Flooded Kingdoms

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,252
Likes
8,933
Points
284
Location
Under the moon
#1
Flooded Kingdoms of the Ice Age (C4 last night), presented by Graham Hancock.

Couldn't see any other thread mentioning this, so here's one for your comments.

I think it's a fascinating hypothesis, and it was reasonably presented (ie, no shock-horror tactics) by a very modest GH.

This episode focused mostly on Malta, above and below water, and the 'Bimini Road'. Intrigueing stuff.
 

Electric_Monk

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Messages
535
Likes
6
Points
49
#2
Curses

Foiled again. I had been planning on watching that, and every time I saw a trailer I thought "I must remember to watch that", and instead I seem to have watched The Wedding Singer. Which I enjoyed, but I'd have preferred to have watched that. Is it a series? Will it be repeated? :)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#3
I must admit I enjoyed the program, I found Hancocks last series a bit on the suspect side and over played, but this seemed well put together and is certainly a fascinating idea.
I was particualy impressed by the squared off cave and the arch over a channel.

Looking forward to next week!:D

Quite fancy a holiday in Malta too - looks lovely
 

The late Pete Younger

Venerable and Missed
Joined
Jul 31, 2001
Messages
5,891
Likes
130
Points
129
#4
Re: Curses

Colin said:
Foiled again. I had been planning on watching that, and every time I saw a trailer I thought "I must remember to watch that", and instead I seem to have watched The Wedding Singer. Which I enjoyed, but I'd have preferred to have watched that. Is it a series? Will it be repeated? :)
Bugger, same here.:mad:
 

_Lizard23_

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 23, 2001
Messages
1,600
Likes
13
Points
69
#5
I saw it and enjoyed it.
I thought his argument that there could be important early archeological sites under water, flooded at the end of the ice age etc was perfectly reasonable and well put but I didn't see anything in the presented evidence that was conclusive and he had a bad habit of making unsubstantiated claims in such a way as to try and make them seem perfectly reasonable too ... and he lost my sympathy completely when talking about the underwater "road" in the carribbean and how thousands of tons of granite had been removed from it ..... he said the only evidence available for this was the memory of some old guy watching it happen as a kid .... but surely there would have been all sorts of paperwork etc associated with this if it were true ... ships' logs, bills of sail etc etc... it was only the twenties for god's sake ... so he ended up sounding a bit of a shyster which is unfortunate as, as i said, the basic premise seems pretty sound.
Ah well.

Rasputin tonight - first in a series about great men drawn to the "dark side" or some such. Wonder if they will do Crowley?
After Crime n Punishment.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#6
lizard23 said:
... and he lost my sympathy completely when talking about the underwater "road" in the carribbean and how thousands of tons of granite had been removed from it ..... he said the only evidence available for this was the memory of some old guy watching it happen as a kid .... but surely there would have been all sorts of paperwork etc associated with this if it were true ... ships' logs, bills of sail etc etc... it was only the twenties for god's sake ... so he ended up sounding a bit of a shyster
Documentation might be lacking if the removal of the granite might have been construed as an illegal act.

Bimini aside, there is now ample suggestive evidence in support of Hancock's arguments. The great difficulty, of course, for institutional archaeology, is the acceptance that architectural civilisation may be much older than supposed. Livelihoods and reputations rest on accepted dogma - which is a much stronger force than any new scientific evidence that might come along to challenge it, particularly if it arises in another discipline.
It seems to me that Geology is proving to be Archaeology's great nemesis, in danger of censure for overstepping boundaries - as with the case of Boston professor Robert Schoch, who offered geological weathering evidence of the Sphinx enclosure to suggest that that structure might conceivably have been carved as long ago as 10,500BC. Similarly, geological and geo-climatological evidence now gives dates for massive sea-level changes that may account for numerous drowned cultures, siding more with ancient flood legends than with land-based archaeological chronologies.
On the whole, I believe Hancock, a non-specialist, is doing a fair job. As he said on the programme, he doesn't have the resources of the archaeological institutes, but can merely point the way as best he can. The trouble is, those institutions are resentful of a maverick investigator embarassing them in their own area of expertise - which is why they will largely try to ridicule or ignore Hancock's findings rather than go look-see for themselves. Because if even one submerged site proves to be undeniably man-made, then it clearly demands a major revision of accepted archaeological history.
Like the Schoch-West case, I suspect this one will go the same course. It will be passed over, swept aside, - another instance of Damned data - until such time, at least, until the old archaeological guard dies off and is replaced with a new paradigm constructed by fresh minds that are not so fearful or constrained in their thinking.


