Atlantis

[Oroblanco]

HOLA amigos,

This is a pretty long reply so I must beg your indulgence again.

Cactusjumper wrote:

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?

I only point to Plutarch as the source of the accusation of embellishment, which is brief, but he includes the fact that Solon was working on writing a history of Atlantis. So Timaeus and/or Critias could be the source of embellishment, but Plutarch accuses Plato directly. (There is another similar accusation, in a satire that dates to the time of Plato, but can't recall the name of the author.) Plutarch does not make any implication that Atlantis was invented by Plato, just that he made it more magnificent than Solon's version. Plutarch may have had access to Solon's actual version, for all we know. It is certain that a great many documents that existed in the time of Plutarch do NOT exist today, so he likely had other sources against which to compare Plato's statements.

Cactusjumper also wrote:

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.

Pick and choose? This is the easiest part - for we find Plato's text has references to inventions which had not been invented 9000 years earlier - like triremes. Likewise the tale of silver and gold-plated walls sure sounds like something added on for dramatic effect. If you want a very easy way to help identify what Plato might have tacked on, compare the descriptions from the other sources to his. Diodorus makes no mention of triremes; Theopompous makes no mention of triremes; in fact triremes appears in no other ancient source even relating to Atlantis. Remember that Atlas was a Titan, (or Tityan in Phoenician) and the poems that tell of the Titans have no reference to such a modern warship as a trireme. So I think that since this particular questionable reference is not supported by any other source, we can likely judge it to be an embellishment of anachronism. There are other features or details we can likewise compare and thus "pick and choose" them out.

Cactusjumper also wrote:

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.

Joe I would point to the Greeks as an example of such an advance, going from barbarians circa 1200 BC to quite advanced 480 BC or less than 800 years. What level of sophistication are you referring to? The advanced plumbing? The Minoans of Crete had such plumbing, 500 years before it was re-invented by Romans, Greeks and others. How long did it take for the Minoans to develop such plumbing? Having natural springs certainly helped, but I don't see that it would require a vast stretch of time for a people to go from hunter-gatherer to a (relatively) advanced civilization. Civilizations have risen and fallen in less than 1000 years. Take for example the Mayans - did it require thousands of years for them to progress from hunters to (again relatively) advanced culture, city-states, armies, trade network, even into advanced math, astronomy, the calendar etc?

Cactusjumper also wrote:

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

What term do you prefer to use? Myth? Fiction? Legend? People? Settlement?

Cactusjumper also wrote:

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.

What changes have I proposed? That the ships might be much more simple affairs? How does that materially affect the story? I also beg to differ (respectfully of course) but ancient dugout canoes have indeed been found, admittedly not as many as would be hoped for but an artifact of WOOD does not survive long. Here is one example of such type boats being found:
http://www.archaeology.org/9607/newsbriefs/canoes.html
Not related to Atlantis but just an example that these did exist and were very likely among the first types of boat used by man. Remember that man reached Australia at least 40,000 years ago, by water - so in 30,000 years time it is certainly possible that some people made advances in boatbuilding. As for very ancient depictions of a man riding a horse (circa 8000 BC) I will suggest a book which has several examples,
Prehistoric Rock Paintings of Bhimbekta By Yashodhar Mathpal and I think Google has at least a part of this online free.

The Earth was a different place in 9600 BC, with a green Sahara dotted with lakes and rivers, a notably smaller Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and drier. The type of technologies possessed by the most advanced people are likely not as advanced as those of 9000 years later. Let me give an example. Herakles/Hercules/Melqarth was said to have been alive when Atlas was still around, by one legend. Herakles is generally depicted in ancient times like this:

He is shown wearing a lion skin (the Nemean lion) and carrying a wooden club. This is very much the type of attire and weaponry used circa 9600 BC. He is not depicted wearing metal armor or carrying swords, as these had not been invented in his time.

