Atlantis as a textbook example.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
When Plato was writing his philosophical and political works such as the republic he made use of imaginary civilisations to make his points.

Would the Atlantis legend make more sense when seen as Plato's attempt at creating a fictional Utopia to explain his points? Rather than actually describing a lost civilisation he is telling a story.

Is there any truth in this? Im not in any way an expert on Plato or Atlantis, this post was inspired by a conversation with a friend who does know a great deal about Plato and his work.

So there we are folks, is Atlantis just a fictional example Platio used? Or is it something more?




posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   
My understanding is that there are no other sources in existence that even mention Atlantis except Plato's, and those that quote him. That means he probably made it up, which is the general consensus amongst most historians. I did read somewhere that there is supposed to be an independent source mentioning Atlantis found in Egypt, but I don't know if that's true or not, as I have never actually seen it.

I consider it extremely likely that Plato invented Atlantis, quite possibly for the reasons you state. Atlantis might be based in fact, although I seriously doubt any civilization existed 10000+ years ago that had flying cars and stuff like that, else we would have evidence of such an advanced civilization somewhere.

For example, if our civilization was wiped out, we would still have buildings, cars, planes, roads, and all the rest. A lot of it might be damaged or destroyed (suppose we had a nuclear war or something) but even ruins would be evidence that someone had been there. We have none of that for Atlantis. A person could argue that it's all underwater, but that would mean that Atlanteans never travelled anywhere and never once left anything behind, and that no one found them remarkable enough to write about, except Plato.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   
dragonsdemesne has a valid point. when i was younger i used to go to a canoue camp which went on long trips in the northern wilds.several times we would be on a portage in the middle of nowhere and come across wrecks of old cars, and trucks, model t's and the like. there were never any signs of an old road anywhere to be found but the cars remained, some in rather good condition i might add. some even surrounded by trees over a foot in diamiter. in one spactacular case a 1 foot diamiter tree growing in the middle of it.

even in the case of the "aluminum trail" a spot in asia where planes ruteenly crashed in ww2. there is signs of the aircraft. and the natives in the area have made many objects that are recognisable as old aircraft parts.

therefore some things should still be arround to see somewhere. as to the egyption refrance there is a gold(?) picture that seems to show flying aircraft simmiler in many ways to modern aircraft. one especialy looks like a modern millitary helicopter.(i should say amazingly like). that may be what you were thinking of.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   
All my life I have always been awared of "Atlantis" but what is the real language used to tell this name, is that the name used by plato, or it was the name given after translations?



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
See www.abovetopsecret.com... for a discussion about the location of Atlantis. It's rather long but has some good points. I just went there, and the possible Egyptian reference apparently doesn't exist. Byrd mentions in that thread that:


from Byrd on thread 119976
There is nothing in antiquity about Atlantis except that one mention of Plato. There is no mention of it anywhere in ancient Egypt (the "sea kings" are Phoenecians; not Atlanteans.) There's no tales of its destruction in other civilizations.

There's no pottery... no nothing.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   
The idea that Atlantis is real is a fairly new concept. Nobody in Plato's time or for many centuries thereafter thought it was a real place.

Come to think of it nobody BEFORE Plato's time thought it was real, either.



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 02:34 AM
link   
I think that there is a confusion between a place called "Atlantis" and an ancient long lost civilisation. There was never an actual city or continent called Atlantis. But there existed an ancient civilisation long before the great flood. This is evident in places like Egypt where we find information on Sep Tepi or First Time, when the Egyptian civilisation was founded by travellers who settled there. They built the Sphinx around 10,000BC, when Egypt was a more tropical wet climate.
In South and Central America, we see the remenants of a lost civilisation in the stories of Quetzalcoatl, a bearded wite man who landed on the Eastern shore, brought knowledge to the indigenous peoples, and built cities. The Olmecs and Toltecs, Mayans and Aztecs all inherited ancient knowledge from this traveller, as witnessed in some of their building feats, which could not be done with todays knowledge.
There is also evidence of ancient knowledge in the structures of Cambodia, and India, and in places around the Middle East. This knowledge did not evolve, but was taught to the natives, and through time, was lost.
Where did the Egyptian heiroglyphs all of a sudden come from? What about the method of building great structures out of 200+ tonnes of stone, how did they move these mamoths? No crane in the world today can lift some of the stone blocks used to build structures found in these places. This stems from a knowledge far different from our own, and by this the lost civilisation was more advanced.
This does not mean they had flying machines, and advanced technology, but a different kind of knowledge, a knowledge lost to modern man/woman. No one knows what this knowledge is, how they moved these huge stone blocks, how they had knowledge of the cosmos far beyond what was generally believed they had. How did they align the pyramids exactly to line up with Orion's belt at one point in history...10,500BC?
There is definately, without a doubt, evidence of a lost and very ancient civilisation...Atlantis? ....maybe...maybe not????

