Archaeologica.org

Gen. Joe Stillwell(fromWWII) had the motto 'illigitimi non carborundum' which is pseudo-latin for don't let the b--d grind you down.

Yeah that's it! I smoked too much weed when I was younger. I have that CRS disease. (Can't remember Sh**)

Now THERE...you have a good question.

i guess i need to repeat it sowe canget back on topic. i think people are playing too loose with threads lately and are not sticking to the issues at hand. this is a marine archaeology thread not a latin one.

with side scanso effective, why are we hearing complaints against it?

i started this thread as i would like to know more about marine archaelogy, what is involved, what has been discovered, the complexities are good to know plus what theories abound with marine discoveries.

can we keep this to topic please and someone credible answer my question.

Sorry Arch, my bad

I have lately been reading about the surveys being done in the Bay of Cambay. There have been some wild claims and counter-claims and mud-slinging but I liked this recent article. Don't want to vouch for the veracity though, I'm still a newbie at this.

http://www.newindpress.com/Sunday/sunda ... ns&rLink=0

There is so much being discovered recently and I find it all very exciting.

Marine archaeology is a new subject and a little-explored one, mainly due to the lack of funds, scientific and other necessary equipment and even trained divers, besides a dearth of qualified marine archaeologists.

Truer words were never spoken.

Immediately, there was a chorus of voices clamouring that it should have been first presented as a scientific paper. That would have been an excellent way to destroy the story. Why should the rest of India not learn about these discoveries? They belong as much to the cart puller as to the scientist and archaeologist.

The Club hates it when cart pullers are included in the target audience....makes them feel less 'special.'

Most important, a chunk of carbonised teak wood was picked up, which was dated using 14C (Carbon dating) methodology by the Birbal Sahni Institute of Paleo Botany, Lucknow, and the National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad, gave an interim calibrated age of 8150-7650 BP (before present).

Apparently they hadn't withdrawn their claim after all!

This is the information that came in for much public flak and acrimony, with some historians and media stories even casting doubts on the authenticity of the scientific testing and the results, an untenable accusation.

A typical reaction of the Club. In this case, there was probably a racial aspect as in; 'how dare these WOGs tell US about archaeology.'


Good find, Star.

uhhhhh What was the question again? Can you say it in latin?

Minimalist wrote:

Marine archaeology is a new subject and a little-explored one, mainly due to the lack of funds, scientific and other necessary equipment and even trained divers, besides a dearth of qualified marine archaeologists.

Truer words were never spoken.

Immediately, there was a chorus of voices clamouring that it should have been first presented as a scientific paper. That would have been an excellent way to destroy the story. Why should the rest of India not learn about these discoveries? They belong as much to the cart puller as to the scientist and archaeologist.

The Club hates it when cart pullers are included in the target audience....makes them feel less 'special.'

Most important, a chunk of carbonised teak wood was picked up, which was dated using 14C (Carbon dating) methodology by the Birbal Sahni Institute of Paleo Botany, Lucknow, and the National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad, gave an interim calibrated age of 8150-7650 BP (before present).

Apparently they hadn't withdrawn their claim after all!

This is the information that came in for much public flak and acrimony, with some historians and media stories even casting doubts on the authenticity of the scientific testing and the results, an untenable accusation.

A typical reaction of the Club. In this case, there was probably a racial aspect as in; 'how dare these WOGs tell US about archaeology.'


Good find, Star.

I think the questionable part of this is, where did the wood come from. It's all in the silt that empties out into the bay from the mouth of the river. There is absolutely no way of knowing the when wood came down the river or where it came from. It's all a jumble and no sense can be made of it. There are no identifiable structures, no context for any of the alleged artifacts so even if there is anything legitimate it is useless. It's another Bosnian pyramid. The club has spoken!

Frank, that was kind of the way I was thinking when I first read that part. Especially considering the propensity of humans for thinking of running water as a natural garbage disposal. But I keep hoping for a different take on the matter.

Starflower wrote:Frank, that was kind of the way I was thinking when I first read that part. Especially considering the propensity of humans for thinking of running water as a natural garbage disposal. But I keep hoping for a different take on the matter.

We aren't the only ones thinking like that, Starflower. I read an article about it, but I can't remember where. Sorry no links. I guess without links I have no credibility. No one will believe that I can just remember some stuff. Especially when I said just a few posts ago that I have CRS. Where is that damn sarcasm smiley?

You rang?

Here is another link:

http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifa ... ambay.html

I also read somewhere else on this site that they had found part of a dock with pilings and was wondering if this could be where the wood came from? I don't have time right now to look further. Is there anyone out there with the answer?

PS Graham Hancock has given an interview to the BBC about this. Does that open a whole nother can of worms?

I read an article about it, but I can't remember where

not worried about you frank or some of the others, it has just been this recent invasion of posters who just make some outlandish statements then never link anyting to them or back them up.

Graham Hancock has given an interview to the BBC about this. Does that open a whole nother can of worms

maybe.

maybe.

Definitely.

what did he say in the interview?

archaeologist wrote:what did he say in the interview?

Here is a link to the article:

http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifa ... -city.html

Basically he seems to be agreeing with the findings and saying we'll have to push back the date for the beginning of this type of civilization by 5000 years.

"The whole model of the origins of civilization will have to be remade from scratch" Graham Hancock

Uh-Oh!