Ancient World Maps showing Lemuria, Atlantis and more

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Using information gained over the years i have constructed an ancient map of the world before Lemuria and Atlantis were submerged and destroyed.

At some point after this it seems that North America was almost totally submerged (it has since obviously re-emerged), however my map shows the world prior to these major cataclysms.

I will provide, for reference, an image of the world as we currently know it.


Click on image for full version
i205.photobucket.com...

Below is the map which i have crafted. I have placed yellow markers on the locations of ruins which have been attributed to Atlantean/Lemurian civilizations - it interesting that all of these are located on previous land masses.

I have also highlighted what i believe to be the empires of Lemuria and Atlantis.


Click on image for full version

This map draws on some of my favourite ancient maps.

Some of these maps have land masses which are simply errors, but others appear to repeat in different maps.

Such as the East coast of Asia which seems to have been much larger in the past and extended down into the South China Sea and through to Malaysia and beyond.

Some of these maps also seem to omit Australia altogether and instead place it further to the East, with myriad islands scattered where Australia is now located. Interesting.

Such maps include:

Wald Map


Ancient Chinese Map


Typus Orbis Terrarum Map

Click on image for full version

Vinland Map (looks to include Atlantis)

Click on image for full version


And there are many more ancient maps out there if one cares to look. There are many anomalies on them too.


But essentially i just wanted to get some thoughts on my map and raise the point that if you look at maps of the past seems to become clearer and clearer that land masses used to exist which are now somehow submerged.

Additionally, perhaps there are more ruins and/or monuments which can be added to it to see if they also have a location on land. I know i only selected a certain few i could think of.

Thanks



NB: Not sure why the pics have embedded themselves so large - not sure how to stop that happening.

[edit on 28-1-2008 by srsen]

(resized image, added link)

[edit on 3/11/08 by Jbird]




posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by srsen
Some of these maps have land masses which are simply errors, but others appear to repeat in different maps.

Well yeah, that's because they repeat the same error.

I dont buy this at all. Ancient world maps where crude, low in resolution and solely based on coastal observation and guesswork. What they didnt know about, they either ignored (such as cutting off the African coast in half) or made up (some island "probably over there in that general direction").

Ask me to make a map of the city I have lived in for the last 20 years and I could certainly do it. Except it would most likely be warped (my only north/south reference is my house), totally off scale and with many blanks that I would fill in with generic houses that I know should be there or remember. That someone driving through could make a more accurate map than me is a ridicilous claim. But that's exactly what ancient mappers did. They zoomed past the coast and made the map as they went.

And of course, when you wish to make a new map... Just take the old and fill in the new. We assume the old is correct, right?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   
IF Atlantis existed, it was either where the modern Azores are now off of West Africa in the ATL (Atlantic, homie), or present day Cuba and its' surrounding isles. Because you see, if the Azores are just some scattered isles, but used to be a larger, single island Atlantis, then obviously over time some things happened to submerge most of that landmass.

This exact same principle should be applied to any theory stating Atlantis was in the present day Carribean area. The Cuba of today used to have much more land to it; likewise, nearby islands were connected to it.

There is a tiny bit of Biblical, Old Testament stuff that would make you think that perhaps .. mariners had found South America and the Caribbean in B.C. times. There is much evidence that Carthage navigated a route from West African coast to Brazil. In the Bible, a main group of people think the "land of Ophir" as it is written is actually modern day Brazil / Venezuala etc. They travelled there, Tarshish ships of the Iberian peninsula would bring back gold and peacocks and other exotic animals and items. There was alot of gold, tin, silver, you name it. This was in the days of King Solomon and others. You can read about it in the Book of Chronicles, and the Book of Kings.

So then, if some people during the Old Testament, B.C. times had travelled all the way to South America, then SURELY that mariner would have passed Atlantis on the way, if Atlantis existed still in that point of time, or if it existed at all. But assuming it was still there, THIS must be where the accounts come from that it was beyond the Strait of Gibraltar, into the Atlantic Ocean. On the way to the East coast of South America, you'd run into the Azores first, then the Caribbean with Cuba and Jamaica, then you'd hit the coast. So then, I think it can be narrowed down to: Azores, Cuba or the Caribbean, or it was completely taken below the Sea. Oh yeah, theres always a chance it was a spin off from the Minoan palace of Knossos, which was ringed with water moats much like the deescription of Atlantis. This people and their islands were destroyed in the eruption of Santorini volcano in 1600's BC, and its subsuquent tsunamis and devastation.

[edit on 1/28/2008 by runetang]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by srsen
 



What is the reason for adding the yellow markers to your map. None of those date to anywhere near the time required for them to have been a part of either Atlantis or Lemuria.

Correct me if im wrong but Stonehenge is no older than say 2500bc - 1500bc. The Bosnian pyramid is still not a proven manmade structure. Nan Madol latest dating has earliest structures occuring in the 1st or 2nd century AD up to and including the Sau Deleur dynasty which collapsed sometime in the 1500's? Newgrange your looking at a date of approximately 3000bc. Baalbek earliest dating seems to be around 3000bc. On Rapa Nui the Moai (statues) are thought to date somewhere between 1000ad and 1500ad.
The Giza pyramid around 2600bc though that is hotly debated.


Dating of these artifacts would have to be out by thousands of years, or hundreds of thousands depending on where and when you believe Atlantis or Lemuria existed. Sorry but i dont think thats likely.
If you were to mark your map with locations/artifacts that are around 10000 to 12000 years old i think youd be on to something but i dont know of any that old that would fit your criteria.
I do know of a program that allows you to raise and lower the sea level which i found on an archaeological site somewhere, i'll see if i cant find it again.

I do however agree with your positioning of Atlantis.


Kudo's for the work you've obviously put into it though.


mojo



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:34 AM
link   
In one of Graham Hancock's books, he talks about the Pyree-Reis (sp?) map. In it, there are places along the Antarctica that were completely covered with ice at the time the map was made; yet, now that the ice has melted down enough, we can see that the coastline was mapped exactly as it is now. No one can figure out how this was done (charting the coastline accurately, with all that ice). The assumption is that at some time, that coastline didn't have so much ice, so that it could be mapped. Pyree-Reis was constructed from ancient maps. From this example, we can draw the conclusion that those ancient maps were absolutely correct.

Not all ancient maps were crude; some were astonishingly correct.
OP, nice work, that must have taken you forever to do.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   
In those maps you provided show the world with more or less ocean.

In due time you will learn that "Atlantis" is north America.

A flooding took place aswell as icesheet melts have left the continent almost unreconizable and partially submerged.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   
srsen,

It would mean more if you were talking about civilizations along the ancient continental coastlines, that we could possibly agree on. Lemuria is a 19th century fantasy. Atlantis, of a size and location as Plato puts it will probably never be found. One estimate of size was supposedly around 80,000 square miles. That's an area of 282 miles by 282 miles. There is NO landmass outside the Straights of Gibraltar that size and no indication that there ever was. There is an interactive map:

merkel.zoneo.net...

Scientists and oceanographers estimate that the sea level has risen by 400 feet since the last glacial maximum around 16,000 BC. That is approximately 122 meters. Type in -122, as you are looking for coastlines during the greatest extent of ice. It is nowhere near what your map shows.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Thanks cormac, that was the interactive map i mentioned in my post. Even raising the sea level by more than 160 metres doesnt change the shapes of the landmasses as much as you would expect does it.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   


Thanks cormac, that was the interactive map i mentioned in my post. Even raising the sea level by more than 160 metres doesnt change the shapes of the landmasses as much as you would expect does it.


No it doesn't. I don't believe any of us, myself included, can say there were no cultures living along the ancient coastlines that are now submerged. That would be foolish.

Another thing to take into account, I just realized, is that if Atlantis existed c. 9500 BC with the ocean levels 400 feet lower than they are now the Mediterranean was also 400 feet lower. Anyone who survived getting beat by non-existant Athenians would never have made it home with the sea levels rising after Atlantis destruction.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Whoever made these maps forgot something. the GREAT LAKES! There kind of hard to miss, ya know? I think someone was a little lazy making that map.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by srsen
 


Wasn't Lemuria completely made up? From what I've read it was proposed as a land mass that existed to allow for lemurs from Madagascar to migrate to other continents where their fossils were found. Making up continents was allegedly pretty common practice at the time, and Lemuria was just another example of this.

