Art Atlantis' Existence and Place On Earth

[BL4CKCR4Y0NS]

(sorry if this is in the wrong section, or if this does not belong on these forums)

A friend of mine told me a while back that although the location of Atlantis is unknown, it is likely that it existed in the middle of the Seven Wonders of the World. (I naturally assumed he meant the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World because Atlantis "disappeared" long before the Medieval/Modern times)

I was just wondering whether there was any significant evidence that suggests this.

(and if anybody knows, could they please post a short description of what Atlantis is and who Plato is? All I know if that Atlantis was an island and Plato was a philosopher)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I believe the only known Atlantis claims come from Plato. There is no conclusive historical evidence supporting these claims. Many people believe the story is fiction.

 

[Andre]

That's correct, some more information.

Atlantis is only mentioned in Plato's http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/Atlantis/timaeus_and_critias.html and claims that the story is told by Solon, who heard it from an Egyptian priest. Plato's dating (9000 years before Solon's visit) brings it very close to the very turbulent end of the Younger Dryas, but this is likely just a coincidence.

The detailed describtions of the place don't lead to any existing area, hence Atlantis has been located just about everywhere on the globe. But then again, the original manuscripts have disappeared a long time ago and discussions about correct interpretations are ongoing.

One of the many speculations is that Atlantis is a fiction based on http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/199503/who.were.the.sea.people..htm.

 

[CEL]

For a good skeptical analysis of Atlantis myth see:
http://www.skepdic.com/atlantis.html

 

[waht]

There is evidence of volcanic eruptions and there is an ancient city dug out from ashes on one of Greek's hundreds of islands, forgot what's it called.

If there was ever an origin of the story of Atlantis, it could have been an island off Greece, wiped out by volcanic eruptions. Then as usual, myths and legends follow saying it was a super advanced civilization bigger than Africa and what not.

 

[mgb_phys]

The theory is that it was based on the Minoan civilsation on Crete who were rather spectacularly inconvenienced by the tsunami following Santorini erupting around 1500BCE

 

[waht]

Minoan settlement on Santorini:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrotiri_(Santorini)

Akrotiri is the name of an excavation site of a Minoan Bronze Age settlement on the Greek island of Santorini, associated with the Minoan civilization due to inscriptions in Linear A, and close similarities in artifact and fresco styles[1]. The excavation is named for a modern Greek village situated on a hill nearby. The name of the site in antiquity is unknown. It was buried by a volcanic eruption in the middle of the second millennium BC[2] (during the Late Minoan IA period). As a result, it is remarkably well-preserved. Frescoes[3], pottery, furniture, advanced drainage systems and three-storey buildings have been discovered at the site

 

[KrisOhn]

There is evidence of volcanic eruptions and there is an ancient city dug out from ashes on one of Greek's hundreds of islands, forgot what's it called.

You wouldn't be referring to the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in 79 AD would you?
Vesuvius

I know the dates and places are quite off, but there's a chance, since you don't know the name and there is a massive excavation going on in the cities destroyed by that eruption.

 

[Cryptonic]

Atlantis is probably as real as Troy or Sodom & Gomorrah... In other words, it probably existed. I saw a convincing doccumentary that placed it in the Andes. An archeological site with concentric "moats" and a central temple/city etc.

 

[Evo]

Atlantis is probably as real as Troy or Sodom & Gomorrah... In other words, it probably existed. I saw a convincing doccumentary that placed it in the Andes. An archeological site with concentric "moats" and a central temple/city etc.

I would say that a city in the mountains of South America would be an unlikely spot.

 

[MotoH]

Atlantis is probably as real as Troy or Sodom & Gomorrah... In other words, it probably existed. I saw a convincing doccumentary that placed it in the Andes. An archeological site with concentric "moats" and a central temple/city etc.

They have found a massive wall that is believed to be the city of Troy.

 

[BL4CKCR4Y0NS]

I would say that a city in the mountains of South America would be an unlikely spot.

I'm just saying here, I'm not criticising your statement but I just wanted to know, why do you think that it's unlikely?

 

[Evo]

I'm just saying here, I'm not criticising your statement but I just wanted to know, why do you think that it's unlikely?

Because there is no record of trade or travel between South America and Greece back then.