[edit on 1-4-2005 by celticniall]



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by celticniall
I think that there is a confusion between a place called "Atlantis" and an ancient long lost civilisation. There was never an actual city or continent called Atlantis. But there existed an ancient civilisation long before the great flood.

There never was a "great flood."



In South and Central America, we see the remenants of a lost civilisation in the stories of Quetzalcoatl, a bearded wite man who landed on the Eastern shore, brought knowledge to the indigenous peoples, and built cities. The Olmecs and Toltecs, Mayans and Aztecs all inherited ancient knowledge from this traveller, as witnessed in some of their building feats, which could not be done with todays knowledge.

The tv programs I've seen on the Mayas say that stuff is pretty recent. And stories of white people aren't unusual. I saw something about ice age men probably coming over from Europe.



Where did the Egyptian heiroglyphs all of a sudden come from?

I watch a lot of programs on Egyptology. They say it came from "border markings' and "chiefdom markings" (or whatever they call it) and it didn't show up all at once but kind of evolved.


How did they align the pyramids exactly to line up with Orion's belt at one point in history...10,500BC?

They aren't that old. And you can line up anything true north-and-south by simply recording the solstices. The ancient Indians did that in America, the Stone age people who built Stonehenge did. It wasn't any great trick for the Egyptians.

All you need is a stick for a sun dial and something to make marks with.



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   


So there we are folks, is Atlantis just a fictional example Platio used? Or is it something more?


Now, I've read his stuff on this, and as I reckon, he said a few times that he was tellin' a true story, not no damned fable.

I thought they found it in Thera, around near the Greeks?



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korzag
I thought they found it in Thera, around near the Greeks?


Thera was just a part of the great Minoean civilization. Only a small island.

Knossos


Toreador fresco


Knossos throne room






posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indellkoffer
There never was a "great flood."

But could it had been?

Think on it. With the Minoans and the volcono eruption we we got a devastated civilisation and a flooding (aka tsunami) of cataclysmic proportions (there is evidence of it reaching Egypt and maybe giving a certain Moses a helping hand). Its so obvious it smacks you in the face


Well I know, its just speculations.



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

Originally posted by celticniall
I think that there is a confusion between a place called "Atlantis" and an ancient long lost civilisation. There was never an actual city or continent called Atlantis. But there existed an ancient civilisation long before the great flood.

There never was a "great flood."


Not trying to go off topic, but for clarity, there have been moments in earth's history where all but the tops of a small chain of mountains was under water, but i believe this was even way before the Triassic period. We barely touched on it in my historical geology class, so can't remeber the exact time period nor the area left above water.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Boom .... swoosh! [more to follow...]



Actually, sure, there was indeed a "great flood". It's just that "great" >/~3500 years ago meant "in the Mediterranean" where the vast majority of "advanced" civilizations existed, at this time predominantly Minoans, (this of course is discounting China and Central America for obvious reasons). The largest portion of these "civilization" populations were near the coastline of the Mediterranean. "The world" then, was exactly that... the area surrounding the Mediterranean -- or at least that was the whole world to everyone living there at the time... The center of Minoan culture, trade, and might was on the Isle of Crete.

Surely most people have heard of Crete? And most likely you've seen the enormous crater (more) where over 2/3rds of the island Thera, right beside Crete, used to be? Perhaps you've even read a few books or watched a few TV shows regarding Crete? Do you also know that the crater formed by the volcanic explosion(s) of Thera is dozens of times larger than the crater on Mount St Helens? Do you recall the force of that explosion (Mount St Helens) and how many thousand square miles of forrest were literally flattened? Did you also know, that according to core samples from around the Med all the way up to Iceland there is a very large ash deposit dating to around 1500 BCE? (Radio-carbon dating has it at 1600-1650, but archaeologists date it at around 1500, the exact date is still debated) Did you also know that the force of the Thera explosion has been estimated at approximately 50 Mount St Helens? Imagine the level of destruction from a volcano 50 times stronger than Mount St Helens after viewing hte above Helens link...

