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 1
Harsh86_Patel

Cradle of civilization-Is it Dwarka

76 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Compare to Hancock's:

cambay3_A_01.jpg

Harte

Poor Hancock.

A bit short of convincing, if you ask me.

.

Edited by lilthor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hancock makes my skin crawl. He's like the David Icke of archeaology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

linking images from Hancock's site wouldnt do, harsh.

provide the papers, joural references of NIO articles and link photographs from NIO,not from Hancock's website.

Hell, i too can put NIO Logo on any damn pic and claim its from NIO.

So if i post your picture on Hancock's site, would you shoot yourself?

Lol the article is by Badrinarayan, most of the side scan sonar images have a NIOT mark on them.

You are a prime example of Baised fanaticism...whats your beef with hancock anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't thermoluminescence a dating techinque? It does not show whether or not a pot is composed of the materials from local sources. That is usually done using a petrographic method such as point counting on a thin section of pottery.

You are right i made an error while typing the post....was in a hurry.

They actually used X-ray Diffraction to analyse the mineral components to determine that the pottery was made with local material.

Since some persons have expressed doubts about the pottery pieces, a thorough scientific study was made involving the pottery pieces to establish their authenticity. To determine the properties of various material including pottery, many samples were subjected to X-Ray diffraction (XRD) analysis. Since the materials that constitute pottery etc are clays and heterogeneous mixures of a variety of materials, these were accordingly analysed. Every area has a special fingerprint pattern in the clay which can be recognized in X-Ray diffraction (XRD). The above analysis was carried out in Deccan College, Pune Maharashtra state, India,by using an advanced instrument which gave excellent results. The conclusions are that the pattern of pottery pieces corresponds very well with the locally available clay of gulf of Cambay. The mineral patterns of habitational floor, wattle and daub and land materials (alluvial deposit) are comparable. The patterns of fired clay, floor birck piece, vitrified clay, compare very well. All these indicate that they are genuine artifacts, made from locally available material and are insitu. It fully confirms the presence of archaeological sites. The findings indicate that the pottery was produced locally with levigated clay, fired uniformly at about 700oC. From the presence of calcite in clays and pottery arid to semi-arid environmental conditions prior to the submergence of the site could be deduced. Calcritised alluvial deposits indicate the existence of ancient rivers which once flowed in the submerged regions of Gulf of Cambay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

http://www.fanpop.co...s-fans-part-two

Sidescan is good for detecting regular patterns but not for determining what those patterns are. As we've seen in other threads, nature is quite capable of producing considerable regularity.

The "stupid and malicious" debunkers make reasonable points about the possibility of legitimate artifacts being washed down, where said artifacts are in fact artificial. I'm curious about the semi-precious stones for one. Are there pictures available of same other than the ones at the top of the Frontline article? I ask because if those are them, they don't look particularly semi-precious, let alone man-made. They look rather like what are commonly called hagstones, which occur with some frequency in a variety of stones, including hard flint: http://m.pinterest.c...54653/hagstone/

Per the pottery, clay is sedimentary. Any that's at the bottom of the gulf had to come from somewhere else as a matter of course. (River, I say, river course, that is) It's not surprising then that any pottery potentially washed down from upstream should match the clay which needs must have done the same.

Thanks for the post oniomancer, some sensible criticism after a long time.

1.

The reason the site was first noticed is because of uncanny geometric patterns which were observed by the NIOT scientists who were all expert marine scientists and were doing pollution studies at the guld of Cambay.

In Fig.8 one could observe a long linear prominent and well made basement of a major structure measuring 200m x 45m. It nestles on high ground and one can see steps on the right corner approaching the structure. Inside the structure there are many 18m and above square shaped room like features with fortifications surrounding it. This type of huge structures resembles the “CITADAL” found in Mohanjodaro, Harrappa, Dholavira wherein these occur at the western extremity again on the high ground. Probably it is an administrative building supervising the entire civic activities of the township or could be a place of worship. Some pieces of fossilized human bones, natural teeth and

some fossilized animal bones were recovered during sampling on the eastern side of the citadel

Figure – 8

Sonar image in Fig.9 picked up a major dilapidated structure measuring 190m x 85m with spaces separated by what looks like collapsed walls. In front of it, on the bottom side there are several basements of rectangular shaped 2.5 to 3.5m x 6m structures, resembling minor dwellings. It could be an ancient granary for the township probably with dwelling place nearby, for the workers. In the nearby areas some fossilized food grains have been collected. In many of the Harappan sites the granary is a regular feature.

The image in Fig.10 is that of a basement of a buried settlement and it measures 74m x 48m. It has regular square, rectangular and arch shapes. The darker portions are the elevated or standout features. These indicate that there are still some constructed portions standing up partly. To the north of the structure also, a few square and rectangular shaped basements are visible.

Sub-bottom profiler surveys, instead of reflecting sound waves from the seabed like side scan sonar, penetrate the seabed. The waves travel beneath the seabed in different formations in different speeds and the instrument collects the reflection data over selected frequencies. It provides good depth information on geological features apart from delineating any suspected buried anthropogenic structures.

The sub-bottom profiler image in Fig.12 is below the 200m x 45m Citadel like structure. The standout features were picked up at regular intervals and appear to be the basement and foundations of the structure. It is observed that the foundations have been dug up to 5-6m in the soil over which broad column like features have been constructed, probably to take the load of the huge structure above.

The sub-bottom profiler image in Fig.13 is below the buried settlement of 74 x 48m structure. Here also man made foundations like column can be clearly seen emerging from below the seabed and occur as standout features. Here, the foundations have been dug up to 3-4 m deep in the soil. These types of planning and method of construction by ancients clearly reveal that they had a very good knowledge of civil and structural engineering, wherein broader and deeper foundations were provided for bigger and heavier structures and thinner and shallow foundations for comparatively smaller structures. Likewise almost all the structures including the dwelling sites indicate a good amount of planning and design, taking into consideration the structural aspects.

2.

The landmass at the bottom of the sea was at one point of time above sea level and there were two old paleo river channels detected. It gives more evidence that there could be flourishing city on these river banks. Thsi can be bridge between a primitive people and the Harrappan cities.

3.

