Where did the theory of Atalntis start?

Harte, have you had a chance to check out that link above yet? It basically breaks down Plato's argument as it applies to the Azores. It is fairly interesting, and does make some very valid points in response to the suggestions you make on the subject. Here it is again.

Azores as Plato's Atlantis

This site also hits upon a few places and names that did reference his story, lending more credit to it being a history. As for the timeline matter, this is also discussed. All in all, the site makes an argument that does at least have its facts straight. There is a strong possibility for the Azores being the location described. If nothing else, it is the most convincing of all the arguments I have come across regarding a possible location and reasoning behind Plato's recital. (And trust me, I have painstakingly combed them all!)

The pursuit of scientific study is an objective one. A person or persons enter into a problem with a hypothesis and then investigate the applicable data that is available and potentially discover further information through research or accident.

The sum of this information is considered and a result is achieved, unbiased by the original hypothesis. The results are then given up for peer review and an official paper is then accepted by the larger community as admisable fact.

That is the pursuit of science and study as we know it today.

Ignatius Donelly already had a goal in mind when he wrote his book back in the 19th cent. He wrote it not as a means to tell you about all the facts he has considered, but all of the concepts he believes support his personal hypothesis in the existence of Atlantis as a sunken mid-Atlantic island. More-so, he wrote it to bolster his feeling that all man descended from one race.

His book, vastly fictional, is also a major source of the modern view on Atlantis. A lot of the fantastic ideas are mear creations of his imagination. People still talk about them as if they originated somewhere in the deep past. Fact is, Donelly made them up and people took the bait ... hook, line and sinker.

Donelly's paper is barely an ESSAY. An editorial opinion. Nothing more. It is not a work of acedemia or science. Its hardly even worth considering unless you have an interest in American folklore and swaying the popular belief system for fun.

His book, as far as I am concerned, has as much to do with Atlantis as it does with making jello. If you want to read it, buy a copy at Barnes and Noble in the "FICTION" section. That's where you will find it. It's still in print.


[edit on 1-6-2006 by faculae]

[edit on 1-6-2006 by faculae]

[edit on 1-6-2006 by faculae]

Hellanicus of Lesbos was an ancient greek historian. His fragment named "Atlantis" in the posession of Princeton does not refer to Plato's 'Atlantis.'

It is regarding the "Atlantides," the Seven Daughters of Atlas in Greek mythology. They are typically personified as islands. So that tiny bit of paper found on the previous page in this string, written in ancient Greek cursive, is merely a small bitty about the commonly known Greek myth of Atlas; the man who supports the dome of the heavens and his seven female offspring. Its not some long lost document corroborating Plato's claim of a prehistoric utopia.

I don't blame anyone for the excited confusion. Its easy to do.

"Atlantides" is a feminine plural of the singular, "Atlantide." Hellanicus calls them "Atlantis" instead, using a sungular masculine proper noun to sum up the sisters as if they were one thing. Its a translation meaning the same thing, "of Atlas " only with a different gender. This misnomer is fine if it weren't for the choas Plato caused by naming a fantastic island the same thing a hundred yrs later. In essence they both used the right word, but the one with a deeper meaning has a greater draw of mystery for obvious reasons. In turn Hellanicus definition was eclipsed by Plato's sensationalism.

It would be a lot like you writing a story involving a place called the "Capital." In your story the capital refers to Washington D.C. and you talk about the day to day in that city and how America functions politically. Although your book never mentions the words "Washington D.C." it is easy to assume those words because you know the word America, Senate, Congress. It puts it all in a well understood context. For you making that distinction is easy with out having to actually write the name "Washington D.C."

Hundreds of yrs later someone writes a work of fiction, a far more popular story, using the same name of "Capital" to describe this fantastic place that no one has ever seen. If several thousand yrs passed and a person who had never heard the word Captial picked up both your stories, it would be fair to assume that they would think both works were discussing one in the same. I also think it is fair to assume that most of you are unable to understand translated ancient Greek in the context it was originally meant. Most of us just do not posess the knowledge to read it that way.

