Pagan Federation International Pagan Federation International Forum Index Wiccan Rede Magazine

River port city buried unter the oceal for 9000 years

New topic   Reply to topic Pagan Federation International Forum Index => News
 
Previous :: Next  
Author Message
ChristopherBlackwell Post number 24799 Posted: 4th August 2018     Subject: River port city buried unter the oceal for 9000 years
View user's profile
Here is a video of two cities, both under the sea, one five miles out from the coast of India. The river port city was likely under the ocean for 9,000 years and may be as old as 30,000 years old. It covers five square miles with buildings of stone. This is on the History Channel and was brought to my attention though I have read about it and posted on it in the past...

https://www.facebook.co ... DQxNDk0ODU1/

Wisdom is what is left after you have done all the dumb stuff
Ursus Post number 24803 Posted: 9th August 2018     Subject: Re: River port city buried unter the oceal for 9000 years
View user's profile
I wouldn't really trust anything that the History Channel says. They've got a very bad track record for presenting stuff which has been widely disproved, and even presenting claims which are known to be false. Sensational claims bring in more viewers (=more money).
Tarwe Post number 24804 Posted: 9th August 2018     Subject:
I read about this site and the news it is true, even in the worst scenario, the city belongs to Indo Valley civilization, so it is really a great news!
ChristopherBlackwell Post number 24807 Posted: 9th August 2018     Subject:
View user's profile
Urus,

Whatever the faults of the history channel this site is well documented, is a river port town, and five miles out at sea from the present coast of India. That being the case it likely was in use during the ending of the last ice age. That would make it far older then any of the civilizations that we normally consider to ave been early civilization. Part of our problem with archeology is that European and American archeologists have been primarily interested in civilizations that led eventually to Western Civilization, and uninterested in any others. We have never done a proper study of Africa, outside of the northern part, nor of much of Asia. It was the same reason that we denied the great age of the Australian Aborigines because they predate settlement of Europe. The same goes for our recording history, it nearly has been seen as all about us, while we have ignored the Native Americans. Bias shows up in the sciences, like anywhere else.

Wisdom is what is left after you have done all the dumb stuff
Ursus Post number 24812 Posted: 11th August 2018     Subject:
View user's profile
I think that this idea of what archaeologists and historians study is "a bit" outdated (as in, the better part of a century now). I think that you're also ignoring the vast amount of work which has been and is still being done by non-Europeans and non-Americans.

What convinces you that the site was in use during the last ice age? The Indian archaeologists who have commented on this (the site was not excavated by any archaeologists) have linked it to the Harappan civilisation based on the materials found. Even the carbon dates (from wood of unknown provenance) only dated to about 9000 years ago.

I would not really classify this site as "well documented", unless we're also considering popular media to be included in the general definition of "documented" as in "it is appears in some sort of document". But if we're considering volume of documents over quality of documents, then we only need to consult the number one best-selling novel of all time to answer all of life's questions. In that case, the world's only about 4000 years old.
ChristopherBlackwell Post number 24813 Posted: 11th August 2018     Subject:
View user's profile
Ursus,

I suggested that it might have been active in the late ice age. We apparently at least have evidence of it being 9,000 years old which tops most of the civilizations that we brag about by several thousand years. Meanwhile there is a pyramid in South East Asia that the lower parts of it are dated at 10,000 years. So it might be time to at least question some of what we think we know about man's history. We have already done this with the aborigines of Australia, and now accept at least 40,000 years back for their arrival and are beginning to consider perhaps 60,000 ago. Science can be stubborn about holding on to old theories when new information brings it into. there is politics in science just like in every other human work, especially when several of your scientists have a certain amount of fame to lose if the newer theory proves more true.

In our lifetime look how long it took for the medical idea that ulcers were cause by micro organisms. It is always an uphill battle to get new information accepted.

Meanwhile in South American we have cave art going back up to 40, 000 years, evidence of certain forests being planted rather than natural, and some human remains that were not American Indian. One natural mummy was found to have DNA that showed it descended from Austrailian Aborigines.

The first cave art showing war fare in South America shows up about 8,00 to 9,000 years ago, possibly when what we call Native Americans reach South America. Obviously they dominate now, perhaps by interbreeding, or warfare.

Meanwhile look how long the land bridge theory held out and the walk between two glaciers. Now it is more likely that they came be coast instead and possibly using small boats or rafts Far more likely based on the food supply available at that time. We are still fighting the Clovis people time line, even though older tools have been found below the level of the Clovis people.

