Why I Believe Scientist Are Looking In The Wrong Places For Atlantis

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Redevilfan09
reply to post by Picollo30

 

I cant remember the name of the island but archaeologists found a city buried under volcanic ash on one of the greek islands. the dug straight through the roofs of one of the houses underneath. With this volcano came a 100ft tsnami which wiped out another island and it is said this is a fact simply because sea shells have been found in the mountains.

I cant tell you this was Atlantis, but all the evidence that the guy provides makes it a possibility. I cant get the sources right now but when I get the time I will and yous can decide for yourselves if you havent heard of it before of course.

I would agree with Blackmarketeer's comments; Plato took a number of myths and stories, some based on fact, incorporated Greek memories of the Minoans, the Mycenaen age, etc and used it for a discussion on political matters. It's a story

We may never know at all, or it could be right under our noses. Thera was known to the Greeks as well as the Egyptians, but the original Atlantis was not known to the Greeks otherwise Solon would have known about it, but it seemed to be family legend until Plato investigated.

But it's like any other legend, the descriptions can be vague and embellished. What would Solon consider to be advanced more than what the Greeks felt themselves as being? The Greeks considered themselves advanced as did the Romans and now as the world does today. The Egyptians gave the direction, but Plato said beyond the pillars of Hercules. Unless Plato had actually seen the temple of Osiris and the city in which Heryshaf was worshiped, then he would not have associated it to that.

Temples have pillars and Heryshaf was known as the god of the riverwww.ancientegyptonline.co.uk...

I found a reference here to what might lead to it. The references to Heryshef was in the Palermo stone, which was found in what was considered the first stone building, built before the pyramids. It records the Egyptians having trade with an unnamed city

The Palermo Stone confirms that the ancient Egyptians had already developed the technology to smelt copper and create copper statues by the Second dynasty and it records a trading mission to an unnamed exotic land during the reign of Sneferu which returned with forty ships bearing precious wood and mining expeditions to Sinai to quarry turquoise. The stone also records military expeditions by Den to the east and by Sneferu to Nubia and Libya

www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk...

That seems to be a big trade expedition, in which Atlantis was known for to the Egyptian tale. The fact that Greece had not traded there is important to note, if Greece had traded with Atlantis, it would not be a mystery to them.

It appears from the Palermo Stone that the trade involved not only wood, but turquoise as well. The most notable places for mining turquoise was Afghanistan; Australia (Victoria and Queensland); north India; northern Chile (Chuquicamata); Cornwall; Saxony; Silesia; and Turkestan, The United States, China, Iran and Afghanistan and Sinai.

Someone mentioned India in this thread so that could be plausible. Turquoise was used by Egyptian pharaohs from that time

The Egyptian use of turquoise stretches back as far as the First Dynasty and possibly earlier; however, probably the most well-known pieces incorporating the gem are those recovered from Tutankhamun's tomb, most notably the Pharaoh's iconic burial mask which was liberally inlaid with the stone. It also adorned rings and great sweeping necklaces called pectorals. Set in gold, the gem was fashioned into beads, used as inlay, and often carved in a scarab motif, accompanied by carnelian, lapis lazuli, and in later pieces, coloured glass. Turquoise, associated with the goddess Hathor, was so liked by the Ancient Egyptians that it became (arguably) the first gemstone to be imitated, the fair structure created by an artificial glazed ceramic product known as faience. (A similar blue ceramic has been recovered from Bronze Age burial sites in the British Isles.)

So perhaps we follow the turquoise.

Rather a stretch don't your think?

We have a fair idea of the level of AE seamanship and vessels - their coastal voyages to Punt were one thing voyages into the Atlantic another - if that is what you are suggesting.

Plato may have made up the story about Salon's part; it is a common literary device - still used today.

So under what criteria are you cherry picking information out of T & C? Why do you accept or reject the alleged age of Atlantis, the size of the continent it was on, and did the Athenians actually defeat them?

Originally posted by Hanslune
Rather a stretch don't your think?

