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.

 

A 2,000-year-old ‘lost’ city found off the Coast of Africa:

page: 2
41
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Spider879

Thank you. Great link.

There was obviously much more direct interaction then has been suspected even 10-20 years ago.


Yes and further a field too as I said this looked like the same net work as centuries later under the Swahili there are cities and towns and I don't even recognize more than likely equally sunken or lost.




posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

Either way, great post. Your anthropology/archeology threads are always a good read.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Spider879

Either way, great post. Your anthropology/archeology threads are always a good read.







posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   


could completely alter our understanding of history


Yes it could... but I bet it will not.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   

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.


Actually, geologists are well familiar with subsidence -- a number of our modern cities are sinking into the sea (like New Orleans.) It's a slow process.

And archaeologists are also aware of this - the most famous example is the sunken part of the city of Alexandria.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Don't forget the several Roman port towns in Italy that have sunk beneath the waves, or the most famous subsiding city in the world, Venice.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

Brilliant find, My take on it is this, they are associating a mysterious find of a submerged coastal city with that of the city mentioned in ancient literary sources, is it that city or perhaps another?.
The balance of the evidence what little there is of it as of yet is that it matches roughly the area described and is probably that city but it is not a proven fact that it is that city as of yet.
If you have been following other thread's and even the general information available you already know the world is filled with mysterious sunken city's, the most controversial of which face constant denial attitudes (not constructive critique but outright blind faced denial) by a whole group whom seem to set out with the singular motive of denying such find's.

This happily does not fall into that catagorie (yet) as it is a probably location of a recorded site but to draw a comparison the city's near to Dwark India faced such denial despite actual artifact's and I can name one fellow on this same thread whom actively denied there existance to myself in a previous thread but shall not name the said culprit he know's whom he is.

Now so as not to cause thread drift back to this city site and to stay on it.

By the time the portuguese made there way around the cape and up the eastern african coast they encountered many fabulously wealthy city's, there history's are by and large lost to us at this time because of course they saw only the potential to raid and loot these fabulously wealthy african culture's using there cannon and musquette to defeat the native trader's and burning them to the ground, many but by no mean's proven to have been all of them of these city's were of course by this time islamic since the majority of the trade route's via Arabia, some of these city's may also have been christian but sadly there legacy's was stamped out by the vandalism of the portuguese of that period so it is not inconceivable that one of them may have been the successor of the city mentioned in the ancient commentaries.

Then came the Spaniard's, the French, the British, the Dutch and even the German's with of course the Belgian's and even the Italian's following in there footsteps.
If you ever wonder why some african's feel so bitter toward us have a look at this but remember some thread's on the internet have a skewed opinion usually based on reverse racism but the fact's nevertheless stand for themselve's but the entrenched attitude that they were somehow less civilized than the europeans despite the evidence being to the contrary is obviouse even today.
www.bbc.co.uk...
www.linkedin.com...
afritorial.com...
wikis.engrade.com...

So it is not surprising therefore that these city state's, kingdom's and lost african empire's one had more ancient ancestor city's, indeed some of them may even have been just as old or perhaps even one of them could have been the very city these ruin's are being associated with and therefore these ruin's could be a completely different city?.




edit on 8-6-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Hi LABtech,

With respect to the Portuguese, if you have not read it, you might find "Into The Rising Sun" by Luc Cuyvers interesting.
It details the Portuguese age of exploration, which started much earlier than Spanish or Italian efforts.
The Portuguese were very secretive in their nautical endevors, and might very well have been in the new world before columbus, if they were the only people that would have known was the captain and crew and the King and a very small group of coutiers.
The book mentions how when the Spanish made it to Brazil, they wrote that there were already working Portuguese sugar plantations on some of the offshore islands, that were already being worked by african slaves. The Portuguese started the European African slave trade in the late 14th-early 15th century, but they never seem to get any guff about that.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Jericho is that old. Remind me again of why it's not submerged?

because it about 80km inland from the mediterranean near the dead sea with no inlets. and its not located on an ancient shoreline



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: username74

and we should probably read this
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: username74

and we should probably read this
en.wikipedia.org...


