Atlantis

[cactusjumper]

All,

Perhaps we should try eating this elephant one bite a a time.

Let's start with Atlantis being an established, technological civilization in 9,600 B.C. There is a great deal of historical evidence against Plato's description of that civilization even being possible. Maybe we could start with hearing your evidential arguments for overcoming that early date.

Joe Ribaudo

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[cactusjumper]

Beale,

"Atlantis sank into the ocean or the ocean raised up higher than 100 to 500 ft to cover the Islands of Atlantis. This all happened during the Month of Goddess Hathor, in our time roughly November, 1198 BC."

1198 B.C. is a bit distant from Plato's 9,600 B.C. Are you sure you want to stick with that date? Are you also sure you want to say that the ocean raised up 100' to 500' in a one month period? Can you offer any evidence or a source that presents such evidence to support your theory?

Thanks,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

bunch of iggerent buggers. atlantis has been found, deny all that you wish, but in the end you willl be dragged screaming defiance to the guillotine with the rest of the unbelievers.

TN has triumphed Viva Mexico ! etc.

Don Jose de la Mancha

 

[Oroblanco]

Cactusjumper wrote:

Hello Roy,

Did anyone build a snowman by those tracks

Well that would have been difficult, since the climate there pretty well rules out snow unless we go back about 10,000 years, it is from Malta and the ruts run from above ground and into the sea.

Cactusjumper wrote:

Atlantis seems like something we should be able to kick around for awhile. I have a better pictures of cart tracks that were found in the Superstitions. Don't tell bb.

Probably we could argue it (Atlantis) til we leave this mortal coil without hope of swaying the opponents position. This is due to the basic question, do you believe it possible, which if positive then there are bits of evidence etc to support the position, if you believe it not possible there are plenty of expert opinions and a definite lack of MUCH evidence which supports that contention. It is a similar topic in that way to UFO's and Bigfoot etc - there is just enough on each side to keep those camps separated forever. (Very much like the almost armed camps in the Peralta Stones debate.)

Cactusjumper also wrote:

Are you saying that Diodorus Siculus describes Atlantis in more detail than Plato? I don't deny that the name Atlantis existed long before Plato. Once again, you will run into a problem of time.

Diodorus definitely describes certain aspects of Atlantis in much greater detail than Plato even hints at, and includes information about where the descendants still survived at least until NEAR his own time (1st century BC). I tried to find any of Diodorus online and there are a few little extracts, hopefully someone will post his entire history online soon. There is no problem of time amigo, in fact the natural history of the Earth supports the description of Atlantis for a sudden and violent climate change (with resulting sea level changes etc) and recent archaeology is also supporting the very ancient settlements of man on the LOWER sea coasts of that ancient time. (Check out these articles if you have the time:
Stone Age Settlement Found Beneath English Channel
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292793,00.html
Fight On To Save Stone Age Atlantis
http://Fight on to save Stone Age Atlantis

just for starters)

*I can't find an article online but another stone-age settlement was found sunken off the coast of Israel, the name of which I think is Atlit-Yam, also dates to approx the correct time period. Atlit-Yam was mysteriously suddenly abandoned by its inhabitants. A flood perhaps?*

Cactusjumper also wrote:

Perhaps we should try eating this elephant one bite a a time.

Let's start with Atlantis being an established, technological civilization in 9,600 B.C. There is a great deal of historical evidence against Plato's description of that civilization even being possible. Maybe we could start with hearing your evidential arguments for overcoming that early date.

Well amigo it sure appears that you are starting from an error, to proceed from there we will only march further into error. Plato makes no such claims of a "high-tech" civilization. The most advanced things mentioned are some advanced plumbing (which examples have been found in Crete dating to 16th century BC, so it is not exactly "advanced" if you think about it.) and some canal work. Plato claims that the canals are man-made, but even says that most will think they had to be natural and not man-made constructs. Excavating out large canals is not exaclty "high tech" - remember the Egyptians had built canals by the time of Pepi I (2289-2255 B.C.) *see http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/canals.htm and flooded the plains around the pyramids, which must have been stunning to behold. Ancient canals were recently found in the vast interior of the Amazon basin which are only today starting to be explored and delineated. The only source I know of that attributes really high-technology to Atlantis is Edgar Cayce, who obtained his information via psychic methods so we cannot confirm or disprove them at this time. Plato doesn't even mention IRON for his Atlantians, which truly they probably did not have.

