Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Harsh86_Patel

Underwater civilisation predating last iceage

98 posts in this topic

- Dwarka in the Bay of Cambray - No real evidence shows this is a city. Bits of wood, stone, pottery and maybe some other things were sent off for testing in 2004 and nothing about this was ever updated. Seemingly the evidence probably shows this is not a city, but a Reef, with debris from the neighboring coastal communities, or the thousands of fishing boats that trawl the area, being found among the rocks/corals.

You've made a very common mistake here.

Ancient Dwarka, which does exist, is underwater, and is off the west coast of India, is not in the Gulf of Khambat.

It's in the next gulf south of there (or north, can't remember right now.)

These two sites, one real - one Hancockian in its bogusness, have been confused for years at websites all over the internet, so it's understandable.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now wait, there is something I don't understand about the title, so the civilization was underwater, did they all have gills?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NIO is not an archaeological entity. It is simply National Institute of oceanography. They did stuff in their manner. They dredged.

I seriously doubt Dr. S. R Rao's contention that they discovered the city of Dwaraka.

Elsewhere, in this very forum, i had written with links to prove that S.R Rao was mistaken. I cant find those links now.

I feel that the main culprit for all this is Politics. Dr. Murali Manohar Joshi who was India's Union Minister for Human Resource Development, Science and Technology, and member of the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party), a Hinduism oriented religionist Party.

He had his own agenda to push since if the ancient city of dwaraka was indeed found during the tenure of his party and his misnistership, its boon for both.

Seriously, he should have waited for detailed analysis but he didnt. He jumped the gun.

He announced to the press that the ancient city of Dwaraka was found and there are such and such structures that has been discovered, while in reality they were just weathered stones /stone formations on the sea bed.

Dr. S.S Rao would naturally be his lackey in the whole incident.

If Dr. Rao was indeed a proper archaeologist, he would have asked NIO to stop dre4dging and would have asked insisted on proper marine archaeological proceedings.

He too was in a hurry for the glory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've made a very common mistake here.

Ancient Dwarka, which does exist, is underwater, and is off the west coast of India, is not in the Gulf of Khambat.

It's in the next gulf south of there (or north, can't remember right now.)

These two sites, one real - one Hancockian in its bogusness, have been confused for years at websites all over the internet, so it's understandable.

Harte

If you are referring to another set of ruins just of the coast from the present day city of dwarka in Gujarat,it is located north to the gulf of cambay ruins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thank you cormac for the links.

The research paper titled "Ancient shorelines of Gujarat, India, during the Indus civilization (Late Mid-Holocene): A study based on archaeological evidences" by A. S. Gaur* and K. H. Vora researches the ancient coastlines of Gujarat during the times of Indus Valley Civilization.

The name Bet Dwarka indicated in the paper is a name given in the modern times.

Indus Valley Civilization and the Civilization to which Dwaraka /People, Places and events of Mahabharatha belonged are mutually exclusive.

Lothal, Dholavira etc are real evidences of the maritime capabilities of the ancient Indus Valley Civilizations.

Lothal was the first Dry Dock in the world.

Dholavira is one of the most predominant examples of the systematic planned cities of Indus valley civilization.

But neither, nor the civilization to which they belonged had anything to do with dwaraka.

Dwaraka belonged to the Aryan era, to the epoch of the Mahabharatha.

In the research paper, in the beginning there is this statement to which i take offence

During the historical

period several coastal towns had international trade and commerce including Bet Dwarka,

Somnath, Hathab, Vallabhi, and Bharuch. Maritime activity reached it’s zenith in Gujarat during

the Medieval period (8th to 14th century AD) when Arab traders dominated the Indian Ocean for

over a millennia.

All the places mentioned do not belong to the Indus Valley Civilization nor were they built during the period of the Indus valley Civilization. They were established long after the Indus valley civilization had died out.

The Bet Dwarka in the research paper is not the same as the City of Dwaraka.

Cormac had provided two links to the research paper by Drs. Gaur & Vora. Thank you Cormac.

Links are at

http://www.themua.or...118f5f28a4f.pdf

http://drs.nio.org/d..._Sci_77_180.pdf

Edited by The_Spartan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you cormac for the links.

The research paper titled "Ancient shorelines of Gujarat, India, during the Indus civilization (Late Mid-Holocene): A study based on archaeological evidences" by A. S. Gaur* and K. H. Vora researches the ancient coastlines of Gujarat during the times of Indus Valley Civilization.

