I think this post by you, Sky, illustrates very well why the study of Atlantology is in poorer shape today than it was 200 or 400 (or a thousand) years ago.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
It has been suggested that the Lady of Elx - a strange statue discovered in the Tartessos region of unknown origin and uncertain date - is a rare artifact of the Tartessos civilization, and possibly even of Atlantis.

I looked into this further, and it seems that the statue comes from an archaeological dig in the mid 1800's. It has had several owners and it's not entirely clear that the one that they identify now is the one that was dug up. A little more research (which was not done by the writer who proclaimed it might be from Atlantis) shows that the dig was held at a site thought to have artifacts and that artifacts were found.

The writer's assumptions are:
* any artifact that looks unusual must be from an unknown culture
* that any odd (or possibly out of place) artifact must be 11,000 years old (the date of Plato's Atlantis) or of alien influenced origin.
* that the artifact he shows you is in no way culturally similar to anything else.
* that it was found in isolation and nothing else was around it that would give clues about the culture and so forth.
* that if you can't find a similar picture on the Internet, it must be unique because every museum and every scholar has been busy putting up pictures of everything they own on the Internet and with keywords that you could Google for. Keywords that would describe the thing the way he would.
* therefore it's all about Atlantis.

The writer dismisses ideas such as:
= it could be the work of a local nutty sculptor (the Picasso or Klimt of his time)
= that other things around it tell the history of the place where it was found
= that things when they are buried (house burns down or is abandoned) are never found in layers.
= that some of these items are hoaxes (Dropa Stones, for example)
= that occasionally an archaeologist has committed fraud (a stupid thing to do because the rest of the archaeological community figures it out pretty quickly)
= that later work on that culture or that dig may be around and the culture/artform may be very well known to some.

It's lazy research. It takes "unknown artifacts" that someone decided were mysterious back in the 1950's or earlier and proclaims them from Atlantis.

A true Atlantis artifact should be:
* found at a site over 10,000 years old
* have traits that identify it as a unique cultural object.
* be connected with similar unique artifacts found in place (and by now, many feet below the surface) on the plains around Athens (because Athens and Atlantis went to war and Atlantis was defeated. Battlefields aren't tidy places and lots would have been left behind.) These artifacts would be dated no later than 1400 BC (when the Ionian kings ruled Athens).
* be connected with similar style unusual artifacts in Egypt, found in the tribute chambers of temples (because that's where the wealth was kept.) These artifacts should be found in dateable sites with some sort of context (not lying around in the sand in the middle of nowhere.)
* associated with writing from that culture, including letters to and from various kings in the area (we have, for instance, letters to and from Pharaohs to various Mesopotamian and Mediterranean kings.) And it should be a real language with a real grammar... not some of the made up nonsense that is seen.

This tendency to announce "Atlantean Artifact!" for out of context objects that the viewer can't immediately identify has led to a flood of web pages that are taken as evidence by those who don't spend a lot of time dealing with artifacts.

The gold birds and insects and fish from Costa Rica are a very good example of this. In spite of the fact that this is a type of art found in digs, associated with certain tribes, and still a part of their art tradition today, they end up in Atlantology books identified as things from Atlantis or things influenced by aliens.

Posting for the page turning glitch, I wanted to see what Byrd had to say.

I find the style of the statues interesting all by themselves, regardless. I would like to know more about it. Both of them. Doesn't mean we BELIEVE, and follow the presumption is it from Atlantis, but not knowing more about it makes it interesting and mysterious.

Originally posted by seagrass
I find the style of the statues interesting all by themselves, regardless. I would like to know more about it. Both of them. Doesn't mean we BELIEVE, and follow the presumption is it from Atlantis, but not knowing more about it makes it interesting and mysterious.

Appears to be an Iberian fertility goddess, according to museums. It's dated to about 400 AD, and from Tartassos. The culture there is very interesting -- some Biblical scholars are attempting to find out if there's a link between the area and Phoenecia and some Biblical references.

I just did a hasty read on those, so no mor detail from me. I'm off to do Thanksgiving (so Happy Thanksgiving, readers!)

Originally posted by Byrd

I looked into this further, and it seems that the statue comes from an archaeological dig in the mid 1800's. It has had several owners and it's not entirely clear that the one that they identify now is the one that was dug up. A little more research (which was not done by the writer who proclaimed it might be from Atlantis) shows that the dig was held at a site thought to have artifacts and that artifacts were found.

In earlier days I had the tendency to post whatever any author says. With this item (and some others) I at least look it up in the internet to gather other opinions on it. I did see that it was found at a site where other artifacts were found. I also so that it is ascribed to the Iberians...automatically...without any reason for doing so other than the Iberians having been in proximity.

The writer's assumptions are:
* any artifact that looks unusual must be from an unknown culture
* that any odd (or possibly out of place) artifact must be 11,000 years old (the date of Plato's Atlantis) or of alien influenced origin.
* that the artifact he shows you is in no way culturally similar to anything else.
* that it was found in isolation and nothing else was around it that would give clues about the culture and so forth.
* that if you can't find a similar picture on the Internet, it must be unique because every museum and every scholar has been busy putting up pictures of everything they own on the Internet and with keywords that you could Google for. Keywords that would describe the thing the way he would.
* therefore it's all about Atlantis.