Diodorus explained that the ancient poets and historians had mixed the true facts with allegory, for example he gave the instance of Atlas bearing the world on his shoulders. He said that Atlas was the first to discover the true spherical nature of the Earth, and thus bore the "doctrine of the sphere" (the spherical nature of the world and the universe) on his "shoulders". Herakles on meeting Atlas came to understand the doctrine, so he "carried the world" for a while also. I could site other examples such as the "horn of plenty (Amalthea)" which was in reality a case of Melqarth draining swampland in Amalthea and making it into irrigated cropland, but you understand what I am saying.

However if you insist that we follow Plato verbatim, it is not impossible that a people we call Atlantians (or Titans) could not have advanced quite far, perhaps equal to a late Bronze Age culture. If their cities were utterly destroyed by a natural cataclysm, mankind would be forced to re-invent many things (as happened with the Minoans advanced plumbing, un-matched for 500 years) and it might take quite some time to reach an equivalent level. They could have been even more advanced than Plato wrote; human beings have had the same size brains for quite some time, with the same capabilities of advanced thinking and abstract imagination. We know that human beings were living in settlements much earlier than the time of Atlantis (up to 40,000 years ago) so is it so far-fetched that some people might have made considerable advances, after say just 10,000 years time?

Cactusjumper also wrote:

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

Well Joe I would point out that I did not post a link to that site, though they have many interesting things I was not suggesting that you read them and take that as my argument. I found their example photo of ancient depictions of horses wearing bridles quickly so posted it here for you. You cannot expect a history book that states 'horses were not domesticated prior to 3000 BC] is going to include photos of objects that directly disprove their theory. Is that what you are insisting on my producing? If I can locate any images of cave paintings showing men riding horses that is older than 4000 BC I will be happy to post them also, but remember that the academics have an argument against that as proof of domestication, since the cave paintings (that I know of at least) show no reins or bridle, just a man on a horse so they say that doesn't show the man having any control over the animal. There is always an out for the skeptic. Besides, it is not necessary to RIDE a horse in order to put it to work for you, in fact you will get more actual "work" out of it by driving it, (like plowing) not riding it.

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

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI mi busom buddy ORO: it is / was common practice to control horses by knee, as well as neck pressure.

How else was one to hold a shield in one hand, and a sword in the other, and still be controllably mobile enough to fight?

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Kentucky Kache]

The type of technologies possessed by the most advanced people are likely not as advanced as those of 9000 years later. Let me give an example. Herakles/Hercules/Melqarth was said to have been alive when Atlas was still around, by one legend. Herakles is generally depicted in ancient times like this:

He is shown wearing a lion skin (the Nemean lion) and carrying a wooden club. This is very much the type of attire and weaponry used circa 9600 BC. He is not depicted wearing metal armor or carrying swords, as these had not been invented in his time.

Depictions of "gods", such as Hercules, were done by primitive people after the destruction of a scientifically advanced world. They worshiped them as gods. Also, these primitive people took the names of their heros/gods which lived in such a time of wonder (science), so the depiction is not necessarily of the original hero/god.

Diodorus explained that the ancient poets and historians had mixed the true facts with allegory, for example he gave the instance of Atlas bearing the world on his shoulders. He said that Atlas was the first to discover the true spherical nature of the Earth, and thus bore the "doctrine of the sphere" (the spherical nature of the world and the universe) on his "shoulders". Herakles on meeting Atlas came to understand the doctrine, so he "carried the world" for a while also.

That sounds pretty scientifically advanced to me. Whether or not it was exactly that, we know it meant something allegorically.

Joe I would point to the Greeks as an example of such an advance, going from barbarians circa 1200 BC to quite advanced 480 BC or less than 800 years.

A better example might be, how long did it take us to go from horse and buggy to the space age? Less than a hundred years. Of course we had SOME advancement in the 1800s, but look how far we've come in such a short time.

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: Atlantis (another long reply, extra coffee needed)

HOLA amigos,

This got to be a very long reply again, so I beg your indulgence.

