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

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????

You posted the links to the NIOT articles.

So,naturally we would be wondering if you had got access to the articles.

If you have got the article from NIOT, why are you not sharing it? with us?

If you have not got access, then whats the purpose of posting the links, if you yourself dont know the contents of the article?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You posted the links to the NIOT articles.

So,naturally we would be wondering if you had got access to the articles.

If you have got the article from NIOT, why are you not sharing it? with us?

If you have not got access, then whats the purpose of posting the links, if you yourself dont know the contents of the article?

Check post no.43.

I don't have the articles for NIOT neither did i ever request them, i believe the article on the Hancock site to be factual.

Most of the things mentioned in the article are also mentioned in news articles, which i linked. (including national geographic and BBC).

I have given you the link on the NIOT site, now the onus is on you to verify them and prove Hancock to be a lair and a forger.

I don't think Hancock is an idiot to put fabricated articles on his website.

I have been clear about the purpose of posting this link. If you don't like the topic or the link,there are many other topics on this forum where you can go and ask for all sorts of evidences.

The link i have posted at the start of the topic has most of the relevant information from the NIOT reports, why would i go on demanding more.

Badrinarayan reported and asserted these underwater structures that he observed, this can be verified from other sources like newspapers quoting conversations that experts had with Badrinarayan.

Even better if you feel that Hancock has fabricated the article and wrongly used Badrinarayan and NIOT's name to promote his agenda and that he has photoshoped the NIOT logo on his personal photographs and misrepresented them then why don't you write to NIOT and Badrinarayan and complain, they will surely sue him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Aaaaand again you answer one and leave the other. Forget it, I had enough.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaaand again you answer one and leave the other. Forget it, I had enough.....

You are talking about the 'big brother' refference.

I was not being personal at all as i was speaking of it as a figure of speech.

I get irritaated when the evidence is put out for people to see and evaluate for themselves, and accept or criticize it for themselves but they still end up taking a sweeping opinion given by others rather then utilising thier own brains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaaand again you answer one and leave the other. Forget it, I had enough.....

This is a classisc example of Beating around the bush!!! :innocent:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a classisc example of Beating around the bush!!! :innocent:

I found you beating around the bush, without reading the article you are asking the same questions that are specifically answered in the article.

For eg- The artifacts could have been deposited there by through a river channel etc. When the article answers this same question specifically i.e which studies the did to support the fact that the artifacts were not washed by any river channel and they were found and belong to the underwater site.

You asked that a single piece of wood cannot be used to date the site. when the article specifically mentioned that "3 or 4 different samples including pottery using a wide scale of dating techniques in multiple laboratories around the world were used to date the site"

All that you did was not read the evidence and reffered to old articles related to the site when many of the confirming studies were not yet done, and went gung ho on asking the same questions that were specifically answered in the article.

I had to post whole section of the article again and agian. After realising that this article is aimed at answering most of the questions which were raised when the find was relatively new and many confirming tests were pending at that point of time which were later carried out, you went on the question the source of the infornation in the article.

We could have avoided so much time wasting if you had read the article first and then levelled your criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stick to debating on all points. answering all points.

I dont show selective blindness or deafness when deabting.

But thats not the case with you.

You beat around the bush.

When you are aksed some questions, you deliberately skirt answering the ones that put you in a weak light, change the topic to politics and racism etc, conveniently avoiding answering the questions.

Typical Fringe!!

good to have a Indian fringie over here!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stick to debating on all points. answering all points.

I dont show selective blindness or deafness when deabting.

But thats not the case with you.

You beat around the bush.

When you are aksed some questions, you deliberately skirt answering the ones that put you in a weak light, change the topic to politics and racism etc, conveniently avoiding answering the questions.

Typical Fringe!!

good to have a Indian fringie over here!!

Please put down the question you think i have avoided, in a post. And though i have answered all of them, using the same article that i have posted in the first post, i will do it again so you can't go around leveling such flimsy allegations.

Don't tell that you think there is no racism in the world even in mainstream history. If you believe it to be so then i think you are from a different planet.

