The Lost Cradle of Civilization

Originally posted by Hanslune
I would point out that at this time the finding of a 'city' in Cambay has never been verified and the 'artifacts' were found to be natural marine encrustations.

Not sure where you got that piece of info. Last I knew the underwater city in the Gulf of Cambay was a tourist site and the finds excavated so far are at various museums.

The only dispute that I'm aware of is ONE artifact out of many many artifacts. The disputed artifact is a piece of wood which is dated much older than the surrounding artifacts, which could be just an old piece of wood or that someone had an heirloom carved in wood.

The city in the Cambay Gulf is a known underwater excavation. Here's some great pics of the underwater site.

Dwaraka Underwater Pics

Originally posted by SLAYER69
If the dates given in the supporting articles are fairly accurate then there would be NO real foundation for such a 'Holy War'.

Sure there would be. Three faiths usually having "holy wars" for centuries: Christianity, Judaism and Islam. And we're talking about their "Genesis" city underwater aka. Eden. A city which might have Hindu artifacts in it. Considering the pattern of "holy wars" between Christianity, Judaism and Islam...sure they'd fight over Eden.

As for oil companies...I guess I need to expand on meaning. Oil comes from fossilized plants during the dinosaur age that get compressed in regions where sunken coasts are exposed every 125,000 years. That's why you find oil in the following sunken coast regions:
Beringia Sunken Coast - Alaska
Persian Gulf
Suez Gulf
Dodecanese Islands to Turkey Sunken Coast
Gulf of Mexico
etc.

All are regions where plant life from the dinosaur age were compressed under sea water during each cyclical melt of the ice ages.

Now Eden.. is said to be a fertile region, surrounded by desert to the west (Saudi Arabia) and mountains to the east (Iran). What was fertile at the Last Glacial Maximum would also be fertile during the dinosaur age. Therefore, the area where Eden sits is going to have a jackpot of rich oil underneath it.

Who has money? Oil companies. Do they want to lose the fertile rich oil deposit under Eden in the Persian Gulf to underwater excavation? Hell no. Can they afford a holy war between Islam, Judaism and/or Christianity over underwater excavation of Eden? Not likely. So money talks and BS walks. Oil companies just aren't going to allow underwater excavation of Eden in the Persian Gulf.

Also for thought, while other civilizations might have had port-side communities on the former coast, Eden would have been inland. Then as sea level rose, Eden itself would have become its own port-city as humans tend to go to fertile areas. Then Eden would have gone underwater.

Is it possible that because of such an early date in history that both the Indus Valley and earliest Sumerians and a few others may have based their foundations on a common heritage and then grew separately and into distinct entities from there?

Well yes. Sanskrit is an Indo European language. And while most presume that the language separated by land migration. It more than likely spread into Pakistan on the Indus and directly into India by boat migration first.

reply to post by MapMistress

Well yes. Sanskrit is an Indo European language. And while most presume that the language separated by land migration. It more than likely spread into Pakistan on the Indus and directly into India by boat migration first.

That is not correct
Sanskrit enters the sudcontinent from the northwest, by land via the Aryans, they also brought the horse with them.
It did not spread by boat into the subcontinent.

reply to post by MapMistress


Sorry, my errors I was mistaking Dwaraka with tthe report of city found in Gulf of Khambhat

reply to post by MapMistress


Oil companies just aren't going to allow underwater excavation of Eden in the Persian Gulf.


Why would they care? You reasoning doesn't make sense as there are oil wells all over the Gulf, 'Eden' as described wouldn't take up much space at all - being just a garden there wouldn't be much to find either.

If you mean a city you need to find some aspect of the city first to allow a target examination



I use to go fishing in the Persian Gulf for 15+ years - I can assure you that off-shore oil rigs dot the horizons.You are about forty years late with your idea. : ]

No one has gone digging in the Gulf due to a lack of a suitable site, the general difficulty of marine archaeology and political problems in the area. Where do you think they do excavations at?

As always my friend a very thought provoking idea. As you know I believe that man became "settled" long before the mainstream thinks we did. There are more and more sites showing up which are very much older than man's civilizations are supposed to be.If I may offer a couple of links.

Older than Stonehenge

Ancient India city found underwater

There are quite a few more which have been found recently, However they have no confirmed dating yet.The estimated dates vary to as much as 12000 years.

