Marine Archaeology

[Rokcet Scientist]

Without artefacts that sounds very soft. Basicaly like projection. Wishful thinking, if you will.
Looks like we may have to wait for the National Geographic documentary.

[Ishtar]

Without artefacts that sounds very soft. Basicaly like projection. Wishful thinking, if you will.
Looks like we may have to wait for the National Geographic documentary.

But like the Gulf of Cambay, I think there's often a problem where artefacts are concerned when it's under water....especially for 3,000 years...do you think?

[MichelleH]

Welcome back Ishtar!

Actually these 'ruins' have been discussed for a while. I'm not sure why it is coming up again.

Here are some links, check out the dates. This was originally discovered in 1985.

http://www.robertschoch.net/Enigmatic%2 ... S%20CT.htm

http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni_schoch1.html

[Rokcet Scientist]

But like the Gulf of Cambay, I think there's often a problem where artefacts are concerned when it's under water....especially for 3,000 years...do you think?

A stele, or something similar, is good enough as an 'artefact' for me. Should easily survive 3,000 years submerged.

BTW, what is that "3,000 years BP" based on?
It looks like Dwarka in the Gulf of Cambay is maybe 3 times that age. I understand a chunk of timber from a Dwarkan well is being tested with C-14 as we speak. Can we expect published results this year?

[Ishtar]

Hi Michelle H

yes, I also heard about this Japanese one at least a year or so ago, but because Reuters and the BBC were suddenly reporting it, and showing film, I assumed that there might have been a new find, or something...

[Ishtar]

BTW, what is that "3,000 years BP" based on?
It looks like Dwarka in the Gulf of Cambay is maybe 3 times that age. I understand a chunk of timber from a Dwarkan well is being tested with C-14 as we speak. Can we expect published results this year?

I think Beagle's on top of when and what will be published on Cambay. I haven't heard anything, myself, lately.

[Digit]

they subsequently completely forgot about them? How likely is that?

Dunno, you could try asking the people of Kiev and Easter Island though.

[Minimalist]

BTW, what is that "3,000 years BP" based on?
It looks like Dwarka in the Gulf of Cambay is maybe 3 times that age. I understand a chunk of timber from a Dwarkan well is being tested with C-14 as we speak. Can we expect published results this year?

I think Beagle's on top of when and what will be published on Cambay. I haven't heard anything, myself, lately.

If memory serves, always dangerous at my age, they only recovered that piece of wood last spring. Wood that has been submerged for a long period of time has to be carefully treated.

I also guess they have to dry it before doing the test. Could take some time.

[kbs2244]

The submerged Japanese ruins are nothing new. They were found over 30 years ago.
But they suffer from the same problem as the Chinese around the world exploring/colonizing trip; the Bay of Cambay ruins; the South African ruins; the basin wide culture of the Amazon; and many others.

First; they were not built by, or undertaken by, white, European people.
And
Second; the Bible never speaks of them.

Therefore they simply never existed and/or never happened. “WE have no documentation. WE have no artifacts. WE have no evidence. WE have no history of it.”

Minimalist always signs off with a note about “macerated egos“. It is a good quote. But believers in God are not the only ones that suffer from it.

It is a sad but simple fact. No matter how well educated, and no matter how much experience they may have, local or native discovers get no credit on their finds until a white man with a north European name and background signs on. And then it becomes his “discovery.”

That is the basic problem Gavin Menzzies is having with 1421. In spite of his personal background, it just dosn't matter how much evidence he comes up with, our egos will not let us believe a non-white nation could accomplish such a thing.

[Beagle]

Hi Michelle H

yes, I also heard about this Japanese one at least a year or so ago, but because Reuters and the BBC were suddenly reporting it, and showing film, I assumed that there might have been a new find, or something...

Nothing new, but the Japanese scientist that originally reported on it is once again asserting that the formation is artificial. He says that Schoch was mistaken in concluding that it was a natural formation. So...he is back in the news.

