South America: The Definitive Geographic Location Of Atlantis

reply to post by Hanslune

Thanks Hanslune,

I ran across Scott in the past on another forum and am familiar with his work on ancient Egypt and the pyramids, but I have not seen any of his discussions on Atlantis. I will certainly look into it.

Thanks again,
Doug

reply to post by Doug Fisher


He has kinda shy away from the name Atlantis, I believe he needs some sort of advance human culture to have existed because they, in his theory gave x and y to the Egyptians.

I don't think 'Atlantis' is a place I think it is an era, like the roaring twenties or the Middle Ages

or maybe it is what someone?used to call Earth ,back when 'they' were the dominant species?

you can't have it both ways either there was a worldwide technological culture, trade government etc:Atlantis

or there was city Atlantis

which was it ?and how would we know it if we found it?

Originally posted by MrsBlonde
I don't think 'Atlantis' is a place I think it is an era, like the roaring twenties or the Middle Ages

or maybe it is what someone?used to call Earth ,back when 'they' were the dominant species?

you can't have it both ways either there was a worldwide technological culture, trade government etc:Atlantis

or there was city Atlantis

which was it ?and how would we know it if we found it?

Thats an interesting idea, although when you read the actual description of Atlantis he is quite specific in saying it was a place, but I do believe the era of Atlantis there were many other civilizations like them, they were just the ones Plato described because they directly affected the Greeks. Besies why can't you have it both ways? You can have the city of Atlantis which was a technological culture maybe not worldwide but then again it's not said they expanded across the world.

Originally posted by MrsBlonde
you can't have it both ways either there was a worldwide technological culture, trade government etc:Atlantis
or there was city Atlantis

which was it ?

There is a third way, you know.

It never actually existed.

Harte

reply to post by Doug Fisher

sorry got mixed up

Just a note, I recently got around to updating the image included in section VII, the conclusion, and have also included it below. Based on the possibility that South America is Atlantis, the map portrays the regions of Atlantis bequeathed to twin brothers Atlas and Gadeirus while highlighting the scope of influence and travel of the Atlanteans implied by Plato's account.

Map portraying the regions of Atlantis bequeathed to twin brothers Atlas and Gadeirus while highlighting the Atlantean scope of influence and travel.

In part it also addresses Harte's comment regarding Gades, by demonstrating how Gadeirus would face toward Gades, being the region of Atlantis closest toward Gades.

"To his twin brother, who was born after him, and obtained as his lot the extremity of the island towards the Pillars of Heracles, facing the country which is now called the region of Gades in that part of the world, he gave the name which in the Hellenic language is Eumelus, in the language of the country which is named after him, Gadeirus." - Critias 114a,b

The map also highlights another significant and highly compelling argument in support of my South American hypothesis. Plato's account accurately mimics a traveler's perspective of sailing to South America from the Mediterranean, an ordered geographic description that a traveler would have relayed to the inhabitants of the Mediterranean such as the Egyptians.

If an ancient traveler did sail to Atlantis on their way to the capital city allegedly located in the Rio de la Plata, they would have preferred spending the least amount of time on the open seas and done so by launching out into the Atlantic from the westernmost point of Africa toward the easternmost point of South America. Hence the reason the account would include a reference to Gadeirus facing toward Gades and the Pillars of Heracles. With the traveler expressing that one did not arrive directly at the region of Atlas, but at Gadeirus, when traveling to Atlantis it would have implied that Gadeirus was nearest or toward the Pillars of Heracles.

The traveler's perspective is further demonstrated as the account implies that once arriving at Atlantis, one would continue traveling down the side of a "lofty and precipitous" coastline which would accurately describe the course along the Brazilian coast lined by the Brazilian Highlands. Finally, halfway down the continent's coast, in the "center of the" continent, the country transitions markedly to a flat plain, the location of the capital city and the rectangular plain. Again, very accurate in its description of South America's western coastline from Brazil downward.

"Looking towards the sea, but in the centre of the whole island, there was a plain which is said to have been the fairest of all plains and very fertile." - Critias 113c

"The whole country was said by him to be very lofty and precipitous on the side of the sea, but the country immediately about and surrounding the city was a level plain" - Critias 118a

In the same vein, the traveler's perspective is further revealed in noting that there exists a group of islands which one could reach not before, but after arriving at Atlantis. Islands which provided a route to a second continent lying at the opposite end.

The island [Atlantis/South America] was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands [the Caribbean Islands], and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent [North America] which surrounded the true ocean" - Timaeus 24e-25a

Regardless if ever there was a war with Atlantis, or an empire to the extent described by Plato, the evidence strongly suggests an uncanny familiarity with the Americas some time in the ancient past.

-Doug

Got to bookmark this.
Thanks for sharing !

reply to post by Doug Fisher


You ignore this part of your own quote from Critias:

facing the country which is now called the region of Gades in that part of the world

You're not in that part of the world.

