Slashdot Mirror
Sunken City Found Off Of India
Raindeer writes "A city only known from old myths about seven pagodas and thought by Western scientists not have existed, was found off the coast of India. The myths speak of six temples submerged beneath the waves with the seventh temple still standing on the seashore. The myths also state that a large city once stood here which was so beautiful the gods became jealous and sent a flood that swallowed it up entirely in a single day. " With the purported discovery of a city off of Cuba, as well as the the finding of Herakleion underwater archaeology is doing well.
From where we sit in modern times, ancient myths and legends are often considered little more than fairy tales. But given what we know about the effects of natural catastrophes - namely their ability to eradicate all traces of any civilization that once stood in their path - there is probably much that is buried, inundated or otherwise obscured from view.
One interesting question that is perhaps particularly revealing is, why are are so surprised whenever we find this stuff?
Why is this "interesting?" The above comment is sheer nonsense, flaimbait at best.
Floods happen. End of story. How is this "proof" of creationism? How does this "disprove" evolution? This discovery does neither.
I've never understood why academia seem so intent
on believing that civilization has only been
around
for the last 4 or 5 thousand years or so. After
all, if the genetic record is correct homo sapiens
have been around for a few hundred thousand years
at least and I find it far harder to believe that
in all that time all humans did was hunt and gather as opposed to them building cities and
towns. Carving blocks of stone , building roads
etc isn't rocket science and if some race had built
a city 100,000 years ago VERY little of it would
still be around today (Ice Ages notwithstanding).
Look at how little is left of most Roman ruins and
they're only 2000 years old!
Though Graham Hancock may come out with a lot of
BS at times , I think in this case he's spot on.
Personally, if I heard a legend about 7 temples, and the 7th temple was not only already discovered standing on land, but also one of the most photographed temples in India, then I'd be inclined to believe the other 6 temples existed, wouldn't you? Call me wacky...
Back in high school Chem class, we had to argue pro or con for a Nuke plant to be built locally (one, rural Nevada... why bother?). Me, always being an argumentative dickhead, chose to Devil's Advocate the task, and sided with the whiny, anti-nuke hippies.
Aaaanyhow, one of the arguments that I had used was that there are extinct civilizations that have only died out as recent as FIVE HUNDRED YEARS AGO, and we, with all our fancy European-style education have yet to come within reasonable nearness to decyphering their written language.
So, I argued, what if... Something catastrophic happens again, and in a few thousand years, after civilization has dragged itself back up through the ashes to the point where its out exploring the seas again in galleys and colonizing the farthest reaches of the globe. What if... What if they stumble across the Yucca Mountain dump?
Now, they have absolutley no knowledge of what that yellow and black circle, divided up into sixths means. They're seeing metal signs with an indecypherable alien text on them. They find these vaults, and manage to tunnel in and are exposed to radiation. Potential catastrophy there...
Anyhow. Since I got to thinking about that, then I start thinking some more. What if it had already happened once? What if Jericho weren't really the "First City?" What if we humans became significantly advanced (pre-industrial age or so?) then got wiped out by the encroaching glaciation? Which would explain the decided lack of structures and monuments, with the notable exception of the alleged sunken cities in the Sea of Japan, off India and Cuba.
I read somewhere that the temples at Ankor could be upwards of 12k years old. Which predates the "Fertile Crescent" civs by at least a thousand years...
Just the ruminations of a crazy drunk that's been up for three days. Responses would be keen, a full-fucking-fledged discussion would rock.
Why is it when I hit ^R that ZSH calls me a cocksucker?
It's likely that the entire dating system is skewed. May have something to do archeologists agreeing not to research anything that doesn't sit well with biblical timeline like the sphinx (which isn't a sphinx) possibly having eroded in flooding that occurred about 8000 BC. Read Forbidden Archeology by Cremo as it lists finds that blow the whole accepted timeline of events away. Michael Baigent also did a book recently that had a few intersting examples such as fossilised human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints.
Does anyone else find it interesting that the article says:
"The discovery was made on 1 April by a joint team of divers from the Indian National Institute of Oceanography and the Scientific Exploration Society based in Dorset."
Sounds like it might have been a joke that the BBC picked up on about 10 days late...
Mac
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
First, the surviving temple is certainly not 5000 years old: it dates from the 7th or 8th century AD.
