Care to revise or extend your remarks? :^)
Posted on 11/26/2002 7:57:18 AM PST by blam
Archaeologists announce discovery of underwater man-made wall
2002/11/26
The China Post staff
Underwater archaeologists yesterday announced the discovery of a man-made wall submerged under the waters of the Pescadores Islands that could be at least six and seven thousand years old.
Steve Shieh, the head of the planning committee for the Taiwan Underwater Archaeology Institute, said the wall was discovered to the northwest of Tong-chi Island in the Pescadores towards the end of September.
The stone wall, with an average height of one meter and a width of 50 centimeters, covers a distance of over 100 meters, Hsieh said.
The wall ran along the ocean floor at depths of between 25 and 30 meters, he added.
Shieh said that divers found several places along the wall where holes were apparently filled up with pebbles, possibly in an attempt to block winds.(Maybe to keep out the rising water?)
The wall was located by a team of divers working in cooperation with the National Museum of History and the Department of Environmental Sciences at the National Sun Yat-sen University.
In August, researchers scanning waters in the area with sonar discovered what appeared to be the remnants of four to five man-made walls running along the bottom of the sea.
Please see WALL on page(I could not find a map, if you can, please post it.)
Despite difficult diving conditions, Shieh said that a team of more than ten specialists was able to ascertain the positions of at least three of the wall sections.
The proximity of the wall to a similar structure found in 1976 suggests that it may be further evidence of a pre-historical civilization.
A three meter high underwater wall was discovered by amateur divers in waters off the nearby Hu-ching (Tiger Well) Island.
British archaeologists examined the find and proclaimed that the wall was probably made between 7,000 and 12,000 years ago.
The current find stands a mere 100 meters from the site of that discovery.
Six years ago, evidence of a sunken city in the area was found when amateur divers found the remains of what appear to be city walls taking the shape of a cross on the ocean floor.
Further examination suggested the ruins were made between seven and ten thousand years ago as well, although Japanese researchers put the walls construction at between 10,000 and 80,000 years ago.
Taken together, the discoveries have helped to overturn the established notion that Taiwan's earliest aboriginal inhabitants made their way here from mainland China some 6,000 years ago.(There goes the giant hynea theory, huh?)
The underwater finds are part of a growing body of evidence suggesting the existence of civilizations older than anything previously imagined.(suprise, suprise, suprise--Gomer Pyle voice)
On this theory, entire cities ended up underwater after sea levels rose towards the end of the last Ice Age, a date cited by Plato as being some 9,600 years ago.
One of the most dramatic examples of evidence of civilizations found on ocean beds has been megalithic structures off the coast of Yonaguni-jima in Japan that have been interpreted in some circles as being built for sacrificial rites. According to Shieh, a similar structure has been located off of the shores of Taiwan's Pingtung County .
Shieh said that he and his association have plans to explore that location as well as what appears to be a man-made path on the ocean floor off of Taitung County sometime next year.
I have excellent pictures here in my Archaelogy mags showing the headdress and everything. Those two I posted are the best I can find on the net. I simply did a search on "underwater structures okinawa". Maybe "head headdress okinawa" would get something.
I think you're estimating the populations of the civilized countries of classical and late-preclassical times too high. For instance, archaeologists have uncovered several of the Mycenaean Greek cities that according to Homer contributed to the force sent against Troy. The catalog of ships from various cities in the Iliad is quite long and gives some impressive numbers. However, Pylos and Mycenae couldn't possibly have sent the forces Homer describes if every man, woman, and child went off to the war. They were far too small. But then Troy itself was far smaller than the high-towered, multi-gated Ilium Homer describes. In short, the whole thing was considerably overblown by later generations.
Nothing was that big back then. Rome, with probably tens of thousands of people in classical times, was about as big as any city got at the time. It became utterly dependent on Egyptian wheat. It's hard to feed a big city with cart-horse-and-trireme technology.
Six million people in the Northern Kingdown of Israel alone would be seriously straining the resources of such a small spot even if it was much more fertile then than now. They'd probably have kicked the tail of anyone trying to conquer them, though, just by superior numbers.
Nice link. The underwater 'thing' at Graham's site is off the coast of Okinawa and would have been above water level at the end of the last Ice Age ... and it is conjectured that the site was a ruin even before it became a sumberged site, covered by the rising waters of the ice age ending.
