Tsunami clue to 'Atlantis' found

The BBC website here has a story about:

"A submerged island that could be the source of the Atlantis myth was hit by a large earthquake and tsunami 12,000 years ago, a geologist has discovered.

Spartel Island now lies 60m under the sea in the Straits of Gibraltar, but some think it once lay above water.

The finding adds weight to a hypothesis that the island could have inspired the legend recounted by the philosopher Plato more than 2,000 years ago."

I don't have a view about 'Atlantis' as an ideal either way to be honest.

I am interested in the way in which myth develops from evidence or fact 'somewhere' along the line - and this looks like it might be one of those times where it comes together a bit.

that sounds very promising and it definitely matches the geographical location Plato gave us all aercheologists need now is funds and a team knock on wood

Atlantis is a myth more than anything, Where it is is entirely dependant on what sort of funding you need for your research, or marketing for your latest book on theories, or whatever crack induced spiritual experience you have just had.

Heres a thing of it in ATSNN:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I dunno after reading the article it doesn't look as promissing
It says thats its a small island, too small for a civiliaztion, and also no man made structures were found on the initial scan, or someting like that.

Originally posted by The_Final
Heres a thing of it in ATSNN:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I dunno after reading the article it doesn't look as promissing
It says thats its a small island, too small for a civiliaztion, and also no man made structures were found on the initial scan, or someting like that.

But as was seen with the Christmas Tsunami, things easily get washed away. Including buildings.

As for its size. Who says it needs to be more than a City?

Over years and years it just became larger and larger.

I don't think it's the source.

We know what the oldest tales in the world are (they're Sumerian, actually) and they don't mention Atlantis nor do they mention this kind of destruction anywhere. We know what the oldest Greek tales are, and they don't mention this. Ditto Egyptian tales.

We don't know much about the oral tradition of the people who lived in 10,000 BC because this is before "real" civilizations. Nobody was living in cities, and people were generally nomadic. This was during the last great Ice Age.

How do we know that no tales from then survive? There's some detail that should be there which isn't -- mention of extinct animals, for instance, or times when the land was very different. They don't mention old technologies, and they don't mention things we know that happened (like the taming of the first horses and the taming of the first dogs.)

Unlike Troy, unlike some of the lost Biblical cities, there's only a single story of Atlantis -- Plato's. For Troy and the other genuinely lost cities, there are a number of traditions and stories that date back to a certain time period.

So... I think it's just a submerged island (and they don't submerge in tsunamis, folks. Tsunamis are just tidal waves. They don't drag land down to the bottom of the ocean.)

Originally posted by Byrd
So... I think it's just a submerged island (and they don't submerge in tsunamis, folks. Tsunamis are just tidal waves. They don't drag land down to the bottom of the ocean.)

This is the only major problem I have had with Atlantis, is the idea that a tsunami destroyed it however over the last few days it had me thinking.

What if (and it's a large if) the Island was a convex (I think that's the term) shape. So the outside of it was higher then the middle? Normally it has no large earthquakes or tsunamies however bang - one comes along and floods it.

People left it. Oral tradition passes it down for say 1000 years and everything is different.

I mean, look at how different the older texts of the Bible are compaired to the modern ones and that's in 2000 years.

Originally posted by Netchicken
Atlantis is a myth more than anything, Where it is is entirely dependant on what sort of funding you need for your research, or marketing for your latest book on theories, or whatever crack induced spiritual experience you have just had.

how did you become a supermoderator using that kind of disrispectful language ?
and keep in mind that even if i have had a i quote "crack induced spiritual experience" it sounds like there is more "spirit" and experience in that phrase than in some peoples lives. catch my drift boyo ?
you sound like a prepuberal 12 year old who hasn't got anything to back up his own point of view and hence goes the "insulting way"
try a little respect when posting next time
as for atlantis being a myth yes it might be but then again Troy was a myth aswell until H Schlieman -using Homer's writings as reference- discovered it .

nobody can prove it exists and the opposite is just as true

This theory doesnt impress me very much... There are plenty of sunken islands in the world.

