Ancient Cities found under the ocean in India

reply to post by SLAYER69


i guess i'd have to be curious how you would know where the center of civilization is? was someone else doing these things that we consider civilized? was there someone else weaving and firing clay and living in permanent open air villages, worshipping and providing social support and playing music and creating amazing art and displaying hierachy and herding extensively etc at this time?

i think the dark halls might be somewhere other than europe.

reply to post by Parta


Look I'm simply discussing the history of other locations besides Europe. If you cant get passed that then that's your own issues.

reply to post by SLAYER69


it is sometimes unfortunate that it is a big world and that we just can't isolate little bits and pieces for people that have some point to prove or fantasy to live.

i didn't bring europe up but whatever was being said about it needed a little fact thrown in for good measure.

[edit] by the way, i am not european. i have actually been blessed with no cultural affiliations whatsoever.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Parta]

reply to post by Parta


What facts? Your video talks about a natural cave complex made over 2 million years ago. that was later used by man then jumps to the 13th century AD? Nothing in the video contradicts anything that has been discussed thus far. Your point? We are discussing the possibility of mans journey between 9000BC or older and present.


[edit on 31-8-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by SLAYER69



well any meaningful discussion requires we understand a greater part of the geography of the world than you were aware of. the video was placed there when you all were talking about submerged peoples. you can talk about the aegean, someone else about the black sea but i can't bring up that sea that was in the center of europe that few people know about?

seems unfair. genetically these poor europeans were the same as both ages of indian brahmans. is it ok to mention europe now?

reply to post by Parta


Unfair? No.

Please feel free to discus anything you wish. Be advised though. That that sea dried up over 2 million years ago. Watch your own video again. Then later it talks about man carving it out at a much later period. Again. Maybe you need to reread this entire thread. I am well aware of other cultures. We were originally discussing India. But Troy and ancient Greece was brought into the conversation.

I am preparing to write a thread of my own and it will include much of what you are talking about as part of a much larger discussion. Yes I was already aware of the inland sea. It is not new news to many.

reply to post by SLAYER69


in the video it says it dried up mysteriously sometime in the last 10ky. that is the official position of hungarian science. i might also mention mr bela liptak at yale and even the world court at the hague [hungary vs slovakia gobsacovo canal] on the date it disappeared. wiki is of course failing you at this moment.

the national geological institute of romania has an interesting piece you can google. atlantis and middle danube.

reply to post by Parta


Parta

I dont know where you are going with this. It does not contradict anything discussed thus far. I'll do this for you. When I post my new thread about this very topic. I'll be sure to U2U a invitation and we can discuss it all you want.

Fair enough?

We are getting way way off topic.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by SLAYER69


i'll watch for it. the last time you went places i couldn't go.

Slayer,

As you are finding, you waste your breath trying to communicate any idea to Parta.

I can't see what he's saying because I've had him on ignore for a year or so now.

However, I will chime in here to let everyone know that there is not likely to be any "9,000 year old city" on the floor of the Gulf of Khambat.

The date itself is from a piece of wood dredged up. How bogus is that?
After all, it is a gulf, and it is the recipient of the runoff of a huge portion of the Indian Subcontinent.

The wood might be 9,000 years old. The fact that it lay on the ocean floor in the area says nothing at all about any "structures" under the water.

The "pottery" found there wasn't pottery at all.
Here's a LINK that shows that the so-called "pottery" was simply sediment that had been cemented together through the natural workings of tube worms of various kinds on the ocean floor.

Why anyone would be surprised to find really old stuff buried in the sediments on the floor of a major gulf that receives a huge amount of runoff from a large portion of India is beyond me. Are we to imagine that nothing was ever washed into the river, and thus onto the Gulf floor, during the Harappan Civilization or even before?

Those of you that think to date this by the "melting of glaciers" at the end of the last ice age should think again as well. The Indian Subcontinent is part of the Indo-Australian plate, a tectonic plate which today is partially over an old subduction zone. Parts of India and the area west of there - including Australia - have been bobbing up and down like a hooker on Saturday night - at least when their movement is considered in the scale of geological time.

