Underwater stones puzzle archeologists

[Adsos Letter]

Source: Chicago Tribune
By James Janega | Tribune reporter

Forty feet below the surface of Lake Michigan in Grand Traverse Bay, a mysterious pattern of stones can be seen rising from an otherwise sandy half-mile of lake floor.

Likely the stones are a natural feature. But the possibility they are not has piqued the interest of archeologists, native tribes and state officials since underwater archeologist Mark Holley found the site in 2007 during a survey of the lake bottom.

The site recently has become something of an Internet sensation, thanks to a blogger who noticed an archeological paper on the topic and described the stones as "underwater Stonehenge."

Though the stones could signal an ancient shoreline or a glacial formation, their striking geometric alignment raises the possibility of human involvement. The submerged site was tundra when humans of the hunter-gatherer era roamed it 6,000 to 9,000 years ago. Could the stones have come from a massive fishing weir laid across a long-gone river? Could they mark a ceremonial site?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-sunken-stones_janega_bdfeb08,0,4910995.story

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a lot of controversy surrounding this one...I tend to think it is a natural occurance.

[Catherine Vincent]

1. Interesting.

:kick:

[pinniped]

2. I can't even find more pics of this site. F google!

.

[Adsos Letter]

5. There were more pics in an earlier article...I'll see if I can shake 'em loose for ya'...

[merh]

7. found this one

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=111514




from the article linked in the OP

[Adsos Letter]

9. That's the one mehr...

I saw a version where someone had used a computer to outline the mastodon on the image...I still couldn't see it.

[merh]

10. You have to remember

the images aren't perfect

this image of a mastodon on a cave wall is pretty primitive

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WGZq2wlXb4w/SLRf084f1KI/AAAAAAAABUo/5fEgDqT6cA4/s400/cave+drawings+hunt.jpg

[Adsos Letter]

11. I agree...

(that is a beautiful image, btw) I just couldn't make out the outline they were insisting was there; but again, I was looking at a less than perfect phote, and the light striking the face was not angled.

[dysfunctional press]

3. there's a huge site off the coast of japan that some think is a man-made temple...

from whne the sea levels were much lower some 10-12,000 years ago.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/39733362B7B84A8CB7963101BDEF9007/graham-hancock-japan-s-under.aspx

[Adsos Letter]

6. I've seen that...lots of controversy over that one, too...

:hi:

[dysfunctional press]

8. yep- it could be manmade...or it could be natural.

:shrug:

[Adsos Letter]

4. This stuff is interesting Catherine, but not without controversy...

One of the claims for antiquity is the discovery of a rock associated with this "circle" which bears a petroglyph of a mastadon...or so they claim. I looked at some photos of it (this story is not new) and I couldn't see it; but then, I am only looking at photos.

With the rising and lowering of water levels over the millennia, I suppose anything is possible.

[Motown_Johnny]

12. Everyone knows Atlantis was just outside Chicago. why is this a big deal?

Honestly, the great lakes were formed from glaciers, they pulled stones along with them as they moved south.

IMO this is a minor curiosity and mot much else. I am almost positive this will be seen as a natural formation and explained somehow by the way the stones would have rolled off of the melting ice (or some such thing).

[aquart]

13. Or humans gathered stones to mark a special place.

And the stones stayed after the humans left and the land submerged. That humans mark special places with stones or other markers is well known. Nor is it impossible that a visiting chert-foraging southern clan marked the place with an image of its totem animal.

[Motown_Johnny]

14. the time line seems to be off

most people think that people came here across a "land bridge" from Siberia to Alaska during the last ice age (there are variations on this theory).

It that proves to be true, then the area in question was already covered with the ice that eventually melted to form the lake.

Sure, Archaeologists are puzzled. Maybe someone should ask a geologist.