Originally posted by EthanT
First, your article says you could be off by up to 3120 years. So, okay 17,000 BC +- 3120. It still puts it within the supposed time period of
Atlantis and when there shouldn't have been any civilization according to mainstream thought. So, it would still be a siginifcant find (even if it's
not related to Atlantis!)
Yes, if it is a civilization. But water rose slowly after the end of the ice age (you could walk away from the rising ocean because it was only a
foot or two per year. And civilizations have a huge support network of roads, farms, mines, quarries -- and other cities. So if they got there why
did they all stay and drown?
We'll also take note of the fact that Greg indicated he was "dumbing down" the description.
This is going to sound snarky, but when you dumb down things, you don't make them wrong.
Anyhow, here is the wikipedia article on beachrock:
...which is broken pieces of other rock (limestone, corals) -- and not limestone beds or limestone.
And Greg is talking about a period of up to 7000 years from when it formed and was relocated. Sounds all okay to me, and jives up with how
Greg says it forms.
If I read the article correctly, he's maintaining there's structures and civilization there. I'd have to check maps to see if the sea levels were
actually that low in that area during that time.
I think the your last paragraph is a bunch of assumptions that may, or may not, be true. If Europe was broken up today, would the European
people migrating to distant lands be bringing one language with them?
Yes, they do. I'm not sure where you live, but I think if you look around you will find immigrants to your country speak their original language
when they arrive and they keep speaking that language in their own homes. If there's a large number of them who arrive together (in diasporas,
people flee in groups), they form a community which speaks its own language within the new country.
One cultural style?
Indeed, that's why we find Roman style architecture and art in Britain and Roman root words in the language.
In addition, as the story goes, Atlantis was a deteriorating and dying culture migrating out into lands that had pre-existing cultures already
Not according to Plato.
For it is related in our records how once upon a time your State stayed the course of a mighty host, which, starting from a distant point in
the Atlantic ocean, was insolently advancing to attack the whole of Europe, and Asia to boot. For the ocean there was at that time navigable; for
in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say, 'the pillars of Heracles,' there lay an island which was larger than Libya and Asia
together; and it was possible for the travelers of that time to cross from it to the other islands, and from the islands to the whole of the continent
over against them which encompasses that veritable ocean.
...so he's describing a culture which has, from its original base, overrun much of Europe and Asia.
(wikipedia summary) The Atlanteans had conquered the parts of Libya within the Pillars of Hercules as far as Egypt and the European continent as
far as Tyrrhenia, and subjected its people to slavery. The Athenians led an alliance of resistors against the Atlantean empire, and as the alliance
disintegrated, prevailed alone against the empire, liberating the occupied lands.
Rather than a scenario of people fleeing a dying culture (I haven't really heard that one before. Must be something recently "channeled" (I don't
have a high opinion of channeled information)), it's a vibrant culture that was encroaching on Egypt's borders and had completely colonized western
Europe. That means that these areas would be under a people with:
* the same language
* the same alphabet
* lots of documents
* the same art preferences (for "state art")
* the same architecture for state buildings and temples
* the same gods (plus appropriating local deities) with the same deity functions (Central America doesn't develop distinct deities until fairly
recently (3,000 years or so), according to the iconography there. I did some investigation on this while in Costa Rica, trying to track down a deity
known as "El Grande Chaman" (the Great Shaman) -- the oldest consistently identifiable deity on the continent appears to be Tlaloc and the most
ancient depictions of him come from the Colorado area.)
* a lot of people with similar names not found in local languages (in ancient Egyptian kings lists, one of the signs that an outside people (Nubians)
have taken control is that the names are not good Egyptian names, but "sort of Egyptianized versions of their cultural names." Same is true in
* the same method of constructing roads
* the same method of constructing armor and weapons
* who brought or forced manufacture of goods from home, including dyed cloth, pottery, utensils
* interbred with the local populations, causing skeletal changes (the African skulls have different eyesocket shapes, etc, etc than the European
* who brought along horses (they were famed for breeding horses and having horse races, according to Plato) -- the horses would be of the same breed
and the genetic lineage of the horses would be more proof of such a civilization.
* horse and wheel transport system (the same gear for these animals, domestication methods, hauling (draft) animals, etc, etc.)
Even if they fled, they'd bring their horses, dogs, pigs, cats, sheep, goats, chickens (people have to eat) and other resources. We have thousands
of modern tales of people going back into devastated areas to rescue family pets and livestock -- resources important to their survival. Some will
risk their own lives to do this.
Their level of impact could have easily been insignificant, especially if you want to consider where Cayce says the different Atlantean
groups migrated to: www.edgarcayce.org...
This may seem tiresome, but I'm a scholar. I see the declarations of proof, etc. What I don't see are documented links to the statements by Cayce
(in other words, are they EXACT claims or something so general (like "people left in a hurry and went to America") that almost anything could be
made of them?) and I don't see documented links to the scientific papers or an indication of which scientists support them.
I'm sure it's out there, but I would like to see what the original works look like.
Also, if Atlantis is supposed to be in the Atlantic, the migration of the X haplogroup doesn't support a migration from the center of the Atlantic.
Lastly, nobody knows what this structure is, or if it is even related to Atlantis. All we know is it may be anomolous, and it would happen to
coincide with the time and place that many popular theories attribute to Atlantis.
Absolutely! We can agree on this 100%. My bet is that it's geology and not archaeology, though.
Hopefully, will know more in the next few years, as it sounds signifcant enough that the ARE may be dumping some money into investigating
Having seen some questionable research from them, I would hope that they bring along independent teams.
I'm sure it will be HIGHLY controversial either way, and accepted by mainstream thought only with the highest level of resistance.
Agreed on the first, but I would argue that if they announce "Atlantis" that the mainstream is more likely to believe them than to believe skeptics.