Don Jose' de la Mancha wrote:

HI mi busom buddy ORO: it is / was common practice to control horses by knee, as well as neck pressure.

How else was one to hold a shield in one hand, and a sword in the other, and still be controllably mobile enough to fight?

HOLA to you too amigo - yes I am aware of this, the Numidians were famous for not having any sort of bridle on their sturdy little war ponies, guiding them entirely by knee pressure and voice, though some also used a wand or one of the light throwing spears to tap on the sides of the neck. However, as I had this very argument with an archaeologist, the skeptical answer is that we have no indication that the "horse and rider" type cave-paintings were showing men controlling the horse, they might have been simply doing some kind of courageous type attack to kill the horse while jumping on its back. Ridiculous to my view, but they point to the remains of horse-dinners found at paleolithic camp sites as "proof" that horses were ONLY another game to hunt. So until someone finds a cave-painting showing a man riding a horse with a bridle, the skeptics will continue to insist that is only a depiction of a particularly stupid and dangerous method of hunting horses. Even then, should such a painting be found, I would imagine that a true skeptic could come up with yet another excuse as to why it does not depict a man riding a horse - like perhaps he had roped (lasso-ed) the horse in order to leap on it's back to kill it.

Cache Crazy wrote:

Depictions of "gods", such as Hercules, were done by primitive people after the destruction of a scientifically advanced world. They worshiped them as gods. Also, these primitive people took the names of their heros/gods which lived in such a time of wonder (science), so the depiction is not necessarily of the original hero/god.

While the adage about science does hold true (the more advanced the technology, the more it appears to be "magic" to primitive peoples) what do we find in Plato, Diodorus, or any other source that sounds like advanced technology? The hero-gods (almost) all turn out to be mortal men when you research them, folks who were granted the honors of a "god" after their deaths. So I respectfully disagree on the depictions, holding that the ancient artists were doing their best to portray those "gods" based on what information they had.

Cache Crazy also wrote:

That sounds pretty scientifically advanced to me. Whether or not it was exactly that, we know it meant something allegorically.

Well several ancient societies learned of the spherical shape of Earth, some were pretty advanced in astrology, calendars, math, even medicine so I would not consider this (shape of the world) to be too advanced, scientifically. Consider the tools used by Ptolemy to calculate the diameter of the Earth - a stick and a shadow! Fairly sophisticated thinking and math on his part, but not high-tech.

Cache Crazy wrote:

A better example might be, how long did it take us to go from horse and buggy to the space age?

I respectfully disagree, as we had already made a "great leap" from hunter-gatherers to agriculture and (admittedly inferior) science. The people of 1770's had almanacs, newspapers, cast iron stoves for heating and cooking indoors (the famous Franklin fireplace) even eyeglasses and telescopes, plus were sailing across the ocean quite regularly, so they had a "jump start" compared with a society of hunter-gatherers. It is hard to get exact dates for when a people went from "hunter-gatherers" to "civilized". The people could live as hunter-gatherers for hundreds or thousands of years, then some "spark" causes them to start farming, raising crops or herding livestock. The "civilizing" can take a fairly short time - look at the Hebrews of the Old Testament, going from a mass of livestock herders (non-civilized with no permanent cities) to building their own nation in perhaps a few generations. However the Hebrews had contact with "civilized" nations (Egypt, Babylon, or even earlier Sumer) so they may not be a good example? On the other hand, for the purposes of this discussion I have been presuming the Atlantians/Titans to have gone from hunter-gatherers to civilized, when in fact it is equally possible that they had begun some types of agriculture or even fishing on a "commercial" scale, that is fishing by methods productive enough to allow the culture to have the free time to be "civilized". It is a relatively small step from being farmers or fishermen (using nets) with a regular food supply and thus have the free time to spend on such things as science, math and medicine. In fact if Atlantis did exist as a civilization, it is quite likely that they had some form of agriculture and/or fishing prior to building cities.

