Atlantis

terpinator72 said:
As I know very little about this topic, perhaps the first post would be a individuals theory, then the following posts will be review, and further comments.
This should be an interesting approach to topic formation, and im hopeful that OUR community will apply their knowledge for the benefit of everyone, yours included.
Click to expand...
I tried to support this with my first post on the thread. No one else appears to want to take it seriously. A pity.
 
Ophiolite said:
I tried to support this with my first post on the thread.
Click to expand...
But I think what you described isn't what many people thing about when they think Atlantis (although it is more in line with Plato). "However, if by Atlantis we mean a civilisation, advanced for its time, but primitive compared with today's...."

The problem is that Plato is saying Atlantis was basically a continent... that sunk. On top of that is the problem that it completely contradicts Egyptian history... which is supported. Troy did not have these problems.

There is a chance Atlantis was a myth started by North/South America... but then Plato's facts are incredibly wrong. Atlantis as described by Plato almost certainly never existed. It's possible that it's a mix-mash of various stories though.

P.S. - Links are dead, but I never heard of that before... could you provide the links?
Donovan sang about it... so it must have existed.
Click to expand...
Now that's an obscure reference!
 
Persol said:
P.S. - Links are dead, but I never heard of that before... could you provide the links?
Click to expand...
Oops! I adapted this from a post I made on another forum a month or so back. I forgot to check if they were still llive. I'll see what I can find.

I am not persuaded that we have a good handle on early history. Don't panic. I'm not about to go von Daineken or even Graham Hancock on you. I suspect that early civilisations were somewhat more advanced at an earlier time than most authorities would agree to. I am certain there was much more exchange between cultures than is generally supposed. Atlantis fits into this scenario rather neatly, and provides for some idle speculation, and a painless incentive for learning the real history.
 
I actually wrote a short article of sorts on my webpage about a run-in I had with a few Atlantis nutjobs (not to imply that all supporters of the notion of Atlantis are automatically "nutjobs," but these two certainly are).

http://home.earthlink.net/~ctfeagans/atlantis.htm

The whole thing actually started here on sciforums in the Human Science forum... I'm sure Andre recalls it :)

But I ended up on atlantisrising, questioning the spokesperson for the alleged "Georgeos Diaz-Montexano." She became extremely belligerent and resorted to some serious foul language, etc. The links in the references aren't valid anymore... they apparently did a bit of housecleaning and made Maria (the "spokesperson") go away.

The gist of it all is that Jaques Collina-Girard is looking for signs of neolithic civilization in the shoals off of Gibraltar, and has suggested that this might be the site that created the legend/myth of Atlantis in oral tradition, later to be retold in writing by Plato.

Georgeos (or so Maria says) is the first to come up with this "theory" and has been very nasty throughout the internet in defending it, stating all the while that Jaques "stole" the idea from Georgeos. It's all very interesting... from an outside perspective. I wish I would have saved pdf images of the debates on atlantisrising... they were rich in drama!
 
Interesting summary of a doubtless very interesting debate. There are many potential candidates for Atlantis. Of much greater interest is the attention that is now being focused on submarine archaeology in general, which you refer to in the link. I suspect as more discoveries are made the interest will quicken and a positive feedback loop will come into play. The South China Sea could deliver some surprises. If I were working in the field however I would be persuading the sheiks in the Emirates they need a shiny new submarine archaeology institute for the Gulf. Scholarly advances and lifestyle.
 
skin walker... you arent very nice to me boy, but ok, i allways try to understand ppl on your level... although its very hard for me to not laugh with you in your face, i'll try not to, i'm a nice person... in contradiction with you.... :)

first of.... if you think that you are that wise, try to read a little bit further than Plato. he is really not the only one that has written about atlantis! i understand that if you didnt read that much that you dont have ANY idea of what i am talking. if you think i'm babbling about new age stuff, well HAHA to you! i know that i read books that many ppl even dont know about, and when i talk about something it happens a lot that ppl of lower level dont know what i am talking about, and then they just reject it... i dont care though.... they will get there sooner or later :) ... or never lol
i'm sure that you didnt understand a thing of what i said, but like i said, I DONT CARE!

ps: dont say "the average visitor" i think that the average visitor has more brains than you do, ow sorry was THAT rude?
 
Last edited:
hahaha sorry, i didnt meant to be that rude with you dear, you just have to know first before you reject something
 
ow, i just saw something, sorry english isnt my mother laguage, so, i didnt meant that i think you are stupid or something lol, we just live in different worlds.... and eeem sorry about your lost two minutes, you will get them back when you will understand what i was talking about
 
he is really not the only one that has written about atlantis
Click to expand...
Well psychics of course... duh! Barbas is a troll.... no reason to feed it.
 
