Origins of Atlantis/Lemuria Myths Part-1

Originally posted by ITSALLGOOD
Awesome read Slayer. I read somewhere that Herodotus wrote about Atlantis before Plato did dont know how credible is though interested in your opinion.

Why do you not?

Herodotus' work is freely available online.

If you were in the least curious, you would have already read it and seen that Herodotus wrote nothing whatsoever about the lost continent.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


I am as we chat seems so far that you are right. Was the greek spelling of Atlantis the same now as in times past? There are also different wordings for the Histories can you point me to somewhere credible pls cheers preferably with greek text as well. Cheers

Originally posted by ITSALLGOOD
reply to post by Harte

 

I am as we chat seems so far that you are right. Was the greek spelling of Atlantis the same now as in times past?

Yes. The word Atlantis in Greek looks almost exactly the same as it does in English so it stands out on the page.

When Herodotus mentions "Atlantis," he is talking about the Atlantis Ocean - what we call the Atlantic.

Both terms mean "of Atlas" or having to do with Atlas.

He also mentions a people called the "Atlantes." These are a folk that live in the shadow of Mount Atlas - supposedly a lofty peak in the Atlas Mountain range (we still call them that today - they are in the north of Africa.)

Originally posted by ITSALLGOODThere are also different wordings for the Histories can you point me to somewhere credible pls cheers preferably with greek text as well. Cheers

I used to use the the Internet Classics site from MITbut found that in some cases their documents are incomplete.

Here is a site I use all the time now for all kinds of ancient writing. It has the Greek and English versions but your browser has to be set up to display the Greek properly:

Sacred Texts Herodotus' Histories..

If you poke around at that site you can find all kinds of stuff. Some interesting and useful, and some idiotic and useless.

Harte


[edit on 10/28/2009 by Harte]

Just wanted to say this is an excellent thread Slayer, and I look forward to part 2. This is my favorite board, and while I don't post in it very often I do keep a close eye on it.

The research that you have laid out is well thought out and very thought provoking. S&F for you.

Just wanted to post a Part 2 Update -UPDATE

I've been very busy at work and home. I'm about almost done, give me another few days. I just want to verify sources and facts. Cross them T's and Dot them I's.

You know how it is.

Any info on part 2 yet?

we are waiting....


[edit on 11-11-2009 by The-Hammer]

A very good and balanced post Slayer69! Kudos.

You mentioned that you had read Plato's accounts and have come to the personal conclusion that Atlantis never existed. I would be interested in learning more as to why.

I too have read Plato's accounts, and if you consider that Plato was a practicing Theurgist (a fact often glossed over by contemporary scholars), his account is no longer a potentially allegorical one (or as some hopefuls may want to believe, a literal one), but a mystical experience not unlike those accounts of Heaven in Merkavah/Hekhaloht literature from the same time period, or commonplace in any other mystical experience since.

I have always regarded Plato's accounting of Atlantis along these lines. Taken in context this seems very much the case.

However, I do also agree with your take on the predominance of this myth in the Collective Consciousness being based upon the possibility of a pre-historic remembrance of an ancient civilization that predated Homo Sapiens. Although Neanderthals and Homo Erectus that predated us most likely only achieved a Middle Paleolithic state of rudimentary civilization, they were not alone prior to the arise of Homo Sapiens. Recent discoveries and analysis of Homo Floresiensis show that their species was neither an isolated nor small civilization. In order to have made multiple exoduses out of Africa spanning a period of 300,000 years show that they were a large and stable culture. Considering that they practiced Animal Husbandry and domesticated and bred elephants, as well as possessing (rudimentary) Sea-Faring ships only shows that they had achieved a level of civilization far greater than either Neanderthals or Homo Erectus long before the advent of Homo Sapiens. We are only just beginning to understand the implications of what this means, let alone consider the ramifications to our current understanding of the historical record. It is not unreasonable, in light of such discoveries, that another hominid species may have evolved into a flourishing civilization long before Homo Sapiens, especially if they persisted over the course of several hundreds of thousands of years to almost a million years, only to find extinction about the time of the dawn of our own civilization.

reply to post by fraterormus


Well keep in mind that Neanderthal had a brain capacity that was larger than ours. This also shows in his cave art. I remember a teacher of mine had the class try and reproduce some of their art work and none of us could come up with the quality they had done. Now either some of that art was done by a Neanderthal version of Michelangelo or they just simply possessed more talent.