For people who questioned whether the artifacts were originally insitu:

Even though a variety of objects and artifacts were collected in settlements, doubts were expressed by some persons whether these could have been transported by paleochannel and may not be insitu. To clear such doubts detailed geochemical analysis were carried out. Ten geological soil samples and ten artifacts were chosen from the Gulf of Cambay area. Since trace elements like Ti, Hf, Th, etc and Rare Earth Elements (REE) are immobile they preserve their signature without alteration and hence reflect primary petrogenic character. These 20 selected representative samples were analysed using ICP-Mass spectrometer. The rare earth element pattern normalized with shale are given in figure 14 & 15. The results of the analysis clearly reveal that there is one to one match between the archaeological material and Cambay bed sediments. This is characterized by leaching of light rare earth elements and a prominent Europeam anamoly .The ternary and Binary plots of both the materials show clustering of all samples in one place indicating the samples are of same host chemistry and are insitu i.e. that the archaeological material are not transported but are made from locally available material only.

Also Xray Diffraction studies on the pottery gave the same results.

4.

http://www.grahamhan...aryanB1.php?p=4

A lot of images of the artifacts found there. They look manmade to me.

5.

Some people have a misconception that only a piece of wood was used to date the find:

In the southern township or palaeochannel area six samples suitable for dating were identified. Of these 3 are carbonized wooden samples, one was a sediment sample, one was a fired pottery piece and one hearth material. Sample from the same carbonized wood was sent to National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad, India and Geowissenschaftlicte Gemeinschaftsaulguben, Hannover, Germany for Carbon dating. This was the first sample (Location 21o 03.08’ N ; 72 o30.83 E) from near the southern palaeochannel. This first gave a clue to the age and environment of the civilization. The calibrated age as per NGRI was 9580-9190 BP and as per Hannover Institute it was 9545-9490 BP. It means the age is about 9500 BP and this takes the age by more than 4000 years older than the oldest city civilization of Mesopotomia and a fore-runner to ‘Harappan’ civilization. But this occurred near the top of the stratigraphic coloumn. Because of this it was expected that at the lower levels age will be much older and make the civilization really an ancient one. The wooden piece tested at Birpal Sani Institute at Lucknow, U.P. state gave a calibrated age of 8450 BP. However, two important artifacts were obtained in the near by area at lower levels. These were a nice, thin, pottery and a brownish to red hearth material. Along with it a local clay sediment was also chosen. All the three samples were analysed in the Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmadabad, Gujarat State, using standard Thermoluminescence based pottery dating techniques. As expected the one of the pottery piece whose figure is given, gave a date of 13000 ± 1950 BP. It is an important date. Another pottery piece which was ill-fired, on OSL dating (Location 21 o12.54’ N ; 72 o 30.370’ E) by Oxford University gave an age of 16840 ± 2620 BP. These are the oldest fired pottery pieces obtained sofar in the world. Till the results were out it was from Japan where the oldest potteries were known. The “Jomon” Pottery from the Fukui cave in Kyushu gave 12000 BP uncalibrated age. The pottery findings from Odai Yamamoto gave uncalibrated age of 13500-13800 BP. In the Gulf of cambay civilization already attempts appear to have been made in experimental pottery making. These are seen from effects of fired clays (for making pottery) which gave ages of 20130 ± 2170 BP (Location 21 o13.720’ N ; 72 o 26.190’ E) and 16600 ± 1150 BP (Location 21 o13.80 ‘N ; 72 o 26.10 E), by OSL as determined by the Oxford University dating lab. The well fired 3 potteries in the northern palaeochannel gave ages of 7506 ± 785 BP, 6097 ± 611 BP (both by Manipur University) and 4330 ± 1330 BP by Oxford University.

Apart from this sun-dried Pottery pieces were collected in these areas. Three of the specimens were dated by OSL facility in Oxford. The results obtained are (1) 31270±2050 BP, (2) 25700±2790 BP and (3) 24590±2390 BP. A black slipped dish which was also sun dried was dated in Oxford by OSL. This gave an age of 26710 ± 1950 BP.

The hearth material from the southern township (Location 21o03.04 N 72o30.70 E) by TL dating from PRL, Ahmedabad gave an age of 10000 ± 1500 BP whereas the hearth material near the top in the northern township gave an age of 3530 ± 330 BP by OSL, Oxford University. One of the charcoal pieces obtained on the northern side was tested by 14C dating in BSIP, Lucknow. It gave calibrated age of 3000 BP. It tallies very well with the age of upper most alluvium in northern Palaeochannel.

The wattle and daub materials which were originally of wood and clay were seen to be burnt but the structure of the wood was well preserved at places (being fossilized). These were tested by OSL at Oxford and by TL at Manipur from the same locations. OSL dating found it to be 5860 ± 720 BP and TL dating determined it to be 5530 ±550 BP. They appear to be a comparatively good match and they reflect the proper ages. They may represent the period at which these structures caught fire.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the above excerpts are from the same link in the topic for those who would like to also look at the pictures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A delta is one place you can find anything and everything washed down from the rivers, from ancient stuff to modern waste.

  • Now, if some clay shards are washed down from the rivers to the delta, and the Scientists from the National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT) find these shards, do they investigate about the origin of these shards or do they make a conclusion that they could have been an ancient city/civilization right at the place where these shards have been found???
  • How does dating a piece of wood lead the NIOT scientists to the conclusion that there was a city or culture or civilization at the spot where it was found? is all that data engraved on that damn piece of wood????
  • Are NIOT scientists qualified to make such judgments without consulting with Archaeological survey of India???
  • Why haven't the people who made these absurd claims not trying to refute when their claims and finds have been debunked by proper archaeologists?

Please refer to this link to see what Asko Parpola and iravatham mahadevan, respected authorities on the Indus valley/Harappan civilization has to say about the finds.

Correction : I was using the Abbreviation NIO instead of NIOT erroneously

National Institute of Oceanography, Goa & National Institute of Ocean technology, vishakapattanam are two different entities in India.

Now coming back to the “artefacts” dredged from the sea floor (Note - the term here is dredged and not excavated or recovered, especially by Marine Archaeologists), here is a good anlaysis about the ‘artefacts’ at this link. Note that the person who authored the article is a trained archaeologist and not a fringe rainbow chaser like hancock.

I guess Harte has already posted the same content, but albeit from a different website.

Please read the article that i posted in the Link most of your questions are addressed in it. And i have also posted relevant material answering similar querries from other posters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people tried to question the artifacts found at the site, some call in natural and some say that it might have been washed down the river.

