It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Discovery Pushes back India's Iron age to 2200 BC

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2015 @ 01:43 AM
link   


Rare discovery pushes back Iron Age in India

The team of archaeologists, led by professor KP Rao, has found several artefacts, including small knives and blades besides earthen pots. "The implements that were found were tested at the National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI) using a method called Optically Simulated Luminescence (OSL). The metal objects were dated to anywhere between 1800 BC and 2,400 BC. So we are assuming they were made during 2200 BC," Prof KP Rao



Which means there was a more advanced civilisation in Deccan area in India than the Indus Valley Civilization. Could this be a possible successor of the Proto Elamites ?




posted on May, 23 2015 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: maddy21

This is one possible evidence that humanity is older than we think.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: maddy21

Considering they've found cities 60 m below the sea surface 10 km off coast - you bet the Indian civilisation is staggeringly old.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 02:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: maddy21

Considering they've found cities 60 m below the sea surface 10 km off coast - you bet the Indian civilisation is staggeringly old.


A wild claim. Got any evidence?

And you can leave Dawarka out of it, given that it sank in the Medieval period.

Harte



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 02:49 AM
link   

The metal objects were dated to anywhere between 1800 BC and 2,400 BC. So we are assuming they were made during 2200 BC,"


Or they could have been made 1800BC...?



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 02:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol


The metal objects were dated to anywhere between 1800 BC and 2,400 BC. So we are assuming they were made during 2200 BC,"


Or they could have been made 1800BC...?

1800 BC is still older than had been previously evidenced (around 1200 BC.)

Harte



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 03:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: maddy21
This is one possible evidence that humanity is older than we think.

I think it's pretty well established that humanity has been around since before 2200 B.C., so no, this is "possible evidence" of no such thing.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 03:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Soloprotocol


The metal objects were dated to anywhere between 1800 BC and 2,400 BC. So we are assuming they were made during 2200 BC,"


Or they could have been made 1800BC...?

1800 BC is still older than had been previously evidenced (around 1200 BC.)

Harte

I'm pretty sure the Egyptians were using iron as early as 1600 BC...What's a couple of Hundred years when you are using a dating method that allows for over half a millennia of wiggle room in it's findings.

My only surprise is they found the object in India, my money would have been on Ancient Iraq or the Chinese.
edit on 23-5-2015 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2015 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 04:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Soloprotocol


The metal objects were dated to anywhere between 1800 BC and 2,400 BC. So we are assuming they were made during 2200 BC,"


Or they could have been made 1800BC...?

1800 BC is still older than had been previously evidenced (around 1200 BC.)

Harte

I'm pretty sure the Egyptians were using iron as early as 1600 BC...What's a couple of Hundred years when you are using a dating method that allows for over half a millennia of wiggle room in it's findings.

My only surprise is they found the object in India, my money would have been on Ancient Iraq or the Chinese.


I meant to say 1200 BC in India.

However:

Native iron of meteoric origin with a high nickel content was the first metallic iron to be used during the pre-dynastic. According to the written records the first smelted iron reached Egypt from Tinay, an unknown country probably in western Asia

[The tribute of the chief] of Tinay: a silver vessel of the work of the Keftyew, together with vessels of iron, 4 hands of silver, making 56 deben, 1 kidet .........
The annals of Thutmose III
J.H.Breasted Ancient Records of Egypt, Part Two, § 537

This being the only mention of iron in 18th dynasty documents one may assume that iron was still fairly rare in western Asia at the time. The papyrus Harris, a very extensive and detailed inventory of items donated to temples by Ramses III mentions iron just once, in a listing of Nile god statues made of various metals: Iron, a statue of the Nile god, nusa.
During the New Kingdom and the Third Intermediate Period no or little iron was produced locally, and finds are few. In the seventh century BCE Ionians began to settle in the Delta and seem to have brought with them the know-how necessary for working iron. Naukratis and Defenneh became the great Egyptian centres of iron tools manufacture. Once they got going it took only about a century for the production of iron implements to equal the manufacture of bronze tools and weapons.

source

Edited to add - Iron production started quite late in China:


The Iron Age in China began in 600 BC and is taken to last until the rise of the Qin Dynasty in the 3rd century BC, ushering in the Early Imperial period.

Wiki

Harte
edit on 5/23/2015 by Harte because: of the wonderful things he does!



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: deckdel

Absolutely right about the underwater cities, I suspect we would all get a shock comparing modern day archaeologist's/academics etc ideas with reality.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Surely we are more interested in the beginnings of Dwarka than its ending sunken in the Middle Ages - many cities stand for millennia so why shouldn't Dwarka or other Indian cities. One thing that is documented is that many men went to India to study and were it a 'young' civilisation there would be little point in doing so.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

Sounds reasonable.

To become a place of international study, it follows that India must have been an established centre of excellence in various disciplines, which also means it was ahead of many other places, ergo, it developed technological processes and higher academic principles much earlier than elsewhere.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: maddy21

Considering they've found cities 60 m below the sea surface 10 km off coast - you bet the Indian civilisation is staggeringly old.


