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

I have always felt the story of atlantis was allegorical, and never intended to be taken literally

so I'd say anyone looking at all is looking in the wrong place

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I have always felt the story of atlantis was allegorical, and never intended to be taken literally

so I'd say anyone looking at all is looking in the wrong place

That is the consensus; once upon a time a scholar who came up with a highly unlikely dissertation idea was said to be, 'trying to search for Atlantis'.

reply to post by HappyBunny


A thank you from me too for that info on the Phoenician style of construction. The only reason I even considered it as a possible Atlantean site was that difference in stone size and masonry style between the foundations and the upper levels of the ruins. and you've put that neatly to bed. Now, if only someone could discover and dig up the ruins of Tartessos, I can either negate or incorporate it into my studies as well.

Originally posted by Mad Simian
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

A thank you from me too for that info on the Phoenician style of construction. The only reason I even considered it as a possible Atlantean site was that difference in stone size and masonry style between the foundations and the upper levels of the ruins. and you've put that neatly to bed. Now, if only someone could discover and dig up the ruins of Tartessos, I can either negate or incorporate it into my studies as well.

Hi there!

Did you know about this?

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Originally posted by Mad Simian
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

A thank you from me too for that info on the Phoenician style of construction. The only reason I even considered it as a possible Atlantean site was that difference in stone size and masonry style between the foundations and the upper levels of the ruins. and you've put that neatly to bed. Now, if only someone could discover and dig up the ruins of Tartessos, I can either negate or incorporate it into my studies as well.

Well these guys have done work on it

Adolf Schulten, J.M. Luzón, William Oldfather and more recently Richard Freund and Simcha Jacobovici have found items and made theories on this city being an 'Atlantis' or associating it with the biblical Tarshish; in archaeology the Phonician site is referred to as Huevla and other ruins are found in the Doñana National Park. All presently known information points to a Phonician settlement of around 7th century BC

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Mad Simian
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

A thank you from me too for that info on the Phoenician style of construction. The only reason I even considered it as a possible Atlantean site was that difference in stone size and masonry style between the foundations and the upper levels of the ruins. and you've put that neatly to bed. Now, if only someone could discover and dig up the ruins of Tartessos, I can either negate or incorporate it into my studies as well.

Well these guys have done work on it

Adolf Schulten, J.M. Luzón, William Oldfather and more recently Richard Freund and Simcha Jacobovici have found items and made theories on this city being an 'Atlantis' or associating it with the biblical Tarshish; in archaeology the Phonician site is referred to as Huevla and other ruins are found in the Doñana National Park. All presently known information points to a Phonician settlement of around 7th century BC

I always took Tarshish to be Tartessos for some reason.

Originally posted by HappyBunny


I always took Tarshish to be Tartessos for some reason.

I believe both names were associated with mineral wealth

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by HappyBunny


I always took Tarshish to be Tartessos for some reason.

I believe both names were associated with mineral wealth

edit on 21/11/11 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

Silver? Spain is famous for it.

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by HappyBunny


I always took Tarshish to be Tartessos for some reason.

I believe both names were associated with mineral wealth

edit on 21/11/11 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

Silver? Spain is famous for it.

Iberian metals

From the eighth century BC, there was mining in the area but it was the Romans who exploited the mines with greater intensity, thanks to its strategic position in the Mediterranean. This southern area of Lusitania, a Roman province for several centuries, was an abundant source of mineral ore which included gold, silver, copper, tin, lead, and iron

Tin and copper were the main draws in the early part of the first millennium BC and it that production that probably drew in the Phoenicians

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by HappyBunny


I always took Tarshish to be Tartessos for some reason.

I believe both names were associated with mineral wealth

edit on 21/11/11 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

Silver? Spain is famous for it.

Iberian metals

From the eighth century BC, there was mining in the area but it was the Romans who exploited the mines with greater intensity, thanks to its strategic position in the Mediterranean. This southern area of Lusitania, a Roman province for several centuries, was an abundant source of mineral ore which included gold, silver, copper, tin, lead, and iron

Tin and copper were the main draws in the early part of the first millennium BC and it that production that probably drew in the Phoenicians

Aah. If they were mining cassiterite, that would explain the tin. My first thought was, of course, Cornwall, which had extensive tin and copper mines and they also mined zinc and silver. (Scotland was known for its gold reserves.) The Phoenicians most likely went there to trade for it. That would have been a whole lot easier from a Spanish base.

I'm getting an education on the Phoenicians here, that's for sure!