***Side note but my money would be on Atlantians being good fishermen, regardless of any agriculture they practiced. Living on islands seems to encourage seafarers and fishermen, and we have records of ancient "commercial" type fishing going on in the Classical age; it seems logical that Atlantis would have been a culture heavy with fisher-folk.***

What is "civilization" anyway? There are apparently many different definitions of the term, with different requirements. One includes two items that would toss many civilizations from a list - that they must have both the plow and the wheel. So by this measure, the Incas, Mayans, Aztecs, Stonehenge-culture, (we don't know what their name was) and several others would NOT be considered a civilization. I have already mentioned my own "measure" (cities) and my reasons for using that, and Joe (Cactusjumper) has said he believes it should include the trappings of civilization. What should we include as the trappings of civilization? It is not terribly important for our purposes here, if Atlantis were called a civilization or not; however for them to have known the shape of the Earth, to have had triremes and/or chariots, along with cities, temples, statues, kings etc I think this would more likely be found in a civilization than in a barbarian culture. However quite "barbarian" cultures could have chariots (like the Celts of Britain) be excellent metal-workers (like the Thracians and Scythians) even such "advanced" thinking and observation to create complex calendars (like the so-called "Medicine Wheels" of many Amerindian tribes) etc. The thing which sets Atlantis apart from being simply a barbarian culture in my opinion is that they had at least one city (or many, as hinted by Diodorus). What is perhaps more difficult is that Plato includes a description of Athens co-existing with Atlantis.

Though some evidence is now starting to be discovered in Greece that shows a population living there in the Paleolithic and early Neolithic (already herding livestock) there is little evidence of an ancient Athens of that age. The Egyptian priest however does say it this way:
For there was a time, Solon, before the great deluge of all, when the city which now is Athens was first in war and in every way the best governed of all cities,...
which certainly sounds like it was a "city" but NOT really "Athens" - though the name very well could have been the same, there was no continuity from the very ancient Athens to the Athens of Plato. (A simile would be Punic Carthage and Roman Carthage, separated by a century but quite different cities with different cultures and people, not to mention language.)

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

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Re: Atlantis (another long reply, extra coffee needed)

Cache Crazy wrote:

Depictions of "gods", such as Hercules, were done by primitive people after the destruction of a scientifically advanced world. They worshiped them as gods. Also, these primitive people took the names of their heros/gods which lived in such a time of wonder (science), so the depiction is not necessarily of the original hero/god.

The hero-gods (almost) all turn out to be mortal men when you research them, folks who were granted the honors of a "god" after their deaths. So I respectfully disagree on the depictions, holding that the ancient artists were doing their best to portray those "gods" based on what information they had.

Agreed, but then, men were later granted that same honor. How do you explain Hercules living in the time of Atlantis, and also in the time of the Trojan war?

Cache Crazy wrote:

A better example might be, how long did it take us to go from horse and buggy to the space age?

I respectfully disagree, as we had already made a "great leap" from hunter-gatherers to agriculture and (admittedly inferior) science. The people of 1770's had almanacs, newspapers, cast iron stoves for heating and cooking indoors (the famous Franklin fireplace) even eyeglasses and telescopes, plus were sailing across the ocean quite regularly, so they had a "jump start" compared with a society of hunter-gatherers.

But we're talking about jumping to the space age...quite a leap.
Besides, you don't have to go back too far to get to almanacs, stoves, etc. Point being, technological leaps, while they don't happen over night, can happen pretty rapidly once the ball starts rolling.


While Plato doesn't give details of advanced science in Atlantis (how could he give details about something he didn't understand?), I think he hints at it when he talks about a substance that was known to the Atlanteans, but now (Plato's time) exists in name only. Clearly the Atlanteans possessed knowledge that had become lost in Plato's time.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

OHIO ORO, Your archaeologist is weird sheehs. Horses and MULES, were a favorite item of diet for our Native Indians once they arrived on the continent yes, but they were also very prized for riding. Sigh... Typical of many of our free thinking scientists today. Follow the leader.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: Atlantis (long reply, sorry to admit)

Cache Crazy wrote:

How do you explain Hercules living in the time of Atlantis, and also in the time of the Trojan war?

