Archaeologists Announce Discovery Of Underwater Man-Made Wall (Very Old)

"It's conceivable that if the returning ships used the currents of the Atlantic to return that they could've picked up some North American turkeys and the ancient name was passed down almost in it's pure pronunciation. "

Intriguing...I like it! (Solomon's mines were probably in Peru)

Translation: "I got nothing."

Ding ding ding ding ding!!!

I've yet to hear from one of these crank theorists who has ever demonstrated even the most elementary knowledge of linguistics, history, or archeology. They simply cherry pick bits and pieces of information that happen to fit whatever theory they are flogging.

It's conceivable that if the returning ships used the currents of the Atlantic to return that they could've picked up some North American turkeys and the ancient name was passed down almost in it's pure pronunciation.

Uh huh. Where's the Anglo-Saxon version of the word "turkey"?

You said the word turkey had it's roots in Turkey. That would make sense since that's one of the routes a segment of the tribes took to Europe, although most went through the Caucusus. The bird turkey and the country Turkey are two different words obviously. We spell them the same as a fluke of our language.

No, Dictionary.com said the settlers named it after the country because they mistakenly thought the bird also lived there. Remember, turkeys can be called turkey buzzards. Since "buzzard" is unpleasant, it's usually dropped. It's similar to Jerusalem artichokes (which also have nothing to do with the place they're named for, it's a mangling of "girasole").

Turkey, the country, is named after the Turks, who were originally from Central Asia. There are still Turks there; Turkmenistan is one of the fomerly Soviet countries.

All the modern languages are similar.

Eh? Chinese is similar to Russian?

If not for modern media and modern transportation, the Cajuns would probably have their own language by now different from the rest of America.

They do have their own language, a dialect of French. I think it's still around.

>I think you're estimating the populations of the civilized countries of classical and late-preclassical times too high.

Fair enuf. I believe this refutes your claim of "too many" Israelites.

1 Chronicles 21:5 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to David: In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah.

1 Kings 20: 15 Then he mustered the young leaders of the provinces, and there were two hundred and thirty-two; and after them he mustered all the people, all the children of Israel--seven thousand.

1 Kings 20:20 And each one killed his man; so the Syrians fled, and Israel pursued them; and Ben-Hadad the king of Syria escaped on a horse with the cavalry.

Why don't these numbers match up? 1 Kings suggests there were very few Northern Kingdom Israelites alive only several hundred years after David's census. Let's examine the historical context:

David took over rulership of the insignificant Kingdom of Israel from Saul in 1010 BC and quickly built it into "perhaps the single most powerful kingdom on earth at that time". (REF: Halleys Bible Handbook.) When David took his official census of ALL the Israelites prior to the end of his reign in 970BC it had grown to between 5 Million and 8 Million people.

1 Chron 21:5-6 In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah. But Joab did not include Levi and Benjamin in the numbering, because the king's command was repulsive to him.

So, there are 470,000 fighting men in Judah alone, plus 630,000 in the North, with Levi and Benjamin uncounted. 1.1M x 6 = 6.6 Million total Israelites, plus the uncounted Levites and Benjamites. Whatever else may have been going on there, there is no doubt that the Kingdom of Israel was a major population center in that part of the world. (It would be similar in population to almost the entire Chicago Metro area today.)

At only 6 Million people, Israel then made up 10% of the global population, as large relatively as the United States and Canada and much of Mexico combined. The pre-split Davidic Kingdom of Israel was not just a trivial blip in history, but a major population force.

After the death of David and Solomon, the Kingdoms split into the northern Kingdom of Israel, (taking with it the Name and Title Israel along with the Birthright), and the southern Kingdom of Judah (which took the sceptre). From these naming rights alone we can assume the 10 tribed Northern Kingdom was not smaller than the Southern Kingdom, and was probably a lot larger. The Kingdom of Judah of course picked up parts of the tribes of Levi and Benjamin, however small that contribution may have been.

So in 931 BC we can safely assume the Kingdom of Israel (the new northern Kingdom) had at last 4 Million members, and probably closer to 5 Million. That's almost a Million fighting men.

The next significant checkpoint in history is the battle of Quarqar only a hundred years later, in 853 BC. King Shalmaneser 3 of Assyria was already making his move on the small nations along the Eastern coast of the Mediterranean, and was eyeing the large Kingdom of Israel. A large stone tablet in The British Museum reports a coalition of forces including a small force of Israelites (200 chariots and 10,000 men) and others, led by King Ahab, held back the Assyrians advance. But the Assyrians claimed victory (for they owned the tablet) by killing of 14,000 Israelites. But there had to be a whole lot more Israelites than that who fought the Assyrians to a draw.

Shalmaneser tried to capture the Israelites again in 850 BC, and was thwarted again by another coalition of forces, including Israel. This is recorded on the same famous Black Obelisk, erected in Nineveh and discovered by Layard in 1846 AD. (The Black Obelisk is in the British Museum, along with 23,000 Assyrian tablets and monuments documenting the people, events, and times.) In 850 BC we have no reason to believe there were fewer northern Israelites, but probably more. At least 5 Million total, probably more like 6 Million, a solid One Million fighting men.

Now along comes I Kings 20:15 talking about the same King Ahab suggesting there were only 7,000 total Israelites in the North, so we presume about 1,000 warriors. But the Assyrians said there was a HUGE force against them, made up of warriors from many countries and city states, of which only 10,000 were Israelite warriors. And the Assyrians killed 14,000 of them while fighting to a draw.

Something is not adding up here. This sole population citation from I Kings 20 is WAY out of line with the rest of the Biblical population accounts, and with the voluminous historical accounts of the Assyrians. If I Kings 20 had said "...King Ahab donated 150 chariots and 7,000 fighting men to the coalition..." it would make perfect sense. As it is, the single low number stands out like a sore thumb. I believe this I Kings citation must be a mistranslation, or there was a simple copy error somewhere along the way.

But assume for moment I Kings 20:15 is literally true. That would mean in only 80 years (931 BC - 853 BC), the great and powerful Northern Kingdom of 6 MILLION citizens shrank to only 7 THOUSAND??? Oh, Really????? Now that would be some kind of undocumented Holocaust. I don't think so.

Playing heavily into interpretation of Kings and Chronicles are such powerful collateral Biblical verses as Hosea 1:9-11

.....for you are not my people, and I am not your God.

            " Yet the number of the children of Israel
             Shall be as the sand of the sea,
             Which cannot be measured or numbered.
             And it shall come to pass
             In the place where it was said to them,
             "You are not My people,
             There it shall be said to them,
             "You are sons of the living God.'

Then the children of Judah and the children of Israel
Shall be gathered together, and appoint for themselves one head

This "Great Nation" promise was to the Kingdom of Israel (the Northern Kingdom), not to the Kingdom of Juadh, and it speaks of the coming growth of Celtic Europe and America, followed by the rejoining of "the sticks", the "the Kingdoms". The Great Nation promised here cannot come to pass if it shrinks to the size of an insignificant American Indian Tribe (even if it has it's own Casino).

In contrast, the Southern Kingdom, after returning from Babylonian captivity never became a great nation among the giants of the globe. It has instead maintained a relationship with it's prosperous and generous Celtic cousins around the world, living among them whenever possible, to this day.

Finally, the default "excuse" for where the Lost Tribes of Israel went, "Well, they musta been assimilated", is 2nd only to "The dog ate my homework" in the creative history department. Like the lost homework, the trail of that exuse is also without documentation. That dog don't hunt!

"I was thinking the exact same thing, I wonder if this civilization could be related to the Kennewick man? Maybe?"

Maybe.

No, it's almost certainly the big numbers that are inflated. And your story doesn't add up. Needs work.

Indo-European languages back to Anatolia

Hittite is the only Indoeuropean language that I can find that was dominate in a portion of Anatolia and it was heavily infitrated with Luuvian, a non Indoeuropean language.