In either case I feel that there is a real history of which we know very little. Neanderthal was in Europe and out of Africa about 200.000 years before modern man by some estimates. The Verdict on his real history is still out in my opinion.

Originally posted by The-Hammer
Any info on part 2 yet?

we are waiting....

I have some stuff in the works. Stay tuned.

It has taken me longer than I thought it would.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
In either case I feel that there is a real history of which we know very little. Neanderthal was in Europe and out of Africa about 200.000 years before modern man by some estimates. The Verdict on his real history is still out in my opinion.

Agreed. There is far more that we don't know than we do know. Considering Homo Sapiens have only been around for just shy of 200,000 years and Modern Human civilization is only about 37,000 years old, and Western Civilization is but a small fragment of time even compared to that, it makes one reconsider our belief as the predominant species when other hominids had been around for far longer than that, some for almost 5 times that span of time. Since we gauge Civilization based on a very narrow criteria, being the cultural and technological development parallel to our own, we are overlooking far too many other possibilities with our self-imposed narrow-mindedness.

Why must culture and technology develop linear in the same way our technology and culture has advanced? Why must one follow the other? Why can't they be interdependent of one another?

One would think that after the discovery of Native Americans, we would consider the possibility that simplistic, natural living does not equate to lack of cultural advancement. Considering that some of the Native American Tribes had a Constitution, a Federalist Government, Woman's Suffrage, Individual Liberties, Freedoms and Rights, Diplomacy, a far more diverse array of Agricultural Crops, Ecological Preservation, Cotton Clothing as opposed to Furs and Linens as had been used by Westerners, as well as significantly more advanced Medicine and even general Technology in some areas (especially in the Northern Climates), it is foolish to say that they were "primitive" by any stretch of the imagination. Although it was necessary for Westerners to downplay the cultural and technological advancement of the Native Americans for the sake of justifying Eminent Domain, it should have made at least Western Scholars reconsider the basis for how we quantify and classify cultural and technological advancement.

Considering in every mythology without exception (at least none that I can think of), the fundamentals of Civilization, from Language, Writing, Mathematics, Fire-Making, Tool-Making, Animal Husbandry, et cetera were taught to Homo Sapiens by divine "gods" rather than discovered upon our own merits, one has to consider the possibility that we were indeed taught these things by another benevolent species. Considering that all primates learn by either observation or proximity, it stands to reason that we learned these things, if not taught, through either observation or proximity to those who did have these skills. So, who was this other species that possessed such knowledge? Although many might suggest Alien involvement, it would be more reasonable to suggest another hominid species that existed previous to our own, finding extinction shortly after our own rise to Civilization @ 30,000-37,000 years ago.

The thing about Art does bring up an interesting point. I know with Ancient Egyptian Art, it is considered "primitive" by modern Art standards as it does not implement Form or Perspective. However, when analyzed mathematically, Egyptian Art is far more precise than any other form of Art. It is actually more mathematically accurate than a photograph which is distorted through the bias of the lens! It definitely makes one reconsider how we determine what is "primitive" and what is "advanced".

[edit on 12-11-2009 by fraterormus]

I'm giving this thread a well deserved small bump

Here is something that's in the works.
This video is obviously a work in progress.

reply to post by SLAYER69



Glad to see someone going for the down-to-earth approach to researching Atlantis. Too much fringe 'science' tends to detract from what I consider a worthwhile subject.

I can't really add anything to the conversation that hasn't already been said by you or other posters but I thought I'd bring to your attention a site that you'd be most interested in.

Quest For Atlantis Website

It is run by a retired anthropologist by the name of R. Cedric Leonard. He too attempts to research Atlantis from a practical standpoint and makes sure all his sources are verifiable and creditable. I especially would like to point out his work in the liguistic fields(what he has come to call the 'Berber-Ibero-Basque Complex').

