The recent announcement that mainstream archaeologists have discovered yet another city, this one in Egypt, predating what used to be considered the oldest human civilizations is significant because it is another nail in the coffin of conventional beliefs about our history and prehistory. But it is also important for another reason.
When the last ice age finally ended about 11,500 or so years ago (the age Plato gives for the sinking of Atlantis), flooding the continental shelves and destroying ancient cities whose ruins have been found off the coast of India and elsewhere, Earth's temperature continued to rise. Between about 5000 and 10,000 years ago our world was warmer than anytime in recorded history since then, and the warmest period of all was between about 7000 and 8000 years ago:the age of the recently discovered city. Most people associate deserts with heat, but when the entire Earth warms up there is increased evaporation of sea water, and hence more atmospheric moisture, more clouds, and more rain.
It has long been known, even to mainstream archaeologists and climatologists, that the Sahara Desert was much wetter and greener then. Most of it was open grasslands, with coastal and montane forests, and riverine forests along the rivers running down from the mountains. Likewise for the Arabian Peninsula and other desert areas. Tibet and the Gobi Desert were wetter and warmer than now, and the Bolivian Altiplano, the location of Tiahuanaco, was more habitable, and Lake Titicaca, swelled by the greater precipitation, reached all the way to the ruins. Tiahuanaco at that time could well have supported a substantial population.
Archaeologists, using modern technology, would do well to search for more ancient cities in these places, especially along the ancient riverbeds. William B Stoecker

I was going to post this, but I saw you already did. But if anyone's interested, here's the link to the actual story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080129/wl_mi...gyptarchaeology

And here's the link to the photos of other intersting things:

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Anthropology...l/r13482490.jpg

See, no it's not, though if you're not up on the nitty-gritty of history, it might seem so (and because the nitty-gritty is often pretty boring and doesn't include any saucer pplz or monkey-raping proto-gods, it gets ignored by people).

The presence of cities like Catal Hyuck and Jericho have done a pretty good job of ending the one-to-one connection of cities and civilizations. People living in those cities had some but not all of the characteristics we associate with civilization (lacking -- importantly -- writing). Civilization is complex; it's one of the reasons it took so long to form. Far from putting a "nail in the coffin of conventional beliefs about our history and prehistory", this fits in snugly with current thought.

However, since pseudo-historians and their supporters basically thrive on ignorance of actual history, your claim says more about you and your relation to them than it does any real study.

--Jaylemurph

There have been no "ancient cities" discovered off the coast of India (or anywhere else) that were inundated by the melt from the last Ice Age.

Simply not the case.

Harte

I remember 7 or 8 years ago there was a theory put forth. This theory was the lost cities/ruins would be found far out in the Sahara. It was said that based on the geographic location of monuments already found it was possible to pin-point the theoretical or probable location of other undiscovered monuments to the West.

I wonder if this recent find is in any way related to or the direct result of this theory.

I am attempting to research it myself but I am having trouble finding the original material the theory sprang from.

The only reason there have not been discoveries, IMHO, is because we are just beginning to even think about exploring these sunken areas. The exploration thus far has been meager from an archaeological viewpoint and heavy on resource/earth-rape.

Its only a matter of time. Something astounding will be found. The Pleistocene epoch of the Quaternary Ice Age ended +-10000 years ago. The rise of the oceans to the approximate current level was rapid at first (100 meters in 100 years) and then slowly to the current level (another 300 meters in 9900 years).

I have a strong feeling that in that first initial 100 meters inundated at the end of the last ice age there are secrets waiting to be uncovered. Sadly I doubt we will ever see them due to our obsession with destroying ourselves. But thats another topic.

Then how did this city end up 36 meters under water?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1768109.stm

AH HAAAA! I knew it! The tropics and sub-tropics are bound to be awash with submerged undiscovered cities. Pun intended.

Whoooaaa there.

You conveniently neglected to mention that the main source in this article is /Graham Hancock/, whose knowledge of actual history is doubtful. If that wasn't enough, you're playing fast and loose with your dates. Even Hancock dates the city at 7,000 BCE (remember 9 kya isn't the BCE date), which puts it 3 to 4 thousand years after the end of last glaciation period. Morris, the more legitimate souce, wouldn't even be pinned down on a date. And it's worth mentioning the story's six years old. Anything that important and legit would keep itself in the news.