No objection. Just because an object is of unknown origin does not mean its of atlantean or alien origin. This is why words such as "possibility" are used. Whereas archaeologists are often too quick to use words such as "certainly" and "fact".

Even if this artifact has nothing to do with Atlantis, its still interesting. It is found near the Atlantic and does not immediately spark associations with known cultures.

The writer dismisses ideas such as:

Its often the case that other, more simple explanations are dismissed and ignored. But in this specific case it could also be true that the author in question did consider these ideas. We dont know.

= it could be the work of a local nutty sculptor (the Picasso or Klimt of his time)
= that other things around it tell the history of the place where it was found
= that things when they are buried (house burns down or is abandoned) are never found in layers.
= that some of these items are hoaxes (Dropa Stones, for example)
= that occasionally an archaeologist has committed fraud (a stupid thing to do because the rest of the archaeological community figures it out pretty quickly)
= that later work on that culture or that dig may be around and the culture/artform may be very well known to some.

Yes, in general this is what "Atlantologists" often fall for :sad:

In this specific case however, hoax and fraud is ruled out by most scholars.

A true Atlantis artifact should be:
* found at a site over 10,000 years old

One premise of Atlantology is that only single objects are left, as "the cataclysm" and time have made sites dissappear entirely. Following the theory that certain objects were only passed down among the ruling class, the King of a place may own one object while the rest of the site shows objects belonging to another culture.

* have traits that identify it as a unique cultural object.

Which is the case in the specific Lady-of-Elx example.

* be connected with similar unique artifacts found in place (and by now, many feet below the surface) on the plains around Athens (because Athens and Atlantis went to war and Atlantis was defeated. Battlefields aren't tidy places and lots would have been left behind.) These artifacts would be dated no later than 1400 BC (when the Ionian kings ruled Athens).

The Atlantis I am referring to, did not go to war with Greence (even if Plato says so), because it went down 10 000 B.C.

* be connected with similar style unusual artifacts in Egypt, found in the tribute chambers of temples (because that's where the wealth was kept.) These artifacts should be found in dateable sites with some sort of context (not lying around in the sand in the middle of nowhere.)
* associated with writing from that culture, including letters to and from various kings in the area (we have, for instance, letters to and from Pharaohs to various Mesopotamian and Mediterranean kings.) And it should be a real language with a real grammar... not some of the made up nonsense that is seen.

Again, the whole idea of Atlantis is based on it having been destroyed...completely...and therefore being a lost civilization we do not remember and have no evidence for. If it werent a lost civilization Im sure we would find all the things you say we are supposed to find.

This tendency to announce "Atlantean Artifact!" for out of context objects that the viewer can't immediately identify has led to a flood of web pages that are taken as evidence by those who don't spend a lot of time dealing with artifacts.

Im sorry that fringe-minds sometimes obstruct serious research.

The gold birds and insects and fish from Costa Rica are a very good example of this. In spite of the fact that this is a type of art found in digs, associated with certain tribes, and still a part of their art tradition today, they end up in Atlantology books identified as things from Atlantis or things influenced by aliens.

Well...since they look more like planes than like fish it is no surprise that we take them as such. Them being associated with certain tribes doesnt change that...especially if those tribes say that they are depictions of "the Gods".

I was reading the link you provided Byrd on the Iberians, and it occurred to me that since they were so adept at making tin and metal work, that perhaps they wore their "craft" or "art" on their bodies to display that ability. I don't see how they are considered rosettes though and could you post a link to that term in Archaeology? (meaning they don't look floral to me)

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Skyfloating
One premise of Atlantology is that only single objects are left, as "the cataclysm" and time have made sites dissappear entirely. Following the theory that certain objects were only passed down among the ruling class, the King of a place may own one object while the rest of the site shows objects belonging to another culture.

I can accept the first but it really is a weak premise. We do find isolated things (like arrowheads)... but we also find sites with things that link that arrowhead to a whole group. I don't see a group of "OOPARTs" that appear to be culturally linked (which would indicate a single country/culture produced them.)

I would not really accept that though, because it make no sense. According to Plato, Atlantis had control over most of the Med (from Gibraltar to Egypt) and even more so, most of Europe. Would single objects really be all that's left from a civilization that dominated half the known world?

I mean you'd think that taking controls over these lands from the homebase of Atlantis would have taken many, many years. Colonies would be inevitable, as would vast quantities of material. If nothing else, the Greeks should have stolen much of it and concentrated it to Greece.

[edit on 28-11-2008 by merka]

Byrd, Fascinating necklace. Also in the circular pattern. Looks like jars or pottery vessels. beautiful. Thanks for the links.. I will keep reading them with enthusiasm.

Another question, I don't see anything that makes these statues particularly female. yes, one of them is femininely beautiful, but I don't see "female" features.. if you know what i mean..... The Iberian king was associated with flowers and dressed in silver? Earrings aren't exclusive to females. Are they?

[edit on 28-11-2008 by seagrass]In the last link they used the term rodete. And all I see are Spanish sites. Those circles were not at her ears but on the sides of her hair. So they are not necessarily earrings.

[edit on 28-11-2008 by seagrass]