Talk:Marine archaeology in the Gulf of Khambhat

message: My anonymous critic stated:
It is suspicious that the supposed geoarchaeologist 
that writes in Talk: Ruins in the Gulf of Cambay writes 
a long skeptical article and do not mention his 
complete name. 
I find it revealing that the person complaining about me not mentioning my complete name lacks the courage of his conviction to provide any means of identifying himself at all. He is either not logged in or, possibly, even lacks an account. On the other hand, I have registered and, for the most part, remember to log in before contributing something to Wikipedia. Also a person can get a brief summary of my background at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paul_H.  A more resourceful person, by following the links, can find my full name on my The Wild Side of Geoarchaeology Page. 
The above critic continued:
Anyway who can say the real motivations of such 
SKEPTICALS. Declarations like: "NO ARCHAEOLOGIST 
accepts it" make me suspect. They judge but NO 
BODY can judge them. They say they are professionals, 
but even proffesionals have a political view. The 
emphatical way of this opposition is very suspicious 
even though with supposed specialists. This skeptical 
scientifics are CLEARLY politically motivated. 
Anyone is free to visit my The Wild Side of Geoarchaeology Page and read articles of mine, i.e. The Coso Artifact: Mystery from the Depths of Time and An Evaluation of the Geological Evidence Presented By Gateway to Atlantis for Terminal Pleistocene Catastrophe posted on the Hall of Ma'at Website. There a person can find my full name and find that I am critical of shoddy research regardless of whether it is published by Young Earth creationists, quasi-New Agers, or followers of other political or religious philosophies. If a person looks at the nationalities of the authors of the articles and books, of which I am critical, they will find that I call it as I see it regardless of whether the authors of an article is either American (Chittick), English (Andrew Collins), or another nationality. In posts to the Ma'at message board, I written more critical comments about western authors, i.e. Gavin Menzies and Robert Sarmast, than Indian authors. As my web page indicates, I am just a Quaternary geologist, because I have done and still do professional work as a geoarchaeologist, who on the side has a interest in testing the scientific validity of the various ideas, which alternative archaeologists have advocated about Holocene and Pleistocene catastrophes, Earth Crustal Displacement, the "true" location of Atlantis, "Lost Civilizations", and OOPARTS (Out Of Place ARTifacts) regardless of their race, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation. Writing popular articles for web pages and other places is largely a hobby, which I use to relax and forget about my other concerns when I feel burned out from life in general. 
The level of acceptance of the "ruins" of the Gulf of Cambay can be seen by the utter absence of lengthy discussions of the articles published by the NIOT team in the mainstream archaeological literature. Besides a few papers authored by the NIOT Team and published in local journals and a few conference abstracts, lengthy discussions of the alleged underwater ruins and 30,000-year old pottery is noticeably absent from the mainstream, international scientific literature. If accepted by the international archaeological community as being valid, a discovery as spectacular as the undersea “ruins” and 30,000 year-old pottery would have been commented by now in a variety of papers by other archaeologists in international journals. It is revealing of the level of acceptance of the Gulf of Cambay "ruins" that the only significant reference to the underwater "ruins" of the Gulf of Cambay, which I can find at this time, in the mainstream archaeological literature is a book, edited by a well respected and internationally recognized archaeologist, Garrett G. Fagan, that is titled "Archaeological Fantasies". Also, in a Google search, a person finds these ruins being featured either on web pages promoting quasi-New Age arguments about Atlantis, other Lost Civilizations, and prehistoric visitations by extraterrestrials or promoting Vedic science or newspaper articles prepared from press releases.  An atypical newspaper article can be found in Volume 19, Issue 05, Mar. 02 - 15, 2002, of “Frontline”. "Frontline" is an Indian magazine.
My critic might be able to find out for himself about what mainstream archaeologists think about the undersea "ruins" of Cambay and their associated 30,000-year old pottery by going to the Underwater Archaeology Discussion List, joining the mailing list, and posting the title and URL to Dr. Badrinaryan's Gulf of Cambay article to it along with a request for the opinions of the archaeologists on the list concerning his interpretations.
The anonymous critic continued:
The NIOT team has archaeologists, though not as main 
conductors of the project, and there are also other 
specialists in the team from many fields. The supposed 
Skeptical geoarchaeologists also lies when he says 
that fragments could be from elsewhere because NIOT's 
team made an study of the soil of the bottom of the 
sea showing that it has the same composition as pottery 
found. There are many other lies of this supposed 
specialist, once again quoting NOT UPDATED findings. 
This way of behaviour is VERY VERY SOUSPICIOUS.
I find it very suspicious that this anonymous critic cannot defend his position using the data, published literature, basic scientific principles, and logic. Instead, he simply denounces anyone, who disagrees his own interpretation of the research conducted by the NIOT Team as being "politically motivated", "political enemies of India", "pseudo-scientific", and of spreading "lies" without offering a single shred of proof to support these allegations. Although I might be wrong, the immediate impression that can from the comments of my anonymous critic is that he or she does not understand that a person can honestly disagree with his (her) and the NIOT Team's interpretation of their research in the Gulf of Cambay without having any political agenda. 
In terms of the pottery analysis, the number of samples is too few and the area sampled is too limited to provide any proof of their interpretation. If their research is as definitive and solid as my critic claims above, I wonder why it was published on the web site of an alternative archaeologist, regarded among conventional (mainstream) archaeologists, as being quite careless in his “scholarship” instead of submitting to an international scientific journal like "Nature", "Science", or "Geoarchaeology" If either Dr. Badrinaryan or the NIOT Team wants to be taken seriously, they need submit their research to an international journal such as "Geoarchaeology".
The anonymous critic continued:
I see triying to have a REAL scientific discussion 
with such people is IMPOSSIBLE, they will find 
pseudo-scientific arguments all the time. They 
do not want to find the truth. And here in Wikipedia 
I see there is also a dangerous person called Brunock. 
He performs the wall who stops to see the light for 
all. Sadly he is not the only one in Wikipedia who 
doest it.
Other people from Wikipedia have to know that there 
are many political enemies of India that do not 
hesitate to use "scholars" to deny the truth. 
In my opinion, my critic is taking this discussion far, far too seriously. :-) :-) Just because a person disagrees with my anonymous critic fails to make them "dangerous". Just because someone disagrees with him or her about what happened thousands of years ago does not make them the equivalent of a bomb-throwing terrorist, who should be reported to both the Department of Homeland Security and its Indian equivalent.
The anonymous critic finally noted:
These days Steve Farmer and Michael Witzel, supposed 
scholars even presented a video of UNTOUCHABLES to 
justify their claims and attacking India's way of 
living and culture. How sad! Even Wikipedia has 
that kind of people infiltrated!
In my opinion, what is really sad here is that my anonymous critic does not understand the difference between harmless scholars and Osama bin Laden. If interested parties want to evaluate for themselves an example of the kind of scholarship, which has made my critic so upset, they can read:
Witzel, Micheal, 2006, Rama's realm: Indocentric rewritings of early South Asian archaeology and history in Fagan, G. G., ed., pp. 203-232, Archaeological Fantasies. Routledge Taylor, and Francis Group, New York 
Best Regards,
Paul H.
: I actually got a kick out of being called dangerous :-) --Sean Brunnock 17:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply To My Anonymous Critic 

