Location of atlantis

I think that Atlantis was in fact ancient Creta (they had some similarities in culture and symbols - like twin axes, female priests) and the flooding stories are related to the gigantic Thera/Santorini explosion which caused massive tsunami waves.

[edit on 31-3-2005 by longbow]

The Mediteranian, in particular Thera, is the most likely location for any Atlantean civilisation.

All legends get exxagerated over time, so it is possible that following the cataclysmic volcano that wiped Thera out (an event that would stick in peoples minds) stories were told and over time these stories grew out of all proportion to what happened.

Is it possible that the coc aine, tobacco, etc, that is common on multiple continents could have come from the fact that all of the continents used to be connected millions of years ago, or would those species have, due to differing environments, diversified until they were unrecognizable from each other. Is it also possible that travellers could have brought those things with them to other places? I think that's more likely than that Atlantis once existed.

Also, I could be wrong, but isn't the naming of the Atlantic Ocean / Atlantis a modern thing? I'm pretty sure that ancient peoples called it something else, although I don't know what. For example, the Mediterranean Sea used to be called Mare Nostrum (Latin: our sea). Surely the Atlantic was called something else back then, too?

Another post www.abovetopsecret.com... deals with whether Plato invented Atlantis as an example for his philosophical and political writings. I put a couple of reasons there why I don't think Atlantis ever existed.

(edit begins here)

Hey I just found Atlantis! Mystery solved!

from dictionary.reference.com...
Atlantis, FL (city, FIPS 2500)
Location: 26.59618 N, 80.10188 W
Population (1990): 1653 (1067 housing units)
Area: 3.5 sq km (land), 0.1 sq km (water)

[edit on 31-3-2005 by DragonsDemesne]

What about all the legends from around the world, which describe a white man or men arriving amongst these various peoples. In South and Central America they have this legend of a bearded white man landing on the EASTERN shore after a catastrophe called Quetzalcoatl who brought knowledge and power. In Egypt they have the legend of Sep Tepi, or First Time, where foreign people of great power came to Egypt and founded their civilisation. They came from the WEST.

Now, as for Santoini being the location of Atlantis, I do not buy this as this is too close to Athens, which Plato also mentions several times with Atlantis. He states that Atlantis rivaled Athens in power, so this does not make any logical sense that the two would be so close. I believe that Santorini was the home of a great civilisation also, but descended from an ORIGINAL civilisation far older and more advanced than any other in the world. This unknown civilisation suffered a great catastrophe and the survivors spread themselves throughout the world, starting anew, teaching their knowledge.

This would explain why, in Egypt and in South and Central America there is a lost knowledge, which has been forgotten over time. For example: where did the Egyptians learn heiroglyphics? There is no learning stage in the evolution of heiroglyphics, it just appears all of a sudden. It's as if they were taught it by an unknown person/persons.

As for the location of Atlantis, I have changed my mind several times since I began reading and researching the story of Atlantis, but now I think I have settled on Antartica as the most plausible location. This is due to me believing that the great flood was caused by a shifting of the Earths crust, causing the continents to move location, ie, Antarctica was roughly 2000 miles further north, and due to the Earth crust displacement, was relocated over the South pole, thus changing the living conditions, forcing the peoples to either move somewhere else, or die. I believe this is where Quetzalcoatl and the Egyptian Osiris and the rest of the "gods" came from. They spread to the Americas, to Europe, Middle East and the Far East.

Originally posted by celticniall
In South and Central America they have this legend of a bearded white man landing on the EASTERN shore after a catastrophe called Quetzalcoatl who brought knowledge and power.

It may be some Greek/Phoenicia merchant. And he brought not much knowlege and power considering that Mayans, Aztecs, Inks had never metalrurgy, wheel etc. That's one reason why I don't believe in many contacts between old and new world.

Now, as for Santoini being the location of Atlantis, I do not buy this as this is too close to Athens, which Plato also mentions several times with Atlantis. He states that Atlantis rivaled Athens in power, so this does not make any logical sense that the two would be so close. I believe that Santorini was the home of a great civilisation also, but descended from an ORIGINAL civilisation far older and more advanced than any other in the world. This unknown civilisation suffered a great catastrophe and the survivors spread themselves throughout the world, starting anew, teaching their knowledge.

