Archaeologists Announce Discovery Of Underwater Man-Made Wall (Very Old)

China Post ^ | 11-26-2002

[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.

[VadeRetro]

Why should that seem far fetched? both old and new were loosely based on the same hebrew.

You apparently have no idea what a family of languages is. The first such to be detected was the Indoeuropean family. I believe it was a Briton stationed in India in the 18th century who noticed that the languages of most of India, descendants of Sanskrit, shared surprising similarities with Latin, Greek, and the other major languages of Europe. It had been known for some time that the languages of Europe had similarities but that could be put down to their geographical proximity. Finding a relationship far off in India was something else.

Anyway, a number of such families have since been identified. Indoeuropean remains a major one. Another one, the Semitic family includes Hebrew, Arabic, Berber, and a number of ancient languages such Egyptian and Akkadian.

Note that Hebrew is Semitic. Celtic is in a whole different family, the Indoeuropean one. That's important because all the member languages of a family are more related to each other than they are to languages in any other family.

Now, that doesn't mean that families aren't related in superfamilies. The idea is not widely accepted, but a number of scholars have pointed out underlying similarities that point to these superfamilies. Even granting their existence, superfamilies don't make family relationships go away. That's what several people have tried to do on this thread when pointing out that, for instance, Hebrew has a word for earth that looks a bit like earth. That doesn't make everything Hebrew, sorry!

The problem is that a language in one family essentially will not drift across family boundaries. The Arabs conquered Persia in the 600s AD, bringing them into the emerging Muslim empire. The Persian language, Indoeuropean at root, started absorbing Semitic Arabic loanwords at a high rate. Today it has more Arabic words than Indoeuropean. For all that, the everyday core vocabulary is still after all these hundreds of years identifiably Indoeuropean. You typically don't start using loanwords for "father," "mother," "house," "daughter," "son," etc.

The closest thing to a shift across family boundaries happens when a small population is completely absorbed in a dominant culture. That's what has happened to most of the immigrants to America, at least until La Reconquista got started.

Let's take a migrant group that typically doesn't assimilate, however. The Gypsies apparently left India around 800 AD. They've been and still are everywhere. There are several variants of the Romany dialect in several parts of the world. But they're all not only still Indoeuropean, they're all still identifiably descendants of Sanskrit. It's still an Indian linguistic subfamily, all the branches, everywhere, no matter what the dominant culture or what loanwords have been incorporated along the way. That's just the way languages change. You don't obliterate your roots.

So here's the dilemma for saying that the Hebrews became the Celts. Celtic should be in the Semitic family, far more similar to Hebrew than it is to Latin. The reverse is true. It's far more similar to Latin (or Greek, or Russian, or German, or even Sanskrit) than it is to Hebrew.

You can say that a wave of Jewish migrants went to Europe and got completely absorbed in cultures that already existed there. It's a historically unimportant non-point which does not demand evidence as it would not be expected to leave any. It won't do for your thesis about Lost Tribes becoming this other group.

[VadeRetro]

Looks to me you need to get off your butt and check out his sources.

The burden of proof is always on the extraordinary claim. I've seen nothing but handwaves at the absurd problems for a Lost Tribes = Celts theory.

[blam]

"Correct. It tracks with Noah right down to the release of doves to find land."

Taken to Sumer by the refugees from the Black Sea flood, along with farming?

[VadeRetro]

Me, to William Terrell: So you're saying that, in advance of the collapse of the Northern Kingdom, a wave of Jewish emmigration went to Europe and underwent a language shift to Celtic.

You: I don't see that anywhere in this thread. You're just making that up.

No, I'm not making it up. I'm encountering an self-discrediting readiness to fling irresponsible charges.

When I pointed out to W.T. that the Celts were in Europe well in advance of the event which supposedly lost the Lost Tribes, he invoked a putative earlier diaspora and cited the one from Egypt as a good candidate. Never mind that Exodus says nothing about anybody splitting off from Moses to sail across the pond.

You have the bar pretty low. A reasonably athletic gerbil could jump over it.

[VadeRetro]

Perhaps you would like to tell me who you are.

[PaulKersey]

That's pretty funny! Satans answers are as crooked as his tail!

[skraeling]

On your FR web page you say you '... number among the "atheistic Satan-worshipping materialist evolutionists ...' here on FR. It might be amusing if you would tell us how that qualifies you to speak with credibility on religious subjects.

VadeRetro.

[VadeRetro]

For the record, I didn't hit "Abuse" on you for your post 285, but somebody did. Perhaps they were embarrassed for you. I was happy to let your descent into the gutter remain fully documented.

The message would seem to be that I must not attack your theory or you will come after my willingly public person from the shield of your anonymity. I'm content to let that be your message.

It shows that you're having a little trouble getting the Lost Tribe = Celts thing to stand up under scrutiny. Text of my rebuttals got you down?

[skraeling]

For the record, I didn't hit "Abuse" on you for your post 285, but somebody did.

Of course you didn't. We all believe that, don't we?

For the record, let it show that deleted #285 contained same text as #288 plus a photo of you with your real name. ALL that information came from your FR web page, and the page which you link to from your FR web page.

All this information was supplied by you on your public web pages, for the purpose of making yourself more public. That you are now embarassed you identified yourself as "Satanic" suggests you are very very devious, perhaps even Satanic as you suggest, as are your devious non-answers throughout this thread.

