I had intended to log in today to re-re-read some Clarkash-ton, but before I arrived I found a news story about the rediscovery of a "lost" Inca city near Machu Pichu. It had been found by Hiram Bingham (rediscoverer of Machu Pichu itself), then "lost" again. It was re-rediscovered by aerial infrared photography. The link to the story is: http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20031108071709990001&_mpc=news%2e10%2e10

In 2002, the same expedition found a "lost" Inca village at Cota Coca. Also in 2002, not one, but two lost cities were found sunken off of the Indian coast: Mahabalipuram, the City of Seven Pagodas http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1923794.stm and another, unnamed one, which seems to pre-date the Harrapan civilization, which would make it one of the oldest -- if not the oldest -- city of human (?) culture http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1768109.stm


These expeditions lend a great deal of support, in my opinion, to other accounts of "lost cities" which have been dismissed derisively by archaeologists and historians. If a city "found" by Hiram Bingham could be immediately "lost" again, even though it is fairly close to a national capital and to a major archaeological site cum tourist destination, one wonders how many other accounts of "lost cities" are indeed true. Today Llactapata, tomorrow ... what? Colonel Fawcett's city of "Z" in the Mato Grosso? Irem of the Pillars? R'lyeh? N'kai? Poisedonis?

One can dream, can't one? (But in those dreams, what horrors may come, eh what?)