Remeber that Plato was a liar. His teacher Sokrates could not believe how many lies he has written about him. And the Athens/Atlantis war is one thig why I don't believe what he says. While it is possible that certain advanced civ existed somewhere in Atlantic, it is not possible that Athenians were able to wage a war against them.

This would explain why, in Egypt and in South and Central America there is a lost knowledge, which has been forgotten over time. For example: where did the Egyptians learn heiroglyphics? There is no learning stage in the evolution of heiroglyphics, it just appears all of a sudden. It's as if they were taught it by an unknown person/persons.

There is learnign stage in hieroglyphs evolution called pictograms. Besides Egyptians were not the first who discovered how to write. The Mesopothamy civilizations were the first.

And SA civilizations and Egypt couldn't be both descendants of atlantis,because there is large time gap between SA and Egypt civilizations (Egypt was already captured by Persians, when Mayans started to build their pyramids).

Forgive me, that I mention too much about the Philppines, but there is lots of evidence that the Philippines could be the exact location of Atlantis. The Philippines is suitable for Atlantis because of it being a very good tropical country in Southeast Asia and there has been sevral artifacts prooving this:

* Laguna copper plate
*Banaue Rice Terraces (just like the Stonehenge, it is surprising that a primitive people built such wondEr in a very rock mountain slopes)
*Gold items found that date at least 7,000 BC
* Old pottery dating to about 5,000 BC found in the Bicol region\
* Anthropologists mentioin abut ancient elephant and horse fossils that date 10 million years old

There is too much similarities in the various cultures throughout the civilisations in South and Central America, Egypt, Indus Valley, etc to discount a common element. Their knowledge of the cosmos was all very similar, and they all have reference to Sirius, the dog star. This star was very important too all the civilisations mentioned, including the Egyptians and Mayans. How do you explain this? It doesn't fit that they all developed this knowledge seperately. There had to be a common element that brought this knowledge.

Also, the Egyptian heiroglyphics did pop up fairly quickly, there wasn't the long learning curve as you would expect, in fact, the Egyptian civilisation seems to have been born fully formed, there doesn't seem to be a gradual forming of the various parts of a complete civilisation. This tells me that there was an outside influence. It is similar to the Maya, Aztecs, Toltecs and Olmecs in Central and South America. They appear to have inherited Tiahuanaco from a far older civilisation, and some of the Aztec cities seem to have been their when they arrived. They believed that the knowledge was brought to them by Quetzalcoatl. In fact it appears that the Maya inherited their famous calendar from the Olmecs, who in turn inherited it from some unknown civilisation.

Where did this common knowledge come from? There would appear to be a common element here. A common knowledge spreading around the civilisations of the world from South and Central America to Egypt and the Indus Valley.

Evidence also suggests that the Mesopothamy civilizations were not the first to write things down, from ancient bone fragments from the Stone Age with carvings made by tools. The researcher Alexander Marshack discovered in the 1960s that one set of these markings were notations of the phases of the moon. This means that Cro-Magnon man had created writing 35,000 years ago, and that he created the first crude calendar. This also means that Cro-Magnon man was intelligent and he had an understanding of time.

As the Alexandrian Library and archives were destroyed along with many otehr ancient manuscripts during the crusaders and others, the vatican library vaults is probably the only library I would love to have access to to research the facts of the existence of Atlantis. One day the truth will be revealed. A million lies cannot hide even the smallest truth, until then really it is supposition over the origin and lacation of Atlantis.

Why would the Vatican hide documents on Atlantis?

IMHO, it is the new discovery off the coast of Cuba.
We cannot get any information because the Russians are running the whole operation.It is too far down for divers, but subs show before unknown images and methods of building..National Geographice is supposed to be sending updates, but I cannt find any.

www.crystalinks.com...