I saw a TV show which examined this particular site and the claims being made about it; at first glance it looked like a man made site, but as the camera moved around and you were able to see the site with divers next to it giving it proper size context and proper proportions, it became obvious that this was a natural site. The rock simply broke off in layers which made portions of it look like steps, but the steps were uneven and did not lead anywhere. There was no evidence of any marks made by human tools. There was nothing to indicate that it was man made; it is, in fact, a natural rock formation.
I'm not saying that there are not ancient pre-historical sites to be found underwater, only that this particular site is not one of them.
LOL!
So you're telling me they named the area after the bird, and then named another bird after a mistaken identification with a third bird thought to live in the area? Is that your claim?
BTW, it wasn't called Turkey back then.
The same way the world speaks English now. When in Rome...
Except that the Celts didn't speak Latin, they spoke languages related to Latin. Some still speak the old Celtic languages, and the rest speak Germanic languages, which are also related to but also obviously aren't Latin. So it would be like speaking Dutch because English is the predominent language.
BTW, Latin wasn't the dominent language yet when the Celts showed up.
Care to revise or extend your remarks? :^)
No doubt you'll tell me to "do my own research", or some such nonsense. But it's your research. You made the claim. You prove it.
I think the Polynesian are a combination of Chinese, Jomon, Ainu and perhaps a little Negrito.
No, there's only one situation where the tookee is mentioned in the bible and that's the story of Solomon's mines. I believe that Solomon being the wisest man ever was able to use his wisdom to know where the purest gold was in the world and to know where the best wood for musical instruments was in the world. That of course is in South America where both the best gold in the world existed and where the best wood for instruments was located, the Brazilian Redwood. It's conceivable that if the returning ships used the currents of the Atlantic to return that they could've picked up some North American turkeys and the ancient name was passed down almost in it's pure pronunciation. The bible says that it was these gold mining ships that brought this wood back and that's the only time in the history of Israel and Judah that that this kind of wood was in Israel, so it couldn't have been from any tree nearby, relatively speaking. I believe Turkey is named after some other work, pronounced Turkyea or something like that in ancient times. I don't see the importance of it. You said the word turkey had it's roots in Turkey. That would make sense since that's one of the routes a segment of the tribes took to Europe, although most went through the Caucusus. The bird turkey and the country Turkey are two different words obviously. We spell them the same as a fluke of our language.
BTW, it wasn't called Turkey back then.
I didn't mention the obvious, I guess I should've for you.
Except that the Celts didn't speak Latin, they spoke languages related to Latin. Some still speak the old Celtic languages, and the rest speak Germanic languages, which are also related to but also obviously aren't Latin. So it would be like speaking Dutch because English is the predominent language. BTW, Latin wasn't the dominent language yet when the Celts showed up.
All the modern languages are similar. If not for modern media and modern transportation, the Cajuns would probably have their own language by now different from the rest of America.
If you don't want to believe that's fine with me. It's bible prophecy anyway. The bible says that Israel will not know who they are in the last days. I like discussing this with like-minded people. If you don't have an ear for it, then you don't have an ear for it.
Another coincidence. OK. Like I said, we could go all day like this.
No doubt you'll tell me to "do my own research", or some such nonsense. But it's your research. You made the claim. You prove it.
Every example I show, you'll say "coincidence". I don't care if you believe it or not. End of conversation
There's no evidence of Celtic speaking peoples in ancient Israel, no evidence of Hebrew speaking peoples in ancient Celtic Europe, no evidence of any mass migrations from the Levant into Europe.
In fact, the whole "lost tribes of Israel" is a myth invented long after the alleged events were said to have occurred. The Assyrians never transferred entire populations; at most the elites of the various conquered peoples were transferred. The same people who were the "lost" tribes of Israel were still living in Israel when the "Jews" of Babylon "returned" from "exile" even though some of these Jews were converts and had no ancestors who lived in ancient Israel or Judah. These "returning" Jews were in fact practicing a new, "revealed" religion, heavily influenced by Persian Zoroastrianism, and they naturally pretended that the natives of Judah and Israel were "foreigners" imported by the Assyrians, because they were worshipping under the old religion of Israel and Judah, not the then newfangled monotheism of the "returning" exiles.
