Atlantis

[Oroblanco]

Postscript - here is that wall fresco from ancient Thera (Santorini) showing the city as it was prior to the volcanic eruption, with the city built on the middle island, surrounded by rings of earth and sea, with boats plying the waters.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[WilliamTheFinder]

that middle picture is Kircher's map,
we have that book at the library in our insane jesuit collection. That picture's the reason I came to this thread


Okay, quick question. If we're accepting that Plato embellished, can't we just say he embellished the date and it only happened say, 2,000 or even 900 years prior to him?

Even so,I think the only problem is that when we go down your road, there really isn't a way to even suggest that a given location is Atlantis:
-We find a location that sank sometime during the ice age but no actual physical evidence: Well, the event was cataclysmic and nothing really should be expected to remain.
- We find evidence that a literate civilization with advanced metallurgy existed way before we expect: Plato mentions a proto-athens which fought atlantis and didn't get completely wiped, suggesting at least one other advanced culture at the same time, we have no evidence that it's atlantis and not, I dunno, Proto-Carthage. Plus, you've conceded they might not be as advanced as plato says.
- We find evidence that a culture was given the knowledge of metalworking by a people called Atlantoco's: Well, we don't actually know the name of the Atlantians, and it probably wasn't "Atlantians"* so any similarity can be chalked up to mere coincidence, especially since you can argue that other very advanced civilizations existed at the same time as above, and that atlantis was not necessarily very advanced.
- Even if we find, say, a tablet in an indecipherable language ON an island that sunk 11,000 years ago, it wouldn't even count as evidence of Atlantis, given that two parts of your hypothesis seem to be that Literate civilizations started way before they're previously thought and destructive events like the one that took down Atlantis have happened at numerous locations throughout the world

I don't think anyone disputes that there were very warlike civilizations 9,000 years ago, and given the frequency of these tsunami's, earthquakes, and volcanoes, some of them must have been on an island that sank....
I realize that nothing can be proven or disproved beyond all shadows of doubt, but it's really hard to make a case for any actual piece of evidence to point towards Atlantis if we accept that absolutely no-one got what I'd dub in this situation "Text One" or the closest thing therof. You might as well plant your flag on Santorini and say "Well I found it".

*Unless you want to argue that they had a name beginning with "Atl" and coincidentally showed up precisely in an ocean that the greek's called "Atlantis" or "the Atlantic" which I really hope you don't think comes from the name of the island because then there's not much I can do to change your mind.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Gentlemen: Break out the machetes and chain saws, you are starting to cultivate a forest, a mistake that has handicapped too many investigations in the past. A million "IF'S" can be .presented or postulated for every possible potential lead.

A) You have a series of data from the Med area which are strikingly similar, if vague. Presently this area is considered as the nearest neighbor and presumably the most accurate. Use the common thread.

B) You have a nice set of Oceanic bottom profiles available which can be utilized

C) Combining the two has a disturbing coincidence. A location of a mass under the sea almost precisely where legend places the sunken Atlantis, and it's size, conclusions?

Regarding the time factors and Aztecs, no problem. If true, they are descended from the survivors that took refuge on, or near the coast of Spain, or were residents of a previously established colony. This area consists of swamps and has recently found Temples. Possibly this is the muddy shoal area as described as remaining from Atlantis, not Atlantis itself..

Their possible migration obviously came much later, hence the time difference

There has been no place put forth as Atlantis which comes anywhere near to fulfilling the basic requirements as this site.

SOOO, We have Atlantis, however much remains to be done, prob. not in my lifetime, but a start has been made.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[WilliamTheFinder]

I suppose the aztecs could have sat around in spain for 9,500 years, then up and decided to move to America but really though, it seems much more likely that they'd have migrated from the north, west, or eastern gulf. Your hypothesis would explain why these post-atlantians don't really mention a natural disaster (even if they did, it seem not to be the reason for their migration).

regarding your ifs
this is precisely why I was for limiting the evidence to stories a little more specific and congruous to Plato's own than a few words about an island, a cataclysm, or a nation with a name similar to "Atlantis". Thus far, Plato's account seems to be the only one in use to actually organize searches, determine locations, and rule out findings. The other ones seem to be called up only to verify that Plato was discussing a "true" event, with details liberally ignored or claimed as corrupted on a whim. I think the entire thread seems to have adopted Plato's story as our "Document One" and gone from there. Course, this isn't bad, (After all, assumption of truth in these matters is the only way things get found) and the best hypothesis I've seen on here to match up with that is tayopa's, but I won't go scuba diving until I see more

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: Atlantis (Long reply, extra coffee alert)

SALUDOS amigos,
This ended up being a very long reply, so I beg your indulgence:

WilliamtheFinder wrote:

Okay, quick question. If we're accepting that Plato embellished, can't we just say he embellished the date and it only happened say, 2,000 or even 900 years prior to him?