A question for those who believe the location of Atlantis has been found: Why do you take Plato at his word that Atlantis existed, yet ignore many of the clues he provided? Off the top of my head, I think Plato ascribed these properties to Atlantis and it's civilization (those better read on the subject please correct me if neccessary):

1. Atlantis was beyond the Pillars of Hercules (Most scholars say this is the Straits of Gibraltar)
2. There were elephants present
3. The people practiced some type of bull worship.
4. The stone used for building was red, white, and black in color.
5. The canals were built in a circular pattern.
6. Atlantis sunk beneath the sea (does Plato mention why?)...
7. ...9000 years ago.
8. The technology was advanced COMPARED to other civs of the time.

Now using this criteria, all sites mentioned earlier fail to satisfy all the conditions. Going off the top of my head again (I'm sure there'll be a nice bald spot there someday to prove it), I think Santorini fits more of the clues than any other site, except there is no evidence of elephants, no evidence that the volcano blew 9000 years ago, Santorini is in the Mediterranean and the idea that they may have built in circular patterns is mere conjecture based on the vaguely circular shape of the island itself.

As I've only read Plato's account, I won't comment on the possibility of other cultures having a record of Atlantis independent of Plato. Also, unless we can find some sort of source myth, I'm not sure that these other accounts can even be said to be describing the same thing, no matter how similar they are. To draw a parallel, many civs have accounts of a Great Flood-type catastrophe, yet no evidence has been discovered that I'm aware of that supports the idea of a world-wide flooding event, causing many scholars to suggest that these floods were actually individual, localized events.

Originally posted by unclelester
1. Atlantis was beyond the Pillars of Hercules (Most scholars say this is the Straits of Gibraltar)
2. There were elephants present
There were elephant like animals in South and Central America, as depicted on various stone structures.
3. The people practiced some type of bull worship.
4. The stone used for building was red, white, and black in color.
5. The canals were built in a circular pattern.
6. Atlantis sunk beneath the sea (does Plato mention why?)...
7. ...9000 years ago.
8. The technology was advanced COMPARED to other civs of the time.

.... To draw a parallel, many civs have accounts of a Great Flood-type catastrophe, yet no evidence has been discovered that I'm aware of that supports the idea of a world-wide flooding event, causing many scholars to suggest that these floods were actually individual, localized events.

Santorini is not beyond the Pillars .
There were elephant like animals in South and Central America, as depicted on various stone structures.
Various cultures speak of a great disaster and of survivors/strangers arriving amongst them and teaching them various things. You can find these legends in South and Central America, Egypt, Indus Valley area, amongst others around the world. This doesn't mean that it was a world wide flood, but of a large enough flood to nearly wipe out a civilisation.

As for what caused the great deluge. Could it be displacement of the earths crust? Maybe, and this would cause the various continents do drift away from their previous locations. If this is what happened, and I believe so, then Antarctica would have been approx 2000 miles further north than its present location. This would place it in the South Atlantic outside the Pillars Of Hercules. Atlantis is a large enough continent.

The various ancient maps found like Piri Reis map, show the outline of the Antarctic coast before it was covered in ice, maybe it was habitable in the distant past.

Maybe the displacement of the earth's crust is what moved it south and into a vastly colder climate, this initially could have caused a great flood, and then the coldness of the location could have frozen the flood waters, thus burying the great "Atlantean" civilisation.

The survivors left and landed in the Indus Valley, in South America, in Africa and Egypt, and many other places.

By their technology being advanced, I think this means that they had a totally different view on all things, and had a different thought process. They had understanding of the cosmos, and of building, etc, and this is what is meant by "advanced Technology" It would be seen as being advanced by others. They had mastered the art of building great structures, and mastered the understanding of the cosmos, like precession. The survivors taught all this knowledge to the different cultures they encountered after the flooding of their land.

We don't know what is beneath the ice of Antarctica, but is it not possible that a great civilisation once resided there?

Their knowledge of the cosmos was all very similar, and they all have reference to Sirius, the dog star. This star was very important too all the civilisations mentioned, including the Egyptians and Mayans.

After reading this, I got to thinking, maybe Atlantis is a or on a planet in the Sirius system.

Celticniall - thank you for responding to my question

Originally posted by celticniall

Santorini is not beyond the Pillars .

I believe I stated this, but perhaps not clearly enough.