The name Bet Dwarka indicated in the paper is a name given in the modern times.

Indus Valley Civilization and the Civilization to which Dwaraka /People, Places and events of Mahabharatha belonged are mutually exclusive.

Lothal, Dholavira etc are real evidences of the maritime capabilities of the ancient Indus Valley Civilizations.

Lothal was the first Dry Dock in the world.

Dholavira is one of the most predominant examples of the systematic planned cities of Indus valley civilization.

But neither, nor the civilization to which they belonged had anything to do with dwaraka.

Dwaraka belonged to the Aryan era, to the epoch of the Mahabharatha.

In the research paper, in the beginning there is this statement to which i take offence

All the places mentioned do not belong to the Indus Valley Civilization nor were they built during the period of the Indus valley Civilization. They were established long after the Indus valley civilization had died out.

The Bet Dwarka in the research paper is not the same as the City of Dwaraka.

Cormac had provided two links to the research paper by Drs. Gaur & Vora. Thank you Cormac.

Links are at

http://www.themua.or...118f5f28a4f.pdf

http://drs.nio.org/d..._Sci_77_180.pdf

No problem Spartan. While I can't speak for the veracity of the rest of the articles content, the main point of interest IMO was the rise and fall of coastlines in Indian history. Particularly within recorded history. That pretty much explains why many areas are now submerged. And none of it has anything to do with 10,000 BC or pre-Ice Age claims as some are willing to believe.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You've made a very common mistake here.

Ancient Dwarka, which does exist, is underwater, and is off the west coast of India, is not in the Gulf of Khambat.

It's in the next gulf south of there (or north, can't remember right now.)

These two sites, one real - one Hancockian in its bogusness, have been confused for years at websites all over the internet, so it's understandable.

Harte

I've actually heard there are three sets of ruins under that part of the coastline. One that is just offshore that is ancient parts of the town of Dwarka proper. A second that is several miles out to the west and to the south. I believe this is the "ancient Dwarka" that they dredged trash from. And a third ruin which is also sometimes called Dwarka which is around the peninsula and is actually in the bay created by the river.

post-26883-0-17346900-1344457372_thumb.j

And I believe only the one that is right off shore is real.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern trash being mixed with old relics is not going to impact the radio carbon-dating of old relics. I understand that there can be an issue with dating the samples they found by dredging the sea-floor but what still surprises me is the man-made structures which resemble advanced cities,can this be refuted?

Millions of locations around the world exhibit the same faulting of coral into blocks. There may be large stones down there, but after 3000 years, much less 10000, the coral would make the shapes unrecognizable. These are simply reefs. Perhaps reefs that have faulted into blocks.

Can you post any good pictures that show these are dressed stone blocks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are referring to another set of ruins just of the coast from the present day city of dwarka in Gujarat,it is located north to the gulf of cambay ruins

Thank you.

That's the one. I couldn't remember which direction.

I've actually heard there are three sets of ruins under that part of the coastline. One that is just offshore that is ancient parts of the town of Dwarka proper. A second that is several miles out to the west and to the south. I believe this is the "ancient Dwarka" that they dredged trash from. And a third ruin which is also sometimes called Dwarka which is around the peninsula and is actually in the bay created by the river.

post-26883-0-17346900-1344457372_thumb.j

And I believe only the one that is right off shore is real.

There very well could be many ruins offshore in the area, given the subduction going on there (mentioned by Cormac MacExcellent.) That part of the Indo-Australian plate is slamming into Asia due to it's northward motion.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lothal-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Those look a good deal iike ballest stones, which medieval merchants used to weight there ships when not carrying goods. Then when they reached India, they tossed the stones over the side to load up with trade goods. The ballest stones were usually long and flat so they could be moved easily and stored easily.

I bet if they chemically check those stones they will be non-native stones, probably from the Red Sea region or the Gulf of Oman.

http://arabiantica.humnet.unipi.it/index.php?id=1086

commercial_routes_01.jpg

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Handoncock talks more about his scuba diving 'holidays' and his wife than he does emperical evidence. Good work if you can get it I suppose.

Edited by Dragonwind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any takes on Yonaguni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any takes on Yonaguni

Please do a search on Yonaguni using the "SEARCH" function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any takes on Yonaguni

Your link to the "7 Most Fascinating Underwater Ruins" is factually incorrect regarding Yonaguni.

Today it is known that the formation sank due to tectonic action only 2,000 years ago.

