The Lost Cradle of Civilization

page: 8
225
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr UAE
 


Good to know that you are in UAE.
So am I.
Sharjah and the Northern Emirates were indeed inhabited along the coasts and along the mountains from time immemorial.

"Julfar " is one of the most ancient port cities of the middle east.

Funny thing is that local cultures in the area including the Shimal culture and the Umm Al Nar culture seemed to have trade links with the Harrappan or IVC, as per the JSTOR article



HARAPPAN FINDS IN A TOMB AT RAS AL-KHAIMAH, U. A. E.
Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies
Vol. 16, Proceedings of the Nineteenth SEMINAR FOR ARABIAN STUDIES held at Oxford on 30th July - 1st August 1985 (1986), pp. 23-24

www.jstor.org...




posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by coredrill
 


Coredrill,

What's your opinion on the controversial pre-Harappan "city" supposedly found off the coast of Dwarka in Gulf of Khambha?

I haven't heard much about it after the initial storm of non-academics littering the web with celebrations of believer propaganda purporting the discovery of Krishna's Dwarka.

As I understand it, the 'structures' are still a matter of contested debate, as well as the supposed artifacts reportedly discovered after a cursory dredging of the site, and the 'structures' may very well be natural.



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


There a big Hullabaloo on the 'Discovery" of 'Dwaraka" in the gulf of Khamabt, along the coast of Gujarat State in India, but the finds have not been accepted by the Academia since no evidence is available to indicate the so called pottery shards, sonar scans of structures, the fossilized wood, doesn't indicate any city down there under the waves.

The actual paper by the NIOT on the survey can be found at the below link

www.episodes.co.in...

which doesn't even state anything about Dwaraka.

We should thank the gentlemen from NIOT for the paper. But then, they were no where qualified to make a call that Dwaraka was found. it was all in collusion with Murali Manohar Joshi, who was the Central Minister for Human resources development and a rabid Hindu nationalist, who raised the noise that Dwaraka was found. Dr. Badrinarayanan who is one the authors of the above linked paper, went along providing shaky evidence to support Joshi's claim. But, the academia refused to buy the crap and it settled down.

But once in a while, a loony will happen on the "Dwaraka found" and would post up a thread somewhere,


A good paper on "Dwaraka" can be found at

drs.nio.org...



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   
AFAK, Dawarka has been found.

But the site in the Gulf of Khambat isn't it.

It isn't even a site.

A few geofacts and a piece of wood were dredged - dredged - up.

That's some archaeology for ya.

Ancient Dawarka was found off the coast of modern day Dawarka. To the north and around the peninsula - away from the gulf in question, IOW.

Harte



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I seem to recall there being THREE recorded Dawarkas.

There's Krishna's Dwarka, then there's record or rumor, or myth of the rebuilding of Dwarka further inland after Krishna's Dwarka went under the waves, and then, the 'new' commemorative Dwarka then succumbed to the same fate where then a third Dwarka the one extent, alive, and active today was laid down in the shadow of and on top of the old.

The second Dwarka may very well be the original Dwarka that just laid claim to the name of a mythological city that never was, and then started believing its own press.
Or, perhaps, there may be something under the waves, but not necessarily so the recent claims.

There's no adequate survey of the site that might not be a site, and since the dredging (facepalm) has done more to muddy the waters then clear them, it'll likely be quite a while before any legitimate look is taken or any funds put toward such.

Additionally, academic association with such controversy tends to keep academics at a distance where such controversial associations could equate to career marginalization and even career death for anyone even thinking about taking a bite of the apple, or extending support for results of such sloppy poorly executed survey.



posted on Oct, 27 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


That is what graduate students are for....



posted on Oct, 28 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


Refer to the below Paper from The National Institute of Oceanography, India.
refer to page 30 onwards to read about Dwaraka & Bet Dwaraka. The papers referred under Dwaraka are the ones i had linked to in my previous post.

drs.nio.org...
edit on 28/10/13 by coredrill because: edited for stupid typos



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by coredrill
 


I appreciate the provided link. It does make one wonder what else may be submerged nearby that has not yet been discussed, Not to mention that if there are such locations they didn't just spring up over night and that in fact had a development periods even older than has been estimated.

Which would push the dates even farther back



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   

SLAYER69
reply to post by coredrill
 


I appreciate the provided link. It does make one wonder what else may be submerged nearby that has not yet been discussed, Not to mention that if there are such locations they didn't just spring up over night and that in fact had a development periods even older than has been estimated.

Nah.


The findings of Bet Dwarka may be divided into two broad periods: Pre-historic period which includes a small seal of conch shell engraved with a three-headed animal motif,[10] two inscriptions, a copper fishhook and late Harappan pottery (circa 1700–1400 BC) and the Historical period consisting of coins and pottery. Onshore and inter-tidal zone explorations have indicated some kind of shoreline shifting around the Bet Dwarka island as a few sites get submerged during high tide.

Source
The site is underwater due to subductive-type tectonic movement, not due to sea level rise.

The Harappan stuff is way older than Bet Dwarka.

Harte



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I guess subductive-type tectonic movements have taken place in every known location where there is water. I've been posting these types of stories now going on over 5 years and it seems that the answer in each and every case thus far has been only "subductive-type tectonic movement"


Which is fine but it doesnt matter. No, really it doesnt. However it happens the locations are now under water whether by flooding or by subductive-type tectonic movement there seems to be proof of much older inhabited sites in these locations.

Splitting hairs comes to mind.
edit on 5-11-2013 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
225
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join