Seas 'hide ancient relics'

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by meathed

 

Well I'm always open minded when discussing such cases.

So am i. And i agreed with most of OP.
I said in my original post that i believe that there is much to be discovered in our oceans relating to our ancient pasts. And you know some of my thoughts about how we have alot to learn and alot we will never know from our ancient past. I agree with most of the OP ,i just dont agree with some of what the archeaologists ( Dr) states. As i pointed out in my above posts.

You've told us what you disagree with, how about sharing with us what your thoughts are on how they got there?

Please clarify. Do you mean, What are my thoughts on How did man first arrive in England or how did the peices of artifacts get there??
Im a meathed.

If you meant the artifacts, well, maybe a big Tsunami washed them up from a foriegn shore from a different time.

reply to post by meathed


Well I suppose anything is possible.
But there is more evidence on land and now under the sea which points to the former.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Once again, a great thread. Thanks Slayer. I like to agree with Graham Hancock on this and state that we are most certainly a species with amnesia. There is some much of human history either being hidden from us or simply just lost of forgotten.

S&F mate.

I wouldn't be suprised at all.

The Western Isles have a very high concentration of neolithic monuments, standing stones, circles, etc.

I agree that there is ample evidence that the oceans have reclaimed numerous sites around the globe where ancient humans once thrived and to discover new evidence that it also happened in England, is no surprise to me. I believe that we have just begun to scratch the surface when it comes to truly understanding the history of mankind on this planet.

This segment from the "Ancient Aliens" series specifically addresses the fact that there is a vast amount of underwater evidence indicating that mankind has some ancient history that has yet to be completely discovered and/or understood.


Here's another video regarding structures found under some lakes high in the Andes mountains that were found with google earth. I remember, after first seeing this video, I looked for myself on google earth and I actually found the same lakes which undeniably appear to have some kind of structures under the water.


Anyway, it was a good find. I'm always interested in new discoveries regarding the ancient history of humans on this planet. Thanks for posting it.

reply to post by SLAYER69


This is where I live and it a very old landscape. There are several old Norse mills within a few miles of me and I know of submerged villages under the sea... The best stone circle in the country is to be found up here also.

I often wonder what is at the bottom of our oceans.

They are so vast and we already know of some areas that have pyramids under water Who knows what else is there.

I also wonder what else is buried in the deserts of Egypt. I always go back to how the Sphinx was buried up to its neck when originally found.

reply to post by mblahnikluver


It's so true. I have a friend who's been in Egypt for a few years now - haven't heard from her in a while actually but she's trying to dig up old mysteries and such. I'm sure there's places all over Africa and the rest of the world that are buried by sand, dirt, water, etc. The earth is ever changing and we are bound to loose things we never thought could be lost.

Originally posted by meathed

But the rest of the story, well,,,,,,,,,,,,, it is Total SPECULATION on the archaeologist behalf.
I fail to grasp where the archaeologist gets his ideas, that England, as we know it today, was started by a tribe of 5000 hunting mammoth and reindeer that he assumes must have been cut off from the rest of Europe from said tsunami.

Can I give you an example just off the top of my head? Archaeologists are able to use material culture and dating techniques to develop a snapshot of who was around when, and what they were doing. An examination of the lifeways associated with a particular culture expressed in what they left behind allows them to present a pretty good idea of what the population density would have been. How folks lived, what they ate, how much they moved around on the landscape, are all factors that add to the picture. One you have an idea of that, you can work backwards and make reasonable assumptions of how much of an ancestral population would have been required.

It may be speculation, but it's based upon sound research...the kind you get a doctorate in.

Originally posted by meathed

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by meathed

 

Speculation

Ahh speculation, it seems that its the archaeologists forte these day's.
As why do they need evidence when we have good old speculation.