The pics regarding Yonaguni at that link show a "tablet" with some sort of pictograms on it which was certainly not found at this submerged site, and is absolutely in no way associated with this natural formation.

Such a misrepresentation regarding this well-known site leads me to infer that the the rest of the linked site likely contains questionable claims as well, which led me to not bother reading what was written there.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your link to the "7 Most Fascinating Underwater Ruins" is factually incorrect regarding Yonaguni.

Today it is known that the formation sank due to tectonic action only 2,000 years ago.

The pics regarding Yonaguni at that link show a "tablet" with some sort of pictograms on it which was certainly not found at this submerged site, and is absolutely in no way associated with this natural formation.

Such a misrepresentation regarding this well-known site leads me to infer that the the rest of the linked site likely contains questionable claims as well, which led me to not bother reading what was written there.

Harte

Can you post the link which says that Yonaguni sunk 2000 years back due to tectonic plate movement?

Also another thing that surprises me is that we so blatantly refuse the possibility of the Atlantis myth being true to a certain degree when we often commit to the fact that cities did actually get submerged by water

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because cities do get submerged in water doesn't mean it gives arise to the possibility of the existence of Atlantis.

Atlantis was and is a allegory.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you post the link which says that Yonaguni sunk 2000 years back due to tectonic plate movement?

Submerged stone structures lying just below the waters off Yonaguni Jima are actually the ruins of a Japanese Atlantis—an ancient city sunk by an earthquake about 2,000 years ago.

That's the belief of Masaaki Kimura, a marine geologist at the University of the Ryukyus in Japan who has been diving at the site to measure and map its formations for more than 15 years.

Source: NatGeo

Also another thing that surprises me is that we so blatantly refuse the possibility of the Atlantis myth being true to a certain degree when we often commit to the fact that cities did actually get submerged by water

Plato knew of sites that disappeared underwater during his lifetime (Helike, for example) so, in fact, it's not surprising at all that he would write this and so why should such a thing be considered as possible evidence in favor of the existence of Atlantis?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you post the link which says that Yonaguni sunk 2000 years back due to tectonic plate movement?

Also another thing that surprises me is that we so blatantly refuse the possibility of the Atlantis myth being true to a certain degree when we often commit to the fact that cities did actually get submerged by water

Plato gave a specific location and a specific timeframe. Neither of which is supported by the available scientific evidence from multiple disciplines, which shows that no such place ever existed. Nor was there an "Atlantis myth" before Plato wrote about it. You may not like the facts, but they're there anyway.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is Graham Hancock's qualification??

You tell me!

Does he have a background in Archaeology or History or palaentology or anthropology etc?

Nada. Nil. Zilch.

All he has is a Degree in Journalism and an over imaginative brain.

Read any of his books.

Does he ever state anything with finality?

Never.

lets discuss.

I've read everything graham hancock has written and am quite the fan. He doesnt go so far out to claim something as fact as most ancient civilization theorists do. He merely speculates. He's a highly qualified diver and has put countless hours in the field studying underwater structures. He's just asking people to be openminded and hes not forcing his beliefs onto anyone. Hancock really does stand out from the crowd. I have little respect for many of these authors and theorists, but I've got tremendous repect for Hancock. he's asking question, like we all should do, and not forcing psuedoscience nonsense like the rest of them. He may not have a degree in any specific field, but does he really need one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, he needs a degree in a specific field to make his theories based on sound facts and science, not based on knitting unrelated facts and cultures together in a captivating fanstasy story.

If you think he doesn't need one, you might as well read a scifi novel.

There are some really intelligently written ones, and those I love to read.

And, btw, he has been proven wrong.

But I must admit: he is not a pathological liar like Von Däniken is.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, he needs a degree in a specific field to make his theories based on sound facts and science, not based on knitting unrelated facts and cultures together in a captivating fanstasy story.

If you think he doesn't need one, you might as well read a scifi novel.

There are some really intelligently written ones, and those I love to read.

And, btw, he has been proven wrong.

But I must admit: he is not a pathological liar like Von Däniken is.

.

Well I look at people like giorgio tsoukalos who is pretty much the leading authority on everything balogny, and hes got a degree in sports journalism. You don't need a degree to theorize. hancock is pretty humble, he cites a lot of references when he's talking about something he's not all that knowledgeable in. hancock is merely an author whos interested in the subject, nothing more, and hes never claimed to be anything more. hes just trying to figure things out, not trying to make his ideas "fact". And a lot of this ancient civilization stuff is pretty much science fiction anyways.

Edited by AREA__51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.