A wild claim. Got any evidence?

And you can leave Dawarka out of it, given that it sank in the Medieval period.

Harte


Proof?

just one find:

discovered off the coast of Gujarat, in the Gulf of Khambhat. The site was discovered by NIOT while they performed routine pollution studies using sonar, and was described as an area of regularly spaced geometric structures. It is located 20 km from the Gujarat coast, spans 9 km, and can be found at a depth of 30–40 meters. In his announcement, Joshi represented the site as an urban settlement that pre-dates the Indus Valley Civilization

It is located 20 km from the Gujarat coast, spans 9 km, and can be found at a depth of 30–40 meters...
...the piece of wood was carbon dated to an age of 9,500 years old

en.wikipedia.org...

also
see my siggy thread re the Dravidians and their great age and accomplishments
Hartes has all ready read it...proof is a two way street innit?
some appear to be here not to learn, but to bash...
edit on Satam5b20155America/Chicago25 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on Satam5b20155America/Chicago06 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


history has already been re written
edit on Satam5b20155America/Chicago53 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
an earlier than expected Iron Age in parts of the Indian subcontinent is not so strange

it seems that when Europe, Africa, far east asia were little more than Neolithic tribal groups that were pushed to enter into the copper age

see OP:

Which means there was a more advanced civilisation in Deccan area in India than the Indus Valley Civilization. Could this be a possible successor of the Proto Elamites ?


I always considered India to have been the fabled Atlantis ( 10k years before Plato)
and the spread of technology to Egypt and other places world wide...was from fleeing intelligentsia of the subcontinent about to slam into central Asia coastline... the Deccan Traps volcanos was the precursor which led to the mass exodus so that humanity might not devolve into cavemen culture again (I know the millions of years are compressed into a single lifespan of 120 years, but I await further discoveries, artefacts, even a flight vehicle to be discovered in India
(Vimanas)== www.bibliotecapleyades.net...



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: Harte

Surely we are more interested in the beginnings of Dwarka than its ending sunken in the Middle Ages - many cities stand for millennia so why shouldn't Dwarka or other Indian cities.

I'd be interested in that, yes.

I'm not interested in the implied claim of great antiquity - simply because the site lies beneath the sea - that is found in the post I responded to.


originally posted by: Shiloh7One thing that is documented is that many men went to India to study and were it a 'young' civilisation there would be little point in doing so.

I don't see the connection you're making here. I mean, wouldn't that depend on the time frame of your claim?

For example, it's quite true that many men went to Greece to study. The same goes for Rome. Does this lend credence to the Greek or Roman Civilizations rising out of great antiquity?

Harte



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Danbones

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: maddy21

Considering they've found cities 60 m below the sea surface 10 km off coast - you bet the Indian civilisation is staggeringly old.


A wild claim. Got any evidence?

And you can leave Dawarka out of it, given that it sank in the Medieval period.

Harte


Proof?

just one find:

discovered off the coast of Gujarat, in the Gulf of Khambhat. The site was discovered by NIOT while they performed routine pollution studies using sonar, and was described as an area of regularly spaced geometric structures. It is located 20 km from the Gujarat coast, spans 9 km, and can be found at a depth of 30–40 meters. In his announcement, Joshi represented the site as an urban settlement that pre-dates the Indus Valley Civilization

It is located 20 km from the Gujarat coast, spans 9 km, and can be found at a depth of 30–40 meters...
...the piece of wood was carbon dated to an age of 9,500 years old

en.wikipedia.org...

also
see my siggy thread re the Dravidians and their great age and accomplishments
Hartes has all ready read it...proof is a two way street innit?
some appear to be here not to learn, but to bash...

history has already been re written

At least you didn't call it Dwarka, this time, like so many of the fringe sites you frequent erroneously do.

A few pieces of wood and some worm tubes dredged up out of a gulf - which, incidentally, receives the lion's share of the drainage for that part of the Indian subcontinent - is not evidence of an ancient civilization.

Claims made by Graham Hancock and a tourism board in India can't cut it when trying to justify the claim of extremely ancient civilizations in India.

On the other hand, I'd be interested to see any actual evidence. It is in examining real, not imaginary, evidence that we "learn" and not by latching on to the fraudulent claims of the profiteers of ignorance.

Perhaps deckdel has some. You'll note that I asked him.

Harte



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte


Iron production started quite late in China

And later still in Southeast Asia.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   
There's sonar evidence of multiple sunken cities off the Indian coast. And many other coasts (Indonesia, Polynesia). By their depth we can ascertain when they would have been above water due to the rising sea levels after the last ice age. Some of these sites have been dived but the naysayers pass off structures as naturally formed objects. With the technology we have right now I doubt we can explore inside structures and retrieve items if they exist.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logman
There's sonar evidence of multiple sunken cities off the Indian coast. And many other coasts (Indonesia, Polynesia). By their depth we can ascertain when they would have been above water due to the rising sea levels after the last ice age.

Can you link us to these amazing findings?

Harte







 
5

log in

join