Marine Archaeology

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:54 pm

Digit wrote:
The Sunda's shallowest part is about 600ft deep, so taking the water level down 400ft still leaves 200ft and if the land is rising as RS states then 18000yrs ago the water would have been more than 200ft deep, a bit much for walking I think.

I've seen you do that before, Dig: claiming somebody (me, in this instance) states one thing, while they (me) say/said exactly the opposite:
the land was, and still is sinking! Not rising! Inferring the deep straits of today were even drier then, thus easier to 'negotiate' = walk across. And not wetter.

Also, I never said the Abo's walked across Strait Sunda 18,000 years ago. If they did, they did that at least 50,000 years ago. When there were much lower sea levels than 18,000 years ago!

Better read a bit more carefully. That improves communication.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:29 pm

I apologise for my error. But kindly do not accuse me of doing it deliberately, it would be rather pointless would it not?
So please show some actual evidence that the Sunda strait was ever shallow enough for paddling, or some evidence that placental mammals made it to Oz, not your pet theories, we can all have those, but some actual evidence.
Meantime may I suggest you study up on the Wallace Line and explain why we have the whole of acedemia in one corner on the subject and your good self in the other.
Nobody has ever found the remains of placental mammals in Oz and the Wallace line idea has stood for longer than even I have been around,
prove that placental mammals made it to Oz and you will be famous.
There's a challenge for you.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:31 am

Digit wrote:
Meantime may I suggest you [...] explain why we have the whole of acedemia in one corner on the subject and your good self in the other.

Reminiscent of e.g. the Clovis-first debate, and Galileo Galileï, isn't it? We, here, all know how 'valuable' majority standpoints are.
NOT.
Since when is something true because 'most people think so'?

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:59 am

Absolutely! Being the only one in step ain't no crime!

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:01 am

R/S - I've followed the discussion between you and Digit. I know that there are other people here who are wanting to say this - so I'll just say it. It is not:

because 'most people think so'?

The isolation of land masses below the Wallace line is a proven scientific fact.

This is not a matter of opinion. It's just a fact. Do a Google search.

And actually, given the sea level at the time of the first crossing, we know that humans had to cross 50 miles of ocean. This is common knowledge. I'll see you guys later.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:39 am

Beagle wrote:R/S - I've followed the discussion between you and Digit. I know that there are other people here who are wanting to say this - so I'll just say it. It is not:
because 'most people think so'?
The isolation of land masses below the Wallace line is a proven scientific fact.

I beg to differ, Beag: it is an interpretation of the available data. Just like Clovis-first is an interpretation of available data.

given the sea level at the time of the first crossing, we know that humans had to cross 50 miles of ocean.

"The time of the first crossing"? That's interesting! When was that? And what is the support, the foundation, for that posit?
And "we know that humans had to cross 50 miles of ocean" sounds very definite. And precise. How do "we" know that?

This is common knowledge.

I've heard stronger argumentations . . .

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:05 am

I agree that what we "know" is an interpretation of available data. Right now we're pretty sure that the earth is round. Here is a link to the Wallace Line:

http://www.radford.edu/~swoodwar/CLASSE ... lline.html

This data has been confirmed by geologists and accepted by the scientific community. Plus the pure logic of Australias' isolation by way of the native fauna. None of that fauna extended north of the Wallace Line.

It's fine to be opinionated, but it's another to be simply obstinate. I'm not wanting to sound like an ass, but this discussion seems like one from the Flat Earth Society.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:24 am

I've heard stronger argumentations . . .

Like why has nobody ever found remains of placental mammals in Oz other than Homo and Canis you mean?
Be fair RS, you're not prepared to listen to stronger arguments, you've ignored the above fact, you've ignored water level reports and you've not been able to suggest any sensible alternatives.
The suggestion that other mammals crossed with Homo and Canis but Homo wiped them out ignores the fact that there is not a shred of evidence in support, and the scenario is unlikely in the extreme.
Even if this happened we have been unable to find any butchery sites or bones that survived the feasting, as have been found elsewhere of course, nor even pictographs of likely animals. Nothing RS! Not even folk tales.
On that basis, even if incorrect, logic says other species did not make it!

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 8:27 am

Digit wrote:
I've heard stronger argumentations . . .
Like why has nobody ever found remains of placental mammals in Oz other than Homo and Canis you mean?
Be fair RS, you're not prepared to listen to stronger arguments, you've ignored the above fact, you've ignored water level reports and you've not been able to suggest any sensible alternatives.
The suggestion that other mammals crossed with Homo and Canis but Homo wiped them out ignores the fact that there is not a shred of evidence in support, and the scenario is unlikely in the extreme.
Even if this happened we have been unable to find any butchery sites or bones that survived the feasting, as have been found elsewhere of course, nor even pictographs of likely animals. Nothing RS! Not even folk tales.
On that basis, even if incorrect, logic says other species did not make it!

Yeah, that looks like pretty definite, doesn't it? But so did Clovis-first!
I agree that there are still a lot of voids in 'my' scenario. But voids tend to fill themselves eventually. There are also a lot of arguments in favor of it:

– Sea levels were 400 to 600 feet lower, and rose since (still do).
– SE Asia's tectonic plate rode a lot higher in the earth's crust, and has been steadily sinking since, still does today.
– marsupials are indigenous to Sulawesi
– it is very speculative – improbable, imo – that man, 50,000 years BP, posessed the seafaring skills to navigate considerable sea lanes. That man possessed those skills 6,000 or 7,000 years BP is imaginable to me. 50,000 years BP is not.
That tells me there were no 'considerable sea lanes' to navigate, then. Which ties in neatly with the geological record.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 8:44 am

Oh, and:
when they got to Oz with their high-tech (for the era), but apparently extremely effective seafaring and boat building skills, they subsequently completely forgot about them? How likely is that?
Now if they never did do seafaring and boat building, that explains why they haven't a clue about seafaring and boat building today!

It's not their thing, and never was.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 8:59 am

Have you guys heard about 3,000 year old submerged city found under the sea around Japan?

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:04 am

Hi Ishtar,
missed you for a while. Good you're back.

What '3,000 yr old submerged city around Japan'?
Got links?

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:10 am

I heard something about it.

Might not "city" be a little too grandiose a term, though?

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:17 am

Glad to be back to. Had cyberspace problems.

If you go to this page, and scroll down to the Audio links, you can see film of it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:23 am

Here's a news link to it:

http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyl ... 7320070827

TOKYO (Reuters Life!) - A researcher investigating underwater rock formations off the coast of Japan believes they are the remnants of an Asian equivalent of Atlantis -- an ancient civilization swallowed up by the ocean.

Marine geologist Masaaki Kimura says he has identified the ruins of a city off the coast of Yonaguni Island on the southwestern tip of Japan.

He has worked for decades to prove the rocks found by scuba diving tourists in 1985 are from an ancient city, which he says may have sparked the fable of Mu -- a Pacific equivalent of the tale of the lost city of Atlantis.

"Judging by the design and the disposition of the ruins, the city must have looked just like an ancient Roman city," said Kimura, a professor at Ryukyu University and the chairman of the non-profit Marine Science and Culture Heritage Research Association.

"I can envisage a triumphal arch-like statue stood on the left side of the Colosseum and a shrine over the hill," he told Reuters Television.

Some of the initial divers notices the rocks were unnaturally smooth and formed a sort of staircase near the island's shores. Subsequent dives by Kimura revealed irregular rock outcrops over 1 square km (0.4 square mile) and mounds of rubble.

Kimura says he believes the city had a castle, a shrine, an arch, statues and a colosseum.