Now we have technology that will let us probe below the oceans and through trees in Jungles that is also opening up new information, such as the Mayan civilization once thought to be about 2 million people at its height, to now believe it may have been 20 million people instead.

So if we can be mistaken about people in the last few thousand years, that leaves the question could civilization have arisen and died even earlier? Our earlier ancestors were just as intelligent, and imaginative and capable as we are.

Even our technological civilization would leave very little evidence of its past existence. Perhaps remains of our dams might still exist a hundred though and years from now, but little else.

Wisdom is what is left after you have done all the dumb stuff
Ursus Post number 24814 Posted: 12th August 2018     Subject:
View user's profile
In addition to mentioning very outdated ideas, you're also mentioning a lot of stuff that is not based on evidence (other than falsified evidence in some cases).

The wood tested for that site was not actually collected from the site. It was collected while dredging the area. But the whole area has wood in it because of submerged forests which are even earlier. This has already been stated by the local archaeologists. It was one of their criticisms about the subject. You've said that researchers need to consider the local non-Euro/non-American views, but in fact the archaeological community already does. It's the general public and the media companies who who are ignoring them - because it doesn't present the view that the public likes to hear.

Contrary to what the executives at the History Channel and various publishers would like you to believe, there is no conspiracy among archaeologists, or among scientists in general, to cover up some lost civilisation or alien spaceship sitting in the warehouse of Museum XYZ. For anyone who works in academia, the idea that this would even be possible, is ludicrous. There would literally be hundreds of thousands of people that would have to keep quiet about it, which might be feasible if they had something to gain from it, but there is very little sense of loyalty among researchers who have nothing to do with each other. Academia is highly competitive. There are nowhere near enough jobs and project grants to go around. It is a dog-eat-dog competition to get into and stay in most academic professions. The easiest way to make a name for oneself is to publishing something new or even strong (reproducible or verifiable) evidence of something new. There would be absolutely no incentive for someone with a graduate degree who is struggling to find a permanent position to keep this under wraps. If they had evidence of something spectacular, they would publish it. And the more spectacular, the more journals that would be interested in publishing it.

For researchers, other than potential pride (which would almost certainly be limited to older researchers because younger ones won't likely have to worry about a new idea contradicting all of their previous publications, and which would be lost if a person doesn't jump on the bandwagon of new information fast enough anyway) there is nothing really to gain one way or another. If anything, the bias would be towards a spectacular find as opposed to acknowledging the status quo. Another incentive to tell the truth is that if a researcher working for a university or other research institution was caught falsifying data, they'd likely be be fired and their reputation would prevent them from ever getting an academic job again. For TV channels and people selling their conspiracy theory books, one interpretation is advantageous (that their spectacular claims are true). If the mainstream ideas are confirmed, no one is going to buy their book and much fewer people will watch their shows. They are also under no obligation to tell the public the truth. So, given that, a sensible person would be more inclined to believe the people who have spent years, and even decades, studying these things and actually going out and collecting new information in the field.

Articles like this are really annoying, and in the larger scope of things they are harmful to society. People might say, "Well what's the problem? It's just a story about the past and whether it's true or not it doesn't really have much effect on people either way." But that's not true. Even just from a cultural point of view, it takes away from the real accomplishments of past (and sometimes present) cultures. But more harmful is the fact that this is common among almost all fields of research. There is the idea that scientists are ignorant and possibly also lying to the public. And once that has been established in the minds of the general public, then companies or governments can basically state anything that they want and it just comes down to "he said, she said - probably the truth is somewhere in the middle, or maybe we just can't trust any scientific finds." And this is exactly why cigarette companies were for decades able to get away with claiming that the jury was still out about whether smoking causes cancer.

But for all the people who really insist that there are 10,000 year old monuments in the jungle, or lost civilisations in the ocean, or remnants of Noah's ark on Mt. Ararat, I challenge you to put your money where you mouth is and dedicate decades of your life and your own personal income to going out there and uncovering new data, and doing new analyses, to prove your ideas. I mean actually field work and lab work. Hard data. Not just speculation and a bunch of "maybes" and "could bes" and "well, so-and-so said such-and-such on his blog post". Otherwise, you're just someone sitting in the bleachers criticising people who ARE out there doing the work and trying to answer questions that we have about the past.