Cities underwater aren't ipsa facto inexplicable. Port Royal is under several feet if water, and it's not a mystery. There's no reason to think we'd have to re-evaluate history because a city's underwater -- not indeed, that these things would warrant it if true.

--Jaylemurph

This Graham Hancock was one of 3 persons quoted in the article. Do you dismiss the other two sources as well?


Are there any other times in more recent history when sea level has changed by over 36 meters?


Then you should easily be able to find a follow-up bbc article negating the first?



36 meters underwater- 118 feet, and several kilometers out to sea according to map given. And who is to say that it was beachfront property in it's day? It could have been in the hills already.

But I merely asked a question, not made any claim as to the answer's importance. Perhaps you can answer, how did it get so far underwater? This is not the several feet of Port Royal.

I don't think they recorded much history between 10000, and 5000 years ago, let alone temperatures. the earth was just starting to come out of the last ice age between 10,000, 7000 years ago, so the average earths temp was cooler. BTW we are currently living the time of the highest recorded temperatures in history. You need to find more accurate reference material?

Clearly not, as I mentioned one of them -- but none of them were tossing around dates, either. But neither one of the others has the infamy of Graham Hancock. It you had a civil rights commission and Hitler was one of them, chances are you might not mention the rest.



Well, first of you're assuming this to be on a global scale, when there's no evidence of that. On a local scale? Yes, there are lots. Thera comes to mind, to be begin with, and Krakatoa, but there are other geological forces that can change elevations besides the volcanic.



Dunno. I'm not a geologist. I'm not throwing it out as a indirect challenge to mainstream history, either. I'm just saying that the article itself is not quite what you presented it as.

--Jaylemurph

Monkey raping proto gods get my vote every time on the unexplainable, as if there were such a thing.

Would you mind terribly if I quote this line often? It seems to be the perfect rebuttal to almost everything on this forum!

May be i can add on to this...by pointing at a myth..which could point at global warming/large scale rise of ocean levels in the ancient times.

The myth of Kumari kandam.

Kumari Kandam

Forget all crap of it being inticated as Lemuria etc.



I am not stating anything, but could it be that, the sea levels kept on rising and encroached the land mass known as kumari kandam and submerged it . The temples and structures revealed by the tsunami could have been built on such a land mass that got submerged?
Just a Suggestion!

Yes and... that is exactly what happened, no mystery whatsoever, unless you require one.

I think the mystery is in the dating, given that some questionable sources put the structures as 35,000 years old. Its entirely possible that there were some settlements on the shore that were reclaimed by the sea, why not? But putting the birth of civilisation back that far is a bit of a push.

From wiki onthe subject (and I for once don't like the way this entry has been written):



edited to include link

Anything containing reference to Graham Hancock should be treated with caution!!!

By all means. But sadly, I can't really take credit for it. It is (literally) how Z. Sitchin claims mankind was created in his nov... book The Stairway To Heaven. Some of the more interesting discussion about him and his made-up planet are over on the UFO forum, where I first used the line about monkey-raping gods. Oddly, the Sitchinistas get all bent out of shape when you say it like that.

--Jaylemurph

Whatever.

Underwater archaeologists are today (and have been for decades) studing encampments of the Jomon Culture that were flooded by Ice Age meltwater. So, no, you can't say we haven't been looking.

There might be things to be discovered yet, sure. But saying that is not the same as saying that for certain such things have already been found, which was what the poster I quoted was implying.

Harte

While the Sahara was a temperate savannah during the last Ice Age, the same is not true for the Gobi. Its altitude prohibits this type of climate. Additionally, Lake Titicaca's volume hasn't changed all that much; rather the elevation of the Andes has changed asymmetrically. The shoreline that once reached Tiahanaco (as evidenced by ancient moorings and the like) has been left dry by the change in its elevation relative to the rest of the Altiplano. I assume that the reference to the sunken ancient cities off the coast of India and "elsewhere" is based on the recent work of Graham Hancock. I personally find Hancock's earlier works (Fingerprints of the Gods and others) to be very interesting and MUCH more academically sound than his more recent works. Hancock tends to infer too much from his findings and makes the leap from asking interesting questions to stating his hypotheses as near-fact much too easily. Much of his work regarding sunken cities has been disputed by reputable scientists, most notably Robert Schoch of Boston University, who was (and is, I assume) a collaborator of Hancock's. Schoch investigated the Yonaguni Formation off the coast of Okinawa along with Hancock and John Anthony West in the late 1990's. It was his opinion (he's a PhD in Geology) that the formation was natural. Hancock stuck blindly to his guns and published "Underworld". I enjoy reading Hancock; he writes very well and presents interesting points of view. One should be cautious when taking his research to heart; I find it's best to look at these things objectively and trust hard science.