Today it appears, despite this language barrier, people still really want to think that Hellanicus was writting about Plato's long lost "Atlantis." Truth is, factully, Plato hadn't invented it yet. He wasn't even born. Sorry to pop anyone's hopes about the "other" Atlantis document ...

If you want to read the full story on the "Atlantides" see here:

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 1-6-2006 by faculae]

[edit on 1-6-2006 by faculae]

truthseeker,

Origins are one of my primary interests. I have not looked into the Atlantis assumption except superficially.

With that qualification my guess is that Plato put a name to the group memory involving mysticism combined with the memory of the last glaciation of the current ice age and the human penchant for misassumption and our habit of arriving at a conclusion even when we know full well that we…do not know enough to have an opinion.

Never existed, never will.

sayswho

Originally posted by faculae
Hellanicus of Lesbos was an ancient greek historian. His fragment named "Atlantis" in the posession of Princeton does not refer to Plato's 'Atlantis.'

It is regarding the "Atlantides," the Seven Daughters of Atlas in Greek mythology. They are typically personified as islands. So that tiny bit of paper found on the previous page in this string, written in ancient Greek cursive, is merely a small bitty about the commonly known Greek myth of Atlas; the man who supports the dome of the heavens and his seven female offspring. Its not some long lost document corroborating Plato's claim of a prehistoric utopia.

I don't blame anyone for the excited confusion. Its easy to do.

"Atlantides" is a feminine plural of the singular, "Atlantide." Hellanicus calls them "Atlantis" instead, using a sungular masculine proper noun to sum up the sisters as if they were one thing. Its a translation meaning the same thing, "of Atlas " only with a different gender. This misnomer is fine if it weren't for the choas Plato caused by naming a fantastic island the same thing a hundred yrs later. In essence they both used the right word, but the one with a deeper meaning has a greater draw of mystery for obvious reasons. In turn Hellanicus definition was eclipsed by Plato's sensationalism.

It would be a lot like you writing a story involving a place called the "Capital." In your story the capital refers to Washington D.C. and you talk about the day to day in that city and how America functions politically. Although your book never mentions the words "Washington D.C." it is easy to assume those words because you know the word America, Senate, Congress. It puts it all in a well understood context. For you making that distinction is easy with out having to actually write the name "Washington D.C."

Hundreds of yrs later someone writes a work of fiction, a far more popular story, using the same name of "Capital" to describe this fantastic place that no one has ever seen. If several thousand yrs passed and a person who had never heard the word Captial picked up both your stories, it would be fair to assume that they would think both works were discussing one in the same. I also think it is fair to assume that most of you are unable to understand translated ancient Greek in the context it was originally meant. Most of us just do not posess the knowledge to read it that way.

Today it appears, despite this language barrier, people still really want to think that Hellanicus was writting about Plato's long lost "Atlantis." Truth is, factully, Plato hadn't invented it yet. He wasn't even born. Sorry to pop anyone's hopes about the "other" Atlantis document ...

If you want to read the full story on the "Atlantides" see here:

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 1-6-2006 by faculae]

[edit on 1-6-2006 by faculae]

Here are the islands believed to represent the seven sisters and daughters of Atlas the Titan. If you follow the mythology of the Greeks, Atlas was supposed to be the founder of Atlantis, the original King, which would explain the connection between the Titan and the lost city. Plato even describes the King's name as "Atlas", but it is widely believed that this was just a half-god, the son of Poseidon. These two stories are often interchangable in the mythological world. The son of Poseidon, who Plato says ruled Atlantis, was also a father of seven daughters. Coincidence? No bubbles of excitement have actually been popped, as all you have really done is examined the other side of the same coin. It is for these reasons that the Hellanicus papyrus is believed to be what it is.

