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.

[LostTribe]

It is getting to be a long thread, and that makes it more difficult for Freepers still on dial-up. So for review, here is the short seminal document which is being discussed. Note that while it is 8 paragraphs long, the heavy breathing and spittle is about paragraphs 6 & 7.

 

3-MINUTE HISTORY OF THE ISRAELITES

Four Thousand years ago, Abraham (a great-great grandson of Shem, a son of Noah) and a small group of Hebrews (of which there were & are many varieties) migrated from southern Iraq to Canaan (~Palestine). Several generations later, around 1853 BC, his Grandson Jacob (who was renamed Israel) and his 12 Sons and families moved to Egypt. As offspring of Shem, they were called "Shemites" or "Semites", as were his many other offspring.

~1453 BC, now as the 12 Tribes of the 12 Sons of Israel, and over 3 Million strong, these Semites bailed out of Egypt in the well-documented overland EXODUS and fled back to ~Palestine.  But the Tribes “couldn't all get along” there, so ~922 BC these 5 Million Israelites split into the Northern and Southern Kingdoms. 

(In actual numbers, 5 Million people is about the same size as Ireland, Norway, Denmark or Israel today, and was 10% of the estimated 50 Million world population at that time. The world population is now ONE HUNDRED TIMES as large. Compared to todays 6 Billion people, the Israelites relative population would have been over twice as large as the United States of America!) 

The very large Northern Kingdom of Israel was made up of 10 of the Tribes. Inheriting the Kingly names which applied to all 12 Tribes before the split, the Northern Kingdom (alone) becomes known as the Kingdom of Israel or House of Israel, (also House of Joseph, House of Ephriam, House of Isaac, and House of Omri), and is led by the northern Tribe of Ephraim. 

Two hundred years later these Northern Israelites were taken into captivity by the Assyrians (~722 BC) and relocated to the northern Fertile Crescent area of Iraq/Iran. They were not diligent in updating their eMail addresses, thus were called, by some, the "Lost Tribes", or "Lost Sheep" or "Lost Children" of the Kingdom or House of Israel. (However at ~1/12 or more of the worlds population it seems unlikely they would actually disappear, or get "lost". The global population now ~75 Million.)

A hundred years later, this "lost" Northern Kingdom of Israel with now over 6 Million Israelites helped the Medes and Persians overthrow the Assyrians, then escaped north through the Caucasus Mountains and around the Black and Caspian Seas, to explode into history ~610 BC as The Celts. These Celts mixed with (and fought against) each other, and with other scattered Israelites (proto-Celts) who had escaped from Egypt by sea nearly a thousand years earlier, before the overland Exodus. Also, with other Israelites who migrated from Palestine after the overland Exodus but before the Assyrian captivity and who had already established numerous outposts in Europe and elsewhere. 

These Millions of Celts grew to become Tens, then Hundreds of Millions as they migrated in waves westward and northwest to Galatia, Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonika, Phillipi, Collosse, to what is today Hallstatt, Austria and Neuchatel, Switzerland (where exist major Celtic digs and museums) and beyond, to totally dominate Northern and Western Europe. These Celts (also as Cimmerians, Scythians, Danaoi, Massagetae, Milesians, Masilia, Sarmatians, Germani, Goths, Franks, Gauls, Lombards, Belgae, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vandals, Danes, Normans, and other assorted "Barbarians") are the rootstock of today’s Europeans and Americans who became the backbone of global Christianity.

The much smaller Southern Kingdom was made up of the Tribe of Judah & a mix of Levites and Benjamites. It was also known as the Kingdom of Judah or House of Judah. These Southern Israelites (aka Judeans) were taken captive in ~587 BC and removed to Babylon. Only ~50,000 Judeans returned to Palestine ~70 years later. They and their offspring are called Jews.