 

[CEL]

Because there is no record of trade or travel between South America and Greece back then.

Especially the Pacific side of South America.
But the Atlanteans were supposedly so advanced, that they could have built the Canal of Panama, twelve thousand years ago, when the rest of the humans were just discovering agriculture.

 

[BL4CKCR4Y0NS]

This is making me more and more curious about Atlantis ... where can I read what Plato wrote about it?

 

[Sacnoth XIII]

This is making me more and more curious about Atlantis ... where can I read what Plato wrote about it?

In the link they gave you above.

http://www.skepdic.com/atlantis.html
________

Also, you all should know some myths have been proven to be based loosely on facts: city of Troy for example now that you mentioned.

A Spanish scientist made a theory about Atlantis and says it's possible it was placed on Spain. He is going to publish his book in the next days. It seems Solon, Plato's ancestor and one of the seven greek sages according to Pausanias, had Spanish ancestry. Maybe he got the legend from them.

Sorry about my English, my first language is Spanish.

 

[DaveC426913]

...it is likely that it existed in the middle of the Seven Wonders of the World...

As a tangent to the Atlantis question, I kind of wonder what the above means.

The Seven Wonders of the World were fairly recently designated, they are all over the world, and I don't know how anything could be "in the middle of" them.

 

[hamster143]

Especially the Pacific side of South America.
But the Atlanteans were supposedly so advanced, that they could have built the Canal of Panama, twelve thousand years ago, when the rest of the humans were just discovering agriculture.

There's also no evidence of interbreeding between Greeks and natives of South America. Those are some of the most genetically distant human populations on Earth and signs of interbreeding should be clear.

 

[CEL]

There's also no evidence of interbreeding between Greeks and natives of South America. Those are some of the most genetically distant human populations on Earth and signs of interbreeding should be clear.

Well, according to Plato, the Atlanteans were not Greek, but their enemies.
Of course, 10 thousand years, before Plato, there were no Greeks anywhere.

 

[Valkyr]

One thing that many people over look is the time frame that Atlantis exsisted in. With over looking this vital piece of information is where the whole thing breaks down into mythology and legend.
There is one one magic word that make the whole Atlantis argument make perfect sense and makes Atlantis very real.

"Paleoclimatology"

Now with this very handy word in mind, let us look at the time frame in question. Of coarse this is about 11,000 BCE or 13,000 years ago. Naurally this plants us at the end of the ice age. Three very large things happened 13,000 years ago, or in point of fact, 12,900 years ago. We are talking about the Younger Dryas catastrophes and near immediate return of the ice age. Scientists have been able to conclude that this final glaciation called the Younger Dryas came about in just six months. As I mentioned, three large catastrophic occurances happened 12,900 years ago:

1. The release of Lake Agassiz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Agassiz

2. The Younger Dryas Impact Event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_event

3. Galactic Super Wave cycle
http://www.etheric.com/LaViolette/Predict.html


Now with the ice age aspect in mind entwinned with the study of ancient human cultures and civilizations, you can eliminate one by one possible places on Earth for Atlantis. For example you can eliminate all places above 30 to 35 degrees North laititude. You can also eliminate Antarctica. Both locations' temperatures range from -30*F to -160*F. These locations to not seem to be very hospitable for ancient civilizations, especially in North America. That leaves us with three locations; The Azores, Thera (next to Creet), and the Caribbean. Also one must keep in mind the water levels of the planet back then. The water level were about 400 feet lower globally than they are now. So, if you look at some maps of back then you will see much more land mass coverage than you see now.

~~Azores? Nope! I have 3 reasons for this... 1. The land mass coverage of the Azores is not that different now than it was 12,900 years ago. 2. There is no eveidence found of ice age human civilizations. 3. Its out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean where temperatures would be very harsh.

~~Thera? Nope! Reason 1. Its the wrong time frame. Yes admittedly there is a very good argument of the differences in numerical systems and languages. 2. This is of coarse the fall of the Minoan People 3. It has a great location latitude wise, but there is no evidence of an ice age civilization. 4. In the old legends, you will never find that Atlantis exploded. It is said that Atlantis "sank".

