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.
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/news-mourning-marsh-arab-way-li fe
The same communal mudhif buildings seen in marsh culture today have also been seen depicted on Sumerian seals from 5000 years ago. There are also apparent similarities between the agricultural and irrigation practices of the ancient Sumerians and the modern day 'Ma’dan', as the present Marsh Arabs are known. The Sumerians also travelled in similar slender reed boats, caught fish and birds with long spears, lived on marsh islands in reed houses, and herded water buffalo, sheep and cattle.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Heliocentric
I still fail to understand why scientists, who by their very nature and profession is to seek the truth and to understand how things work, are so reluctant in this area.
Seems counter productive to me..
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
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.
Well now that you've demonstrated the ability to drag your hairy knuckles across the keyboard why don't you try to mash the keyboard some more and hammer out your own theory and or perspective on how this "WALL" could have found itself under the ocean during a period in human history when were supposedly closer to simple stone age hunter/gatherers etc? Unless of course you're just here to criticize others....
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
Originally posted by Shadow Herder
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.
Originally posted by Shadow Herder
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.
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by Harte
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.
The most spectacular example of a plate convergence event on Earth is the motion of the Indian plate towards Eurasia at speeds in excess of 18 cm yr−1 (ref. 1), and the subsequent collision. Continental buoyancy usually stalls subduction shortly after collision, as is seen in most sections of the Alpine–Himalayan chain. However, in the Indian section of this chain, plate velocities were merely reduced by a factor of about three when the Indian continental margin impinged on the Eurasian trench about 50 million years ago. Plate convergence, accompanied by Eurasian indentation, persisted throughout the Cenozoic era1, 2, 3, suggesting that the driving forces of convergence did not vanish on continental collision. Here we estimate the density of the Greater Indian continent, after its upper crust is scraped off at the Himalayan front, and find that the continental plate is readily subductable. Using numerical models, we show that subduction of such a dense continent reduces convergence by a factor similar to that observed. In addition, an imbalance between ridge push and slab pull can develop and cause trench advance and indentation. We conclude that the subduction of the dense Indian continental slab provides a significant driving force for the current India–Asia convergence and explains the documented evolution of plate velocities following continental collision.