Not a whole lot of speculation is required when evidence is avaliable:

The remains of plants brought to the surface from Dogger Bank had been studied as early as 1913 by palaeobiologist Clement Reid and the remains of animals and worked flints from the Neolithic period had been found around the fringes of the area.[8] In his book The Antiquity of Man, published in 1915, anatomist Sir Arthur Keith had discussed the archaeological potential of the area.[8] Then, in 1931, the trawler Colinda hauled up a lump of peat whilst fishing near the Ower Bank, 25 miles (40 km) east of Norfolk. The peat was found to contain a barbed antler point, possibly used as a harpoon or fish spear, 8.5 inches (220 mm) long, later identified to date from between 4,000 and 10,000 years ago, when the area was tundra.[3][5] The tool was exhibited in the Castle Museum in Norwich.[5]

Interest in the area was reinvigorated in the 1990s by the work of Prof. Bryony Coles, who named the area "Doggerland" ("after the great banks in the southern North Sea"[5]) and produced a series of speculative maps of the area.[5][9] Although she recognised that the current relief of the southern North Sea seabed is not a sound guide to the topography of Doggerland,[9] the topography of the area has more recently begun to be reconstructed more authoritatively using seismic survey data obtained through petrochemical exploration surveys.[10][11]

A skull fragment of a Neanderthal, dated at over 40,000 years old, was recovered from material dredged from the Middeldiep, a region of the North Sea some 10 miles (16 km) off the coast of Zeeland, and was exhibited in Leiden in 2009.[12]

Wiki

It's called Doggerland, if anyone needs a search term.

Read more about it here.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by meathed

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by meathed

 

Speculation

Ahh speculation, it seems that its the archaeologists forte these day's.
As why do they need evidence when we have good old speculation.

Not a whole lot of speculation is required when evidence is avaliable:

The remains of plants brought to the surface from Dogger Bank had been studied as early as 1913 by palaeobiologist Clement Reid and the remains of animals and worked flints from the Neolithic period had been found around the fringes of the area.[8] In his book The Antiquity of Man, published in 1915, anatomist Sir Arthur Keith had discussed the archaeological potential of the area.[8] Then, in 1931, the trawler Colinda hauled up a lump of peat whilst fishing near the Ower Bank, 25 miles (40 km) east of Norfolk. The peat was found to contain a barbed antler point, possibly used as a harpoon or fish spear, 8.5 inches (220 mm) long, later identified to date from between 4,000 and 10,000 years ago, when the area was tundra.[3][5] The tool was exhibited in the Castle Museum in Norwich.[5]

Interest in the area was reinvigorated in the 1990s by the work of Prof. Bryony Coles, who named the area "Doggerland" ("after the great banks in the southern North Sea"[5]) and produced a series of speculative maps of the area.[5][9] Although she recognised that the current relief of the southern North Sea seabed is not a sound guide to the topography of Doggerland,[9] the topography of the area has more recently begun to be reconstructed more authoritatively using seismic survey data obtained through petrochemical exploration surveys.[10][11]

A skull fragment of a Neanderthal, dated at over 40,000 years old, was recovered from material dredged from the Middeldiep, a region of the North Sea some 10 miles (16 km) off the coast of Zeeland, and was exhibited in Leiden in 2009.[12]

Wiki

It's called Doggerland, if anyone needs a search term.

Read more about it here.

Harte

For starters quoting finds from a hundred years ago doesn't cut it for me in these modern times.
I agree that things have been found, but a piece here a piece there doesn't prove anything. Nore does it prove that they and you are right. History is a lie written by the victors.

And Its quiet obvious none of you have read my post.
I said i agreed that the ocean has covered lots of our past.
The only thing i didnt agree with is that england was settled by 5000 herds man, closed off from the main land by a tsunami and that they created the England we see today.
If you want to believe it then good for you. You would believe anything you read HEY?????
We know very little of our past, and you are arrogant if you think we actually do.

I would love to see you walking around where that tsunami hit japan in a thousand years time, and see what make believe history you could make up with a fragment here and a fragment there of the things that you would find.

reply to post by Harte


I also noticed how you quoted alot of things that have been found in water or peat moss.
This just proves to me that these things could have came from anywhere and just followed the water, tides and gravity to its resting place.
Use some common sense and these things could of came from anywhere anytime.