The dates that you have put forward here are giving me much to consider. Man has always, since he evolved, had the intelligence to build cities and settle whever the conditions were favorable.

The map of the arabian pennsulia caused me to think that perhaps where the Gulf of Oman narrows entering the Persian Gulf, could have been blocked, and the breaching of that blockage may have resulted in the flood myths. Just a thought of coarse I have no proof.

Sorry I'm late to the party.LG

Originally posted by lonegurkha
As always my friend a very thought provoking idea. As you know I believe that man became "settled" long before the mainstream thinks we did. There are more and more sites showing up which are very much older than man's civilizations are supposed to be.If I may offer a couple of links.

Older than Stonehenge

Ancient India city found underwater

There are quite a few more which have been found recently, However they have no confirmed dating yet.The estimated dates vary to as much as 12000 years.

The dates that you have put forward here are giving me much to consider. Man has always, since he evolved, had the intelligence to build cities and settle whever the conditions were favorable.

The map of the arabian pennsulia caused me to think that perhaps where the Gulf of Oman narrows entering the Persian Gulf, could have been blocked, and the breaching of that blockage may have resulted in the flood myths. Just a thought of coarse I have no proof.

Sorry I'm late to the party.LG

One is never late to good discussion. I would note however that it is the 'mainstream' that is finding all this new stuff.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Why would they care? You reasoning doesn't make sense as there are oil wells all over the Gulf, 'Eden' as described wouldn't take up much space at all - being just a garden there wouldn't be much to find either.

Ah but you are presuming that Adam and Eve were the "only" people. You do know that in other versions of Adam and Eve stories that there are other people, like Lilith. Or the story of Adam and Eve being punished by being forced to stand in the Tigris River.

Logic would dictate that even if Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden, that other people would have lived there. Humans do flock to fertile land, right? And this would be Mesopotamia, people with agriculture.

I found my old map of the Persian Gulf for you and actually if you overlay the oil field map that you provided over the top of mine... Eden sits right in primary pumping grounds. Only on my map, I use the Hebrew names of the rivers of the region. The Hiddeck River, the Perat River, the Gishon River and the Pishon River. I also put on the map the Havilah and the Kush.

Persian Gulf before Eden sinks

On this particular one, the precursor city to the Hindus is sea-side and Eden is inland at the intersection of 4 rivers. There would be people living at the intersection of those four rivers, as they would need them for agriculture.

And as the sea levels rose, Eden would also become a port, sea-side city, then the Persian Gulf would engulf it. It's not just that Eden was a little garden with "two people" expelled from it.

It's about all the other groups of people who built cities over the top of it. Fertile land is where humans flock.

reply to post by Hanslune


Yes Hans it is the mainstream,but not the older mainstream scientists with the closed minds.Perhaps now the truth of the human race will finally be known. One can only hope.

Originally posted by MapMistress

Originally posted by Hanslune
Why would they care? You reasoning doesn't make sense as there are oil wells all over the Gulf, 'Eden' as described wouldn't take up much space at all - being just a garden there wouldn't be much to find either.

Ah but you are presuming that Adam and Eve were the "only" people. You do know that in other versions of Adam and Eve stories that there are other people, like Lilith. Or the story of Adam and Eve being punished by being forced to stand in the Tigris River.

Logic would dictate that even if Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden, that other people would have lived there. Humans do flock to fertile land, right? And this would be Mesopotamia, people with agriculture.

I found my old map of the Persian Gulf for you and actually if you overlay the oil field map that you provided over the top of mine... Eden sits right in primary pumping grounds. Only on my map, I use the Hebrew names of the rivers of the region. The Hiddeck River, the Perat River, the Gishon River and the Pishon River. I also put on the map the Havilah and the Kush.

Persian Gulf before Eden sinks

On this particular one, the precursor city to the Hindus is sea-side and Eden is inland at the intersection of 4 rivers. There would be people living at the intersection of those four rivers, as they would need them for agriculture.

And as the sea levels rose, Eden would also become a port, sea-side city, then the Persian Gulf would engulf it. It's not just that Eden was a little garden with "two people" expelled from it.

It's about all the other groups of people who built cities over the top of it. Fertile land is where humans flock.