The Piri Reis map was debunked pretty thoroughly some time ago. I have no doubt that there are a lot of lost civilizations submerged along what used to be coast, but entire continents disappearing? Sorry, I don't buy it.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
This is a map of ATlantis I made.

It is the Gulf of Mexico, FLorida, Bahamas, Cuba, etc with around 200 meters less water.

There was a catacalysm that occured that not ony submerged the east coast but possibly 'destroyed' it



[edit on 28-1-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Could you please outline on your map where, The Gulf of Mexico, Florida and Cuba would be. The map makes no sense. It doesn't really represent anything the way it is presented here. Thanks



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kranil
The Piri Reis map was debunked pretty thoroughly some time ago. I have no doubt that there are a lot of lost civilizations submerged along what used to be coast, but entire continents disappearing? Sorry, I don't buy it.


Hi Kranil. Can you provide me with some websites, authors or souces? I'd love to read up on this and haven't heard of any debunking. The Piri Reis map is in the Topkapi museum in Istanbul. Do you mean it's forged, never existed, or what exactly was it debunked as?



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by forestlady
 


Forestlady,

He means that the idea that the map shows the coast of Antarctica has been debunked.

The Piri Reis map is authentic enough. It's an excellent map for it's time. But it doesn't show what pseudohistorians like to claim that it shows.

The antarctic coastline and the lemuria thing have been debunked right here at ATS more times than I care to think about. Several times by me. Many more times by others. I'm sure you can find this info if you use the search function.

You may want to take a look around "The Skeptic's Dictionary." I don't have the address but if you google that name, you'll find it.

Harte



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by forestlady
 


Does Antarctica connect to South America at about the same latitude as Bolivia? Does Panama connect to the north of South America, and travel in a straight line north? Does the tip of Britanny extend out to the same longitude as Portugal? Does Hispaniola sometimes turn 90 degrees counter clockwise and float off the coast of Panama?

These are features of the Piri Reis map. Clearly, all of these are inaccurate. There are two explanations for the "Antarctic" coastline. One, the mapmaker may have simply ran out of room for the southern portion of South America, and bent it to fit the bottom margins of the paper. So long as you adjust the lines of measurement right, the map still works. Second, something I noticed is if you rotate the map itself, it makes a decent (though still pretty inaccurate) map of South America's Northern coastline.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by srsen
 


You realize we have records of the building of Machu Piichu, right? And that we have the full history of Rapa Nui (Easter Island) including its date of colonization? These places aren't at all mysterious except to those who have chosen to remain ignorant.

Also, if Eurasia had ever looked remotely like that, the Gobi desert would have stretched across the breadth of Siberia and into Europe.

It doesn't help that you're putting to-scale landmasses on a map that is not to scale.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by Merka
Ancient world maps where crude, low in resolution and solely based on coastal observation and guesswork.


Can we prove this? How do we REALLY know how accurate ancient maps where if we have no evidence of what the map makers actually saw? Perhaps ancient maps are highly accurate but we have lead to believe otherwise.



originally posted by Runetang
IF Atlantis existed, it was either where the modern Azores are now off of West Africa in the ATL (Atlantic, homie), or present day Cuba and its' surrounding isles.


I agree that both these locations are likely to have been a destination for Atlantean colonies. I think Cuba is generally not the location of the City of Atlantis but more a colony of it. I agree with the Azores and my map reflects that




originally posted by mojo4sale
What is the reason for adding the yellow markers to your map. None of those date to anywhere near the time required for them to have been a part of either Atlantis or Lemuria.


I do not generally buy into the 'official' stories of these monuments. They are ALL hotly contested as to their age and rightly so. It is really a topic for another thread entirely as there is simply too much information to bring to the table.

But undoubtedly the Pyramids are older than the stated 2600BC date. The same story that states a 2600BC construction date also insists the Giza Pyramids were used as tombs - which is categorically incorrect.

With Nan Madol, they only dated pottery found at the site. That pottery could have literally been dropped there in 1AD - doesn't really prove a construction date.