Nope, I'm still betting on the Minoan connection. There's just so many things that fit. Cultural similarities (advanced, liked bullfighting, peacefull, etc). They dominated the sea trade. They end up in the same time frame if we take into account a x10 multiplier error on Platos behalf. And of course they where completely wiped out in one of the biggest eruptions that is know, with evidence of the tsunami reaching all the way to Egypt.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by merka]

Originally posted by Byrd
I don't think it's the source.

We know what the oldest tales in the world are (they're Sumerian, actually) and they don't mention Atlantis nor do they mention this kind of destruction anywhere. We know what the oldest Greek tales are, and they don't mention this. Ditto Egyptian tales.

We don't know much about the oral tradition of the people who lived in 10,000 BC because this is before "real" civilizations. Nobody was living in cities, and people were generally nomadic. This was during the last great Ice Age.

How do we know that no tales from then survive? There's some detail that should be there which isn't -- mention of extinct animals, for instance, or times when the land was very different. They don't mention old technologies, and they don't mention things we know that happened (like the taming of the first horses and the taming of the first dogs.)

Unlike Troy, unlike some of the lost Biblical cities, there's only a single story of Atlantis -- Plato's. For Troy and the other genuinely lost cities, there are a number of traditions and stories that date back to a certain time period.

So... I think it's just a submerged island (and they don't submerge in tsunamis, folks. Tsunamis are just tidal waves. They don't drag land down to the bottom of the ocean.)

Well, your sort of right byrd but you are also mistaken, Atlantis is only mentioned by that name by plato, this is true, however they are many descriptions and stories of the same civilization just by different names.

The evidence can be seen in cities like baalbek, where large stone structure predate even the oldest phoenician ones. The Arabians called the atlanteans 'adonites' this is also steeped in some of there legends, the egyptians had a name for it, cant remember it off the top of my head. The aztecs have a similiar story about a place called Aztlan, see the simularities in the name?

the 10,000 year time period for the existance of Atlantis IMO is a mistake by plato. I have read where he mistaked lunar years for solar years therefore giving a date like 9,000 BC or some nonsense. The actual date for the destruction of Atlantis IMO is 1,250 BC. Which if you take into account that solon heard the story in rougly 300 bc and assume the priest meant 900 years instead of 9000 you get the 1200 bc date, which is also the date rougly that the "sea peoples" flooded into the mediteranean and egypt had to fight them off. Same story just happened alot later than 10000 BC.

Do you realize how many submerged islands have been found and dubbed 'Atlantis' or the inspiration for 'Atlantis' simply based on the fact that they are submerged?

Nothing makes this one particular islands stand apart from the countless others.

Qoute From Original Article

"But the mapping of the island carried out by Dr Gutscher failed to turn up any manmade structures and also showed that the island was much smaller than previously believed.

This could make it less likely that the island was inhabited by a civilisation. "

Now I know that the sea's can literally erase any solid structure over a great amount of time passed i.e. decay and disintegration. But if there is no evidance of man being there, then who are we kidding?

This submerged island is too small to be atlantis, remember atlantis was the size of asia(Turkey) and libya combined.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Well, your sort of right byrd but you are also mistaken, Atlantis is only mentioned by that name by plato, this is true, however they are many descriptions and stories of the same civilization just by different names.

There are no ancient references to any places that even remotely match Plato's Atlantis, beyond Plato's writings, that is. Maybe Plato had the story wrong. Maybe all the other "references" you are talking about are real. But at what point do we either throw out Plato or throw out these other references when we search for Atlantis?

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
The evidence can be seen in cities like baalbek, where large stone structure predate even the oldest phoenician ones. The Arabians called the atlanteans 'adonites' this is also steeped in some of there legends, the egyptians had a name for it, cant remember it off the top of my head. The aztecs have a similiar story about a place called Aztlan, see the simularities in the name?

I'd like to see your references on the Arabian stories of Atlantis, as well as any Egyptian ones. The reason I ask is because I know there are none.