You identified yourself, now live with it.

[VadeRetro]

Well, that should browbeat any opposition into silence.

You're wishing away a few little problems you need to work out before you hit the big-time (maybe the Art Bell show?) with Lost Tribes = Celts. If I can see a few problems, probably anybody can see a few problems. Let's do a quick summary for anyone who's distracted by your latest insights from my public info:

1) Weren't the Celts and the Hebrews different, parallel groups in different parts of the world? Different everything?

2) Didn't the Celts already exist before the Lost Tribes got lost?

I would think you'd be grateful to have a chance to run this by someone who isn't already a Keeper Of Odd Knowledge. It'll give you an idea how far you're going to get with it outside of the K.O.O.K. threads.

So far I have seen myself implied a racist and called satanic. Lovely theory you've got there. The Taliban would be proud of you.

[VadeRetro]

I'd better help you out on another thing, since I'm dealing with the notably humor-impaired. A fuller quote:

... one of the frequent posters on creation versus evolution threads, where I number among the "atheistic Satan-worshipping materialist evolutionists," to paraphrase the other side.

IOW, I'm paraphrasing what I've already been called many times on other threads by various witch-burner types. Here's the joke, which those generating such nonsense always miss: "Atheistic" and "Satan-worshipping" are mutually contradictory. In fact I'm an agnostic. I could almost get religious, except I keep running into people whom God tells to do bad things.

[PaulKersey]

Check the upper RH corner of his FR page under "homepage". Then maybe Church Address.

[VadeRetro]

Another sour note for the Not-Ready-For-Art-Bell-Players, The Velikovsky FAQ.

[William Terrell]

It's not my reaction and it's a cheap trick worthy of the liberals on your part.

What? Explain to me carefully why and how it relates to a liberal trick. I didn't say it was your reaction, but you have responded against it and conversation shows that you haven't studied the issue and implications of the evidence, Biblical and historical, enough to take that position. Usually, it's been my experience that when that happens, the responder is emotionally invested in his position.

It is obvious that a number of posters that actually post to a discussion like this have an emotional reaction to the notion of European types being th edescendents of the Northern Kingdom. They call it "racist", "white supremist" and compare it to the British Isrealisists and Christian Identity church. They do this without taking the slightest amount of time to search out the base evidence.

Currently, as I'm sure you've noticed, there is a movement to demonize European types. They've stolen the world's resources, enslaved the worlds people, think their culture is superior to other cultures, blah, blah. You know the rap.

One demonizes when one has no counter-argument and wants to shut down the credibility of the opposition so that lack won't become apparent. That, my friend, is a cheap liberal trick.

Are these behaviors related? What do you think? You haven't expressed an opinion, just made an allegation. And that is another cheap liberal trick. You can tell me that you have not noticed anything like this, as I said, but since you don't, it has to be presumed you have.

You can advocate anything you want about who the Celts were before they were the Celts, or who the Lost Tribes were afer they were the Lost Tribes, but make a case for it. Get off your butt! I'm not going to play that much offense here. You're the one with something to sell.

I have made a case for it in at least the last two threads. None of that case is mentioned in this response, either agreed or refuted. It's a maxim that claims unanswered must be thought of by the respondent as true.

You are the one who needs to get cracking. I, and others, have given you evidence and logical conclusions for the existance of pro-celts, language leakage and influence, cultural chances, migration paths, current LT numbers, for example. This was after your presentation. Ball's in your court.

[VadeRetro]

One demonizes when one has no counter-argument and wants to shut down the credibility of the opposition so that lack won't become apparent. That, my friend, is a cheap liberal trick.

No kidding?

[VadeRetro]

You are the one who needs to get cracking. I, and others, have given you evidence and logical conclusions for the existance of pro-celts, language leakage and influence, cultural chances, migration paths, current LT numbers, for example. This was after your presentation. Ball's in your court.

The "language leakage" arguments don't hunt. For a very patient explanation, try 281. Nobody has done more on this thread than misunderstand the problem. Nothing goes away that way. It's still there for anyone with an education.

Pretending that all polytheisms are alike, all metalworking is alike, and any pre-tech society pretty much is the same as another one does more to moot your point than to prove it.

One more time:

1) Most people think the Celts and Hebrews were different groups. How is this wrong and why has no one before you loonies noticed?

2) Weren't the Celts around before the Lost Tribes went lost? If you're going to cite the Exodus from Egypt as peopling Europe with the first wave of Celts, why don't any sources--not Exodus, not the Egyptians--mention any such thing? What is the evidentiary basis for what looks like an ad hoc revision?

Mumbles and handwaves don't get it done.

[VadeRetro]

Explain to me carefully why and how it relates to a liberal trick.

You're telling me I'm a racist if I don't shut up and go along with your nutcase theory. Sounds liberal to me.

[u-89]

I'm not talking about plate tectonics, I'm talking about crustal displacement. The entire crust moves at once.

Your comment reminds me of Genesis 10:25. Here discussing the sons of Shem; And unto Eber were born two sons:the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided... To me this sounded like it had to be a major event. Whatever Peleg means in the tongue of the day it had to do with this event. When science talks of continental drift I always thought of this verse and that perhaps it was no gradual occurance. Never heard anyone expound upon this verse though.