Is that supported by the other sources? We don't have to accept that Plato embellished, that is Plutarch's opinion. Unfortunately, Plutarch did not specify exactly what he felt was embellishment, my reasoning was by comparing Plato's version with the relatively scant information available in other sources, which do not include the very detailed part about the circular island with surrounding circles of earth and sea etc. It seems you prefer the "all or nothing'" approach, which is not likely to work out, as it has not worked out for any of the other Atlantis-hunters thus far.

WilliamTheFinder also wrote:

Even so,I think the only problem is that when we go down your road, there really isn't a way to even suggest that a given location is Atlantis: <snip>

I find your logic to be quite incomprehensible, especially considering that Plato did not give specific directions to locate the islands. They were west of the Pillars of Herakles, or opposite, etc which covers a very large area. Plato did provide a key element that would be extremely helpful in locating and identifying Atlantis, in his description of the size of the island. Unless a proposed location is of approximately that size, I would say that it cannot be Atlantis. Of course we can go with the "tenfold error" idea, which will not make sense as you carry it through the description, and end up with about any quite small island could "fit". There is a location that does fit with Plato's description, already mentioned above.

As for the NAME problem, considering that the god was Atlas, the names would likely be similar to and/or derived from Atlas, hence the name of the island Atlantis. Plato also provided the root language in Critias, if you noticed it. It is a language with some limited similarity to Greek, but definitely not Greek. (The similarity led to some interesting changes - for example a city that was named "Ubbo" meaning "bay" which the Greeks pronounced as "Hippo" meaning "horse" but that is another topic.)

I would add here, concerning the date - there were several great floods in antiquity, as we now know; the flood caused when the Black Sea was suddenly filled, the same type when the Mediterranean basin was flooded, others caused by massive ice dams in North America and Asia giving way and releasing many cubic miles of ice-cold fresh water into the oceans very quickly etc. This too is echoed in Plato, as the Egyptian priest said while chiding Solon about the short Greek history: In the first place you
remember a single deluge only, but there were many previous ones; so are we to dismiss this as some Egyptian fiction, or is it just possible that they did have records reaching back farther than Egyptologists are willing to admit?

WilliamtheFinder wrote:

I don't think anyone disputes that there were very warlike civilizations 9,000 years ago, and given the frequency of these tsunami's, earthquakes, and volcanoes, some of them must have been on an island that sank....

I beg to differ here amigo, and can assure you there are plenty of folks who would dispute that any human civilization existed 9000 years ago, much less 11,500 years ago when Atlantis is supposed to have existed. Among us here however, you are likely correct.

WilliamTheFinder also wrote:

I realize that nothing can be proven or disproved beyond all shadows of doubt, but it's really hard to make a case for any actual piece of evidence to point towards Atlantis if we accept that absolutely no-one got what I'd dub in this situation "Text One" or the closest thing therof. You might as well plant your flag on Santorini and say "Well I found it".

You seem to be back to the "all or nothing" approach, and if this is what you insist on, then I wish you luck in your endeavor; you seem to be coming to us and ask us to provide the proof as you define it, and I am sorry to let you down amigo but it is not really my task to try to convince you about where Atlantis is, what we must find there to prove it, nor the exact location. Our mutual amigo Don Jose' has proposed a location, which has some interesting points but we have nothing raised from the bottom of the sea at that location to show that it must be Atlantis. There are, BTW, plenty of folks who have indeed planted their flags on Santorini and claim 'I found Atlantis' in fact the tour guides are really pushing it. The fact that the island is certainly not past the Pillars of Herakles, was not in the right time period, not destroyed by earthquakes and floods but by volcanic eruption, was not the capital of the Minoan empire, was not destroyed in a single day but lasted a century etc are no stumbling block for these folks. You do not agree with my approach, which is fine in my book amigo and I really do hope you find the Atlantis that fits your specifications, heck I hope to be the first to congratulate you when you do.