Don Jose' de la Mancha wrote:

bunch of iggerent buggers. atlantis has been found, deny all that you wish, but in the end you willl be dragged screaming defiance to the guillotine with the rest of the unbelievers.

TN has triumphed Viva Mexico ! etc.

Hmm well amigo I must say that this proclamation appears to be somewhat premature, no? The site you have proposed will "fit" the description of Plato, Diodorus and others BUT we have no evidence that any part of it was above sea level circa 9,500 BC. I will settle for someone finding remains of forests on the sea floor, as proof that it was once dry land. There are other now-sunken islands that were in fact above sea level, one of which is DIRECTLY opposite the pillars of Herakles, mentioned earlier (Spartel); but we know of vast areas of the Grand Banks, the bottom of the English channel etc where not only evidence of forests and large mammals have been found but also the stone tools of man. So I would say that the jury remains OUT for your site amigo, but I am patient!

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

 

[Oroblanco]

Postscript
OK found some on Atlit-Yam (I was hamstringing my internet searches by using the term "sunken sity" in quotes, took out the word "city" and presto! Lots available!) Here is a rather scholarly article on it, which has dates for the age of the settlement
http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.2112/03503A.1&ct=1

extract:
_________________________________________________
The ages obtained for the dark clay unit in the Dor area, both by using 14C and infrared stimulated luminescence (IRSL), are given in thousands of years. At the northern depression, the oldest age obtained by 14C is 17,915 ± 185 BP, while IRSL obtained a date of 21,800 ± 1,900 yr. for the same sample. At the southern depression, the oldest age of the clay obtained by 14C is 16,680 ± 1200 BP, while IRSL obtained an age of 13,800 ± 1,000 yr. in one borehole and 14C age of 12,165 ± 100 BP in the second borehole. The top of the clay unit is dated by 14C to 8,770 ± 60 BP and 8,650 ± 75 BP in the southern depression, and to 9,520 ± 130 BP in the northern one. A low sea level is indicated during the entire period. At 8500 BP, which is the youngest date for the existence of coastal marshes at Dor, the sea level was probably around −20 m, but certainly not higher than −13 to −16 m, and the coast was at about 1.5−1.0 km off the present one. Shortly after the drying up of the marshes, human sedentary started at the Carmel coast on top of the dark clay unit, beginning at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period (that ends at about 8000 BP), and continued through the Pottery Neolithic and the Chalcolithic periods (up to ca 5100 BP). Only during the Middle Bronze IIA period, at about 4000 BP, when sea level rose to about −1m to −2 m, people started to settled on the kurkar hills along the coast and sands started to accumulate in the area. The sea reached its present level in the last 2000 years, carrying the sands that cover the coastal clays and the early settlements mentioned, and creating the relatively smooth present-day coastline.
_________________________________________________
end extract

There are also sunken settlements in the Black Sea, which admittedly are too YOUNG for the age of Atlantis, but clear evidence of very ancient people living at the sea shore; explorer Robert Ballard (a man I envy as much as Real de Tayopa) has several articles online.

(Here is a site with a number of sunken sites linked: http://www.abc.se/~m10354/uwa/submerge.htm)

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

I swear, the Internet is getting better all the time! There is a FULL set of the fifteen books that still survive of Bibliotheca Historica by Diodorus Siculus, an older version of course but here is the linkee:

http://books.google.com/books?id=agd-eLVNRMMC&printsec=titlepage

I have been buying the small hardcover editions one at a time (the Loews with green paper covers, actually I love them for they have the original Greek on one side, the English translation opposite allowing you to easily and readily check any questionable translation) it is a great read for anyone who loves ancient history.

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

The only book needed for Diodorus's brief description of the Atlantians, is book III. They are not living on Atlantis, but the coast of Oceanus. Plato's story was fairly well known by the time Diodorus finished his World History (around 30 B.C.), and there is no reason why he couldn't have borrowed some of his story from Plato.

Have a good night.

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Joe you are missing a LOT - the war with the Amazons, Gorgons, the religious belief system of the Atlantians etc. Book IV has a paragraph reinforcing the story of Atlantis, citing traditions among Celtic tribesmen living on the Atlantic coast.