The eastern coast of Africa also faces Gades, according to your logic.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte
reply to post by Doug Fisher

 

You ignore this part of your own quote from Critias:

facing the country which is now called the region of Gades in that part of the world

Hello Harte,

I do not think it is accurate to say that I have ignored that portion of the quote, the meaning seemed obvious so I did not see the need to explain it. Regardless, the updated image above should have helped in visualizing that simple concept, but I will address it more directly for you now. Following is the quote in its full context:

"To his twin brother, who was born after him, and obtained as his lot the extremity of the island towards the Pillars of Heracles, facing the country which is now called the region of Gades in that part of the world, he gave the name which in the Hellenic language is Eumelus, in the language of the country which is named after him, Gadeirus." - Critias 114a,b

Let's take a look at the first part of this passage. Gadeirus, the twin brother of Atlas, "obtained as his lot the extremity of the island towards the Pillars of Heracles."

Next, consider that Gades or modern day Cadiz lies in southwestern Spain in the immediate vicinity or "in that part of the world" where the Pillars of Heracles lie. (See map above) So it stands to reason that if a region of Atlantis faces toward the Pillars of Heracles it also faces toward Gades lying in that same part of the world.

You're (Atlantis?!) not in that part of the world.

That is a correct statement. Gades is "in that part of the world" as Critias states.

The eastern coast of Africa also faces Gades, according to your logic.

According to whose logic? I have absolutely no idea how you arrived at this or how in any way the eastern coast of Africa can be perceived as facing Gades, so I may have missed your meaning here. Just to give you a clear idea of what Critias is clearly conveying, below I have incorporated the quote in question into modern geographic examples where, like the region of Gadeirus on the island continent of Atlantis, a region of a continent faces toward the Pillars of Heracles and Gades which exists in that same part of the world.

AFRICA: Morocco lies "towards the Pillars of Heracles, facing the country which is now called the region of Gades in that part of the world." South Africa faces away.

NORTH AMERICA: New York lies "towards the Pillars of Heracles, facing the country which is now called the region of Gades in that part of the world." California faces away.

SOUTH AMERICA: Brazil lies "towards the Pillars of Heracles, facing the country which is now called the region of Gades in that part of the world." Chile faces away.

Hope this helps,
Doug

However if you are in California - which is on a globe you get to 'face' whatever it is you want.

While

Since we are lookiing in detail at Critias

[118b] all along the island, faced towards the South and was sheltered from the Northern blasts.

You have Atlantis in the south hemisphere - therefore the chilling blasts would be from the south

And the mountains which surrounded it were at that time celebrated as surpassing all that now exist in number, magnitude and beauty;

....I guess you could claim the Andes but they don't surround the area you have picked for the location of Atlantis

Why might that be?

Oh can you link back to where you explain about the trench please?

Originally posted by Hanslune
However if you are in California - which is on a globe you get to 'face' whatever it is you want.

Hello Hanslune,

This response is a bit rushed. I hope it is adequate.

Solon did not see the world as a sphere and Atlantis was being portrayed from Solon's perspective from within the Mediterranean outward.

Since we are lookiing in detail at Critias

[118b] all along the island, faced towards the South and was sheltered from the Northern blasts.

You have Atlantis in the south hemisphere - therefore the chilling blasts would be from the south

The plain was enclosed in the north so it is understandable that Solon would see it as sheltered from any winds out of the north, but open to any winds from the south.

And the mountains which surrounded it were at that time celebrated as surpassing all that now exist in number, magnitude and beauty;

....I guess you could claim the Andes but they don't surround the area you have picked for the location of Atlantis

Why might that be?

Why would you not claim the Andes as they are a portion of the mountains surrounding the plain. It is not necessary that the description of the mountains be all inclusive and there is likely a bit of opinion and hyperbole being thrown about, for instance beauty being subjective.

-Doug

...but you are selectively believing some parts and not believing others of what is written in Critias

Hmmmm I believe you are falling into that most dreaded intellectual trap of

'Picking by hand and eye those prunus avium which delight you and ignore those that don't'

I would further suggest that you make a matrix of all 'facts' in C & T and put these facts into one of two categories, accepted or rejected. I believe you would find this illuminating

You can start with that trench, accepted or rejected

Once you have them all lined up you can come up with a criteria and parameters of why you accept or reject

Another question and comment:

If we removed from the Nile valley and everywhere else where any presently known relic or sign of the ancient Egyptians existed. Now once every single above ground sign was gone - would we know they had been there?

Yes, a trained archaeologist would determine that rather quickly

The same can be said for the Minoan, Sumerian, Hittite, Akkadian, Dilmun, Bablyonian, Natufian, Roman, Greek and Harappa, etc

There would still be millions of tons of archaeological evidence that hasn't been found. Heck we can find stuff from hunter-gathers from 100,000's of thousands of years ago

So why zilch from Atlantis?

Originally posted by Hanslune
...but you are selectively believing some parts and not believing others of what is written in Critias

Hmmmm I believe you are falling into that most dreaded intellectual trap of

'Picking by hand and eye those prunus avium which delight you and ignore those that don't'

Hello Hanslune,

I think you are correct to a point, but I believe a more "dreaded intellectual trap" is demanding theories be fact which I have not done and for the record, I have been more than open about the give and take within my theory, even devoting a whole section to concessions. So I think it is wrong to suggest that I have ignored inconvenient aspects of the account. I even pointed out how my determination of the layout of the capital city walls were problematic in that they mimicked the Long walls of Athens. I actually think that discovery benefits the skeptics more than my theory.