Aztlan was the Aztecs' name for their place of origin from whence they came into the area we generally associate them with today. Based on linguistics, Aztlan is most likely somewhere in the American southwest, or possibly in California.

The Aztec civilization arose a thousand years after Plato's death anyway.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
the 10,000 year time period for the existance of Atlantis IMO is a mistake by plato. I have read where he mistaked lunar years for solar years therefore giving a date like 9,000 BC or some nonsense.

Plato said that Solon got the story from the Egyptians. The Egyptians never had anything resembling a "lunar year." They had a calendar that counted months to keep track of a year. The calendar was too imprecise though. Every year they "reset" the date to match the first appearance of what we today call Sirius (Sothis to them). So you see, their calendar counted years, not months.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
The actual date for the destruction of Atlantis IMO is 1,250 BC. Which if you take into account that solon heard the story in rougly 300 bc and assume the priest meant 900 years instead of 9000 you get the 1200 bc date, which is also the date rougly that the "sea peoples" flooded into the mediteranean and egypt had to fight them off. Same story just happened alot later than 10000 BC.

The Egyptians said the Athenians defeated the Atlanteans. Do you wish us to believe that the Egyptian priests that told the Atlantis story to Solon would somehow forget this little fact about the prowess of their countrymen against such a powerful agressor, and then just hand over the glory to the Greeks?

Ramses defeat of the Sea Peoples in their second invasion is well documented in inscriptions at his mortuary temple. The inscriptions tell us who the Sea peoples were. They were not Atlanteans.

If Atlantis was destroyed in 1250 BC, where are all the Egyptian, Sumerian and Indus references to them from before those times?" There are none.

Atlantis never, ever existed.

Harte

Originally posted by Byrd
Unlike Troy, unlike some of the lost Biblical cities, there's only a single story of Atlantis -- Plato's.

I would note that there is another greek author, previous to plato, who wrote something, only a tiny portion of which is preserved if anything, and the title was "Atlantis". Not much to go on there tho.

Originally posted by Harte

I'd like to see your references on the Arabian stories of Atlantis, as well as any Egyptian ones. The reason I ask is because I know there are none.

Aztlan was the Aztecs' name for their place of origin from whence they came into the area we generally associate them with today. Based on linguistics, Aztlan is most likely somewhere in the American southwest, or possibly in California.

The Aztec civilization arose a thousand years after Plato's death anyway.

1. Aztec were known to be 'borrowers' of other cultures including the Maya and the Toltec.

2. They were also infamous for rediscovering writing that had been used 1000 years in Central America before they ever came along - if they rediscovered writing 1000 years later, it would prove that they took the passing down of such things pretty seriously. My way of saying that 1000 years of well preserved legends and teachings means they didn't neccesarily have to live in Plato's lifetime.

3. They had Solar AND lunar calendars - based again on Mayan calendars and very accurate according to most sources. Even better than our own Julian calendar as it took into consideration the calculation of the leap year.

4. Never underestimate oral history. The fact that they came along 1000 years after the legend of Atlantis is irrelevant. It has been proven that oral history is invaluable - if they had heard the legend they would have passed it down - albeit in their own tongue, with their own names and in their own legends.

5. A lot of Mexican and Central American glyphs and codexes have not yet been fully translated. Who knows what they may have in store.

Originally posted by 0951
The BBC website here has a story about:

"A submerged island that could be the source of the Atlantis myth was hit by a large earthquake and tsunami 12,000 years ago, a geologist has discovered.

[.....]

