It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What level could they have been at?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   
I was recently thinking about Atlantis, and all the stories and such about them being a highly advanced technologically sophisticated society.

And now I am curious, what technological level is could they have plausably been at?

I for one, like not agree but like the thought that they were more advanced than we are today, but logicaly I would assume that they were only at the technological level of america in the late 19th century.

So what do you all think, what level could they have been at,, that would make sense?




posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 02:05 AM
link   
I am firmly of the belief that Atlantis only ever existed in the mind of Plato, but that is a debate for another thread. In terms of how advanced the Atlanteans may have been, it would be difficult in the extreme for them to have progressed very far beyond the level of the ancient Athenians.

The reasons for this include the fact that we simply do not see evidence of radically advanced technology in areas of the Mediterranean. Even though Atlantis is said to have sunk beneath the waves, if it had existed it would certainly have traded and had some form of contact with other Mediterranean civilisations. Indeed, Atlantis is said to have held influence over a significant region throughout the Mediterranean. Given that we see no evidence of anything that even comes close to approaching modern technology, we must assume that Atlantis, if it existed, did not possess significantly advanced technology. Their level of technology may have been comparable to the ancient Athenians, but certainly nothing even remotely approaching modern technology.

The other factor to consider is that the Atlanteans were said to have been defeated in their war against the Athenian city-state (Reference). Given that we are well aware of the level of technology possessed by the ancient Athenians, the Atlanteans cannot have been significantly more advanced than that, or they would not have been defeated in war with Athens. Even a civilisation with 19th century American-style technology would have annihilated an army which fought with swords and spears. I am not saying the Athenians would not have posed a threat, but cannons and firearms will easily defeat lesser weapons, especially in the hands of an organised and expansionist army, which is what Atlantis was said to have possessed.

Therefore, we must conclude that Atlantis, if it ever existed (which is doubtful), was at a technological level roughly parallel with that of ancient Athens and nowhere near modern or futuristic technology.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
I was recently thinking about Atlantis, and all the stories and such about them being a highly advanced technologically sophisticated society.

Stories being the key word.

Personally I think they where at roughly the same tech level as the Minoans at the time, which incidently was a high tech civilisation living on an island that was devastated by a massive tsunami caused by one of the largest vulcano eruptions in mankinds history


[edit on 19-9-2005 by merka]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I have wondered this too, but my question is let's say they were so advanced the had computers, microchips etc.. Wouldn't we have found one by now somewhere? I know the world is a big place and all, but wouldn't there be some visible evidence past technology?



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost
I have wondered this too, but my question is let's say they were so advanced the had computers, microchips etc.. Wouldn't we have found one by now somewhere? I know the world is a big place and all, but wouldn't there be some visible evidence past technology?

Not really. It doesnt take nature long to remove all traces of mankind... And if we would assume that Atlantis really is a reality, their technology would be underwater, wouldnt it?



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Well first you have to identify what 'Advanced' actually is.

Why do people always think in term of objects to be advanced? Maybe they were just at a higher spiritual or social level?



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Well, I am quite, and pleasently surprised, at the amount of posts that this thread has gotten so far.

I am glad that I have gotten such a plethera of different and unique responses, from so many of you.

Thanbk you for adding/contributing to the thread.

I am eager to hear what many of our other members have to say about this.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka
And if we would assume that Atlantis really is a reality, their technology would be underwater, wouldnt it?


Yes I supposed most of it would be underwater, but couldn't something wash up one shore or float to the surface?



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka
And if we would assume that Atlantis really is a reality, their technology would be underwater, wouldnt it?


Most of their technology would indeed be underwater. However, it is highly likely that at least some evidence of their technology or culture, were it sufficiently advanced, would still be found somewhere in the Mediterranean. As I said earlier, Atlantis is said to have exerted its influence over a wide area throughout the Mediterranean and to have had contact with a number of civilisations there, including Athens and Egypt.