[Sabertooth]

Ask any real archeologist and he will tell you that language is the poorest way to attempt to determine who went where. Think about it, how many generations does it take immigrants to America to lose ALL linkeage with their ancestors language?  Linguistics is an academic nicety, but it is a TRAILING indicator, not a leading one.  If, after a migratory path has been established by other means the languge trail seems to also agree, that is just a pleasant afterthought.  Language is an understandable "tool" for linguists, but not of much value for real archeologists trying to uncover a real trail.

How do I discern a real archaeologist from the dopplegangers?

I don't find the American model of assimilation to be useful in calcualting linguistic transformations in antiquity. America is a unique Historical experiment, and patterns of assimilation here are the exception, not the rule. Setting aside the fact that our national identity is based in ideas rather than ethnicities, assimilation here was aided by the printing press, universal education, and mass communications. Frequently there have also been common religious, cultural, and linguistic roots among immigrants here.

Even then, relic words survive: sushi, spaghetti, Sedar, etc. These are the linguistic fingerprints which provide the evidence for American exposure to Japanese, Italian, and Jewish influences, in the same way that alcolhol, algebra, and algorithm are relics of more distant exposure to Arabic influences.

I think you're a little too quick to dismiss linguistic evidence as a useful tool for anthropologists and archaeologists. I'll stipulate it's not the only tool, nor necesarily the pre-eminent one, but if other tools indicate a conclusion contrary to what the linguistic evidence would indicate, then an explanation for the contradiction is necessary to tie up loose ends and make the overall case more compelling.

I'm also not sure why you'd raise these doubts, when from the following passage it appears you feel that linguistic analysis supports the theory that the Celts are descended from the Lost Tribes.

Having said that, there are a large number of links from ancient Hebrew to contemporary English. 

In the Capt book (#313 above) analyzing the 23,000 Assyrian Tablets in the British Museum, 12 pages in Chapter 11 are devoted to the "LANGUAGE LINK".  Most of those pages are filled solid with charts comparing the Hebrew and English words.  It is most impressive, but I'm not going to try to retype those charts here nor violate copyright by scanning them.  But I do think you would find that chapter very impressive if not overwhelming, and probably even convincing.

Sounds like an interesting book. I looked over your link to it and the Histories included in the tablets definitely warrant scrutiny.

Two questions:

Is that the only place where English and Hebrew similarites are described? Do you have anything else?

If there are such similarities, are their other competing explanations for them besides the Celtic theory of the fate of the Lost Tribes?

Then there is this...

It was in God's great plan that Israel was to lose the knowledge of their origin. Yet this could not have taken place had Israel retained their language. "For with foreign lips and another tongue will he speak to this people." (Isa. 28:11)  Therefore, their Hebrew language had to be replaced with other tongues. But according to the findings of modern ethnologists there is not that great difference between the Hebrew and the Saxon tongue as is generally supposed.......

I don't see where Isaiah mentions Celts or Indo-Europeans. Any language but Hebrew satisfies the prophetic requirements of that verse.

Similarities between Hebrew and Saxon are of fundmental interest in this discussion. What can you show me?

[LostTribe]

>How do I discern a real archaeologist from the dopplegangers?

The discernment being discussed was between archaeologists and linguists.

>I think you're a little too quick to dismiss linguistic evidence as a useful tool for anthropologists and archaeologists. I'll stipulate it's not the only tool, nor necesarily the pre-eminent one,

Since I am neither I have no axe to grind.  Wish I could find the thread here on FR last year which centered on an article by a REAL field-type archaeologist who was also a recognized linguist.  He made the case for forgetting linguistics as a useful tool.

>I'm also not sure why you'd raise these doubts, when from the following passage it appears you feel that linguistic analysis supports the theory that the Celts are descended from the Lost Tribes.

Simple honesty, and willingness to acknowledge other sides of an issue. {ggg}.  Why not?

>Sounds like an interesting book. I looked over your link to it and the Histories included in the tablets definitely warrant scrutiny.

Thanks.  I sometimes feel like we are at a book club disussing a book which few have actually read. {ggg}.