The "lost tribes of Israel" myth was concocted to delegitimize and to demonize the native inhabitants of Israel and Judah who had been living there since before the Kingdom of Israel existed; these peoples eventually became the Samaritans (practicing a rival form of Judaism), or they became the much reviled "peoples of the land" who were Jews but never accepted as equals by the returning Jewish "exiles". Much of the hostility between Jesus and the Pharisees can be traced back to this conflict between the Zoroastrian influenced Judaism of the Pharisees, and the older traditional beliefs of the "peoples of the land".
In fact, this use of religious myth by early Judaism (during the post-Babylonian "exile") is not unlike how the myths of Zionism are now used to delegitimize and demonize the Muslim and Christian Palestinians who have been living in Palestine/Israel for thousands of years, and whose ancestors are the very same ancient Israelites who were shunned and condemned by the "returning" Jewish "exiles" from Babylon.
Religious myths are powerful political weapons in the hands of those who are seeking entirely worldly ends.
Adding that one to my lexicon!
I just can't work up a lot of sympathy for the Palestinians these days, especially after seeing the reaction in Nablus and elsewhere to 911. It left a coldness inside.
Care to revise or extend your remarks? :^)
Since your image didn't show up, no.
All I can comment on is the TV special which aired these claims. They provided no evidence of the use of human tools on these stones, in the TV special. They merely showed people claiming that these stones "looked man made", which was an entirely subjective opinion. Closer inspection undermined that opinion.
There are lots of natural rock formations that can "look man made" (they used one of them from New Zealand for the Amon Sul sequences in "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" movie, for instance).
What would be convincing evidence of human origin would be rocks with tool marks on them (unlikely if these humans did not have metal tools), or carefully interlocked stones forming a structure, which obviously could not be formed naturally.
The TV special I saw showed a single, very large rock formation, with some interesting shapes, which, however evocative, were easily the product of natural rock formation and erosion.
Keepers Of Odd Knowledge
Adding that one to my lexicon!
Well, it isn't my invention. I "stole" the phrase from Rush Limbaugh.
I just can't work up a lot of sympathy for the Palestinians these days, especially after seeing the reaction in Nablus and elsewhere to 911. It left a coldness inside.
Your reaction was formed through exposure 24/7 to our controlled news media. It is an entirely one sided version of events.
One would think that American Christians would show a little sympathy to their Christian brothers and sisters in Israel/Palestine, but apparently not. "Judeo-Christian" Zionism trumps everything.
Also our tax dollars are going to fund and arm the state which is raining bombs, guided missiles, and bullets on women and children, and justifying it in the name of these religious myths. Small wonder if these Palestinians don't care for us.
Be that as it may, it would not matter to me who was killing who, or what demonic purposes these religious myths were being put to, if I was not being forced to support these myths with my tax dollars, and if these myths were not being used to drag us into an inevitable series of wars for an empire which the American people do not want to have, paid for with the lives of their sons.
It just isn't something you should want, even if you despise every Palestian that ever drew breath.
I've read the linguists have traced the origin of all Indo-European languages back to Anatolia. In the period 5,000-6,000BC this whole area was dry and arid. Any humans living there were huddled around the fresh water Black Sea, fishing and irrigation farming.
Then in 5,600BC, the 'dam' at the Bosporus collapsed and flooded the Black Sea (Noah's Flood?) with salt water, all villages and farm land are now 350 feet underwater.
This was a catastrophy of enormous impact, we're still talking about it 7,500 years later.
Now, this saltwater flooding would have made refugees of almost everyone in the area and they would have streamed up the river valleys into Europe (and elsewhere) displacing everyone in their path. This group of people probably brought their language and introduced farming to Europe and Mesopatamia, even to East Central China as the Tocharians.(See 'Cherchen Man')
I believe these people would eventually become to be known as the Celts, Phoenicians, Scythians, Tocharians and later Picts after mixing some with the Chinese in the Tarim Basin of China and re-migrating. The Xiongnu, in China, were the oriental version of the Picts
In fact, some of these people may have made it all the way to Japan and eventually become known as the Jomon and Ainu....maybe even the Hakka Chinese.
These 'Black Sea' folks are the anscestors of all the folks you all have been fussing about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.