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

Underwater archaeologists yesterday announced the discovery of a man-made wall submerged under the waters of the Pescadores Islands that could be at least six and seven thousand years old.

Steve Shieh, the head of the planning committee for the Taiwan Underwater Archaeology Institute, said the wall was discovered to the northwest of Tong-chi Island in the Pescadores towards the end of September.

The stone wall, with an average height of one meter and a width of 50 centimeters, covers a distance of over 100 meters, Hsieh said.

The wall ran along the ocean floor at depths of between 25 and 30 meters, he added.

Shieh said that divers found several places along the wall where holes were apparently filled up with pebbles, possibly in an attempt to block winds.(Maybe to keep out the rising water?)

The wall was located by a team of divers working in cooperation with the National Museum of History and the Department of Environmental Sciences at the National Sun Yat-sen University.

In August, researchers scanning waters in the area with sonar discovered what appeared to be the remnants of four to five man-made walls running along the bottom of the sea.

Despite difficult diving conditions, Shieh said that a team of more than ten specialists was able to ascertain the positions of at least three of the wall sections.

The proximity of the wall to a similar structure found in 1976 suggests that it may be further evidence of a pre-historical civilization.

A three meter high underwater wall was discovered by amateur divers in waters off the nearby Hu-ching (Tiger Well) Island.

British archaeologists examined the find and proclaimed that the wall was probably made between 7,000 and 12,000 years ago.

Six years ago, evidence of a sunken city in the area was found when amateur divers found the remains of what appear to be city walls taking the shape of a cross on the ocean floor.

Further examination suggested the ruins were made between seven and ten thousand years ago as well, although Japanese researchers put the walls construction at between 10,000 and 80,000 years ago.

Taken together, the discoveries have helped to overturn the established notion that Taiwan's earliest aboriginal inhabitants made their way here from mainland China some 6,000 years ago.(There goes the giant hynea theory, huh?)

The underwater finds are part of a growing body of evidence suggesting the existence of civilizations older than anything previously imagined.(suprise, suprise, suprise--Gomer Pyle voice)

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.

One of the most dramatic examples of evidence of civilizations found on ocean beds has been megalithic structures off the coast of Yonaguni-jima in Japan that have been interpreted in some circles as being built for sacrificial rites. According to Shieh, a similar structure has been located off of the shores of Taiwan's Pingtung County .

Shieh said that he and his association have plans to explore that location as well as what appears to be a man-made path on the ocean floor off of Taitung County sometime next year.

I don't believe he made the genetic equation (though I could be wrong, so I'll flag him here), he was saying that since Hebrew is a Semitic language, and that English (like Latin or German) is an Indo-European one, that poses problems for a Celtic theory of the Lost Tribes.

Celts, celts, celts. Who are these celts? Germans, Welsh, Israelites, Romans, Russians, white people? I don't like the term Celts because it seems to mean everybody. I'm interested in the movement of the Assyrians and the Israelites through the Caucusus and Turkey. Are they celts? I don't know. I don't even know what a celt is.

He's right, it does, though as I've tried to make clear, the problems aren't necessarily insurmountable, they simply need addressing.

And they have been addressed. The Israelites were taken captive. Captivity is not a good environment to preserve your language. Therefore the argument is senseless.

Do they read "pundits?" Wear "pajamas?"

Explain.

As are Hebrew words in modern language. If you're really interest grab a Strong's concordance and start comparing. What I'm really interested in is seeing people making claims doing the work to support their claims. When I make claims, I will do likewise.

I've made no claims concerning language. Language is an innacurate way to determine someone's genetics as we see here in America. You want examples of Hebrew words used today, I found one one in Gen 1:1, the first verse I looked at. If you really think the crux of the argument lies on language, then look yourself.

And there are a lot of Hebrew words that are with us also. Great. I'm all ears.

Look. If I found one in Gen 1:1, then you can find one. Like I said, language doesn't prove anything because even languages spoken by people who aren't taken into captivity change drastically over short periods of time. The Israelites were taken into captivity.

Understand, I believe in the contemporary existence of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. I'd be tickled to see someone conclusively sew this up, and I don't care if the answer is the Celts, the Afghans, the Kashmiris, pre-Columbian Americans, or Oompa Loomas on the dark side of the Moon.

It'll never be sewn up. It's something that has to be arrived at logically and since you're placing so much importance on finding Hebrew in modern English, then you're not thinking logically.

#1, that is a double ad hominem, and #2, while VadeRetro is an agnostic with whom I've butted heads on theological and scientific questions in the past, I am a Christian and his linguistic question here is absolutely legitimate.

You're a Christian and you can't follow the simple teachings of Genesis? It says who is who, all twelve tribes. They would be as the sands of the sea and great nations in the last days.

It is not my work, it is properly the work of those who are championing the the Celtic Lost Tribe theory.

I don't know what a celt is. I know who the Israelites are though.

If I was to make a claim that the Lost Tribes settled Easter Island, then it's up to me to support that claim. You get to sit back and ask the questions in such an instance.

But I wouldn't say that in order for you to prove the lost tribes are the Easter Islanders you have to prove that the Easter Islanders stone witches to death since the Israelites did that. You're ignoring all other evidence and are saying that since we don't speak Hebrew that we aren't Israelites. Expand your horizons and think logically. Do you really think a language can survive captivity and a 2000 year journey through foreign lands? The English of 1500 hasn't even survived in it's form of 1500. And the people haven't had anything of the sort happen to them such as the Israelites of the captivities and migrations.

This is how it is, this wheel needs no reinvention.

The language argument is dumb, languages are learned from environment, it's not inherited.

Counteer-questions such as "Well then, where do you think the Ten Tribes are?" will be met with "I don't know, that's why I'm asking you to make your case."

I understand your consideration, but think for a moment.

The prophesies in Genesis, Ezekiel and Hosea are clear. One would have to labor to assign any symbolism requiring a different interpretation to them.

These prophesies demand the reality of two things: the existence of the descendents of the Northern Kingdom and there being a extremely large number of them. And it requires that they exist in those numbers today as well any other time in history.

To take the position that the prophesies are bunkum is to call into question the entire Bible and every prophesy in it, including those which have come to pass.

If one does not believe the Bible as the word of God channeled through the human beings that wrote it, then for what purpose does one even care about the topic enough to waste their time discussing it? The only reason for the importance of the ten tribes is found in God's purpose as revealed therein.

So, we have to assume belief in those prophesies. The first requirement they place on those who want to discuss the ten tribes is not whether they exist. To take the position they don't exist is to take the position the Bible is not true.

The descendents of the tribes have to exist in large numbers (stars in the sky) or again the position has to be taken that the Bible is just a long novel.

You can't get away from it. Either you believe the tribes exist in large numbers or you refute the Bible.

The only question that can be left is who they are. Since they all descended from a single partiarch, they must all look similar, as in the same people or race. Again, you can't get away from that requirement.

There are large populations of people who look alike all over the globe. One such people has to be them. Here too, you can't get away from that requirement.

You can present evidence of the movement of a people over centuries. You can discuss languages or culture continuity. But you can't eliminate the fact of the existence in large numbers, all of the same racial characteristics and other indicators, like being a blessing to the world's peoples.

Ancient history is hard to pin down. There are divergent theories, as many as there are special interests, fears or hopes. Frequently any evidence has more than one interpretation. The fact is that there can be no "proof" in the sense that you will see it and all else becomes clear. This will not exist.

What you do have are the facts I mentioned. This gives a much simpler approach to the problem. All that has to be done is finger the most likely population of similar peoples.

Approaching the problem from this angle is not a dodge, a holding position for one without any other evidence. It describes a chain of logic that bypasses all the details and cuts directly to the central question, which question being the whole point of discussing all the details.

The folks that argue on the side of the European types have presented their evidence, on this thread and on many others. Ok, fine. Those that don't like that choice should pick another people and present the evidence for them.

This suggestion is rejected. Why? Because the weight of the known evidence, even though confused and often appearing contadictory, falls on the side of the European types and little or none on the side of any other peoples. So they have to argue details, the facts of which are fuzzy from the passage of time and the interpretation thereof not, and can never be, conclusive.

If you don't accept this unique approach, show where it fails.

Aw, that's pure poppycock. The name Brandenburg is derived from "Brennaburg" or "Brennabor" wich was originally a town of the Slavic tribe of the Hevelli. It was captured by the eastern Frankish king Henry I in 928.

Calm down, I said "probably". Do you know what "probably" means? Terrill's right. You people are extrememly emotional over this. Why are you so insulted to be considered Israelites? The letters DN occur too many times and in a narrow line across Europe to be a coincidence. You don't know which ones are and which ones aren't derived from Dan though. Maybe you're right but it's been my experience that place names have a lot of legends surrounding where they came from. Look at America. Some say it's from Amerigo Vespuci, some say it's other stuff, who knows about any individual name. People who write that stuff just put something down to make everyone think their smart, they didn't really know. But DN happens too often to be a coincidence.

Gosh, where do you have all this nonsense from or do you make it up yourself?

Do you believe everything you read? Do you ever think for yourself?

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.