>Two questions: Is that the only place where English and Hebrew similarites are described? Do you have anything else?

That's plenty for a "user lever" start.  I did post-Doctoral work in Biblical Archeology at both Oxford University and Trinity College Dublin and there are lots of references there, and of course primary sources.  Capt has an abundance of references in his book, and they are certainly better available to the general public.

>If there are such similarities, are their other competing explanations for them besides the Celtic theory of the fate of the Lost Tribes?

Yes, endless theories.  Most of them concentrate on making sure the Lost Tribes of Israel are assimilated into neighboring tribes or otherwise never found. Or if they are found, they are a tiny group huddled around a campfire in the desert, watering their camels and picking their noses.  (If they are never found then those theories are "safe", while also protecting the status-quo.)

In reality it is todays Southern Kingdom offspring the Jews who at only 12 Million(?) almost became Lost to history.  Their cousins, the Northern Kingdom Celts and offspring who today number nearly 1 BILLION are the dominant Israelites today, as they were when the tribes split into North and South in 922 BC.

The North becoming "lost" is sort of like the forest becoming so big you can't see the trees, thus the trees appear "lost".

[Sabertooth]

That's plenty for a "user lever" start.  I did post-Doctoral work in Biblical Archeology at both Oxford University and Trinity College Dublin and there are lots of references there, and of course primary sources.  Capt has an abundance of references in his book, and they are certainly better available to the general public.

OK, this is what we're looking for. We need to see some evidence for similarities between Hebrew and Saxon and English. At this point, I'm not informed enough to accept or deny them. You're making the claim that such similarities exist, that they result from the Lost Tribes having become the Celts, and you reference an impressive resume indicating extensive knowledge of all of this.

Fair enough. You know where the bodies are buried, you're in the best position to gather some of this info and post it and the links here on this thread.

Can you help us out a little more here?

[#3Fan]

I wonder, what peoples on the Earth today would you nominate as the descendants of the lost tribes? There will have to be a bunch of them, so tiny pockets of people don't count.

Most people from the countries of the U.K., Israel and the U.S.

[VadeRetro]

I won't keep you in suspense any further.

1) What people would you pick for the descendents of the Northern Kingdom?

I seem to have shown up on this thread without a candidate. I feel like the only black tie at a white tie dinner.

2) do you believe, this to say, accept as gospel, the prophesies of God in the Old Testament have come to pass and will continue to come to pass?

There may be a God, or maybe not. If you need a shorter answer, "No."

3) .............. Do you always only TALK TALK TALK but never listen??? I'll bet you are hell of a lot of fun to be around.

Yes.

[#3Fan]

Good post! Thanks.

[#3Fan]

Art Bell talks about anything and everything from ghosts to space aliens. Last night it was about whether or not we really went to the moon.

ghosts and aliens don't fascinate me like these geological and climate anomolies. If ghosts and aliens exist, then they always have existed and they're not going to suddenly turn our world upside down. Catastrophism could happen at any time though and have a huge impact on us all.

[#3Fan]

I don't know the parameters of the problem. I doubt very many people were relocated very far.

Of course people never go too far. I'm sick and tired of being told that most Australians are descended from the British. Britain's on the other side of the world. No Way!

/sarcasm

[VadeRetro]

... there is not that great difference between the Hebrew and the Saxon tongue is generally supposed ...

A very curious statement. Saxon is/was a German language, not at all a Celtic one. The Saxons (along with their Angle and Jute brethren) expanded at the expense of the Celts in the waning years of the Roman Empire in the West, at first on the continent, then raiding and eventually invading the Celtic refuge in the British Isles.

Whether or not Saxon is meant, you have the problem that all members of the Indoeuropean language family (Celtic, German, Latin, Slavic, Indo-Iranian, etc.) are more related to each other than any of them are to the Semitic languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Ancient Egyptian, Assyrian, Akkadian, Arabic, etc.). You have to account for a transformation that jumps across the tree of language evolution from one pre-existing branch into another pre-existing branch in some way that makes historical sense.