Here is a short breakdown on the ancient sources for Atlantis starting from most recent to (arguably) oldest:

• Proclus - Commentary on Timaeus, - preserves Crantor's report on finding the pillars in Egypt,
• Marcellinus - Res Gestae - On the disappearence of landmasses: "in the Atlantic sea, off the coast of Europe, a large island was swallowed up."
• Arnobius Adversus Gentes - Writes of the destruction of Atlantis as if it were an accepted fact of history
• Plutarch On the Face of the Moon - Claims that the Atlantic was shallow and unnavigable because of the subsidance of the island of Atlantis.
• Plutarch Life of Solon - Affirms that Solon in fact started to write history of Atlantis, accuses Plato of embellishing
• Philo Judaeus Incorruptibility - The Island of Atalantes in Plato's Timaios was overwhelmed by floods and earthquakes and suddenly disappeared.
• Diodorus Library of History Describes a race of "Atlanteans" living on the coasts of Africa and the continent across the Atlantic, whose deities originate in the Atlantic. Also warfare between them and Amazons etc
• Strabo Geography Expressed the opinion that possibly Plato's story about the island of Atlantis was not a fiction.
• Marcellus Ethiopic History Canary Islanders preserved traditions of Atlantis, which they alleged had once governed all the islands in the Atlantic
• Aelian De Natura Animalium "Dwellers by the ocean" say the ancient kings of Atlantis traced their descent back to the god Poseidon
• Manetho Old Chronicle Lists the ten god-kings, (which he called the "Auritae") who, during the Reign of the Gods, ruled a "foreign country".
• Crantor Com. on Timaeus Priests of Sais show Crantor the temple columns from which Solon derived his knowledge of the story of Atlantis.
• Theopompus Meropis Priests of Phrygia tell him of a continent of great size in the far west inhabited by both peaceful and warlike people.
• Bhavishya Purana Mentions Atala, the "White Island" across a sea of saltwater in the West, inhabited by Magas who worship Surya, the Sun
• Plato Timaeus/Critias Plato relates the now familiar story of Atlantis and its final destruction by earthquakes, floods and subsidance and says several times that it is a TRUE report.
• Herodotus Histories The ocean now called the Atlantic he calls "the Atlantis Sea" (actually literally "the sea of the island of Atlas") . He describes a tribe of "Atlanteans" living in North Africa.
• Solon Atlantica (lost) Solon began his epic poem "Atlantica" based on the story of Atlantis he had gotten from the priests at Sais, Egypt.
• Mahabharata Karna Parva Describes a ten-year war at the end of which the island of Atala and all its inhabitants sank into the "Western Ocean".
• Hesiod Theogeny Tells us of the Titans who, after losing a ten-year war, were imprisoned beneath the waters of the Ocean in the far West.
• Homer Iliad Refers to the imprisonment of the Titan Cronos at the "far end of the earth" beneath the "waters of the restless sea."
• Sanchuniathon Phoenician History Calls ancient god-kings of former times the "Aletean kings". Gives Phoenician legends of Thoth, Cronos, Atlas and Zeus.
• Turin Papyrus King-List Lists the ten god-kings whose reign over a foreign country ended 9850 B.C., followed by the reign of the demi-gods
• Vishnu Purana Locates Atala, the White Island, in the "Western Ocean" at same latitude as Canary Islands in the Atlantic.
• Palermo Stone Royal Canon Lists the last eight of the ten god-kings, including Cronos (Seb), Osiris, Set and possibly Thoth.
• Egyptian Book of the Dead King Thoth ruled an Island in the West which was destroyed by water, and brought the surviving rulers eastward to Egypt
• the Holy Bible, specifically Genesis - lists ten patriarch-rulers who lived prior to the Flood, which destroys the evil civilization

I might also add here the several Aztec codices of Chicomoztoc, which has some rather striking parallels to the story of Atlantis. Unfortunately, Joe I rather doubt that any ancient written source is going to convince you that Atlantis existed. But we can dispense with the idea that Plato simply made it up or that he is the sole source of the story.

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

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

It is true, that I know a little about a lot of things. That being said, it's obvious that I am "missing a lot".
That seems enough reason to engage you in just about any topic. I know I will end the conversation knowing a great deal more than when I started.

In the process, I will not accept all of your posts as absolute truth, but will seek to find opposing truths. Each of us comes to these little debates with our own personal opinions and limited knowledge, formed with a good deal of effort and some occasional bias.

The problem with your sources, in my opinion, is that they come from historians who habitually mixed myth, fiction and superstition into their historical writings. That was the accepted norm for that time, and who's to say what was based in historical fact and what was based in mythology?

Because one or more myths are raised from fiction into reality, it does not follow that all should be accepted as historical reality.

The floods on the Nile were commonplace, and those who lived close to the river were swept to their deaths in great numbers. Grinding stones and sickle's appeared in Egypt soon after 13,000 B.C. Fishing seems to have stopped around that time, and the major food source became, primarily barley.