You have not asked me a single question yet regarding the material i have posted that i haven't answered.All the questions that you have put out, i have answered point wise using the same article in the topic and other sources.

So once again put down the questions that you think i have avoided or not answered,i will also mark you the posts where i have specifically answered or addressed those same question from this same topic, hope that will put an end to your whining and false allegations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

not wanting to jump into all your arguments, i'll just answer the originally posted question 'the cradle of civilisation- was it dwarka?' instead.

no, it wasn't.

australia was first settled by the aborigines 60,000 years ago, meaning they had a sufficiently developed technology to sail there, as at no point in human history has australia not been an island, it's been separated from all other landmasses for at least 50 million years.

for the aborigines to have reached it by boat, tens of thousands of years before anyone else on earth was using boats means their civilisation was far more advanced than anyone elses.

if they set off from the nearest landmass, timor, they would have had to travel at least 60 miles, towards a landmass they could neither see, nor possibly have known to exist, but yet they did, and populated an entire continent.

the aborigine peoples have the oldest continual culture on earth, and their language is the oldest known language, so in answer, again, to your original question, no, dwarka WASN'T the cradle of civilisation.

not by a long way.

Edited by shrooma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

not wanting to jump into all your arguments, i'll just answer the originally posted question 'the cradle of civilisation- was it dwarka?' instead.

no, it wasn't.

australia was first settled by the aborigines 60,000 years ago, meaning they had a sufficiently developed technology to sail there, as at no point in human history has australia not been an island, it's been separated from all other landmasses for at least 50 million years.

for the aborigines to have reached it by boat, tens of thousands of years before anyone else on earth was using boats means they're civilisation was far more advanced than anyone elses.

if they set off from the nearest landmass, timor, they would have had to travel at least 60 miles, towards a landmass they could neither see, nor possibly have known to exist, but yet they did, and populated an entire continent.

the aborigine peoples have the oldest nual culture on earth, and their language is the oldest known language, so in answer, again, to your original question, no, dwarka WASN'T the cradle of civilisation.

not by a long way.

I often wonder(i forget the term for it that someone coined) if humans could have possibly evolved in several areas rather than the general accepted notion of having spawn out of africa branching outward later . the chinese from what i understand seem to adhere to this theory.

there is evidence that around the time of the dawn of primitive australopithicus that grass almost simulteanously popped up in every continent aside from that of the poles. sometimes its difficult to imagine man having crossed the sahara upward then crossing the beiring strait which would have been uncomfortable in subzero temperatures and all its obstacles, down into the americas in particular. if thelaws of evolution are accurate it might stand to reason why peoples in different corners of the world physically appear so different.

Edited by Sheep Smart
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

humanity starting at one point and spreading is called 'diffusion', and the theory of separate pockets of humanity evolving without any connection to each other is called 'convergant evolution'.

i'm not really sure which one to accept to be honest, as they both have their plus points and their flaws.

convergency would go a long way to explaining the physical differences between humans, but so would evolving in different climates.

but there are strange things to consider that neither would explain, like the fact that almost every ancient culture used the phonetic word 'man' for stone. neither diffusion nor convergant evolution can explain THAT little beauty, so it'll be quite some time before we have the big picture, if ever, i'm afraid!

but you did raise some interesting points though sheep!

:-)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

humanity starting at one point and spreading is called 'diffusion', and the theory of separate pockets of humanity evolving without any connection to each other is called 'convergant evolution'.

i'm not really sure which one to accept to be honest, as they both have their plus points and their flaws.

convergency would go a long way to explaining the physical differences between humans, but so would evolving in different climates.

but there are strange things to consider that neither would explain, like the fact that almost every ancient culture used the phonetic word 'man' for stone. neither diffusion nor convergant evolution can explain THAT little beauty, so it'll be quite some time before we have the big picture, if ever, i'm afraid!

but you did raise some interesting points though sheep!