Second, Hindu civilization itself is old but not that old. For temples of this kind, 1000 BC would be an optimistic early limit; 3000 BC is out of the question.
From this article it seems that the claim of 5000 years comes from Graham Hancock, a controversial writer about "lost civilizations". I'd like to see the opinion backed by some credible evidence.
Found on April 1 with a team leader by the name "Monty Halls?" Sounds like a prank to me...
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
If this proves correct, it would date the discovery at more than 5,000 years old.
Actually I thought the sea level rose about 120 meters at the end of the last ice age (starting about 20,000 years ago)
There are some interesting graphics here: One, Two, Three
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I Think that thats too long a time sacle for humans. Weve been "human" for the past, call it 500,000 years give or take, which is nothing in goelogical, continental drift terms. THe continents probably moved a mile or two in that time.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Archaeology is doing so well because archeologists finally grew brains and started incorporating geology into their work.
For years, archaeologists have thought like this "these people liked to live by rivers, so lets dig around by rivers and see what we find!", when in fact, they should have been thinking like this "these people liked to live by rivers and hung around here about 10,000 yeras ago, lets figure out where the rivers were 10,000 years ago and dig there!".
Sea level has risen significantly since the last ice age. Most population centers in the world are right on the coast, and that hasn't really changed for a long time. Therefore, to find old population centers, one must look where the shoreline USED to be, which is now underwater.
Don't be surprised if you start hearing about more and more of these types of discoveries - none of them are Atlantis.
This site although in Japanese, does have some very nice photos of the shore temple that didn't sink. One thing to note is, these monuments were all carved from one stone.
As seen in this photo here this is all ONE rock.
Very impressive.
Every couple years somebody annouces the "discovery" of an ancient underwater city. They're usually characterized by massive, blocks of stone neatly organized in the formation of a wall. (Couldn't tell if that was what this article was talking about - not enough detail.)
However, what usually happens is the general scientific community decides that it's actually orthogonal jointing of beachrock - which it turns out is pretty common (Bimini Road, Tasmanian Parking Lot, the referenced story about Cuba, etc.). There was actually a pretty interesting segment on TLC (I think) about this a couple weeks ago.
A similar, fairly recent find is the controversial "pyramids" found off the coast of Japan. There are many web sites about this site, but a pretty decent one can be found at http://www.lauralee.com/japan.htm. There is a lot of debate about whether these structures are man-made or natural. Either way, there are some pretty cool pictures:
http://www.lauralee.com/japan/japan1.htm
http://www.lauralee.com/japan/japan2.htm
Send/track messages to 100K people: www.xPressAlert.com
This city is part of the Indus valley civilisation. Most scholars believe the Indus language and culture were Dravidian, that is pre-Aryan and (probably) pre anything like Hinduism.
Hancock disagrees, but then, as you say, he's not the most reliable source of evidence.
Well, if you think about it. There has to be many more cities that have been lost in a similar way. After all water is extremly vital for transportation and comerce. It is only natural that people would build cities in areas that are close to water and easily floodable. I can't think of any major city that was founded before the auto-mobile that is not near a major source of water. We have even had "lost cities" in modern times. There was a storm in the early part of the 20th century that submerged a vacation island off the coast of NYC. Every one forgot about it untill a few years ago when some researchers found pottery washing up on the shorlines.
Maybe these cities were built close to the shore because they were mainly fish-eating people? Another argument goes that cities built inland would have been built by rivers, and that over a few thousand years river action (erosion, silting, etc) would basically cover most of the cities up. Imagine 100 years of the Mississippi getting free reign over the landscape basically - how much would remain afterwards?
And smaller communities would most likely still be built with wood. Maybe a stone temple or something - but you try finding a 4000 year old stone building that is most likely collapsed and buried under mud!
When you look at these things, you have to look at them with an open mind. I.e., never trust any previously held beliefs about the origin of mankind, etc, that modern civilisation has its roots only in the last few thousand years and before that we were ooga-booga cavemen...
The ice age would have made most temperate climates pretty unlivable in, so an ancient civilisations would have been much closer to the equator. We are talking south America thru mexico, cuba, africa (which has undergone a major climate change over the last 3000 years anyway), india, china, etc.
