Archaeologica.org

Why do you suppose mainstream archaeologists are reluctant to study the submerged ruins of the manmade megalithic structures on the shallow seafloor off Spain, Morocco, Malta, Greece, Lebanon, Egypt, India, Japan, and the islands of the Pacific?

The sea level rise at the end of the Ice Age caused those city-states to go under, so mainstream scientists must move-up their timeframe for the end of the Ice Age, or move back their timeframe for the beginning of megalithic building, or claim that all those city-states went under because of earthquakes, without evidence of such, so this is why the presence of the many "submergies" in various parts of the world remains as mainstream archaeology's biggest dirty little secret. Comments?

Because they can't swim?

OK, I am sure you posted this with the intent to take it in some strange and silly direction, but I just can't resist the subject matter.

I am a second generation SCUBA diver. My Dad took up the sport in its very early stages in the Mediterranean back in the early 60's before everything got picked over by sport divers. He found lots of cool stuff, but the Turks always had a boat waiting when he came up and made sure he didn't take anything.

I am sure part of the problem is a lot of archaeologists are just not inclined to SCUBA diving.

Even in optimal diving conditions like shallow warm water in the Florida Keys down time is pretty limited. Get much deeper than 50' and it decreases dramatically. At 100' you only get about 15 minutes on the bottom.

I think there is a lot of information in coastal waters, but we will have to wait for sport divers to find it by accident first, and most of them don't know what to look for.

Almost all of the sites which I cited have been photographed, and Hancock's footage is about all that's made it to the public's awareness to any significant degree, but those plainly manmade ruins off Okinawa, Kerama, Chatan, and Yonaguni, are completely ignored by mainstream archaeologists, because of the timeline ramifications, it's as simple as that.

As more and more of these submergies, which have been photographed, from Spain, Morocco, Malta, Greece, Lebanon, Egypt, India, Japan, and the Pacific islands, become widely known to the public, the answers from the mainstreamers will have to follow, but what will they say?

even professor Kimura is now saying Yonaguni is a natural formation
your info as usual Jim is out of date and skewed by your agenda

Barracuda wrote:Because they can't swim?

OK, I am sure you posted this with the intent to take it in some strange and silly direction, but I just can't resist the subject matter.

I am a second generation SCUBA diver. My Dad took up the sport in its very early stages in the Mediterranean back in the early 60's before everything got picked over by sport divers. He found lots of cool stuff, but the Turks always had a boat waiting when he came up and made sure he didn't take anything.

I am sure part of the problem is a lot of archaeologists are just not inclined to SCUBA diving.

Even in optimal diving conditions like shallow warm water in the Florida Keys down time is pretty limited. Get much deeper than 50' and it decreases dramatically. At 100' you only get about 15 minutes on the bottom.

I think there is a lot of information in coastal waters, but we will have to wait for sport divers to find it by accident first, and most of them don't know what to look for.

As far as I know there are not that many grad schools that offer underwater archaeology. Too bad as there is a lot to be learned from submerged sites (not what GV wants to learn however). Hopefully the field will open up and more of this work will be on the books in future.

Jim

Texas A&M has a marine archeology program, and they work in the Mediterranean in the summer.

Diving is much safer now than it was in the early days, but diving is physically demanding, and and will always be inherently dangerous. It is just not for everyone.

There were some who resisted the trend to make the sport safer, and open it up to more people.

I will never forget the immortal words of Commander Charles Wiggin. He once told me "This is supposed to be dangerous! You want safe, take up golf! Now get the hell off my boat!"

And what is it, oas, that I supposedly don't want to learn about underwater archaeology?

And Marduk, if you can say with a straight face that the Yonaguni structures were naturally formed, then you get the Lee Strausburg award for awesome method acting.

I'd like to see it advance to the point where Beringian migration routes that are now far out to sea could be investigated and dated, but that's a long way off. I don't even know how you would survey for such a site - they are hard enough to find on dry land.

Genesis Veracity wrote:And what is it, oas, that I supposedly don't want to learn about underwater archaeology?

Facts. Truth. Logic. In short anything that does not suport your Ice-age ending 1500 BCE story.

Barracude (and oas), pictures of many many sites are already in the bag, taken by Zeitlmair, Asher, Goddio, Hancock, the NIO of India, and many others, but they don't make the textbooks, nor are they seen as fit for discussion, the mainstreamers don't want to discuss them because of the ramifications for their end of the Ice Age timeframe, they say it ended circa 10000 B.C.

And here we go again. Still having to give that book away?

Ignore......

PS. I should note that at the time he made that statement, Commander Wiggin was missing both his left hand and his left eye.....

Book sales are good, I just do this to hone my debating skills, thanks for your concern though, oas, you d' man.

When do you think the Ice Age ended, oas, and what is your evidence?

Genesis Veracity wrote:Why do you suppose mainstream archaeologists are reluctant to study the submerged ruins of the manmade megalithic structures on the shallow seafloor off Spain, Morocco, Malta, Greece, Lebanon, Egypt, India, Japan, and the islands of the Pacific?

The sea level rise at the end of the Ice Age caused those city-states to go under, so mainstream scientists must move-up their timeframe for the end of the Ice Age, or move back their timeframe for the beginning of megalithic building, or claim that all those city-states went under because of earthquakes, without evidence of such, so this is why the presence of the many "submergies" in various parts of the world remains as mainstream archaeology's biggest dirty little secret. Comments?

I shouldn't respond to nonsense like this, but it is just ridiculous.

City states building megalithic structures?

What needs to be noted most though is his time frame. He complains about archaeologists moving 'their timeframe', but that is from his belief that the 'Ice Age' ended in around 1500 BC. Of course he is going to complain about archaeologists if he believes such nonsense.

And 'secret'? Is he claiming that these sites have been investigated secretly? Or that they haven't been investigated but that he knows the truth of what these unspecified (note that) sites contain?

Doug