Those Phoenicians were 'out and about' early on. You might look at Hanno the navigator and Necho's circumnavigation of Africa

Hanno

Necho's Phoenicians

If interested in the tin mines of Cornwall look to the story the Greek Pytheas who went there

Pytheas the Greek who went north

Originally posted by Hanslune
Those Phoenicians were 'out and about' early on. You might look at Hanno the navigator and Necho's circumnavigation of Africa

Hanno

Necho's Phoenicians

If interested in the tin mines of Cornwall look to the story the Greek Pytheas who went there

Pytheas the Greek who went north

edit on 21/11/11 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

Very interesting!

I don't suppose you'd know of any good books on the subject?

Originally posted by HappyBunny


I don't suppose you'd know of any good books on the subject?

I just read Barry Cunliffe's 'The extraordinary voyage of Pytheas the Greek', ISBN 0-8027-1393-9 the other two I don't recall a separate book on.

reply to post by Hanslune


I love Simcha Jacobivici. I watch his show whenever I can catch it. I loved his special show about the Exodus. Simcha is one of those rare archeologists that manages to find information about history in places other archeologists don't look.

Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by Hanslune

 

I love Simcha Jacobivici. I watch his show whenever I can catch it. I loved his special show about the Exodus. Simcha is one of those rare archeologists that manages to find information about history in places other archeologists don't look.

He also managed to completely ignore the recent (at the time) findings of the date of the Thera eruption, and went ahead and based his entire Exodus thesis on a date that he knew (at the time) was completely wrong.

IOW, he's a liar.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte


IOW, he's a liar.

Harte

We prefer the term, 'showman'......

Originally posted by WarminIndy
According to the legend of Atlantis, it was Solon who heard it from the Egyptians. I think therefore that the search should begin with Egyptian sources. Too often we hear of Thera, which was well known to the Greeks as well as the Pillars of Hercules. Why do they insist on looking at Greek sources when the story obviously comes from Egypt?

Because the story comes from Sais, Egypt and Sais had an extremely large "Greek" or rather "pre-Greek" population.

Think of Egypt as a melting pot of different groups from different origins.
1. Vulture Goddess worshipping red-heads moved into south Egypt.
2. Black Africans moved north into Egypt after the delta region became fertile again as during the last glacial, it was rolling sand dunes and the Sahara was double in size.
3. Various groups from Mesopotamia, Levant and Palestine moved in by land.
4. Boat groups from Cyprus (papyrus originates from the island of Cyprus), Rhodes, Kassos-Karpathos, Crete, the Dodecanese islands and the Cyclades islands moved into the delta region of Egypt after the delta became fertile c. 4000 BCE.

Bear in mind that those of group 4 would be "pre-Greek" groups since they started up different colonies on the Egypt coastline c. 4000 BCE and after. Collectively what we call Greece now would be those tribes from the Greece mainland who united with different tribes on various islands to collectively call themselves Greeks.

Now the patron deity of the city of Sais was the Serpent Goddess and this is important because Solon got his story from a PRIEST in Sais. The story most likely comes from a priest for the patron deity of the city and it would have to be a deity that the Greeks, Romans and the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches would do everything to erase the existence of.

In modern times, most call the Egyptian Serpent Goddess of Sais "Wa-djet", but that might be a slightly incorrect pronunciation. The "W" sound might very well be the "Rh" sound and since there's two feather hieroglyphs for the "a" sound, the double feathers might be the "ea" sound rather than a singular "a" sound. So her name could very well be "Rhea-djet" instead of "Wa-djet".

Either way, the Serpent Goddess of Sais would be very similar to the Serpent Goddess of Crete and other Aegean-Mediterranean islands.

Snakes, Egypt, Magic & Women

Crete's Snake Goddess

After Solon gets the story from the Sais Serpent Goddess Priest, Plato takes the story and puts it in terms of the "new Pantheon"-- or in terms of MALE Greek deities. The Serpent Goddess of Sais and Crete would be considered a TITAN deity, or of the religions on the islands before Zeus-worship began. Remember, Zeus-worship began on the island of Crete and his mother was Rhea, the most prominent deity on Crete which is also the Serpent Goddess. After Zeus-worship rose up, Rhea was reduced from her fierce serpent qualities to the mere motherly qualities of child-bearing as Zeus' mother. And Greeks worshipping Zeus and his brother Poseidon sought to get rid of Titan deity worship by reducing their power and scope and re-writing myths and stories belonging to each Titan deity.

So, just in the fact that Plato rewrites the sunken island story in terms of the god Poseidon, his son Atlas, his granddaughters the Atlatides...it means that Plato was rewriting the religion of the original story, therefore, the original story had to be in terms of Titan deities, or pre-Zeus-worship and pre-Poseidon-worship deities. So the Greeks of the Classical Period of Ancient Greece would want the story re-written and Sais' and Crete's TITAN Serpent Goddess written out of the story. Romans hated the Serpent Goddess because of the power it gave women, so Romans would have destroyed anything giving women power. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches would have sought to destroy the Serpent Goddess because they associated the serpent with satan.

