[–] elgindelta 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
favorite quote from H. T. Ford, "History Is Bunk"
[–] CharlemaneLeeroy 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
So this is something I've always wondered about. If we know that most human settlements are near coasts, rivers, or lakes, could the rising sea levels hide more cities like this? There are quite a few thousand years between the evolution of accepted modern humans and the first cities in Mesopotamia, how many more places like this one could be out there?
It seems like there would be countless settlements just off shore. But I don't know how many cities proper there would be. I mean, even today, I'd wager that most people make their buildings out of wood or some other material like that. That wouldn't keep very long at all. And we'd really have very little idea about where to look for these cities, except vague information taken from local legend and mythologies. I'm sure there are more out there, but it would probably take more luck than skill to find them, unfortunately.
[–] owyn_merrilin ago
Debris recovered from the site - including construction material, pottery, sections of walls, beads, sculpture and human bones and teeth has been carbon dated and found to be nearly 9,500 years old. Cities on this scale are not known in the archaeological record until roughly 4,500 years ago when the first big cities begin to appear in Mesopotamia.
Great, they've found R'lyeh. I was wondering why I was having so many nightmares lately.
[–] gnosticpostulant 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
From the Wiki about this discovery:
They polluted the hell out of the site, and now no one will ever accept its provenance. :((
[–] CharlemaneLeeroy ago
How would they effectively establish relationships between artifacts and the settlement in strong currents with the tectonic activity as well? Couldn't the sinking be the result of fault activity too?