There is an interesting link here as well for those that would contend that Plato must be creating the story, under the argument that the Egyptians had no history of Atlantis. Read the text under the heading Egypt and the Origin of the Legend of Atlantis
Histories of Atlantis

the highest ranking freemasons aquired secret esoteric knowledge centuries ago that came from atlantis. this is the secret info that they guard so well. this knowledge is the reason for their power and control. they came across this knowledge in ancient egypt by way of lucifer and his angels and has been passed on to this day. this is the reason for the pyrimid symbol they have put on our currency...the birthplace of the vision. the vision? to bring about the "new atlantis." an global utopia. a new world order. thier plan is in full effect.

Originally posted by Funkydung
the highest ranking freemasons aquired secret esoteric knowledge centuries ago that came from atlantis. this is the secret info that they guard so well. this knowledge is the reason for their power and control. they came across this knowledge in ancient egypt by way of lucifer and his angels and has been passed on to this day. this is the reason for the pyrimid symbol they have put on our currency...the birthplace of the vision. the vision? to bring about the "new atlantis." an global utopia. a new world order. thier plan is in full effect.

If it weren't for the policy against one liner answers, I would most likely not even dignify this with a full response. However, considering that policy, let me first say that what you've just stated is not backed up by any form of fact, and could not possibly be. I, personally, am more than willing to listen(read) any argument, so long as it is presented in a logical and factual way. Please see here for a more detailed post on the subject of the Freemason's role in the Seal of the United States:

How the Freemasons Had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SEAL ON THE DOLLAR BILL!

Originally posted by EdenKaia

Originally posted by Funkydung
the highest ranking freemasons aquired secret esoteric knowledge centuries ago that came from atlantis. this is the secret info that they guard so well. this knowledge is the reason for their power and control. they came across this knowledge in ancient egypt by way of lucifer and his angels and has been passed on to this day. this is the reason for the pyrimid symbol they have put on our currency...the birthplace of the vision. the vision? to bring about the "new atlantis." an global utopia. a new world order. thier plan is in full effect.

If it weren't for the policy against one liner answers, I would most likely not even dignify this with a full response. However, considering that policy, let me first say that what you've just stated is not backed up by any form of fact, and could not possibly be. I, personally, am more than willing to listen(read) any argument, so long as it is presented in a logical and factual way. Please see here for a more detailed post on the subject of the Freemason's role in the Seal of the United States:

How the Freemasons Had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SEAL ON THE DOLLAR BILL!

if you think that the seal is somehow a christian symbol you are mistaken. where in the history of christianity do you find this symbol? if this country was founded by christians where are all the figures of jesus christ and the deciples in washington and other places around our country?? there are none. there is however the erect penis of baal (washington monument) and his wife (statue of liberty) that we proudly display...and that is just another example of freemasonry and their roots...which by the way come from ancient egypt. they know where they come from and display it in front of us all. and it all goes back to the knowledge that was given to the first freemasons...the esoteric knowledge. do any research you like on egypt and atlantis..





[edit on 1-6-2006 by Funkydung]

if you think that the seal is somehow a christian symbol you are mistaken. where in the history of christianity do you find this symbol? if this country was founded by christians where are all the figures of jesus christ and the deciples in washington and other places around our country?? there are none. there is however the erect penis of baal (washington monument) and his wife (statue of liberty) that we proudly display...and that is just another example of freemasonry and their roots...which by the way come from ancient egypt. they know where they come from and display it in front of us all. and it all goes back to the knowledge that was given to the first freemasons...the esoteric knowledge. do any research you like on egypt and atlantis..

First off, type my username into the search engine and you can find many educational threads on many of these subjects. Atlantis, Egypt, Freemasonry, I have participated in the popular discussions on all of them. On these you will find the thoroughly researchedinformation regarding all three topics, by both myself and respected members of Ats, which will show you that I have no need to

do any research I want on egypt and atlantis..

It has most definately been done. As for the Christian/Freemason founder concept. You said that the country was founded by Freemasons, and that it was not founded by Christians. Considering that being a Christian is a bit of a pre-req to becoming a Freemason, I wonder how you came to this conclusion? Tell you what, I can see that this could become a serious debate with you, so why not continue it formally?

