Ancient Cities found under the ocean in India

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by zorgon

 

How is Dwarka relevant either?

Relevance? Correlation?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4093d078b753.jpg[/atsimg]

It proves hands down that a city/civilization can be lost to time. That the Oceans can reclaim land that once held a civilization. It proves that one time myths are sometimes based on facts. It shows us that we don't know everything about human history. It also demonstrates that if we are to truly expand our knowledge of mans past we really need to start looking off the coast and not just here but all over the planet.

I feel that we are potentially missing huge chunks of our history simply becuase the oceans rose during the last of the ice age melt off and reclaimed the land on which the earliest signs of human development once stood.

I'd say it's very relevant.



[edit on 17-8-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by SLAYER69

Sorry. I meant how is the mythology of Dwarka relevant to this discussion. Of course civilizations have disappeared but ancient Dwarka (the submerged one, there is another site being claimed to be Krisha's city) was not part of a previously unknown civilization. It was part of the Harappan civilization. In the same was Troy was part of the Aegean civilization.

Troy appears in mythology because it was a great power in its day. Dwarka appears because it was Krishna's city. If mythology is now entering this discussion (due to lack of much other evidence), then where is the mythological link to the alleged "Cambay City"?




[edit on 8/17/2009 by Phage]

Not sure i have missed something here, but when is Troy still considered a Myth,

Troy: Its discovery and excavation beginning in 1870 proved once and for all that Troy was not just a myth based on Homer; Troy was a historical site where real people lived and fought. Its earliest excavator, the oft-maligned and often-unethical Heinrich Schliemann has been mostly credited — right or wrong — as being the “Father of Archaeology” and his techniques became the foundation of archaeological research, however greatly improved, afterward.

www.openculture.com...

www.myrine.at...


As Homer's reference to Troy which was later proven as indicated by the previous links, i guess we should be careful and view Mythology with far more respect than what its credited for. Then again, many scripts within Mythology would make our modern society seem primitive if it were to be compared.

reply to post by tristar


its still considered a myth because what they've found doesn't match the story at all.

in mythology troy was built on virgin ground by the grandfather of the last king. that is quite different from the thousands and thousands of years of towns and cities that are actually there.

on a side note... does anyone know if dwarka should be star-shaped?

reply to post by tristar


Did someone say Troy was a myth? I said it was a part of mythology. Athens is a part of mythology too and it ain't a myth.

The fact that city of Troy was found does not make the Iliad any less of a myth. The fact that the Dwarka of the Bhagavad Gita may have been found does not mean that the tales of Krishna are factual.

[edit on 8/17/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by zorgon

Rajasthan, India near Jodhpur - Irradiated By Nuclear Blast 8,000 Years Ago - Sacred Texts

Radiation still so intense, the area is highly dangerous...
A heavy layer of radioactive ash in Rajasthan, India, covers a three-square mile area, ten miles west of Jodhpur. Scientists are investigating the site, where a housing development was being built.

This is a false story.

Originally posted by zorgon

For some time it has been established that there is a very high rate of birth defects and cancer in the area under construction. The levels of radiation there have registered so high on investigators' gauges that the Indian government has now cordoned off the region.

True. The area was contaminated by radioactive waste from the nearby nuclear power plant. India has been alarmingly lax in their regulation of their nuclear industry.

Originally posted by zorgon

Scientists have unearthed an ancient city where evidence shows an atomic blast dating back thousands of years, from 8,000 to 12,000 years, destroyed most of the buildings and probably a half-million people. One researcher estimates that the nuclear bomb used was about the size of the ones dropped on Japan in 1945.

No, they haven't.
Radiation from a blast similar to Hiroshima would be nonexistent 8,000 years later anyway.

Originally posted by zorgon

The Mahabharata clearly describes a catastrophic blast that rocked the continent.
"A single projectile charged with all the power in the Universe...An incandescent column of smoke and flame as bright as 10,000 suns, rose in all its splendor...it was an unknown weapon, an iron thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death which reduced to ashes an entire race.

"The corpses were so burned as to be unrecognizable. Their hair and nails fell out, pottery broke without any apparent cause, and the birds turned white.

"After a few hours, all foodstuffs were infected. To escape from this fire, the soldiers threw themselves into the river."

This passage above, although it appears here (and elsewhere) in quotation marks, is certainly not quoted from the Mahabharata, as was shown clearly right here at ATS approximately 2 or 3 years ago. Use the search function.

I thought people here at ATS were interested in the truth, interested in Denying Ignorance, rather than disseminating it such as is accomplished in Zorgon's post.