I turn to Herodotus, who investigated the origins of the story of Hercules/Herakles/Melqarth, and found that the original Herakles was not Greek at all but Phoenician and had lived thousands of years before the Trojan war. (Philo of Byblus said Melqarth was a Tyrian philosopher in the oldest version, which does make some sense if you read the myths of Hercules; for example tricking Atlas into gathering the golden apples for him, cleaning out the Augean stables in a day NOT by physically shoveling the many tons of manure but by diverting a nearby river to wash it clean, etc indicating not a brutish-dumb strongman but a man with the ability to "think outside the box".) Hercules would have to be several persons to have fulfilled all of the fables, for he is also included in the story of Jason and the Argonauts. Even older than Herodotus' report we can find Hercules/Herakles mentioned in Sanchoniathon, (Theology of the Phoenicians) quote

Contemporary with these were Pontus, and Typhon, and Nereus the father of Pontus: from Pontus descended Sidon, who by the excellence of her singing first invented the hymns of odes or praises: and Poseidon.

But to Demarous was born Melicarthus, who is also called Heracles.

end quote

Melicarthus (also spelled Melicertes) is a Greek spelling of Melqarth, and according to Greek legend Melicarthus washed ashore in Greece from a shipwreck and is one of the "minor" gods. Even the Greek version Herakles has Phoenician roots, being born in Thebes - a city founded by none other than Cadmus the Phoenician who arrived in Greece with a group of Phoenician colonists. I strongly suspect Herakles to be a Phoenician hero whom has been "adopted" by the Greeks as their own, and this is not the only instance of such "theft" on the part of the Greeks who claimed many things as their own which were in truth foreign in origins. (The Romans were even worse about this habit.) Anyway if you trace back the origins of almost all the ancient "gods" you will find this type of explanation on each one, in this example I am using Hephaestus (Vulcan) for an example because it happens to be near the extract posted above, quote

One of these called Chrysor, who is the same with Hephæstus, exercised himself in words, and charms and divinations; and he invented the hook, and the bait, and the fishing-line, and boats of a light construction; he was the first of all men that sailed. Wherefore he was worshipped after his death as a God, under the name of Diamichius. And it is said that his brothers invented the art of building walls with bricks.


end quote (Chrysor is said to mean "the golden one" and has origins in Spain.)

*Side note but Melqarth means "king of the city" from roots "mel"= king and "qarth" = city*

Sorry for taking the long way round, and I do see your point about going from literally horse-and-buggy to putting men on the Moon in less than a century. That is (arguably) a much greater leap than going from hunting animals to herding them, which is likely the "first" step of civilization. I think we are in agreement that it would not likely require thousands of years for a (relatively) advanced civilization to rise, which our amigo Cactusjumper contends. Perhaps it all depends on need for where humans have had relatively easy living, without hardships they are forced to deal with, there is little need for invention. Hence we find the earliest civilizations rise in the midst of somewhat hostile regions, like Egypt building a culture along a river basin in the midst of a great desert for example. If the Atlantians faced hardships to survive, they would be forced to invent new ways to deal with it, like saving seeds of useful plants to deliberately raise a crop, or trapping wild cattle or goats in fenced corrals to keep them as a handy food supply etc. Once the "spark" of civilization has caught fire, many civilizations do appear to have risen fairly rapidly.