We have a fair idea of the level of AE seamanship and vessels - their coastal voyages to Punt were one thing voyages into the Atlantic another - if that is what you are suggesting.

Plato may have made up the story about Salon's part; it is a common literary device - still used today.

So under what criteria are you cherry picking information out of T & C? Why do you accept or reject the alleged age of Atlantis, the size of the continent it was on, and did the Athenians actually defeat them?

I am merely proposing a theory. I posted the information about their voyages, but never intimated it was anything other than a theory. And all the scientists have done is propose their own theories. You can dismiss my theory if you wish.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Howdy

Yes I was counter-theorizing, its what one does to arrive at an understand of an idea or hypothesis.

reply to post by Hanslune


The exact line, according to most translations I've read, is that Atlantis was an "island the size of a continent". Now, there are two possible interpretations of this line:

1)It was literally a humongous island similiar in size to Greenland or Australia
2)It was a pretty big island(but still just an island)that had the equivalent political, military, and economic might of an entire continent at its disposal.

Going by the subsequent descriptions of Atlantis' societal structure and general resources and the fact that they were said to have conquered all the territory between the island itself and Egypt and Greece, it seems Plato more than likely meant interpretation two.

Also, he later states that beyond Atlantis lies "the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent ". If Atlantis and this landmass beyond it were both continents, why would he have bothered calling Atlantis an island in the first place and then contrasting it with the 'true' continent beyond it? Not only that but this is actually a pretty accurate geographical description of what lies within the Atlantic Ocean(Atlantis' questionable authenticity notwithstanding lol) between the Strait of Gibraltar and North America(including the existence of the North American continent itself). Anyone who lived at a time when the known world was this...



...and then writes such an accurate description of the area in question is either very lucky or just might possibly be telling the truth(as best as he knows it).

So, let me ask you Hanslune, if Atlantis were closer to the size of someplace like Ireland, Iceland or Sicily, would you be more willing to admit that it could have existed?


But anyway, to get back to the main point of the thread....

I'd also begun to research along these lines but I only got as far as trying to find the AE equivalent of Atlas and was subsequently distracted by life. lol However, along a similar line of reasoning, I did go so far as to see what the AEs various units of length were. I found that, if the stadia was replaced with the khet, the size of the island was reduced from somewhat larger than South Dakota to something similar in size to Ireland(or about a third of the stadia-based size). I chose the khet because it was the only measurement that came remotely close to the stadia in size(stadia is 185.013m and the khet is 52.5m). The other closest measurements in the scale were the royal cubit(52.5cm) and the river measure(10.5km) both of which are obviously not even close enough in size to be mistaken for/substituted with the stadia(not to mention that the resulting dimensions would produce an island and a city for Lilliputians or giants depending on which way you went with it lol).

reply to post by Hanslune


You are correct, that is exactly what i was referring too. Cheers for the info.

Originally posted by Mad Simian
Anyone who lived at a time when the known world was this...

at the time of atlantis part of your map was really different... alot of extra seas

Originally posted by Mad Simian
I found that, if the stadia was replaced with the khet

there was a little khet for around town and a big khet for long distances. the big khet was 1000 normal strides of a manwoman [average sized person].

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Redevilfan09
reply to post by Picollo30

 

I cant remember the name of the island but archaeologists found a city buried under volcanic ash on one of the greek islands. the dug straight through the roofs of one of the houses underneath. With this volcano came a 100ft tsnami which wiped out another island and it is said this is a fact simply because sea shells have been found in the mountains.

You are thinking of Thera which is on the island of Santorini I do believe and the island hit was Crete and the suffers were the Minoan civilization.

I would agree with Blackmarketeer's comments; Plato took a number of myths and stories, some based on fact, incorporated Greek memories of the Minoans, the Mycenaen age, etc and used it for a discussion on political matters. It's a story

I cant tell you this was Atlantis, but all the evidence that the guy provides makes it a possibility. I cant get the sources right now but when I get the time I will and yous can decide for yourselves if you havent heard of it before of course.

