Newsgroup: it.discussioni.misteri
Titolo: Major Offshore Archaeological Discovery near Mahabalipuram, India

Below is a press release about a major discovery
off the east coast of India at Mahabalipuram. 
Although sunken ruins, they are only 1500-1200
years old and certainly provide no support for
the existence of any Flooded Ice Age Kingdoms.
Have Fun
Keith
+++++ Press Release below this line +++++
Preliminary Underwater Archaeological Explorations 
of Mahabalipuram. Statement by National Institute 
of Oceanography, 9 April 2002 
A team of underwater archaeologists from National institute
of Oceanography NIO have successfully `unearthed' evidence 
of submerged structures off Mahabalipuram and established 
first-ever proof of the popular belief that the Shore 
temple of Mahabalipuram is the remnant of series of total 
seven of such temples built that have been submerged in 
succession. The discovery was made during a joint 
underwater exploration with Scientific Exploration 
Society, U.K. 
The team of archaeologists from NIO, trained in diving, 
carried out underwater exploration between April 1 - 4, 
2002 and have successfully recorded evidence of presence 
of ruins underwater off Mahabalipuram. The salient 
features of the findings are as follows: 
Underwater investigations were carried out at 5 locations
in the 5 - 8 m water depths, 500 to 700 m off Shore temple. 
Investigations at each location have shown presence 
of the construction of stone masonry, remains of walls, 
a big square rock cut remains, scattered square and 
rectangular stone blocks, big platform leading the steps 
to it amidst of the geological formations of the rocks 
that occur locally. 
Most of the structures are badly damaged and scattered in
a vast area, having biological growth of Barnacles, Mussels
and other organisms. 
The construction pattern and area, about 100m X 
50m, appears to be same at each location. The actual 
rea covered by ruins may extend well beyond the explored 
locations. 
Based on what appears to be a Lion figure, of location 4, 
ruins are inferred to be parts of temple complex. 
The possible date of the ruins may be 1500-1200 
years BP. Pallava dynasty, ruling the area during the 
period, has constructed many such rock cut and 
structural temples in Mahabalipuram and Kanchipuram. 
To place reasonable arguments on submergence of ruins, 
a full-scale investigations are underway to record the 
role of sea level fluctuations, coastal erosion and 
neo-tectonic activities in effecting shoreline changes 
in the area in the recent past. 
The site has great potential to explore total lay out 
plan of the structures and causes of submergence. 

http://www.grahamhancock.com/
  there are some photos and further links
http://www.ses-explore.org/
  (the org who took part in the discovery, some
photos and a short report)



The problem for HandCock and his woo woo friends is that the ruins
are probably not older than 2,000 years.  That doesn't help his crackpot 
notions very much.  It also doesn't help him making comments like:
"But here in Mahabalipuram, we have proved the myths right and the 
academics wrong."
He shows the chip on his shoulder a mile high, and he seems a bit
premature in making claims, but that is what he does best.  There are
ancient temples on the shore and land around that site that date to
the 5th and 7th centuries and right now there is no proof of anything
other than that era.
Or would you like to try to claim that Port Royal, which lies at the same
depth, is an Ice Age city?
You really ought to learn more about him:
http://www.luckymojo.com/hancocklecture.html
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD;    "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: jamie_eckles(at)
hotmail.com
"Why don't you tell this MAD-DOG she'll cure her own HYSTERIA with a
HYSTERECTOMY?  That may calm the BITCH down a little.  Tell her you know a
good veterinarian."
       -Fake "Dr" Turi shows his light and love

The problem for HandCock and his woo woo friends is that the ruins
Hancock is one of my favorite k00k-tards, though.  Ten pounds of k00k
in a five pound bag.
--
V.G.
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)
Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.