And about whether our present civilisations would be noticeable after a few 1000 years (assuming some apocalyptic event occurs around now which wipes out most of us and leads to a new age of illiteracy), yes it would. Our buildings would collapse but the foundations would largely last that long. Bricks would last much longer. Most copper wire would last thousands of years. Anything made of ceramics or glass would not decompose at all. How do I know this? Because there are plenty of Neolithic sites with these things in them. When humans live some place for a long time, it leaves a permanent impression. But most of all in our case, the landfill sites (especially the plastic in them) around our cities will probably be around long after our species has either gone extinct or left the planet to explore the galaxy. Without sunlight, there is very little to cause most plastic to breakdown.
Ursus Post number 24815 Posted: 12th August 2018     Subject:
View user's profile
I'm just ranting because I dislike how the media has popularised this type of thing. It's not meant to be an insult to any of the people who unknowingly pass it along. So, my apologies if I've worded that a bit strongly.
ChristopherBlackwell Post number 24816 Posted: 12th August 2018     Subject:
View user's profile
Ursus,

I seem to have touched a nerve. I don't believe in conspiracies, but I do believe as long as we have egos, we have politics in every field of human endeavor. I would assume it happens in academics for the same reason it happens anywhere else. Especially once peoples reputation come into play.

As much as I enjoyed reading Chariots of the Gods?, having the usual fascination with mysteries like ancient civilizations, Aliens, and many other strange things, logic began to rule out some of the things mentioned. Assuming aliens actually existed, I would expect certain things about persons that could travel the galaxies. So if they navigated and spent time coming to our planet and needed navigational aids, I would assume they would set up satellites, much as we do, not draw pretty drawings on the ground, no matter how large. If they helped build anything on this planet, I would assume it would include somewhat more advanced engineering then any of our ancient monuments, and like would involved manufactures building material, somewhat more advanced that rough stone, bricks or even cut stone. Other wise all that was needed was to have organized manpower and trial and error attempts until something actually worked.

Now the fact that what appears to be a river port town is now under the ocean some five miles from land would suggest that it might be of some age. I have been reading articles on it for several years. I am aware of other possibilities including subsiding, such as happened with several towns on the Mediterranean Sea, including parts of Alexandria. But I do believe we will need to put far more effort in undersea archeology as we may well discover older stuff, or at least untouched stuff to further our knowledge of human history. I recall some of early archeology was interested in proving the Bible to be true. Some of the early Christian sites had been arbitrarily pin pointed originally by Constatine's mother I believe. Somehow I doubt she would have ever qualified as a archeologist. Fortunately even Archeology improved over time. Some of the earlier discoveries seemed more interested in loot. Later they began to realize from an information stand point where exactly it was found, carefully measured could tell us far more about the age of the artifact, and what artifacts were in the same age period. Another advantage of today is that
archeology now is able to work with other sciences and as are is learning even faster, including using new tools such as ground radar using lasers.

Some of the areas that bothered me were in Anthropology, a good many years ago, as I was reading studies published in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s as a teenager. The was the cultural concept that out modern religions were actually religions while those of indigenous people were mere superstitions, despite the fact that these native religions had served their followers for likely many thousands of years longer than our modern religions. The other thing was some anthropologists published sacred information of religions that was supposed to remain private.

So I will admit that I rather enjoy when a new discovery proves an earlier theory to be wrong. Our Native Americans have disagreed with Bering Land Bridge theory with the early explorers coming through a gap between glaziers. Now more recent discoveries have suggested a coastal pathwith the likelihood of use of small boat. So I watch for future developments with interest. I wonder if we had used the Indigenous stories as another point to launch new studies might prove useful. the indigenous people had a remarkable knowledge of the land that they have lived on for thousands of years, as it was a matter of life or death.

As I mentioned there was a village on the coast of Canada, where the people said that their ancestors had settled ten thousand years ago because it was one of the few sites not covered in ice. Their village was badly hit by a tsunami after the Alaskan Earthquake. Much later some archeologists discovered information that suggested that the natives may well have been right. More than a few academics have not paid serious information to what natives have known from experience. I gather that is changing and I hope it continues to change. Unfortunately the continued loss of indigenous languages may wipe out a great deal of the information before it gets recorded. Meanwhile I can't help but wonder if there are survivors of this oncoming change in climate, if our indigenous people might have a better chance of surviving then most of our civilized people.

Wisdom is what is left after you have done all the dumb stuff
Show:   
New topic    Reply to topic Pagan Federation International Forum Index => News
Show YouTube films

All times are GMT + 1 hour
Overviews
  New posts :: Recent posts :: 24 hour digest :: Search

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Admin

phpBB 2.0.23 © 2001-2008 phpBB group