~~The Caribbean? YES! (in my humble opinion anyway) I have many reasons why I say this...
1. Perfect location North Latitude wise
2. If you look at the paleoclimatology and the land mass exposure during the ice age, it is ideal
3. If you go into the old Mayan, Aztec, and ancient Caribbean Islander histories told to Columbus, it details a celectial impact, earthquakes, flooding, the ocean swollowing up very large amounts of land, the deaths of thousands upon thouands of people, and there has been artifacts recovered from the Caribbean area that date 13,000 years old and older. One such artifact is at least 13,000 years old. It is a stone map of the planet that details the different land mass coverage during that time. This map is indeed complete. It shows ALL continents including Antarctica. People widely dismiss, discredit, and deny this map because of the out dated mentality of our favorite idiot Christopher Columbus "discovering America and prooving the Earth is round". You history students will know the Columbus and that flat Earth thing is a lie but some people don't know that so here you go. That tale was made up in this book by Washington Irving in 1828, but for some retarted reason the lie became fact and that is what we are tought as fact in school. Weird huh?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Life_and_Voyages_of_Christopher_Columbus

I can site many groups of people who came to America and/or maping the planet going all the way back to 50,000 years ago. I'll spare you, but they are indeed historical facts. If you're interested message me or look it up yourself. I find doing my own research to be very rewarding.

As mentioned above, there are indeed artifacts found but some are out right denied. You geologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, and archeologists know this because it threatens the "popularly accepted history" and fractures preceptions of ancient peoples and civilizations. But facts are facts, these artfacts exist, like it or not they have been tested and verified.

For more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture
and look up for other interesting history and artifacts:
Michael Cremo
Klaus Dona
Graham Hancock

Take care and be well everyone!

 

[hamster143]

Well, according to Plato, the Atlanteans were not Greek, but their enemies.
Of course, 10 thousand years, before Plato, there were no Greeks anywhere.

Does not matter. Any pre-Columbian interactions between residents of the Mediterranean and residents of South America had to result in gene mixing in one or both directions.

Based on the data we have, aside from some peculiarities associated with mitochondrial haplogroup X (which could be interpreted as evidence of stone age interactions between Ice Age Europeans and native Americans of eastern Canada), all evidence indicates that all of America was settled by people who crossed the Bering land bridge and then descended down the west coast of Canada shortly after the end of the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago, and never intermarried with any westerners before the arrival of Columbus. Conversely, the only places where native American haplogroups, such as Q1a3a, have ever been observed, are North and South America and some Polynesian islands.

 

[Andre]

all evidence indicates that all of America was settled by people who crossed the Bering land bridge and then descended down the west coast of Canada shortly after the end of the last Ice Age 12,000 years ago, and never intermarried with any westerners before the arrival of Columbus.

There is a plethora of hints of earlier, pre-Clovis settlers in the America's (A more amusing one). Careful with the "12,000 years ago". The difference between carbon dating and calendar dating is almost two millenia. I.e. 12,000 BP in carbon years is about 13,800 calendar years (Intcal04). So the palaeo - excrements of Paisley 5 Mile Point Caves (12,300 14C years B.P) could be calibrated to ~ 14,150 calendar years BP.

However http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5937/148-a.


Again Atlantis, since the only indication is a tale of Plato in the http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/Atlantis/timaeus_and_critias.html maybe translated doubtfully, one can squeeze the text into any form that would fit any random finding place and hence it has been located just all around the world. That's not very scientific.

 

[hamster143]

Your link does not object to the overall settling pattern. The question is only whether some people managed to get from Beringia to the Pacific Northwest before the complete disappearance of glaciers which blocked their way (around the time of the first appearance of Clovis culture, 13-13.5 ky cal bp), or the settling was completely post-glacier.

 

[Andre]

Your link does not object to the overall settling pattern.

But there are more, http://www.uky.edu/Projects/MonteVerde/monteverde.pdf is about Monte Verde in Chile. One of those discussers is a member here, incidentily. Radiocarbon dates of 12Ka - 12.4ka (calibrated - 13.8 - 14.3 ka cal BP) all the way down south is a bit more of a challenge.

Another feature of crossing the beringia landbridge hypothesis, would be the successful prediction of near identical archeologic/antropologic features on both sides of the bridge at the right time, that would be consistent with a migration pattern. Has this match been demonstrated yet?

