*Waits for Harte and similar skeptics to pass this off as a natural occurance...*

Anyway, good find OP and thank you for bringing this to our attention. Will read into this deeper when i get some time.

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
I'm concerned about a growing trend here on ATS - every morsel of old ruins being described as "advanced" civilisations without evidence in some cases - this is a case in point. Right now we have a long wall.

Whilst completely fascinating, it is arousing suspicion about a possible agenda/ - it is putting out an idea that is not supported by any evidence in this case.

1. We all know that a civilisation/s existed before what many call the great flood in many of our religions
2. There have been many ruins underwater that have been discovered over the past decades

I do love reading these posts, but the "advanced civilisation" angle, when not supported by any known evidence, should be in a speculative like forum

I suppose it depends on how you define the word "advanced". It is a rather flexible word after all.

Were the ancient Greeks an advanced civilization? Yes they were. With the investigation of the Antikythera mechanism, we now also know they were far more advanced in mechanics than we even remotely suspected before, which makes them even more advanced.

Ar we (the Western, industrialized world, or whoever you want to read into it) an advanced civilization? Logistically, technologically yes. But in terms of resource managing we're surprisingly primitive, and inferior to many ancient civilizations. Socially and ethically, I would also say we're behind many of our ancestors (there are not that many equivalents in ancient cultures of people walking into McDonald's and shooting people down just because they can't find any meaning to their lives). So you see, there are many ways of using the word.

If we're talking about the underwater wall outside of Konkan coast, I would say that it was built by an advanced civilization. Advanced in the sense of social organization. A 24 km long wall is a building site, and you need to organize a building site. It takes a certain amount of manpower and a certain amount of work hours. Someone has to quarry the stone and someone has to pay for the labour. You need an economy to do it. I would personally exclude that it was done by hunter gatherers. You need at least an agrarian society, probably a city state society with some type of centralized government to pull it off IMO.

Depends on what you see as advanced. Technologically speaking the Roman empire was a hell of alot more advanced than Feudual England. If the situation reveals a socitey that was more advanced than alot of things that came after it (as implied by massive irrigation works probably on a scale to todays) It will cause a major and spectacular rewrite of modern history.

Still i'm sceptical in pretty much any of these new age/ancient civ theories. Could be another piltdown man operation where stuff is planted or misinterpreted to play into the hands of a world view. In this case it could be Indian nationalism just like how British imperialism tried to rewrite history on a dozen occasions. Or some archeologists trying to sell some books on the back of an interesting if speculative theory.

My favourite part about all this if it is true is when we get to go through all the old books that never saw this coming and burn them because their theories are outdated.

Originally posted by eagleeye2

Its interesting how sea level was way lower back then.

I remember reading somewhere, here on ATS, about a submerged road or bridge that looked similar. But this one seems to be west of the maintaind, ill try to find the thread back to compare the location. Anyway, i say thanks for posting this I really like those finds. tbh i'm pretty sure ancient India hides alot of secrets.

Sea level rises and falls, of course. But land also rises and sinks. Most likely, if this is a real relic, that is what happened. The land sank.

Harte

Damn it. I have been slaving myself silly trying to cure obesity, so one day I can think of being "advanced". When all I had to do was built a wall.

Anyway, it cant be real because the Bible told me so.

Originally posted by Harte

Sea level rises and falls, of course. But land also rises and sinks. Most likely, if this is a real relic, that is what happened. The land sank.

Harte

Really? The oceans rose over 140 meters since 10,000 b.c. Why do people come up with crazy theories to explain the simple.

Are you saying that the land sank because you dont believe the oceans level rose or is it because the wall could of been built by a unknown civilization thousands of years before history says it was possible?

Originally posted by Harte
Actually, I only say it because many people never stop to think about that fact, assuming every flood is due to rising water and it's not. That, and I happen to know that the part of the Indo-Australian plate the area in question is located on is actually known to be measurably sinking.