I do not rule OUT the possibility of Atlantis having been a highly advanced technological society, perhaps even more advanced than we are today. The buildings and articles used by highly advanced societies do not survive long exposed to the elements. If Atlantis were highly advanced, their high-tech devices would likely not survive even a few centuries, leaving little for us to search for 11,600 years later. I am of the opinion that Plato's story points not to such a highly advanced culture but to a much-less sophisticated culture; for instance there is no mention of even iron - which had been discovered well before Plato's time. The existence of other "civilizations" near to the time of Atlantis and in the same general region (like Catal Huyuk, Jericho aforementioned, being located in the Mediterranean basin) and exhibiting some similar characteristics (like a wall around a city in the case of Jericho, worship of bulls and an "egalitarian" society in the case of Catal Huyuk) at least supports the idea of a similar civilization to those and perhaps even in contact with them, which is lost today due to the massive sea level rise at the end of the Ice Age. When Atlantis is found, my money is on it being similar to Catal Huyuk, perhaps a bit more advanced but not on a par even with 5th century BC Athens.

Plato had several other ancient examples which he could draw upon to embellish his tale, like the Minoans who seem to have been destroyed by the eruption of Thera or in his own day Helike, the city swallowed by the sea in a day right in Greece.

Don Jose de la Mancha wrote:

OHIO ORO, Your archaeologist is weird sheehs. Horses and MULES, were a favorite item of diet for our Native Indians once they arrived on the continent yes, but they were also very prized for riding. Sigh... Typical of many of our free thinking scientists today. Follow the leader.

He is a pretty nice fellow and is in Israel - had quite a lengthy discussion about Solomon's mines with him and actually changed his mind, so he personally was not quite so rigid as archaeologists as a group seem to be. His point about the un-written "rule" in archaeology being to minimize everything ancient has proven (sadly) all too true. It is a modern conceit and bias to view mankind's history as a linear development, few historians or archaeologists are comfortable with the fact that the world of the 'Classical age' was very nearly on a par with our own even in such fields as medicine.

Good luck and good hunting amigos, I hope you have a great day. I will not likely be able to reply until after the 14th.
Oroblanco

PS almost forgot, wanted to add this - Atlantis is named for Atlas; (the Titan god of astronomy, a powerful king who possessed great knowledge of the courses of the stars, and who was the first who taught men that heaven had the form of a globe - he also 'knows the depths of all the seas') and Atlantis was the "lot" of the god Poseidon. Who was Poseidon? The god of the seas, also the "earth shaker" and the original tamer of horses. In their allegory are hidden clues to the truth - so we have a hero who tamed horses and "conquered" the seas as the original for Atlantis, and Atlas with his discoveries of the shape of the Earth. Men who were honored after their deaths by becoming "gods"!

There is an interesting theory concerning Hercules too, that he was actually the same person as Sampson of the Bible. Both were strong men, both reputedly lived in the period shortly before the Trojan War, both killed lions with their bare hands etc and the name is traced Hercules/Herakles/Sandes/Sandan/Samdan/Sampson - Sandes is the "Hercules" of India, Sandan is of Tarsus/Cilicia, Samdan of Syria, Sampson of Israel etc.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

The original Hercules lived long before the time of Samson.
I know some believe they are the same, but it doesn't match the facts.
Hercules also lived before the time of the Phoenicians, though I don't
doubt that ALL nations have a Hercules character in their history, since
they all trace back to a common source.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

The robes and other parts of the dress of the goddesses
were woven by Minerva and the graces, and everything of a more
solid nature was formed of the VARIOUS METALS. Vulcan was architect,
smith, armourer, chariot builder, and artist of all work in Olympus. He
built of brass the houses of the gods; he made for them the golden shoes
with which they trod the air or the water, and moved from place to place
with the speed of the wind, or even of thought. He also shod with brass
the celestial steeds, WHICH WHIRLED THE CHARIOTS OF THE GODS
THROUGH THE AIR, OR ALONG THE SURFACE OF THE SEA. He was
able to bestow on his workmanship SELF-MOTION, so that the tripods
could move of themselves in and out of the celestial hall. He even ENDOWED
WITH INTELLIGENCE the golden handmaidens whom he made to wait on
himself. BULFINCH'S MYTHOLOGY

This is not talking about Atlantis (at least not in name), but it does show
us some of the things that the ancients had, and which later became lost.