WilliamTheFinder also wrote:

Thus far, Plato's account seems to be the only one in use to actually organize searches, determine locations, and rule out findings. The other ones seem to be called up only to verify that Plato was discussing a "true" event, with details liberally ignored or claimed as corrupted on a whim.

Corrupted on a "whim" amigo? I thought I explained why certain details can be regarded as suspect, not that it is my personal "whim" or choice. If I were to choose to use that 'tenfold exaggeration' then that WOULD be on a personal whim/choice, since there is no sound argument to support accepting it.

Don Jose' Dueno de Real e Minas de Tayopa wrote:

Combining the two has a disturbing coincidence. A location of a mass under the sea almost precisely where legend places the sunken Atlantis, and it's size, conclusions?

I don't wish to discourage you in any way amigo, but I don't believe I can make any conclusions at this point. I would also respectfully disagree about your choice of words, as in "almost precisely where legend places the sunken Atlantis" as the ancient sources are actually quite vague about the precise location. Almost anywhere in the Atlantic would do, so long as it had one large island of the size described, and it could also "fit" with some other islands/islets being a series of 'stepping stones' type islands by which a seafarer might travel to the Americas. There is a place that fits this quite well, and it was used in that very way by some ancient seafarers to sail to the Americas. I think you already know the place too, as most Irishmen know it due to an ancient Irish legend.

Don Jose' also wrote:

There has been no place put forth as Atlantis which comes anywhere near to fulfilling the basic requirements as this site.

SOOO, We have Atlantis, however much remains to be done, prob. not in my lifetime, but a start has been made

I respectfully disagree amigo, but do not care to specify here (have to keep a little of my research for the book) and in my opinion it is premature to conclude that we now have Atlantis located; thus far we have a site that could fit - IF it was above water thousands of years ago, which remains un-proven. I do hope that you don't plan on leaving this mortal coil anytime soon....

Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Oro YA igernet cowboy who does nothing but contemplate the south end of a loose boweled horse going north You posted-->