So all groups (Classical Greeks, Romans, Orthodox-Catholics) allowed the story of the sunken island to stay in existence with its Poseidon re-write, but would have eradicated all versions of the story with the Titan deity--the Sais Serpent Goddess in the story.

But even if it's Sais' Serpent Goddess, she's still closely related to the very same Serpent Goddess worshipped on Crete (Zeus' mom) and all the other islands that worshipped her in the past. Since it was those pre-Greek groups that settled the delta region after the delta became fertile c. 4000 BCE, then archeologists still have to look to Greek-Aegean islands.

After doing some research, I've found that Plato's date of the sinking of Atlantis matches up with a radiocarbon dating of a core sample which shows evidence of a massive/vast flood of glacial melt-water dumping into the Gulf of Mexico around 9600 B.C (which may be related to the Clovis Extinction Event). This flood could have created a tsunami that traveled across the Atlantic Ocean to hit the western coasts of Europe and Africa and through the Straits of Gibraltar into the Mediterranean.

I posted it over on TalkParanormal.com a while back but I should probably copy it here.

www.talkparanormal.com...

So, Plato stated that the sinking of Atlantis occurred in 9600 B.C. or 11,600 years ago.

en.wikipedia.org...

After doing some unrelated research, I've found that that date of Atlantis is right in the middle of the time-frame of the Clovis extinction event theory. There's two dates for the event - an 'uncalibrated' date of 10,900 years ago and a 'calibrated' date of 12,900 years ago. Basically, a group of scientists have determined that there was a possible astronomical event (asteroid or comet impact) that killed off the Clovis pre-Native American culture in North America and most of the larger MegaFauna (Woolly Mammoth, Saber-toothed Tiger, etc...) in North America and possibly melted off a good part of the 1 to 4 mile thick North American glacier.

en.wikipedia.org...

There's also evidence that there was a 'vast amount of fresh melt water poured into the Gulf of Mexico' right at the very same time.

www.earthage.org...

I think this is possible evidence that Atlantis COULD have existed, even if Plato embellished on the story. If the sea levels rose in a very short period of time from a impact by a comet/asteroid into the North American glaciers (in a day), it could easily have overwhelmed an anchored sea community like Atlantis is described as. Even a rise of only 15 feet of sea level would have flooded any one-story buildings. Plus an impact large enough could have set off world-wide earthquakes. Or even the added sea level could have shifted unstable tectonic plates.

Anyone else come across this or do any research on this? On a side note, if an impact like that kicked up enough water/moisture into the atmosphere, could it have rained for 40 days and 40 nights?
* * * * *
cranium Wrote: Do you think this may have been a planet X orbit event ?

I've thought about that myself, and that would mean that Earth got a 65 million year reprieve. They've got fossil evidence of a repeating impact events every 65 million years, that they theorize comes from this Planet X or whatever in the outer reaches of the solar system, one of which is the event that killed off the dinosaurs. People keep saying we're overdue for another impact. I'll bet it already happened 12,000 years ago. Because I'd bet that we wouldn't be here right now if that object impacted into dirt instead of a glacier.

It's possible that the object was radioactive as they've found evidence of radioactivity in the Clovis bones. Now to me, that suggests that North America was either covered with radioactive steam and the Clovis people inhaled it or their food ended up contaminated and they kept ingesting it until it killed them. Possibly both.

There's another possibility that Dr. Firestone (I think he's at Berkley if I remember right) came up with that it may have been a remnant of a supernova from about 300 light years away. Although the evidence points more towards a comet/asteroid. I'd think there would be a ton more radioactive evidence if the Earth were struck by something that came from the surface (or even the interior) of a star. Something like that could still have had a fusion reaction ongoing when it struck.

I could be wrong, tho.

There's a lot of this they don't know about. It's only a theory for some of it. And there are other scientists that are disputing some of the theory.

But there is evidence of a flood. And I think that's good enough for me to believe that Plato was talking about a real event. Even if he did make up the parts about flying machines and a statue of Poseidon in the middle of Atlantis. Because 11,600 years ago, no one would have probably heard of the name Poseidon since the Roman culture that came up with the name Poseidon wouldn't exist for another 8,000 years or so. Might have been a statue of a fisherman.

But for Plato to make up that date or just pull the date out of a hat and to have it coincidentally end up matching scientific evidence of a flood would be such a monumental coincidence that it's probably not even worth considering. It's the EXACT date they mention in the third link I posted.