CC1981 Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 7000 year old city in Orissa Amazing! a full 2000 years older than Harappa and Mohenjo-daro and Rakhigarhi! Even by the most liberal estimates, this city would predate any date set for the Mahabharat or even the Ramayan. Amazing! Yet another discovery in the Gulf of Khambat reveals another 9000 year old city. Read more here. These discoveries, as we speak, are changing the very essence of ancient history, where the 'hydraulic despotism' theory holds sway. Up until now, the view is that earliest of civilizations rose in Mesopotamia, Egypt, India and China centered around rivers and the civilization arizing after the basic frameworks of flood-protection, grain storage and housing being implemented by the ruling elites. Indeed, all the abovementioned regions show evidence of such developments around major river valleys ( Nile, Tigris-Euphrates, Indus, Ganga-Jamuna, Yellow river and the Yangtze) in the last 5500-6000 years. But these two sites, discovered and estimated to be atleast 2000-3000 years older than the earliest of proto-cities/towns in rest of the world (including Indus Valley) sure throws the entire field of archaeology and 'development of civilization' for a huge loop. Amazing and interesting times, we live in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fineleg Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Are these accurate/factual CC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Very impressive stuff. Need to get hold of a more detailed article to find out more about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted February 19, 2008 Author Share Posted February 19, 2008 Are these accurate/factual CC? Pretty accurate i'd guess. I quoted to you BBC on this- who's science/tech section is exceptionally strong and with a longstanding record of integrity for a news website. As for accuracy- well depends on how you define accuracy. Radio-carbon dating is pretty water-tight but it does come with a margin of error. Typically, the date given is the median of the error range, so this 7000 yr old city could be between 6800 and 7200 years old ( or maybe even lesser an error range). So yes, it is pretty accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HariSampath Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Are these accurate/factual CC? The "7000 year" link only shows that the Orissa city existed around 5th century BCE or 2500 years back, not 7000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted February 19, 2008 Author Share Posted February 19, 2008 The "7000 year" link only shows that the Orissa city existed around 5th century BCE or 2500 years back, not 7000 I think your reading skills need serious upgrade. Second consecutive thread of mine you've commented on without properly reading the OP. Let me help you out (yet again) since you suck at reading English: Comment#1 in the link: The first excavations at the site were carried out by Prof BB Lal as far back as in 1948. On the basis of the architectural pattern and artefacts discovered during the early excavations, Prof Lal concluded that this fort city flourished between 3rd century BC and 4th century AD. Explanation : Those were excavations in 1948 !! A city as ancient as that will give you artifacts spanning several thousand years simply because a site like that often ends up inhabited-->abandoned/partially abandoned-->inhabited again many times! And the newer stuff is closer to the top, hence early excavations lead to a more recent date. If India as a nation was exterminated today and 1000 yrs later, Aliens were excavating Benaras, the first thing they'd discover is stuff from 2000 AD (ie, current day) period! That doesn't mean Benaras wasn't inhabited for 2000 years before that- more digging will reveal that picture. Like...DUH! ----------------------------- Next comment in the link: On the basis of the new findings, Ms Smith and Mr Mohanty claim that the fortified city flourished from around 5th century BC and probably lasted well after the 4th century. Explanation: Flourished means your 'peak stage'. Not when it was founded, settled etc. Delhi is the same site as Indraprastha according to most hinduvtas. And if tomorrow Delhi was nuked, following which my aliens came snooping around 1000 years later, they too will say ' Delhi flourished between 1850 and 2010 AD period'. Not that it was founded at 1850 or that Delhi is as old as 1850 AD. DUH! I suggest you read the FIRST PARAGRAH of the link provided and then register yourself for more instruction in English comprehension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HariSampath Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Oh...there you go again......no mention of the number anywhere in that BBC article regarding the cityy in Orissa. Here is the first paragraph you mention... Indian archaeologists say they have found remains which point to the existence of a city which flourished 2,500 years ago in eastern India. Later in the article , based on current interpretations .... The first excavations at the site were carried out by Prof BB Lal as far back as in 1948. On the basis of the architectural pattern and artefacts discovered during the early excavations, Prof Lal concluded that this fort city flourished between 3rd century BC and 4th century AD. On the basis of the new findings, Ms Smith and Mr Mohanty claim that the fortified city flourished from around 5th century BC and probably lasted well after the 4th century. In the entire story there is NO mention of 7000 years anywhere, and maybe you want to read that again before posting wild imaginary conclusions...and I can still send you some English online links... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted February 19, 2008 Author Share Posted February 19, 2008 .no mention of the number anywhere in that BBC article regarding the cityy in Orissa That article just got updated to 2500 yrs ago..it started with a 7000 yr ago tagline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HariSampath Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 The Orissa "lost city" has been scientifically dated to 5th century BCE, according to the most recent analysis. But YOU project it "would have" existed 7000 years , based on YOUR guesswork. Your logic being that if it had been a developed city by 5th century BC...then it MUST have existed 7000 years back !!! LOL...on what basis do you conclude this ? There had been developed cities in Mohenjo daro around the same period...so would you say they would have existed another 4500 years back ? The lost city of Dwaraka had been discovered and analysed by the National oceonagraphic institute and the Archaeological institute , dating back to 1500-2000 BCE ...so can we say that Dwaraka existed another 5000 years earlier ?? Totally stupid. Moreover you say this orissa city would predate the Mahabharata and Ramayana ? how ? Do you know the Maha bharata era and the Ramayana era scientifically ? And EVEN if you say you do...if advanced civilasions like Kurukshetra, Ayodhya were dated back to 5000-6000 years back, it follows according to your logic that they could have well existed by 10,000 years back too ... Before you try to project, try to understand, and before you try to understand, learn to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HariSampath Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 That article just got updated to 2500 yrs ago..it started with a 7000 yr ago tagline. so you just read the "7000 years old" tagline....and didnt read the entire article ???, because everywhere in the article only maximum of 5th century BCE is mentioned . So now it is you who needs to read articles completely and thoroughly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted February 19, 2008 Author Share Posted February 19, 2008 so you just read the "7000 years old" tagline....and didnt read the entire article ???, because everywhere in the article only maximum of 5th century BCE is mentioned . Err no, the article when i posted said 7000 years old everywhere in the article, which is why i am surprized now to see 2500 yrs tagline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted February 19, 2008 Author Share Posted February 19, 2008 Your logic being that if it had been a developed city by 5th century BC...then it MUST have existed 7000 years back !!! LOL That wasn't my 'logic' you idiot, i said it was due to radiocarbon dating and that 'the peak period' of a city has nothing to do with when it was founded. I concluded my dates simply because i know a helluva lot more about archaeology than you seem to- the dates are from simple radiocarbon procedures. Nothing more, nothing less. Moreover you say this orissa city would predate the Mahabharata and Ramayana ? how ? Do you know the Maha bharata era and the Ramayana era scientifically ? Because even the most liberal hinduvta spiel estimate of those events is around 3500-4000 BC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HariSampath Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 That wasn't my 'logic' you idiot, i said it was due to radiocarbon dating and that 'the peak period' of a city has nothing to do with when it was founded. I concluded my dates simply because i know a helluva lot more about archaeology than you seem to- the dates are from simple radiocarbon procedures. Nothing more, nothing less. Where has there been "radio carbon dating" evidence that dated the Orissa city to 7000 years back ? And where is the "peak period" of the ciry associated to when it was founded. Then what about the fact if Kurukshetra and Ayodhya ( advanced flourising cities in their "peak period") around 4000 BC, could have well been founded 10,000 years back, right ? You know NOTHING about how much I know about archaeology...and you dont seem to know much about anything.... btw..if you say ( however erroneously) the Orissa city predates Mahabharata and Ramayana ....are you accepting the historicity of both as 4000 BCE...? give me a one word answer...yes or no.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HariSampath Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Err no' date=' the article when i posted said 7000 years old everywhere in the article, which is why i am surprized now to see 2500 yrs tagline.