The ‘Ancient Underwater Ruins’ of Yonaguni, Japan

I wrote it. But you’ve not qualified either your claim that I’m an “idiot” nor that it’s “complete bullshit.”

I ask: what humans made these features? What is the evidence that humans made them? There’s no need to bother with trying to support your ad hominem “idiot” claim, since this is clearly the juvenile response of someone who already has a preconceived conclusion to which someone else is skeptical. With an application of critical thought and rational inquiry, you might actually have learned something from the “bullshit” you probably didn’t even bother to fully read.

Congratulations on demonstrating that the internet is still significantly populated by the ignorant (one good ad hominem remark deserves another, eh?).

This is a good observation. Off the cuff (i.e. without having visited either the outcrops or the underwater features in person), I’d think that weathering above the sea would be more erosive than the currents below. This is primarily because there are more erosional factors, not the least of which are acid rain and wind (which carries sand particles).

There are actually no “signs” that I’ve seen which point to man-made. Indeed, there is one bit of compelling evidence which stipulates that the features couldn’t be man-made: there was no culture engaging in large-scale stone architecture at nearly 10,000 years ago. At around this period, pottery was just being used in Japan. In the Near East, Göbekli Tepe was going through its very first stages of construction, which included stone architecture but hardly on a scale needed to fulfill the expectations of those who see Yonaguni as a man-made site. The Levant was going through its Neolithic period -pottery was being introduced at varied degrees here as well.

It would be ludicrous to suggest that a culture, whose highest technological achievement to date was the ability to put molded clay pots by the fire, would be able to create a massive stone port requiring complex math, levers, blocks and tackle, etc. This isn’t to suggest that the cultures of the region were stupid, far from it. I’m only saying that technological evolution is graduated and the type of architecture implied by significance-junkies and mystery-mongers who assert Yonaguni is an ancient city is not going to be found without evidence for pottery being found much earlier.

Thank you, however, for taking the time to comment here! I hope you visit more.

I doubt it was “censored,” rather it was just seen as not newsworthy. It is, after all, just a curious underwater rock formation.

shouldn’t water soften the edges with time?

The erosional forces above the surface are probably more significant as they include wind-blown sand (which has a more erosional effect than water-born) as well as acid rain.

And you must admit that this huge structure in the middle of the nothing looks little bit out of place. As well as the photos of corridors and stairs look very realistic!

It all looks very consistent with the type of jointing and fracturing present in sandstone, chalk, diorite, and other formations I’ve seen around the world. I can admit only that it is an interesting feature, but I have no good reason to admit that the joints and fractures present are man made. Indeed, there is good reason to say they are not: for instance, the “stairs” are at a scale beyond human anatomy (some are several feet from one step to the next).

It’s just as inconclusive it is a natural formation, as it is that it’s artificial.

Hardly. We have evidence of jointing/fracturing of this kind all over the world, including undersea. We have evidence that the first civilization capable of producing monumental architecture in the region existed long after the region was submerged following the Last Glacial Maximum. We have no cultural evidence in the region that correlates to this kind of alleged architecture.

We have every scientific reason to dismiss wild speculations about an ancient city while at the same time embracing a conclusion of naturalistic formation.

This, it would seem, is also evidence of the human propensity to embrace mystery and exaggerate significance to satisfy fantasy at the expense of reason.

In this case, you’re not supposed to be arrogant toward other people’s hypothesis, you’re supposed to have an argumented discussion.

I’m not arrogant toward an hypothesis. I’m arrogant toward a speculation that hasn’t any merit.

I’m sorry, but cultural evidence is composed from a set of evidences you find and you connect in some kind of picture. This picture can be true or it can be false, it is just your best guess for the moment. After all, every new culture was discovered at some moment and was out of the cultural context for the period.

Except we (archaeologists) have a very good picture of the cultural development of the region at specific spatial-temporal points which is inconsistent with any hypothesis that includes a civilization capable of megalithic architecture 10,000+ years ago. Pottery wasn’t even discovered at this point. Writing wasn’t in use. Significance-junkies and mystery-mongers are applying attributes to a natural phenomenon, forcing the square peg of geology into a round hole of anthropology. It just doesn’t work without introducing far too many new assumptions. Occam’s Razor dictates that the most parsimonious explanation is the one that includes the fewest new assumptions. What we (real science) knows about the region and the geology does not require human presence. There simply is no good reason to apply human activity to the geologic formation under the waves of Yonaguni.