I don't wish to discourage you in any way amigo
~~~~~~~~~~~~

You aren't ny freind, in fact I have encouraged all to find fault, hence the antagonizing postive statements.

Frankly I cannot conceive that many others haven't arrived at the same conclusion since it is soo obvious.
**************************************************************************************
You also posted -->

I would also respectfully disagree about your choice of words,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

disagree all you wish ya Dakota clod, snicker see above on this.
**************************************************************************************

also-->


it is "premature" to conclude that we now have Atlantis located
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For a comon man I would agree, but EL Santo has meditated, and spoken, sorta like the Delphi.

Don jose de La Mancha el Santo.

 

[WilliamTheFinder]

It's not really "All or nothing", it's THE way you interpret data from a variety of different written sources...given that the variety you've proposed is absolutely enormous, the criteria used to figure out what's "Actual" needs to be very strict to actually happen upon anything but the merest speculation.

Tayopa is essentially right here, we are trying to "follow the common thread", but we're trying to do a little more than that...it's plainly obvious that most of our directions, locations, and expectations are colored by Plato...this is okay, sometimes picking at random, playing a hunch, or going on faith is the only way things our found...but it really is worth asking "Why". As I mentioned before, Plato is a philosopher who heard the story second or third hand and is writing to prove a point in a dialog about the nature of the universe. If the Sanskrit epics, aztec codices, and written histories you've mentioned really do point to the same island, we need to ask why we're not looking at them as closely as Plato...many of these would be actual histories, written by Atlantians to explain their past, or at the very least historical records documenting living atlantian survivors (remember, Herodotus and Sanchuniathon discussing living peoples) This does not necessarily make them "More true" than Plato by default, but it does suggest that Plato may not be the best place to look

 

[Oroblanco]

WilliamTheFinder you have brought up one of those intriguing, tantalizing leads - the possibility of surviving Atlantians. I know there is an Atlantis-hunter in Central America this very moment trying to track down some kind of living representatives to put forth as descendants of the Atlantians, and in those ancient sources previously cited (Diodorus, Herodotus) it is implied that at least some Atlantian colonies/colonists had survived much longer than 9000 BC. It is a very tantalizing lead - however there are severe problems. With the island or islands, we have problems but at least we have some ideas about what will suffice to correctly identify them as Atlantis - whether it is the circular city with rings of land or the size and location etc; but with living people (or living at least into classical times) how can we be sure that any of them are Atlantians? Language perhaps, but the root language was used by several widely-scattered cultures over a relatively long time, so finding a people who have a similar language might be misleading - they could be related in some way to those other people who used the language, or had some level of contact with them that resulted in cross-borrowing of some loan words. DNA would be enticing, IF we had an example of an Atlantian person that we could compare it to, as far as i know we do not. What would you propose, as a "measure" by which we might be able to correctly identify surviving Atlantians?

WilliamTheFinder also wrote;

If the Sanskrit epics, aztec codices, and written histories you've mentioned really do point to the same island, we need to ask why we're not looking at them as closely as Plato..

I can explain my own reasons as to why I have only touched upon them briefly, can't answer for anyone else; firstly most of the other sources (except one) have relatively little information that is of much use. Plutarch for instance only mentions Atlantis, accuses Plato of embellishing it, and confirms that Solon did at least attempt to write the history. So in large part their usefulness is quite limited. The other reason they are not quite so useful has to do with simple availability - there are numerous online versions of Plato and in libraries, but try to find the books of Diodorus or Sanchuniathon and it is quite a different story. The Aztec codices are a series of pictograms (their own hieroglyphics) which while interesting and helpful, are very abbreviated versions in terms of the total number of words they amount to - as you mentioned, there is no mention of any kind of cataclysm, yet in the depiction of Aztlan, we see an erupting volcano shown in the island. It is possible that the volcano was depicted as erupting solely to indicate that it was in fact a volcano, and that it was not erupting at all. I am not proposing that the Aztec legend of Aztlan IS another version of Atlantis, but am open to the idea that this is possible. The Reconquista Movement certainly does not approve of Aztlan being some island out in the Atlantic (or Pacific, as one site claims) and I am sure they would provide arguments against any such linkage between Aztlan and Atlantis, similarities notwithstanding.

Don Jose', Dueno de Real e Minas de Tayopa wrote:

Oro YA igernet cowboy who does nothing but contemplate the south end of a loose boweled horse going north