Just to add a little, but Phoenicia had a lot of Minoans and Cretans. Goliath of the Bible was supposed to have come from Crete. The Phoenicians' name for Minoa was Herakleia Minoa, and later just Herarkleia. (As in Heracles or Hercules.) The Phoenicians had their own Heracles in Melqart.

Are you thinking of Ignatius Donnelly's Atlantis: The Antediluvian World? It was published in 1882.

reply to post by Mad Simian



Did the ancient Greeks even know the concept of continents? Alexander the Great traveled through much of the Mediterranean and the Near East and Egypt, but I don't think he even sailed past the Straits of Gibraltar. The only ones who would have were sea-merchants. They would have surely come home with fantastic tales. Which is interesting because the story did not even come from Greek sailors, but Egyptians. That is the point we have to understand, it came originally from the Egyptians.

There is much evidence of Egyptian sea merchants doing trade, and according to the previously mentioned Palermo Stone, Egypt had done trade by sea with an unnamed island. I like the reasoning about the Egyptian measurements, that makes a lot of sense.

We know that ancient temples had pillars. The Egyptian god Heryshaf was identified by the Greeks as Heracles, later Hercules. Heryshaf was identified with Osiris and Ra, and his temple is at Abydos. That temple had pillars. And that temple is on a river. I found an interesting thing, there is a dry river bed now called Wadi Hammamat that leads from the Nile to the Red Sea and in ancient times, was a direct route to begin trade with Asia.

Hammamat became the major route from Thebes to the Red Sea port of Elim, and then to the Silk Road that led to Asia, or to Arabia and the horn of Africa. This 200 km journey was the most direct route from the Nile to the Red Sea, as the Nile bends toward the coast at the western end of the wadi. The Hammamat route ran from Qift, located just north of Luxor, to Quseir on the coast of the Red Sea. Qift was called Coptos by the Greeks, and it was an important center for administration, religion, and commerce. The cities at both ends of the route were established by the First Dynasty, although evidence of predynastic occupation also has been found along the route.[1]

Abdydos is near Thebes. The assumption seems to be solely on the ports in the Mediterranean. Which is why I think they are looking in the wrong direction. Did Plato ever travel to Abydos or Thebes?

I think that the story of "Atlantis" actually refers to the destruction of the Minoan civilisation after the eruption of Thera. It was hit by a massive tsunami that led to the collapse of this entire civilisation, which was pretty advanced for its time.

Here is a source which may shed some light on my theory and I just found it this morning. koenraadelst.bharatvani.org...

In a recent book, Eden in the East: the Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia (Phoenix paperback, London 1999 (1998)), Stephen Oppenheimer has focused on one such part of the continental shelf: the region between Malaysia, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Thailand, Vietnam, China and Taiwan, which was largely inhabitable during the Ice Age. Thinking that this was then the most advanced centre of civilization, he calls it Eden, the Biblical name of Paradise (from Sumerian edin, "alluvial plain"), because West-Asian sources including the Bible do locate the origin of mankind or at least of civilization in the East. In some cases, as in Sumerian references, this "East" is clearly the pre-Harappan and Harappan culture, but even more easterly countries seem to be involved.

According to Oppenheimer, the Southeast-Asian Atlantis, provisionally called Sundaland because it now is the Sunda shelf, was the world leader in the Neolithic Revolution (start of agriculture), using stones for grinding wild grains as early as 24,000 ago, more than ten thousand years older than in Egypt or Palestine. Before and especially during the gradual flooding of their lowland, the Sundalanders spread out to neighbouring lands: the Asian mainland including China, India and Mesopotamia, and the island world from Madagascar to the Philippines and New Guinea, whence they later colonized Polynesia as far as Easter Island, Hawaii and New Zealand.

Again, the Palermo Stone records expeditions to an unnamed exotic land. The area Sundaland is part of the Sunda Shelf and archeological evidence supports a culture older than Ancient Egypt. I would be interested to find out more about Sundaland.