Funkydung has been issued a request for a formal debate over the origins of the Freemasons and their influence in the founding of the United States. If Funkydung chooses to accept, the discussion will continue there.

In this thread people have referred to "plato invented Atlantis," or "Plato's brother had gotten the story in Egypt." The actual common theory has been that plato's ancestor Solon, a prominent Greek a couple hundred years prior to Plato's time, had visited Egypt and got the story of Atlantis from Egyptian priests there. Then it came down from Solon to Plato who wrote the dialogue "Timias and Critias" in which the Atlantis story in great detail is presented.

Originally posted by EdenKaia

There is an interesting link here as well for those that would contend that Plato must be creating the story, under the argument that the Egyptians had no history of Atlantis. Read the text under the heading Egypt and the Origin of the Legend of Atlantis
Histories of Atlantis

Sadly, you linked only to the image you used again rather than to whatever story you intended to bring to our attention.

If you meant this link (which seems to fit your text), then you will have some difficulty defending it: www.lost-civilizations.net...

"Lemuria" doesn't show up as a country/civilization name until channeled by the mystics in the 1800's. The assertion that we got all our agriculture and herding from Atlantis is beyond absurd, given the number of sites where we see animal domestication (including that of gazelles and moufflon) taking place around 8,000 BC and later (the planting styles and other touches are so individual to the region that they could not have come from a "center".) The identification of Punt with Indonesia is also not supported by the Egyptian records:
touregypt.net...

I don't know if this was your source, but if so, you might want to avoid using it since the "facts" it presents are really the speculations of someone (presented as fact) who didn't bother to read up on the archaeology, history, and culture of the area they're talking about. They make silly statements about continents being sunk and the Greeks not knowing east from west.

No, this wasn't the site. I'll find it again.

Here is one that breaks down the description of Plato's Atlantis into a geographical model of the city. It also discusses the parentage of the island nation as it was translated by Solon before passing the story down. It makes me wonder though, if the story was gleaned from the Egyptians, who it is said only translated the story themselves, where did they get the story from?
homepage.mac.com...

Here is the original that I mislinked:
www.atlan.org...
I know this is only a theoretcial compilation, but then, that is all we can really do anyway.



Dimwit Alert: I meant to respond to this and hit the edit button. SORRY!! I did restore your message, though. sheesh.

[edit on 3-6-2006 by Byrd]

(anyway, there's what I meant to post....)

Here is one that breaks down the description of Plato's Atlantis into a geographical model of the city. It also discusses the parentage of the island nation as it was translated by Solon before passing the story down. It makes me wonder though, if the story was gleaned from the Egyptians, who it is said only translated the story themselves, where did they get the story from?
homepage.mac.com...

Actually, the page is just a summary of what Plato said. There's nothing about the Egyptians getting the story from elsewhere.

Here is the original that I mislinked:
www.atlan.org...
I know this is only a theoretcial compilation, but then, that is all we can really do anyway.

The one I linked to summarized this page. So the problems I noted are indeed still there, along with the taking of myths out of context and announcing "they refer to Lemuria!" The identification of "Sheol" of the Jews is also incorrect.
en.wikipedia.org...

...and on, and on and on.

This is a good example of a "nationalistic paper"; a paper that attempts to tie together all the myths and old legends and literature in the world and re-frame the stories so that the homeland of the writer then rises in importance and becomes the source of all things to the world.

The rise of the seas at the end of the Pleistocene was gradual; not sudden and seas rose a few feet each year.

And the geology doesn't match Plato's description (the lightest blue areas would have been above water at some time during the depths of the last Ice Age) :
www.volcano.si.edu...

Originally posted by EdenKaia
Here is one that breaks down the description of Plato's Atlantis into a geographical model of the city. It also discusses the parentage of the island nation as it was translated by Solon before passing the story down. It makes me wonder though, if the story was gleaned from the Egyptians, who it is said only translated the story themselves, where did they get the story from?
homepage.mac.com...