 

[hamster143]

But there are more, http://www.uky.edu/Projects/MonteVerde/monteverde.pdf is about Monte Verde in Chile. One of those discussers is a member here, incidentily. Radiocarbon dates of 12Ka - 12.4ka (calibrated - 13.8 - 14.3 ka cal BP) all the way down south is a bit more of a challenge.

How long should it take for humans to get from Pacific Northwest to Chile? It's something like 10,000 km, right? That distance could be covered in 500 years at the rate of 50 m/day. Since we're talking about nomadic hunter-gatherers, who could easily travel 10 km/day or more in search of food, and they couldn't travel too far from the coast because of glaciers, they could spread out that far in the amount of time that's within radiocarbon error bars. Monte Verde is on the Pacific side of the continent, 50 km from the ocean.

Another feature of crossing the beringia landbridge hypothesis, would be the successful prediction of near identical archeologic/antropologic features on both sides of the bridge at the right time, that would be consistent with a migration pattern. Has this match been demonstrated yet?

Not sure I follow. We're talking about extremely primitive people, you can't expect much in the way of archeologic features. Even those artifacts that could be left behind, are by now mostly under 100 m of water.

There's some linguistic evidence. Two major families of North American languages (Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleut) are related to languages spoken in Central and Eastern Siberia.

 

[Evo]

How long should it take for humans to get from Pacific Northwest to Chile? It's something like 10,000 km, right? That distance could be covered in 500 years at the rate of 50 m/day. Since we're talking about nomadic hunter-gatherers, who could easily travel 10 km/day or more in search of food, and they couldn't travel too far from the coast because of glaciers, they could spread out that far in the amount of time that's within radiocarbon error bars. Monte Verde is on the Pacific side of the continent, 50 km from the ocean.

There is no way they could walk like that every day, they have children, they have pregnant women, elderly and ill. Why on Earth would a group of people walk relentlessly day after day into the unknown? They wouldn't. Migration was gradual as they used up the natural resources or followed a herd.

Glaciers didn't go very far south in North America.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is no way they could walk like that every day, they have children, they have pregnant women, elderly and ill. Why on Earth would a group of people walk relentlessly day after day into the unknown? They wouldn't. Migration was gradual as they used up the natural resources or followed a herd.

Glaciers didn't go very far south in North America.

He meant 50 metres per day, not 50 miles per day. He said this directly on the heels of

" It's something like 10,000 km, right? That distance could be covered in 500 years..."

Indeed, 10,000km over 500 years works out to almost exactly 50 metres per day. i.e. a paltry 18km per year.

 

[hamster143]

Glaciers didn't go very far south in North America.

Glaciers went as far as Seattle.

Once you get past Oregon, you're boxed in, because only the narrow strip of land along the coast is habitable, and, beyond that narrow strip, there's barren desert for hundreds of miles.

There's some room to spread out in Mexico. Then you go through Central America, which is again a narrow strip of land. On the other side of Isthmus of Panama, you hit Andes, which were covered by a big glacier from Ecuador to Cape Horn.

 

[bjacoby]

There is one one magic word that make the whole Atlantis argument make perfect sense and makes Atlantis very real.

"Paleoclimatology"

<Snip EXCELLENT exposition of Atlantis theory and current evidence>

I can site many groups of people who came to America and/or maping the planet going all the way back to 50,000 years ago. I'll spare you, but they are indeed historical facts. If you're interested message me or look it up yourself. I find doing my own research to be very rewarding.

As mentioned above, there are indeed artifacts found but some are out right denied. You geologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, and archeologists know this because it threatens the "popularly accepted history" and fractures preceptions of ancient peoples and civilizations. But facts are facts, these artfacts exist, like it or not they have been tested and verified.
k

Take care and be well everyone!

Sometimes I'm SO embarrassed at the intelligence level exhibited by those in the sciences. It seems that for many subjects, they are satisfied with mere "plausible" traditional explanations (usually outright denial) rather than true evidence. Excellent outlines such as that by this poster are typically rejected out of hand and NEVER allowed into any serious "scientific" discussions of the era.