What happened to ATS?

Originally posted by zorgonSo Phage, you seem to 'indicate' you have done research on this... why not share that instead of being top dog debunker all the time

I resemble that remark.

Man, I been away too long if Phage is now the "top dog debunker."

No offense, Phage. Nice work, in fact.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte
I resemble that remark.
Man, I been away too long if Phage is now the "top dog debunker."
No offense, Phage. Nice work, in fact.

Well much as I would like to say we missed ya.... Phage is more fun

Essan has dropped by all we are missing is the Byrd and Hanslune

[edit on 18-8-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon
Well much as I would like to say we missed ya.... Phage is more fun

Yeah, but his avatar looks sooo petulant!

Originally posted by zorgonEssan has dropped by all we are missing is the Byrd and Hanslune

I knew Byrd was drifting away, but what happened to Hans? Did he get run off by all you crazies?

Harte

If it was indeed Stone Age tool type of settlement as Slayer has suggested, would they have built megalithic structures? Is it possible that the megalithic structures are natural occurring? If natural occurring can be ruled out, than what are the structures built of, would this help in determining what level of technology these people had be it Stone Age, Bronze Age, etc?

Originally posted by Harte

by all you crazies?

Harte

crazy is as crazy does right forest glump?

Originally posted by Wherestheproof
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

 

Actually the cities are found in the bedrock under the sea, so a melting glacier could not have caused that, plus building a city on ice would have sucked for agriculture. Atleast the cows would have given ice cream rather than milk lol

Actually, when we talk about these cities being built during the ice age, it is never proposed that they were built on glaciers. Rather, the massive ice sheets resulted in much lower ocean levels and, as is usually the case with human cultures, cities were probably built along the coastlines for the same reasons we build cities along coastlines now.

When the ice melted, the sea levels rose and what what was coastline was now the seabed. So if cities were built during the last ice age, one reasonable place to look would be under the sea along what used to be the coastline during the ice age.

The areas that were covered with ice sheets were probably totally uninhabitable except for very small bands of nomadic hunters.

Originally posted by Phage
What facts does he present? Exactly who are the researchers? Where was the carbon dating done? Has there been an actual excavation of the site? Without answers to these questions and more there are no facts, just claims.

I have followed Hancock's work and I would suggest your requests show some unfamiliarity with how this sort of work has to proceed, for strictly pragmatic reasons.

Excavations and carbon dating are expensive and require substantial financial backing and logistics support. Unless you are a Bill Gates or similarly well heeled individual, you can't undertake this sort of operation on your own.

What you have to do is get enough data to be able to make the claim that there might be something there worth investigating and be able to convince someone with the money and resources to undertake that sort of investigation. If that happens then we can talk about collecting the kind of data that leads to some serious attempts a reconstruction of whoever or whatever was there.

The questions you propose are quite legitimate, but the reality of the economics of science mean that we have to suspend judgement on Hancock's claims until we have the data to see if they are supported or refuted by what is found.

I have found that at this point in an investigations, debunkers cry "It can't be!" True Believers cry "It must be!" while scientists say "Interesting hypothesis, let's take a closer look."

Originally posted by SLAYER69


Which I find rather interesting when we consider that there has been no real evidence of stone age tool making in India. Then we have one of the worlds earliest civilizations show up along the Indus valley.

Dead on Slayer, and it gets even more interesting when we look at the old Dravidian cultural myths about their ancient forefathers coming from a great culture that existed to the south in a place that sunk beneath the ocean.

Certainly India is a treasure trove of insights into that age given the antiquity of its culture and literary traditions, and because we have only scratched the surface of that mass of data. India is great investigated warehouse of data. For example, one of my colleagues who went to India to do some work on what everyone thought was a dialect of Gujarati but it turned out to be a totally new language spoken by a culture that had never been documented before. And living in urban India.

Originally posted by Lannock

Originally posted by jinx880101

There are already pre- Egypyian civilisations discovered, they where called Sumarians. Here's a piece out of Zecharia Sitchens book The 12th Planet-

Am I the only one who's left-eye starts to twitch as soon as someone brings up Sichin?

I hope something worthwhile comes out of this.

Actually I cringe. There is a lot of really good stuff on Sumerian evidence, and a lot of it is really intriguing at suggesting a sophisticated and advanced culture. Dragging Sitchen into it often gives it the taint of new-ager-Atlantean-channelled space-being- warriors which then makes it difficult to get others interested in investigating it in a serious way.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Sorry. I meant how is the mythology of Dwarka relevant to this discussion. Of course civilizations have disappeared but ancient Dwarka (the submerged one, there is another site being claimed to be Krisha's city) was not part of a previously unknown civilization. It was part of the Harappan civilization. In the same was Troy was part of the Aegean civilization.