The fact that we have never found so much as a single example of radically advanced technology in the region suggests that the civilisations which existed there possessed technologies with which we are familiar through archaeology. After all, if such an expansive, aggressive and advanced culture actually existed, you would expect to find some trace of them in the places they traded with and conquered. A coin minted in Atlantis, a manuscript (other than Plato's), weapons from invading armies, anything. The fact that we find nothing is quite damning and suggests that, even if Atlantis did exist, their technological level cannot have been redically more advanced then the Mediterranean civilisations we are familiar with.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Plato had a wonderful mind and has provided us with much understanding of his world in his time and has given hints to ours. Granted it would take many years for the earth to clense itself and I think it does so on a regular basis. Now for those who advocate the Atlantis theory, it very well could have been. Perhaps Mother nature has "cleansed' itself over several times to where there is just no actual physical signs of ever being. It is like digging a ditch, laying the pipe and covering it up forever and to never be found. Or Plato could have just been thinking about all this while he fed his desires for little boys. Either way, I think it is possible for it to have existed and we just have not found a trace perhaps because we may have been looking in all the wrong places.


[edit on 19-9-2005 by FLYIN HIGH]



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
The thing that has to be considered in any conversation on this topic is the vast amount of time of "pre-historic" human existence compared to the relatively fleeting span of recorded or recognized history. There's more than enough time for civilizations to rise and fall in that period of time. It's so easy to dismiss populations of earlier time periods as "primitive" when compared to modern societies, but it must be remembered that biologically (genetically, neurologically, etc.) the people of pre-historic times were identical to modern man, just as smart, just as capable of making scientific discoveries and developing tools. There are plenty of examples of technological advances that were lost during the dark ages and later rediscovered. The Romans mixed and poured cement but it wasn't until the 18th-19th century that this knowledge was rediscovered. The Mayan astronomical system alone is indicative of mathematical development that in some ways dwarfs that of the modern era. Then there are always the persistent nagging questions about the construction of monolithic sites such as Stone Henge found pan-globally. Skepticism is always healthy, but I think it behooves us to apply that same skepticism to the popularly accepted view on matters such as this or we risk becoming frighteningly reductional.

Plato didn't create the concept of Atlantis in a vacuum, but like anyone, derived it from folklores and mythologies of his era. The question of what information is being transmitted through the zeitgeist is a huge one and well worth discussion and exploration. I personally believe there was an uber or super culture and the evidence for this does not have to come from the discovery of an object or process thought to have been developed at a later date. The information is imbedded within our very language.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   
I don't doubt that there have been lost civilizations that could be considered advanced, but I think the claims they had computers, flying vehicles etc.. are a bit far fetched.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Improbable maybe but not impossible. Since we're discussing hypothetical cultures we have no idea about what types of social structures and hierarchies they may have had. There certainly could have been technological advances that were the exclusive privilege of an elite class. The rampant manufacturing of the modern era has as much to do with commerce as it does with technological advancement. It's spurious at best to assume that a lost culture's expression of technological advancement has to mirror our own in order to be validated. Through ruins we have certifiable evidence, world wide, of constructions so advanced in design and monumental in scale that by comparison today's so-called progress can more rightly be seen as a fall. Wheat, maize and numerous other edible grains, fruits and vegetables certainly owe their origins to the guided evolution of wild plant species by an unknown primeval culture. In fact there is such universality in world folklores, fairy tales, mythologies and especially language that a truly critically thinking skeptic would be safer to assume the existence of a common source, a mother culture, then to depend upon these similarities and direct mirrorings to have occurred due to happenstance and chance.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cicada
Improbable maybe but not impossible. Since we're discussing hypothetical cultures we have no idea about what types of social structures and hierarchies they may have had. There certainly could have been technological advances that were the exclusive privilege of an elite class.


Actually, it's the objects and graves of those who had highest status that we find most often. They were the ones buried with care and ceremony. So if the technology was the privelege of the elite class, we'd have found that.


[quote The rampant manufacturing of the modern era has as much to do with commerce as it does with technological advancement. It's spurious at best to assume that a lost culture's expression of technological advancement has to mirror our own in order to be validated.
Nicely insightful.



Wheat, maize and numerous other edible grains, fruits and vegetables certainly owe their origins to the guided evolution of wild plant species by an unknown primeval culture.

Actually, we do know which cultures develped these grains and how long it took. There's plenty of archaeological evidence.



In fact there is such universality in world folklores, fairy tales, mythologies and especially language that a truly critically thinking skeptic would be safer to assume the existence of a common source, a mother culture, then to depend upon these similarities and direct mirrorings to have occurred due to happenstance and chance.


Speaking as someone who studies (academically) folklore, I'd disagree with that. There are certain folktales that travel, but they're clearly cultural mashups rather than retellings of the same tale by different culture.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Actually, it's the objects and graves of those who had highest status that we find most often. They were the ones buried with care and ceremony. So if the technology was the privelege of the elite class, we'd have found that.


Not if we're talking about a civilization destroyed by catastrophe. Do you believe we at this stage in history have unearthed and discovered all that there is to find? Since this is a hypothetical situation we're discussing is it necessary to hide behind hard evidence in our speculation? Also, you're again assuming death rites and rituals that mirror something familiar to your own culture. Who knows what a hypothetical culture might do with the remains of their most elite class? They may have burnt them, ground their bones to dust and ingested them for all we know.



Actually, we do know which cultures develped these grains and how long it took. There's plenty of archaeological evidence.


If you have such information I'd love to see it. Tell me who developed maize and how they did it.



Speaking as someone who studies (academically) folklore, I'd disagree with that. There are certain folktales that travel, but they're clearly cultural mashups rather than retellings of the same tale by different culture.


Fair enough. It certainly depends upon your sources. I wish I could say that I had full and complete faith in the total validity of academic research of folklore, but since the field essentially deals with cultural poetry it's hard for me to accept any single individual's opinion as anything more than that, an opinion. There are, for example, Cinderella stories told through oral tradition around the world with the same elements occurring in similar manners. Would you say it is more or less difficult to suppose there was intercommunication between cultures vastly separated by geography, say between Britain and Mexico? The only other explanations I can suppose would lie in the realms of metaphysical or theoretical sciences.

The tendency of the purely academic approach is to reinstate the accuracy and reputation of popular theory. Unfortunately popular theory is often proven wrong. It was long maintained that the traditional belief in buried cities at Herculaneum and Pompeii were superstitions. The city of Troy was believed to be a figment of mythology until it was discovered in the mid-nineteenth century. What else is out there waiting to be found?


[edit on 22-9-2005 by Cicada]



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cicada
Plato didn't create the concept of Atlantis in a vacuum, but like anyone, derived it from folklores and mythologies of his era.


Well, since no one else has, I'm going to challenge the validity of the above statement.

I do not believe for even one second that Plato derived the Atlantis story from some mythology or legends held by the culture of his time.

There is no evidence of any such mythology, folklore or legend, and Plato made up a lot of things in his writings, as did practically every other writer of the ancient Greek culture. Philosophical, dramatic, and even historical writers fabricated a bunch of stuff back then, to try and make their point (whatever it may be.) Think Aesop. Are those fables based on Greek mythology or legend?

Harte



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Cicada
Plato didn't create the concept of Atlantis in a vacuum, but like anyone, derived it from folklores and mythologies of his era.


Well, since no one else has, I'm going to challenge the validity of the above statement.

I do not believe for even one second that Plato derived the Atlantis story from some mythology or legends held by the culture of his time.

There is no evidence of any such mythology, folklore or legend, and Plato made up a lot of things in his writings, as did practically every other writer of the ancient Greek culture. Philosophical, dramatic, and even historical writers fabricated a bunch of stuff back then, to try and make their point (whatever it may be.) Think Aesop. Are those fables based on Greek mythology or legend?

Harte


Plato developed the notion of a Golden Age destroyed in a catastrophe without cultural influence? Please. It's one of the most universal of all mythologies. Unless you have some incredible omnibus of all the oral legends and stories of the ancient Greeks than I can't see how you could know this with any certainty. I'd take the preponderance of catastrophe legends found in both Oriental and Occidental folk traditions as well as in the New World as pretty apparent antecedents to Plato's accounts. Aesop's fables are based on oral story telling traditions extending back into prehistory. No author or artist works in a cultural vacuum. If they did they would have no language to use and no one to communicate with.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
What proof do you have that they have such a thing?

There is a large difference between a culture being destroyed and a World flood...in fact if you take it one step further it could have easily developed it from the Babylonian Myths when the river flooded and destroyed parts of Babylon...



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
What proof do you have that they have such a thing?

There is a large difference between a culture being destroyed and a World flood...in fact if you take it one step further it could have easily developed it from the Babylonian Myths when the river flooded and destroyed parts of Babylon...


I wish your post was a little clearer in terms of subject matter. I'm not quite sure what you're refering to. Of course history has shown that there are many ways for a culture to be destroyed. A monumental flood would certainly be one way it could happen.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Basically, you are telling him to proove Plato made it up.

Why don't you proove he didn't?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join