On the coast of England, the coastline has retreated inland by three miles over 500+ years. There are maps that show country roads and villages that no longer exist. Whenever there are severe storms that can disintegrate up to 20 meters of cliffs in places.

Extrapolate that over 2000 years and the coastline of any African country could have retreated by 12 miles. That would eliminate any large city.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Yes there must be other cities sunken beneath the waves , Sofola while not entirely lost to history did replaced Rhapta as the southern most port city maybe not planned that way but, the rulers of Tanzania where Rhapta is supposedly located set up shop there and as in more ancient times, Somalis, Arabs, Indians and Persians traded there, however while that city's day to day affairs was controlled by the Swahili and the Tanzanians specifically, it was ruled by Zimbabwe a powerful inland empire , with whom they had to pay rent and differed to, this arrangement was a boon for all and lasted until the Portuguese came with very little to trade with, except lots of fire power .
edit on 8-6-2016 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
That's pretty cool. Who want to bet Ancient Aliens will try to lap this up?



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10




The book mentions how when the Spanish made it to Brazil, they wrote that there were already working Portuguese sugar plantations on some of the offshore islands, that were already being worked by african slaves. The Portuguese started the European African slave trade in the late 14th-early 15th century, but they never seem to get any guff about that.


Lines dividing the non-Christian world between Spain and Portugal: the 1494 Tordesillas meridian (
Thus when the Pope split the so-called world in half the Portuguese didn't complain for they may have known about Brazil, and yes the Portuguese do get guff but being that most of us concerned our selves with Anglo American history it may seemed that way.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879




Right on spider,
Cool thread BTW



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: username74

and we should probably read this
en.wikipedia.org...


On the coast of England, the coastline has retreated inland by three miles over 500+ years. There are maps that show country roads and villages that no longer exist. Whenever there are severe storms that can disintegrate up to 20 meters of cliffs in places.

Extrapolate that over 2000 years and the coastline of any African country could have retreated by 12 miles. That would eliminate any large city.


I was told a story by a 80 something year old lady where i once stayed , She pointed way way out to sea and said , when she was a girl they farmed out there .

I asked people of a similar age around the village of this and it appears the lady was telling the truth about how far the sea had moved in that 70 + years



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

Jericho is that old. Remind me again of why it's not submerged?

because it about 80km inland from the mediterranean near the dead sea with no inlets. and its not located on an ancient shoreline

So, everyone didn't live on the ocean, where, by the way, there is very little potable water?

I see. Then, only the "advanced" and "lost" civilizations are covered by the seas.

Harte



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

Jericho is that old. Remind me again of why it's not submerged?

because it about 80km inland from the mediterranean near the dead sea with no inlets. and its not located on an ancient shoreline

I guess you missed this claim in the post I quoted:

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.

I mean, it's the reason I quoted it. But, whatever...

Anyway, there's certainly not "plenty of evidence to support" that claim.
None, is more like it.

Harte



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: punkinworks10




The book mentions how when the Spanish made it to Brazil, they wrote that there were already working Portuguese sugar plantations on some of the offshore islands, that were already being worked by african slaves. The Portuguese started the European African slave trade in the late 14th-early 15th century, but they never seem to get any guff about that.


Lines dividing the non-Christian world between Spain and Portugal: the 1494 Tordesillas meridian (
Thus when the Pope split the so-called world in half the Portuguese didn't complain for they may have known about Brazil, and yes the Portuguese do get guff but being that most of us concerned our selves with Anglo American history it may seemed that way.

The map contains the reason the Piri Reis map shows South America jutting Eastward.

Harte



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

yep missed it.
quite agree with you.
edit on 9-6-2016 by username74 because: blehhhh



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join