Archaeologica.org

excuse me, minimalist

do you not mean, instead of "bible thumping" morons,

"bible humping" morons.

as this involves considerably more intimate apparatus, it

might give us a clue to the eldritch pitch

of the arguments against.



john

I'm not going to quibble about a "t", John but no....I meant bible-THUMPERS.

They know who they are.

I don't give a flying fuck about their opinions.....what is the evidence upon which they base their opinions.

case in point: from the book 'The Flood', there were the fissures used. from hapgood, there were the masses of bones, from ryan and pitman, there were the underwater villages; just to name a few.

you say you don't care about opinions yet each piece of evidence is judged by their opinion/interpretation, just like archaeologists do.

my opinion of the sunken villages is certainly different than ryan's or pittman's, yet all are based upon the evidential fact: there is a sunken village where water now is. without written records to confirm our findings (though i have the Bible to back me) we are left with opinion so i doubt you can divorce the evidence from someone's perspective.

you can accept them, deny them or create your own based upon the evidence that is there.

discovery channel has been running a katrina documentery for awhile now and it got me thinking. as devasting as it was, in a thousand years, how much evidence would you expect to find that it was as crippling and destructive we now know it to be?

The way Bush is going New Orleans will still look like a shithole in 1,000 years.

case in point: from the book 'The Flood', there were the fissures used. from hapgood, there were the masses of bones, from ryan and pitman, there were the underwater villages; just to name a few.

You know, for the hell of it, I went looking for evidence of those so-called "masses of bones." I found multiple web sites claiming that this happened but all of them tended to be, what I characterize as, right-wing christian nut job sites. Creationist nonsense. For some reason, mainstream science seems to be mute about this phenomena but even so, to claim that a flood killed all these animals 11,000 years ago and then try to drag in Ryan and Pittman (who were talking about the period of about 5,500 BC) seems a bit of a stretch for your flood.

I'm going to keep investigating this myth of Hapgood's big freeze or your flood but it sure as hell does not seem promising for you.

You know, for the hell of it, I went looking for evidence of those so-called "masses of bones."

i guess i should give you a point for trying. if yu look through my posts, i gave you the sources in my quotes. hapgood quoted many 18th & 19th century explorers but since he wasn't a bible humper, i didn't go any further.

For some reason, mainstream science seems to be mute about this phenomena

i would expect they would be grouped in with the 5 mass extinctions, so science wouldn't really be mute. just placed it in a different category.

i am not sure where the 11,000 year dte came in but for me until something definitive comes along, dates are arbitrary.

The way Bush is going New Orleans will still look like a shithole in 1,000 years

but seriously, since occupaqtion is constant and no gap is happening then i doubt there will be much evidneceof the destruction that took place.

now relate that to 5000 +/- years ago and factor in human habitation for that length of time, wars and battles and many other events and i highly doubt you will find the evidence you seek for a world wide flood.

archaeologist wrote:

You know, for the hell of it, I went looking for evidence of those so-called "masses of bones."

i guess i should give you a point for trying. if yu look through my posts, i gave you the sources in my quotes. hapgood quoted many 18th & 19th century explorers but since he wasn't a bible humper, i didn't go any further.

Yes, Hapgood refers to a number of old reports (sadly all in long forgotten books and journals). Odd thing is, all these masses of bones had disappeared by the time modern, late 20th century, geologists arrived on the scene....

There are, incidently, some good research papers here - Arch should avoid looking at them though as they don't exactly support his contention

For some reason, mainstream science seems to be mute about this phenomena

i would expect they would be grouped in with the 5 mass extinctions, so science wouldn't really be mute. just placed it in a different category.

Ah yes, of course. The flood killed all the trilobites and archaic fishes. Then buried them under feet of sediment. And some desert sand. And lava. Then it killed all the therapsids. And buried them likewise. Then it killed all the dinosaurs. And agains repeated the process. Then it killed all the prehistoric mammals. What a clever flood, picking the different species off one by one like that

archaeologist wrote:

The way Bush is going New Orleans will still look like a shithole in 1,000 years

but seriously, since occupaqtion is constant and no gap is happening then i doubt there will be much evidneceof the destruction that took place.

now relate that to 5000 +/- years ago and factor in human habitation for that length of time, wars and battles and many other events and i highly doubt you will find the evidence you seek for a world wide flood.

