12 000 BC Civilization at the Seas edge?

reply to post by australianobserver


It has nothing to do with a "great civilization".

Just showing an example of areas which contain ancient "cities" that are now underwater.

They have found tons of stuff underwater over there.

best examination of this idea that ive come across so far is Graham Hancocks UNDERWORLD

his thesis is that the "missing link" civs will be found in the now submerged areas that were coastal at the time.

heres an amazon link

underworld

im not selling anything, but i am a GH fan, so if you like these topics (dwarka, yonaguni) this book is very well reasoned and full of pictures also, its a bit dry, a bit scholastic, not quite as much of a "pop" read as "fingerprints of the gods", but still quite good

reply to post by uwascallywabbit


I already posted a link to that for free look on page 1

great docu

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by australianobserver
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Maybe the flood you are referring to is the melting of the ice sheets. Do they know how old that is?

edit on 15-8-2012 by australianobserver because: Spelling

Waters rising and people dying, sounds like a flood to me. The fact that tools have been found that far down on the bottom of the ocean is indicative that the people didn't have time to run or move away.

Why is it that every time somebody finds something underwater, practically everyone at ATS assumes that sea level rise is the cause?

Nobody here has ever heard of subduction?

Most of the Gulf of Mexico was created by subduction processes.

The Gulf of Mexico is a Jurassic backarc basin (PDF). link

Sometimes the land sinks, folks. Please keep that in mind before jumping to simplistic conclusions.

Harte

I think those tree are recent, wood does not last long underwater, unless its covered with silt, any other trees been found anywhere else underwater?

Originally posted by pikestaff
I think those tree are recent, wood does not last long underwater, unless its covered with silt, any other trees been found anywhere else underwater?

In that particular case, I'm sure your right.

That is, those trees haven't been there since Jurassic times, obviously.

However, you wanna bet on whether they are there because the land sank?

I am. I'll guarantee you that the trees in that pic sank into the Gulf, and were not covered by sea level rise.

Harte

Taken from The Ice Age Flood Institute, Web Site:

"During the most recent episode of major ice-sheet expansion, between about 18,000 and 13,000 years ago, a lobe of the Cordilleran ice sheet advanced into the Idaho Panhandle to the area that is now occupied by Lake Pend Oreille, thus blocking the Clark Fork River drainage and causing Glacial Lake Missoula to form. At its largest, the lake was deeper than 2,000 feet deep at the dam and held over 500 cubic miles of water—as much as Lake Erie and Lake Ontario combined. The ice dam, however, was subject to repeated failure.

When the dam broke, a towering mass of water and ice was released and swept across parts of Idaho, Washington, and Oregon on its way to the ocean. The peak rate of flow was ten times the combined flow of all the rivers of the world. The huge lake may have emptied in as little as two or three days. Over a period of years the glacier would advance, once again blocking the river, and the dam and the lake would form again. This process was repeated scores of times, until the ice sheet ceased its advance and receded to the north at the end of the Ice Age. It is assumed that the same processes would have occurred earlier during other glacial advances throughout the Ice Age, although most of the evidence for the earlier events may have been removed by the flooding that occurred during the last glacial advance".

This would totaly wipe out anything in its path. I also think similar floods happened on the North American east coast.

reply to post by nfflhome


I believe that to. Events like that would have been more frequent during the melting periods. An event that would leave little time to evacuate.

reply to post by australianobserver

check this out www.facebook.com...

the webpage is not working for some reason but at least you can see what I'm talking about on fb (I know I hate fb too but these canals are very interesting)

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by australianobserver
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Maybe the flood you are referring to is the melting of the ice sheets. Do they know how old that is?

edit on 15-8-2012 by australianobserver because: Spelling

Waters rising and people dying, sounds like a flood to me. The fact that tools have been found that far down on the bottom of the ocean is indicative that the people didn't have time to run or move away.

Why is it that every time somebody finds something underwater, practically everyone at ATS assumes that sea level rise is the cause?

Nobody here has ever heard of subduction?

Most of the Gulf of Mexico was created by subduction processes.

The Gulf of Mexico is a Jurassic backarc basin (PDF). link

Sometimes the land sinks, folks. Please keep that in mind before jumping to simplistic conclusions.

Harte

I can offer 3 pieces of evidence to that from my local experience, two are ancient one is not!

The ancient city of Helike near modern day Patras, Greece, did sink in 373BC as a result of a terrible earthquake. Please note that the city was 2Km (1.25 miles) from the sea at the time of its destruction yet it still sunk!
The site of Pavlopetri, also in Peloponnese, Greece but almost an antipodal site to Helike, was also submerged after an earthquake (estimated to have been inhabited since circa 2800BC, sunk circa 1000BC). If you go by boat over the site, you can still see outlines of some buildings (most are mapped using sonars but few are still visible at a depth of about 50 feet).

The last one is more recent. It happened in 1995, early June, at the city of Aigion, 37 Km NE of Patras, Greece. After a 6.1 earthquake, a portion of a beach sunk. Dimensions were about 200m in length and about 2-3m in width (I know, it is not much compared to whole cities sinking but this one was witnessed first hand, I was in Patras at the time of that earthquake and visited the beach afterwards, in places small bushes normally growing on land were under 2 feet of water - and I was told by friends living in Aigion they were there for quite a few weeks afterwards before the salt water killed them).

Subduction zones are quite common where tectonic plates meet so it is not a surprise that land will be found sinking as much as, if not more, sea rising (while for the sea to rise you need to "store" large amounts of water in, say, ice, for land to sink you only need plate tectonics at work and that is active all the time, no?)

I think we are all aware that the ground can sink and raise, yes it happens, and yes it is a possibility, but it does not rule out any number of other causes in regards to mans sunken past. Everything is up for debate and discussion.

Originally posted by australianobserver
I think we are all aware that the ground can sink and raise, yes it happens, and yes it is a possibility, but it does not rule out any number of other causes in regards to mans sunken past. Everything is up for debate and discussion.

"Up for debate" is fine.

But what about areas, such as the west coast of India, that are still subsiding today?

We cannot simply state that sea level rise as a cause of the submersion of Dwarka, for example, is "up for debate" when we are today measuring that area's continued subduction.

So, no, "everything" is certainly not up for debate. Some things are factually known.

Harte

As for knowing where to look, it would come down to working out how much more ice existed at the time in question, deducing its water content, and subtracting that from the current sea level. I'm no geographer so the equation's beyond me, but it *could* be (and probably already has been) done.

However, the coastline of XXXX B.C. may likely not resemble that which is currently below the waterline (and I don't mean because it's covered in water ) - I've personally seen the effect of coastal erosion here in the UK, and even small-scale it can effectively disfigure the human as well as natural landscape (think paths, houses, etc.). In cases like this, do not expect to find even foundations of structures, but a lot of debris... Debris fields like that would, I imagine, make for uncovering any evidence of settlements easier to uncover in the confined world of underwater archaeology, as opposed to having to hit the X-mark of a single find.