Around 10,500 B.C., the grinding stones and sickle's disappeared and the people returned to hunting, fishing, and stone tools. The period from 13,000 to 10,500 B.C. was known as Egypt's golden age of agricultural plenty. What brought this all about was rain.......lots of rain. With all that rain, came massive floods.

This all sounds like fertile ground for the many stories of mythology mixed with great floods.

As for the Great Sphinx at Giza, I assume it was "made by some god and set down bodily in the surrounding sand". Of course, if we are to believe that the weathering that marks the Sphinx is caused by rainfall, it gets a bit older......sometime in the era described above. That seems unlikely, as there are more logical answers. If you are going to argue that it was caused by sea water.....the ocean, and thus Atlantis enters the picture, you are going to find that as hard a sell as Atlantis itself.

The answer to your problem lies in the type of stone used to create the Sphinx. I know, it's much to simple and logical. Myth is sexier.

I would once again urge that we approach this elephant......one bite at a time. You overwhelm me with such long posts. Let's focus on one aspect of the Atlantis story at a time, forget the Sphinx......etc., and see if one theory will hold water over another.

The things that are associated with Atlantis, and 9,600 B.C., would be my choice as a place to begin. Remember, they must also apply to the rest of the known world at that time. Was it possible? There is no archaeological evidence of any rudimentary civilization prior to around 4,000 B.C. The earliest true civilizations, Egypt and Sumer, did not emerge until 3,000 B.C. Let's talk time.......

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Sorry Joe, didn't mean to overwhelm you with long posts, just wanted to get away from the assumption that Plato is the only source for Atlantis, which more than one skeptic has claimed. Thanks for the kind words too, but I feel that I am the one who generally gains knowledge through our discussions - some of our members have extensive experience and broad knowledge (like you) which is a far greater pool of wisdom than I can find elsewhere.

First bite - age

Cactusjumper wrote:

The things that are associated with Atlantis, and 9,600 B.C., would be my choice as a place to begin. Remember, they must also apply to the rest of the known world at that time. Was it possible? There is no archaeological evidence of any rudimentary civilization prior to around 4,000 B.C. The earliest true civilizations, Egypt and Sumer, did not emerge until 3,000 B.C. Let's talk time.......

What about Jericho? <quote>
Jericho is believed to be the oldest continuously-inhabited city of the world,[3] and archaeologists have unearthed the remains of over 20 successive settlements there, dating back to 11,000 years ago (9000 BCE).[4]
<end quote>
Or Pulli in Estonia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulli_settlement which was also settled in this time (11,000 years ago, 9000 BC)
Or Cramond in England http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cramond
Or Catal Huyuk in Turkey, which dates to at least 7500 BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catal_Huyuk

(pottery from Catal Huyuk)

excavations at Catal Huyuk
just a few examples, there are others but this will suffice to give example that at least SOME folks were not living as simple hunter-gatherers 11,000 years ago. Or would you not grant that these settlements (with people living in a permanent site, with specialized jobs and obviously some kind of social organization beyond simple tribes) would qualify as a "civilization"? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

PS here are a few words on the culture of Catal Huyuk, quote"
Heads of animals, especially of cattle, were mounted on walls. A painting of the village with the twin mountain peaks of Hasan Dağ in the background currently is credited as the world's oldest map and the first landscape painting.[1]

The people appear to have lived relatively egalitarian lives with no apparent social classes, as no houses with distinctive features (belonging to royalty or religious hierarchy, for example) have been found so far.

(from Wiki)
Now return to Plato's description of the people of Atlantis - they worshipped BULLS, and lived lives of virtue - doesn't this sound strangely familiar? Or would you say this is pure coincidence, that an ancient culture living in a "proto-city" nearly 10,000 years ago, obviously worshipped cattle (or at least revered them) and seemingly lived "egalitarian" lives? Strange, no? Not proposing Catal Huyuk as Atlantis, just as an example of a nearly as ancient culture with some parallels to what Plato wrote. I am reminded of the similarities found between Minoans and Mycenaeans, we may have an example of a civilization that either co-existed with Atlantis or not so long after Atlantis, showing similarities - perhaps even some suggestion of contacts?

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

Is there some evidence that any of these early "settlements" would be classified as civilizations? There is no arguement that stone age peoples lived in "settlements", even if they were living in caves. There also is no arguement that they used simple tools fashoned from anything that would work.

