Atlantis Level of Development?

I know that there are a lot of people who have it in their minds, fed by folks like Edgar Cayce and George Pal, that Atlantis (if it existed) was some kind of wonderful supercivilization with bigger and better constructions than the Egyptians, helped by power crystals and alien technology.

More realistically, though, what level of development are we talking about here? What size population could have been supported on a large island the size of the Azores Plateau?

Seems to me that we're talking about a primarily seafaring culture with some agriculture. Not too many people. They had the ability to make a few large structures, but nothing like the Egyptian pyramids. They didn't apparently have enough resources to build and maintain far-flung outposts of any size. And their army/navy was significant for the time, but could also be repelled by the ancient Athenians, who probably weren't the biggest, toughest fighting force around. You might be able to give them credit for being one of the first people to develop a system of writing, although there has been no specific type of writing attributed to them.

I just think it might be a better idea to try and define exactly who these people could have been, then compare artifacts and mythology to see if they might match up. I also wonder, given a smaller size and less sophistication than is commonly imagined, what amount or level of artifacts could remain after 13,000 years or so that could be associated with these folks? Probably not a whole lot. Attributing a few bits of carved rock or something to them would be pretty difficult.

Well, given the fact, though I do believe that Atlantis was very real, that Atlantis is considered by academia as "mythological," we may never know the particulars of that civilization.

However, I'd surmise to say that population wise, it probably wasn't all that big. I figure maybe a few 100 thousand people at the most resided on the continent.

Now, if we are to assume that Atlantis experienced some type of "fall from grace," if you will, then any evidence of a supercivilization would have collapsed with it. In the end, trying to find evidence for or against some super civilization dating back pre-diluvian is like arguing about what existed before existence.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
In the end, trying to find evidence for or against some super civilization dating back pre-diluvian is like arguing about what existed before existence.

As an academic exercise, though, it might be useful to establish some basic parameters about the hypothetical civilization, then see what artifacts may or may not fit into the profile. For instance, Plato suggested that Atlantis had elephants (North American mastodons?). I always thought that these might be used for construction, as they are in India. As a result, the Atlantis folk probably wouldn't have commonly used a wheel, so artifacts indicating wheels or carts probably can be dismissed as belonging to a different culture.

Of course, like any culture, a hypothetical Atlantis culture would have probably evolved over time. That would obviously make it a little more difficult to attribute some artifacts to them, as the artifacts would change and evolve.

On the other hand, one could argue that a particular artifact might represent an "early" or "late" Atlantean culture. If it was destroyed by cataclysm around 13,000 years ago, it would had to have developed over some period of time before that. A few thousand years, possibly. The earlier material would be much more difficult to find, in that case, as it was buried and supplanted by the later culture as well as the cataclysm. That sure wouldn't make it any easier to find, either.

Nohup, true.

The common theme is that technology kind of trickled down to other cultures from Atlantis rather than the other way around. However, Atlantis, assuming that it did exist, didn't exist until about 9500 B.C..

In Plato's account, Atlantis, lying "beyond the pillars of Heracles", was a naval power that conquered many parts of Western Europe and Africa 9,000 years before the time of Solon, or approximately 9500 BC. After a failed attempt to invade Athens, Atlantis sank into the ocean "in a single day and night of misfortune".

Source

Given that the accepted timeline for civilization is dated between 200,000-250,000 years ago, some estimates even make the claim that civilization existed as far back as 800,000 years, it would seem that technology, like you suggest, would have trickled down from other cultures to Atlantis.

If that indeed is the case. and Atlantis was a supercivilization, then they must have revised the technology which was filtered down to them.

I'm sorry to interject, but what does this topic have to do with this forum?

It just seems like this topic has nothing to do with Scott's work, I've read through the posts and looked at his power point presentations and I see no mention of Atlantis...

If I'm wrong please correct me, but it seems like this should be somewhere else...

I'd believe that Atlantis was a continent with a civilisation more advanced than the current one. It then turned bad, decadent, corrupt, evil. It thus submerged.

Atlantis is certainly believed to have been in one of many places. Those could have just been Atlantean colonies. The location could've still not been found - like the southern Atlantic Ocean. There also probably wouldn't be much to see and salvage, under having been under the sea for 10,000 years.

I believe atlantis was a real place. Probably still not found

a reply to: DanImdieke1

Atlantis was a real place... in Plato's imagination.

Don't know what it has to do with Scott Creighton, though.

Another thread saved from oblivion, I guess that's what archives are for.

originally posted by: Hooke
a reply to: DanImdieke1

Atlantis was a real place... in Plato's imagination.

Don't know what it has to do with Scott Creighton, though.

You said it. It seems real to Plato, and is to a lot of other people too.

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth

In Plato's account, Atlantis, lying "beyond the pillars of Heracles", was a naval power that conquered many parts of Western Europe and Africa 9,000 years before the time of Solon, or approximately 9500 BC. After a failed attempt to invade Athens, Atlantis sank into the ocean "in a single day and night of misfortune".
Source

And here lies one of the problems with the Atlantis legend. Even if we don't know where a hypothetical Atlantis could have been located, we do know where Athens is. If we hold on to a timeline placing Atlantis 9500 years BC, then we should find archaeological remains of an Athens sufficiently large and equipped to beat the Atlanteans, as they supposedly tried to invade Athens roughly 11500 years ago. But we do not presently find any evidence of an Athenian civilization at that time. We do however find evidence of neolithic settlements in the Athens area around 4500 BC. So, it seems as if Plato was wrong either about the timeline, or about Athens. If he's wrong about one of them, what justifies that we take the rest of the account seriously? This is a legitimate question all Atlantis fans must take seriously. At least something in the Atlantis account must be verifiable - and proven true - if we're supposed to pursue it seriously.

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
Given that the accepted timeline for civilization is dated between 200,000-250,000 years ago, some estimates even make the claim that civilization existed as far back as 800,000 years, it would seem that technology, like you suggest, would have trickled down from other cultures to Atlantis.

The accepted timeline for civilization is dated between 200 000 and 250 000 years ago? This is news to me, and I think I should have heard something about it.
The mainstream theory of Homo Sapiens'a age is approximately 200 000 years, and if some 400 000 years old teeth from a cave in Israel turns out to be Homo Sapiens, then it's even older. I would love to find more traces of these early humans and their lives, they're very scant.