[/quote'] Nonsense, BBC would not get an entire article wrong on the age of a discovered city, and you mentioned that you went by the "tagline only" not the atricle.. you are a humbug..arent you...you make wild contradictory posts, and then when caught out, try to weasel your way out of it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted February 20, 2008 Author Share Posted February 20, 2008 are you accepting the historicity of both as 4000 BCE...? give me a one word answer...yes or no.. No, i am not accepting the historicity in that- merely using it as a comparative point in terms of 'even if the hindu fanatics were right and thats the date.........' line of thought. Nonsense, BBC would not get an entire article wrong on the age of a discovered city, and you mentioned that you went by the "tagline only" not the atricle.. When i posted it, the article said 7000 years and nowhere did i say i went by the tagline only and not the article. Yet another makeup from your disingeneous self. you are a humbug..arent you...you make wild contradictory posts, and then when caught out, try to weasel your way out of it No comments then about the second link i posted, eh ? Figures. besides, you are the one who is self-admittedly poor reader of the OP and the one who goes by the tagline. Kindly don't forget that. And where is the "peak period" of the ciry associated to when it was founded. Nowhere and that is precisely what i pointed out to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer1 Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 5th century BC = 500 years. Add this to 2000AD and it gives you 2500, which is what the article says. It is possible that, in a rush, 5th century was mistaken as 5000 years, and thus, a figure of 7000 years was made up. I dont think the BBC made the mistake - they used excerpts from various articles in local newspapers, and seem unlikely to have got the maths wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HariSampath Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 ^ hey Obs...CC1981 will just make up any explanation when he goofs up, surely u know that..BBC could say this or that, they were wrong, he is an expert on radio carbon dating etc...just read his posts, have a laugh and move on :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted February 21, 2008 Author Share Posted February 21, 2008 ^ hey Obs...CC1981 will just make up any explanation when he goofs up' date=' surely u know that..BBC could say this or that, they were wrong, he is an expert on radio carbon dating etc...just read his posts, have a laugh and move on :-)[/quote'] Uhh..why don't you ask BBC itself or the posters who'd read the link when i posted it- BBC had posted it as 7000 yr old, not to mention,their submerged city off of Khambat is still unchanged. As per being an expert on carbon dating- i don't know what your educational background is, mine is in Electrical/electronics engineering, which is pretty heavy on math & physics- so for one like me, to know everything there is to know about radiocarbon dating is a very minor matter. It may sound like a lot of hard work/big-shot status to you, but trust me, for any serious student of the core sciences, it is an exceedingly simple topic. And if you actually knew a little bit of math/physics, it wouldn't be hard to find someone in India to tuition you on the nitty gritty of radiocarbon dating either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HariSampath Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 ^...wish I could tell you about my sciences/engineering background and Edu background as well. In fact , from what you have said about yourself, I think if you knew my entire background, you may probably cringe in embarrasment, but let it go...I just feel sorry for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted February 22, 2008 Author Share Posted February 22, 2008 .wish I could tell you about my sciences/engineering background and Edu background as well Anyone can claim anything on the net. But the very fact that you said (and i am paraphrasing) ' CC acts like he is an expert on radio-carbon dating' is indicative enough of your very topical understanding of sciences. For anyone with atleast some experience in university level physics would not be making a big deal out of it- since it is, as i said, for people with my understanding of science, a fairly simple matter. If you were actually versed in sciences, you would know that radio carbon dating is a very elemental concept to grasp for people with real degrees in science rather than empty claims on the net. And should you wish to butt heads with me in matters of science, you are more than welcome to try.I wouldn't advice it though unless you are really accomplished in the field. .I just feel sorry for you. Means absolutely nothing to me, really. Your relevance to me is as significant as some errant pixels on my screen- so save your pretentious 'i feel sorry for you's for someone else, who actually gives a damn. As far as i am concerned, you could die tomorrow or become a millionaire and it would be less significant to my life than the squirrel in my front yard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts