South America: The Definitive Geographic Location Of Atlantis

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.

Thanks Hanslune,

I meant to ask you what you had found. Are you sure it confirms no alluvial fill in southern Mesopotamia and the Parana Delta, which would have been the site of the flood/sinking?

-Doug

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

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.

Yep that what scientist do and it should be interesting. This exploration is part of a 1990 thought pattern that said basically - and yes it should be very interesting, once they are able to tie in a number of associated reports to determine the extend of the cultures and also a stratigraphy at a few sites.

'We found the civilizations made out of stone what about the one made out of wood?'

You'll note a lot of discoveries of such cultures in Europe and SA, they are still looking for them in Africa, SEA and NA

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

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.

Yep that what scientist do and it should be interesting. This exploration is part of a 1990 thought pattern that said basically - and yes it should be very interesting, once they are able to tie in a number of associated reports to determine the extend of the cultures and also a stratigraphy at a few sites.

'We found the civilizations made out of stone what about the one made out of wood?'

You'll note a lot of discoveries of such cultures in Europe and SA, they are still looking for them in Africa, SEA and NA

What's most fascinating to me is the land management skills they obviously had. If the 10% estimate is true, that's a huge chunk of the rain forrest, no way small tribes did that.

One estimate said that the amount of engineered soil found is roughly the size of France, that much farmland could feed an awful lot of people.

Interesting that while we can't find their houses, we can see what they did by looking at the anomalies in the current environment.

I guess building your monuments into the ecosystem is just as effective as building huge stone monuments, you just have to know what to look for.

If your looking for artifacts you need to check out the megalithic sites around South America, (which judging by your knowledge thus far you have) yeah ok there is no actual slab of stone that says here is Atlantis, but the sites there are so huge that alot of south american cultures didn't build them, when the spanish invaders came to the shores of South America and saw the massive cities around the land, we today believe the site to be at the latest built around 1600BC, yet the indigenous people of the area have known about to for thousands of years, I remember one quote from some research here on this fourm about the site of Tiahuanaco debating the age of the site.

"The story goes, as the Spanish were galavanting around their country looking for treasure they came across Tiahuanaco. When confronted and asked the Incans if they built the city they laughed and explained that it was before their time"

Alot of scientific research and archeology excavations and observions had been made on this site and the other PumaPunku (also may other megalithic cities) and it seemed that alot of the cultures living there had built over and into prexisting structures, which some was pretty obvious 2 different cultures had worked on, one with perfect precission with techniques which to this day are unexplainable, and the ones that have major research done on them the result seems to be non existant (in the case of megalithic blocks seeming they had been molted down and molded together)




Personally I think it's entirley possible that South America was were the capital of Atlantis stood, but also after researching more on Percy Fawcett who went off in search for lost cities in South America who thought there was some outpost of Atlantis.

Oh and just for the fun of it for everyone reaction..

What is the Atlantic Ocean named after?

Originally posted by Sparta

"The story goes, as the Spanish were galavanting around their country looking for treasure they came across Tiahuanaco. When confronted and asked the Incans if they built the city they laughed and explained that it was before their time"

That is because the Inca were a newly risen conquering tribe. Yes there were a number of earlier civilizations which the Inca 'knew' about, when they took over chan chan they took over the artisans there- who were expert builders. The Inca were only around a few hundred years

Alot of scientific research and archeology excavations and observions had been made on this site and the other PumaPunku (also may other megalithic cities) and it seemed that alot of the cultures living there had built over and into prexisting structures, which some was pretty obvious and

We seem to have read different 'scientific research', but yes there have been a series of cultures in different parts of SA, just like there were a succession of cultures in Mesopotamia

one with perfect precission with techniques which to this day are unexplainable

Fully explainable with existing research however few people ever read it and rely instead on what they told to believe by fringe video and websites

Look up the work of Jean-Pierre Protzen

Example of his work

the ones that have major research done on them the result seems to be non existant (in the case of megalithic blocks seeming they had been molted down and molded together)

Didn't quite understand your comment here. The rocks weren't melted but you may be referring to their casting staples to hold stones together??

Personally I think it's entirley possible that South America was were the capital of Atlantis stood, but also after researching more on Percy Fawcett who went off in search for lost cities in South America who thought there was some outpost of Atlantis.