More specifically, who before he. Many have written of Prince Charming, yet he remains a fairy tale.

Oh, and don't worry about being rude, there are those for whom it is one's duty to offend. :cool:
 
"Many have written of Prince Charming, yet he remains a fairy tale." yep true true. thats why there is no need for me to write everybody down who has written something about atlantis.
I'm in a hurry now, so i'll come back on this later dear
 
"I think that Atlantis was very likely a Neolithic or Bronze Age society that existed in a area now submerged by the rise in sea levels at around 11,000 years ago. I don't believe that Atlanteans were an advanced society, but rather one that you would expect for the period. I don't think that there was a sudden "sinking" of a continent, but rather a slow rise in sea level that forced the residents to move to Spain or Morocco." ===> i totaly agree with that
 
Ophiolite said:
3. A maritime culture based on the Azores... The Azores is quite flimsy.
Click to expand...

"Flimsy" as in a bad theory - or as in geologically unstable?

The latter is the basis of Otto Muck and Christian O'Brien's theory about the Azores being the mountaintops of a larger, single landmass, which subsided drastically due to a sudden movement in the Mid-Atlantic ridge in which they sit. I like this idea, and the wider tectonic repercussions of such a disaster obviously tie in with other ancient flood myths (think tsunami, especially now...)

http://www.atlantia.de/atlantis_english/myth/doom/atlantis_maya.htm]Here's a similar legend from the Americas.[/URL]

Anyone remember a TV cartoon entitled Mysterious Cities of Gold? That featured a final revelation about a prehistoric nuclear war between 2 advanced Antedeluvian civilisations: Atlantis, and "Hiva" which was placed in the Pacific.
 
Ophiolite said:
1. Current thinking favours the Minoan civilisation, centred in the Eastern Mediterranean and destroyed by the explosive eruption of Santorini around 1500BC [...] The Minoan option is quite well known.
Click to expand...

It is true that most archaeologists favor the Minoan explanation, enough so that "Santorini eruption" and "Minoan eruption" are often interchangeable terms. There is some shift in the hypothesis that it was a single volcanic event that caused the abrubt abandonment of Minoan Crete, however.

A recent article in the Journal of Archaeological Science (Gorokhovich, 2005) suggests that the loss of water initiated the abandonment of Minoan palaces at Knossos, Phaistos, Zakros, etc. Supporting this is the problem of very little tephra in the stratigraphy of Crete in the excavations of the palaces. Seismic activity, however, has been well documented in affecting ground water supplies by changing permeability and levels in highland aquifers. Wells have been noted to go dry and water has become turbid or gaseous with CO2.

In addition, climate changes that produce drought conditions at the same time would reduce rainfall. Knossos, for instance (its the best excavated, so what we know of water usage of the period comes mostly from there), utilized surface water, wells, springs, and rainfall collection to charge/supply the vast water supply system they had. Knossos used aquaducts and underground cisterns for transportation and storage and actually had flushable toilets. For a society that required such a complex system, even small negative changes in the system would affect it adversly. Loss of ground water as well as rainfall would have been deleterious enough to abandon the palaces alltogether.

Where they went might not be such a great mystery, either. There are many architectural styles present in Greek culture that reflect Minoan habits.

Ophiolite said:
Plato, certainly used the tale of destruction as a political warning to his contemporaries, but equally he may well have based it upon fact. Atlantis is as mythical as today as Troy was before Schleimann discovered it.
Click to expand...

But when we look at the legend of Troy, we consider the context of the story, which Homer probably borrowed from oral traditions taught to him. Homer's descriptions of many artifacts are actually fairly accurate, particularly in excavations of Mycenaen shaft graves: boar's tooth helmet, armor, the cup described by Homer to be Agamemnon's, etc.

We have to keep in mind that Homer was telling a tale (though, perhaps, not for the same reasons as Plato), but many of his descriptions of the period were accurate and some (the large, multi-tiered, two-handled cup of Agamemnon, for instance) give us pause. But when referring to Calvert and Schleimann's Troy as the Troy we have to be careful. One of the problems is that the levels excavated that could be of the period Homer describes are pre-historic and no inscriptional evidence remains.

There are some preeminent archaeologists, like James Mellart, who vehemetly deny that this is the Troy. Though Mellart has some history of his own that is quite colorful....

Still, the contempory site, assumed by man to be Troy, is geographically well suited as is its architecture, to be Homer's Troy.

But then Homer didn't claim that it was anything but a city that was eventually sacked. It didn't have a particularly advanced civilization or suddenly sink into the sea nor was it "larger than Libya and Asia combined."

As a side note, Plato's latter description would have, in his mind, been much smaller than what we imagine today, based upon what was considered to be "Asia" by the Greeks: Anatolia, Mesopotamia and the Levant, I believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top