Well you do have to admit, that is the "business" end, where the most powerful weaponry is located, so it is prudent to keep one eye open to the possibility of one or two of those weapons being activated in a sudden manner resulting in possible extensive pain, not to mention embarrassment. Of course with your own horse or mule, which you are very well acquainted with and can trust implicitly, the need for watchfulness is greatly reduced but even your own horse can certainly deliver a healthy thump - which may not even be intended for you. The most painful such kick I ever received was really aimed at another horse, I just happened to be in the way at the time. I take exception to being honored with the title of Cowboy amigo, a real cowboy can rope with skill for example while I have trouble with a standing calf. I can get it done, but not usually on the first try. For that matter, I would expect that a real cowboy owns his own horse, and (at the moment) I do not even own a horse. I do plan on changing that situation in the future of course, but will not be looking for a cow-pony but something quite different.

Real de Tayopa also wrote:

<snip>...in fact I have encouraged all to find fault, hence the antagonizing postive statements.


Frankly I cannot conceive that many others haven't arrived at the same conclusion since it is soo obvious.

Taking a cue from one of our mutual friends amigo? I do realize that your absolute-type statements do tend to inspire much more comment than a qualified, cautious statement ever will, but I for one am not ready to let you off the hook. Do you know of any evidence that your proposed location was above sea level circa 11,500 BC? Or at any time period from say the height of the last Ice Age until about 1200 BC? I used those dates not capriciously, but for several reasons - the world sea levels were at their lowest point at the height of the last Ice Age, fluctuated over the millenia but rose fairly continuously from the end of the Younger Dryas to about 5000 BC, fluctuated again with peaks several meters in difference occuring about 4000 BC, 2800 BC, and at 1200 BC which was a high point. We ought not consider any location to be Atlantis that dates to after 1200 BC or to be specific 1193 BC which is the date believed to be when Sanchuniathon wrote his history.

Real de Tayopa also wrote:

disagree all you wish ya Dakota clod, snicker see above on this <snip> {and}
For a comon man I would agree, but EL Santo has meditated, and spoken, sorta like the Delphi.

Like the prophetesses of Delphi, as in inhaling volcanic/slightly toxic ethylene fumes leading to mild euphoria, a feeling of being 'high'? I am guessing of course, since the similarity cannot be the habit of speaking in riddles as the Delphic oracles did, and you are not female nor likely to be dressed in a toga....

 

[WilliamTheFinder]

yeah...living atlantians would be a nice way to resolve the matter, but I'm pretty sure it's impossible to find anything suggesting that a group is.
One only needs to look at the myriad mutations a language can undergo in even 3,000 years, say, early sumerian to its later iteration, Or Germanic dialects and Sanskrit. Both these examples spring from civilizations that were relatively "stay-puttish" and definitely not "blow-uppified". 11,000 years of world wandering and general mishmashing with cultures as diverse as the Egyptians, the indians, and possibly the aztecs would change a language beyond all recognition.

I don't know much about genetics, but I know we have a hard enough time tracing phonecian ancestry, a civilization that has markers we know to search for, and migration patterns we can trace definitively. I've heard lots of stories about pale, slope nosed, or strongly bearded indian tribes in south america, but I'm not sure this is altogether remarkable in and of itself.

 

[Oroblanco]

WilliamTheFinder wrote:

I've heard lots of stories about pale, slope nosed, or strongly bearded indian tribes in south america, but I'm not sure this is altogether remarkable in and of itself.

I would love to hear those stories amigo, if you should care to share them some time? I don't know if we can totally rule OUT the possibility of some kind of surviving descendants that we may be able to identify either - perhaps you are aware of the recent DNA tests that showed a living Amerindian (Chippewa) to be directly related to a living Greek, but that their common ancestor(s) had to be at least 8000 years ago? This would not prove Atlantian ancestry directly, but does show that some kind of contact was taking place in the distant past, and is at least circumstantial evidence; after all the story of Atlantis includes some kind of proto-Hellenes in a direct (if conflicting) relationship with the Atlantians. I am speculating of course but it could be explained that a Greek ended up among proto-Chippewas due to the war between the Hellenes and Atlantis, either due to shipwreck, trade, having been taken captive etc. In support we could point to the Atlantians being a conquering power, having a wide series of wars over some length of time. Perhaps the war with the Hellenes was following a period of relative peace between the two peoples, which could allow Hellenes to voyage into and through Atlantian-held areas on trading expeditions? Pure speculation, I realize, but isn't it interesting to find such little tidbits of clues? I was hoping you might propose some thing by which we could positively (or even tentatively) identify Atlantians, whether artifacts, language, DNA or anything you could think of that would serve.
your friend,
Oroblanco

 

[WilliamTheFinder]

well, the real problem is that using DNA tracking to reveal, say, a common ancestor 8,000 years ago would suggest that the Atlantians decided to sit on their hands for 3,000 years before hightailing it to the new world. A common ancestor earlier than that, say, 13,000-15,000 years ago when the Atlantian world-spanning empire was in full swing, would probably just point to your run-of-the-mill land bridge migration occurring around this time. Course, the land bridge model is increasingly contested, but only on grounds of exclusivity, there aren't many who suggest that it WASN'T a route to the new world, just that it wasn't the ONLY one.