Using the knowledge of this enormous volcanic explosion, and the ability to compare it to a modern volcanic explosion, we can call this information "boom" for future reference. Now, lets compare another recent event to get our other term we'll call "swoosh".

Everyone recalls the recent tsunami (in the western hemisphere it would be called "tidal wave") and the level of devestation it brought. But do most of you understand the mechanics behind a tsunami compared to "a really big wave"?

A really big wave is just that, and only that, a wave of energy across the ocean/sea surface. Water moves up, water moves down, but very minimal (as in next to none) left to right displacement occurs. The wave is energy, not water, moving 'across' the surface. However, a tsunami or tidal wave is an entirely different matter. Literally billions of cubic liters of water are displaced by land either moving up or down far beneath the water surface, the action of this displacement is carried out across the area until it meets a solid object (land). The BBC gives a fairly decent explaination of this including a pretty good step-by-step animation. And even better explaination of a tsunami can be found here.

While the recent Tsunami was caused by an underwater earthquake, the same thing occurs with a large volcanic eruption under water, or near a coastline - a tsunami (tidal wave) occurs due to the displacement of water at the source (by land mass and energy). Swoosh!

Everyone can see the the Mediterranean is basically an oval (oblong) body of water, and if you look on a map you can also see that Crete is basically in the "middle" of civilization at the time (BCE 1500, give or take). Imagine a tidal wave originating from this source. A "giant flood" in almost every other part of "the world" would occur. ("The World", remember, is the civilizations around the Mediterranean; the source location of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all three religions that refer to "a great flood" while Buddah and other eastern religions do not refer to a single great flood). If a tidal wave occured in the Mediterranean around 3500 years ago, and it was "small" (low height) like the one that occured in the Indian Ocean recently, it's not hard to imagine it reaching miles inland along most of north Africa, Turkey, Isreal (and area) etc. There is your great flood. That's what is recorded by multiple religions, multple works of art, and other physical records. Remember, a tidal wave or tsunami isn't "a really big wave", it's equivelent to a giant river of water, miles wide, washing across the land.

Boom! Swoosh! Volcano in the middle of the Mediterranean = tidal wave that floods most of civilization. It's not mythology, it's just plain old boring science.


You'll notice I didn't refer to Crete as "Atlantis" -- but, for my money, it is still the best candidate ever found.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder
Boom .... swoosh! [more to follow...]
Actually, sure, there was indeed a "great flood". It's just that "great" >/~3500 years ago meant "in the Mediterranean" where the vast majority of "advanced" civilizations existed, at this time predominantly Minoans, (this of course is discounting China and Central America for obvious reasons). The largest portion of these "civilization" populations were near the coastline of the Mediterranean. "The world" then, was exactly that... the area surrounding the Mediterranean -- or at least that was the whole world to everyone living there at the time... The center of Minoan culture, trade, and might was on the Isle of Crete.

Surely most people have heard of Crete? And most likely you've seen the enormous crater (more) where over 2/3rds of the island Thera, right beside Crete, used to be? Perhaps you've even read a few books or watched a few TV shows regarding Crete? Do you also know that the crater formed by the volcanic explosion(s) of Thera is dozens of times larger than the crater on Mount St Helens? Do you recall the force of that explosion (Mount St Helens) and how many thousand square miles of forrest were literally flattened? Did you also know, that according to core samples from around the Med all the way up to Iceland there is a very large ash deposit dating to around 1500 BCE? (Radio-carbon dating has it at 1600-1650, but archaeologists date it at around 1500, the exact date is still debated) Did you also know that the force of the Thera explosion has been estimated at approximately 50 Mount St Helens? Imagine the level of destruction from a volcano 50 times stronger than Mount St Helens after viewing hte above Helens link...

Using the knowledge of this enormous volcanic explosion, and the ability to compare it to a modern volcanic explosion, we can call this information "boom" for future reference. Now, lets compare another recent event to get our other term we'll call "swoosh".

Everyone recalls the recent tsunami (in the western hemisphere it would be called "tidal wave") and the level of devestation it brought. But do most of you understand the mechanics behind a tsunami compared to "a really big wave"?

