Archaeologica.org

this was already discussed in this forum
and debunked
tourism tourism tourism
money money money

Hancock is only going on about it because he posted the article at his forum and claimed the author would be answering questions about it
he never showed

I doubt we will hear much from the Gulf of Cambay for a long time. There seems to be a lot of archaeology down there and retrieval is gonna be real tough.

And, as Frank points out, how can anyone tell if an artifact is in situ?

Nevertheless, this site really rocks the boat.

Nevertheless, this site really rocks the boat

this article is heavily biased
don't you remember discussing this before beagle

this article is heavily biased

I enjoy a good biased article. I enjoyed this one.

I am not discussing Hancocks' assertion that there is a "sunken city" there. I sure hope there is though. Some of the artifacts seem to be pre-Harrapan. If so, that's exciting.

But we will just have to wait and see.

"Underwater archeology"
Every time I mention this, Bob says it's too expensive, and Beagle echoes the theme in his remarks about Cambay.

But when is something "too" expensive? And what techniques would be prohibitively expensive?

I mentioned in my last post the technique of coffer dams used to excavate shipwrecks. I don't know how many times this has been done, but it would seem that there are places on the continental shelf of the west coast of the Americas (for example) where it could be done on a small scale at likely sites. These could be identified by core samples, looking for places where layers show old terrestrial plant life, etc. and where the water is not to deep. This doesn't seem outlandish to me. I think ancient forests have been found off the coast of NW America somewhere.
Other techniques could be developed,such as careful dredging.
That doesn't sound expensive.

What's the point if saying, "It can't be done?" There are all sorts of places where qualified people could get grant money. If Nat. Geo. would get behind it, it would happen.
Use your imagination, friends.

Stan, I wasn't aware that I was echoing anything. I did say that it would be difficult - not expensive.

Even if the entire area became water free suddenly - it would still be difficult. Some of the artifacts may be in situ. Determining that in the middle of what is essentially a landfill will be painstaking.

That's all I'm saying.

a couple questions i have: 1. since water is a corrupting factor for carbon dating, how will we know if the artifacts are dated properly and are accurate?

2. i amnot pretending to know anything about marine archaeology (save for the similiarities between it and normal arch.) so what are

coffer dams

??

3. i asked a question about side scans earlier yet i don't find a reply to it is there someone who can answer it please

I am not discussing Hancocks' assertion that there is a "sunken city" there

why bother. it sounds like a statement that is made just to get attention as we all know it would be practically impossible to prove for quite some time.

I don't know why this is so mystifying, Stan. It was in the original article.

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.

Money could probably overcome many of these difficulties but the training of qualified marine archaeologists takes time, also.

Arch - I couldn't find your question on side scan sonar but Roberto posted some good info on page 2 of this thread. Also here is a link I found, I saw a better one a few days ago but can't find it now.

http://www.abc.se/~pa/mar/sidescan.htm

Hope this helped.

I couldn't find your question on side scan sonar

thanks. my question was : if side scans are so good why are we hearing so many complaints about it? (paraphrase--try pg. 1)

for me the complexities involved with just going under water would limit those interested in the field.

The topic of coastal migration is such an important one, that it seems that more resources ought to be allocated to it.
Don't you see that if the right people made an effort to to do it, it would happen, and then we might get that information we are guessing about.
Wouldn't that be exciting! But I know we are all armchair quarterbacks, not really contributing to the advance of archeological discoveries.
Maybe we should propose it to National Geographic!

Coffer dams are large boxes which keep water out of an excavation in a body of water. No bottom, no top,just "4 walls." Sometimes they are round instead of square.

The topic of coastal migration is such an important one, that it seems that more resources ought to be allocated to it.

But who makes those decisions, Stan?

Archaeology departments at major universities are dominated by 'dusty shoe' archaeology professors who know about digs on dry land, not underwater. Where are they more likely to invest their resources? Off the coasts of North America using new and expensive technology or at well defined sites using the methods they are comfortable with?

Then, consider what happens when people like NIOT actually do claim to make a find. The archaeologists are all over them because they regard oceanographers as interlopers in 'their' field. NIOT deserves credit for continuing to pursue the Gulf of Cambay finds. I wish them good luck.
I'm not so sure that the archaeology club feels the same way.

PS - you'd need more than a 12 foot coffer dam to accomplish much at the edge of the continental shelf. I'm not a diver but I think that the practical limit for scuba equipment is not all that deep.

NIOT deserves credit for continuing to pursue the Gulf of Cambay finds

wake up and smell the coffee
NIOT did not pursue the Gulf of Cambray finds because they didnt find anything
it was the minister for economics and tourism that pursued the gulf of cambray finds because he found something he could use
Hancock pursued the gulf of cambray finds because he found something he could use
etc
etc

Archaeology departments at major universities are dominated by 'dusty shoe' archaeology professors who know about digs on dry land, not underwater.

archaeology departments at major universities do not have marine archaeology departments because the dean allocates resources based on student education, not presumed lost cities on the continental shelf
so in both cases you are living in a dream world filled from reading too many books written by people who don't know what theyre talking about
why don't you write one yourself Bob
you're just as qualified to spoon feed idiots bullshit as anyone else
after all
you keep proving that you're qualified to eat the bullshit being spoon fed you

just a little n/s american roadside attraction here. prior to the last deglaciation sealevels were a couple hundred feet lower. which means that the remains of coastal people, and their culture, are under water.

cf. that recently discovered painted cave in france. entrance of which was discovered by a diver. who took major risks, then ended up in chambers with air in them, and then........saw paintings.

i don't believe that scuba was invented in the paleolithic.


john

Thanks for your input, marduk. It has been factored in with the rest of your comments.


Please tell the rest of the club,