For example some of the proof above has to do with certain cataclysmic events. But I can't tell you how many knock down drag out arguments I've had with geologists, archeologists and the like over what they used to call "the theory of uniformity". Under this theory all geological changes MUST happen at the slow pace we see right now as the rain wears down mountains etc. Volcanos, Asteroid collisions, Glacier lakes bursting, and what have you were all consider "bunk" under this thinking. The rabid attacks on Velikovsky when he suggested that ancient myths suggested such cataclysmic events in the past is an indication of the depths of resistance.

And yet, time after time after time, myth is examined and lo, the ancient places end up "found" right where the myth said they were! Troy being a salient example. Just how stooopid is "science" anyway? So we have the "myth" of a continent(s) out beyond the pillars of Herccules (in the Atlantic) sinking so quickly that the bodies of people were seen on the ocean "thick as seaweed". A really good starting point. Next there is more. Apparently the sinking had fore-runners and people knew it was coming. I say this because ringing the Atlantic are settlements that can be suspected to be Atlantean. People like to speculate that this one or that one "was" Atlantis, but refuse to take them ALL together as proof of colonization from the sunken (sinking) continent. The existence of pyramids on both sides of the Atlantic is certainly thought-provoking. Could this be some hint of the importance of the pyramid in the Atlantean culture?

One prime feature of these outposts are what have been termed "cyclopean walls". These are walls and structures easily identified by gigantic blocks of stone so carefully fitted that a knife blade STILL can't fit in the cracks. PLUS they are all irregularly shaped with one block notched into another etc. Go look some up and you'll see what I mean. You find these things in Egypt, Spain, South America. Bahamas. etc. The story is that the "Atlantean" method of construction was to use large stone blocks and sand them back and forth on each other until they fit perfectly. It's nearly impossible to duplicate even with modern technology. It's quite different from construction with the more normal smaller carved stone blocks just stacked up that we see in some later civilizations.

So is this all "proof" of the existence of the continent of Atlantis? Well, no, but it sure is some heavy duty evidence and unexplainable data!

Happily, today, the old "theory of uniformity" has fallen out of favor. But that still does not change the basic fact that "science" is forbidden to seriously discuss issues such as this one. The fact that this discussion is relegated to a "debunking" forum says it all. Shame on us. [edit by Ivan: Delete insult]

 

[BigFairy]

Heh, thanks for enlightening me on this topic. Sorry i cannot add anything of value.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Plato says Atlantis was in the Atlantic ocean, right?

 

[Pythagorean]

So I'm assuming the Strait of Gibraltar has already been thoroughly searched?

The wiki says that the ancients never took the story of Atlantis seriously and that it is only in modern times that people do so.

 

[Wodash]

So is this all "proof" of the existence of the continent of Atlantis? Well, no, but it sure is some heavy duty evidence and unexplainable data!

If you were to do some research, you would find that most of what is termed unexplainable, HAS been explained. It may not be to your satisfaction because you may have preconceived notions about science, such as is portrayed in the books of what are called "fringe" writers. These writers are explorers and adventurers but are not trained in the fields of endeavor that they write about. Michael Cremo for instance. Personally, I love the books of such writers myself - Sitchen, Cremo, Graham Phillips, etc., but often times what they say, is their opinion and not scientific fact. They are very smart, but they are not professionals. Other than being professional authors! Andrew Collins for instance, is an author who writes books about his Phychic searches for things lost in history.

I loved the story of Atlantis myself, and three years ago or so, I thought I'd see if I could prove it was true. The facts defeated me! Atlantis did not exist. Using the information science has made available for us in these modern times, there is no evidence for the existence of Atlantis.

Plato wrote http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/Atlantis/timaeus_and_critias.html that Atlantis was in the ocean outside the Straits of Gibraltar (Cadiz). There has been a lot of bathymetry done in that area, and there is nothing to indicate that there has been a subsidence of a land mass in that area. Especially one with mountains as high as Plato says Atlantis mountains were.

Furthermore, Atlanteans supposedly had "ships" to cross the ocean with, 11,500 years ago. There were no peoples with that technology during that time frame. People were hunter gatherers in that time frame. Plato says they had an army. No one had an army in that time frame. This army supposedly used chariots. The Wheel, nevermind the chariot, had not been invented yet. To develop these technologies and tactical applications, a prequel had to exist. In other words, these things are not developed suddenly. We do not go from a hollowed out log to a Trireme in a few hundred years. So Atlantis had to exist for a long time in the past, to be this developed.