A really big wave is just that, and only that, a wave of energy across the ocean/sea surface. Water moves up, water moves down, but very minimal (as in next to none) left to right displacement occurs. The wave is energy, not water, moving 'across' the surface. However, a tsunami or tidal wave is an entirely different matter. Literally billions of cubic liters of water are displaced by land either moving up or down far beneath the water surface, the action of this displacement is carried out across the area until it meets a solid object (land). The BBC gives a fairly decent explaination of this including a pretty good step-by-step animation. And even better explaination of a tsunami can be found here.

While the recent Tsunami was caused by an underwater earthquake, the same thing occurs with a large volcanic eruption under water, or near a coastline - a tsunami (tidal wave) occurs due to the displacement of water at the source (by land mass and energy). Swoosh!

Everyone can see the the Mediterranean is basically an oval (oblong) body of water, and if you look on a map you can also see that Crete is basically in the "middle" of civilization at the time (BCE 1500, give or take). Imagine a tidal wave originating from this source. A "giant flood" in almost every other part of "the world" would occur. ("The World", remember, is the civilizations around the Mediterranean; the source location of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all three religions that refer to "a great flood" while Buddah and other eastern religions do not refer to a single great flood). If a tidal wave occured in the Mediterranean around 3500 years ago, and it was "small" (low height) like the one that occured in the Indian Ocean recently, it's not hard to imagine it reaching miles inland along most of north Africa, Turkey, Isreal (and area) etc. There is your great flood. That's what is recorded by multiple religions, multple works of art, and other physical records. Remember, a tidal wave or tsunami isn't "a really big wave", it's equivelent to a giant river of water, miles wide, washing across the land.

Boom! Swoosh! Volcano in the middle of the Mediterranean = tidal wave that floods most of civilization. It's not mythology, it's just plain old boring science.


You'll notice I didn't refer to Crete as "Atlantis" -- but, for my money, it is still the best candidate ever found.


While you made some good points in your theory, I disagree. Indeed some people say that Thera explosion created 250meters high tsunami waves(!!!), which destroyed Crete, but I highly doubt they had some effect on Egypt and other countries.

The reasons
1. Ancient mediterranean civilizations were not on coasts (except Creta and maybe some Acheans) Egypt centre was near Cairo, Babylon and Asyria was not acessible from mediterranean sea at all, Hittites lived in Anatolia (quite high above sea too).
2. Thera explosion took place 1500BC. Please not the while for Greeks it was time of legends, the Egyptians and Babylonians lived in deep historical time and if such disaster that influenced their lives (and created legends) happened they would surely mention it somewhere in their writings!!! But there are no talks about some natural disaster at that time. The Babylonia flood stories are much older.
So I don't think Thera explosion influenced other Meditarean civs except Creta.



[edit on 2-4-2005 by longbow]



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
While you made some good points in your theory, I disagree. Indeed some people say that Thera explosion created 250meters high tsunami waves(!!!), which destroyed Crete, but I highly doubt they had some effect on Egypt and other countries.

The reasons
1. Ancient mediterranean civilizations were not on coasts (except Creta and maybe some Acheans) Egypt centre was near Cairo, Babylon and Asyria was not acessible from mediterranean sea at all, Hittites lived in Anatolia (quite high above sea too).
2. Thera explosion took place 1500BC. Please not the while for Greeks it was time of legends, the Egyptians and Babylonians lived in deep historical time and if such disaster that influenced their lives (and created legends) happened they would surely mention it somewhere in their writings!!! But there are no talks about some natural disaster at that time. The Babylonia flood stories are much older.
So I don't think Thera explosion influenced other Meditarean civs except Creta.

They've found stones from Thera in Egypt...

And civilisation depended on water, most where ocean faring and had big cities along the coasts (even if it wasnt capitals).



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka

They've found stones from Thera in Egypt...

And civilisation depended on water, most where ocean faring and had big cities along the coasts (even if it wasnt capitals).


But there are no mentions about some natural disaster around 1500 in Egyptian history. If something like this took place in Egypt, the would surely record it (they even recorder all regular Nile floodings). That means the Egyptians were unaffected and the Thera explosion couldn't create Egyptian flood myths. (besides as I already said those myths were older)

BTW the old period ancient cities were really NOT along the coast. They were almost all inland (Memphis, egyptian Thebes, Amarna, Babylon etc. - name one BIG ancient city until greek period that was near sea ). Also all old achean cites were inland - Mycenae, Tirins, Athens, Troy, Pylos, Thebes...
Howerver I wonder why Acheans have build the cities not along coast. Even those near the sea were not build as ports, rather 10-12km inland. Interesting. Maybe they feared that something that happened to the Creta could happen also to them.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
While you made some good points in your theory, I disagree. Indeed some people say that Thera explosion created 250meters high tsunami waves(!!!), which destroyed Crete, but I highly doubt they had some effect on Egypt and other countries.