There were elephant like animals in South and Central America, as depicted on various stone structures.
Various cultures speak of a great disaster and of survivors/strangers arriving amongst them and teaching them various things. You can find these legends in South and Central America, Egypt, Indus Valley area, amongst others around the world. This doesn't mean that it was a world wide flood, but of a large enough flood to nearly wipe out a civilisation.

This seems reasonable to me, however, coincidences don't usually make good science. Also, I was using the flood myths as an example because someone brought up the possibility of other cultures recognizing a version of the Atlantis myth.

As for what caused the great deluge. Could it be displacement of the earths crust? Maybe, and this would cause the various continents do drift away from their previous locations. If this is what happened, and I believe so, then Antarctica would have been approx 2000 miles further north than its present location. This would place it in the South Atlantic outside the Pillars Of Hercules. Atlantis is a large enough continent.

This also seems reasonable, as a continent that was not where it used to be may have been thought to have sunk instead of moved. However, there is no theory I know of, outside of Fingerprints of the Gods, that would account for a movement so rapid that everyone assumed it sank. Also, is it not reasonable to think that the various myths, if indeed they were about Atlantis, would say that the continent moved, not sank? To my knowledge, Antartica has never been submerged. I suppose you could stretch it by saying that, technically, it is submerged under ice, a form of water. However shouldn't we give Plato and his sources enough credit to know the difference between ice and water?

The various ancient maps found like Piri Reis map, show the outline of the Antarctic coast before it was covered in ice, maybe it was habitable in the distant past.

I agree that Piri Reis is very compelling, however, not everyone thinks so.
www.intersurf.com...
Apparently, there are questions as to what exactly Dr. Hapsgood altered about the map in order to "correct" errors he assumed were there because of repeated copying over the centuries.

Maybe the displacement of the earth's crust is what moved it south and into a vastly colder climate, this initially could have caused a great flood, and then the coldness of the location could have frozen the flood waters, thus burying the great "Atlantean" civilisation.

The survivors left and landed in the Indus Valley, in South America, in Africa and Egypt, and many other places.

This is indeed possible, however there is no evidence. One would expect to find something off the coast of Antartica, supposing a huge flood that would have carried everthing to the ocean. The similarities between ancient cultures does suggest the possiblility of a single, source culture.

By their technology being advanced, I think this means that they had a totally different view on all things, and had a different thought process. They had understanding of the cosmos, and of building, etc, and this is what is meant by "advanced Technology" It would be seen as being advanced by others. They had mastered the art of building great structures, and mastered the understanding of the cosmos, like precession. The survivors taught all this knowledge to the different cultures they encountered after the flooding of their land.

I agree with some of this, as I stated earlier, Atlantis was advanced compared to other civs of the time. How anyone got the idea that this means flying cars instead of better sea-vessels, or advanced weaponry instead of, say some kind of bow that shot arrows further than other bows, is beyond me. Your comments on their "thought processes" is interesting, and I assume based on what Plato had to say about their society? Given that we don't actually have any evidence about what they thought about, I mean.

We don't know what is beneath the ice of Antarctica, but is it not possible that a great civilisation once resided there?

This is possible, however by this logic, we could say that Atlantis was on the surface of Pluto, since we haven't been there to prove it was not. I do believe that Pluto lies well outside the Pillars

Where Atlantis once was is anyones GUESS, there is no proof, only conjecture.

Not just conjecture. Not PROOF either, but there is EVIDENCE, so not just a guess. See below for more. In fact, there is a site with such EVIDENCE.

www.geocities.com...

1. Atlantis was beyond the Pillars of Hercules (Most scholars say this is the Straits of Gibraltar)

South America fits this.

2. There were elephants present

As already mentioned in this thread, there are Pre-Columbian sculptures of such beasts in ancient South American cultures, and known elephant like creatures there around times stated for Atlantis.

3. The people practiced some type of bull worship.

Not sure where you're getting this. When Plato described the temples, etc., he made it quite clear that he was assigning Hellenistic names, etc. to such places, to make it easier for his audience. I'm assuming you may be reading some of the part pertaining to his description of Athens (with the Greeks having a long history of bull leaping, etc.).

4. The stone used for building was red, white, and black in color.

Which can still be found in the Altiplano in Bolivia, South America, a claimed location for the capital city of Atlantis, on the continent of Atlantis, in even today's local architecture.