I love Schoch. He is incredible. He's always spot on and I wish more geologists would back him up when it comes to the Sphinx.

My dad was a desert rat during WW2.He got as far as India and Australia,when the ship he was on was given orders to go to North Africa.
I remember daddy talking about seeing the famous cave and other rock paintings out in the desert.
He was a flight crew cheif and airplane mechanic and mentioned when they were flying over the desert in Libyia and elsewhere you could see from the air what appeared to be the remains of ancient cities. I asked him if anyone had done
any archeological work on them,and he said as far as he knew,no. Daddy said these places would have been hard to get to,and cost a lot of money to excavate and the difficulty of getting supplies to the diggers.

Could there have been ancient cities in various parts of the world that are now under the sea,well yes.A rising of the sea levels over the centuries,earthquakes,tsunamis,etc. could contribute to such a thing
As far as the stones in Okinawa,that i don't know. It would take more study to give a definitive answer.

Thats extremely easy - there is no city there.

That's right, it's an old story and if you'll look you'll see that further study showed what they dredged up were what's called geofacts, sedimentary formations caused by concretions created by worms in the mud. These things look remarkably like pottery.

Other artifacts turned out to be washed downstream, the Bay is the receptacle of a couple of huge rivers.

There were people living along those rivers back then. Chances are some of their stuff got carried out to sea.

That's the current position. Don't trust the stupid sonar crap.

Next question?

Harte

I would like to hear what a sociologist has to say, many sociologists if possible. What would social scientists say the odds are that humans grouped together in societies during and after the last ice age. I think we all know the answer. It is our nature, our instinct and our desire to live together to protect and be protected.

A vast majority of the people breathing today take those breaths very close to a shoreline of some sort. Many of our greatest cities sprang from small coastal communities. Places where fresh water meets the sea are, and always have been, natural attractions. Why would it have been any different 50, 25, 10 or even 2 thousand years ago? We are land lovers but our easiest and most accessible source of nourishment grows in the water.

Sure there are exceptions to the rule. Inland cultures thrived. They built great monuments. They developed societies and left behind knowledge and writings for us to decipher. Few and maybe none did it without a water source. These cultures are basically the only ones we know of and all we have for scientists to base theory on.

I would like to ask a question to anyone reading this.

Does it seem possible that at a time of world-wide flooding and change in temperate zones around the world, societies would pick up and move to higher ground? If the changes in ocean/sea levels were in fact as fast and drastic as todays science says, wouldnt they have to leave their unwritten history (buildings or settlements ) to be engulfed and start a new history? A new record after a flood that cant be disproved.

I find it ironic that so many past civilizations seem to have developed approximately at the same time on different continents and regions. We dont really know how they started but we know where they are. 99% of them are upland and deserted. 100% of them start with no written records. I dont dare to guess how many actually leave a written record. Quite a few of the ones that do have a histrionic record mention a past flood.

Today humans group together. We like to do it near the ocean and preferably near a river as well. Its not science. A part of our past is submerged and its probably the part we need to make sense out of all the other things we think we know.

If we could only explore the ancient coastlines.....

I wasn't aware that being underwater was such an insuperable barrier.

--Jaylemurph

i wont comment on anything that hancock has commented on!
it is beneath me!

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-166944397.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garamantes




http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic/30379...ert.html?page=1
During the Neolithic, the Sahara was a rich environment supporting a large population ranging across what is now barren desert. The waters teemed with fish, frogs, and crocodiles; hippopotamuses and rhinoceroses fed along the banks; lions, giraffes, and elephants roamed the plains. Paleontologists have found the bones of all those animals in the desert--and most of them were portrayed in the rock paintings of the cave artists. Paleobotanists analyzing grass, shrub, and tree pollen locked in lake and swamp sediments from this period have found that the Sahara was a grassland dotted with acacia and hackberry trees and freshened by streams and large lakes.






http://www.mtsobek.com/mts/lib

Sociologists would direct you to any of over a thousand archaeological sites that indicate exactly what you say. From the steppes of Russia to the outback in Australia there are excavated sites that date to the end of the last Ice Age and well before.


