Is the Harappan civilisation 2000 years older?

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


Hey do you have link for that date of horse domestication? I thought it was around 4,000 BCE?

Thanks


Hi hans,
It's a fascinating article,

In August, Saudi officials announced the discovery of evidence at Al-Magar indicating horse domestication in the region dated back 9000 years

And


The discoveries in Al-Magar, in Saudi Arabia, are equally startling.

They not only push evidence of horse domestication back to about 9000 years ago, but may also point to the very roots of the Arabian horse breed.

One statue shows the unique neck and head characteristics of the breed. Two are said to show evidence of harness and a bridle. A nearby cave drawing appears to show a man riding a horse, and other evidence points to horses and other animals being part of the inhabitants’ daily lives.

Among more than 80 artifacts found at Al-Magar is a one-metre long statue of a horse, comprising head, neck and chest.

Officials say the statue, which could well be the largest known sculpture of a horse during that period, has features similar to that of the original Arabian horses, characterised by a long neck and unique head shape.

The head of the statue carries what officials say are clear signs of a bridle.



horsetalk.co.nz...

My bad it was 9000BP not 9000BCE, that still several thousand years earlier than In central Asia.

edit on 16-11-2012 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


Thanks for the link, the BC and BP is a common mistake made it myself a few times with the C-14 cal dates it even gets more confusing



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by hp1229
While I do agree that the story might be unreliable, I wonder how the hell they determined within a week that the evidence was not compelling?


They blind-dredged an area.

So they lowered a dredge, scooped it along the ocean floor, and came up with some wood bits and fragments of something that appears to be pottery and called it "a city."

There's no context -- was the wood lying with bricks and other artifacts or is it a piece of tree that got swept into the ocean a long time ago? Pottery found by itself could have been fragments from something smashed on board a ship accidentally and kicked over the side.

That's how they determined it was unreliable.

If the company had sent down divers, marked the spots, done a survey, and done careful removal (noting depths and layers), THEN it would be considered reliable.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks10
One statue shows the unique neck and head characteristics of the breed. Two are said to show evidence of harness and a bridle. A nearby cave drawing appears to show a man riding a horse, and other evidence points to horses and other animals being part of the inhabitants’ daily lives.

Among more than 80 artifacts found at Al-Magar is a one-metre long statue of a horse, comprising head, neck and chest.


Here is the image of the Al-Magar horse - paint me unimpressed with a claim of a domesticated horse




posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by punkinworks10
One statue shows the unique neck and head characteristics of the breed. Two are said to show evidence of harness and a bridle. A nearby cave drawing appears to show a man riding a horse, and other evidence points to horses and other animals being part of the inhabitants’ daily lives.

Among more than 80 artifacts found at Al-Magar is a one-metre long statue of a horse, comprising head, neck and chest.


Here is the image of the Al-Magar horse - paint me unimpressed with a claim of a domesticated horse





Here's a link to a pdf with more details about the al magar site
www.google.com... 7_M4L2iwLP3IGIBg&usg=AFQjCNFLFmC1nAjmg42IgWJ8WrDf5PjQmQ



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


Thanks Punkinworks that close up picture in the link was much better. That made it clearer. I noted that in 1991 I went to that general area to see the rock images - dang missed another chance at discovery!



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


Thanks Punkinworks that close up picture in the link was much better. That made it clearer. I noted that in 1991 I went to that general area to see the rock images - dang missed another chance at discovery!

It was just waiting to be discovered when you were there.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by hp1229
 


Here is a long discussion of the matter at hand - dealing with the finds at Cambay

Link to Cambay
Thanks. Good article with some very good points. However I'm still skeptical. Its almost always the civilization never existed outside of Africa almost all the time and human kind emerged from Africa.


Yep that is where and to what the evidence we have presently points.
Thats because not much has been excavated around many parts of the world. At the same time, history is often distorted along with discoveries. Every few years, it changes and shifts the paradigm with more unsurity.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 


Yep it changes all the time with occassional moves back when the information is challenged and proven wrong. Like the Polynesian chicken fiasco. All in all (change) is moving along about 3-4 times faster than in the 1960s. Back then about 3-4 thousands papers were published on roughly archaeological subjects per year and in 2010 it was around 15,000 [quesstimate] (its hard to get a firm number due to the parameters you set on what 'counts')
edit on 17/11/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by hp1229
While I do agree that the story might be unreliable, I wonder how the hell they determined within a week that the evidence was not compelling?


They blind-dredged an area.

So they lowered a dredge, scooped it along the ocean floor, and came up with some wood bits and fragments of something that appears to be pottery and called it "a city."

A sample of this "pottery":

Link to image

Seems obvious it's a tubeworm hole. They harden in the sand on the ocean floor over time due to the slime the worm uses to make them.

That pic used to be at the Graham Hancock website - here's the old link - but the old boy took it down once enough people had pointed out what it actually was.

BTW, please no penis jokes.

Harte



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

Yes, I see why we haven't seen any more solid papers and analysis about this site. That image clearly points out why context is needed -- if we'd found it at a site with dozens of others AND a pottery kiln of some sort plus other types of pottery, everyone would hop right onboard and sponsor digs and we'd see the things turn up in a museum.

But, no. They're not going to put tubeworm holes in any museum. I don't doubt that many museums have them in their collection (we have a few in the paleo lab) but they're very common.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Apparently, Hancock reads at this site, or his mods do, because now the pics are all back up at the link I gave.

When I posted that link, the page it led to was at Hancock's site alright. But it stated that the page was no longer available.

Now there's a nice series of pics of tubeworm holes dredged up in the Gulf of Khambat.

Harte



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Harte

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by hp1229
While I do agree that the story might be unreliable, I wonder how the hell they determined within a week that the evidence was not compelling?


They blind-dredged an area.

So they lowered a dredge, scooped it along the ocean floor, and came up with some wood bits and fragments of something that appears to be pottery and called it "a city."

A sample of this "pottery":

Link to image

Seems obvious it's a tubeworm hole. They harden in the sand on the ocean floor over time due to the slime the worm uses to make them.

That pic used to be at the Graham Hancock website - here's the old link - but the old boy took it down once enough people had pointed out what it actually was.

BTW, please no penis jokes.

Harte

Link died so I'm reposting it - just to piss off Hancock: www.grahamhancock.com...

Harte
edit on 1/14/2014 by Harte because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Nice thread Hans.I wasn't aware of the scope of the Harappan civ till I seen that map.And no one has decrypted the script yet? Pity.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join