A 200m high wave does not mean it will do more damage than a 5m high wave that is 20 miles long... It's the volume of water displaced at the source that dictates the level of damage (inland).

A volcano eruption the size of what occurred in 1500 BCE (more likely 1650 BCE based on carbon dating) would indeed adversely effect every major civilization around the Med. Tuna stocks would be impacted directly by the pollution from the ash as would other food stocks from the sea (a very important source, if not the most important, of protein for the entire region at the time). And it most definitely would have had an impact on the Nile Delta (a region that is, in most places, 0-2m above sea level). The sulphur dioxide emitted by the volcano also caused a decline in temperature, which resulted in poor harvests for several years not only in the immediate area but also in most of the Northern Hemisphere.



The reasons
1. Ancient Mediterranean civilizations were not on coasts (except Creta and maybe some Acheans) Egypt centre was near Cairo, Babylon and Asyria was not acessible from mediterranean sea at all, Hittites lived in Anatolia (quite high above sea too).


I disagree strongly regarding your knowledge of Egypt. Over 50% of Egypt's entire farm region was the Nile Delta, which at that time was over twenty times the size it is today, and the majority of it's fish source was also the Med. A large volcanic eruption, and the ensuing tidal wave would indeed have been viewed as "the great flood" if nothing less than the wrath of the gods/God.

Many parts of the northern coast of Africa were also a fertile regions prior the "salting of the earths" by the Roman Empire at the end of the Punic war (Carthage and elsewhere), and was another important civilization which grew to be the most influential from 800BCE right up to about 146BCE (when Rome wiped the earth with them). This area was indeed a coastal, inhabited, actively farming fishing and trading, civilization in 1650.

"Around 1640 BCE, towards the end of the "Middle Kingdom", central authority in lower Egypt seemed suddenly to perish and the rulers of the land fled to the southern city of Thebes leaving the capital in Memphis, while some nomadic tribes supposedly coming from Asia were plundering the towns around the Nile delta. For more than a century, it is believed, these "foreign invaders" dominated Egypt and established a new state in the northern part of the land, called the "Hyksos Kingdom". Just who were those "Hyksos" people? We do not have much exact evidence but mainstream Egyptology suggests that they were the coalition of some nomadic tribes, wandering around the eastern borders of Egypt and at one time they attacked and defeated the ruling dynasties, then invaded the northern part of the land. The so-called "Hyksos Rulers" (foreign kings) could only be overthrown around 1570 BCE by pharaoh Ahmose (also spelled Amosis) I and the order was finally restored in Egypt, marking the establishment of the New Kingdom."

It's pretty easy to put 2 and 2 together. The loss of fish stocks and the devastation of their primary agriculture region by a tidal wave would most certainly leave the Egyptian rulers in a state of vulnerability. This certainly would account for the Hyksos Rulers... It wasn't until ~1570 BCE, 70 years later, that the Egyptians under pharaoh Amosis drove the Hyksos out. And, as I've said from the beginning, 1650 is "probably" a more accurate date of the eruption of Thera.

Or maybe you don't know much about Egypt between 1700-1400 BCE other than what you've been shown in movies or "made for TV" specials (most of this is usually related to more "recent" times under Cleopatra)?



2. Thera explosion took place 1500BC. Please not the while for Greeks it was time of legends, the Egyptians and Babylonians lived in deep historical time and if such disaster that influenced their lives (and created legends) happened they would surely mention it somewhere in their writings!!! But there are no talks about some natural disaster at that time. The Babylonia flood stories are much older.
So I don't think Thera explosion influenced other Meditarean civs except Creta.
[edit on 2-4-2005 by longbow]


Again you're completely mistaken on your time period and your ruling civilizations and even your geography. In 1650 the ruling "super power" of the Mediterranean were the Minoans, not Greeks (the Mycenaeans took power over the Minoans AFTER the fall of Crete to a natural disaster), certainly not the Romans, definitely not Babylonians (a culture which existed predominantly from ~6000BCE until 500BCE, and was in Persia (They lived in the area of present day Iraq between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers where the two rivers join the Persian Gulf.), on the other side of the mountains separating the Med from Persia. Surely you've seen a map of that 1/4 of the world? Why would a civilization located 1000 miles away from the Mediterranean have a "history" (i.e. stories, fables, etc) of "the Great Flood" that would not have reached them simply due to the giant hills between them?