It might be, but the failure to find the elusive ground truth evidence for such a huge empire is shockingly suggestive - and based on what Plato said there should be evidence all over SA (is SA was Atlantis) and the Med, yet it isn't

reply to post by Doug Fisher


Sorry I wasn't clear, there is lots of alluvial fill, from the miocene, etc. Unfortunately I'm not a geologists but what I didn't find amongst the materials was evidence for a 'recent' drop within the Chaco-Parani basin and a 'covering' of fill 9,000 years old. However this is outside my area of expertise! I would suggest contacting an Argentian Unversity in that area - there should be a great deal of material from oil search and drilling for water in the Guarani aquifer

That is because the Inca were a newly risen conquering tribe. Yes there were a number of earlier civilizations which the Inca 'knew' about, when they took over chan chan they took over the artisans there- who were expert builders. The Inca were only around a few hundred years

We seem to have read different 'scientific research', but yes there have been a series of cultures in different parts of SA, just like there were a succession of cultures in Mesopotamia

Yeah I see your point, they weren't around long, so these 'tribes' as you put must have but my concern isn't with the Incans building it or even the Tiahauacans to be fair, I just used those as examples because they are well known, the fact of the matter is that South America has so many ancient mega cities that are incredible, there is a fella by the name of Arthur Posnansky he spent 50 years of his life over there researching trying to determine the actual age of Tiahuanaco, his method of dating was a astronomical way, because Earth is tilted on it's axis in respect to the plane of the solar system the angle it known as "Obliqueness of the Ecliptic"

At the moment out Earth is tilted at an angle of 23.439 degrees and 27 minutes which is not constant (follow the link for more info if you want) as we know that the ancient south American cultures seemed to have an amazing knowledge of astronomy (not going to much into that no need) the alignment of the temple Kalasasaya the temple depicts a tilt of the earths axis amounting to 23 degrees and 8 minutes, which according to many astronomers who checked the workings of Posnanskys work agree that the date is around 15,000BC at the latest. His results were studied intensively by cricits in 1927 and onwards, but all that did verified his conclusions and vouched for the reliability of them. If you would like these I'll dig up the links.

Also that link you provided told me nothing about how they did it, just that they came and moved in and/or were taught some masonry skills by the Tiahuanans, but what I was referring too I don't have too much knowledge in, and to be completely honest I haven't made my mind up the process isn't called melting haha, I meant vitrified and the molded, Vitrified process now I'm not sure of the cred of WM but it was an interesting read.

It might be, but the failure to find the elusive ground truth evidence for such a huge empire is shockingly suggestive - and based on what Plato said there should be evidence all over SA (is SA was Atlantis) and the Med, yet it isn't

Yeah I agree, I guess not many people will believe it is 100% anywhere/true, until any kind of major artifacts are found. But when we think about finding a technological advanced society living around 10,000 BC it's hard to comprehend especially with the way of thinking we are used to and how history is taught to us, I mean the implications are pretty huge if it turns out Atlantis is real, our entire human history would be re-written. I mean if they were advanced whose to say it would be anything like our society is now. The proof could be there, were just looking through the wrong lenses

Credits to Slayer69 who I first ever read information from!

reply to post by Sparta


Yes I know Posnonsky, his date comes up rather regularly and is a big fringe favourite. The problem is he had to make some assumptions, which in his time were SWAG and now just wrong concerning the alignment of the Kalasasaya temple. Other sources of dating don't agree with him at all.

Here is the translation of Posnansky most important work

The P

The calculations

reply to post by Hanslune


Meant to add but couldn't find until now this summary of alternative, fringe and orthodox studies on the city in question

Fagan's summary on T - city

Excellent links to all previous studies of the site

Apologies to Doug for taking a detour from the OP

Originally posted by Sparta

Also that link you provided told me nothing about how they did it, just that they came and moved in and/or were taught some masonry skills by the Tiahuanans, but what I was referring too I don't have too much knowledge in, and to be completely honest I haven't made my mind up the process isn't called melting haha, I meant vitrified and the molded, Vitrified process now I'm not sure of the cred of WM but it was an interesting read.

If you care to be sure about the credibility, you should try to look into what sort of stone you're talking about, and what sort it would be if it had been melted, poured, and allowed to cool.

IOW, is all the stone basalt?

If not, then the "cred" is zero.

Harte

]

Originally posted by Doug Fisher

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
EPIC thread!!!!

Exactly what I come to ATS for.

Thank you.

~Namaste

ETA: I'm curious to know where your sources for this information came from.

Thanks!

The main research material is contained in Plato's dialogues, Timaeus and Critias. Many maps and the extremely helpful Google Earth played a major role as well.

-Doug

Those "Plato" links provide only blocks of text and some background. Your thread(s) included much, much more in the way of factual material and, especially, graphical renditions. The two (Plato) links you provided do not show any of the renditions in your thread, and, in fact, show almost no visual depictions at all. You mention Google Earth, and indeed it is a helpful application when doing research like this, but again, very few of the maps, images, renditions, and other illustrations in your thread are Google Earth generated. So where did they come from? If you did not create them yourself (and it is clear that you could not have), then from whence are they obtained? What is the source? WHO created them and (deservedly) should be given credit? But that's beside the point. You did a great job, and....