I actually presume that the story of Eden is pure myth with no basis of fact. Yes but the placing of Eden, an imaginary place as far as we know isn't evidence its just somebodies opinion. The seven island? There are lot more islands in that area in the strait of Hormuz along the northern area are scores of them.

I made a point about artifact loci above. Here is the question that they pose. If there were 'cities' what did they do? There are no quanitities of unidentified pottery, stone stools, crafts (beads worked shells etc) around the Persian gulf, there is no identifiable use of resources, there is no identifiable use of or domestication of plants or animals. So what did they do? : ]

My take on mans history is more like filling in what we can see, what we see happening around us right now. And what we cant find.


(1) Multiple different types of humanoid did originate from a primate

(2) We all had specific habitats.

(3) Climate change "moved" these habitats or destroyed them. Forcing us into different corners of the world. So some exploration was curiosity, some survival. Some invention curiosity, some necessity.

(4) At certain times our different tribes were so cut off from each other, or forced together, due to ice sheets etc.... We interbreed. Or had no contact for 10,000s of years. This isolation situation brings its own survival of the fittest, smartest ideas to fray.


Note; Even today very cold temperatures can make us rely less on technology susceptible to icing. So it would only seem logical we ditched some existing tech for more natural materials.


I would say this has been an ongoing cycle for maybe 1.5 million years. Civilization has been like walking up a volcano covered in ash. 2 steps up , one step back.

PhotonEffect
My take was that the flood, which is repeated throughout history to have occurred, may very well have been induced by a catastrophic earthquake and ensuing tsunami that affected a large swath of the coastal areas. Obviously these floods would have caught these early unsuspecting civilizations completely unprepared and would've wiped out entire cities and populations while also changing coastlines and flooding basins. All within a few days...

The part of your quote I highlighted is what makes this ubiquitous legend so very interesting to me. Because what you say is true...the ancient civilizations were completely taken by surprise. But at the heart of the Flood myths is the fact that someone was warned that this was going to happen, long enough ahead of time that he could build a boat, gather his family and some animals and gtfo.
That's just....really interesting.

MapMistress

Originally posted by Hanslune
I would point out that at this time the finding of a 'city' in Cambay has never been verified and the 'artifacts' were found to be natural marine encrustations.

Not sure where you got that piece of info. Last I knew the underwater city in the Gulf of Cambay was a tourist site and the finds excavated so far are at various museums.

The only dispute that I'm aware of is ONE artifact out of many many artifacts. The disputed artifact is a piece of wood which is dated much older than the surrounding artifacts, which could be just an old piece of wood or that someone had an heirloom carved in wood.

The city in the Cambay Gulf is a known underwater excavation. Here's some great pics of the underwater site.

Dwaraka Underwater Pics

You have confused the actual ancient city of Dwaraka with the bogus claims of Graham Hancock concerning a piece of wood he dredged up in the Gulf of Khambat.

Here's a google map showing the location of the submerged Dwaraka - just offshore of the existing city of the same name.

Please note that the Gulf you mention is east and southeast from Dwaraka, at the other end of the Kathiawar peninsula. That is the peninsula that Dwarakla sits on the very western extreme of.

Harte

lonegurkha
As always my friend a very thought provoking idea. As you know I believe that man became "settled" long before the mainstream thinks we did. There are more and more sites showing up which are very much older than man's civilizations are supposed to be.If I may offer a couple of links.

Older than Stonehenge

This site is about the same age as the dawn - or the basic beginnings - of what we define as civilization.

However, no civilization (by definition) built it.

lonegurkha
Ancient India city found underwater

That is a bogus "site" that doesn't even exist and is the same site that Hans thought mapmistress was referring to.

Nothing whatsoever has ever been found there.

lonegurkhaThere are quite a few more which have been found recently, However they have no confirmed dating yet.The estimated dates vary to as much as 12000 years.

There are parts of Jericho that are at least 10,000 years old. This has been known for many decades but changes nothing in regards to the definition of a civilization.

You might disagree with said definition. That's your perogative. However, you cannot expect an entire field of science to change their definition of "civilization" based on your particular preferences.

To date, the oldest known civilization (going by the Anthropological definition) is Sumer. There's been no evidence whatsoever of any earlier one.