It wouldn't have been any different. The main thing to remember about the seashore is that the water there is not potable. That makes it somewhat easier to find dig sites near the ocean, there should be a river nearby.

Of course, that doesn't have to be the case. Springs and other sources could have been used.

And like you said, there's can be easy access to food (fish) near the shore.


No inland culture built great monuments and left behind writings and knowledge in the time frame you're referring to. The earliest writing ever found (dating to the mid 3000's BC) didn't come about until around 7,000 years after what was basically the end of the last Ice Age.

There are constructions that date to around 9,000 BC. Arguably this date could be construed to fall within the timeframe you're talking about. But these constructions were stone walls and stone huts at best (some are mudbrick, some are just temporary shelters), nothing too grandiose.


Problem is, "science" has never said that "the changes in ocean/sea levels were ... fast and drastic"

It took hundreds of years for even the fastest instance of sea level rise to occur. About a half a meter a year, as I recall. There were some pulses, when, for example, a glacial lake broke through. These sorts of things can cause large waves, but not any significant permanent sea level rise. They will cause a rise, but nothing as high as the initial splash they make. And like a tsunami, they are "splashiest" when they travel directly to the place they are inundating. I mean, if a gigantic glacial lake broke through (google the "younger dryas period") somewhere around Boston and poured into the Atlantic, the greatest effect as far as height of the wave would occur across the Atlantic in Europe and (to a lesser extent) Africa. While China would see an increase in sea level from such an event, it wouldn't be enough to even be very noticeable. In London, though, the place would be flooded under several meters of water, at least temporarily.


Why do you believe this? And even if it were true (it's not), why would it be ironic?


I don't see the connection. You and I agree that fresh water is necessary. The most ancient cultures ever found are on or very near to river flood plains. Would you expect no flood story? The end of the Ice Age resulted in flooding, yes, but the great majority of that flooding occurred so slowly that there can be very little doubt that it couldn't even be noticed by many people.


Underwater archaeology is expensive and extremely difficult to accomplish with any scientific rigor. Even so, it is ongoing as I mentioned in a previous post. You'll find archaeologists studying the Jomon Culture all up and down the coasts of Japan, China and Korea. That culture predates the end of the Ice Age and many of their "villages" (encampments or whatever) were submerged by Ice Age meltwater.

Not being an archaeologist myself, I can only think of one other example (though I'm certain that there are many, many more.) That would be Ballard and his underwater investigations of the Mediterreanean and Black Seas, and his more recent investigation of possible Ice Age sites offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.

Try googling him. If you look, I'm sure you'll find that your current feeling that this work is not being done is less true that you think.

Harte

Wow, CS --

Despite your attempts to rustle up a mystery where none is actually present, the Garamantes aren't an ancient, unknown civilization. Several Greek and Roman sources talk about them. Archaeologists have studied them and there's no reason to think their civilization dates back further than 500 BCE or so -- certainly not to the dates you're trying to pawn them off with, though their distant ancestors may well have been there then. Even their language is no mystery -- it's a known member of the Berber family and uses its alphabet (which stems from the Phoenician alphabet -- more proof against the 'ancient' non-sense.
This looks a lot like either another instance of you not reading the sources you dump on us or another deliberate attempt to alter material it conjure up a mystery. Or both.

--Jaylemurph

No... just not to dismiss it out of hand... and take a longer look...





http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/Tuareg

Please provide some documentation for your opinion, a link to legitimate news
articles would be nice. I haven't been able to find any contradicting the original story. All I can find is a few quotes from respectable acheologists corroborating the evidence.

Considering that there are respectable archeologists corroborating, this Graham's reputation is irrelevant. If he spoke about the Titanic, would your disrespect of him mean that it never sank?

The original news article states that beads and other small goods were recovered, and these have been dated to 7000 bc. Very old beads to wash out to sea, if it were in modern times.

Why should there not be old pre- icemelt cities now sunken? Your saying none is an unsupportable statement. Do you think your ancestors were so different from you, so much less intelligent, that they could not have gathered into cities? It's not an idea requiring genius. All that is needed is a reason to gather into a small area.