:-)

Agreed.

im interested in linguistic not because i speak 4 languages but in general and i wasnt aware of what you stated about the cultural unified use of the word man for stone. can you elaborate on that if youd be so kind? before i can google upon it id first rather ask on your behalf of the knowledge. Def interested. ty

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wasnt aware of what you stated about the cultural unified use of the word man for stone. can you elaborate on that if youd be so kind? before i can google upon it id first rather ask on your behalf of the knowledge. Def interested. ty

.

there are many groups who used the phonetic 'man' for stone. the french 'menhir' (long stone), the cornish 'men an tol' (stone with hole) the welsh 'maen' (stone) the ancient chinese 'mahn fhlong' (stone table of salt), cultures with no contact with each other, but remarkably similar words. the book 'earth magic' by francis hitching gives many examples and explains it in some detail. a great read, very interesting, and dead cheap from amazon or ebay. well worth a read!

:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the suggestion. anyone passionate about a read is worthy reading. especially if its in the realm of my personal interest. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

there are many groups who used the phonetic 'man' for stone. the french 'menhir' (long stone), the cornish 'men an tol' (stone with hole) the welsh 'maen' (stone) the ancient chinese 'mahn fhlong' (stone table of salt), cultures with no contact with each other, but remarkably similar words. the book 'earth magic' by francis hitching gives many examples and explains it in some detail. a great read, very interesting, and dead cheap from amazon or ebay. well worth a read!

:-)

Well, all of those cultures are in Europe. Can you explain the exact basis that there was no contact with each other??

What about cultures else where? in South America? In China? In Asia? are there words similar to "Man", having the same meaning - stone??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well, all of those cultures are in Europe. Can you explain the exact basis that there was no contact with each other??

What about cultures else where? in South America? In China? In Asia? are there words similar to "Man", having the same meaning - stone??

its possible there is or was a link to some languages. there are so many out there though not to mention those that are extinct and those that are merged or uodated. i can say theres no similarities between hungarian and the man/stone link nor the turkish man/stone link. although hungarian and turkish are similar languages in structure with each other. i speak both, nothing even close to sounding the same as those words for stone sound completely diffeent.. however, before i completely knock the thought id like to see which languages ARE connected. regardless its interesting.

hungarian is a bizarre unique language with only direct ties to some remaining tribes in the ural mountains in asia who are almost extinct. hungarians are the last to enter europe around 700ad. what im leading to is the connotation of this; in hungarian katana means soldier or sword holder in japanese katana means sword. the interesting fact is that meaning is an archaic word. the japanese were once in inland asia prior to entering todays japan while hungarians were also from the same inner part of asia so, were these 2 peoples at one time part of a unified group who just held onto the same word for the same meaning or is it an outstanding coincidence?..this is where the interest arises. mine atleast. language is pretty interesting. its hard to imagine at one time there was a universal language but look at all the ancient evidence left on this planet that we are only hitting the iceburg regarding the facts behind those civilizations and everything about them.

Edited by Sheep Smart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the aborigine peoples have the oldest continual culture on earth, and their language is the oldest known language, so in answer, again, to your original question, no, dwarka WASN'T the cradle of civilisation.

not by a long way.

You are correct that Dwarka is certainly not the cradle of civilization.

But even your own language suggests that you know that Australia isn't either.

In fact, the Aborigines were a culture and not a civilization.

There is a difference.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, all of those cultures are in Europe. Can you explain the exact basis that there was no contact with each other??

What about cultures else where? in South America? In China? In Asia? are there words similar to "Man", having the same meaning - stone??

