Re: [tied] Vedic literature and the Gulf of Cambay discovery

The date 9500 BP is based on the carbon dating of a single piece of wood dredged up from the vicinity of the "city". The alleged ruins have not been examined by marine archaeologists, there is no proper photographic documentation as yet, apart from some sonar images, there have been no serious scientific publications -- only media hype and Graham Hancock's revelations, which do little to strengthen the credibility of the "sunken city" theory. The "artefacts" found at the location have not yet been studied properly; it isn't actually clear how much of the stuff, if _any_, is really man-made:

http://www.intersurf.com/~chalcedony/geofact.shtml

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: P&G

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 8:44 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Vedic literature and the Gulf of Cambay discovery

>Vedic literature and the recent find of a submerged city in the Gulf of Cambay, Unfortunately the evidence for this "city" comes only from Indian scholars with a reputation for - and interest in - these fairly extreme "India first" ideas. They may be right, or they be wrong, but it is no surprise that other scholars are a little sceptical, because of the source. If it had been scholars who were against these early-India origins who published this claim, then it might be listened to more closely. We ordinary folk just wait for further evidence. The extraordinary improbability of such a city, and the bias of its "founders", along with other extreme claims by some of them, makes us understandably cautious. Peter
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.