Thus, for those of us that would simply like to follow up and continue this research which you have so graciously posted, would you please provide us with the links or sources from which all of your maps and illustrations were obtained? Actually, I'm sure many of us curious researchers would also appreciate some source detail on the maps and illustrations as posted in your Antarctic thread.

Thank you very much...

As many others, this hypothesis concentrates on finding Atlantis.
But let us talk about the context which is also necessary to gain credibility for a certain idea of Atlantis.

How would this hypothesis fit into the context of Plato's philosophy?
What is your idea of the so-called "Platonic Myths" under the perspective of your hypothesis?

Thank you for answering.

An interesting proposal, but there are inconsistencies with regards to Plato's description:

1) Quote from Critias - "Leaving the palace and passing out across the three you came to a wall which began at the sea and went all round: this was everywhere distant fifty stadia from the largest zone or harbour, and enclosed the whole, the ends meeting at the mouth of the channel which led to the sea." The statement "This was everywhere distant fifty stadia from the largest zone or harbour" is a description of a circumference, as "everywhere distant" can not apply to the straight walled channel proposition for the outer wall, where only its end would be fifty stadia distant from the "largest zone or harbour," thus not "everywhere distant."

2) Quote from Critias - "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, itself surrounded by mountains which descended towards the sea;" The mountains surrounding the suggested plain near Rio de la plata are all inland and thus do not descend towards the sea. I understand that for all the encircling mountains to descend towards the sea is quite a feat, but at least with another suggestion in South America, the Altiplano, the entire west side consists of a range of mountains that descend towards the sea.

I apologise if these arguments have already been mentioned. The suggestion of this area as the location of a sea-faring culture is a good one, and perhaps this may have been a location for one of the ten cities described by Plato, rather than the capital.

Well...this Discovery of "yours: looks like a similar "Discovery' of one J.M . Allen
For those interested, compare doug's posts with the website

Atlantis in Bolivia

reply to post by Bobfish

Hello Bobfish.

The statement "This was everywhere distant fifty stadia from the largest zone or harbour" is a description of a circumference.

Absolutely correct. I did address this to some extent. The English translator definitely believed that the author was describing a large, uniformly distant, circular wall around the city. However, translating ancient Greek to English is not a simple straightforward process. In many instances there are more ways than one to translate a section of text. It is complicated even more by the absence of punctuation. Sometimes it is unclear where one sentence or thought should end and another should begin.

Where these problems occur, it is left to the translator to reconcile the passage with the surrounding related text to determine the correct most accurate meaning and translate it to English accordingly. Contextual consistency is key. Both Bury and Jowett translate the passage in question to suggest the existence of an outer uniformly distant wall, but as I have argued that is not contextually consistent.

Plato goes out of his way to describe this wall and the many houses that sat atop it. He does this to help us understand the night and day interaction occurring between those dwelling on the wall and the merchant ships that filled the outer harbor and the channel to the sea. Merchant ships were engaging in trade with the inhabitants all along this wall creating “clamor and tumult of every description and an unceasing din night and day.”

Yet according to Bury and Jowett’s translation, there is ABSOLUTELY no way that interactivity occurs between this outer wall and the outer harbor since, as this interpretation suggests, the wall is “everywhere distant fifty stadia (5.7 miles) from the largest zone or harbour.

A wall encircling the outer harbor and lining the channel is the most logical solution and the context of Plato’s description clearly is describing such a wall. This is why I believe the correct translation of the Greek is as follows:

"And after crossing the three outer harbors, one found a wall which originated at the sea a distance of fifty stades from the largest circle and harbor; It ran round everywhere with its ends converging at the seaward mouth of the channel.

The whole of this wall had numerous houses built on to it, set close together; while the sea-way and the largest harbor were filled with ships and merchants coming from all quarters, which by reason of their multitude caused clamor and tumult of every description and an unceasing din night and day."

Quote from Critias - "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, itself surrounded by mountains which descended towards the sea;" The mountains surrounding the suggested plain near Rio de la plata are all inland and thus do not descend towards the sea. I understand that for all the encircling mountains to descend towards the sea is quite a feat, but at least with another suggestion in South America, the Altiplano, the entire west side consists of a range of mountains that descend towards the sea.

Again, context is key as well as scope. The “country immediately about and surrounding the city was a level plain,” but were the mountains immediately surrounding the plain? That would be merely an assumption. Argentina’s Mesopotamian Plain is surrounded by the Andes and Brazilian Highlands which do indeed descend toward the sea.

A major problem with the Altiplano is answering how the populace of this mountain-bound plain became such a successful sea power. How did all their warships, which were harbored in this mountain-bound city and manned by inhabitants of the Altiplano, move between the Altiplano and the Mediterranean?