5. The canals were built in a circular pattern.

Yes, with alternating belts of land and sea, with a long canal going to the sea. This can still be found at the altiplano.

6. Atlantis sunk beneath the sea (does Plato mention why?)...

That is what he was told by Solon, the Egyptian priest. There is a local legend of the CITY sinking, not the continent, and since both had the same name (quite clear in Plato's text), it's extremely possible that Plato got this mixed up (with the City sinking, not the entire continent).

You can read it here if you like: www.geocities.com...

7. ...9000 years ago.

Date given by Solon, making it far earlier than Plato's Greece. It's possible that the numeric translation is wrong (according to many assessments), and it was 900 years, not 9000, this actually corrolates then with other info, such as other civilizations Solon claimed Atlantis interacted with.

8. The technology was advanced COMPARED to other civs of the time.

I don't recall Plato stating that. Advanced tech is largely the work of modern fiction writers. He did state they had the wheel, and there are ancient wheeled toys found in South America. (see earlier in this thread).

Aside from all of this though, Plato made other claims, such as the city being "midway, along the continent's longest side". You can see this here in the Altiplano.



Or the rectangular plain, enclosed by mountains...again, here in the Altiplano..



And many, many more point for point matchups with Plato's account.

Gazrok, as always, a well presented arguement.

You make a solid case for the Altiplano to be the location of some distant "Atlantis" civilisation. This, in my mind, is entirely possible, and I fully agree that there was once an unknown civilisation located in South and Central America. Whether it is THE civilisation of "Atlantis" is a more difficult question.

For one, there should be evidence of a vast civilisation here. There should be so much of this culture left. It's possible that the city of Tiahuanaco amongst others are a lot older than first thought and could be the remains of this civilisation. You could argue that these and other such artefacts point to this culture.

But, correct me it I'm wrong, did Plato not state or imply that it was between the Pillars and the Americas? Someone might know, I forget where I read this.

I am curious about this. In ancient Aztec, Maya, and Olmec legends, there speaks of a stranger landing on the East coast after a great catastrophe. He brought with him Knowledge, laws, farming techniques, etc. This person was known as Quetzalcoatl. The Egyptians have a similar legend, as do the peoples of the Indus Valley. This, to me, says that there was a common element here, a seperate civilisation where all these travellers came from. They all had vastly superior knowledge, and all these legends speak of a catastrophe.

If this was the Altiplano in South America, would the Aztecs, Maya, etc know of this, and have legends that speak of a great civilisation in their region.

Also, a point is that the stranger landed on the east shore of South America, which implies that he probably came from somewhere east of South America. If Plato's Atlantis is west of the Pillars of Hercules, and the stranger came from the east, this places this civilisation somewhere between South America and the Pillars of Hercules.....somewhere in the mid Atlantic.

Of course I am just speculating. I am not an expert on this subject, but it does fascinate me. I have changed my mind in the past as to the location of this civilisation, and I could change my mind again, if I see evidence pointing in a certain direction. The Altiplano theory is a very interesting one, and it is one I will follow up on when I get the chance.

[edit on 12-4-2005 by celticniall]

Originally posted by unclelester
This seems reasonable to me, however, coincidences don't usually make good science. Also, I was using the flood myths as an example because someone brought up the possibility of other cultures recognizing a version of the Atlantis myth.

The thing about all these coincidences is that there are too many similar legends to dismiss these as being independant thought of independant cultures. There has to be a common thread, and this is seen thoughout many cultures of the world.

This also seems reasonable, as a continent that was not where it used to be may have been thought to have sunk instead of moved. However, there is no theory I know of, outside of Fingerprints of the Gods, that would account for a movement so rapid that everyone assumed it sank. Also, is it not reasonable to think that the various myths, if indeed they were about Atlantis, would say that the continent moved, not sank? To my knowledge, Antartica has never been submerged. I suppose you could stretch it by saying that, technically, it is submerged under ice, a form of water. However shouldn't we give Plato and his sources enough credit to know the difference between ice and water?