All these questions are addressed in the article.

Ther are shards of fired pottery that are definitely manmade and have been used in the dating of the site after determining that the shards were insitu originally and have not been washed down a river channel.

BadrinaryanB1_632410b1.jpg

BadrinaryanB1_m6b370955.jpg

There were also many microlithic tools found there by dredging:

BadrinaryanB1_7bf734c8.jpg

BadrinaryanB1_m2e280e30.jpg

A fossilised mandible and clay jewellry was also found.

BadrinaryanB1_5e38c325.jpg

There are some here who would still claim that all of this is natural and not manmade.....but it is more difficult to explain the structures associated with the site as natural:

In these surveys it was the SideScan Sonar which gave excellent results supported by other systems. Initially two major palaeo channels of rivers were recognized. One over a length of 9.2km and another over 9.0km. When these were sampled, it was seen that just below a thin marine sediment cover of few centimeters, river alluvium and pebbles typical of terrestrial river sediments, below which typical river conglomerates were observed at depth. Such evidence clearly indicated that the area presently under sea, was originally dry land over which rivers were flowing. Due to different factors, they got submerged and now lie beneath the sea. The sonar images showed regular geometric patterns in one palaeo channel over a length of 9km in the sea about 20km west of Hazira coastal area. Associated with this on either side of the palaeo channel , basement like features in a grid pattern were observed at a water depth of 20-40m. These resemble an urban habitation site wherein, in the basement now at the bottom of the sea, pit like structures are seen. Another palaeo channel over 9.2km was detected off Suvali coastal area. Here also similar features were observed. In general the basement like features were located in a linear east-west direction on either side of the palaeo channel. It is seen that these features are 5x4m size on the eastern side whereas the westernmost part had dimensions of 16 x 15m. The habitation sites are all seen to be laid in a strict grid like pattern (Fig.5) indicating a good sense of town planning by the ancients.

Figure – 6

There were also evidences of water conducting system like canals, etc. All these point to a properly planned township, with a high level of knowledge and practice by the ancients. The area in general is seen to be covered by sand waves which occur above the seabed. Often these cover the dwelling but even then the shapes could be made out (Fig.6). Apart from the regular sites of habitation, the Side Scan Sonar picked up images of several big structures. Some of these structures are as follows :

There is a rectangular (41m x25m) shaped depression, wherein one can sea steps gradually going down to reach a depth of about 7m (Fig.7). Surrounding this depression there is a wall like projection on all sites. One could observe an inlet and outlet and also a separate enclosure. This looks like a tank or bathing facility now occurring below 40m of sea water. It occurs near the western periphery of the town. It resembles the “Great Bath” that is found in the ruins of “Mohonjadaro” and “Harappa”, where also these occur on the western side of the township. There are two divisions in the tank, which may represent separate enclosures for men and women or for socially higher and lower categories of people. There are two openings probably for inlet and exit of water to keep the water in the tank fresh and clean.

BadrinaryanB1_m506ba7b7.jpg

Figure – 7

In Fig.8 one could observe a long linear prominent and well made basement of a major structure measuring 200m x 45m. It nestles on high ground and one can seesteps on the right corner approaching the structure. Inside the structure there are many 18m and above square shaped room like features with fortifications surrounding it. This type of huge structures resembles the “CITADAL” found in Mohanjodaro, Harrappa, Dholavira wherein these occur at the western extremity again on the high ground. Probably it is an administrative building supervising the entire civic activities of the township or could be a place of worship. Some pieces of fossilized human bones, natural teeth and

some fossilized animal bones were recovered during sampling on the eastern side of the citadel

Figure – 8

Sonar image in Fig.9 picked up a major dilapidated structure measuring 190m x 85m with spaces separated by what looks like collapsed walls. In front of it, on the bottom side there are several basements of rectangular shaped 2.5 to 3.5m x 6m structures, resembling minor dwellings. It could be an ancient granary for the township probably with dwelling place nearby, for the workers. In the nearby areas some fossilized food grains have been collected. In many of the Harappan sites the granary is a regular feature.

The image in Fig.10 is that of a basement of a buried settlement and it measures 74m x 48m. It has regular square, rectangular and arch shapes. The darker portions are the elevated or standout features. These indicate that there are still some constructed portions standing up partly. To the north of the structure also, a few square and rectangular shaped basements are visible.

A buried structural basement is depicted in Fig.11. The main structure measures 40m x 19m with wall-like dark features rising to 2-3m above the seabed. A series of step-like features are seen approaching the structure from the right side. To one corner of the main structure a 11m x 7m rectangular depression looking like a small tank or pond is observed.

BadrinaryanB1_1b5dbc16.jpg

Figure – 9

Sub-bottom profiler surveys, instead of reflecting sound waves from the seabed like side scan sonar, penetrate the seabed. The waves travel beneath the seabed in different formations in different speeds and the instrument collects the reflection data over selected frequencies. It provides good depth information on geological features apart from delineating any suspected buried anthropogenic structures.

The sub-bottom profiler image in Fig.12 is below the 200m x 45m Citadel like structure. The standout features were picked up at regular intervals and appear to be the basement and foundations of the structure. It is observed that the foundations have been dug up to 5-6m in the soil over which broad column like features have been constructed, probably to take the load of the huge structure above.

The sub-bottom profiler image in Fig.13 is below the buried settlement of 74 x 48m structure. Here also man made foundations like column can be clearly seen emerging from below the seabed and occur as standout features. Here, the foundations have been dug up to 3-4 m deep in the soil. These types of planning and method of construction by ancients clearly reveal that they had a very good knowledge of civil and structural engineering, wherein broader and deeper foundations were provided for bigger and heavier structures and thinner and shallow foundations for comparatively smaller structures. Likewise almost all the structures including the dwelling sites indicate a good amount of planning and design, taking into consideration the structural aspects.

BadrinaryanB1_1985bb70.jpg

BadrinaryanB1_m4b5c47a.jpg

Figure – 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BadrinaryanB1_m56147052.jpg

Just for you harte, rather curved and miniscule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please read the article that i posted in the Link most of your questions are addressed in it. And i have also posted relevant material answering similar querries from other posters.

Please provide links to the matters from accerdited agencies like NIOT/NIO and not fringe con men like Hancock?

can you?