Originally posted by windword
Here's a link to an epic thread by Zorgon, on the city of Dwarka, India and the lost city under the sea. Great read!
Dwarka, India 12,000 Year Old City of Lord Krishna Found,

Within the thread are numerous links to sources on Lemuria and Atlantis theories.

I found some sources similar to your research. I tend to lean toward your side here.

Just for the readers here is the full quote from T & C

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent.

Now this statement is (as part of the story) said by an Egyptian priest; it is interesting that he says,

an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles

He clearly ID's the straits of Gibraltar as the Pillars of Heracles, 'which are by you called', this seems to demonish your creative attempt to change the location of the Pillars...

Atlantis has been 'found' pretty much all over the world, its a great story and like Harry Potter and Gone with the Wind those story are placed in a real world, but the story themselves are just that stories.

At the time of Plato writing this the actual size of Libya and Asia wasn't known, Plato may have known about Hanno voyage, or Necho's circumnavigation of Africa. He certainly didn't know just how vast Asia actually is.

The only way to solve the Atlantis challenge - is to find Atlantis, however with T & C as your only guide and as some of the information in it are demonstratively false....we wish you luck and good hunting

Plato is pretty clear about where Atlantis was supposed to be, and the Azores plateau matches the description really well. He even suggests a possible cause for its destruction -- a catastrophe involving a wayward celestial body (comet or asteroid, maybe) interacting with the Earth. I don't think there is any reason to look elsewhere than the Azores, except to maybe try and locate traces of old outposts which by now have been inundated or built and re-built over so many times that they'd be unrecognizable.

There was a lot of myth thrown into the story, too, and if Atlantis existed it probably wasn't nearly as sophisticated as told, and it was so damned long ago finding any good evidence of it will be practically impossible. We have very limited ability to do good underwater archeology, and even genetic mapping of the Clovis people is difficult, since so many Native American tribes have vanished or dwindled to such an extent we can't get good DNA tests from them.

But what the heck. It's a hobby. Maybe something interesting will turn up. Of all the crazy myths out there, Atlantis might have some chance of being at least partially verified.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
The first to write of Atlantis was Solon, Plato's ancestor. Plato inherited the tale from him and then set off in pursuit of it, perhaps to complete it.

So Plato claimed. No evidence that Solon ever heard or wrote about this has ever been found.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
He traveled to Egypt and heard an earful from Monetho,

It is known that both Solon and Plato travelled to Egypt (among several other countries) during their "golden years." It is also known that Plato died before Manetho was born so it's unlikely that they ever met.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
My guess is that when Plato got to Egypt the Egyptian priest could only tell him tales of the sea peoples and their war with Ramses III, which Plato took to be the Atlantians. (Plato may have even gotten the name "Atlantis" from "Tarantulus").

A reasonable guess, but it is just as likely that Plato made the whole thing up.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
I think the historical city and peoples that supplied the fuel for Plato's Atlantis tales are those of Tartessos/Tarshish. They warred with Egypt as well as the Hittites. There city lay on the coastline just past the "Pillars of Hercules", along the Atlantic coast of Spain.

This is possible, assuming Plato based his tale on anything real at all. However, in Sais (where Solon supposedly heard the story) there are columns as described by Plato that do tell sort of a story. They show Egyptian renditions of the people that we today call Minoans.

Another possibility is the destruction of Helike, which happened during Plato's life and not too far from where he grew up.

Lastly, there exists no Egyptian mythos that resembles that of Atlantis. At least, none that has been found. Obviously, if it was still around as a myth in 350 BCE, we should have been able to find something similar in over a century of archaeology in Egypt.

So, IMO, it doesn't exist, and Atlantis never existed.

Harte

reply to post by Hanslune


"For in those days the Atlantic was navigable" Was there a time when it was not navigable? I am not trying to be silly here, but do you suppose the ones who heard it later did the exact thing we are doing now? They didn't know so they embellished?

Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by Hanslune

 

"For in those days the Atlantic was navigable" Was there a time when it was not navigable? I am not trying to be silly here, but do you suppose the ones who heard it later did the exact thing we are doing now? They didn't know so they embellished?

