Lost city 'could rewrite history'

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

Y-S

Sicc OG
Dec 10, 2005
3,765
0
0
#1

The city is believed to predate the Harappan civilisation



By BBC News Online's Tom Housden
The remains of what has been described as a huge lost city may force historians and archaeologists to radically reconsider their view of ancient human history.

Marine scientists say archaeological remains discovered 36 metres (120 feet) underwater in the Gulf of Cambay off the western coast of India could be over 9,000 years old.

The vast city - which is five miles long and two miles wide - is believed to predate the oldest known remains in the subcontinent by more than 5,000 years.


The site was discovered by chance last year by oceanographers from India's National Institute of Ocean Technology conducting a survey of pollution.

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.

Lost civilisation

The city is believed to be even older than the ancient Harappan civilisation, which dates back around 4,000 years.

Marine archaeologists have used a technique known as sub-bottom profiling to show that the buildings remains stand on enormous foundations.



Author and film-maker Graham Hancock - who has written extensively on the uncovering of ancient civilisations - told BBC News Online that the evidence was compelling:

"The [oceanographers] found that they were dealing with two large blocks of apparently man made structures.

"Cities on this scale are not known in the archaeological record until roughly 4,500 years ago when the first big cities begin to appear in Mesopotamia.

"Nothing else on the scale of the underwater cities of Cambay is known. The first cities of the historical period are as far away from these cities as we are today from the pyramids of Egypt," he said.

Chronological problem

This, Mr Hancock told BBC News Online, could have massive repercussions for our view of the ancient world.



"There's a huge chronological problem in this discovery. It means that the whole model of the origins of civilisation with which archaeologists have been working will have to be remade from scratch," he said.

However, archaeologist Justin Morris from the British Museum said more work would need to be undertaken before the site could be categorically said to belong to a 9,000 year old civilisation.

"Culturally speaking, in that part of the world there were no civilisations prior to about 2,500 BC. What's happening before then mainly consisted of small, village settlements," he told BBC News Online.

Dr Morris added that artefacts from the site would need to be very carefully analysed, and pointed out that the C14 carbon dating process is not without its error margins.

It is believed that the area was submerged as ice caps melted at the end of the last ice age 9-10,000 years ago

Although the first signs of a significant find came eight months ago, exploring the area has been extremely difficult because the remains lie in highly treacherous waters, with strong currents and rip tides.

The Indian Minister for Human Resources and ocean development said a group had been formed to oversee further studies in the area.

"We have to find out what happened then ... where and how this civilisation vanished," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1768109.stm
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#4
these are undoubtedly very interesting findings but a single experiment/discovery is not enough to prove that much, they will have to date the remains more precisely

BTW this is from 2002

What happened since then?
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#8
JLMACN said:
^^^thats what I am saying!

I am sure civilization is much much much older than we think. It wouldnt shock me if they found more 'Ancient Cities' under the ocean as time continues.

5000
mmm, if you do some research on these findings you'll find out that they are very contoversial....

it might just as well be the case that there are no 9000 years old man-made artifacts there and no city, just bad research

the jury is still out
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
40
#9
The reporter is getting their dates wrong on almost everything (when the first large scale cities were built, how old the Indus Valley civilization was) so I'd be tentative when reviewing this information and not take it at face-value. I know that the town of Jericho approaches that age tho, around a time when the same people who founded the civilizations in India (the Dravidians) are noted to have been present in the middle east, before also founding Sumer, in Mesopotamia. 9,000 years old sounds a bit far-fetched but I'll remain open-minded until more information surfaces. Good post..
 
Sep 25, 2005
1,148
1,075
0
45
#10
WHITE DEVIL said:

Cute antics, but perhaps I should allow an explanation; I purchased supernatural by Hancock a month or two ago. I've also read fingerprints of the gods. Thesse books show how extreme this guy's views are on various subjects. He is a certified wing-nut, but his ponderings are quite amusing and thought provoking.