Thanks,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Cactusjumper wrote:

Is there some evidence that any of these early "settlements" would be classified as civilizations? There is no arguement that stone age peoples lives in "settlements", even if they were living in caves. There also is no arguement that they used simple tools fashoned from anything that would work.

Hmm well Joe it appears that you are staking out a somewhat fuzzy position there. What do you define as a "civilization"? What are "simple tools"? For example, would you consider any of the following examples to be a "civilization"?

Incas
Aztecs
Mayans
Mohenjo Daro
Great Zimbabwe
Stonehenge
Hopewell, Mississippians and/or Adena (all three are closely related)

In each example, please explain (in brief) the reason why you would classify it as a "civilization" or why it would not qualify as a "civilization".
Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

My personal, unqualified, opinion is that all are civilizations except for Stonehenge. While not all of the definitions for civilization are met, many are.

One needs to know which phase of Stonehenge you are asking about, but even then, I would call it a place.......not a civilization.

For the rest, each built cities and lived in them. For that purpose they needed a common spoken language, but not necessarily a written language. While the inhabitants did not need to be civilized, by our modern day standards, they did need to take advantage of the trappings of civilization.

That would require laws, leaders, buildings, community purpose, division of labor, artists, religion, etc. All of the things that take a people beyond the single life driven purpose of surviving simply one day at a time, and moving them towards a future. While all of those things can be found in their most basic forms in almost any stone age settlement, their refinement into a cohesive whole would be what I would consider a civilization. I am surprised that you didn't include the Gobekli Tepe complex, which may very well prove your point.

Getting back to Atlantis and how all of this might apply, it seems to me that you must bring more than Atlantis out of the, so called, middle stone age, into an era that would take thousands more years to develop. In effect, you must drag all of the named people from Plato's story of Atlantis along with them. That means you must discard much of the known history of the age.

As a total neophyte on this subject, I could be wrong on all counts in the above post.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Hi Joe,

Cactusjumper wrote:

For the rest, each built cities and lived in them. For that purpose they needed a common spoken language, but not necessarily a written language. While the inhabitants did not need to be civilized, by our modern day standards, they did need to take advantage of the trappings of civilization.

I see that you include Great Zimbabwe as a civilization, but exclude Stonehenge? I am using the name "Stonehenge" to refer to the culture that built it, not as a place-name, for the culture actually built quite a few "henges" all over the English countryside.

Great Zimbabwe had only simple tools (stone and bone) did metal work (gold only) had no written language and their only agriculture was livestock herding. This matches the Stonehenge culture point for point,except that the Stonehenge culture appears to have had a much more complex set of religious beliefs.

The reason I asked the questions is that SOME historians and anthropologists classify a "civilization" as a culture that has cities, no other requirement can be held to "fit" across the board. Websters defines it as

1 a: a relatively high level of cultural and technological development ; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained b: the culture characteristic of a particular time or place
2: the process of becoming civilized
3 a: refinement of thought, manners, or taste b: a situation of urban comfort

however there are other definitions of what makes a "civilization", with the cities requirement being fairly commonplace. In this case (Atlantis) we have strong misconceptions of what it truly was, largely a result of MODERN re-imagining of it, adding on to it all sorts of advanced technologies and culture. Plutarch accused Plato of doing this as well,so we probably should read the story without taking too much from such statements as pertain to advanced plumbing, or perhaps even the canal work.

I noticed that you included a mention of the "trappings of civilization" but do not specify what those trappings are? For example, would it mean having adopted agriculture and storing foods in bulk, perhaps the use of irrigation, cooking of foods indoors rather than simple fire pits out of doors, etc?

I would call any culture that builds and lives in cities a "civilization" for large groups of people to live permanently in one place requires that they must have some form of government (whether some form of autocracy or democracy) and a set of laws that they abide by; plus the specialization of employment that must go along with such group living, a common language and likely a common religion. Such a culture also is likely to engage in trade, either with other cities or with "wild" non-civilized peoples for such goods as are needed or wanted but not available in the immediate vicinity of their settlement.

Also if we get too "picky" about what defines a civilization, we then have to re-classify known civilizations as mere "settlements". Egypt for example was still using stone tools LONG after copper and bronze tools became available (not to mention their "picture writing" which some nit-pickers still refuse to consider a "writing system") or we could say similar things about the Adena (no stone structures or complex tools) or the Inca (no system of writing, primitive "ancestor worship" type religious belief, human sacrifice etc).