Unlike the Altiplano, the site that I am proposing is surrounded on three sides and open toward the sea in the south per Plato’s account. This immediate access to the sea more readily suits a sea power, making it a far more plausible location for the capital city of Atlantis.

-Doug

It is also, however, above sea level.

Another "translation problem?"

Harte

reply to post by Harte

It is also, however, above sea level.

Another "translation problem?"

Interpretation and adaptation, not translation.

I responded to your similar comment earlier, but for the sake of those that may be interested:

Imagine if we were to receive an ancient account of a large island sinking out in the Atlantic. How would we reconcile such a story to our current worldview, one which maintains there are no sunken continents in the Atlantic?

Reputable mainstream researchers that believe the ancient account of Atlantis has some basis in fact have reconciled it to our worldview by moving Atlantis into the Mediterranean and shrinking the continent down to the size of small islands as in the case of Santorini and Crete. The move inside the Mediterranean was not only necessitated because it was plausible that a small island could sink, as in the case of Santorini, or be decimated by tsunamis, as many believe in the case of Crete due to the Santorini eruption, but it was also necessary to mesh the account with the current worldview that no ancient sea power existed in the Atlantic that could have had any significant impact on the inhabitants of the Mediterranean.

So they have shrunk Atlantis down to an extremely small fraction of its original size and moved it from the Atlantic into the Mediterranean. This adaptation of an ancient account to fit one’s current worldview by making grand scale changes is not an aberration, it would logically be the norm, that is aside from dismissing the account in its entirety as indeed some have.

Likewise, Solon made it clear that he was adapting an ancient Egyptian historical account to his worldview when he described the world in the terms of a contemporary view established by Greek philosopher Anaximander and not within the Egyptian worldview. The Atlantic was believed to be part of Oceanus, a large river which flowed around the known world of Europe, Africa, and Asia. It was believed to be a large unimpeded river populated only with a few small islands. The notion of a large continent sized island sitting in its midst impeding flow would not mesh with Solon’s worldview.

Therefore, I believe that Solon, in similar fashion as modern researchers, may have made similar grand scale changes to the account so that it conformed to his worldview. The original Egyptian account of the sinking of the small island capital city was applied to the whole of the continent to return Oceanus to its known form, still flowing unimpeded, but over a submerged continent. (Go here for more details.)

Solon sinks the continent of Atlantis to conform the ancient Egyptian account to his worldview, one proposed by contemporary Greek philosopher Anaximander.

-Doug

Solon was in Egypt only 150 years before Herodotus.

Herodotus stated that the ocean beyond the straits was called the Sea of Atlas (Atlantis Sea) by men of his time.

You'd be hard pressed to support the non-sinking of Plato's Atlantis with your personal opinion of Solon's belief in Oceanus. This is primarily because Oceanus was an equatorial stream, at least by Solon's time.

It is questionable whether any ancient Greek believed that the Atlantic was part of Oceanus, though it's true that some scholars speculate it was so. The same scholars say the same about the Med.

IMO, you are misrepresenting Oceanus here as a belief held by Solon (a thing you cannot possibly know) simply to support your own faulty hypothesis.

Harte

Doug the only way for you to find Atlantis is to go and dig, everything else will fail to achieve that goal.

reply to post by Hanslune

Doug the only way for you to find Atlantis is to go and dig, everything else will fail to achieve that goal.

Thanks Hanslune. Totally agree. No harm in speculating for a likely dig site.



reply to post by Harte

IMO, you are misrepresenting Oceanus here as a belief held by Solon (a thing you cannot possibly know) simply to support your own faulty hypothesis.

Hello Harte,

Glad to see you took the time to read the post. If you had followed the link there was more detailed information that might have proven helpful.

Here is what you claim I "cannot possibly know” even though I am pulling it straight from the Atlantis account. Solon is describing a worldview in which only two major bodies of water exist. The first being the Mediterranean Sea which exists “within the Straits of Heracles [and] is only a harbour” in Solon’s view. Solon describes the only other body of water as having been the much larger “true ocean” or “real sea” which was completely surrounded by a “boundless continent.”

A boundless continent which completely surrounded the body of water lying beyond the Pillars of Heracles would require this true ocean to fully encircle the known world so that this surrounding continent could remain separate from Europe, Africa and Asia. The uniqueness of this surrounding continent is what sets this description apart as clearly being Anaximander's view of the world. (Henry Davis' website carries a more artful depiction of Anaximander's world)

If you have a different personal interpretation of this passage, I honestly look forward to hearing it. Here is the passage in its entirety:

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; 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. In this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent." - Timaeus 24e-25a

-Doug