This is what i called a classic example of beating around the bush.

if you got selective blindness to certain posts i could use bigger fonts

TRY TO PROVIDE LINKS TO MATTERS FROM NIOT WEBSITE OR MATTER PRESENTED IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS AND NOT FROM THE FIRGNE RAINBOW CHASER HANCOCK'S WEBSITE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harsh, can you provide more information on "Dr S Badrinaryan"??

The article from hancock's is stated as authored by "Badrinaryan Badrinaryan"

If i was Badrinaryan, i surely wouldnt misspell my own name!!!

Are you sure this is the same Dr. S badrinaryan?????

What chances are that the entire essay would have been a fabirication? Just a honest answer, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Please provide links to the matters from accerdited agencies like NIOT/NIO and not fringe con men like Hancock?

can you?

This is what i called a classic example of beating around the bush.

if you got selective blindness to certain posts i could use bigger fonts

TRY TO PROVIDE LINKS TO MATTERS FROM NIOT WEBSITE OR MATTER PRESENTED IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS AND NOT FROM THE FIRGNE RAINBOW CHASER HANCOCK'S WEBSITE.

Find them yourself,

Most of the data here is from the NIOT reports including the pictures.

Here will assist you for the same:

http://www.niot.res....lications01.php

http://www.niot.res....sh, S&id3=&id4=

http://www.niot.res....u, KM&id3=&id4=

http://www.niot.res....an, B&id3=&id4=

You have to request them for a print.You can take the print and cross verify the information.

Here are the abstracts of these three reports

Detailed underwater surveys carried out in the Gulf of Cambay, about 20 km west of Hazira, deploying side scan sonar and sub bottom profiler brought to light, the presence of a submerged palaeochannel traceable to a length of 9 km. Associated with this on either side are basement like features found in a grid pattern at water depths of 20-40 m. Sub-surface sampling carried out with dredge and grab sampler revealed stone artefacts, potsherds, hearth pieces, animal bones and human teeth embedded in fluvial sands and silts. In the upper part of the deposit, a carbonised wooden log was found and dated to around 9500 years BP by '4C method. Marine magnetic survey carried out does not indicate the presence of any major metallic debris/objects. This appears to be one of the early records of prehistoric human activity of early Holocene age in the marine environment of India.

India, with a coastline of over 7,500 km, is known to have engaged in maritime trade from the second half of the first millennium BC. Geophysical surveys conducted off the coast of Bombay, Laccadives, Tranquebar, Kutch, Cambay, Kaveripattinam and Visakapatnam have recorded shipwrecks, submerged cities, ports and channels. It is highly probable that the shelf off the Andhra, Kerala, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu coasts, if properly surveyed, will yield not only vestiges of prehistoric man and his tools but also submerged river channels and ports. A preliminary survey of the Gulf of Cambay with side-scan sonar soundings and a sub-bottom profiler revealed unnatural features. Further exploration through dredging brought to light artefacts that bore testimony to human activity.

The geophysical investigations carried out in the Gulf of Cambay by the scientists from the Coastal and Environmental Engineering Division of the National Institute of Ocean Technology [NIOT] from 1998 to 2005 for various consultancy projects and the geo-archaeological explorations from 2000 to 2004 brought to light two important features. These are:1. Presence of neotectonic activity indicated in the sub-surface data logged through sparker and subbottom profiler survey; and 2. Material evidence indicating that the present day Gulf was part of the landmass connected to the mainland for a continuous period of 8000 years, from 11,000 BP, until it was submerged around 3000 BR. Besides, the Thermo Luminescence/ Optically Stimulated Luminescence [TL/ OSL] and "C dates of 11,000 BP to 3000 BP obtained for the artefacts and Paleochannel , discovered in the area under study. substantiated this inference. Purananuru, one of the early Tamil classical literatures, mentions the migration of people from the Gujarat region

You can go and verify all you want.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gentlemen and laides,

For your reading pleasure,

New Archaeological sites in the Gulf of Cambay, India - by S. Kathiroli, S. Badrinarayanan, D. V. Rao, B. Sasisekaran, and K. M. Sivakolundu, National Institute of Ocean Technology, Chennai, India

The side-scan sonar images have picked up rectangular basements like feature on either side of the palaeochannel with a relief of 2 to 3 m from the seabed and vary in size from 5 × 5 m2 to as much as 15 × 15 m2

. These features are often covered by sand waves. At places basements of possibly major structures have been picked up (Figure 3). The sub-bottom profiler survey clearly revealed successive layers made up of foundation-like features and cultural strata indicated by acoustic impedance contrast below the basement.

The sites identified by side-scan survey were subjected to sampling by a Van Veen grab sampler, dredge sampler, and by gravity and vibro corers. Quite a few artefacts of archaeological importance have been recovered from these sites, which are absent outside the area adjoining the palaeochannel. The artefacts identified included many beads, of which a broken barrel-shaped bead of chert (Figure 3a ), measuring 13 mm in length and 6 mm in width and with a 4 m diameter hole, is important.

As per Gosh (1989), the tradition of making beads is at least 7000 years old. A chert blade scraper (Fig- ure 3b), measuring 76 mm in length, with a width varying from 35mm to 19 mm and with a thickness of 10 mm, typologically belonging to the upper Palaeolithic cultural tradition, was also recovered.

Low-fired and grass-embedded pottery pieces were recovered, along with broken hearth material. The piece appears to be made of fine, well levigated clay and is about 3 mm across. The perforated stone piece was examined under an optical image analyzer. The examination revealed, in 100 X magnification, that the holes are irregularly oval in shape and have varying contours. This appears to be con nected with deliberate boring activity by a stone tool like a borer, which was quite common in the prehistoric period. In addition, quite a few human bones, as well as a few teeth, have been recovered from the area.

And the Conclusion in the Journal paper

In view of this strong evidence, it can be stated that there was human habitation in the area along the then existing river channel, which appears to have been inundated by marine transgression, probably caused by sea level rise and tectonic events in the area. The evidence provided by NIOT in the Gulf of Cambay has prompted the Govern ment of India to set up a 'National Team' to probe the area further to unravel the details of these exciting marine archaeological findings.

The details of the discovery are expected to change the present view of the prehistory of India and its environs.

Where the heck have they claimed that they found a city?????

Where the heck have they claimed that they found an ancient civilization, older than the IVC???

I got a whole lot of Where the Heck questions!!!!

Mr. Harsh Patel, care to answer??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harsh, can you provide more information on "Dr S Badrinaryan"??