The whole exercise of this particular submission was an attempt to decipher if it was possible to link Plato's highly detailed geographic description to a real world land and I admit again that it was necessary to pick and choose, but instead of ignoring portions of Plato's account, I did attempt to reconcile these passages within both textual and historical context.

You can start with that trench, accepted or rejected

If you are referring to the rectangular plain's perimeter, the subject was covered in the section on concessions.

Another question and comment:

If we removed from the Nile valley and everywhere else where any presently known relic or sign of the ancient Egyptians existed. Now once every single above ground sign was gone - would we know they had been there?

Yes, a trained archaeologist would determine that rather quickly

The same can be said for the Minoan, Sumerian, Hittite, Akkadian, Dilmun, Bablyonian, Natufian, Roman, Greek and Harappa, etc

There would still be millions of tons of archaeological evidence that hasn't been found. Heck we can find stuff from hunter-gathers from 100,000's of thousands of years ago

So why zilch from Atlantis?

As I stated earlier, "Regardless if ever there was a war with Atlantis, or an empire to the extent described by Plato, the evidence strongly suggests an uncanny familiarity with the Americas." I am not dismissing any of the arguments you make here, evidence appears to be currently lacking, but I am just not so quick to entirely dismiss Plato's accurate detailed description of the Americas. I just happen to consider it significant that Plato accurately describes the layout of a large rectangular plain that only happens to exist on the continent of South America and that he also accurately describes a second continent lying at the opposite end of a path of islands.

-Doug

Originally posted by lambros56
Got to bookmark this.
Thanks for sharing !

You're welcome lambros56,

Sorry I missed you earlier,
Doug

Great then all you need to do is find artifacts from Atlantis.

I reviewed the literature*; both geological and anthropological for the 'Mesopotamia' area. If that area 'sank' 9,000 years ago there is no evidence of it having done so - its isn't an alluvial fill zone.

The Anthropology shows tribal groups, hunter-gathers some, hamlets, etc until the Spanish and Portuguese show up, no unexplained masses of pottery, stone tools or pre-columbian use of resources

Hope that helps

I wish you luck in your search and of course if you find anything please let us know. However I would suspect that you'll never actually do a ground survey.

However you could make contact with antiquarians/rock hounds and others who know the ground - they will know if there is anything in the area



*Most of it is in Spanish and the translations of it, and the 'high' level of documents, meant the reading was very choppy.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Great then all you need to do is find artifacts from Atlantis.

I reviewed the literature*; both geological and anthropological for the 'Mesopotamia' area. If that area 'sank' 9,000 years ago there is no evidence of it having done so - its isn't an alluvial fill zone.

The Anthropology shows tribal groups, hunter-gathers some, hamlets, etc until the Spanish and Portuguese show up, no unexplained masses of pottery, stone tools or pre-columbian use of resources

Hope that helps

I wish you luck in your search and of course if you find anything please let us know. However I would suspect that you'll never actually do a ground survey.



*Most of it is in Spanish and the translations of it, and the 'high' level of documents, meant the reading was very choppy.

edit on 17/4/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

What do you think of this,

news.mongabay.com...

I think there is still way too much guessing going on, it's possible that South America had a much bigger population than mainstream archeology believes.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
What do you think of this,

news.mongabay.com...

I think there is still way too much guessing going on, it's possible that South America had a much bigger population than mainstream archeology believes.

That a bit dated but evidence of a larger culture in the Amazon has a great deal of support and also explains the previously anomalous report of Orellana. Now was this culture 'Atlantis"? Based on what Plato said no, could someone have gotten there and returned to the Med with the story? Possible. It should take about 10-15 years to get a general idea of the extent and scope of the culture(s) in the Amazon basin

Maybe Fawcett wasn't completely wrong - unfortunately for him these dudes didn't build in stone but wood and earth

Here is a more up todate report

Amazon 2008 by the same guy who was part of the 2003 report

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
What do you think of this,

news.mongabay.com...

I think there is still way too much guessing going on, it's possible that South America had a much bigger population than mainstream archeology believes.

That a bit dated but evidence of a larger culture in the Amazon has a great deal of support and also explains the previously anomalous report of Orellana. Now was this culture 'Atlantis"? Based on what Plato said no, could someone have gotten there and returned to the Med with the story? Possible. It should take about 10-15 years to get a general idea of the extent and scope of the culture(s) in the Amazon basin

Maybe Fawcett wasn't completely wrong - unfortunately for him these dudes didn't build in stone but wood and earth

Here is a more up todate report

Amazon 2008 by the same guy who was part of the 2003 report

edit on 17/4/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

Good reading for later, thanks.

When you consider how much of established belief about South America has been turned on it's head in the last 10 years I can't wait to see what the next ten years bring.