I am interested in the way in which myth develops from evidence or fact 'somewhere' along the line - and this looks like it might be one of those times where it comes together a bit.

if you check out sciencenow.sciencemag.org...
the geologist Marc-Andre Gutscher on 22 July 2005, recanted
on the Spartal Island allegation...he actually said the 8km X 3.5km
submerged island/mudshoal -->Not Likely Atlantis

sorry, the BBC article seems to be just outdated filler.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

now about your last sentence and how a myth gets started and then
becomes a part of the 'shared memory' .....
would it be possible that this Spartal Island was actually the last remnant of the Atlantis continent (in actuality areas of europe & africa) that became
inundated during the glacial retreat.....remember that all prior
advanced civilizations were around mesopotamia/egypt/turkey-persia.

and perhaps plato, did a lot of embellishing about this Atlantis, so as to
elevate his own Greek city-state status in history.

the last vestages of an Atlantis civilization, just might have been a
floating city (ala waterworld) with the small land area of the former
Spartel Island as the anchor point and a floating Venice type of city
formed in concentric rings as waterway avenues linked the Atlantian Sea-Peoples....and the legend & myth grew out of something like this scenario

have a good quest, 0951


[edit on 16-8-2005 by St Udio]

St Utio

This is not a bad idea. I have often thought that Plato could have been exaggerating just a pinch as storytellers often do.

As someone in a book once said (forget the reference) if he had wanted to be taken seriously he would have added more specific data. I think the context of Atlantis was to illustrate a point he was making and so not very clear in any respect. It could be that he himself was recanting myth from a much older myth and you know how those things can often get distorted upon their retelling. Especially as the Greek were infamous for mythologizing events and history to get their point across.

I don't deny completely the idea of Atlantis but I don't think that Plato's words should be taken verbatim either.

Didn't I read somewhere that Homer may have actually existed after all, when it was believed he was a Myth or a collection of writers rather than a person? Anyone know about this?

Originally posted by nikelbee
Didn't I read somewhere that Homer may have actually existed after all, when it was believed he was a Myth or a collection of writers rather than a person? Anyone know about this?

There's no evidence that Homer ever existed, and as far as I know the few early copies of the different versions of the epics indicate that the portions within them were written by different people. SUpposedly there is also linguistic and literary-style type information that indicates differeny passages were written by different people too.

But this example is a good one for this case. No one thought that Troy was real, just like atlantis. Of course, the story of troy is a little more beleivable than atlantis, ruling over part of Turkey with lots of allied tribes, rather than a continent in the atlantic and ruling over all of europe and asia.

Anyway, Schliemann demonstrated more or less that troy was real, and there was evidence amoung the successive rebuildings of the citie that it had been burnt down at one point and suffered attacks.

But the Troy the schliemann found wasn't the opulent Troy of Priam. Indeed, the corresponding Greek Cities aren't the Palatial Complexes that Homer made them either. And while homer got the jist of it all down, there were major problems of correspondance between the myth and the reality. This is almost certainly because the myth was passed down thru oral tradition (oral tradition is only going to work within a language and culture, not across them also).

Homer describes iron clad greeks storming into battle on Chariots. The time of the archaeological Troy and when the war was thought to take place had no iron. Homer, or whoever, was only familiar with Iron weapons, so he gave them that. And the time in which the epic was written down had greeks in heavy hoplite like armour, but that wasn't what greeks used at the time when the war is hypothesized to have occured. Also, major things, like the general context, was confused, like with the Chariots. The oral poems recited down thru the ages carried to the time of their writtings the fact that chariots were used, but the greeks had long since stopped fighting from chariots, so they didn't know what to make of it. They lost that Bronze Age context, and so Homer's heros storm into battle on chariot, promptly dismount, and fight in individual contests with other great heros (incidentally, this reminds me somewhat of japanese samurai, riding into battle with banners proclaiming their pedigree, deigning to fight unworthy oppponents).

So when it comes down to it there isn't much to be said for oral history. In this one case, it turned out that it at least revealed that there was a city and a fight over something important and an eventual victory for the greeks. Not much more. Nestor, Achilles, Hector, Diomedes, etc, we wouldn't be able to say that they actually existed at all, in anyway really. Oral history really alters the actual events.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Byrd
Unlike Troy, unlike some of the lost Biblical cities, there's only a single story of Atlantis -- Plato's.

I would note that there is another greek author, previous to plato, who wrote something, only a tiny portion of which is preserved if anything, and the title was "Atlantis". Not much to go on there tho.

References? This hasn't come up before in Atlantis discussions.