Heck, part of the plate is still submerged today after several million years. Indonesia represents the mountaintops of this continent that was dragged underwater millions of years ago. Here's a pdf from Scientific American about it and about the process of subduction.

LINK2

Anyway, there's no reason to believe that the Gulf of Cambay (Khambhat) was flooded by icemelt. The same goes for Dwarka which was inundated only a thousand years or so B.C.

Nothing says that there is any truly "ancient" civilization from India . As far as we know, at least.

Harte

[edit on 8/31/2009 by Harte]

harte would like you all to know that he is a high school math teacher and self proclaimed failed atlantologist.

i say if thats all you need to hear to feel confident about the info you get from him then have at it.

this message will probably destruct [not self] in 10 minutes but his snipe at me will no doubt last for all eternity.

Originally posted by Phage not sedimentary.

Perhaps, but you can date organic thingies in the layers of sediment that settle on TOP of the stone chips made from carving the stone... That will get you close.

Isn't that how they figured out when Gobeki Tepe was buried in 8000 BC?

reply to post by zorgon

Um. Yes.

Originally posted by Phage
When a stone was cut (or added to a wall) cannot be determined without using carbon dating of organic materials associated with them.

"Associated" would apply to material found in the same layer. While stone artifacts found in a layer beneath dated organic material can be assumed to be older, the actual dating of such items cannot be determined with any certainty.

The dating of Gobekli Tepe may not be the best example;

The archaeologists did find evidence of tool use, including stone hammers and blades. And because those artifacts closely resemble others from nearby sites previously carbon-dated to about 9000 B.C., Schmidt and co-workers estimate that Gobekli Tepe's stone structures are the same age. Limited carbon dating undertaken by Schmidt at the site confirms this assessment.

www.smithsonianmag.com...

Apparently the on site carbon dating as done with charcoal found at the site but I can't find anything other than what wiki says about it.

The Hd samples are from charcoal in the lowest levels of the site and would date the active phase of occupation. The Ua samples come from pedogenic carbonate coatings on pillars and only indicate a time after the site was abandoned—the terminus ante quem. [4]

en.wikipedia.org...

Organic material associated with the stones. Stones cannot be dated (tell that to Jerry Hall).

Originally posted by Phage

...Organic material associated with the stones. Stones cannot be dated (tell that to Jerry Hall).

Good one. Didn't catch it till I hit Wikipedia.

My knowledge of the Vedas / Harappan culture and such are quite limited. But I have heard of the "radioactive ash" sites. The last I read attributed them to an inadvertent concentration of radioactive material as a byproduct of ancient copper smelting. High concentrations of Uranium can and do occur naturally. Witness the Oklo natural reactors in Africa.

reply to post by Harte

The "pottery" found there wasn't pottery at all.Here's a LINK that shows that the so-called "pottery" was simply sediment that had been cemented together through the natural workings of tube worms of various kinds on the ocean floor.

Hi,
I'm not really sure how to word this, but those objects in the image/fig1 do look hand made to me. If you look at the bottom of the object, you will see that it looks rounded. Why would that occur if it due to the sediment laminating over the years? Also, the unique shape of each, such as going from a fat base to a thinner neck and then exteniding back out at the mouth, seems obvious to me that it might be a water jar/ vase of some sort.

I guess what would be the deciding factor, if these 'vases' are hollow or not. I am no expert on archaeology, but that just seems obvious to me...

Although, if it is a naturally forming, nature is amasing. Just saw some other pics of a similar nature and when the item is held in the hand, looks very small. Weird.
Link:www.grahamhancock.com...

[edit on 06/10/2009 by jinx880101]

Originally posted by jinx880101

Hi,
I'm not really sure how to word this, but those objects in the image/fig1 do look hand made to me. If you look at the bottom of the object, you will see that it looks rounded. Why would that occur if it due to the sediment laminating over the years? Also, the unique shape of each, such as going from a fat base to a thinner neck and then exteniding back out at the mouth, seems obvious to me that it might be a water jar/ vase of some sort.

I guess what would be the deciding factor, if these 'vases' are hollow or not. I am no expert on archaeology, but that just seems obvious to me...

Maybe I've misremembered, but I believe the site I linked answers the questions you've asked.