And then you have that there were already Celts, as it looks to most people who have looked into the Celts. It's hard to completely become somebody who's already out there.

[#3Fan]

I've thought of a trigger mechanism: If a degenerate star or large planet (Wormwood) with a strong electromagnetic field happened to pass close by, the electromagnetic flux acting on the field surrounding our iron-cored planet might be sufficient moment to initiate movement in that core with respect to the crust (having its own momentum and relatively less iron).

Yeah, there is evidence of an intruder...the asteroid belt, Uranus on it's side, Venus turning backwards, our moon even, Mars is the wrong size. I believe our core is more a nuclear reactor than a big chunk of iron though. Highly electromagnetic though and so would interact with a highly charged cosmic intruder.

[VadeRetro]

These Celts (also as Cimmerians, Scythians, Danaoi, Massagetae, Milesians, Masilia, Sarmatians, Germani, Goths, Franks, Gauls, Lombards, Belgae, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vandals, Danes, Normans, and other assorted "Barbarians") are the rootstock of today’s Europeans and Americans who became the backbone of global Christianity.

If I'd read on a little farther the first time instead of falling to the floor laughing, I'd have noticed before now that the Danaoi (Danaan Greeks), Germani (Germans), Goths (more Germans), Franks (more Germans), Angles (more Germans), Saxons (more Germans), Jutes (more Germans), Vandals (more Germans), Danes (more Germans), and Normans (more Germans, northern flavor, via France) for sure are not and were never considered Celts. I have my doubts about a lot of the other names in the list as well but I'm too lazy to check seeing that enough is enough.

[#3Fan]

Isn't it less of a strain on the brain that the Celts were just another tribe like so many others that was out of sight of civilization until they wandered into contact?

So you have a "Hollywood fight" theory. In a Hollywood movie when the good guy is surrounded by bad guys in a fight, all but one never engage the good guy at once, they wait till one goes down and then the next one steps up. So you think that the Celts, whose descendants rule the world now just sat around and did nothing hidden away somewhere while the Israelites, Assyrians, and Babylonians all got off the stage. The same peoples that ruled the world in 1000 BC rule the world now.

[VadeRetro]

So you think that the Celts, whose descendants rule the world now just sat around and did nothing hidden away somewhere while the Israelites, Assyrians, and Babylonians all got off the stage. The same peoples that ruled the world in 1000 BC rule the world now.

I didn't realize the Celts were running the show, but then "the Celts" seem to be practically everybody in your world, much more so than in mine. I suppose that if everybody is everybody else then your statement cannot be contradicted. But what happens if the Chinese are the big power in the coming decades? Or are they the Lost Tribes of Israel also?

[#3Fan]

There's nothing that's the same. Therefore, it must be them!

There are plenty that's the same. Do you know what a "psaltery" is?

[LostTribe]

>OK, this is what we're looking for. We need to see some evidence for similarities between Hebrew and Saxon and English. At this point, I'm not informed enough to accept or deny them. You're making the claim that such similarities exist, that they result from the Lost Tribes having become the Celts, and you reference an impressive resume indicating extensive knowledge of all of this.

Hey, c'mon!  I want to have a Christmas too. {ggg}.  I've said I am no authority on linguistics and have to rely on those who are.  I have pointed you to a book by Capt which has an extensive section on linguisitics. It is right on target for this subject, it is available, and it is yours for only a few bucks.  Beyond that, the topic is all yours.  (Please report back with your findings.)

Now what is fascinating to me is this pre-occupation with language as indicator of anything.  Language after is all is a LEARNED characteristic of a people.  There is nothing whatever inherent about it.  You can go to Berlitz (or Target) and BUY yourself a language!  Thus language is an indicator or very little if anything at all.