And there appears to be plenty of evidence suggesting older civilisations did develop. Shame is, they built most of their cities it seems under 120ft above sea level. Which would wipe out many major cities today, btw. The sea is an obvious food source, trading mechanism, etc.
The only people currently that are finding these things are people that the "archaelogical community" think of as weirdos. However these people are the only people who are actually willing to look for these places, so what do you expect. Maybe in 50 years time we will have a greater knowledge of mankinds recent origins and they will be accepted as the truth.
And for every honest "nutcase" there will be a dishonest "nutcase" as well - in any field. The existence of one person claiming 20,000 year old civilisations that turns out to not be true does not mean that there were never any 20,000 year old civilisations. However the current oldest claims are about 12,000 years old, in South America.
Other interesting things are that geneticists have worked out that ALL current human beings are descended from around 2,000 humans at a point around 80,000 years ago. Yes, 2,000, separated out into separate clusters around the planet (China, Africa, etc). That is why humanity is not like other animals like dogs for which there are a myriad of different shapes and forms.
Still, I don't think it will ever turn out that Atlantis is buried in deep ice on Antartica and is basically a giant stasis field generator for when the Sun does a 12,000 year pulsar cycle... :) Nor do I think that UFOs built Atlantis or that we are the descendents of an Alien civilisation that landed here so many aeons ago...
The problem with the ever present "ancient civilizations" theorey is the course of our own civilization.
Working of metals from early bronze days to the industrial revolution was really only possible because the raw ores themselves were either found on the surface or very near it. Even with a glacial age it would not explain the preponderance of such ores in many areas (some of which would not have been affected by glacial ice)
Let alone the fact that some of the advanced metals (or not so advanced - your choice) that we have today will easily survive glacial ice or be found in such quantity to reveal that "something" did exist.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
And you offer 0 reasons why this doesn't devastate evolution.
I'm not making bold statements about the correctness of evolution. I am merely calling on you to back up your statement.
Reasons? Okay, first of all, evolution says that the Bible is false.
Wrong. Evolution does not mention anything about the bible. It mereely describes how organisms have developed over time. Certain people use the theory of evolution to show the bible is incorrect in some respects. In actuality the Bible and evolution go hand in hand if you go back to the ancient Hebrew interpertations. The word translated to day in most English Bibles actually means period of time in Herbrew.
The Bible says that there was a global flood.
Modern science says there was a global flood. Modern sciecne also says evolution is correct. Your methodology is flawed.
I love how you have attempted to disprove a theory with incredible amounts of evidence with a one sentence corrolation.
"Can't sleep. Clowns will eat me"
The Feb 11, 2002 issue of India Today had the story of the discovery of Cambay off the coast of Gujarat in January of this year. The India Today website is subscriber only, but here is the teaser.
The article is somewhat sensationalist, but here are the highlights: Wood from the site has been dated between 5500BC and 7500BC. Structures found include stone roads, a bath complex, and acropolis-style raised platforms. Among the artifacts were large numbers of semiprecious stones and beads.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_as
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Cambay+und
It's beginning to seem plausible that much of what we know about prehistory is clearly wrong..
Excavations at Santorini (the Aegean Sea) have found four and five story buildings with indoor plumbing and heating systems.. dating back to before 1800 BC.. They are buried under as much as 200 meters of ash from the huge volcanic eruptions there..
:)
This is not conjecture.. it's scientific fact...
I've tried looking for this piece of news in the Indian Press (Try http://www.samachar.com for a list of and links to various Indian newspapers and magazines) but have failed. I can't help but wonder about the credibility of this news report -- I'm not disputing that something may have been located beneath the waves at Mahabalipuram but am sceptical as to whether the find is really as significant as claimed.
There is also the lost city of Indianola, on the upper Texas coast. The city was washed away by a hurricane in the early part of the 20th century (or was it late 19th century?). Nothing but a few foundations remain as far as I know. The few who survived left to settle elsewhere.
An interesting anecdote related to this is that in St. David's Episcopal Church in Austin, Texas, is a stained glass window of St. Cecilia, the patron saint of musicians. The organist at the time had never been to the coast, and decided to take a vacation. She told people that if anything happened to her, she wanted a stained glass window.
She was one of those lost at Indianola.
Non tam praeclarum est scire Latine, quam turpe nescire
-- Cicero