If you saw the structure above water and on other part of the world, would you so easily call it natural? I doubt it.

Why wouldn’t I? There is no cultural indication. No evidence of tool-work. No epigraphy. No evidence of human habitation or modification. Indeed, there is a formation just like it meters from the underwater site! I linked to photos of it. No one seems to be implying that these “steps” and “corridors” above the waves are man-made. Perhaps because they have the benefit of scale that a pedestrian has where a diver “floating” above or alongside -or a mystery-monger/significance-junkie mesmerized by a photo- doesn’t have.

I don’t care what your “we” say, I believe my eyes. The structure is interesting and correlates with natural, but also with artificial origin.

This is called pareidolia and anthropomorphism. I highly recommend Faces in the Clouds by anthropologist Stewart Guthrie.

underwater archeology is just gathering force, it lacks good statistics, good methodology and good specialists.

Not really. While there is always room for progress in any archaeological focus, very good methodologies and specialists exist for it. Moreover, undersea geology has an excellent track record and getting better all the time. There’s nothing to see there for the underwater archaeologist except, perhaps, the occasional lost cargo, abandoned anchor, or sunken fishing vessel.

I like reason way too much. But until I see a contradiction, there is no problem for reason.

Then you have a reasoned explanation for the position that a “city” carved of stone exists in a location that was last above sea level over 10,000 years ago? When no such civilization capable of producing monumental architecture existed? Let’s hear you “reasoned” explanation that is without “contradiction.”

I think you’re getting on the wrong tone with me, but suit yourself.

What was that about when pottery wasn’t even discovered:

which says:
“The find in Yuchanyan Cave dates to as much as 18,000 years ago, researchers report in Tuesday’s edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”

It got published into PNAS. It was peer-reviewed. Is it a speculation?

First, you seem to be creating a straw man. Second, what I said about pottery holds. The culture referred to above has no bearing on the culture(s) alleged to exist at Yonaguni without introducing some new assumptions. Indeed, that’s what the woo crowd who insist that the underwater geology of the island is “man-made” does best: weave web after web of assumptions.

The island of Yonaguni is part of an island chain that, during the lowest sea-levels of Holocene glacial periods, may have been linked by narrow landbridges. Japan never was, incidentally, and, consequently, there is no evidence of human habitation there until much later. The same may hold for Yonaguni. If it was one of the islands that was isolated from the landbridges to Mainland China, then it may not have had human habitation until well after the Last Glacial Maximum.

Pottery wasn’t developed in Okinawa, which we know for sure was part of the landbridge link, until just after 10,000 years BP. This period is often referred to as the Shellmound period and the rudimentary ceramics that do appear are very simple and not fired very well. There’s a clear evolution of ceramic ability, which is expected with a growing and developing culture (or set of successive cultures) in a given region. There is no evidence of pottery existing in the island region there prior to 10,000 years BP. And, in places where such pottery is in existence, it is very rudimentary and basic –lacking the techniques one would expect of a culture capable of monumental architecture.

But, even if we were to assume that pottery existed throughout habitable Japan prior to 10 Ka; and even if we were to assume that the specific island of Yonaguni were inhabited at this time (these are probably stretches), then this says *nothing* about their ability to create monumental architecture. It would only speak to their ability to lump a special bit of dirt in a ball, press it into a bowl shape and learn (by accident) that if you try to boil water in it the bowl gets harder. Pottery was very likely invented many, many times in the world once control of fire was established. The technological capabilities of a culture who lumps clay into bowls pales in comparison to the capabilities of one which has the ability to create monumental architecture. This isn’t because the individuals of one culture is more or less intelligent than that of another. It’s because the culture that produces monumental architecture has sorted out mass production of food, has an elite hierarchy capable of directing labor, a labor force capable of being directed, and clear stratification within the society that allows for specialization of labor.

If we continue with this speculation of fantasy and assume that there existed a culture capable of monumental architecture on the scale represented by the underwater geology at Yonaguni, then we would need to ask ourselves why no evidence of their existence? Where are the human remains? Why no structures on high ground? Why not cultural materials on high grounds (pottery, stonework, bones, cut marks on faunal remains, etc.). We would also expect to see signs of extensive agricultural production in the region in the way of cultivation of rice and grain (which was actually beginning to happen on very, very small scales by 13 Ka in China) and we might expect to see giant shell or bone middens from faunal remains that fed them (we see these in other places where monumental architecture occurs).