The article from hancock's is stated as authored by "Badrinaryan Badrinaryan"

If i was Badrinaryan, i surely wouldnt misspell my own name!!!

Are you sure this is the same Dr. S badrinaryan?????

What chances are that the entire essay would have been a fabirication? Just a honest answer, please?

Very little chances that it is a fabrication, have already put the links for the official NIOT reports on the same. No need to trust the essay, you have to mail a request to them and find out for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--------

You make the claims.

We question your claims.

And now you are telling us to "You can go and verify all you want."

Why the heck and why in the hell should i do it , bro?

It is your claim. It is your responsibilty to prove your claim. its not our business to go arouind trying to prove your claims wrong. ou state your claim with evidence, we review your claim agaisnt your evidence and then we say whether your claim stands or not.

not the other way around?

Seriously! And you talk about science when you cant even follow a simple review????

Anyway, i have posted the link to the report in a Journal. Read it and prove what you claim or eat your shoes if you can.

Very little chances that it is a fabrication, have already put the links for the official NIOT reports on the same. No need to trust the essay, you have to mail a request to them and find out for yourself.

I will surely do so.

Have you done so? do you have the reports?

If so, why the hell arent you sharing them with us over here now????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gentlemen and laides,

For your reading pleasure,

New Archaeological sites in the Gulf of Cambay, India - by S. Kathiroli, S. Badrinarayanan, D. V. Rao, B. Sasisekaran, and K. M. Sivakolundu, National Institute of Ocean Technology, Chennai, India

And the Conclusion in the Journal paper

Where the heck have they claimed that they found a city?????

Where the heck have they claimed that they found an ancient civilization, older than the IVC???

I got a whole lot of Where the Heck questions!!!!

Mr. Harsh Patel, care to answer??????

I can smell the desperation:

An abstract from the NIOT report:

India, with a coastline of over 7,500 km, is known to have engaged in maritime trade from the second half of the first millennium BC. Geophysical surveys conducted off the coast of Bombay, Laccadives, Tranquebar, Kutch, Cambay, Kaveripattinam and Visakapatnam have recorded shipwrecks, submerged cities, ports and channels. It is highly probable that the shelf off the Andhra, Kerala, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu coasts, if properly surveyed, will yield not only vestiges of prehistoric man and his tools but also submerged river channels and ports. A preliminary survey of the Gulf of Cambay with side-scan sonar soundings and a sub-bottom profiler revealed unnatural features. Further exploration through dredging brought to light artefacts that bore testimony to human activity.

http://www.niot.res.in/publi/library/reprint2.php?id1=New%20Archaeological%20sites%20in%20the%20Gulf%20of%20Cambay,%20India&id2=Kathiroli,%20S%20and%20Badrinarayanan,%20S%20and%20Rao,%20DV%20and%20%20Sasisekaran,%20B%20and%20Sivakolundu,%20KM&id3=&id4=

Here you can request for the full report.

Have already posted the links in a previous post to you right now, you can go back and refer to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make the claims.

We question your claims.

And now you are telling us to "You can go and verify all you want."

Why the heck and why in the hell should i do it , bro?

It is your claim. It is your responsibilty to prove your claim. its not our business to go arouind trying to prove your claims wrong. ou state your claim with evidence, we review your claim agaisnt your evidence and then we say whether your claim stands or not.

not the other way around?

Seriously! And you talk about science when you cant even follow a simple review????

Anyway, i have posted the link to the report in a Journal. Read it and prove what you claim or eat your shoes if you can.

I will surely do so.

Have you done so? do you have the reports?

If so, why the hell arent you sharing them with us over here now????

I belive that the essay on Hancocks site is factual. You have a doubt so clarify it yourself, i have already helped you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make the claims.

We question your claims.

And now you are telling us to "You can go and verify all you want."

Why the heck and why in the hell should i do it , bro?

It is your claim. It is your responsibilty to prove your claim. its not our business to go arouind trying to prove your claims wrong. ou state your claim with evidence, we review your claim agaisnt your evidence and then we say whether your claim stands or not.

not the other way around?

I have created the topic, i have put forward my opinion and i have put the relevant material already for everyone to see.

You doubt the material i have posted, because you don't like Hancock, though he has never been caught lying or doing dishonest things.

I have given you a link to an alternate and most direct source of the reports, now since you doubt Hancock's and my integrity...even if i were to post any other information you would still doubt it.

That is the reason i have posted the link, so you can request the reports from NIOT via email and verify yourself, where neither me or graham hancock would be involved.

No i have not yet requested the original reports from NIOT as i believe the essay on Hancocks's site to be factual.Most of the pictures bear the NIOT official logo and most of the information matches the newspaper reports.

I don't think Graham Hancock would present his backside for a good spanking to people like you, by lying about things in public domain and easily verifiable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since its you who has given the links to the artricles on NIOT website, i am asking you whether you have managed to collect the articles or have they given you access to the articles.

If you have the articles/papers, why are you not sharing them with us over here?

If they didnt provide you the articles/papers, why the hell are you bothering to put the links in here, without even knowing their contents.???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

desperation??

Not depseration.

Just sadness that i am dealing with a fringe rainbow chaser named harsh patel instead of a Skeptic or intelligent man who uses common sense!!

A preliminary survey of the Gulf of Cambay with side-scan sonar soundings and a sub-bottom profiler revealed unnatural features. Further exploration through dredging brought to light artefacts that bore testimony to human activity.

Are these gentlemen who authored the paper trained archaeologists to make that claim?

No.

have they considered the possibilites of these artefacts and objects being transported there, by natural means??

No.

In view of this strong evidence, it can be stated that there was human habitation in the area along the then existing river channel, which appears to have been inundated by marine transgression, probably caused by sea level rise and tectonic events in the area. The evidence provided by NIOT in the Gulf of Cambay has prompted the Govern ment of India to set up a 'National Team' to probe the area further to unravel the details of these exciting marine archaeological findings.

The details of the discovery are expected to change the present view of the prehistory of India and its environs.

there is nothing in this report that is wrong.

the NIOt team found some material they dedged from the spots and they have doubts that these could be from human habitations along the rivers in the area.

thats all. They havent claimed

1. That there was a city down there.

2. thery didnt claim a civilization older than IVC

3. All they did was find some stuff and they have informed the government, which from advice of archaeologists, have found their find "wanting".

Thats all.