Incidentally, I've visited some of the sites in Malta. Well worth a visit - for these and all-round.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#7
Speaking of flooded kingdoms, can anyone shed any light on the legend of a lost city off the south coast of Menorca, at Son Bou? I read a tiny bit about it, but can't find anything else.

Any info gratefully received.

Fizz
 

_Lizard23_

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 23, 2001
Messages
1,600
Likes
13
Points
69
#8
Thank you Hermes ... you managed to speak much more eloquently and knowledgably than myself and I agree wholeheartedly with what you say - and regarding the Maltese sites - they are fantastic and the programme made me want to go again so I would recommend a visit to anyone.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#9
I watched the flooded kingdoms programs and thought that Gramham Hancock had some really interesting views about the flooding, Noah's Ark and Atlantis etc, though I do find him a little shallow (no pun intended)…
I wonder if, in the next couple of episodes he'll mention the lost underwater city which has been found off the west coast of Cuba? Some more info at the address below.

http://www.andrewcollins.net/page/articles/lostcity.htm
 

JurekB

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Sep 25, 2001
Messages
212
Likes
4
Points
47
#10
lizard23 said:
Rasputin tonight - first in a series about great men drawn to the "dark side" or some such. Wonder if they will do Crowley?
After Crime n Punishment.
Crowley is on next week.
 

bagins_X

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
170
Likes
53
Points
59
#12
Watched part 2 tonight and he still hasn`t jumped to any wild conclsions yet! quite fasinating!

Wm.
 

harlequin2005

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
824
Likes
6
Points
49
#13
Hermes wrote
It seems to me that Geology is proving to be Archaeology's great nemesis, in danger of censure for overstepping boundaries - as with the case of Boston professor Robert Schoch, who offered geological weathering evidence of the Sphinx enclosure to suggest that that structure might conceivably have been carved as long ago as 10,500BC.
Just as a point of history, Professor Schoch actually believes that the weathering is consistant with 7000-8000 BCE, and the 10,500BCE is 'stretching it', especially as 10500BCE was, according to the geological record, quite cold and dry in that area.

As to the series, I saw the second one last night. Mr Hancock seems to have had something of a shakedown in is beliefs. Either that, or he's taking a new tack and keeping them to him self. Over all, I rather enjoyed the content, and was impressed with how circumspect Mr H was, although clearly excited.



8¬)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#14
I was very sad to have missed the first in this series, but found last nights programme was very interesting and definately worth the wait. However I was very disappointed that the promised 'question and answer session' on channel4.com was cancelled at the last minute.

Incidentally.. Although I found most of the artifacts credible - I don't know if any of you clocked the 'stone slab possibley showing an example of a mysterious and ancient writing' found by the oceanographic team ??

Well I have worked extensively with samples of this type and can state that it is undeniabley an example of the trace fossil 'Thalassynoides' (which are fossilised remnants of burrows made by crustaceans) and not a man-made script at all !!