These "shapes" are cemented together by the mucus exuded by the tubeworms that make the original holes in the ocean floor. The reason for the various layers is that sediment forms at various rates and from various materials at different times. In one layer, the sediment may allow more of the mucus to spread farther out from the hole because that sediment layer isn't as dense as the one just above or below it. You can see the great variation in sediment when you look at the Sphinx, for example (though the sediment in the Sphinx's case is today limestone, while the "pottery" that is not pottery is simply sediment stuck together by mucus.)

The shapes shown on the site I linked (IIRC) are not even from the Gulf of Khambhat.

The rounded bottoms reflect the collection of more mucus in the bottoms of the holes, I believe. A greater mass of mucus there would allow for a wider dispersal of the mucus into the sediment. Basically, the mucus soaks out in a spherical pattern from the center.

The objects shown are "hollow" in a way. There is a hole in the center through them almost all the way to the bottom where the worm used to live.

BTW, you can see a couple of pics of the so-called "pottery" from the Gulf of Khambhat on Hancock's website. There is a lot of content there so you'll need to search, but I've seen them before. They aren't even as impressive as the ones on the site I linked.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte
Those of you that think to date this by the "melting of glaciers" at the end of the last ice age should think again as well. The Indian Subcontinent is part of the Indo-Australian plate, a tectonic plate which today is partially over an old subduction zone. Parts of India and the area west of there - including Australia - have been bobbing up and down like a hooker on Saturday night - at least when their movement is considered in the scale of geological time.

Heck, part of the plate is still submerged today after several million years. Indonesia represents the mountaintops of this continent that was dragged underwater millions of years ago. Here's a pdf from Scientific American about it and about the process of subduction.

Thanks for the reply Harte.

I was hesitating about posting these yet. I've been gathering more information for my new thread that I keep threatening to post. I don't want to give the whole thing away in this thread but Phage went west into the Mediterranean. So I focused on that. Now you brought up Australia. So lets go East.

Again keep in mind the light blue areas were exposed land when the oceans where as much as 130m lower than they are now. There would have been vast areas that were exposed dry land around the time in question.

Pleistocene

The Pleistocene (pronounced /ˈplaɪstəsiːn/) is the epoch from 2.588 million to 12 000 years BP covering the world's recent period of repeated glaciations.

Each glacial advance tied up huge volumes of water in continental ice sheets 1500–3000 m thick, resulting in temporary sea level drops of 100 m or more over the entire surface of the Earth. During interglacial times, such as at present, drowned coastlines were common, mitigated by isostatic or other emergent motion of some regions.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8152501bf479.jpg[/atsimg]
Earliest Australian

THE FIRST INHABITANTS : Last May, the Australian National University released this photograph, taken in 1974, of the skeleton of a man from Lake Mungo, NSW which the university has now dated at between 56,000 and 68,000 years old. Previously, the remains had been dated at just 30,000 years old. REUTERS FILE PHOTO

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/649998d9839d.jpg[/atsimg]

Interesting tibit

Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) researchers have opened a window into the past by exposing ancient mangrove forests entombed beneath the Great Barrier Reef.

AIMS biologist Dr Dan Alongi said the expedition was surveying the impact of nutrients on coastal inshore areas when scientists unearthed mangrove forests in old river channels they believe may snake for 30 kilometres to the edge of the continental shelf.

Scientists have long theorised that sea level rose very gradually over several thousand years, but these remnant mangrove forests tell another story.

While it was previously known that relic river beds exist beneath the Great Barrier Reef, formed 9000 years ago when the sea level was lower than the continental shelf, their significance was never studied.

"When we took the first samples it was difficult to believe… we stood amazed wondering what exactly we were dealing with. We thought it was cyclone debris, but it was far too deep to be a modern event," said Dr Alongi.

AIMS researchers cored 1-2 metres of sediment and found remnant mangrove 70 centimetres below the surface of the present seafloor.

These core samples of mud are an evolutionary time frame. The evidence will help to establish the state of the reef and nutrient sediment information as it existed prior to human activity.

Dr Alongi said the mangroves were incredibly well preserved; a fact most likely attributed to the antibiotic properties in the concentrated tannins. "The cores still have the characteristic smell of tannins, that’s why we thought they were young.