In the next to last issue of Archaeology magazine they have an article about the archaeology of New Orleans. You'd be surprized at how much they found out about previous disasters in NO. I think the evidence of that devistation will be fairly easy to see. They have an island they used just for disposal of debris. That's gonna be some kinda midden there, buddy. They kinda had to quarantine the debris because of some kind of termite or something. I don't have the mag here at work with me. I'm pretty sure there will be a destruction layer in "tel New Orleans" for several thousand years. You should read the article. It may be available online at their website. Hold on I'll go see. (a few minutes pass) Ok, I looked and they don't seem to archive back issues online. It would be worth buying the back issue, which they do sell online. It also has an article on the bosnian pyramids. They ripped Os a new one. You can order it online at their website: http://www.archaeology.org/ I subscribe to this magazine as it keeps pretty close tabs on the world's archaeology. I use to subscribe to BAR, but they just got too weird and had too much of an agenda to prove the bible to be fact. It get's downright laughable at times.

To say that no evidence would exsist, to a catastrophic storm such as the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia, or hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast is rather hard for me to believe. With all the debrey and destruction that evolved from these storms some form of evidence is bound to remain for future archaelogist.
I'll make reference here to Katrina. Any one who has visited the Mississippi Gulf Coast would clearly see the archaeological evidence that has been laid down my Mother Nature for posterity, without need of written records. The destruction due to the tsunami that the storm created is beyound words or descriptions. TV news footage does not fully describe the situation. It's one of those things that you have to see for yourself to "believe."
Archaeological evidence would be found by all the house patterns that have been wiped cleaned, and all the debry scatter. Water brought a layer of sand and mud to cover the ground surface, along with erosion and scoured marks.
People are rebuilding atop these old house sites, and releveling the surface with fill dirt. Many of these features are thus covered up. Thus, if one dug a pit, a profile would reveal a hiatus between a surface that has been awashed, covered by beach sand and mud, then covered with new fill. Old post patterns of house pillars or cement slaps would be present. Many low lying areas have been filled with debry and house hold goods and then covered by sand and mud. Some even filled and leveled out by post storm clean up. Then there are the huge land fills that are being carried out all along the coast. Someone one day will dig through the midden deposits and wonder what cause them to evolve. And there are still missing people who have been washed away and lost during the storm. To say there is no evidence laid down is totally not exceptable.
Many years ago I worked on an prehistoric sight on the beach front in Biloxi. A Woodland period site, circular house pattern with many post hole patterns, et. al. It was also covered with a sheet of sand a few inches thick. It was predicted that a storm laid a sheet of sand atop this site. Maybe even destroying the village area itself. Storms do leave evidence
behind, especially castropic storms.
I visited the tsunami hit west coast of Sumatra directly after this catastopic event. Everything was destroyed and washed away. Cemetaries washed out and any wooden structured raked and destroyed. Only the cement structures remain. Major erosion and scour marks everywhere with debry piled 10 to 15 high, just like on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. I do believe that one day, archaeologist excavating these areas would be able to tell.
Trees would show stress in there rings, stratigraphy would show hiatus and various lenses of cultural material beneath a fluvial lens. Yea, there is evidence laid down to be seen by experienced, knowledge archaeolgisit or geoarchaeologist.

What archaeologist fails continually to do is provide modern scientific references.

Doug

Essan!

Thank you. That is exactly what I wasted all night looking for.

Archaeological evidence would be found by all the house patterns that have been wiped cleaned, and all the debry scatter. Water brought a layer of sand and mud to cover the ground surface, along with erosion and scoured marks.

if they rebuild, do you think you will find such evidence or be able to compare house patterns after another thousand years?

People are rebuilding atop these old house sites, and releveling the surface with fill dirt.

sometimes they re-build upon the same foundation, other times ifthe foundations are ruined they remove them and start all over,. they don't just bury the old and build on new ground. nor do they put down a 'pad' and build upon that. a pad of concrete is just too weak too hold the weight of a house and its contents (without doing re-enforcing but it still means digging below the surface).

so how can you be sure that the evidence found, would indicate as wide of a destruction layer as we know it to be. remember you are not thinking from the knwoledge we have today but looking back 1000 years, with possibly little corroborating evidence to go on (not sure how much film would be saved or discovered at that time)

so divorce yourself from what you know right now and then try to judge the scope from the evidence.

To say there is no evidence laid down is totally not exceptable.

i didn't say no evidence but maybe 1000 years is too little of a time frame and we should add a few more thousand, plus a few more floods upon katrina's devastation.

i think it would be very hard to determine the widespread effect katrina had on new orleans.

Many low lying areas have been filled with debry and house hold goods and then covered by sand and mud. Some even filled and leveled out by post storm clean up. Then there are the huge land fills that are being carried out all along the coast

but i doubt these landfills would give an accurate depiction of the size of destruction, especially whenyou add other floods on top of them or a lot more construction to the area.

In 5000 years they could have enough hurricans to have several layers of N.O. In fact, by then it could be above sea level.