Given that (Thankfully) the propositions that the Atlantians were not superadvanced seems to be in the majority, I would take evidence of a common ancestor 8,000 years ago to be better sign of transatlantic/transpacific migration by a more conventional and documented civilization, say, Phoenician or Carthaginians.

Remember, just because the common ancestor existed 8,000 years ago doesn't mean the actual migration had to take place at that time. If this "common ancestor" say, had two sons, one have them could have headed off for greece and the other could have sat around, and raised a family that waited a thousand (or two, or three) years and headed off for the new world on a Phoenician merchant ship.
Not that I actually believe several Atlantic crossing hypotheses pre 1,000 AD (Though I make room for them), but I'd far sooner believe that a civilization that certainly existed made the trip.

I'll try to find the bearded indian story.
there's lots of wild speculation that aztec/maya gods and the man/god quetzalcoatl were westerners or Atlantian because they are usually depicted as pale or bearded. You can probably guess my opinions on that.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Good afternoon: May I suggest finding just who built and worked the "7 Ciudades de Cibola" in South America on the upper Perene' ?

Speaking of planting new forestry areas.

Don Jose de La Mancha co-discoverer of ancient Atlantis heheheheheh

 

[WilliamTheFinder]

hmmm...maybe I'll jump to the logical conclusion, mostly out of curiosity.

I mentioned divine intervention in an earlier post, and since at least one person has stated I'm skeptical, I'll ask the question:
Does anyone here actually think Greek/Proto-greek/other deities had something to do with the wreck? Obviously, such information would not be falsifiable and wouldn't really require evidence per se, so don't go to great lengths defending your opinion or refuting the statements of others, I'm just curious how many people there actually are that think that.

Personally, as a student of the history of the Occult, It doesn't pay to dismiss any claim of the supernatural out of hand, though I've yet to find one I believe in and I'd sooner believe Poseidon had a hand in this than say...aliens, for a variety of reasons I'd not go into.

 

[Oroblanco]

WilliamTheFinder wrote:

Does anyone here actually think Greek/Proto-greek/other deities had something to do with the wreck?

Just my own opinion, but having researched a number of the Hellenic gods/goddesses as well as Punic, Egyptian and others, in virtually every case the "god" was in reality a prince/princess/philosopher who usually lived in the early to mid Bronze age, (a very few being somewhat later, such as Herakles/Hercules/Melqart/Melicarthus, closer to the Trojan War period) and was then accorded the "honors" of a divinity after their death - in effect, the old "ancestor worship" religion of so many primitive peoples, carried to the logical progression with the higher culture/civilization and education level of the people which in due course demanded more sophistication in their religious belief systems. So I would say absolutely not, no ghost of a long-dead Hellenic prince had any kind of effect in the 'wreck'. It would be similar, to put it in more modern terms, for us to say that George Washington's spirit, angry with the way our people are behaving in New Orleans, caused hurricane Katrina to strike the city.

It is interesting that you thought of this question, not only because there are a handful of folks who do believe in the ancient polytheistic religion, but also because some of the ancients themselves do not appear to have believed that any of their own "gods" were responsible. Even within Timaeus, we find the Egyptian priest telling Solon, concerning the past destructions by fire - quote:

Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long
intervals;
* A side note here but from what I have read, it appears that the Greeks were at least 'drifting' towards monotheism by the time of Plato, and a few centuries later we find 'closet monotheists' like Pliny the Elder.

This little passage shows us that even among Egyptian priests of 500 BC, who were the agents and authorities concerning their own religious beliefs, did not ascribe massive natural disasters to those very "gods". Herodotus informs us what he was told by Egyptian priests, quote:

Thus in the period of eleven thousand three hundred and forty years they said that there had arisen no god in human form; nor even before that time or afterwards among the remaining kings who arose in Egypt, did they report that anything of that kind had come to pass.

This puts the statements of the ancients into a somewhat different light from what so many modern skeptics love to imply, namely that those ancient authors were ancient science-fiction writers or so simple of mind that they saw the "gods" at work in every action or inaction of their world.

(By the way amigo, apologies for calling you a "skeptic" I was really referring to the many skeptics at large, not specifically you, as you do seem to keep an open mind which is more than I can say for far too many skeptics. Skeptical is a good thing, but not when it demands a closed mind, just my opinion.)

Good luck and good hunting amigo (and everyone) I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
your friend,
Oroblanco

 

[Oroblanco]

PS - just wanted to add, viz Plato inventing Atlantis, the relevant passage in Hesiod (Theogony) which includes the name Atlantis is:

ll. 938-939) And Maia, the daughter of Atlas, bare to Zeus glorious Hermes, the herald of the deathless gods, for she went up into his holy bed;

In the original Greek, it is:
Zêni d' ar' Atlantis Maiê teke kudimon Hermên,
kêruk' athanatôn, hieron lechos eisanabasa.


Authorities are not in agreement as to exactly when Hesiod lived, but we can safely place it at 700 BC which is several centuries before Plato. Another ancient source exists only in fragments, a poet named Hellanicus of Lesbos, whose poem 'Atlantis' or perhaps 'Atlantias' was supposed to be a history of the island, and we know he lived 490-405 BC, certainly before Plato. However some believe Atlantias was a poem about the daughters of Atlas and named after the Atlantic, rather than a history - we may never know. Perhaps if we had the third dialogue of Plato, 'Hermocrates', we would be able to settle the matter forever.

Proclus' commentary on Atlantis, (not the portion copied from the philosopher Crantor) is also brief, here it is:

"That an island of such nature and size once existed is evident from what is said by certain authors who investigated the things around the outer sea. For according to them, there were seven islands in that sea in their time, sacred to Persephone, and also three others of enormous size, one of which was sacred to Pluto, another to Ammon, and another one between them to Poseidon, the extent of which was a thousand stadia; and the inhabitants of it—they add—preserved the remembrance from their ancestors of the immeasurably large island of Atlantis which had really existed there and which for many ages had reigned over all islands in the Atlantic sea and which itself had like-wise been sacred to Poseidon. Now these things Marcellus has written in his Aethiopica"

Also, Herodotus confirms that Solon did voyage to Egypt, but did not elaborate on his experiences there, being more concerned with his visit to the court of king Croesus of Lydia.

This thread has been very useful for me, so I wish to thank you all for participating - I need to do some work and this discussion has covered many interesting points I need to address in my own project.

Good luck and good hunting amigos, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
your friend,
Oroblanco

 

[WilliamTheFinder]

Just remember, "Atlantis" means "atlas thing" "atlas place' or "from atlas"... the line "and a booger was picked from the nose of atlas" when appropriately dressed, would have "Atlantis" in it. Given that atlas was a very popular god* as well as a not terribly uncommon name, ( I know of at least one "King atlas" off the top of my head) it's not the best way to find the island.
but I'll add to the speculation...

you are aware that Thoth (The one you claimed came from a "sunken island" in the west in the book of the dead...this is an over-simplification, but okay) is more-or-less identified as equivalent to Hermes in later hermetic and alchemical tradition? In this case, a "Grandson of atlas". Later, Thoth becomes Hermes Trismagestos, or Hermes Trismosen, thrice blessed Hermes, the founder of alchemy, the author of the emerald tablet, and according to numerous traditions, the wisest man that ever lived.

you did state:
"This puts the statements of the ancients into a somewhat different light from what so many modern skeptics love to imply, namely that those ancient authors were ancient science-fiction writers or so simple of mind that they saw the "gods" at work in every action or inaction of their world."

This is precisely the reason I'm against many of the wilder Atlantian hypotheses, as their central premise seems to require that any time the ancients saw a bright light, a guy with more-advanced-than-normal tools, or a migration of strange people, they immediately fell down and worshiped them as gods...and in the case where histories are claimed to be offshoots of the Atlantian race, people tend to assume that they "Misunderstood" just about every aspect of their own history/theology except any and all mentions of islands, sunken or otherwise.
* er...titan

 

[Zeitgeist_Xero]

Oro wrote:
As you know, volcanoes are very 'tricky' critters, they may lie dormant for centuries, even for thousands of years, then suddenly "come to life" and erupt in a most violent manner. The Atlantians, assuming the description of building a city on a volcano is correct, might well have believed the volcano to be not dormant but extinct. If it had not erupted in centuries, why should they have believed otherwise? Besides, the volcano had nothing to do with the destruction of Atlantis, remember it was a day and night of "earthquakes and floods" - NOT a volcanic eruption of any kind. At least there is NO mention of any volcano erupting in Plato.

This is in reference to Tayopa's vague maps of the Atlantic, and his repeated references to Caldera rings being the very rings described by Plato... At most, the Atlanteans (of Tayopa's map presumption) wouldn't have built their City in a caldera; the caldera would have been the result of a volcanic eruption; after the demise of Atlantis.


Oro wrote:
I respectfully disagree about the idea of Atlantis being so technologically advanced. Plato makes no mention of anything remarkably advanced in technology for the Atlantians, other than having fairly modern plumbing.


When you consider that Atlantis is stated as having existed over 9000 years before Plato, and Ziggurat's go back to roughly the fourth millennium BC; Atlantis is VERY advanced for its stated epoch of existence with; extensive navigation techniques, extensive moat & canal earthenworks, bridges, great gates and towers, organized city planning of walls in extensive rings around the heart of the metropolis, various metalworks and bronzes (bronze going back to roughly the third millenium BC). Yes, in Modern times; this is nothing special; but when you consider the recorded time frame for Atlantis's stated existence; it was very advanced.

 

