is when did they succumb to the sea?

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:42 am

you can't detect cities with sonar scans Jim
you can just detect lumps which scientists designate as anomalies
they have no evidence that there is anything in the gulf of Cambray
if they did it would be headline news
not so much as a pot for you to piss in has been found so far

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:49 am

It was headline news all over Asia, now they're just trying to decide when they went under, do some reading Markuk, you'll figure it out.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:32 pm

do some reading Markuk, you'll figure it out.

yes youre quite right
i shouldn't rely on Hindu soyrces for hindu claims should i
i should listen to the crap uyou come out with or what Hancock claims
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1905/19050670.htm
because the Hindu source says its crap

Prominent members of the archaeological community have since debunked the Ministry's claim. While not disputing the possible existence of underwater structures in the Gulf of Khambat, they argue that the evidence found so far is far too flimsy to support the grand claims that are being made

Professor K.V. Raman, former head of the Department of Archaeology, University of Madras, and former Superintending Archaeologist with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), says that the site needs more probing. On the pre-Harappan label being attached to the site, he says, "I am really sick of the politicisation of matters like this. It destroys the integrity of my profession."

check the date as well Jim

Volume 19 - Issue 05, Mar. 02 - 15, 2002

It was debunked before you even heard about it but you didn't bother to check the validity because you thought you could use it
now you know its bollox how big do you feel
roflmao

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:42 pm

One or two darwinian/uniformitarians against all that evidence? Pleeeeeeeeeease.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:02 pm

you mean the minister for khambat tourism, you and Graham Hancock and no evidence against every qualified archaeologist marine or otherwise whos ever commented on it
which bookmakers is taking bets on this one

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:40 am

Hmmm, maybe I use the word "Debunk" in a different meaning to everyone else.

Marduk I got a different impression from reading your link. It across to me not so much as "There is no Pre-Harappan city there" as "We need to do a lot more research before we can claim there is a Pre-Harappan city there." These are two very different statements.

Also note that objections 4 and 5 in the article have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the find. (If there is one.

) So what if it goes against "well-established evidence on the age of civilisations"? If we do not review and modify our theories and beliefs to account for new evidence, then we are practicing religion, not science. And "Oh those naughty boys didn't follow the accepted procedure". Big, bloody woop. If an artifact is there it's there, whether you follow accepted procedure or not.

Having said that, let me say this. (I'm thinking of running for Parliment, does it show?

) The evidence so far is only in favour of a site possibly being there and nothing more. Much more work would need to be done with far better tools than a bloody dredge before any real conclusions could be drawn.

And in closing I'd like to say, "Hello Everybodyyyyyyy" (Where's a "wave" smilie when you need one?

)

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:37 am

Be my guest, mate.

(And you are 1,000% right about the need to develop the site further.)

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:09 am

Hello JohnB - and welcome.