Britain is slowly tipping eastwards into the sea, with the west rising accordingly. The Earth moves in mysterious ways. And one of the most interesting aspect of major water movements is that the Earth's surface will adjust to these changes of pressure and exposure. These adjustments presumably occur over long periods. When the glaciers relieved their pressure, the Earth will have adjusted. When the water settled, considerably elsewhere, the Earth will have adjusted. Wherever there are plate tectonics, geographically, combined with major movements of water related to the major glacial melts, we can assume that there will have been a correlation of rising water levels and seismic activity. Perhaps?

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by Harte
Actually, I only say it because many people never stop to think about that fact, assuming every flood is due to rising water and it's not. That, and I happen to know that the part of the Indo-Australian plate the area in question is located on is actually known to be measurably sinking.

Britain is slowly tipping eastwards into the sea, with the west rising accordingly. The Earth moves in mysterious ways. And one of the most interesting aspect of major water movements is that the Earth's surface will adjust to these changes of pressure and exposure. These adjustments presumably occur over long periods. When the glaciers relieved their pressure, the Earth will have adjusted. When the water settled, considerably elsewhere, the Earth will have adjusted. Wherever there are plate tectonics, geographically, combined with major movements of water related to the major glacial melts, we can assume that there will have been a correlation of rising water levels and seismic activity. Perhaps?

Don't forget the process of subduction. Current and ancient (hundreds of millions of years old) subduction zones cause continents to dip and sink.

Australia bounces up and down like a yo yo, in geological time.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte
Don't forget the process of subduction. Current and ancient (hundreds of millions of years old) subduction zones cause continents to dip and sink.

Australia bounces up and down like a yo yo, in geological time.

But the thing is, why does it do that? What is it reactive to?

I was reading that the sea levels in the meditteranean. at the peak of the last glacial melt, were rising by about 15 cms a week. I'm not sure of the rate elsewhere. In geological time, the changes that led to the melt, the effect of such vast redistributions of water, would have also led to subduction activity to adapt to both external and internal changes to the Earth. As well as volcanic and seismic changes. Given how we now understand the biosphere to work, however partial that understanding may be, there must have been whole chains of events that however spread over geological time, would have increased awareness of a sentient species population of the living nature of the planet.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by Harte
Don't forget the process of subduction. Current and ancient (hundreds of millions of years old) subduction zones cause continents to dip and sink.

Australia bounces up and down like a yo yo, in geological time.

But the thing is, why does it do that? What is it reactive to?

I was reading that the sea levels in the meditteranean. at the peak of the last glacial melt, were rising by about 15 cms a week. I'm not sure of the rate elsewhere. In geological time, the changes that led to the melt, the effect of such vast redistributions of water, would have also led to subduction activity to adapt to both external and internal changes to the Earth. As well as volcanic and seismic changes. Given how we now understand the biosphere to work, however partial that understanding may be, there must have been whole chains of events that however spread over geological time, would have increased awareness of a sentient species population of the living nature of the planet.

Subduction zones are created when a chunk of continent breaks off and falls into the mantle below.

This usually happens where two plates are coming together.

It takes millions of years for the chunk to drift down throught the semi-plastic mantle. In the meantime, the continents move on. As they drift, they leave the subduction zone and part ways with the other plate that they were up against for so long.

But the chunk continues to fall, and the subduction zone stays where it is.

The Eastern part of the Indo-Australian plate is currently drifting over such an ancient subduction zone. In fact, a huge swath of that continent is today under the ocean to the East and Northeast of Australia.

That's why Australia is bobbing up and down (in geological time.)

The other side of the plate - the western side of India, is undergoing it's own subduction as it presses into Asia, forming the Himalayas. Thats' the locale this thread is about.

Harte

YAY!

Another piece of the puzzle of mankind's past.

I think that is the big discovery here,
a lot of our missing/destroyed history is slowly being uncovered as we get to explore the ocean a bit more.
Awesome find!