I am reading the article with common sense.

I think you are looking for deliberate textual paraidolia in the articles.

The article you have linked from Hancock's website is suspicious.

1. The chief scientist of NIOT during the finds was Dr. Sa Badrinaryan and not Badirnaryan Badrinaryan

2. Unless i get the articles from NIOT, i cannot confirm whether the pictures with NIOT logo as displayed in the article, is actually from NIOT. (i can also make NOT logos and put on them pics top claim that they are from NIOT)

3. Prominent Indus Valely experts like Asko parpola and iravatham mahadevanbhave refuted and debunked "evidences" trying to connect the finds to Indus Valley and Harrapan Cvilization.

4. The valid questions raised by archeologists have not been asnwered aby anyone.

5. Why hasnt there been any further dive or exploration in this area where the finds were made, if it were true and the Indian Govt shouldf have been on the move last decade itself. Why no no action for a decade and till now???

More questions bro, which you cant or wont or wil lfind it tough to answer!!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Harsh, why the quip about Big Brother? Why this personal attack? Any reason for that? Some of us do not just take the word of Hancock for it.

So as to the subject at hand I'll be brief, instead of dredging for artefacts and most likely destroying half of the proof they need in the process, NIOT should have let NIO and their submarine archaeology department do it the right way. They would still have received the credit for finding it and at least there would have been no controversy as to the legitimacy of the site.

But as far as I can tell this was a political play from A to Z, with the gods know what agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

desperation??

Not depseration.

Just sadness that i am dealing with a fringe rainbow chaser named harsh patel instead of a Skeptic or intelligent man who uses common sense!!

Are these gentlemen who authored the paper trained archaeologists to make that claim?

No.

have they considered the possibilites of these artefacts and objects being transported there, by natural means??

No.

there is nothing in this report that is wrong.

the NIOt team found some material they dedged from the spots and they have doubts that these could be from human habitations along the rivers in the area.

thats all. They havent claimed

1. That there was a city down there.

2. thery didnt claim a civilization older than IVC

3. All they did was find some stuff and they have informed the government, which from advice of archaeologists, have found their find "wanting".

Thats all.

I am reading the article with common sense.

I think you are looking for deliberate textual paraidolia in the articles.

The article you have linked from Hancock's website is suspicious.

1. The chief scientist of NIOT during the finds was Dr. Sa Badrinaryan and not Badirnaryan Badrinaryan

2. Unless i get the articles from NIOT, i cannot confirm whether the pictures with NIOT logo as displayed in the article, is actually from NIOT. (i can also make NOT logos and put on them pics top claim that they are from NIOT)

3. Prominent Indus Valely experts like Asko parpola and iravatham mahadevanbhave refuted and debunked "evidences" trying to connect the finds to Indus Valley and Harrapan Cvilization.

4. The valid questions raised by archeologists have not been asnwered aby anyone.

5. Why hasnt there been any further dive or exploration in this area where the finds were made, if it were true and the Indian Govt shouldf have been on the move last decade itself. Why no no action for a decade and till now???

More questions bro, which you cant or wont or wil lfind it tough to answer!!

The inferrence drawn from the data will vary the facts remain the same.Hence we are discussing it.

http://news.bbc.co.u...sia/1345150.stm

http://news.bbc.co.u...sia/1768109.stm

Abstract:

The images gathered over the past six months led to a surprising discovery - a series of well-defined geometric formations were clearly seen, spread irregularly across a nine-kilometre (five-mile) stretch, a little beneath the sea bed.

Some of them closely resemble an acropolis - or great bath - known to be characteristic of the Harappan civilisation.

The Gulf of Cambay is one of the largest tidal areas in the world - with a current of very high velocity - and so it is conceivable that the area may well have submerged an entire ancient settlement, Mr Ravindran said.

Using sidescan sonar - which sends a beam of sound waves down to the bottom of the ocean they identified huge geometrical structures at a depth of 120ft.

Debris recovered from the site - including construction material, pottery, sections of walls, beads, sculpture and human bones and teeth has been carbon dated and found to be nearly 9,500 years old.

Now lets come over to the debunking as claimed by you:

http://www.frontline...05/19050670.htm

Prominent members of the archaeological community have since debunked the Ministry's claim. While not disputing the possible existence of underwater structures in the Gulf of Khambat, they argue that the evidence found so far is far too flimsy to support the grand claims that are being made. Their contention is that the government should hand over the excavation work to qualified marine archaeologists. It is a well established that civilisation began around 3500 B.C. in the Sumer valley (now in southern Iraq), and around 2500 B.C. in the Indian subcontinent with the Indus Valley civilisation. In archaeological methodology, the records generated from fieldwork have primacy in establishing the value of an excavation and the conclusions that are drawn. "It is highly unorthodox to go public so soon after a discovery and without first presenting the findings to one's peers," Jaya Menon, a lecturer in the Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, MS University, Baroda, told Frontline. "I don't see how claims were made without the involvement of marine archaeologists."

Professor K.V. Raman, former head of the Department of Archaeology, University of Madras, and former Superintending Archaeologist with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), says that the site needs more probing. On the pre-Harappan label being attached to the site, he says, "I am really sick of the politicisation of matters like this. It destroys the integrity of my profession."

Many aspects of the Khambat discovery are open to question. For instance, though the NIOT discovered the site last year, it has not involved agencies such as the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO), which has a marine archaeology department and has many submarine excavations to its credit. Nor have the respected departments of archaeology at Deccan College or the University of Allahabad been involved. Kathiroli says: "The work done so far is very little and helps only to establish the existence of an archaeological site. Much more detailed investigations are required to unravel the complete truth. With this in mind, a national project is being contemplated involving institutions such as the NIO, the ASI, the National Geophysical Research Institute, the Physical Research Laboratory (in Ahmedabad) and other academic institutions."

There are some basic objections which have been raised against the claim that the remains of a 9,500-year-old settlement exist under the sea in the Gulf of Khambat. First, no marine archaeologist has actually gone down and seen the site. Says Shereen Ratnagar, Professor of Archaeology at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, and the author of many books on the Harappan civilisation: "There have been no divers, no mapping, no underwater photography in this case. These are the basics of excavating a submarine site. It's a long, tedious process. Even the work of mapping by people trained in archaeological draughtsmanship takes very long." Kathiroli says that an attempt to photograph the site failed because the water was turbid.

