Skip to comments.
Medieval Ruins Found Off Atami (Underwater - Japan)
The Asahi Shimbun ^
| 2-4-2003
Posted on 02/04/2004 10:38:41 AM PST by blam
Medieval ruins found off Atami?
The Asahi Shimbun
These steps, archaeologists believe, may be signs of a city from the Kamakura Period.
ATAMI, Shizuoka Prefecture-Archaeologists say they may have found ruins of a submerged city from the Kamakura Period (1192-1333) off the coast of Shizuoka Prefecture.
They say numerous stone structures at depths of 20 to 50 meters unlikely occurred naturally and appear to have been made deliberately. Archaeologists pinpointed about 20 sites of interest covering a 1-square-kilometer area.
While no one is certain, historical evidence points to an ancient city having existed in this part of Sagami Bay.
Hyakurensho, a record of the Kamakura Period, describes land sinking in 1247 in what is now the southeastern part of Shizuoka Prefecture and the Izu islands.
Scuba diving instructor Hidenori Kunitsugu, 54, began his own research in 1975. He found what appeared to be steps carved from stone as well as flagstones and stone walls. The site lies between 100 meters and 1 kilometer off the coast of Atami.
``As far as I can see from photographs, these structures were not created naturally,'' said Torao Mozai, an underwater archaeologist and professor emeritus of Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology. ``The evidence points to artificial construction.''(IHT/Asahi: February 4,2004) (02/04)
TOPICS: Japan; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: archaeology; atami; found; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; history; medieval; ruins
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
1
posted on
02/04/2004 10:38:41 AM PST
by
blam
To: farmfriend
Forgot to post the picture.
2
posted on
02/04/2004 10:40:28 AM PST
by
blam
To: blam
Ive seen shows about these "ruins" and my beliefe tends to run with the natural formation side of the argument. but ive never seen them up close and personal so i leave the debate for the experts.
3
posted on
02/04/2004 10:45:57 AM PST
by
cripplecreek
(.50 cal border fence)
To: cripplecreek
"Ive seen shows about these "ruins" and my beliefe tends to run with the natural formation side of the argument. but ive never seen them up close and personal so i leave the debate for the experts." I agree with your disposition but I don't think these are the same ruins you're thinking about. Aren't you thinking about the ruins that have been billed as underwater 'pyramids.'
4
posted on
02/04/2004 10:52:12 AM PST
by
blam
To: blam
Very interesting; not the only ancient sites located under water, so am wondering what with the 'rectangles there et al' why you are doubting what this may be.
That said, seems to affirm - 'world without end' :^)
5
posted on
02/04/2004 11:23:08 AM PST
by
cricket
To: cricket
"Very interesting; not the only ancient sites located under water, so am wondering what with the 'rectangles there et al' why you are doubting what this may be. " I'm not doubting this one...it's the other one with the 'pyramids' that I question...the one that was suppose to have gone underwater at the end of the last Ice Age. (Those, I believe, are natural structures)
6
posted on
02/04/2004 11:28:13 AM PST
by
blam
To: blam; *Gods, Graves, Glyphs; A.J.Armitage; abner; adam_az; AdmSmith; Alas Babylon!; ...
Gods, Graves, Glyphs List for articles regarding early civilizations , life of all forms, - dinosaurs - etc.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this ping list.
7
posted on
02/04/2004 11:34:29 AM PST
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: blam
That is a-MU-sing
8
posted on
02/04/2004 11:47:30 AM PST
by
Ff--150
(What is Is)
To: cripplecreek
On Art Bell, they have Linda Moulton Howe (crop circles, ufologist) keeping people up to date on a pair of Russian
scientists exploring something similar off the coast of Cuba.
Atlantis off Cuba? Pacifica off the Japans? Well, I guess it beats Timberlake and Jackson.
BTB: How about Port Royal, Jamaica?
Comment #10 Removed by Moderator
To: blam
Blam,
Any recent news on the city they supposedly found off of Cuba a couple of years ago?
To: greenwolf
"Any recent news on the city they supposedly found off of Cuba a couple of years ago?" Go here for what I believe is the latest update.
12
posted on
02/04/2004 5:07:21 PM PST
by
blam
To: blam
Hello. The Megalithic "ruins" that Graham Hancock talks about in his book certainly look like a basalt formation (his pyramids). It will be interesting to see what turns up here because the article seems to indicate a historical basis for believing a subsidence took place.
13
posted on
02/04/2004 6:10:57 PM PST
by
JimSEA
To: JimSEA
"Hello. The Megalithic "ruins" that Graham Hancock talks about in his book certainly look like a basalt formation (his pyramids)." I saw a documentary on this that featured the visit of Dr Robert Schoch (Geologist/Geophysist), it showed him touring underwater in scuba gear. Schoch decared them natural formations and pointed out similar structures on land just a short distance away.
Two things he did say were: "Humans may have modified these natural structures before they went under water" and "If you find any writing on them, call me immediately."
14
posted on
02/04/2004 6:40:40 PM PST
by
blam
To: JimSEA
Also, I have Schoch's recent book, Voyages Of The Pyramid Builders" and he also states that "from all the evidence I've seen, the underwater structures off the coast of Cuba are natural formations."
15
posted on
02/04/2004 6:44:02 PM PST
by
blam
To: blam
You know, active volcanic areas like these two have sudden changes in land areas as the poster on Port Royale pointed out. Good faith speculation is good for science I believe. Of course a load of academic types disagree.
16
posted on
02/04/2004 7:00:02 PM PST
by
JimSEA
To: blam
Thanks. That one strikes me as a lot more interesting than the others. Ruins which you get to in scuba gear are one thing and could be explained by earthquakes, but ruins 2000 feet beneath the waves are something else. I don't know how the hell you'd explain that other than by changing your basic theory about the history of the planet.
To: JimSEA
"Good faith speculation is good for science I believe." I agree and have been known to do so a time or two.
18
posted on
02/04/2004 8:26:26 PM PST
by
blam
To: greenwolf
" but ruins 2000 feet beneath the waves are something else. I don't know how the hell you'd explain that other than by changing your basic theory about the history of the planet." The only way I could explain it was to take a page out of Ryan and Pittman's book, Noah's Flood? .
Here's the idea: During the extremes of the Ice Age, a land barrier formed and blocked the Gulf Of Mexico from the world's oceans...during this blockage, the Gulf Of Mexico dessicated until it reached a stable level. The water level was 2,000 feet below present and the people who lived on that coast built a sea side town...and, then the 'dam' broke. That's about the only way I can explain a 'city' that deep.
19
posted on
02/04/2004 8:33:22 PM PST
by
blam
To: blam
I can't picture anything holding back 2000 feet of water. I know I sure as hell wouldn't be living at the bottom of something like that if something WAS holding back 2000 feet of water...
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson