Where did the theory of Atalntis start?

We're here searching for this mysterious place and I was wondering what cause everyone in the whole world to theorize about this land?

[edit on 29-12-2005 by TruthSeeker99]

It was a story written by Plato that he supposedly got from the Egyptians in the library of Alexandria. There has been some speculation though that it might have come from Plato’s brother who was a merchant and spent more time traveling.


Atlantis

[edit on 12/30/2005 by defcon5]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say. . . . . . . .

(insert drum role here)


I would say the theory of Atlantis started in . . .. Atlantis.

Of course, others may say different. But for them to say different proves they've never been to Atlantis. And, if they havn't been there, they sure aren't an expert on the subject, now are they?




Sorry, had to do it.

[edit on 10-1-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]

There are a lot of cataclysm stories that go back through out ancient times. And they all seem to match in the theme of the destruction. Some come from Mexico and some from Egypt and more from other parts of the world. The theory for Atlantis though and where the name “Atlantis” actually comes from is Plato.

It was brought forth by the last Atlantian. He was the one that shared the story with the rest of the world. here's his story:

The last Atlantian

Hope you enjoy it.

Wupy

Plato is not the first greek to mention Atlantis. There is in fact a manuscript of the same name...

Do you have a name for that manuscript? Is it online?

no no, the name of the manuscript is Atlantis. It predates Plato by quite a while, from what I understand. It will be interesting to see if anyone can find the name of the author. I know it, in fact its on lots of places on the web.

Ok, I have never heard of this manuscript that is called Atlantis. I have done research for almost 20 years on Geology, archeology, ancient myths and all of the theories of where Atlantis might have been. I even have my own theory. But a manuscript that predates Plato is new to me. I have done searches for atlantis on the Internet.. just a couple of nights ago actually, I did not come up with any reliable resource to a manuscript called atlantis. Do you have a webiste?

I will say, before getting anyone's hopes up anymore than I already have, that we don't have much in the way of text from this greek manuscript, just some fragments which aren't illuminating on the subject.

You said "we" does this mean that you have this manuscript? You also say that there is only some fragments of this manuscript.. and you say that the name of it is Atlantis. Does this mean that the name is still in tact?

This is a very important archeological find if it is truly a manuscript that predates Plato's. Please give a website where more info can be found on this.

Oh so Plato was an Atlantian? Wow.
I have a personal theory.

Different countries who are far from each other evolve differently. The west concentrates mostly on the matter surroundings to make weapons and medicine. The east concentrates on body where the person heals themselves. I bet atlantis concentrated on Spirituality and GOD. That's why they were so advanced, they could connect to what needs to be connected the most and thus, they had the best Technology AND Body. They were one of the most ancient and one of the most civilized countries.

My theory anyway.

[edit on 20-1-2006 by TruthSeeker99]

I don't have it. Its known amoung most atlantis researchers. Its known that the name is atlantis, and like I said there is some stuff in it, but not necesarily anything like say 'atlantis is an old name for santorini, it got blowd up' or 'the atlantians had these werd machines that let them fly and were reptile people'. I haven't read the fragments for myself btw.

Stari,

I know, I'd never heard of it either. It is here, at ATS, though (not the manuscript, but some information about it.)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That link takes you to the page it's on, I believe, but I saved it before I figured out how to save individual posts here, so you'll have to read the page to find out about it.

It's really nothing at all about Plato's Atlantis, or at least, there's no reason to believe that it is.

Turns out the word "Atlantis" in ancient Greece could be translated as "The World." Makes a little sense, considering the root word Atlas, and the big round monkey he had on his back.

Harte

Whenever I hear the word Atlantis, I can't help but think about the TV series Stargate: Atlantis.

Just incase no one as seen it here's a link to the Ancients/Atlanteans Wikipedia Page

I'm not necessarily saying this is is a theory (it is a TV show afterall) but it sure is interesting.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by Godlesswanderer]

I have loved the thought of Atlantis ever since I first heard the possiblity of such a great city that could have existed 12,000 years ago. Then after doing some research and finding out that there are way too many simularities world wide. There has to be a singular point of origin. It makes sense.