Rapa Nui is still shrouded with mystery. Once again, it's almost worthy of an entire other thread, but there are plenty of anomalies with the 'official' story (there always are) if you choose to look at non-mainstream sources.

The reason I chose those locations/artefacts is because from everything I have read I believe that they all date from the either the time of Atlantis and Lemuria or they were built by the survivors of those civilizations.

I am open to adding more dots on the map of artefacts/locations which are officially recognised as 10,000 years + old (such as you suggested), but haven't got the time at the moment to research that aspect fully




originally posted by IvanZana
In due time you will learn that "Atlantis" is north America.


I agree that North America holds many mysteries which are still to be unravelled, but was the City of Atlantis located there? I personally don't believe so. An outpost, colony or colonies though, absolutely!

Nice map too, interesting take.



originally posted by cormac mac airt
It would mean more if you were talking about civilizations along the ancient continental coastlines, that we could possibly agree on. Lemuria is a 19th century fantasy. Atlantis, of a size and location as Plato puts it will probably never be found. One estimate of size was supposedly around 80,000 square miles. That's an area of 282 miles by 282 miles. There is NO landmass outside the Straights of Gibraltar that size and no indication that there ever was.


I have to disagree whole-heartedly with that whole joke that Lemuria was a made-up name of a possible continent which maybe existed to possibly help Lemurs move from land mass to land mass. Such a convenient cover and one which people always refer.

Look at the land now covered with water surround Australia, New Zealand and the general Pacific region, there is undoubtedly land under the water there. How do we really know that land wasn't Lemuria or Mu?





originally posted by TheWalkingFox
You realize we have records of the building of Machu Piichu, right? And that we have the full history of Rapa Nui (Easter Island) including its date of colonization? These places aren't at all mysterious except to those who have chosen to remain ignorant.

Also, if Eurasia had ever looked remotely like that, the Gobi desert would have stretched across the breadth of Siberia and into Europe.

It doesn't help that you're putting to-scale landmasses on a map that is not to scale.


Yes, there is A history and AN explanation given for those places but who are we to say that they are correct? If I question them, does that make me ignorant? Certainly not - it does the EXACT OPPOSITE.

History is the EASIEST thing to fake. Who is going to be able to prove you wrong? Maybe Marty and the Doc at best!

But honestly, I don't buy into all histories we are told - if its an official line then there should be reason to question it and make sure it isn't just that - a line!




And for the record here, I made this map as something to kill the time on a boring Sunday arvo. It isn't scientifically accurate nor do I claim to have created a map of exactly how the world used to look.

It's just a representation of how I think the world COULD have looked at one point in time based on my knowledge. I could spend another week on making it more accurate - and I may do that - but as it stands its simply one persons opinion really.

The only thing I truly stand by is that I think my depiction of Atlantis and Lemuria are pretty good.

Oh and thanks for those interactive map things. Will have a look when not at work



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Sorry i didnt provide a reference map.

This is where Edgar Cayce also said the capital city of Atlantis was.

They are also finding underwater cities off the coast of Biminii and Cuba.

Modernday -Postflood.


Ante-deluvian


[edit on 28-1-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
srsen,




I have to disagree whole-heartedly with that whole joke that Lemuria was a made-up name of a possible continent which maybe existed to possibly help Lemurs move from land mass to land mass. Such a convenient cover and one which people always refer.


So you're saying the fact that we know it was the geologist Philip Sclater who coined the word "Lemuria" in 1864 for an article entitled "The Mammals of Madagascar" in The Quarterly Journal of Science means nothing? We even know why. Is it just the scientific field that lies to you, or does everyone do it? How do you know?




Look at the land now covered with water surround Australia, New Zealand and the general Pacific region, there is undoubtedly land under the water there. How do we really know that land wasn't Lemuria or Mu?



My quote:



I don't believe any of us, myself included, can say there were no cultures living along the ancient coastlines that are now submerged. That would be foolish.


Having said that, no one could reasonably find it acceptable to call possible ancient cultures around India or the Pacific by a name which didn't exist before 1864. If you know what the real name is I'd appreciate hearing it, it would be interesting to research.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join