As has been said, the world was in the grip of an ice age in this time frame. Did they put skids on their ships and slide them across the ocean or what? Who would they have fought back then? The Greeks were not known as yet, people had just barely started to think about farming, and yet supposedly the Greeks too had "warlike men" (army) according to Plato.

Not.

 

[CEL]

If you were to do some research, you would find that most of what is termed unexplainable, HAS been explained. It may not be to your satisfaction because you may have preconceived notions about science, such as is portrayed in the books of what are called "fringe" writers. These writers are explorers and adventurers but are not trained in the fields of endeavor that they write about. Michael Cremo for instance. Personally, I love the books of such writers myself - Sitchen, Cremo, Graham Phillips, etc., but often times what they say, is their opinion and not scientific fact. They are very smart, but they are not professionals. Other than being professional authors! Andrew Collins for instance, is an author who writes books about his Phychic searches for things lost in history.

I loved the story of Atlantis myself, and three years ago or so, I thought I'd see if I could prove it was true. The facts defeated me! Atlantis did not exist. Using the information science has made available for us in these modern times, there is no evidence for the existence of Atlantis.

Plato wrote http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/Atlantis/timaeus_and_critias.html that Atlantis was in the ocean outside the Straits of Gibraltar (Cadiz). There has been a lot of bathymetry done in that area, and there is nothing to indicate that there has been a subsidence of a land mass in that area. Especially one with mountains as high as Plato says Atlantis mountains were.

Furthermore, Atlanteans supposedly had "ships" to cross the ocean with, 11,500 years ago. There were no peoples with that technology during that time frame. People were hunter gatherers in that time frame. Plato says they had an army. No one had an army in that time frame. This army supposedly used chariots. The Wheel, nevermind the chariot, had not been invented yet. To develop these technologies and tactical applications, a prequel had to exist. In other words, these things are not developed suddenly. We do not go from a hollowed out log to a Trireme in a few hundred years. So Atlantis had to exist for a long time in the past, to be this developed.

As has been said, the world was in the grip of an ice age in this time frame. Did they put skids on their ships and slide them across the ocean or what? Who would they have fought back then? The Greeks were not known as yet, people had just barely started to think about farming, and yet supposedly the Greeks too had "warlike men" (army) according to Plato.

Not.

The Atlanteans could be overdeveloped in relation to all other people on Earth. But, according to Plato, they were defeated by the Athenians. Certainly there were no Athenians 10 thousand years before Plato's time.

 

[Jon the kid]

I have seen shows about Atlantis. They believe it to be a real historical nation, if not fabricated by the writing of Plato... Maybe atlantis was located on a part of the berring straight in alaska/russia. It could have been located in a particular area that stayed above water long enough for a exploring nation to discover it... The only thing is that Plato writes about the greeks trading with them... I am not sure but please respond to this comment.

 

[Wodash]

The shows you have seen have been put on by TV channels that are looking for a wide audience and good ratings, not necessarily telling the truth. Actually, there are a lot of disgruntled people in the scientific world who would like to see more factual shows regarding the histories of the cultures that DID exist in the past.

The only person in history to actually write anything about a specific place called Atlantis, was Plato. Others, in their histories, mentioned Atlanteans, however, these people were mentioned as living at the base of the Atlas mountains near modern day Tunisia and were considered to be the children (descendants) of Atlas, therefore, called Atlanteans. But there is no other writer who has described this place Plato speaks of nor the events he speaks of. For the reasons I gave earlier. The things he said existed in that time frame, didn't exist.

That does not mean there aren't sunken cities. There are. That doesn't mean that maybe just maybe, someone sailed to the Americas even before the Vikings. It simply means that Plato's story is a fabrication. As to whether or not the ancients did sail to the Americas that's still to be proven.

You will hear all kinds of stories as to where Atlantis was. But just remember. There had to be a developed society, for any of the story to be true, and if you research just a few of the things I mentioned, like ship building, horse training, invention of the wheel (especially the hub of the wheel so it could steer), organized armies, etc. etc., you will find they did not exist in the time line Plato gives for the destruction of Atlantis, never mind any time BEFORE that. No doubt there were cultures developing in different parts of the world at different times, and some were likely more advanced in certain techniques than others, but there was none that had ocean sailing vessels that could carry a non existent army into the Med., and attack three different areas at the same time. Cel is correct. There were no Athenians in the time line given by Plato.