The debunking was based on inconclusive evidence and not anything else, they were debunking the Harrappan connection.This is something that i have been highlighting again and again that these sites should be further explored and analysed in detail, which is something that is not happening.

http://www.frontline...07/19070940.htm

Regarding what Parpola and Ivartham had to say:

How significant are the artefacts found at the Gulf of Khambat site? What are your first impressions on examining them? Is there any method by which the structures there can be examined?

To begin with, let us keep the Indus or the Harappan civilisation completely out of this. First, they (the NIOT scientists) are not claiming it to be the Indus civilisation. No Indus script or metal has been found there. No piece of pottery has been found there that can be identified; except some very minute pieces.

There are a few stone-like implements. But, as Prof. Parpola emphasises, due to tidal action it is very difficult to say for sure whether they are paleolithic which have been smoothened to look like neolithic or just natural stones that can acquire any kind of shape.

One point Dr. Badrinarayan is insistent about is that the square plinth areas have foundations. Dr. Parpola asked some probing questions such as whether there could not be some rock formations underneath? To this Dr. Badrinarayan says, "no". To prove this, I have suggested that one of the plinth areas be opened up by bucket excavators. It is a crude method. But one cannot do better than that. We do not expect brick structures. They could be random rubble structures.

This is only a beginning. They should do this (excavation) for a few more seasons. And they should associate well-known international experts in underwater archaeology and neolithic age. I am told that Dr. S.R. Rao, India's best expert in underwater archaeology, looked at the findings and was quoted as saying that he is "baffled". He is not able to come to any conclusion, as Dr. Parpola has also said.

I would like to maintain a cautious optimism. If the criticism is destructive, you would discourage the scientists who are honest and going about their jobs. Let us take their claims at face value. When an expert says he has been doing underwater exploration for long and has never found anything like this before, the claim has to be taken at face value.

NIOT scientists stumbled on the site. They have made known their findings. Should it still remain with them or be given to experts in the area of marine archaeology and Indian archaeology?

Also,

Parpola: That is too much.

Mahadevan: Absolutely not. That is politics. But I would not say that the finding should be discounted. We should ask questions and take a helpful attitude. If all experts say that there is nothing there which is man-made then scientists like Dr. Badrinarayan and Kathiroli will accept it. But the arguments and approach should be scientific, and the debate academic - keeping out politics.

In archaeology, any culture is a period of human activity. You can talk about palaeolithic culture and so on. Whereas civilisation would involve urban settlement. The comparisons with Jericho are all very far-fetched. Any link with the Harappan civilisation is unwarranted. There is no Indus script, no writing, no metal, no seal and not even pottery. In fact, even if pottery is found it is very significant because pottery is a human activity. But then again they are embedded in clay. They could have been washed in by the palaeo channel. All that is not conclusive.

One point is that it has been found in an area known to be Harappan in the later period. In that area there are probably a hundred Harappan sites. I have myself joined in one of the excavations, at Rojdi, by an American team led by Possehl. But these are all on land. Take Dholavira, in the Rann of Kutch, above land, but only barely so. With or without the claim of Carbon-14, even the look of it suggests that it is pre-Harappan.

So, let us not talk about the Harappan civilisation or the Indus Valley culture. It is far earlier than that. But the question is whether there is a culture there at all or we are imagining something. My position would be that we should not jump to conclusions nor should we straight away pooh-pooh it. We should take a helpful attitude.

Then how do you go about dating the findings?

Mahadevan: There are two points in this. They have some figurines. Prof. Parpola is rather sceptical - (he feels that) they could have been formed naturally. But some of them have perforations and some look like two pieces of clay fused together. It is difficult to find out if these had occurred naturally or not. This is again for experts to say.

But semi-precious stones clearly show human activity. They are very small and could have been washed into the sea but some are perforated. They are not exactly beads. They are rough pieces. Nevertheless perforated. Semi-precious stones are all hard. They do not get perforated naturally.

Parpola: I am sceptical about the significance of the perforation. More material needs to be excavated to get a clear evidence of human activity on those stones.

Regarding the dating:

Are the methods of dating followed in this case credible and reliable?

Mahadevan: The only method of dating used is carbon-14.

Parpola: The other most important dating method used (in this case) is geological - submerging. They made it clear that it could not have been above water after 5000 B.C. So, the sea-levels and geological reasons given for dating this as being 5000 B.C. or earlier and not after 5000 B.C. is an important method of dating.

Regarding credibility of NIOT scientists:

What is your overall assessment of the Khambat findings?

Overall, an interesting discovery has been made by scientists who have the right credentials and whose bona fide is hardly suspect. So I repeat, be sceptical, which is a good scientific attitude, but not negative and destructive. It could be a major discovery. We do not know. Several more seasons of work would be required. And clearly international cooperation is called for.

Regarding the alleged role of Murli Manohar Joshi:

But, then, I would not judge what is happening in NIOT by what Murli Manohar Joshi is saying.

Regarding other such underwater sites:

Are there any similar underwater sites? What methods of archaeology, dating and so on have been used there?

Mahadevan: Outside Cambay, one has been found by S.R. Rao at Bet Dwaraka, where there were cyclopean walls and huge structures. A Harappan seal was also found. These findings have been published. That was a regular underwater archaeology from Goa done with divers using diving bells and so on.

S.R. Rao has also done a smaller one, off Cauvery valley, in Poompuhar, but not as extensive as in Dwaraka. As far as I know, no diving bells were used in this case. But they did find some brick structures about 5-6 km off the coast of Kaveripoompatinam. It has not been published fully. But it has got some notice.

Dwaraka is a good example of huge structures found underwater. But this was to be expected. The high tide rises several metres up and down. And Rann of Kutch area is virtually above water for six months and under water for the next six months. In that area because of tectonic activity the land level keeps rising and falling. That coastal towns should go under water in such areas is no surprise. But this is not as deep as in the case of Cambay. And that makes all the difference.

Parpola: Cambay is very deep. And also, as the underwater currents are strong, it is extremely difficult and risky for any marine archaeologist to go there. As for other sites, there was recently news about parts of ancient Alexandria being discovered underwater. They have found houses, statues and some structures belonging to the Roman period. Underwater sites are being found. But Cambay is one of its kind - it is very deep, the currents are strong and the sand is constantly shifting. I do not know of any other site as difficult as this one.