So I would conclude that both Jericho and Catal Huyuk were civilizations, Jericho being a walled city at inception and Catal Huyuk having fairly advanced agriculture (they practiced irrigation) with a population that likely reached 10,000 at peak; and this is much closer to the time of Atlantis than it is to our own time. However if you disagree, then Atlantis would also not likely qualify as a "civilization" by your criteria, for we have no indication that they had a system of writing, nor that they had any advanced tools or medicine, their religious belief system was more akin to other ancient beliefs and certainly not as complex or sophisticated as Christianity, Judaism or Islam; their "ships" were likely not even decked but open type and likely not as large as those in use by the time of the Trojan war (1200 BC).

Side note here but I went through this same reset of the idea of Atlantis myself, starting out with the conviction that it was pure fiction, proceeding to "maybe" highly advanced, then a careful re-read of Plato, Diodorus and the other sources that really seems to point to a late Paleolithic civilization, perhaps the very first attempt of men to live together permanently, but not even on a par technologically with Plato's time. Take for example the mention of chariots - by the time of Plato, chariots were very much obsolete except for racing (and the Celts of Britain, who used them more like our armored personnel carriers to quickly move infantry to various places on the battlefield and NOT as any kind of shock weapon).

Thank you for explaining Joe, and I hope you have a great evening.
your friend,
Roy

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Heck, ATLANTIS / AZATLAN existed/ exists and we here, now know where it lies. simple ? Right mi Gloss gal?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

Archaeologists give themselves plenty of wriggle room when talking about Stonehenge.
That's probably because it's possible that the overall construction (start to finish) may have lasted for over 6,500 years.

For a civilization to last that long, in that time and place, without leaving a great deal more evidence behind seems unlikely.

That being said, it's all boils down to informed opinion, or in my case, uninformed. If you want to call Stonehenge a civilization, I should be the last person to disagree. In truth, it's just my opinion.

Going outside the story of Atlantis to bolster the likelyhood that it existed in that time and place, is rather circumstantial. You won't find many archaeologist's who will date anything with unequivocal statements of "fact". That, of course, does not include our friend.....bb.

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

Here are some of Plato's descriptions of Atlantis:

__________________________________________

At the centre of the island, near the sea, was a plain, said to be the most beautiful and fertile of all plains, and near the middle of this plain about fifty stades inland a hill of no great size... There were two rings of land and three of sea, like cartwheels, with the island at their centre and equidistant from each other... in the centre was a shrine sacred to Poseidon and Cleito, surrounded by a golden wall through which entry was fobidden...

There was a temple to Poseidon himself, a stade in length, three hundred feet wide, and proportionate in height, though somewhat outlandish in appearance. The outside of it was covered all over in silver, except for the figures on the pediment which were covered with gold... Round the temple were statues of all the original ten kings and their wives, and many others dedicated by kings and private persons belonging to the city and its dominions...

Two springs, hot and cold, provided an unlimited supply of water for appropriate purposes, remarkable for its agreeable quality and excellence; and this they made available by surrounding it with suitable buildings and plantations, leading some of it into basins in the open air and some of it into covered hot baths for winter use.

Here seperate accommodation was provided for royalty and commoners, and, again, for women, for horses, and for other beasts of burden... The outflow they led into the grove of Poseidon, which (because of the goodness of the soil) was full of trees of marvellous beauty and height, and also channelled it to the outer ring-islands by aquaducts at the bridges.

On each of these ring islands they had built many temples for different gods, and many gardens and areas for exercise, some for men and some for horses... Finally, there were dockyards full of triremes and their equipment, all in good shape...

Beyond the three outer harbours there was a wall, beginning at the sea and running right round in a circle, at a uniform distance of fifty stades from the largest ring and harbour and returning in on itself at the mouth of the canal to the sea. This wall was densely built up all round with houses and the canal and the large harbour were crowded with vast numbers of merchant ships from all quarters, from which rose a constant din of shouting and noise day and night.

_______________________________________________

Keep in mind that this was destroyed around 9,600-9,500 B.C. How many years do you think it might have taken to develop and build such a magnificent and ideal place? I put triremes in bold, because it's an important clue to the age of Atlantis.

I know that you are aware of this description, but some who are reading this topic may not realize how advanced Atlantis was said to have been.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: Atlantis <very long reply, extra coffee alert>

HOLA Joe and everyone,

This will be a long reply, so I beg your indulgence.