Troy appears in mythology because it was a great power in its day. Dwarka appears because it was Krishna's city. If mythology is now entering this discussion (due to lack of much other evidence), then where is the mythological link to the alleged "Cambay City"?

Hey Phage sorry for taking so long to get back to you. Real Life has a way of creeping in you know....

Myth vs mythology.

First off I will say that I do not believe most of the mythology surrounding such claims. I do however feel that hidden within those tales is again the tiniest kernel of fact.

Separate the wheat from the chaff?

Mythology in my opinion is the result of nothing more than a giant game of telephone played by school children. As you know where they all line up in a straight row and the child at the front of the line whispers something into the ear of the child next to them and they in turn pass the message down in the same manner and so on.

By the time it gets to the end and the last child reveals what was whispered in his ear it has very little similarity if any at all to what the first child whispered at the front of the line. Now imagine passing down a tale of a massive coastal flooding where their whole city/village was destroyed. Being primitives they would have said many things were the cause most likely the wrath of god. To them their "whole world" was flooded as they knew it.

If we read a Greek story in their mythology about how Zeus was angry one day at the people so he took out his wrath on them where the sky thundered and lighting bolts flew from his arse does this mean that on that day there wasn't a horribly destructive naturally occurring thunder and lightning storm which they later made a tale to explain it?


Harappan civilization

There is very little concrete proof that Dwarka was actually a part of that civilization. There are very many similarities between the two. But to the untrained eye so are the similarities between ROME and Greece. However it does prove again what I have been speculating in that Dwarka was a separate and older location and was submerged before the Harappan showed up pretty much out of nowhere. Again We had "myths" first that were passed down surrounding it's location. Then we had scientific proof later of their existence. Remember there is very little if any evidence of a development stage like what we see in Egypt.

Yet the Harappan had sewage and water storage and city street layouts an extremely well thought out infrastructure at the earliest point in their existence. Where do you supposed that early development phase took place if not there or anywhere near by?

It had to have had a development phase and location. So far there has been no big discoveries on land. We do however have a very real possibility of a much older location just off the coast that does not fly in the face of other sciences about this possibility.


Harappan Civilization

One of the most fascinating yet mysterious cultures of the ancient world is the Harappan civilization. This culture existed along the Indus River in present day Pakistan. It was named after the city of Harappa which it was centered around. Harappa and the city of Mohenjo-Daro were the greatest achievements of the Indus valley civilization. These cities are well known for their impressive, organized and regular layout.

Over one hundred other towns and villages also existed in this region. The Harappan people were literate and used the Dravidian language. Only part of this language has been deciphered today, leaving numerous questions about this civilization unanswered.

Harrapan origin theories

There are several theories as to the origin of the Indus Valley civilization. The earliest hypothesis was that it was an early form of a Vedic civilization which would come to dominate most of South Asia, which was presumed to have been characterized by influence from Indo-European migrations. However, this theory began to be rejected when no signs of the traditional culture associated with the Vedas was uncovered in that of the Indus Valley. The absence of horses amongst the many realistic representations of animals was also considered significant, considering the importance of horses and chariots to the culture described in the Vedas. Detailed bone analysis has revealed that the horse itself was introduced to the subcontinent only at the beginning of the second millennium B.C., which contributes to the chronological problem with this theory.[35][36] Finally, the concept of urban life which dominates the Indus Valley civilization is foreign to the more rural lifestyle which is described in the Vedas.[37]

The next theory put forward was that the civilization was of proto-Dravidian origin.[38] This theory was first proposed by researchers from Russia and Finland who attempted to show that Indus valley symbols could be derived from the Dravidian language group. Today, the Dravidian language family is concentrated mostly in southern India and northern Sri Lanka, but pockets of it still remain throughout the rest of India and Pakistan (the Brahui language), which lends credence to the theory. Finnish Indologist Asko Parpola concludes that the uniformity of the Indus inscriptions precludes any possibility of widely different languages being used, and that an early form of Dravidian language must have been the language of the Indus people. However, the proto-Dravidian origin theory is far from being confirmed due to an emphasis on linguistic connection while evidence of a broader cultural connection remains to be found.[37]

Geneticist:
On one hand we have a very real genetic lineage of the Aboriginals of Australia tied to some blood lines in India this line was established over 60.000 to 70.000 years ago and some have argued as old as 80.000 years. They didn't sail there so the most obvious route would be coastal migration along the now sunken Indian coast. The exact location we are discussing.