What is interesting (in the Gulf of Khambat site) is the macro picture of several kilometre area of square plinths, something which look like tanks, one that looks like a check-wall for break-water, another like a fortress and so on. These are all sonar images and not direct photographs as the water there is very murky to be directly photographed.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Harsh, can you state your point in the above post?

Why are you selectively picking on certain aspects of my post?

why are you not answering the valid questions i have put forth?

Edited by The_Spartan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spartan a point wise response for you:

1.

The gentleman who authored the paper are expert in Marine exploration, they are trained to spot natural occurences and those that seem manmade.These scientists can easily make the distinction between underwater natural formations and those that look manmade, better then archeologists.

Even the archeologists who later were following up on the report only contest the connection to Indus Valley Civilisation, saying that there was no script or other IVC like artifact yet found. They are not saying that the site is null and void.I mentioned in one of the initial post to you that there is no script yet associated with this site.

The above article where you claimed Parpola and Mahadevan have debunked the finds, is an older article when many other dating procedures were not yet used and onle c14 was used. Even they do not dismiss the finds completely as natural and the site as a fraud.

2.

They have already considered the possibility of these artifacts landing there from elsewhere, that is the reason they did the X-ray Diffraction studies and the radio-active element studies to prove that the artifacts were Insitu.Have already answered this question before.

3.

Regarding the city claim, it is very obvious from the reports of the underwater structures that showed up in the side scan sonar that there were huge citadels, baths and neatly placed houses in grids with foundations.

I don't know what else would you call these structures if not a City.

4.

Regarding your skepticism of Hancock Article....Badrinaryan actually reported these structures and was convinced:

One point Dr. Badrinarayan is insistent about is that the square plinth areas have foundations. Dr. Parpola asked some probing questions such as whether there could not be some rock formations underneath? To this Dr. Badrinarayan says, "no". To prove this, I have suggested that one of the plinth areas be opened up by bucket excavators. It is a crude method. But one cannot do better than that. We do not expect brick structures. They could be random rubble structures.

This is what Parpola had to say about the find:

I was very suspicious about the dating of the site from a piece of wood. For one, it could have come from anywhere. But Dr. Badrinarayan says it actually comes from under the seabed. Thus, it is from a stratified context. So, if the site went under water about 5000 B.C., dating this a little bit earlier does not seem unreasonable.

But I object to the use of the words "Cambay civilisation" as it implies literacy and city life. On the basis of the evidence I have seen, it seems to me that it is possible that this could be a Neolithic site of 5000 B.C. Of course, I have not seen any incontrovertible evidence for this. I am only saying that it is possible. That is all.

I have seen some interesting materials that seem to occur only in this place; not in the surrounding areas. But the problem with this site is that there is very heavy tidal influence and the sands are shifting all the time. So when we find flat objects here it seems to me perfectly possible that this flattening is done by sand activity - erosion by the sand. Even the holes that we found in the stones got from this area may not be due to human drilling. A flat object could have been stuck on a stone and started rolling around because of water activity (currents). So, these holes may have occurred naturally. Thus, I want to have a sceptical attitude about these findings until we get incontrovertible proof.

What would you term "incontrovertible proof"?

For instance, very hard stones clearly drilled by human activity. Or, if we are speaking of stone tools - flints, usually chipped. The material found so far are smooth; they could have been smoothened by sand. That is what is expected to happen if they remain under water for thousands of years and the sand is shifting heavily all the time.

But they have found hard stones. They have also found what to a layperson looks like pottery. All these things can be analysed, no doubt. My impression is that the NIOT is quite open and willing to let experts help it analyse these materials. It also appears that it is doing its best to study the material scientifically.

What artefacts did you see? Do they give any clues that they are man-made? What is their significance?

The most interesting things were animal remains, fossilised vertebrae, different kinds of stones and so on. They could have been man-made. But I am not fully convinced (that they are man-made) as I see the possibility of natural activity. But, as I said, there are semi-precious stones. It seems quite likely that the Tapti river flowed to the Saurashtra side and this habitation, if it was such, would have been on it. So, on the basis of what I have seen, I would expect that this might be a Neolithic site of about 5000 B.C., similar to that in Saurashtra and mainland Gujarat. They hypothesise that there could have been a dam. On the basis of what has been discovered in pre-Harappan cultures in Pakistan, we know that such dams were built.

With what certainty can sonar images be used to conclude the existence of such structures as dams, granary and pillars? Have sonar images been used to decipher such underwater sites?

I am not an expert on sonar images to make a pronouncement on this. But Dr. Badrinarayan says that because they seem to continue under the seabed these projections seem to have some foundation. I asked them: 'Is it not possible that the stone formation here is of different hardness and while the soft parts are wiped away the hard parts remain.' They want to do more research to find out if they are man-made by taking more samples from there.

Here you can get the Jist of Badrinaryans position on the find.

5.

Why further activity is not going on at the site? this is a question i have been asking too, i blame the leftist pseudosecular Congress government that is ruling currently for obstructing further efforts.Most of the so called debunking that you suggest is based on lack of further research.

I am not only interested in this underwater city but also other under water lost cities around the world.

6.

Which valid questions raised by which archeologists have not been answered? should we just take your word for it?

Why don't you reproduce more questions from such Archeologists right here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Harsh, why the quip about Big Brother? Why this personal attack? Any reason for that? Some of us do not just take the word of Hancock for it.

So as to the subject at hand I'll be brief, instead of dredging for artefacts and most likely destroying half of the proof they need in the process, NIOT should have let NIO and their submarine archaeology department do it the right way. They would still have received the credit for finding it and at least there would have been no controversy as to the legitimacy of the site.

But as far as I can tell this was a political play from A to Z, with the gods know what agenda.

Again i asked you to atleast read the link in the start of the post before you launch your assault of questions as most of them would be answered.

The gulf of Khambat in words of Parpola:

What are the standard, accepted procedures of excavating such underwater marine sites? Is mechanical dredging the common procedure? Would it not disturb the evidence?

Mechanical dredging is probably the only way to excavate such sites because of the depth, the strong tide, the turbid water and the strong currents. It is an extremely dangerous site for divers. So, mechanical dredging is probably the only way of excavation here. But I think they would like to get advice from marine archaeologists working elsewhere, as the scientists who are involved in this are basically ocean technologists and geologists who are not experienced in marine archaeology.

There is a bigger political ploy in scuttling the site.

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 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.