Cactusjumper wrote:

That being said, it's all boils down to informed opinion, or in my case, uninformed. If you want to call Stonehenge a civilization,

I did not call Stonehenge a civilization, I was asking if you would class it as one. While the Stonehenge culture has some of the attributes of a civilization, they seem to lack the key marker - cities. As far as I have been able to learn, the Stonehenge culture was likely a herding society with only semi-permanent settlements. The later stages (with the intriguing "barrow" tombs) might fill this requirement though. I would tentatively call the Stonehenge culture a proto-civilization, and just a side note but the first stages of Stonehenge site specifically appears to be around 8000 BC, structures built of pine timbers rather than stone which came much later.

Cactusjumper also wrote:

Going outside the story of Atlantis to bolster the likelyhood that it existed in that time and place, is rather circumstantial. You won't find many archaeologist's who will date anything with unequivocal statements of "fact".

I went "outside" of the story of Atlantis in response to your statements:

Let's start with Atlantis being an established, technological civilization in 9,600 B.C. There is a great deal of historical evidence against Plato's description of that civilization even being possible. Maybe we could start with hearing your evidential arguments for overcoming that early date.

and especially this one:

The things that are associated with Atlantis, and 9,600 B.C., would be my choice as a place to begin. Remember, they must also apply to the rest of the known world at that time. Was it possible? There is no archaeological evidence of any rudimentary civilization prior to around 4,000 B.C. The earliest true civilizations, Egypt and Sumer, did not emerge until 3,000 B.C. Let's talk time.......

I was merely pointing out examples of other civilizations that existed prior to 3000 BC, and yes I classify Catal Huyuk as a civilization, as well as the walled city of Jericho. However if we are to insist on an Atlantis that has technology of Plato's time (~350 BC or over 9000 years later) then we are destined to never find it.If we can prove that there were people (cultures) existing in or near the time of legendary Atlantis that exhibited some of the traits of what we call "civilization" - then it becomes a different question than the easy dismissal of an improbable Iron age civilization being placed in the late Paleolithic. So if we are to talk time - then let us indeed talk time, and not try to re-imagine an advanced stone age people into an anachronistic state. Would Atlantis be less remarkable, if it were only on a par with Catal Huyuk?

For your next set of responses, I will break them down into separate answers:

Cactusjumper also wrote:

At the centre of the island...

There is nothing in this part of the description that would not serve for an Ice Age culture. (I will use the term "culture" rather than civilization, will that suffice to fit your definitions of what a civilization is better?)

<ibid>

There was a temple to Poseidon himself...

Again we know of other ancient cultures, even older than the time period proposed for Atlantis, that had temples. The Middle East has some extremely old temples in the Negev and in nearby Sinai. Covering the walls with silver, gold or orichalcum is questionable, but gold is the first metal ever worked by man, and hammering these types of metals into thin sheets (which can then be "plated" onto any hard surface, using a resin to glue it permanently) is not a great leap of technology. Even quite "barbarian" cultures have shown rather advanced metallurgy, for examples the Thracians and Scythians. So this passage is a "maybe" - though it is just as likely that this is some of Plato's embellishment. An example of a temple dating back 12,000 years was recently found in Gobekli hill in Turkey, short article online at:

http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/001723.html

Examples of metal working by "barbarian" peoples:

(Thracian silver-gilt breastplate from Hellenistic era)

(Scythian hammered gold plaque, 7th century BC)

<ibid>

Two springs, hot and cold, provided an unlimited supply of water...

Natural springs are not too extraordinary, and if the "plantations" were simply some fig trees and the buildings of wood rather than marble, nothing anachronistic.

<ibid>

Here seperate accommodation was provided for royalty and commoners, and, again, for women, for horses, and for other beasts of burden...

If this section is read with an eye thinking of Athens, one gets quite an image - however read it again with a mental image of the type of buildings found in Malta, which are far more likely for 9600 BC, and it has a different effect on your view. As for having horses, it is anachronistic according to Brittanica, however there is evidence that horses were domesticated well before 10,000 BC - cave paintings showing horses wearing bridles have been found that date to 20.000 BC. (Side note but horses are remarkably easy to "tame" among the animal kingdom, even a wild horse can be trained to ride safely in a single day. Try doing that with a wolf, that is taking a wild one from the wild and trying to tame it in a single day and you will get bitten!)

<ibid>

On each of these ring islands they had built many temples for different gods, and many gardens and areas for exercise, some for men and some for horses... Finally, there were dockyards full of triremes and their equipment, all in good shape...