Saraswati - Everyone would have believed that it was indeed a temple..b ut as usual in comes hancock to destroy the credibility.
years back when i read fingerprints of the gods in paperback or chariots of the gods, i was so much impressed. But when the age of internet came and i was exposed to more and more information ..i found that these two (hancock and von daniken) were actually ripping people off by selling books which they are just rehashing stuff already debunked by scientists.

What does hancock find near the mahabalipuram?



I went to both the sites of SES and NIO to enquire on the findings of the expeditions - Nothing..Zilch!!
I saw the photographs of what Hancock posts on india-atlantis.org site - some naturally formed rocks with geometric shapes and naturally formed straight lines.....the pointers to an underground city!!! usual of hancock..!!!

Sorry, my home PC crashed and I didn't have my bookmarks with me (saved them on a floppy this time, thank God) when I posted that.

Here:
Artifacts or Geofacts?

I'd like to see your references showing the quotes from respectable archaeologists. And I don't mean out of context clippings that have been used by Hancock to further the sales of his book on this very subject.

I don't personally dispute the dates given to some of the artifacts found there since I'm no expert. But The Gulf of Cambay (Khambhat) is the recipient of a large quantity of fresh water from several rivers (a couple of them major rivers, as I recall) from a huge portion of the Indian Subcontinent. Since it is known that there were people living along the rivers there that far back, and since similar artifacts (like the beads) have been found inland, and since the rivers (like all rivers) there flood regularly, wouldn't finding some old artifacts through dredging the bottom of a bay that has been collecting the silt from upstream for millions of years be something one might expect?


Where did I say this?

Your credibility will suffer if you continue with the straw man stuff. If you disagree with what I say, that's one thing. But making up something and claiming I said it just so you can disagree is quite something else.


I have posted on this very subject within the last couple of days. I believe it was in the "Unknown City" thread in this very section.

Google the Jomon Culture. Some of their habitations were inundated by ice age melt. Wouldn't exactly call them "cities," though.

Harte

From what I understand and have experienced of the Sahara, I think it would be quite easily possible for there to be some truly ancient cities to be hidden amongst the vastness. Whether they are to be pre-sumerian, then thats another thing. Who can say without evidence?

Reading through this topic it would suggest that for there to be a significant habitation of any size, then there must be water. Which through observation, I encountered rivers to be ten-a-penny. Although the majority are now dried up. In fact out of literally the hundreds of oued that I crossed I can only remember there being 1 with water and that resembled a stream, even though the channel that had been cut would have to had a significant amount of water running through it at some time to make it comparable to the Danube at Budapest in size. According to Wiki " The Sahara is currently as dry as it was about 13,000 years ago...Half of the Sahara receives less than 2 cm of rain a year, with the rest receiving up to 10 cm a year." Now I'm no weatherman/geologist, but wouldn't it take a little more rain than that (even if it is torrential) to carve the dried up beds that I seen? Would the oueds not be 'filled' with sand and sediment ect in the 13,000 that have past? If there is some sciency explanation for this, then I stand corrected. After all this is only based on my observations and I left school at 16 without any qualifications.

However. Another observation...Dotted throughout the desert (the parts which I seen at least) there are numerous ruins, some small, some large, and a couple of vast complexes. When I asked the locals what these ruins were, they would describe them as ancient. Although in my experience, ancient in the Sahara can mean anywhere from living memory to 'before we were civilized'. Which again, I've later found out that some rock carvings that were described to me as being this 'before we were civilized' were in fact less that 500 years old.

I was told a legend whilst I was there which I have to tried to corroborate with evidence but can't find any, so I'm not entirely convinced. The story goes that a long long time ago the Sahara was actually underwater and there were many tribes that were fishermen, and they tried telling me that is why a lot of their writing has water creatures as their letters, (namely yag, yaz, yas, yar, yax, yaf, yak, yay, and yab or, the toad, the fish, the frog spawn, the tadpole, the frog, the water insect, the stingray, water snake, and the shell) but these relate to different Berber languages from the Riff and the Anti-Atlas, which would make sense I guess because these are mountainous areas so IF the desert was underwater this would make sense as the steppe would be the shoreline I guess!? Also my fiancee who is Sleuh Berber assures me that in the case of the toad and the fish characters this is true. But as to the legend of the water she knows nothing about it. So it does leave a huge doubt in my mind...but I can't totally dismiss this until I see some hard evidence to the contrary!