The Greeks were unable to navigate the Atlantic during Plato's time.

That's what I've always taken that passage to mean.

See, he mentions the presence of Atlantis and other islands, indicating navigability through staying within eyesight of the coast of said islands, which is (mainly) what was done in the Med., though they often did sail straight across.

Harte

Originally posted by WarminIndy
"For in those days the Atlantic was navigable" Was there a time when it was not navigable? I am not trying to be silly here, but do you suppose the ones who heard it later did the exact thing we are doing now? They didn't know so they embellished?

He's probably referring to the Sargasso Sea in the middle of the Atlantic, which in some cases might make the Atlantic very difficult to navigate for boat with a sail. It's a surprisingly large area choked with all kinds of stagnant seaweed that never makes it into the Gulf Stream current. These days, it also accumulates a lot of floating garbage. A larger landmass along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge might make the current move with a bit more force and float that stuff away, clearing the southern Atlantic for easier ship traffic from Africa to the Caribbean and Central America (The Olmecs?)

It's another interesting tidbit he mentions that he really should have no business knowing about, since Atlantic ocean travel was supposed to be quite limited in his day.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

He's probably referring to the Sargasso Sea in the middle of the Atlantic, which in some cases might make the Atlantic very difficult to navigate for boat with a sail. It's a surprisingly large area choked with all kinds of stagnant seaweed that never makes it into the Gulf Stream current. These days, it also accumulates a lot of floating garbage. A larger landmass along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge might make the current move with a bit more force and float that stuff away, clearing the southern Atlantic for easier ship traffic from Africa to the Caribbean and Central America (The Olmecs?)

It's another interesting tidbit he mentions that he really should have no business knowing about, since Atlantic ocean travel was supposed to be quite limited in his day.

Pytheas of Massalia traveled on the west side of the Atlantic using the local shipping. It would appear that coastal shipping was well developed as demonstrated by the trade in Tin from Corwall back to the Med.

The Sargasso, although interesting, poises no difficulty to ships with sails. I've not seen any reference to that in sources from the 15th century on.

Until recently no sign of any early culture on the Azores. There were reports a year or so ago but I have seen the publication and if they were Phoencian or otherwise.

"For in those days the Atlantic was navigable" Was there a time when it was not navigable? I am not trying to be silly here, but do you suppose the ones who heard it later did the exact thing we are doing now? They didn't know so they embellished?

As far as we know you could sail in the Atlantic unfortunately sailing around the Med doesn't prepare one's naval technology for the type of waves and wind you get in the Atlantic. It took a long time to develop that technology. This may be a faint echo of the rumoured Phoencian propaganda campaign to keep others out of the Tin trade but one doesn't know

Plato is pretty clear about where Atlantis was supposed to be, and the Azores plateau matches the description really well. He even suggests a possible cause for its destruction -- a catastrophe involving a wayward celestial body (comet or asteroid, maybe) interacting with the Earth

Did he? I don't recall that in T & C, could you link us to that quote please, thanks

Unless you are referring to this passage?

There is a story, which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Paethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt.

reply to post by Parta


As to the first part, I was referring to Plato himself and the general times he lived in. As to the second part, I was using Wikipedia as a source which listed only one khet(also called a rod if that's any help in clearing up confusion). Would you be so kind as to give me a source where I could find the exact measurements for these two variant khets? If one or the other is closer to the stadia, I would have to alter or completely abandon this line of reasoning.

reply to post by Hanslune


Ok, I can't quite tell if you are replying to the OP or me but your quote shows the problem I semi-referred to earlier(i.e. several different translations of T & C are floating around the internets that have subtle but noticable differences). However, in the case of whether it originally said either "larger than a continent" or "larger than Libya and Asia Minor combined"(use of 'Asia Minor' being another version I've seen), what I was trying to say still stands.

So, what say you? If Atlantis was a smaller island closer in size to someplace like Ireland or Sicily, would you be more apt to believe it could have actually existed?