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.
fter an unusually low tide revealed what appeared to be the remnants of a 4-kilometer-long wall, a diver discovered what could be one of the most important archaeological underwater discoveries in the last century. According to researchers, Allen Sutten a local scuba diver could have found the remains of Rhapta, an ancient city dating back some 2,000 years. Rhapta was a prominent marketplace said to have existed somewhere on the southeastern coast of the African Continent. It rose to prominence during the 1st century CE. Before the low tides revealed the giant wall off the coast of Africa, there were a couple of theories where the city was located. However never before has conclusive evidence been found proving that the ‘lost’ city had actually existed Based on the ancient Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, Rhapta was ‘the last marketplace of Azania’ located two days’ travel south from the Menouthias islands. However, Claudius Ptolemy, a prosperous merchant said Rhapta was located ‘where the river of the same name enters the Indian Ocean opposite the Island of Menouthias.’ The lost city of ‘Rhapta’ was documented in Ptolemy’s Geography as Africa’s first metropolis. According to Ptolemy, it was one of the wealthiest cities of its time and was considered among merchants as a trading hub for metal weapons and tortoiseshell.
www.ewao.com...
originally posted by: GemmyMcGemJew
I would like to think most coasts would of had some form of sonar/radar one throughout history. Clearly I was wrong with sort of assumption. I think this may spur some explorers to infant do this on many "unexplored" coasts.
This actually makes perfect sense. For those who are willing to interpret the geologic evidence honestly, it's plain that sea levels used to be lower, as in the case of this city. And going back about ten-twelve thousand years, they were hundreds of feet lower. And naturally, the largest and most numerous settlements that existed at those times were located where there was easy access to food- on the shoreline, of course. While this info doesn't support the current prevailing historical/scientific narratives, there's plenty of evidence to support it. Perhaps most amazing of all, those changes in worldwide ocean level weren't caused by that Era of human civilization producing CO2, but by natural/astronomical causes! Very interesting, always cool when another piece of the puzzle is found. Thanks for sharing!
originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: Spider879
This is a really cool story and I am eager to know more. Specifically a question that keeps running through my mind is...possibly naive on my part but I will ask anyway...
How does this find completely alter our understanding of history or how could it?
originally posted by: PLAYERONE01
well good on him, it's amazing how people can easily accept the ancient finds in some places but not in others, and will refute them profusely for what they are.
originally posted by: M4nWithNoN4me
This actually makes perfect sense. For those who are willing to interpret the geologic evidence honestly, it's plain that sea levels used to be lower, as in the case of this city. And going back about ten-twelve thousand years, they were hundreds of feet lower. And naturally, the largest and most numerous settlements that existed at those times were located where there was easy access to food- on the shoreline, of course. While this info doesn't support the current prevailing historical/scientific narratives, there's plenty of evidence to support it.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Spider879
Excellent post.
I read the article but it does not give the location of the ruins. Where are they?
originally posted by: Harte
I've never seen any refutation for the existence of Rhapta.
After all, it's existence was documented in literature, just not with physical evidence.
Arguments over exact location (and remember, the site has not been positively identified) are not refutation of the "lost city."
Harte
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Spider879
Much further down the coast than I expected. It would be interesting to know if the Greeks and Romans physically made it there along with some of the Indus valley natives as well.