message: Some of the people have a point when it comes to scientific intimidation among scientist. The discovery of the location of the city of Troy was highly criticized until it was finally proven. To the writer of this article I have a few questions. Are you a skeptic? Are there any new discoveries such as the new evidence of native North American migration at earlier times in  history. The reason I ask this is that I believe for most scientist their reason for living is to completely disprove any new scientific theories no matter on what basis. If you could I'm sure there's a way to disprove any scientific reality if their was a will or enough group think or mob mentality that exists among many scientist today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grecojdw (talk • contribs) 22 March 2006
:I am not the writer of this article, but it seems to me that the major contributor here, Paul H., has been doing a corking job in detailing the particulars and (lack of any convincing) evidence for this as a supposed 'archaeological site'. Your own beliefs about scientists' motivations and 'intimidation' are entirely beside the point, as well as being demonstrably unfounded. Contrary to your claim fields of scientific endeavour such as archaeology are constantly being expanded and revised in the light of new materials; but equally there are many claims made which do not have sufficient convincing evidence available at the time to convince many or most field specialists- such as in this case, which Paul has documented in a quite balanced way. Take a quick internet search through sites such as Hancock's - you will see there are literally thousands of different claims in archaeology which are generally dismissed on (lack of) evidence or credibility as pseudoscientific, or at the very least not supported by evidence: do you think that all of these are potentially correct, and the only reason they are shunned by the scientific community is because of some cabal? What threshhold of evidence would you require for these to be identified as unproven?--cjllw | TALK 00:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the writer of this article 