To be relevent in this search, how about looking at things which are INHERENT, not learned or otherwise obtained?  Genetics immediately springs to mind, but that field today besides being incredibly complex is apparently rife with fraud.  (See FR threads 1 to 2 years old for more than you ever wanted to know about the subject.  "Customized Genetic Reports" are apparently available if you are willing to pay for your desired results, and that is repeatedly reported to have happened.)

Then how about APPEARANCE.  People who are related do tend do look alike, but that can be very subjective.  But there are some characteristics which lead some people to believe they can make some rough cuts at whether people are related or not.

Take race/color.  Most of us can tell the difference between the blacks of Africa, the Indians of the Americas, the Orientals of Asia and the Whites of Europe, on a rough basis of course.  But intermarriage, which has been there since Joseph married an Egyptian (and before) makes both appearance and genetic identification more difficult if not impossible.  Since the time of Jacob/Israel the Israelites have gone through nearly 200 generations of marriage including intermarriage. Gotta make gene testing difficult, as well as positive recognition by appearance. 

But even with those caveats, blacks, indians, asians and whites do generally have distinguishing characteristics.  Do you think Jews have special distinguishing characteristics?  Do they have a special "semitic" appearance.  Should they look at least vaguely like Yassir Arafat?  Well at least maybe look different than white Europeans?  Or are Jews not whites?  But Europeans have blue eyes?  Not really, of course but David in the OT was described there as being "ruddy and fair".  That sounds like a ruddy blue-eyed blond Irishman! (Of course David was not Jewish, he was an Israelite.  But that's another story for another time.)

Well how about noses?  Don't Jews have a nose like Yassir?  Maybe, maybe not. Lots of races can have big noses. What other race is left?  Which race do Jews belong to?  Not the ...gasp... European & American whites race?

In order to fulfill Hosea 1:10,11 the offspring from BOTH the children of Judah and the children of Israel would have to come from a single ethnic group which displayed such common characteristics as may be observed in the following Jews, who just happen to look like ordinary non-Jewish Celts from anywhere else in the world. Here are a number of well known Jews who don't look like blacks, or indians, or asians: 

Joseph Lieberman, Paul Newman, Ted Koppel, Harrison Ford, Efrem Zimbalist, Jr., Kirk Douglas, Kevin Costner, Stephen Breyer, Yitzhak Rabin, Michael Landon, Lorne Greene, Mike Wallace, Benjamin Netanyahu, William Shatner, Douglas Fairbanks, Cary Grant, Leonard Bernstein, Paul Simon, Ariel Sharon, David Frost, Morley Safer, Ari Fleischer,

Jack Benny, Alan King, Casper Weinberger, Carl Reiner, George Burns, Red Buttons, Sam Levinson, Bernard Goldberg, Robert Downey Jr., Dustin Hoffman, Michael Douglas, Peter Sellers, Tony Curtis, Edward G. Robinson, Wolf Blitzer, Mel Torme, Paul Wellstone, Peter Falk, Leonard Nimoy, Jerry Springer, Arlen Spector, William Cohen,

Barry Goldwater, Robert Rubin, William Roth, Howard Metzenbaum, Hyman Rickover, Robert Reich, Russ Feinberg, Stanley Mosk, Arthur Burns, Milton Friedman, Bill Kristol, Victor Borge, William Kristol, Warren Rudman, etc., etc, etc.

The Celts and the Jews are genetic cousins.  All are offspring from Jacob/Israel, and all are Hebrews, Semites, and Israelites. This PRIMARY characteristic is worth comparing, unlike something which is externally obtained and as irrelevent as linguistics.

[#3Fan]

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.

Your whole theory is based on this language argument. I assume you live in America. Look around you. There are descendants from Italy that don't speak a lick of Italian, Japanese-Americans that don't speak any Japanese, etc. It only takes two generations to adopt the language of the majority. As the tribes moves across Europe, they would've had to speak the languages of the surrounding peoples. Just because the British don't speak pure Hebrew doesn't mean anything. Your argument is dumb.