The Babylonia flood story I think you're referring to (the god Enlil attempted to wipe out humanity by means of a great flood) doesn't fit into the other religious flood stories time-wise or "god" wise. But it sure lends credibility to the fact that a large portion of Judaism and Christianity have parts of their holy books ripped off (plagiarized) from texts that predate even the "creation of the earth" according to both religions.

Cuneiform tablet with the Sumerian Flood story, ca. 1740 B.C.; Old Babylonian period. Mesopotamia, Nippur. Cuneiform inscription in Sumerian. Clay; H. 10.2 cm (4 in.); W. 13.3 cm (5 1/4 in.); Thickness 4.5 cm (1 3/4 in.). University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, (...)


This fragmentary poem recounts how the god Enlil attempted to wipe out humanity by means of a great flood. After the creation of the world, all was well; humanity was established, animals multiplied everywhere, kingship was lowered from the heavens, and the main cities of Sumer were apportioned to the major divinities. The text breaks at this point, but from parallel Babylonian stories we can surmise that the noise of teeming humanity proved to be too much for Enlil, who decided to end it for all time. The other gods and goddesses lamented this decision, but only the crafty Enki took action, revealing the future to a king by the name of Ziusudra. The text breaks once again, but it undoubtedly continued with a description of the construction of a large boat that would withstand the coming deluge. And so Ziusudra survived the flood:

"All the destructive winds (and) gales were present,
The storm swept over the capitals.
After the storm had swept the country for seven days and seven nights . . . .
And the destructive wind had rocked the huge boat in the high water,
The Sun came out, illuminating the earth and the sky.
Ziusudra made an opening in the huge boat,
And the Sun with its rays entered the huge boat.
The king Ziusudra
Prostrated himself before the sun god;
The king slaughtered a large number of bulls and sheep."

Ziusudra saved the seed of humanity, and in return he was made immortal and was settled in far-off Dilmun.


I have gotten off track here, and amused myself with it somewhat, and for that I apologise.

But, the fact remains, there was a huge volcanic eruption in 1650 (*there about), this cataclysmic event led to the fall of the most powerful civilization in the region, it more likely than not adversely effected all other civilizations in the region, including Egypt, Greece, Turkey, Syria (what is now Israel, etc.) Probably didn't reach much further than Greece however, Italy is on the other side of this land mass, and the wind usually only travels generally in one direction when spreading ash fallout... (Although the ash layer from this event IS found all the way up in Iceland)

Yes, there probably was a flood event in Persia a hundred or so years earlier. Yes there most definitely were large flood events in China at least 5 separate times (recorded by various writers including Buddha). Yes there are large flood events today -- but the difference now is the world is a small place, back then an area 500 miles long by 200 miles wide WAS THE WORLD to the civilization living there. Surely, if you took one of the recent floods in the southern USA, or in northern Europe, and moved it back in time to 1600 BCE it would most definitely be written up as a flood from the gods set forth to wipe humanity from the earth! Seriously...

All I'm saying is, this volcanic event ties in neatly with 3 religious writings, ties in perfectly with the fall of a civilization, ties in perfectly with the fall of the Egyptian rulers at the same time, and ties in perfectly with many many stories from many different cultures in the area regarding famine and flooding and the skies darkening (not to mention fire and brimstone =).

I certainly don't claim to be an expert on Egyptian civilizations, but then neither are you apparently...


And for the record, I am not implying that every coastline of the Mediterranean was flooded by a tidal wave, I am simply saying that it effected many important civilizations in many locations; adversely for some, for others it was an opportunity of power (Greece).

