do you believe it? i'm hesitant?

Question

Posted on 01/16/2002 5:18:59 AM PST by blam


Lost civilisation from 7,500 BC discovered off Indian coast

Archaeologists have found a civilisation dating back to 7,500 BC off India's western coast.

The find is 5,000 years older than any previously unearthed civilisation in the subcontinent.

Researchers uncovered pottery, beads, sculptures, a fossilised jaw bone and human teeth at the Gulf of Cambay site.(DNA tests?)

Previously, the oldest known civilisations were the Harrapan and Indus Valley communities - which date from around 2,500BC.

Murli Manohar Joshi, minister for human resources and ocean development, told The Times of India: "The findings buried 40 metres below the sea reveal some sort of human civilisation, a courtyard, staircase, a bathroom or a temple."

Researchers used carbon-dating techniques. The find was made by the Indian ocean development and archaeology institutes.
Story filed: 12:43 Wednesday 16th January 2002

google dwarka for more info

Answer 1

Based on the reports available from the National Institute of Oceanography, India and the Archaeological Survey of India, both of which postdate the article you've provided here, I suspect the 2002 article is mistaken. It's entirely possible that someone misread a press release or that the PR guy, Murli Manohar Joshi hadn't the faintest idea what he was talking about.
The reports available from the professionals involved in the excavations all indicate that what they've found dates no earlier than around 1700 BC, roughly contemporary with the Late Harrapan period. Those dates are based not only on radiocarbon dating (which is a bit more reliable than some of the previous posters seem to think) but also on the artifacts themselves. That in they fit in with the already established chronology of the area and some of the artifacts clearly come from Harrapa. So, a little bit of fuss over nothing.
It's not uncommon for either news agencies to get things wrong or PR people who aren't really familiar with the material to misspeak when talking to the press.

Answer 2

Meh, Carbon dating is more than a little iffy. It requires that the tester assume that he knows the original amount of the Carbon-14 (is that the correct isotope?) that was in the specimen being tested, and it assumes that the rate of decay has been constant. Thus I'm rather skeptical about the dating of this civilization... It's a neat find nonetheless.

Answer 3

Interesting. It seems like there is a lot of debate about the actual age. There isn't much on it after 2002. Wonder what is happening.

Answer 4

Carbon dating tends to be very hit or miss. Not a consistent method to determine anything. And you have to believe in the constant depletion of whatever the element is to begin with.

Answer 5

I read a book from Graham Handcock on this site....yes, it is real. Oldest known civilization is now beleived to be 9000 years old...

Answer 6

What about this is making you hesitant. Civilization has been around for much longer than the one that this article addresses.

Answer 7

wiki info
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/may102004/1256.pdf

don't know about the age thing... seems the area has been rebuilt several times through history.

Answer 8

I would have to look more into the source, but yes I would believe it.

Answer 9

I think I would have heard more about this if it was as significant as you say it is.

Answer 10

well, a lot of scientists went into developing that conclusion, it must be somewhat reliable.....