 >
After looking at this site, what's sad is that he probably gets more funding than a number of
actual archaeologists.
Quote from the hancock site:
       >"In my view the possibility of a serious "black hole" in scientific knowledge about
recent
       >prehistory is plausible, reasonable and worthy of consideration. I therefore propose
that
       >the conclusions of modern archaeology regarding the origins and early evolution of
human
       >civilisation should be treated as provisional until a comprehensive, global,
       >marine-archaeological survey of continental shelves down to depths of at least 120
       >metres has been undertaken."
Balderdash. He should avail himself on the literature actual archaeological surveys on land
(and the few that have worked with underwater survey areas).  Our general knowledge of
prehistory as demonstrated in the archaeological record fits together quite well. The major
areas of interest are _how_ cultures operated in order to have made the observed patterns of
features, artifacts, etc.
The highest diversity in ape populations is in Africa (Pan, Gorilla, Homo), and that is where
we find our hominid ancestors, like earlier Homo species, and probably some Australopithecus
species. We can trace clear descent through at least 1,800,000 years with Homo erectus, Homo
antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, etc., and possibly to 2,300,000 years with Homo habilis
(though there is some debate on this last).
Modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) have been around for at least 100,000 years, and they
lived as hunters/gatherers/fishers/ and possibly scavengers.  Their spread out of Africa
appears to be supported in the record (though some multi-regional model proponents might
disagree), Australia by 60,000 years ago, North and South America by 13,000 years ago.  A few
groups domesticated plants and animals around 10,000 years ago in the Near East, somewhat
later independently in India, China, Mesoamerica, and South America.
Regarding crypto-archaeology, there is no evidence for Atlantis, Lemuria, Mu, Hyperborea,
"11th tribe of Israel", or any other mythical civilization. While our knowlege continues to
increase with every site excavated, focusing on these fringe beliefs deflects attention where
it should belong, on the data and hypotheses archaeologists are amassing on the history,
evolution, and technological development of humans.
Cheers,
Ben

 >photos and a short report)
Actually, after reading over his site and the SES-explore site, I find that I much prefer
H.P. Lovecraft's version of history, for two primary reasons:
(1) Lovecraft's ancient lost cities and civilizations are more fully developed and
aesthetically pleasing, and
(2) Lovecraft knew he was writing fiction.
Cheers,
Ben

Ben
Then how can my cat be a graduate of Miskatonic University?


evolution, and technological development of humans.
Hankook makes a living denying the abilities of the ancients by making such outrageous 
claims the woo woo crowd worships.  We see them all the time on afa-b.



Actually work by Cavalli-Sforza et al. have shown that the primary pattern in blood polymorphism
distributions is along a north-south gradient, with the greatest diversity in the north, as one
would expect from a migration through Beringia (dated archaeologically to around 14,000 years
ago).  The settlement of Polynesia is clearly established in the archaeological record, and dates
to around 1,500 years ago.


Then how can my cat be a graduate of Miskatonic University?
"Practice, practice, practice!"


 Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD;    "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
A saw it twice and still haven't figured out what the crossing of the Red 
Sea was supposed to accomplish.  It has already been demonstrated that 
modern humans had made it to modern day Israel by crossing the Sahara at 
least 40,000 years previously, and Homo erectus had done likewise a long 
time before that.  I'm not saying that humans could not have crossed the 
Red Sea as claimed, I just don't see what problem this solves.
robt

robt
I don't either, except that the DNA research pointed towards that.  The claim in
the show was that the Sahara was much larger and deadlier to cross at that
time and that humans took the Red Sea route, when the water level was low
enough to walk over.  On the other side was enticing land that could be viewed
from the other side.  The accepted rout offered no enticement to go through.
There is still a lot to resolve between the DNA research and the archeological
evidence and those arguments beat the hell out of woo woos claiming that
Atlantis spread civilization 20 to 50 thousand years ago.
I am a raw amateur at archeology and a complete novice with biology, but I am fascinated
by them and I will probably tape the show Saturday and watch it again.  Real science
beats the hell out of passionate credulity any day.
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD;    "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"


 depth, is an Ice Age city?
No but the existence of Port Royal means that submerged cities can
exist, and because underwater archaeology is more difficult then such
cities would be harder to find.

 features, artifacts, etc.
Just because our knowledge fits together "quite well" doesn't mean it
is correct or even more than threadbare. All historical studies suffer
from an inability to properly test hypotheses, that is just the way it
is. With prehistory we have so little that even with the great care
and subtlety used by archaeologists there are many things that we
cannot know or that we think we know but are wrong.

 It was something I watched on Discovery and I have not been able to find any
I saw a similar documentary. It was arguing that the skulls found in
South America dating back 30,000 years were Australoid and the
suggestion was that they migrated to South America in ocean going
canoes.  An analysis of the indians of Tierra del Fuego seemed to
support the Australoid theory. The claim was also made that the
migration 12,000 years ago new peoples into the Americas resulted in
their "replacement" (ie genocide) as depicted in numerous wall
paintings of that time but not earlier.  Then they jumped over to
Australia and showed a cave painting in the Kimberly region of Western
Australia ... there was a painting of an ocean going canoe , the
painting is dated as being about 50,000 years old.  That's a brief
description of the doco, I haven't kept abreast of this fopic so I
don't know what the counter arguments were though I know the 30,000
year dating of the South American finds was hotly debated some years
ago.

 to around 1,500 years ago.
You can also date the spread of man through the islands by the
extinction rate of local species, this also implies recent
colonisation.

cities would be harder to find.
My point to the original poster was that Port Royal sunk from an 
earthquake, not an end-of-the-ice-age flood, but might be mistaken
for that if it were not for written records, and young age of the site.




True, but in Hancock's case he is already proclaiming a finding when there
as been just the most rudimentary of research at the site.  He is desperate
to prove that a great civilization existed 12,000 or more years ago.


 colonisation.
True. Certainly no evidence of colonization around 15-14,000 BP.
Cheers,
Ben

 ago.
Debated and discarded as there is no evidence.
Cheers,
Ben

Debated and discarded as there is no evidence.
If you mean Monte Verde, e.g.
http://intarch.ac.uk/antiquity/adovasio.html
, I hadn't heard that it
was anywhere as near cut and dried as that. Until recently I worked
down the hall from this bloke named David Meltzer, who considered it
very much a possibility. 
I don't mean Hancockean hand-waving, either; these guys are pros and
are well aware that gaps need to be filled in. How Monte Verdeans got
to the site without leaving a long trail, for one obvious example.
They're not making claims about super-civilizations or anything of the
sort. The most they're claiming is that since the Americas have been
here a long time, and neolithic cultures of the old world have been
there a long time, some people might have gotten in ahead of Clovis
and therefore the Monte Verde dating might mean exactly what, at face
value, it appears to mean. 
-- 
Over the last few weeks, Yahoo! has completely turned its
public image around from "respected net resource" to "hateful
money-grubbing spam merchants." Funny goal for a company to have.


http://intarch.ac.uk/antiquity/adovasio.html
,
That's it.  That was the topic of the show on
Discovery I was thinking about.  I have been trying
to find something about it on the net for months now.


 to the site without leaving a long trail, for one obvious example.
The problem is that the archaeological remains do not look like any known
complex. And one such site is an anomaly, not a pattern. It is possible that
Homo erectus made it to the New World, but as there is no clear link to any
established pattern of colonization (i.e., Diuktai-Denali, or Paleoindian),
there's not much we can do with it. But this is neither here nor there as I
was not referring to Monte Verde in my response.
Cheers,
Ben



Okay, then. Talking past one another does happen.


 Then how can my cat be a graduate of Miskatonic University?
Why, through the power of Cthulhu of course ! Maybe that's why he
thinks you are lunch. :-)

 Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD
You bet.  And a lot of this pop stuff they show on TV needs a big dose of 
Epsom salt.  
robt  

"DrPostman" <I...@mysig.emailthere> wrote in message
news:c820ducv32bdsgfbp...@4ax.com...



Let's try this again.  As archaeologists you might not appreciate Hancock's
ability to write.  His books are BS for the most part, but as a laymen,
"Fingerprints of the Gods" is what made me interested in the subject of
Atlantis and our pre-history.  It wasn't until after that I realized his
many errors in thinking.  Anyway, just my 2 bits since it seems that is all
I have time for lately.
Chupacabra...


 Ben
the strongest argument against crypto-archeology, and something I've
never seen the kooks address, is the well established timeline for the
domestication of cereal crops and animals, which are the _sine qua
non_ of civilization.  About the time the crypto-archeologists claim
that Atlantis, Mu, Lemuria, etc., were at their height (say, around
15,000BC), the evidence is unambigous that in the real world, people
were gathering and collecting the wild forms of emmer and einkorn
wheat (easily shattered, small seeds, hulled, germinates at various
times), which are not suitable for supporting a dense population.  It
is not until around 8,500BC in the Mideast that wheat was domesticated
(non shattering, large seeds, more seeds per plant, free-theshing,
non-hulled, all plants germinate together).
it is also about this time that cows, goats, pigs and sheep were
domesticated.
food production arose in China and a few other locations about this
time in a similar way, with some different plants and animals.
only when this "package" of plants (about eight main types) and
animals (these four, plus horses later) is complete, providing
carbohydates, protein, fat and fibre, meat, hides, leather, milk and
traction) and begins the process of diffusion from the mideast does
civilization arise.
a good source for further information is Dr Jared Diamond, _Guns,
Germs and Steel_.  A transcript of a lecture he gave to the
Australlian Museum which is a summary of some of the points he makes
in his book is available on line.

 in his book is available on line.
Yes I heard it some years ago.