DNA confirms coastal trek to Australia

DNA evidence linking Indian tribes to Australian Aboriginal people supports the theory humans arrived in Australia from Africa via a southern coastal route through India, say researchers.

The research, lead by Dr Raghavendra Rao from the Anthropological Survey of India, is published in the current edition of BMC Evolutionary Biology.

One theory is that modern humans arrived in Australia via an inland route through central Asia but Rao says most scientists believe modern humans arrived via the coast of South Asia.

Skeletal remains, dating back between 40-60,000 years from Lake Mungo in New South Wales, also support the theory that modern human arrived in Australia at least as far back as this, he says.

Climatology and Geology:
The other two sciences that offer collaboration is Climatology and Geology both sciences have proven these locations where at one time dry land and well before that 10.000 mark you mentioned.


Sea Level Rise, After the Ice Melted and Today

Massive ice sheets covered parts of North America, northern Europe, and several other regions during the last ice age. This huge volume of ice lowered global sea level by around 120 meters as compared to today. After the ice sheets began to melt and retreat, sea level rose rapidly, with several periods of even faster spurts. The first such spurt may have started about 19,000 years ago, at which time ocean levels rose 10-15 m in less than 500 years. However, this event is not seen in all past sea level records and new evidence suggests that ice melting may have begun much earlier.

A more clearly-defined accelerated phase of sea level rise occurred between 14,600 to 13,500 years before present (termed "meltwater pulse 1A" or "MWP-1A" by Fairbanks in 1989), when sea level increased by some 16 to 24 m (see Figure 1). Although the meltwater was previously believed to have come chiefly from Antarctica, a recent reconstruction by Tarasov and Peltier of ice sheet retreat using a glacial model calibrated by a variety of data points instead to a largely North American source. Furthermore, diatom fossils in sediments from fjords in East Antarctica show that ice melting there began perhaps 3000 years later, thus ruling out Antarctica as a likely source.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by SLAYER69

Mythology in my opinion is the result of nothing more than a giant game of telephone played by school children.

Mythology is also made up on the spot to explain human behavior, provide moral lessons and explain why the Sun crosses the sky in daytime. Picking out bits and pieces as representing actual history means identifying the facts in the fiction.

reply to post by SLAYER69


From your research does this mean we may in fact have to rethink the Africans as the oldest form of human being? Is it possible that the first Africans could have come from India instead?

With what NASA has recently discovered about the origins of life in space filtering down to earth and beginning the life process through common DNA found on asteroids and comet debris, how does this affect the theory of life starting on multiple places on the planet around the same time?

Also I am floored by the possibility of there having been a nuclear detonation so long ago, was it ET related or naturally occurring and if so could that happen again?

Sorry if I sound ignorant but this is fascinating stuff.

reply to post by antar

From your research does this mean we may in fact have to rethink the Africans as the oldest form of human being? Is it possible that the first Africans could have come from India instead?

Hiya Antar, Australian Aborigines have helped to prove (again) the Out of Africa theory. We all came from Africa...same origins, different migration waves.

reply to post by antar



Antar reasonable question however there is evidence that this not the case. The out of Africa route is the proven theory. However the dating gets really fuzzy when we go back beyond 40000 BC. Due to Radio Carbon dating methods limitations.

These sites create a real problem when dating megalithic locations [They can't date Stones] so in order to find out the date they search for other clues mainly carbon from village camp fires etc. However whose to say that those locations are not from village campsites from migration that occurred thousands of years after the undateble stone structures were erected. Pure conjecture on my part.


Radiocarbon Dating

Third, because the decay rate is logarithmic, radiocarbon dating has significant upper and lower limits. It is not very accurate for fairly recent deposits. In recent deposits so little decay has occurred that the error factor (the standard deviation) may be larger than the date obtained.

The practical upper limit is about 50,000 years, because so little C-14 remains after almost 9 half-lives that it may be hard to detect and obtain an accurate reading, regardless of the size of the sample.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by SLAYER69[They can't date Stones]

Dating Rocks

The short version

However for most purposes we need absolute ages. These can be established using radioactive decay. The underlying principle is that the probability of an individual radioactive atom breaking down (to create a daughter atom) is constant.

www.see.leeds.ac.uk...

The Long Version

History of Radiometric Dating
www.talkorigins.org...


The Wiki Version
Radiometric Dating
en.wikipedia.org...


The USGS version
Geologic Time: Radiometric Time Scale
pubs.usgs.gov...