Besides the little fact that the word "stone" might be one of the most primitive ones there are (guess "hunger" is a little older) so it could well be that the word comes from that time when people were still desperately trying to managed to walk upright somewhere in Africa's steppe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

despite convetional theory you really cant rule out anything. by that i mean far fetched ideas as dna altering by possible other life. reason being, were just out of the iron age and yet thousands of years ago weve got massive pyramids which we cant duplicate even today with latest modern technology nor can we explain how they were built and for what purpose. we just cant. there is more than an entire chapter more like an entire book of our past that is gone. were really only beginning to find. 1200 ton blocks cut to precision in lebabonon, 2-5 ton blocks used to build the giza taken from over 500 miles away comprising of a total of 6 mil. tons and a platonium laced interior shaft inside with no known purpose,thousands of pipes in china in an area where noone ever settled pitched far into the ground..just a few to name. its just insane to conclude these things were constructed by primitive man with flint stone, no wheel and elementary knowledge. once you close your mind off to possibility you may as well revert to relgion. no pun intended but like it or not it still comes down to limit. if thats the case why investigate anything at all? so here we are fast forward a few thousand years possibly more and we rediscover iron and only a few hundred years there after we are sending boosters to mars and tampering with dna. what the hell happened between the 2 eras?

Edited by Sheep Smart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

despite convetional theory you really cant rule out anything. by that i mean far fetched ideas as dna altering by possible other life. reason being, were just out of the iron age and yet thousands of years ago weve got massive pyramids which we cant duplicate even today with latest modern technology nor can we explain how they were built and for what purpose. we just cant. there is more than an entire chapter more like an entire book of our past that is gone. were really only beginning to find. 1200 ton blocks cut to precision in lebabonon, 2-5 ton blocks used to build the giza taken from over 500 miles away comprising of a total of 6 mil. tons and a platonium laced interior shaft inside with no known purpose,thousands of pipes in china in an area where noone ever settled pitched far into the ground..just a few to name. its just insane to conclude these things were constructed by primitive man with flint stone, no wheel and elementary knowledge. once you close your mind off to possibility you may as well revert to relgion. no pun intended but like it or not it still comes down to limit. if thats the case why investigate anything at all? so here we are fast forward a few thousand years possibly more and we rediscover iron and only a few hundred years there after we are sending boosters to mars and tampering with dna. what the hell happened between the 2 eras?

The topic is about Dwaraka.

You are straying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

really its way off? the opening post has the words, ancient civilation and gobleki tepe in it. but comparing languages is relative in context? not that i have any problem with it. if im being accused of going off topic explain it.

just wait til i post up my collection of pygmy needle art .

Edited by Sheep Smart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not wanting to jump into all your arguments, i'll just answer the originally posted question 'the cradle of civilisation- was it dwarka?' instead.

no, it wasn't.

australia was first settled by the aborigines 60,000 years ago, meaning they had a sufficiently developed technology to sail there, as at no point in human history has australia not been an island, it's been separated from all other landmasses for at least 50 million years.

for the aborigines to have reached it by boat, tens of thousands of years before anyone else on earth was using boats means their civilisation was far more advanced than anyone elses.

if they set off from the nearest landmass, timor, they would have had to travel at least 60 miles, towards a landmass they could neither see, nor possibly have known to exist, but yet they did, and populated an entire continent.

the aborigine peoples have the oldest continual culture on earth, and their language is the oldest known language, so in answer, again, to your original question, no, dwarka WASN'T the cradle of civilisation.

not by a long way.

What if the aboriginals were originally from South India? From where they sailed to Australia.

Also was talking in terms of cities and civilization.

HSS was found in India and China way before Aboriginals were found in Australia. You should think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really its way off? the opening post has the words, ancient civilation and gobleki tepe in it. but comparing languages is relative in context? not that i have any problem with it. if im being accused of going off topic explain it.

just wait til i post up my collection of pygmy needle art .

Gobekli Tepe is in the topic because these ruins are dated to be 9500 B.P and hence are contemporary with Tepe.

This find talks about an ancient city which was relatively advanced compared to what we think about hunter gatherers, and hence the question "was it the seat of ancient civilization" as it's dating if correct would mean that it is the oldest city in the world.

You have been discussing neither of the above topics with refference to civilization and cities.

Many african tribes are very old,older then the aboriginals but they didn't build cities.

Though since you are a linguist, what is your take on PIE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, there is no first site of civilization on the Earth. Nothing there is yet civilized.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atleast we can pretend that some among us were civilized...lol.

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.