Hi Ishtar.

[Beagle]

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/may102004/1225.pdf

The great majority of early shell midden sites showing
consumption of shellfish date after 6000 yrs BP, when the
sea level was rising rapidly and was already close to present
level. Earlier than that the data are lost and yet it has
been known since the 1960s that the first human occupants
of Australia arrived there at least 30 ky BP, and that they
had to cross many sea channels of tens of km width2,13 to
reach Australia. Modern dating of Australian sites shows
that people were in Australia at least 50–60 ky BP1, and
the only way they could have traversed the sea channels
was by using sufficiently sophisticated floating craft to carry
many tens of people within the space of a few years. A
breeding population of the order 100–200 people is needed
to ensure a continuous growth in population, which can be
stable against the threats of predators, disease, drought, and
bad hunting seasons14. If people could make such crossings
50–60 ky BP, then they could probably make smaller
crossings of 2–10 km many thousands of years before that.

Article about the Marine exploration of continental shelves. Interesting.

[Digit]

http://www.he.net/~archaeol/9703/etc/specialreport.html

Just in case we need any more ammo Beag, and with an interesting link about erectus.

[daybrown]

The submerged Japanese ruins are nothing new. They were found over 30 years ago.
But they suffer from the same problem as the Chinese around the world exploring/colonizing trip; the Bay of Cambay ruins; the South African ruins; the basin wide culture of the Amazon; and many others.

First; they were not built by, or undertaken by, white, European people.
And
Second; the Bible never speaks of them.

Therefore they simply never existed and/or never happened. “WE have no documentation. WE have no artifacts. WE have no evidence. WE have no history of it.”

Minimalist always signs off with a note about “macerated egos“. It is a good quote. But believers in God are not the only ones that suffer from it.

It is a sad but simple fact. No matter how well educated, and no matter how much experience they may have, local or native discovers get no credit on their finds until a white man with a north European name and background signs on. And then it becomes his “discovery.”

That is the basic problem Gavin Menzzies is having with 1421. In spite of his personal background, it just dosn't matter how much evidence he comes up with, our egos will not let us believe a non-white nation could accomplish such a thing.

The jingoism you refer to is Christian, not white. The history is obscure, but there are some few cultures, like the Tocharians, who were white, but never Christianized. They never had a "Jewish problem". Their writings and business dealings with the Chinese reflect an attitude of mutual respect.

Chinese bodies have been found in Tocharian graveyards with the same Tocharian clothes and gravegoods as everyone else had.

If you look up the pre-Christian Greek meaning of the term "barbarian", it simply meant someone who spoke a different language with different values, not that they were, in any way, inferior.

But really. what else would we expect of people who were told they were chosen for blessedness by god? Nobody sold that bullshit to the Tocharians. Maybe they were smarter?

[Beagle]

Thanks Digit - I don't know about "ammo" but this is a good article from 10 yrs. ago. Since that time Bednarik has all but proven the Erectus seafaring from 800,000 yrs. ago, which this article states may be the case.

http://cat.he.net/~archaeol/9703/etc/specialreport.html

To understand the implications of these discoveries, one must be aware that the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago contains two very different biogeographical regions. The western islands on the Sunda Shelf--Sumatra, Java, Bali, and Borneo--were joined to each other and to the Asian mainland by landbridges during glacial periods of low sea level. Hence they supported rich Asian placental mammal faunas and were colonized by Homo erectus, perhaps as early as 1.8 million years ago. The eastern islands--Sulawesi, Lombok, Flores, Timor, the Moluccas, and the Philippines--have never been linked by landbridges to either the Sunda Shelf or Australia, or to each other. They had limited mammal faunas, chance arrivals from Asia and Australasia.

[Rokcet Scientist]

. . . have never been linked by landbridges to either the Sunda Shelf or Australia . . .

They haven't?