Anyway, can't wait to see what you bring to the table next.

reply to post by Mad Simian


Thank you.

Part two has stalled a bit mostly due to work related issues. I'm still compiling.

This is a tremendous thread. A very good compilation of archeological evidence. One point in particular was striking to me, you mentioned how certain hominoids species prior to the emergence of homosapians were more intelligent and skilled and and actually cultivated civilisation hundreds of thousands years ago. At the same time you insist that such civilisations that may have existed around the world were only as advanced as megalithic cultures.

Why? If these hominoids are just as capable intellectually, creatively as modern humans(homosapians) why should their development stop at megalithic type culture and not go beyond? Considering the huge time-frames they were around for hundreds of thousands of years ago, compared to only ten thousands of years for us, there is no reason to believe why they could not develop to our levels of civilisation and technology and beyond many times over.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by fraterormus

 

Well keep in mind that Neanderthal had a brain capacity that was larger than ours. This also shows in his cave art.

Hardly, considering no Neandertal cave art has ever been found.

IIRC, no Neandertal art of any kind has ever been found. Of course, "art" is in the eye of the beholder. Also, it's not like I read "Neandertal Monthly." That is, it may have been found since I last looked into this.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte
Hardly, considering no Neandertal cave art has ever been found.

IIRC, no Neandertal art of any kind has ever been found. Of course, "art" is in the eye of the beholder. Also, it's not like I read "Neandertal Monthly." That is, it may have been found since I last looked into this.

Harte

Harte, i get your point....but you know as well as I do that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Look at the current human situation. How much of our current art would withstand 10k years of time wearing it down? Maybe the stone pieces would be left. Maybe.

Add to this that many of the artifacts we ascribe to Cro Magnon or Homo Sapiens Sapiens could very well be Neandertal in origin.

But, beyond any of that, think about Mazlow. Considering that primary lands of the Neandertals was cold, arid, and rocky, i am unsure that they could have achieved enough vertical movement on Mazlows pyramid to see the value in art. This does not indicate brain size, intellectual capacity, or logic and reasoning skills.


Edit to add: there are studies that show that Neandertals were primarily red headed. There are also studies that show that Neandertals last strongholds were on the far western edge of Europe. Initially it may have been though that they died out on the Iberian peninsula, but more recent studies find that they persisted in the regions of the Saxons for many, many years. Given the thought that human and Neandertals likely interbred, and the fact that there is a HUGE increase in the amount of red headed people, it stands to reason that it might be possible that the British Islanders are the descendants of the Neandertal and Homo Sapien interbreeding.

Not saying anything bad about the Irish here, but you can see many Neandertal features in the people that hail from that area. Mostly a more pronounced brow ridge, and the mouth/teeth.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Tex,

That wasn't me trying to put down our cousins, that was me mentioning that Slayer's idea of Neandertal cave art was unfounded.

IIRC, Neandertals have been shown to observe funerary rituals, painting bodies with ochre and burying valuables with their departed loved ones.

They were as human as you and me, IMO, but let's not grant them some higher ability in art (one which is greater than our own) simply because it makes something seem mysterious and thus more fun.

Harte


[edit on 12/14/2009 by Harte]

Giving this thread a small well deserved bump up. I'm closing in on Part II stay tuned.


PEACE

Slay

Originally posted by Harte

They were as human as you and me, IMO, but let's not grant them some higher ability in art (one which is greater than our own) simply because it makes something seem mysterious and thus more fun.

Harte


[edit on 12/14/2009 by Harte]

Fair enough, if we can agree that we should also not discard the notion of it being possible simply because it reinforces our species collective hubris.

While i don't find it hard to believe that cave paintings can be made by any human species, i do find it hard to believe that any European cave laid dormant for more than a few decades. Humans have literally infested that continent for thousands of years.

Edit to add: there you go, Slayer. Lets get some more good content out here on ATS.

[edit on 21-3-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]