message: On  12 March 2009, mr. "75.83.201.131" wrote:
There is no explanation as to how the fingerprints got on the suspected 
pottery shards.
If a person reads the article carefully, they will find that it does not discuss real
"fingerprints" as found on a person's fingers. Instead, the article uses "fingerprints" 
as a a generic term for any identifying characteristic or evidence of identity for a
person or thing.Paul H. (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Question of "Fingerprints" 

message: Hey, first time here. Going to be short. Is it entirely true what the headline quote says?
From reference n17:
"Raman says there are certain essentially Harappan items - seals and black-and-red pottery ware - that are conspicuous by their absence among the artefacts collected from Khambat. Does the lack of Harappan stylistic evidence indicate that Khambat is a pre-Harappan site? "No," says Raman, "cultures do not exist in isolation. There has to be some interconnectedness. If this is pre-Harappan, then there should be some evidence here of what was to come later."
It's ok that cultures don't exist in isolation, but aren't we here talking about cultures far from each other chronologically speaking? Shouldn't just 1000 years be enough for similarities to be non-existent? And here we're perhaps talking even more than that. Especially if we suppose that it went below water long before the Harappan-civilization. The claim then to say that it HAS to be a connection, seems a little closed-minded to me? Note the question-marks, as I am no expert at this field.
Aleks W.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.69.160 (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  If the pottery is genuine - should show some similarities to Harappan pottery 

message: The footnote that is currently number two  is to Frontline.  But the link is to the current issue.  When I searched the archives, using Frontline's search function,  I got no hits using the first two words of the article in 2002. 211.225.33.104 (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote doesn't work 

message: Is there any information about which kind of wood was found and dated? It would be great to include this information in the article.--217.13.79.226 (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  any information about the kind of wood, found and dated? 

message: I'm very confused about the statement of Agrival. The wood was dated to round about the 8th century BC. He stated, the sealevel was lower 20.000 years ago. So what does he mean? That the sample must be older than the researching institutes stated?--217.13.79.226 (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did Agrival mean? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marine archeology in the Gulf of Khambhat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060226235141/http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/BadrinaryanB1.php?p=1 to http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/BadrinaryanB1.php?p=1
*Added  tag to http://www.nio.org/projects/vora/project_vora.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Import from Dvārakā, Look of anything important to be in article and missing.--Nizil (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Import

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marine archeology in the Gulf of Khambhat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025184046/http://www.telegraphindia.com/1010520/ to http://www.telegraphindia.com/1010520/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why does yhe dating in this article only gocus on artifacts? 2601:14A:C300:558:8905:5EAE:C28A:27D2 (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was the site above sea level? 

message: I've no idea what that was changed. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New title should have lower case "archaeology".