[–] 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.
[–] gnosticpostulant 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
From the Wiki about this discovery:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_archeology_in_the_Gulf_of_Khambhat
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?
[–] elgindelta 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
favorite quote from H. T. Ford, "History Is Bunk"
[–] owyn_merrilin ago
Great, they've found R'lyeh. I was wondering why I was having so many nightmares lately.