Obviously, that doesn't mean there wasn't one.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


The definitions of civilization and cultures are rather restrictive especially the former.

However I could suggest that people could refer to these near civilizations as either proto-civilizations or pre-civilizations

Proto-Civilization

Harte
There are parts of Jericho that are at least 10,000 years old. This has been known for many decades but changes nothing in regards to the definition of a civilization.

You might disagree with said definition. That's your perogative. However, you cannot expect an entire field of science to change their definition of "civilization" based on your particular preferences.

What an interesting question. What, exactly, is "civilization"? You didn't list any sources so I went looking around and, it appears to me, that there is no real "set definition" of "civilization". Academics are still asking themselves how they should define it.

I found this:
What is Civilization, Anyway?
...written by Cynthia Stokes Brown, a professor of education and history emerita at Dominican University of California. It appears to me to sum up the question nicely, and she makes a stab at defining a "checklist" of things a culture should have in order to be called a "civilization". She says that not everything on the list must be present in order for it to be a civilization, but most of them should be.


Here is her "short list":

• surplus food
  
• density of population
  
• stratified social ranks
  
• coerced tribute
  
• state systems
  
• accumulated learning
  

Does that list basically match what you had in mind when you referred to the "anthropological definition" of a civilization?

...and, how much of that list would you surmise be required of a culture for it to be capable of building something like, say, Gobekli Tepe?

To date, the oldest known civilization (going by the Anthropological definition) is Sumer. There's been no evidence whatsoever of any earlier one.

Obviously, that doesn't mean there wasn't one.

I would agree with the first statement if it were changed to say "the oldest known urban centers" rather than "civilization". And given how often that "no evidence of any earlier civilization" has been used as evidence that this or that strange artifact is therefore not evidence of any earlier civilization, I must disagree with that declaration entirely.

Obviously, that doesn't mean there was one.

One method of finding Gold is to follow it up a drainage until it stops occurring, the Gold is somewhere in that drainage's watershed.

If there is a civilization beneath the Gulf (which I strongly think there is, along with under the Mediterranean) then the drainages feeding that Gulf river system will hold the clues. They are preserved under the sands of the Rub al'Khali, refer to the map. I suggest expeditions start searching there.

FreeMason
One method of finding Gold is to follow it up a drainage until it stops occurring, the Gold is somewhere in that drainage's watershed.

If there is a civilization beneath the Gulf (which I strongly think there is, along with under the Mediterranean) then the drainages feeding that Gulf river system will hold the clues. They are preserved under the sands of the Rub al'Khali, refer to the map. I suggest expeditions start searching there.

Howdy

Given that the Med flooded 5 million plus years ago who or what would have had a civlization there? Or are you referring to a place flooded out by the rise of seas after the ice age?

On ancient gold resources



Map of ancient gold resources

Hanslune

FreeMason
One method of finding Gold is to follow it up a drainage until it stops occurring, the Gold is somewhere in that drainage's watershed.

If there is a civilization beneath the Gulf (which I strongly think there is, along with under the Mediterranean) then the drainages feeding that Gulf river system will hold the clues. They are preserved under the sands of the Rub al'Khali, refer to the map. I suggest expeditions start searching there.

Howdy

Given that the Med flooded 5 million plus years ago who or what would have had a civlization there? Or are you referring to a place flooded out by the rise of seas after the ice age?

On ancient gold resources

edit on 13/10/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

The Mediterranean dried up during the last ice age, at least I considered this a settled fact, but perhaps it is debated? At the least, the Mediterranean's connection to the Ocean and the Black Sea were severed, and the major rivers which flowed into it were largely dry except the Nile. So the water there would have been in the process of drying up.

I was using the Gold as a fun reference to simply follow the rivers...the civilization under the Gulf is very potential, but finding it there now is more difficult than simply tracing the rivers up stream for evidence of down stream trade.

FreeMason

The Mediterranean dried up during the last ice age, at least I considered this a settled fact, but perhaps it is debated? At the least, the Mediterranean's connection to the Ocean and the Black Sea were severed, and the major rivers which flowed into it were largely dry except the Nile. So the water there would have been in the process of drying up.

I think you are mistaking the Messinian period for the Ice age. Will put this link in now and be back later

Med