 

[mugaliens]

I believe the only known Atlantis claims come from Plato. There is no conclusive historical evidence supporting these claims. Many people believe the story is fiction.

Were they even ever claims? Or were they merely fiction set amidst real geography, much as we do, today?

As for "conclusive historical evidence," there is no direct evidence supporting Atlantis, per se', but there is massive, undisputed historical evidence that ancient seafarers ranged broad and far throughout their ocean travels.

There is also evidence right in front of our noses that we may simply be standing on it. Let's consider Pato's introduction, from Timaeus:

"For all that we have here, lying within the mouth of which we speak, is evidently a haven having a narrow entrance; but that yonder is a real ocean, and the land surrounding it may most rightly be called, in the fullest and truest sense, a continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there existed a confederation of kings, of great and marvelous power, which held sway over all the island, and over many other islands also and parts of the continent."​

It's well known that Plato's "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillars_of_Hercules" on either side of the Straight of Gibralter. Plato makes no claim that Atlantis lies beyond the mouth, just that it was land surrounding the "real ocean" beyond the pillars, and that the land was beyond the "real ocean."

I can think one such land mass which fits this description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Americas_(orthographic_projection).svg" , and in this view one can see not only the Americas, but also the Straight of Gibralter.

How might this be possible? The only plausible explanation here would be if ancient mariners from Europe made the same or similar voyage as did the Vikings. Many people say, "Impossible! The Vikings could barely do it, and human progression has been steady..."

Has it really? Then how were the Polynesians able to settle the South Pacific several thousand years ago after crossing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Hawaii#Polynesian_Triangle", including to remote Hawaii, some 2,000 years ago, and most certainly most other areas many thousands of years before that, according to acheological and genetic evidence found throughout the rest of the South Pacific arena.

It's a common, and regrettably modern misconception that we were largely landlubbers, or at least confined to the coasts, until the last few hundred years, and that misconception really is a myth, certainly far less plausible than idea that the Americans may be what was referred to as "Atlantis."

 

[Max™]

I noticed quite a few references to this region when I was researching the last ice age for a discussion regarding climate variability in the past.

http://www.atlan.org/articles/true_history/index.html

Kinda makes sense compared to the stuff I've seen in random TV "searches for the lost city of atlantis", what do you think?

 

[nismaratwork]

Atlantis, Lemuria... it's all in the same vein. There are certainly landmasses which are no longer above the ocean, but that doesn't mean every bit of sunken dirt housed an advanced civilization. I take Mugalians' view, which is that this was a bit of colorful fiction set amidst some contemporary geography. That, or Stargate is right, and Atlantis is now in the Pegasus galaxy!

 

[Nik_2213]

Occam's Razor suggests that the Santorini explanation is the most plausible one...

Anyone sailing to Santorini post-apocalypse will have found a flooded caldera where a substantial island had stood: Verily, it had sunk beneath the waves.

There's plenty of volcanoes around the Med', but their eruptions are on a different scale to this catastrophe. It's quite likely, given the magnitude of the eruption and probable tsunamis that no-one was around to see the island *explode* and survive to tell of it...

And, yes, the Athenians weren't around at the time. Besides, the Sea Peoples, the Vikings of their day, seem to have moved into the void created by the collapse of the My' empire and the loss of their navy...

So, when Plato wants to set his cautionary tale some-where...

It's a bit like the Arthurian legends, where Camelot seems to have grown towers in the re-telling, and the famed knights may have begun as a few descendants of Roman heavy cavalry...

 

[Garth]

Occam's Razor suggests that the Santorini explanation is the most plausible one...

Anyone sailing to Santorini post-apocalypse will have found a flooded caldera where a substantial island had stood: Verily, it had sunk beneath the waves.

http://www.santorini.net/119.html and http://www.santorini.net/112.html

Garth

 

[mugaliens]

Santorini is on the wrong side of the Rock of Gibralter, and the Mediterranean is the wrong body of water.

The passage is clear. If Atlantis ever did exist, it was way out in the Atlantic, if not across it.