Although I have no hard evidence I am enclined to believe that there will be some significant archeological find within the Sahara at some point in the future. Considering there were lions and all kinds of animals there who shared it with people at 1 time. For my mind there was without doubt lots and lots of water there at one time considering the amount of dried up oued, and then you got the savannah animals running about the place. There are the 2 basic ingredients for a thriving population. Given that the Sahara is not that hard to live in. I travelled round it for just shy of 3 months from May 2007 without any planning, a 5 litre bottle of water, a quad and 10 gallon of spare petrol, I started off on a moped but got scared after 200 miles. I travelled from Merzouga in Morocco to Tamanrasset in Algeria then Tindouf and them back home to Agadir to return my beaten up quad covering almost 3500 mile. Throughout my adventure people would pop up from nowhere at times, even when it seemed I could be the only bloke within 30 miles. Although I've only seen a small corner of the Sahara this just reinforces my belief that there will be some kind of huge discovery there at sometime in the future considering the huge size of the place. If you believe the people who live there, (and I would advise to take their talk with a pinch of salt,) there are places in that desert that no man has ever seen never mind set foot upon. Which the romantic/explorer in me wishes to be true. Perhaps that's why I truly entertain the idea of The Lost cities of the Green Sahara.


All the above said is based purely on my own observations, I am no meteorologist/geologist/archeologist/linguist/sociologist or any other kind of ologist. I accept that there are very few facts to back up my beliefs, however. I do believe that it would be a little nieave for anyone to believe that there couldn't possibly be any civilization pre-Sumeria or otherwise. Afterall those folk who come out of Africa would've had to cross that vast expanse of land, be it savannah or desert long before they got to the Euphrates.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Has-Sahara-...ert-47128.shtml

Studies made on the fluctuations of humidity in Sahara during the last 40,000 years revealed that the borders of the desert moved sometimes southward and other times northward and in particular periods, the desert disappeared completely, the sand dunes being replaced by wooded savannas, like those found today in eastern Africa. 18,000 years ago, the last Ice Age had reached its peak and Sahara had moved 400 km (250 mi) south from its current location. But the ice covering Europe, northern Asia and North America melted between 13,000 to 8,000 years ago.

This way, 6,000-8,000 years ago, the rainfall was abundant, and in Sahara flourished the Neolithic culture which left the famous rock paintings found in Tassili n’Ajjer Mountains and other areas of Sahara, depicting crocodiles, ostriches, rhinos, giraffes, buffaloes, hippopotamus and elephants, encountered today only in Africa at South of Sahara, but also oryx antelopes and gazelles. The Sahara was filled with lakes in the region of modern Niger and people hunted antelopes, while its mountains were covered by forests. Archaeologists encountered from hippopotamus and elephant bones to fishing harpoons. After that, 4,500 years ago, the region turned into the arid desert we know today. In some Saharan mountains or patches, there are some savanna elements still persisting, like crocodiles, hyraxes and different shrub species. But human activity like deforestation, intensive grazing and farming sped up the phenomenon. And Sahara is still expanding southward: since 1900, the desert has gained a fringe over 250 km (155 mi) wide.

Yes, seems there was a mix up in the announcements - there has been a Neolithic settlement found in Nth Egypt dating around 5-7000 years old but it is not a city, possibly bordering on civilization, but not a city or large town, the city part has been confused with a close by find of Greco-Roman town ruins.

Also:
http://journal3.net/spip.php?article176

Good article about the Tassili Mountains in Sahara Desert and how it can be connected to Egypt's origins...Tassili area was once wetter and rock art shows connections with Egypt, once the Sahara dried up they possibly moved west into the area of Egypt.

Why are you a mod on this site?

Ms. Buzz killington

I agree that vast civilizations of more advanced cultures than hunter gatherer could and have been lost, that the peoples could have just picked up and moved and we have no record of it.

If it were not for the works of Homer I doubt that anyone today would believe that the culture of ancient Greece arose from an even older culture in Turkey, across a sea.

I'm bumping this post up so I can point out that, though Saraswati requires links from the likes of me, Saraswati does not feel compelled to back up his own statements with links, or even the requested quotes.

That is typical of fringers, IMO.

Harte

True enough, but the sea over the former 'continent' can only be as deep - at most! - as the rise in sea level. From the maps I can find, the Indian Ocean is actually mostly more than 3000 feet deep. That's not to say there couldn't have been fairly extensive areas drowned but it would have been areas now on the continental shelf and some islands, not a continent.

Perhaps looking for sites that may have mimicked this pattern would lead to some finds.
Lost Island Land

Truth, and nothing else. I could count 20 cities that were found underwater.
So has any person thought of looking under the sand? Someone did, for this article to be present, and not only that, the pyramids of Giza to be found also, under the sand. Soon enough more and more cities will be uncovered and long lost technologies will be found of great significance to our current society; given our "obsession with destroying ourselves" kind of government doesnt take it for themselves.

What does it take to bring the facts to skeptics?? They so want to disprove every theory, because they dont understand it. What they dont understand or know means it doesnt exist to them. When in reality, behind their backs, there are massive cities and technologies lying just below the surface of the substances we cant breathe - water and sand.

Snap to it children! Get out and discover!
[Believe and you will find, right before your eyes]

Person,

Judging by your name, you should be aware that sometimes, rather than the sea encroaching onto the land, the land will:

IOW, sometimes the land sinks.

They call this subduction in geology.

This is happening right now to parts of the Indo-Australian tectonic plate.
This Google search provides many sites with info about this phenomena.

A large portion of this continental plate is itself under the ocean because of the above-mentioned subduction. In fact, the entire eastern portion has been drawn down below sea level with the exception of the continent's highest peaks which form New Zealand, New Guinea, etc.

Harte

Well, the Greeks are an Indo-European people, and consequently ultimately came from a point North and East of Greece, and so are the people from Turkey, but I've never seen anything that indicates the Greeks (specifically the Mycenae, since the Minoans certainly weren't) were from Turkey. And Homer had no significant role in the linguistic that help determine that.

It sounds like you're confusing what Schliemann did; he used Homer to find the city of /Troy/ mentioned in the Iliad, but there's nothing to suggest the Trojans were Greek (and a great deal that suggests they weren't).

--Jaylemurph

Miletus

It made them look.

I don't know what makes you think that. Instead of site about coins, you can consult the Wikipedia article on Miletus; the earliest records show that the area was Hittite, and that the Minoans (who re-named the city Miletus in honor of a place in Crete) and Mycenaeans came /to/ Miletus, instead of the other way around. By the time of the Trojan war, Miletus was firmly allied against the Greeks.

--Jaylemurph

In the time frame we're talking about, around 10-20 K years, subduction seems too slow a process to produce a basin-wide 3000 ft. change in elevation. Isostacy is a better bet but still not a good one, although I'm sure areas of the Earth's surface sank somewhat as other areas freed from the glacial burden rose. But my gut feeling is that the land submerged would have been around the edges of the land we see now. Well, I can be wrong.

You're right about the possible depth, of course. But there are temples awash in the ocean today off a beach in India that are underwater due to subduction. Partly revealed by the tsunami a couple years ago, if you recall.

Harte

Interesting... while it never entered my mind I can respect the idea of such civilizations living in the Sahara, some time in the past. Although I guess it would be next to impossible to do this but, it would be really nice if someone did some large excavations in some of the more remote areas of the desert, some of the larger sand dunes could be covering undiscovered treasures

I agree.
The Tassili rock art seems to indicate that there were plenty of wild animals, giraffes, etc there and an extinct bison that is dated 5000BC. So this was when it was wetter and greener before it dried out from the changing climate, possibly due to change in Earth's axis, which changed humidity patterns combined with rising sea levels to create a wetter area. So we know that a culture was in this area at 5000BC. Quite an advanced one according to some of the rock art and being possible Egyptian ancestors, which moved onto the fertile Nile after the Sahara started drying up.
I saw a map on a site that I can't seem to relocate that showed all the northern Sahara as a river system with rivers winding through this area from the Mediterranean Sea to the coast of West Africa. The rising sea levels spread water all around the Atlas mountains. It was a pressure release valve for the Straits of Gibralter. This all makes sense to me.
I think under the sand dunes are amazing discoveries to be made.