Yes, you could be correct in that Antarctica has never been submerged. Fingerprints of the Gods is where I also read this theory. If this earth crust displacement did happen, is it not possible that the whole event could have caused earthquakes, and tsunami and most people would have been preoccupied, and not be watching the continent "move"? After the event, they would have seen that this continent of "Atlantis" was just gone, and presumed that it had been swallowed up by the tsunami. Maybe, like Gazrok has stated, it was the city that was submerged.

This is indeed possible, however there is no evidence. One would expect to find something off the coast of Antartica, supposing a huge flood that would have carried everthing to the ocean. The similarities between ancient cultures does suggest the possiblility of a single, source culture.

What would you expect to find off the coast of Antarctica? Everything that had been washed away would be at the bottom of the ocean under tons of silt.

...by this logic, we could say that Atlantis was on the surface of Pluto, since we haven't been there to prove it was not. I do believe that Pluto lies well outside the Pillars

True

But, correct me it I'm wrong, did Plato not state or imply that it was between the Pillars and the Americas? Someone might know, I forget where I read this.

Nowhere that I can recall...he never mentioned the Americas (they weren't known in his time), so it's easy to see how a continent we know of today by one name, could be another in ancient times. Plato stated "beyond the Pillars of Hercules". Many when looking for Atlantis, also ignore the size Plato mentions (i.e. larger than Libya and Asia...what he knew of it, combined). This alone rules out many of the tiny island sites. He described Atlantis as a continent, and made up of ten kingdoms, but then goes into detail about the capital city, not just the continent, and without changing names, so easy to see the confusion.

Only now are we beginning to unravel some of the mysteries of ancient South American cultures, as more and more sites are discovered after being reclaimed from the jungle. Personally, I think that one of these mysteries is that Plato's Atlantis is simply an incorrect name for South America, and that the capital city he described, can be no place else other than the Altiplano in Bolivia....

You make a solid case for the Altiplano to be the location of some distant "Atlantis" civilisation.

The credit should really go to Jim Allen and his team. When I first heard his claims, I thought they sounded ridiculous, but I was intrigued, so I delved and delved, and the more I did, the more I was convinced by the evidence (and not just his evidence).

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Gazrok]

From: www.activemind.com...

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles.."

This doesn't sound like it is as far away as South America. It sound's like there was an island in front of the Straits.

"..for in those days the Atlantic was navigable.."

This seems strange, as without power in a boat/ship it would take weeks if not months to travel across the Atlantic. This, to me is not "navigable". This implies that there was one or several short "hops" across the Atlantic, making it accessible by the peoples of the time in their boats.

"..and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean.."

This sounds more like South America to me as being the "opposite continent". It makes more sense. What is the "true ocean"...could it be the Atlantic or the Pacific?
This is just speculation, but if you travelled from the southern tip of South America all the way up the eastern coast, it would seem to go all the way around the ocean. Is this what he meant? Check out this image, see how there is almost a solid block of land from Antarctica all the way up to Greenland and the Arctic. Is it possible this is the "..opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean.."


files.abovetopsecret.com...

If, and a BIG if, Antarctica was a little closer to the tip of South America, this would seem like there was no way past this continent.
It would seem an awful long way if you took it that South America was the midway point between Europe and Asia. It just seems too great a journey for the peoples of the time. They didn't have motor power, so would have relied on the wind and human power, and in my mind.

It is possible that I am vastly underestimating these ancient peoples.

"But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island."

He is talking about the "island" of Atlantis being submerged into the depths of the sea. Intriguing is the mention that "the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way". What can be meant by this? It sounds like the Bermuda Triangle.....but back to reality, what can it mean?

I know I am taking a big leap with some ideas, I am just speculating.

I must get the book "Atlantis: the Andes Solution" by Jim Allen...it sounds very interesting.


[edit on 12-4-2005 by celticniall]

Yes, but he also said the saze I mentioned. As for the island, the city itself was pretty much an island also.

I think the sargasso part of the tale is from Solon's ideas moreso than the account. The Phoenicians (and likely those that came before them) pretty much had a monopoly on trade with their naval skills, so I can certainly see them trading with the people of South America all the while claiming that sea as impassable (and when other attempts were lost at sea, who wouldn't believe them?)