Hermes said:
......It seems to me that Geology is proving to be Archaeology's great nemesis........
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#15
The Question & Answers for the Flooded Kingdoms etc… is going to take place next week after the final program. According the Graham Hancock (he posted a thread on his message board) he was recording the commentary for the final program and he totally forgot about the web chat though he did apologise. Just in case you want to go there, the address is…
http://www.grahamhancock.com
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#16
I was impressesed with the programme, but spent many a time waiting for the 10500bc thesis of his to pop up. He has a lot to his credit at making people realise that nothing should be set in stone as far as history is concerned, but I wait to see independant verification of his works as he sometimes seems to use slightly dodgey science to pinpoint his dates re: his works on the Giza Plateu. The argument against this was put forward in the book The Stargate Conspiracy by Pickett and Prince.
 

harlequin2005

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
824
Likes
6
Points
49
#17
I'm currently re-reading 'The Stargate Conspiracy' - and I was waiting for Cayce to rear his head once more...

8¬)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#18
I've just finished reading the book, and the series is really just an introduction, so if you'd like it more in depth I suggest you get down to the library. Like Heaven's Mirror it analyses various "myths" and the Vedas. All good stuff if you ask me...
I've been posting at GH's message board over the last few weeks and had some discussions with the man himself, and Robert Bauval too, so there's no need to wait for the channel 4 chat session if you're keen.
 

intaglio

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 14, 2001
Messages
1,592
Likes
19
Points
69
#19
Didn't catch the first program, so I can't comment. The second appeared well balanced, rational with plenty of hard evidence. There was no mention of Atlantis, Mu or Lemoria; it does challenge preconceptions.

2 BTW's
First this article found from Breaking News. OK not 8000 yo but still considerably older than most cities

Second Cornwall has it's own sunken kingdom, the Isles of Scilly (never call them the Scilly Isles). Ancient field boundaries run under the the sea. Not extremely old but nice
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,252
Likes
8,933
Points
284
Location
Under the moon
#20
New SF book

"Decipher", by Stel Pavlou, is about the resurrection of Atlantis, according to the blurb, so this thread seems to be a suitable place to mention it.

I've only read 44 of its over 600 pages so far, but it's already touched on other Fortean themes like Gnostic gospels and biblical criticism, ancient languages and so forth. I think it's going to be a good 'un!

Published in 2001, the story is set in 2012 (a Fortean date for the end of the world, according to some...!) This is the author's first novel, but I think we'll hear more of him.
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,252
Likes
8,933
Points
284
Location
Under the moon
#21
Final reminder...

(No, it's not a bill!)

The last instalment of Graham Hancock's "Flooded Kingdoms" is on at 2100 tonight, C4.

BTW, I'm now about halfway through the book mentioned in my previous post. Apart from Atlantis, it touches on pyramids, golems, Cayce, the Sphinx, Kabbala, and various branches of modern science too, like solar variation and nanotechnology. About the only Fortean thing that hasn't turned up yet is Bigfoot!

Some of the characters seem to give lectures rather than take part in conversations, but, what the heck, they're interesting lectures!
 

Breakfastologist

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jul 31, 2001
Messages
921
Likes
17
Points
49
#22
There is an interesting critique of this here which is well worth a read. Kind of says "ignores the real and interesting archaeology in the interests of his own theories" but that seems so out of character for Hancock it hardly seems likely :p
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,252
Likes
8,933
Points
284
Location
Under the moon
#23
Yes, interesting article, breakfast.

In the last prog, GH did look at land-based archaeology on Japan, which was fascinating in its own right, not being something normally covered by western TV. Also, he was prepared to let his underwater site be 'critiqued' by a sceptical geologist.

I'll certainly be trying to read the book of the series for more detail.
 

intaglio

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 14, 2001
Messages
1,592
Likes
19
Points
69
#24
Having read the article I am better informed about the 1st prog and can see why it must have annoyed. The 3rd program was also weak showing no evidence of urbanisation. That leaves the 2nd. Here is the only real case for urban living and it remains at the moment unproven until those sites can be dived properly.