"Within the cores were intact root systems and parts of trees including twigs and branches that radiocarbon dating put between 8550 and 8740 years of age.

"There’s such an abrupt change in core composition from mud-like substance to intact mangrove branches…from the modern to the ancient, that it suggests a large climate change happened," said Dr Alongi.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3a77b78bf36c.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3cc6c6ffe5e8.png[/atsimg]

Land bridge

Migration was achieved during the closing stages of the Pleistocene, when sea levels were much lower than they are today. Repeated episodes of extended glaciation during the Pleistocene epoch, resulted in decreases of sea levels by more than 100 metres in Australasia. The continental coastline extended much further out into the Timor Sea, and Australia and New Guinea formed a single landmass (known as Sahul), connected by an extensive land bridge across the Arafura Sea, Gulf of Carpentaria and Torres Strait. Nevertheless, the sea still presented a major obstacle so it is theorised that these ancestral people reached Australia by island hopping. Two routes have been proposed. One follows an island chain between Sulawesi and New Guinea and the other reaches North Western Australia via Timor.

The sharing of animal and plant species between Australia-New Guinea and nearby Indonesian islands is another consequence of the early land bridges, which closed when sea levels rose with the end of the last glacial period. The sea level stabilised to near its present levels about 6000 years ago, flooding the land bridge between Australia and New Guinea.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by Harte


Thanks for the reply Harte,

Yes, I did look at the link and then did a google search and posted the link for the site I found. If I have to be totaly honest here, I would say that at first glance the objects in your link look like hand made vases or pottery. But if you read more, you would see that the objects are only 4cm tall, so therefor I would say that they are not. On the link I posted, it gives you more pics with a more accurate view on how big these objects are, as it is held in the hand. So, if you look at it that way you see it is a naturally forming object. So, I would agree with you that it is not pottery.

Saying that, the red pieces of broken 'pottery' could be just that. I believe that if it is +-8000 years old, pottery would not remain intact.
I am not opposed to the findings of an Ancient civilization, and I do believe that people won't just make these things up. It would actualy be completely normal and logical. I believe they just need more sound proof. They just need to keep on digging.

reply to post by SLAYER69


This information is just astounding Slayer, why on earth dont you start a single thread to focus on your findings? The way you lay it out is almost too much for me to comprehend and threatens to uproot everything I have ever known about humanity and our historical past.

I have to say however you have the ability to lay things out in such a way that even I can follow and understand. I am sorry if i am following you in this thread, I am reallly not a stalker, just profoundly moved by your posts.

This information deserves its own thread, really.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Which I find rather interesting when we consider that there has been no real evidence of stone age tool making in India. Then we have one of the worlds earliest civilizations show up along the Indus valley.

I was re-reading the thread and thought this was worth going back to. In Ireland there is a man, who, almost purely for the hell of it, practices the traditional way of making mill stones. He draws a circle on the rock, which is specific to the coast and is covered by incoming tide, he then drills holes all around the circle and inserts willow twigs. Over a succession of tides the twigs will expand, and be agitated by the rough currents, and the circle will eventually 'pop out'.

The technology to work with stone began with the realisation that stone could be split, that it was made up of layers and fissures. That is the hard part, though it doesn't seem to us now, but once that was 'realised', it is all gravy and an extension of that original discovery. J Bronowski puts it beautifully in The Ascent of Man;

"There is nothing in modern chemistry more unexpected than putting together alloys with new properties... Splitting and fusing the atom both derive, conceptually, from a discovery made in prehistory: that stone and all matter has a structure along which it can be split and put together in new arrangements. And man made biological inventions almost as early: agriculture - the domestication of wheat, for example - and the improbable idea of taming the horse." (p24)

Once the Stone Age 'hit', the advancement acheived in working with stone would be geographically dependent on the area and the local geology. Some stone is easier to work than others. If, as Harte says that area was 'bobbing up and down (etc)', stone building may have been abandoned quite early on, or only been used for temple building (as it was in most early civilisations), because although they had discovered stone building, mortar, quicklime and structural understanding were still a way off. Under those conditions, stone would have been hazardous without additional knowledge to support it so to speak.