...

you may be thinking of Jericho, dating from about 8500BC (carbon
dating, calibrated).  Catal Huyuk dates from about 7400BC (also
calibrated) and its rise may have coincided with Jericho's decline. 
as you know, the calibrated dates mean that the radiometric dating is
corrected by reference to tree rings.  both of these sites are located
in locales where the wild ancestors of modern food plants were
abundant and cover the transition from a local foraging lifestyle
(local foraging was possible because of the abundance of these plants)
to an fixed agricultural economy.  population density is obviously
related to having more and better food, and being able to store it
through times of famine, but it is also related to lifestyle, since
women can bear children more often if they are not nomadic or
semi-nomadic.
these dates are consistent with the appearance of domesticated strains
of food plants in Asia Minor.  it is true, as you point out, that
domestication also happened in other places (China, mesoAmerica), but,
I think you'll find that they all happened about the same time, in
about the same way.  because the Asian land mass has an east-west
axis, food producing centers were on similar latitudes enjoying
similar weather, used similar crops, or crops that could easily adapt
to lands along the traderoutes.  of course, we don't see "Atlantis
wheat" or "Lemuria pigs".
you mention a concern with other kinds of economy, what kinds might
these be?

 these be?
Clearly, domestication of grains gave rise to the civilisations we
see. But I was wondering if during the Ice Age when life was harsher
-- drier, more erratic weather -- then perhaps a culture given time
may work out an alternative strategy and build up a civilisation based
on that. For example, say a culture discovered that by irrigating a
small area it could grow not cereals but vegetables etc, while
collecting wild grains from the surrounding region. This wouldn't
support large populations, but you wouldn't want large populations
because in the Ice Age climate was on a roller coaster with very nasty
swings in temperature possible. Grains are very fussy about the kind
of environments they will grow in, I don't see them as being a success
during such times. I don't know if it ever happened, though you'd
think that somewhere on the Earth conditions would have been suitable
during the last 60,000 years for some culture to start experimenting.
If a civilisation did arise and even domesticate grains and pigs say,
then it collapsed. How long before the domesticated varieties would go
"wild" ?  Not long, based on modern experience. Domesticated species
are poorly adapted to life without human beings -- the 'wildness' is
there for a reason.  So if a civilisation disappeared then the grains
etc would disappear or cross with native varieties, though they should
still be in the archaeological or pollen record of course.

 still be in the archaeological or pollen record of course.
you're making the point that technologies, once learned, may be
forgotten, certainly a valid one with many examples.  And yes, grains
will revert to a "wild" form if left alone.  However ...
I'd suggest that your statement "conditions would have been suitable
during the last 60,000 years for some culture to start experimenting"
is putting the cart before the horse.  You can't presume the existence
of a culture without explaining the conditions under which it would
have arisen.  Something about a location must have been attractive
enough to "localize" a hunter-gatherer population until it made the
transition to an agricultural lifestyle.  In the mideast, we know this
included the wild ancestors of wheat (which grew in abundance and,
because they could be found at different altitudes, would ripen at
different times of the year) and other foodplants (chickpeas, legumes,
etc.).
So, you've suggested a vegetable as a foodplant that a civilization
might be founded upon.  What plant, in the variable ice-age climate,
existed in its wild form in abundance sufficient to give a mobile
hunter-gatherer population motivation to "settle down" and begin the
domestication process that _eventually_ will lead to an agriculture
based economy?   I don't disagree with you in principle, and its an
interesting idea, but I don't think the evidence supports it.
For example, the 8500BC date for domestication of wheat is known from
carbon dating of grains of the wheat itself.  The wheat presumably
came from midden/ trash heaps, surely the hallmark of civilization
everywhere.  But where does one find "modern" forms of any modern
foodplant -- grain, legume, etc. -- during the Ice Age?  For that
matter, where does one find the trash heaps of history?
Putting this in the context of this thread, you may be right in saying
that somewhere during the ice age (your example, 60,000 to the end of
the ice age), local conditions could have supported a population
denser than the hunter-gatherer culture that existed at the time, but
the evidence (modern forms of food plants, structures, middens) hasn't
been found yet.  It is also plausible that this technology was lost
until rediscovered thousands of years later.  On the other hand, for
the crypto-archeologists to claim this was
"Atlantis/Lemuria/Mylantis/Mu/Hyperborea" is kinda stretching things.

matter, where does one find the trash heaps of history?
Humans were not truly "civilized", until the invention of the BACON
SAMMICH!
This discussion is over.


This discussion is over.
Aw hell, I was really enjoying this.  You don't get real science on afa-b
as much as we used to these days.  Beats the woo woo crap all to
hell and back.  And have you noticed that the fans of HandCock have
fallen silent?  They don't know how to confront real science.