[WilliamTheFinder]

It could be one of those repeaty type volcanoes...given that apparently geology can do just about anything, I wouldn't make any definitive statements about what is or is not geologically possible.

Anyhow, with regards to your statements on technology.

yeah...I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you...
for one thing, they'd almost double the current estimate on written language and consequentially be the third/fourth/fifth* world culture to spontaneously develop such a thing...unless you believe that several other world languages were the result of atlantian tinkering. Given the bloody-pulpification that the world's historical and mythological traditions are usually subjected to, I'm sure compelling evidence can be called up to back that up...but hopefully not by anyone here.

What disturbs me most about Plato's account was his assertion that Atlantis wasn't the only way-more-advanced-than-we-think civilization out there...while there are lots of concerns to take into account when "matching" one civilization against the other, methinks a civilization with metallurgy, civics, and logistics advanced as Atlantis requires as per plato wouldn't fight a 11,000 year old athens to a draw without ballpark technology on the Athenians part (especially given their size and apparent commitment)...which makes me wonder how many other late-bronze-age civilizations are going to have to exist in the stone age.


* varies depending on how much evidence you require. point is, they predate them all by 4,000 years.

 

[Oroblanco]

Zeitgeist_Xero wrote:

when you consider the recorded time frame for Atlantis's stated existence; it was very advanced.

Agreed, in comparison to Ice Age humans of hunter-gatherer cultures, Atlantis would be quite advanced; however many modern theorists and authors have a habit of ascribing all sorts of extremely high-technology to Atlantis, ranging from flying machines and submarines to nuclear power, magic crystals, interstellar travel, inter-dimensional devices etc - none of which is found in any of the ancient sources but are all modern concepts grafted onto the original story. On the other hand, if a highly advanced civilization were suddenly destroyed by a natural calamity, it seems likely that most or perhaps all of their advanced technology would be destroyed over the centuries, leaving no trace of such things as automobiles, wooden structures, telephones, computers, airplanes, etc; over time the stories of such high technology might be seen as incredible, magical 'things' by a less advanced culture or cultures that followed. So IF Atlantis were truly a very advanced civilization (equalling or surpassing our own tech) it seems unlikely that we will ever find any trace of their actual high-tech devices. Unless of course they were made of gold and diamonds?

Zeitgeist_Xero wrote:

At most, the Atlanteans (of Tayopa's map presumption) wouldn't have built their City in a caldera; the caldera would have been the result of a volcanic eruption; after the demise of Atlantis.

Is it not possible that a city could be built on a caldera, only to be blown to bits; the volcano then forming a new caldera in subsequent eruptions? This has happened with some volcanoes - not that a city was blasted to bits (except of course Thera/Santorini) and the volcano created a new caldera. Also, if the land actually subsided and was thus flooded, is it not possible that a city built on an extinct/dormant volcanic caldera might simply be sunk/flooded, with the caldera remaining relatively intact? Just speculating of course.

WilliamTheFinder wrote:

Just remember, "Atlantis" means "atlas thing" "atlas place' or "from atlas

I am very well aware that Atlantis means "of Atlas" however the name existed well before the time of Plato, which was my point. The story of a great flood destroying a civilization also existed well before the time of Plato. Hence the modern accusations that Plato invented Atlantis and that he is the ONLY source, are false. (Here is one example out of MANY)

"Ever since Plato made up the story of Atlantis in the fourth century BC, it has fascinated and puzzled its readers. ... The book takes as its starting point a fact often ignored in non-specialist treatments of Atlantis: that Plato is the original and only primary source for the story" (from Foreword to The Atlantis Secret by Christopher Gill)

WilliamTheFinder also wrote:

you are aware that Thoth <snip>

Yes, however the Egyptian myths of Thoth are a little peripheral in respect to Plato's tale of Atlantis, as I would think that either Solon or Plato would have seen the parallels and recognized the connection if it is directly related. It is only a POSSIBLE link/source, in my opinion. The Homeric island of Scheria (spelled probably wrong here) in the Odyssey is another POSSIBLE source, there are a number of parallels in that story as well, certainly more than we find in Thoth->Atlantis. Of course IF Thoth is tied to Atlantis, it is certainly interesting that he was credited with being so intelligent/inventive.

Good luck and good hunting amigos, I hope you all find the treasures that you seek.
your friend,
Oroblanco

 

[WilliamTheFinder]

I hate to say it, but I'm still not convinced...
I can't find a story that ties a place called Atlantis to a sinking island anywhere in the reasonable ballpark of Plato's legend.
There are lots of legends about sinking islands, but we're not arguing that plato made those up...there are lots of legends about places named after the god or man Atlas, but we're not saying Plato made that up either. I think people are generally contending that he made up, or is the only useful source, for the island he describes. Even you have conceded that he's the only one that provides any semblance of useful data.