 

[Nik_2213]

I've seen the case made for part of Scandinavia, or even the Channel Islands...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Islands

At least those had the merit that they and their surrounding land was part of continental Europe until the sea-level rose after last ice-age. It's entirely possible that a lot of land linking the current islands was sheltered by dunes, salt-marsh etc until swamped en-masse in a great storm...

Snag is that the only mighty civilisation known to have been lost to the sea in those millenia is the Mycenaean. Sadly, even they weren't magnificent enough for Plato...

 

[FlexGunship]

If I may pose a question... .I've never considered Atlantis to be anything but a myth. On what grounds is it possible that it isn't simply fiction?

For example, we don't presuppose that every Agatha Christie novel is non-fiction until lack of evidence relegates it to a weaker standing. In fact, lately, I feel the same way about MSNBC and Fox. Doesn't the combination of "unlikeliness" (an anachronistic civilization) and lack of observation (reports from only a single source in a single work) kind of force it into the "fiction" category (even if we don't want it there)?

Is there any other myth with a similar background that would be taken this seriously?

 

[granpa]

If I may pose a question... .I've never considered Atlantis to be anything but a myth. On what grounds is it possible that it isn't simply fiction?

For example, we don't presuppose that every Agatha Christie novel is non-fiction until lack of evidence relegates it to a weaker standing. In fact, lately, I feel the same way about MSNBC and Fox. Doesn't the combination of "unlikeliness" (an anachronistic civilization) and lack of observation (reports from only a single source in a single work) kind of force it into the "fiction" category (even if we don't want it there)?

Is there any other myth with a similar background that would be taken this seriously?

the city of babel and the great flood are taken seriously by some.
BTW, there have been lots of cities called 'Babel/Able/Enoch/Mahalalel/Mehujael/Jabal/Babylon'.

 

[FlexGunship]

the city of babel and the great flood are taken seriously by some.
BTW, there have been lots of cities called 'Babel/Able/Enoch/Mahalalel/Mehujael/Jabal/Babylon'.

Hmm... I guess you have a point. But, for some, they are raised from birth under the perception that this particular myth (the great flood or the story of Babel) is integral to their faith system (and to the safety and security of their eternal soul).

Atlantis is just a story.

 

[Andre]

There is abundant proof that there was no such thing as a great flood, at least not in the calibrated part of carbon dating, where we find continuous uninterrupted annual processes in which the years can be counted, like annual grow rings of coral, tree rings and annual sedimentation of lakes and ice layers in ice cores. If there would have been a global flood, or even bigger than regional, all these records would have to show a hiatus in the same timeframe. That's not the case.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is abundant proof that there was no such thing as a great flood, at least not in the calibrated part of carbon dating, where we find continuous uninterrupted annual processes in which the years can be counted, like annual grow rings of coral, tree rings and annual sedimentation of lakes and ice layers in ice cores. If there would have been a global flood, or even bigger than regional, all these records would have to show a hiatus in the same timeframe. That's not the case.

Not sure you can prove something did not happen. I mean, I grant that carbon dating evidence can put some heavy constraints on it, but still...

I've read more than one story where the Great Flood was, in fact, the filling of a formerly dry lowlands area with what is, in present day, a body of water.

One story suggests that the Black Sea was once a dry valley before the Mediterranean flooded it by way of the Sea of Marmara. Another more fanciful story suggests that, prehistorically, the entire Mediterranean was once dry land until Gibraltar gave way.

These would not show up in the aforementioned land-based records.

 

[DaveC426913]

Hmm... I guess you have a point. But, for some, they are raised from birth under the perception that this particular myth (the great flood or the story of Babel) is integral to their faith system (and to the safety and security of their eternal soul).

Atlantis is just a story.

This is a red herring. Some people having their own reasons to believe something does not detract from its truthhood.

[Edited]

 

[granpa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Sea

Sometimes during the Tertiary period the Bab-el-Mandeb closed and the Red Sea evaporated to an empty hot dry salt-floored sink. Effects causing this would be:

1. A "race" between the Red Sea widening and Perim Island erupting filling the Bab el Mandeb with lava.
2. The lowering of world sea level during the Ice Ages due to much water being locked up in the ice caps.​