The real problem that Hancock faces is the lack of evidence for a catastrophy big enough to destroy the knowlege of the urban mechanism. Is he proposing that there was a surge in sea level rising? or associated vulcanism? or weather changes? I cannot see the mechanism
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,252
Likes
8,933
Points
284
Location
Under the moon
#25
intaglio said:
The real problem that Hancock faces is the lack of evidence for a catastrophy big enough to destroy the knowlege of the urban mechanism. Is he proposing that there was a surge in sea level rising? or associated vulcanism? or weather changes? I cannot see the mechanism
First, the knowledge of urbanisation was not lost entirely, but presumably became a dim memory, perpetuated in all the flood legends around the round.

But if the sea-level rise was fast enough to totally disrupt trade and the production of food then there would have been a population crash, with the survivors reduced to subsistence levels for many generations, until their numbers built up again.

How fast is fast enough? Imagine the devastation of the modern world if sea-level were to rise one foot per year for the next 20 years. Major cities like London, and whole countries like the Netherlands and Bangladesh would be swamped, and their displaced populations would put an incredible strain on the resources of neighbouring regions.

Is there a mechanism for such a fast rise? Some meteorologists and geophysicists think that climate has two stable states, Ice Age and Warm, and that the switch from one to the other can occur in a timescale of decades.

True or not, I think it's important we have people like Graham Hancock around to challenge the status quo, since the whole debate sharpens and clarifies views on both sides of the argument. Younger people, having fewer preconceived ideas, are more likely to investigate the fringes more carefully when they finally reach positions of authority (i.e. when all the fuddy duddies have died off!), and so science progresses. So often one century's heresy becomes the next century's orthodoxy.

PS: News just in - More problems with global warming
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,252
Likes
8,933
Points
284
Location
Under the moon
#26
Bump!

Loads of sites here on Climate Flip-Flops

So there certainly are plausible mechanisms for rapid climate change, and hence for rapid changes in sea level.

Also I have read that genetic evidence does indicate that the human population has been through dramatic population crashes, amounting to near-extinction events. Major climate changes, with their associated upheavals, could be the cause of these 'bottlenecks'. There's plenty on the web about this:this site links a bottleneck to the ice age.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#27
Graham Hancock

Having read quite a few of GH's books and watched the series thusfar, I have to agree that a compelling, logical debate is being tabled. One question though, are the "specialists" really as blinkered as they appear to be?
In the Cryptozoology arena, several species thought to be extinct long ago have been identified and turned conventional wisdom on its head. Should the history of mankind be any different? It has already been shown, that mankind can be wrong, just consider the evolution of mankind which for a long time, was thought to go against the laws of evolution with only a single ancestor.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#29
It seems to me, although I am sure there are many more knowledgeable people out there, that some areas of science do not "think outside the box" and become too focused. If as GH has done, you revisit some of the ancient myths and religions, there are common themes running through them. In may instances, these have been ignored.

In the case of one ancestor, many years were spent looking for a common ancestor. The common ancestor had, by scientific wisdom at that time, to have a brain somewhere between the size of the "largest brained ape" and man. Brain size was thought to be the distinguishing characteristic that had made us what we are today. When "Lucy" was found in Africa, she was thought to be that missing link, but within a few years a second discovery showed that there were at least two species of bipedal hominids co-existing. which was the missing link? Will we ever know how many branches there were to this evolutional tree?
 

Breakfastologist

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jul 31, 2001
Messages
921
Likes
17
Points
49
#30
One question though, are the "specialists" really as blinkered as they appear to be?
The interesting thing is that just as GH accuses conventional Archaeology of being blinkered and ignoring the evidence he is using, most conventional archaeologists will accuse him of being blinkered and ignoring all the evidence that should disprove his theories.

Once someone has an idea, they tend to search for evidence to support that theory, even to the point that they will completely ignore evidence that disproves it completely. This is a natural human trait- most great scientific advances have actually been down to a lucky guess on a theory followed by the evidence to support it being found.

I would suggest that both sides are doing this, almost equally.
 
Top