To provide an analog, the site of Göbekli Tepe in modern Turkey was, perhaps, the site of earliest monumental architecture, and it dates to about 11,500 yrs ago. There are also signs of agriculture which is consistent with estimates that, in order for a society of their technological level to produce the architecture they did, a very high caloric intake and significant manhours were needed each year of construction. Thus, some are hypothesizing that agriculture may have emerged in response to the needs of a workforce. The site of Göbekli Tepe is probably about 1/4 the size of the underwater geological formation off the coast of Yonaguni (though I’ve not attempted to measure it -I think its clear the former is diminutive in size compared to the latter, however). The blocks used in construction are much smaller than the “blocks” which naturally occur in Yonaguni. Indeed, this is more evidence that nature created the site, not man since Occam’s Razor would dictate the use of many smaller blocks over a few large ones; moreover the technology simply did not exist to move stones of the size suggested at Yonaguni, perhaps even today.

– it doesn’t matter if there was a civilization that could construct the structure,

On the contrary, this matters a great deal. If there wasn’t a culture capable of the construction, then it didn’t occur when and/or how it is suggested.

what matters is to find out independently of the cultural contexts if it has signs of human tools and construction work or not. That’s all. The civilization is a secondary assumption, the observations are the reality.

If you’re saying that evidence of the civilization could be found in the site, which would then be evidence of a civilization, creating a new set of assumptions and understanding, then yes, that would be the case. However, there have been numerous investigations of the underwater site and none have turned up data, which are indicative of this. Moreover, if there were a human habitation there, then there should be above water as well, given what we know about human settlement patterns: people like high ground (storms, defense, observation, etc.) and, as sea-levels gradually rose, it follows that they would have gradually adjusted to higher ground. There simply is not supporting data above the waves. Indeed, the data above the sea surface (i.e. the geology) supports the geologic assumptions below the waves.

There simply is no good reason to even entertain the idea that a civilization created some sort of “complex” at the, now undersea site, at Yonaguni.

And what I meant by “there isn’t enough statistics and methodology” – well there isn’t. How many objects are studied in detail under the water?

There are entire journals and edited volumes devoted solely to this endeavor as well as specialized archaeologists who are actively researching and lecturing on underwater archaeology. Your making the fallacy of “argument from ignorance:” you’re not aware of it, therefore it must be inadequate.

How many people have checked in details objects underwater to be experience enough to know signs of human tools easily and surely.

I personally have cited in many papers the efforts of underwater archaeology and geology which has identified both paleo-shorelines and Paleolithic artifacts of human habitation. Indeed, this is an ongoing bit of exploration in regions near Africa and the Arabian Peninsula since there is good evidence of human dispersal at lowered sea levels through these regions. People all over the world know how to do this and I know of several archaeologists who do underwater work –personally, I think they just want an excuse to have grant money pay for their dives in cool places!

And until you don’t get the statistic and enough people who have qualified opinion, then you cannot give too big credibility to the results.

Nonsense. How many qualified people would you require a list of to revise this argument from ignorance? What would the “statistic” be? What sort of ratio would you be looking for? What would be a genuine rubric that could gauge mankind’s ability to study undersea archaeological contexts? Undersea, maritime, and lacustrine archaeology has been happening since the word “scuba” was formed from combining the first letters of “self-contained underwater breathing apparatus.” And their quite good at it.

What do you think will stay from our own civilization if it ceases to exist?

Irrelevant to the discussion, primarily because the technological advances that allow for metallurgy and petroleum by products do not have ancient analogs. Secondarily, because there are enough good types of cultural data that *would* survive from 10 Ka+ ago that we know what to look for that we do not need to impose our own cultural habits and expectations on ancient ones, even *supposed* ancient ones. This is part of the problem that is afflicting the woo crowd that sees the geology of Yonaguni as some sort of “high civilization:” they are anthropomorphizing the geologic formations into patterns recognized by modern humans as “city-like” whereas a prehistoric human would have looked upon the rock formations in the Shellmound period just after the last glaciation and saw rocks.