Here is the original that I mislinked:
Possible History of Atlantis

Edenkaia,

I did go to that other website, but when I saw Donelly's name, I knew I'd already read that century-old book filled with now-known scientific errors. You catch the reference to the Calaveras Skull? BTW, I don't consider Donelly a pseudohistorian, merely a speculator. He is not at fault for most of the innaccuracies in his book. The same cannot be said for the con men of today that are basically perpretrating fraud on the unsuspecting public.

Anyway, I went to the two above sites as well (BTW, the second is also linked incorrectly or something. I had to paste the address into my browser's address window to get there.)

I'm sure you won't be surprised by my saying I was not impressed. The first site was okay, as far as it goes. By that I mean it was a reasonable summary of what Plato said about Atlantis. I wanted to tell you that the site does not indicate that the Egyptians had translated the story of Atlantis into their own language. It says they had translated the names of the people in the story into their language. The story itself, according to Plato, actually originates in Egypt. I mean that Plato indicates that the Egyptians were in fact around at the time Atlantis fought with the ancient Athenians. It is the Egyptian record of this conflict that Solon is supposed to have heard. Of course, there was no Egypt at the date Plato provided, nor Athens for that matter.

The second site was just a long advertisement for a book that can be purchased at Amazon. The author should stick to nuclear physics (he's got a PhD) and quit messing around in pseudoscience. Any PhD on Earth that believes in Lemuria should at the very least not tell anyone else in his field, unless that field is parapsychology.

The author also makes some pretty outlandish claims about how he "predicted" this or that. For example, he claims (the text was updated last in 2002, apparently)to have predicted that scientists would recognize that New Guinea is part of the highest sections of a sunken continental plate which he describes as ancient Lemuria and Atlantis. The problem is that his book was copyrighted in 1997, he claims to have made the prediction "20 years ago," but the fact of the sunken continental plate has been know for longer than this. Another inconvenient fact about this plate is that it sunk beneath the waves millions of years ago, not at the end of the Pleistocene ice Age, as the author avers.

I prefer the Minoan theory making the rounds here at ATS to this load of claptrap. And, as you no doubt guessed, I don't believe the Minoan idea either!

Harte

If your looking for more information and theories on Atlantis, read the Edgar Cayce material. Very fascinating, will give much to think on.

With my statement about Solon's attainment of the story and the Egyptians, I was not implying that the Egyptians themselves were around during the time of Plato's Atlantis, but moreover that the Egyptians already had a myth refering to something similar when Solon would have journyed there around 600 B.C. In their myth there was an ancient land called Keftiu,(Think I got that right) which was a nation said to contain one of the pillars that held up their sky. I believe it was also an Island Nation, as Plato describes. They were supposed to be extremely advanced for their time and dominated all the other lands around them. They were a seafaring people that held trade all over the known world. This is most likely what Solon was refering to, and seems to tie in quite a bit with Plato's descriptions. The earliest Egyptian records of this are from the third millenium, but disappeared around the time of Tutmosis the III. In their story, their homeland is destroyed by some great cataclysm, and they then are forced to migrate to Philistia. Now, granted, this would lend credit to the Minoan theory, given the similarities and likelihood that Keftiu refers to Minoan Crete.

Originally posted by EdenKaia
With my statement about Solon's attainment of the story and the Egyptians, I was not implying that the Egyptians themselves were around during the time of Plato's Atlantis, but moreover that the Egyptians already had a myth refering to something similar when Solon would have journyed there around 600 B.C.

Edenkaia,
I understood you not to be implying this. But I also understand that it is Plato that implies this. In his tale, the Egyptian priest says as much in his conversation with Solon:

Solon marvelled at his words, and earnestly requested the priests to inform him exactly and in order about these former citizens. You are welcome to hear about them, Solon, said the priest, both for your own sake and for that of your city, and above all, for the sake of the goddess who is the common patron and parent and educator of both our cities. She founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours, of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old.