This passage has a sentence which certainly could be an example of Plato "embellishing" or to be exact, attributing the Atlantians with what were the most powerful warships of his own day - triremes. Penteconters, the "fifty" oared ships of the siege of Troy, were not invented until around ~1500 BC, or over 8000 years later. We can see examples of earlier ships in the wall carvings of Queen Hatshepsut recording the then-epic voyages to Punt; the ships were even smaller than the Penteconters with perhaps a dozen rowers, open decked. The types of boats used by men of 10000 BC started out as log rafts, hollowed out versions, and it is quite possible that the "warships" of Atlantis were far more similar to the outrigger canoes of Polynesia than the swift and sleek Triremes of Plato's day.

<ibid>

Beyond the three outer harbours there was a wall, beginning at the sea and running right round in a circle, at a uniform distance of fifty stades from the largest ring and harbour and returning in on itself at the mouth of the canal to the sea. This wall was densely built up all round with houses and the canal and the large harbour were crowded with vast numbers of merchant ships from all quarters, from which rose a constant din of shouting and noise day and night.

A wall is nothing too advanced, nor would houses be so great an advancement in technology. Merchant ships could be referring to large outrigger canoes and rafts, much as the sort of trade that took place in the Caribbean prior to the arrival of Columbus. A constant din is something Plato likely imagined himself, having been in the busy cities of his own day - one need only read some of the letters from ancient Rome, Babylon, Alexandria and Athens to find many complaints about the noise of busy commerce. (They ought to hear downtown NYC on a weekday, maybe they wouldn't have complained! )

Cactusjumper also wrote:

How many years do you think it might have taken to develop and build such a magnificent and ideal place? I put triremes in bold, because it's an important clue to the age of Atlantis.

I would say not more than 300 years would be necessary, simply by referring to other ancient civilizations that arose in such a span of time or considerably less. A few generations can make significant advances and constructions, for instance the very largest Egyptian pyramid took less than 40 years to build, so how long would it take to excavate out a few canals, build temples and a city etc? I don't take the mention of triremes to be any clue of the age of Atlantis, rather an example of Plato assigning the most advanced warship of his own day to the ancients. This is not a habit we can accuse Plato of singly either, just look at some of the paintings of Medeival times that purport to depict scenes of classical antiquity, and we see knights in shining armor, Medeival castles etc set in a time period when no such thing was known - though certainly armor was known and fortresses had been around for much longer. (Here is a well known example of such an anachronism)

I don't mean to sound as if I am belittling Atlantis, rather I am trying to put it into a perspective of realism, so that we may more readily recognize Atlantis should someone actually find it. (no disrespect intended, Don Jose..) I think we covered a bit of this before, a simile would be if we were to try to find a 20th century USA while digging in revolutionary war period sites. The culture exists but not as some are imagining it.

Good luck and good hunting Joe and everyone, I hope you have a very pleasant evening.
Oroblanco

 

[Oroblanco]

PS - here are some examples of bone and antler carvings of horses wearing bridles, dating to 10,000 BC to 14,000 BC

(dates found by carbon 14 dating)

So the mention of horses in Plato's Atlantis is not necessarily a red herring.
Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

I understand where you are coming from for most of your post. While it is true that Plato was well noted for his "embellishment", that was the norm for poets and philosophers. If we are to assign that label to Plato, shouldn't we hang the same problems, with stretching the truth, on Timaeus and Critias?

If we are to pick and choose those parts of Plato's rendition of Atlantis which we find believeable, at what point in the story is Plato being faithful to the story.....as it was told to him, and at what point does he embellish? Perhaps it was Timaeus and Critias who embellished, and Plato was an honest scribe, simply taking down the story, exactly, as it was related to him.

When I said outside that time and place, I meant outside the immediate location that was Atlantis. The time required to establish such a civilization goes far beyond the 9,600 to 9,500 B.C. time of destruction. As described, how long do you think it would take to develop that kind of sophistication? I should think you would be getting well into the period of the last Ice Age.

I don't really believe there is any importance in the label of Atlantis as being a culture, civilization or even Ice Age culture.

Changing Plato's story to match the reality of the time period in which it is set, will require a great deal more than some dug-out canoes, for which there is not a single shred of evidence. Considering the artistic abilities of many of those cave drawings, I will concede your point concerning horses, as soon as you find a drawing of a man riding a horse prior to 4,000 B.C. I am being generous with that date.

Bed Time.

Take care,

Joe

PS.......I saw that you had posted, and wonder of wonders, I just left the site you got those horse carvings from. WOW! Still not buying it.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Yer hooked joe, you are like a sail fish, you will make some spectacular runs -posts - but in the end you will be boated and join our ranks, we have found Atlantis / Aztlan.

Oro also snicker.

Don Jose de La Mancha