Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SLAYER69
Sorry. I meant how is the mythology of Dwarka relevant to this discussion. Of course civilizations have disappeared but ancient Dwarka (the
submerged one, there is another site being claimed to be Krisha's city) was not part of a previously unknown civilization. It was part of the
Harappan civilization. In the same was Troy was part of the Aegean civilization.
Troy appears in mythology because it was a great power in its day. Dwarka appears because it was Krishna's city. If mythology is now entering this
discussion (due to lack of much other evidence), then where is the mythological link to the alleged "Cambay City"?
Hey Phage sorry for taking so long to get back to you. Real Life has a way of creeping in you know....
Myth vs mythology.
First off I will say that I do not believe most of the mythology surrounding such claims. I do however feel that hidden within those tales is again
the tiniest kernel of fact.
Separate the wheat from the chaff?
Mythology in my opinion is the result of nothing more than a giant game of telephone played by school children. As you know where they all line up in
a straight row and the child at the front of the line whispers something into the ear of the child next to them and they in turn pass the message down
in the same manner and so on.
By the time it gets to the end and the last child reveals what was whispered in his ear it has very little similarity if any at all to what the first
child whispered at the front of the line. Now imagine passing down a tale of a massive coastal flooding where their whole city/village was destroyed.
Being primitives they would have said many things were the cause most likely the wrath of god. To them their "whole world" was flooded as they knew
it.
If we read a Greek story in their mythology about how Zeus was angry one day at the people so he took out his wrath on them where the sky thundered
and lighting bolts flew from his arse does this mean that on that day there wasn't a horribly destructive naturally occurring thunder and lightning
storm which they later made a tale to explain it?
Harappan civilization
There is very little concrete proof that Dwarka was actually a part of that civilization. There are very many similarities between the two. But to the
untrained eye so are the similarities between ROME and Greece. However it does prove again what I have been speculating in that Dwarka was a separate
and older location and was submerged before the Harappan showed up pretty much out of nowhere. Again We had "myths" first that were passed down
surrounding it's location. Then we had scientific proof later of their existence. Remember there is very little if any evidence of a development
stage like what we see in Egypt.
Yet the Harappan had sewage and water storage and city street layouts an extremely well thought out infrastructure at the earliest point in their
existence. Where do you supposed that early development phase took place if not there or anywhere near by?
It had to have had a development phase and location. So far there has been no big discoveries on land. We do however have a very real possibility of a
much older location just off the coast that does not fly in the face of other sciences about this possibility.
Harappan Civilization
One of the most fascinating yet mysterious cultures of the ancient world is the Harappan civilization. This culture existed along the Indus River
in present day Pakistan. It was named after the city of Harappa which it was centered around. Harappa and the city of Mohenjo-Daro were the greatest
achievements of the Indus valley civilization. These cities are well known for their impressive, organized and regular layout.
Over one hundred other towns and villages also existed in this region. The Harappan people were literate and used the Dravidian language. Only part of
this language has been deciphered today, leaving numerous questions about this civilization unanswered.
Harrapan origin theories
There are several theories as to the origin of the Indus Valley civilization. The earliest hypothesis was that it was an early form of a Vedic
civilization which would come to dominate most of South Asia, which was presumed to have been characterized by influence from Indo-European
migrations. However, this theory began to be rejected when no signs of the traditional culture associated with the Vedas was uncovered in that of the
Indus Valley. The absence of horses amongst the many realistic representations of animals was also considered significant, considering the importance
of horses and chariots to the culture described in the Vedas. Detailed bone analysis has revealed that the horse itself was introduced to the
subcontinent only at the beginning of the second millennium B.C., which contributes to the chronological problem with this theory.[35][36] Finally,
the concept of urban life which dominates the Indus Valley civilization is foreign to the more rural lifestyle which is described in the Vedas.[37]
The next theory put forward was that the civilization was of proto-Dravidian origin.[38] This theory was first proposed by researchers from Russia and
Finland who attempted to show that Indus valley symbols could be derived from the Dravidian language group. Today, the Dravidian language family is
concentrated mostly in southern India and northern Sri Lanka, but pockets of it still remain throughout the rest of India and Pakistan (the Brahui
language), which lends credence to the theory. Finnish Indologist Asko Parpola concludes that the uniformity of the Indus inscriptions precludes any
possibility of widely different languages being used, and that an early form of Dravidian language must have been the language of the Indus people.
However, the proto-Dravidian origin theory is far from being confirmed due to an emphasis on linguistic connection while evidence of a broader
cultural connection remains to be found.[37]
Geneticist:
On one hand we have a very real genetic lineage of the Aboriginals of Australia tied to some blood lines in India this line was established over
60.000 to 70.000 years ago and some have argued as old as 80.000 years. They didn't sail there so the most obvious route would be coastal migration
along the now sunken Indian coast. The exact location we are discussing.
DNA confirms coastal trek to AustraliaDNA evidence linking Indian tribes
to Australian Aboriginal people supports the theory humans arrived in Australia from Africa via a southern coastal route through India, say
researchers.
The research, lead by Dr Raghavendra Rao from the Anthropological Survey of India, is published in the current edition of BMC Evolutionary Biology.
One theory is that modern humans arrived in Australia via an inland route through central Asia but Rao says most scientists believe modern humans
arrived via the coast of South Asia.
Skeletal remains, dating back between 40-60,000 years from Lake Mungo in New South Wales, also support the theory that modern human arrived in
Australia at least as far back as this, he says.
Climatology and Geology:
The other two sciences that offer collaboration is Climatology and Geology both sciences have proven these locations where at one time dry land and
well before that 10.000 mark you mentioned.
Sea Level Rise, After the Ice Melted and Today
Massive ice sheets covered parts of North America, northern Europe, and several other regions during the last ice age. This huge volume of ice
lowered global sea level by around 120 meters as compared to today. After the ice sheets began to melt and retreat, sea level rose rapidly, with
several periods of even faster spurts. The first such spurt may have started about 19,000 years ago, at which time ocean levels rose 10-15 m in less
than 500 years. However, this event is not seen in all past sea level records and new evidence suggests that ice melting may have begun much earlier.
A more clearly-defined accelerated phase of sea level rise occurred between 14,600 to 13,500 years before present (termed "meltwater pulse 1A" or
"MWP-1A" by Fairbanks in 1989), when sea level increased by some 16 to 24 m (see Figure 1). Although the meltwater was previously believed to have
come chiefly from Antarctica, a recent reconstruction by Tarasov and Peltier of ice sheet retreat using a glacial model calibrated by a variety of
data points instead to a largely North American source. Furthermore, diatom fossils in sediments from fjords in East Antarctica show that ice melting
there began perhaps 3000 years later, thus ruling out Antarctica as a likely source.
[edit on 19-8-2009 by SLAYER69]