(My emphasis.)
Source

As far as I can tell, Keftiu is not part of Egyptian Mythology. It is an actual place that had trade ties to Egypt. Apparently there are writings and carvings/paintings that attest to this that have been found in various tombs in Egypt.

Originally posted by EdenKaiaIn their myth there was an ancient land called Keftiu,(Think I got that right) which was a nation said to contain one of the pillars that held up their sky. I believe it was also an Island Nation, as Plato describes. They were supposed to be extremely advanced for their time and dominated all the other lands around them. They were a seafaring people that held trade all over the known world. This is most likely what Solon was refering to, and seems to tie in quite a bit with Plato's descriptions. The earliest Egyptian records of this are from the third millenium, but disappeared around the time of Tutmosis the III. In their story, their homeland is destroyed by some great cataclysm, and they then are forced to migrate to Philistia. Now, granted, this would lend credit to the Minoan theory, given the similarities and likelihood that Keftiu refers to Minoan Crete.

It does indeed lend credence to the Minoan theory. Keftiu has been equated with Crete and Cyprus by modern researchers, based on stone from Crete being found in Egypt, as well as paintings showing men of Keftiu apparently delivering this stone.

The problem with the Minoan theory is the geographical location as well as the timeline. Not to mention all the other global catastrophes that were supposed to have occured between the time of Atlantis and the time of Solon hearing the story, at least that was the Egyptian's tale of it.

I've also read where the Keftiuans eventually became the Philistines, who originally were a "remnant" of individuals from the Biblical "Caphtor:"

Keftiu in Egyptian means “pillar,” and is the same as the Akkadian Kap-ta-ra, a land beyond the upper sea. It is also the same as Biblical Caphtor. Caphtor means “pillar” in Hebrew. Caphtor is called an island in Jeremiah 47:4. The Philistines are said to come from Caphtor in Amos 9:7. Philistines are called Cretans in Zephaniah 2:5, Ezekiel 25:16 and I Samuel 30:14. In Ugaritic Caphtor is the home of craftsman Kotar wa Hassis (CTA3.6:14-15=UT ‘nt). In Egyptian texts Keftiu is described with “isles of the Great Green” The Great Green is the Mediterranean Sea, so it refers to Crete and the islands of the Aegean Sea (p.53). Keftiu is said to be in the midst of the Great Green Sea.

It seems that Keftiu was considered to be the pillar at the ends of the earth that held up the sky. The worship of sacred pillars was prevalent in Minoan Crete. Plato would have equated this with Atlas from which we get Atlantis. Solon probably misunderstood the Egyptian record of the Minoans (p.56).

Source

All interesting, yes. I believe I've said before that Plato no doubt had in mind the Minoans or some other vanished civilization(s) when he wrote the Timaeus. It was a mechanism for telling the story he wanted to tell in his dialogues in order to make his point, which was the criticism of Athens. The mechanism allowed him to do so while simultaneously avoiding a hemlock cocktail!

Harte

Perhaps this, then, is the only place where our difference of opinion on this matter lies, as my post was to point out the similarities to biblical Capthor and Minoan society.

traveled to Philistia after catastrophe

etc... I vistited all of the sites you listed, and if fact came to my conclusion after reading through most of them. I agree that Plato was only using the histories gleaned from Solon's travels to Egypt to make a point, but I do not believe that this point was a critique of Athens, at least not in the same light as is being implied. What he layed out IMO was a historically accurate account, at least so far as he was concerned, embellished a bit for the sake of his point. I've tended to sway more towards the idea that he was making Atlantis out to be sort of a doppleganger of Athens itself, the peaceful nation versus the non;pros and cons of a singular society in which two warring factions of that way of life bring about a moral insight. Nevertheless, I believe he was referring to a real historical event, and not something he just invented, as has been suggested here before. Stretched maybe, but not invented.