A quick google search for "Cambay city" finds dozens of articles touting this 'find' as evidence for Atlanteans, super-ancient civilizations, and so on.The Wikipedia article is an amusing amalgam of skepticism and credulity, obviously the work of multiple authors.The link between him and this article immediately calls into question the whole story.Now, this article may be five years old, but pseudoarchaeology never dies.NBN Co subsequently confirmed that Netcomm’s contract would remain in place and that it would remain the preferred supplier of its VDSL distribution point units (DPUs) to the NBN builder.
Upon close inspection, the article has hardly any actual facts at all.Netcomm Wireless (ASX: NTC) has settled a legal claim launched against it by Corning Optical Communications last year alleging the Australian networking hardware maker had infringed on its patent.The publicly-listed company told shareholders on 14 June that the Federal Court legal proceedings associated with the initial claim will be dismissed now that a settlement has been reached by the two companies.As part of the legal action, Corning had been seeking injunctions and damages, which Netcomm said would have arisen only if and when a hearing on the matter occurred, and if the court first determined that the patent was valid and had been infringed.Netcomm said at the time it had discussed the matter with NBN Co, to which the network gear maker sells a great deal of its broadband equipment.What piqued my interest is that the site linked to a BBC article describing the find.If the BBC links to it, it must be authentic, right? What we have here is a classic example of both Bad Archaeology and Bad Archaeology Reporting.A tell-tale warning sign is the lack of any scientific publication, and that the 'artifacts' in question have not been made available to outside investigators.We are simply told that scientific investigation confirmed their authenticity.First, of course, comes the breathless statement: Then we are introduced to the people who made the 'discovery,' who are un-named "marine scientists." Who were these people? No, below we are told that they were "oceanographers from India's National Institute of Ocean Technology conducting a survey of pollution"Then, we are told that debris had been recovered from the site, and carbon-dated to 9500 years ago, which would be thousands of years before the earliest known human cities. Construction material and sections of walls -- what kind of 'construction material?' No organic material could survive preserved under water for that length of time, so no C14 dating possible. Beads -- usually made of stone and not carbon datable.