[edit on 2-4-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder
"Around 1640 BCE, towards the end of the "Middle Kingdom", central authority in lower Egypt seemed suddenly to perish and the rulers of the land fled to the southern city of Thebes leaving the capital in Memphis, while some nomadic tribes supposedly coming from Asia were plundering the towns around the Nile delta. For more than a century, it is believed, these "foreign invaders" dominated Egypt and established a new state in the northern part of the land, called the "Hyksos Kingdom". Just who were those "Hyksos" people? We do not have much exact evidence but mainstream Egyptology suggests that they were the coalition of some nomadic tribes, wandering around the eastern borders of Egypt and at one time they attacked and defeated the ruling dynasties, then invaded the northern part of the land. The so-called "Hyksos Rulers" (foreign kings) could only be overthrown around 1570 BCE by pharaoh Ahmose (also spelled Amosis) I and the order was finally restored in Egypt, marking the establishment of the New Kingdom."

It's pretty easy to put 2 and 2 together. The loss of fish stocks and the devastation of their primary agriculture region by a tidal wave would most certainly leave the Egyptian rulers in a state of vulnerability. This certainly would account for the Hyksos Rulers... It wasn't until ~1570 BCE, 70 years later, that the Egyptians under pharaoh Amosis drove the Hyksos out. And, as I've said from the beginning, 1650 is "probably" a more accurate date of the eruption of Thera.


There is possibility that the delta was affected but there is no proof.
The cnetral gov have lost power many times before, and the easy Hyksos victories could be contributed to the use of horses (chariots).
The point is - Egyptians carefully recorded natural disasters or other important things. And they simply recorded nothing like this in such large scale. But it is possible that Hyksos were moving because the Thera explosion affected their lives, but there are simply no reasons to believe it directly affected Egypt too. So it's just hypothesis...




Or maybe you don't know much about Egypt between 1700-1400 BCE other than what you've been shown in movies or "made for TV" specials (most of this is usually related to more "recent" times under Cleopatra)?

Oh, don't worry, I know enough about ancient Egypt, Hyksos etc. Not everything but generally enough. I never saw Cleopatra, though (the old version).




Again you're completely mistaken on your time period and your ruling civilizations and even your geography. In 1650 the ruling "super power" of the Mediterranean were the Minoans, not Greeks (the Mycenaeans took power over the Minoans AFTER the fall of Crete to a natural disaster), certainly not the Romans, definitely not Babylonians (a culture which existed predominantly from ~6000BCE until 500BCE, and was in Persia (They lived in the area of present day Iraq between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers where the two rivers join the Persian Gulf.), on the other side of the mountains separating the Med from Persia. Surely you've seen a map of that 1/4 of the world? Why would a civilization located 1000 miles away from the Mediterranean have a "history" (i.e. stories, fables, etc) of "the Great Flood" that would not have reached them simply due to the giant hills between them?

1. I know that the dominating power were Minoeans, that's why I said that for Greeks (Acheans, Ionians) it was TIME OF LEGENDS. I mean't their historicans couldnt acurate record the flood/explosion (at best they had bards), but Egyptian ones could (if they were seriously hit). That was my point.
2. I said nothing about Rome.
3. I wrote Babylon only because someone implied that the Babylon flood legends has origin in Thera explosion.



... saying is, this volcanic event ties in neatly with 3 religious writings...

Which ones? The babylonian ones are older, bible is just babylonian rip off, so I see possibility only in greek myths.(if they are not babylonian rip off too).



[edit on 2-4-2005 by longbow]



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
The point is - Egyptians carefully recorded natural disasters or other important things. And they simply recorded nothing like this in such large scale.

Egyptians also have a nack for removing stuff they dont like.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   


Egyptians also have a nack for removing stuff they dont like.


True, they were very into selective history...(Ahkenaton anyone?)

Anyhow, since my alter-ego up there is now outed, hehe...

There are THREE distinct places in the Critius dialogue where Plato emphasizes that this is a TRUE tale. He gives a vivid description of a place unlike that of any in lands known to him. He gives precise sizes of the plain, location of the plain, geography of it, size of the continent, location of the continent, etc. He describes South America (the Altiplano in Bolivia in particular, as the capital) pretty exactly. There is evidence of trade between South America and ancient Egypt (i.e. coc aine, tobacco found in ancient mummies, pre-Columbian sculptures of lions, elephants, etc. in South America). The alternating belts of sea and land are there, as is the canal to the sea. It's surrounded by low mountains, has the red, white, and black brick there...even a local legend of how a city there sank due to a flood caused by volcanic activity. The plain is exactly the size stated by Plato. It's "midway, along the continent's longest side", just as he said it was. Pretty remarkable really.





new topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join