Everything that I have read suggests that Indoeuropean spread from the stepp East of Persia and spread East to India and the Eastern boarders of China, then West to Persia, then North to Europe.

>And your story doesn't add up. Needs work.

There is no way you could have honestly analyzed that long post in this short time. I doubt you even read it. It appears your head is up and locked, and not open to evidence of any sort. Goodbye.

This theory about the "lost" tribes going through Turkey comes from those who know about the Galatians in "Turkey" (actually, what was then known as Asia or Anatolia), but who apparently don't know how the Celtic-speaking Galatians got there, illustrating once again that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Every historical record that we have from the Greeks, Romans, and others shows that the Celts were native to northern Europe, and invaded Greece and Anatolia through the Balkans - ie, moving from north to south. There are no historical records of Celts invading Europe from the other direction. Every scrap of archeological knowledge we have supports the views of the ancient Greek and Roman historians and writers on this point.

Pretending that the Celts suddenly "appeared" in Europe circa 600BC or so is not unlike claiming that the ancient Egyptians suddenly "appeared" in Egypt shortly before the pyramids were built, having been brought there by aliens in space ships: in other words, a very "entertaining" version of events, but not one supported by the evidence. Of course, knowing what is and what is not evidence takes a lot more effort and study than most people are willing to put up with, so the "entertaining" theory will always find a ready and willing group of believers.

...big numbers that are inflated.

The size of armies, in ancient times, were always exagerated, most were little better than a mob with no standard ogranization.</p.

There is no way you could have honestly analyzed that long post in this short time.

Actually, I was the fastest reader in the First Grade.

It didn't take a lot of analysis to see that you didn't address the problems pointed out already. There's no time and no mechanism to turn Lost Tribes of Israel into Celts.

[On this theory, entire cities ended up underwater after sea levels rose towards the end of the last Ice Age, a date cited by Plato as being some 9,600 years ago.]

Does this mean there was global warming back then? Holy moly! Somebody better call Tommy Daschole and the dims.

PS: If possible, I would like to be added to your ping list on archeology/anthropology. Thanks :O)

You got it. Flavius Josephus is a known historian who could not write down a number without first multiplying by something between four and ten. Even the size of mountains is subject to this bizarre inflation in his work.

Evidently, his disease was pretty common in ancient and classical times.

I hadn't seen the Black Sea dam-bust connected to the Indoeuropean diffusion before, but it's possible for all I know. Thanks!

"PS: If possible, I would like to be added to your ping list on archeology/anthropology. Thanks :O)"

Sorry, don't have a ping list, I'll try to remember you though.

Another view as to the fate of the lost tribes and the origins of modern Jewry.

"I hadn't seen the Black Sea dam-bust connected to the Indoeuropean diffusion before, but it's possible for all I know. Thanks!"

Ryan & Pittman proposed this idea in their book Noah's Flood, they're the gents who proposed then proved that the Black Sea was flooded, and they think it was Noah's Flood. BTW, excellent book. (I think something similar may have happened to the Gulf Of Mexico.)

Since your image didn't show up, no.

Follow the link in post #154.

All I can comment on is the TV special which aired these claims. They provided no evidence of the use of human tools on these stones, in the TV special. They merely showed people claiming that these stones "looked man made", which was an entirely subjective opinion. Closer inspection undermined that opinion.

So the head linked in post #154 is a natural formation?

There are lots of natural rock formations that can "look man made" (they used one of them from New Zealand for the Amon Sul sequences in "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" movie, for instance).

The Empire State building looks man made too. It's because it is man made. Is the Sphinx man made or natural?

What would be convincing evidence of human origin would be rocks with tool marks on them (unlikely if these humans did not have metal tools), or carefully interlocked stones forming a structure, which obviously could not be formed naturally.

How about a face with eyes and a headdress.? Hard to see tool marks on something that's been underwater for thousands years and undoubtedly been slightly eaten away.

The TV special I saw showed a single, very large rock formation, with some interesting shapes, which, however evocative, were easily the product of natural rock formation and erosion.

Yep. Is the Sphinx natural too?