I also watch and love the show Stargate Atlantis.

Has anyone ever considered that ATLANTIS is what the earth was called before the continents seperated?

Indeed. However, the truth is far more stunning than the nice put pedantic myth of super smart men who taugh people everything. The single orgin is the similarities in the conditions of existence through which all men in all cultures have to slog their way through. Given roughly similar physical and mental make-ups, they've accomplished these incredible things, and hit upon the same solutions! Regardless of their parochial cultural views, or how 'small' their personal world was, it was all one big world, of people doing similar things, reasonining and, yes, beleiving, their way through troubling situations, hitting upon similar answers, without ever even seeing one another!

Truth is much stranger than fiction.


Since there were no people at any of the few times that there was a super-continent that broke up, that doesn't seem like a very likely explanation. ALso, recall, the atlantis and similar stories, they aren't that there was one continent, that broke up, they're that there was an island or continent out in the "ocean" that was destroyed.

[edit on 29-4-2006 by Nygdan]

That's an interesting question, but the original continent split apart and drifted to where the pieces are now. When you look at the geological evidence, you can see that all the pieces once fit together into the single structure called Pangea. The fact that Atlantis translates to mean, "the world" does not necessarily mean that this was why. I believe that Atlantis was tied to Atlas because of the belief in the Atlanteans dominance over all other peoples on earth. Hence the logic that they were "holding the world on their shoulders". The fact is, if the continent ever really existed as a powerful nation, it was probably referred to by some other name, given by the people that inhabited it.
Time, wind erosion, shifting tectonics, and the sea lapping against the shores has dramatically changed the face of most coastlines. But rewind the timeframe several hundred thousand years and the pieces fit together ALMOST perfectly. If Atlantis was the name of the original continent, then why do so many stories including the name(or some root of it) refer to a country that "sank into the sea"? The evidence does not support that a continent rests on the bottom of the ocean. If you look at the Black Sea, which contains underwater dunes that could only have been formed before a flooding, you could see what a land mass would have looked like before being completely submerged. Not to mention the sedimentation that would exist along the outskirts of whatever continent had fallen. Many would contend that the reason we can find nothing like this is because of the ever changing sea floor, and that it had simply "grown up over" the large land mass. This is simply ridiculous. Allowing for a moment, for arguments sake, that this actually happened, there would still be minute differences in what had formed over the submerged continent and the surrounding sea floor that existed undisturbed. Also, wouldn't you think that debris of such magnitude might have caused a bit of a mess down below? The point is, that though references to Atlantis have been made for centuries, both before and after Plato, there is still little evidence to support that such a nation actually existed. Personally, I have argued and fought for the contrary on many occasions, as Atlantis is a beautiful and romantic notion, but then, all we have are fragments and all I have are dreams. I would love to say that the source of our Atlantis quest came from the people themselves, and that the reason we are so lacking in physical evidence is that we have it backwards, or that the story has become too overexagerated to find the factual clues that would lead us to the right path. The problem is, that unless some monumental discovery is made that will redirect our attentions, I don't think the mystery will ever be solved. Wouldn't it be nice if aliens suddenly arrived one day and told us that Atlantis was THEIR city, and that it didnt "sink", but "rose" when they went on vacation for a little while?

The problem with this point of view is that from this standpoint, the only way "the mystery will ever be solved" is if Atlantis actually existed and is actually found. After all, how are we to prove that it didn't exist, if not finding it is not enough? If explaining Plato's allegory is not enough? If showing that the Egyptians, the supposed source of the story, had no such story in their "history?" Exactly what level of evidence is required before people decide that "Hmmm, I guess Atlantis never was real"?

See my signature.

Harte

[edit on 5/1/2006 by Harte]