To me, mythology is nothing but the account by primitive man of a world
that had been destroyed...a world they didn't understand, therefore they
described it the only way they knew how.

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

As soon as someone comes up with something (anything) like this, that is just outside the Pillars of Hercules, we may have a place that could have been Atlantis:

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

HOLA amigos,

I know that I mentioned not being able to respond for a week or so but thought yesterday was Monday - have to get a calendar one of these days so I can keep track. Oh well anyway here is my reply.

Cache Crazy wrote:

The original Hercules lived long before the time of Samson.
I know some believe they are the same, but it doesn't match the facts.
Hercules also lived before the time of the Phoenicians, though I don't
doubt that ALL nations have a Hercules character in their history, since
they all trace back to a common source.

I have to agree with the first statement, in order to have lived in the time of Atlas the original Herakles/Melqarth would have to have lived at least near the time of Atlantis. As for Samson, well I don't have the dates handy but it would have been after 1500 BC and before 1200 BC, but closer to 1200. As for the second statement, Herakles living BEFORE the time of the Phoenicians, I have to respectfully disagree - at least going by the word of Sanchoniathon who stated that the Phoenician civilization (also known as Canaanite in the Bible) had been in existence some 27,000 years by his time (which was before the Trojan war, 1200 BC) so an original Herakles would have been living around 9600 BC, or roughly 18,600 years after the original Phoenicians. (The actual homeland of the Phoenicians is unknown today with several theories current, it seems they arrived in the Levant circa 3000 BC and instantly began sailing the seas. )

A side note here but we know that the origin of the story of Atlantis is almost certainly via the Phoenicians, as is borne out in the text of Plato where he explains,

To his twin brother, who was born after him, and obtained as his lot the extremity of the island towards the Pillars of Heracles, facing the country which is now called the region of Gades in that part of the world, he gave the name which in the Hellenic language is Eumelus, in the language of the country which is named after him, Gadeirus.

Gadeirus is a Phoenician name. So the language of the Atlantians was either Phoenician or something very akin to Phoenician.

Cactusjumper wrote:

As soon as someone comes up with something (anything) like this, that is just outside the Pillars of Hercules, we may have a place that could have been Atlantis:

Will this do?

and

Not exactly like the cliff-dwellings of Mesa Verde, but stepped pyramids (truncated) and ancient ruins, on an island outside of the Pillars of Herakles that has in fact had volcanic subsidences causing mega-tsunamis historically in the past and may do so in the future.

Good luck and good hunting amigos, this time I really won't be responding for a week or so - and I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

ORO snifffffffffffffff ( no boozing)

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Kentucky Kache]

As for the second statement, Herakles living BEFORE the time of the Phoenicians, I have to respectfully disagree - at least going by the word of Sanchoniathon who stated that the Phoenician civilization (also known as Canaanite in the Bible) had been in existence some 27,000 years by his time (which was before the Trojan war, 1200 BC) so an original Herakles would have been living around 9600 BC, or roughly 18,600 years after the original Phoenicians. (The actual homeland of the Phoenicians is unknown today with several theories current, it seems they arrived in the Levant circa 3000 BC and instantly began sailing the seas. )

Canaan, father of the Canaanites/Phoenicians, lived somewhere between 2000 and 2300 BC. I don't know how Sanchoniathon came up with "27,000 years"
The Levant was their homeland, which they populated somewhere around 4000 years ago (after the great flood). That land was probably populated long before the arrival of the Canaanites (there was widespread population before the flood), and since Canaan was a son of Ham and a daughter (descendant) of "CAIN", they could have been Canaan's ancestors (on his mother's side). But they would not be known as Canaanites before the time of Canaan, and I don't think they were known as Phoenicians before Canaan, but I could be wrong. Definitely not 27,000 years before Sanchoniathon.

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

I understand you won't see this until the 14th., but perhaps someone else may want to comment on the subject of the Tenerife Island Pyramids.

I believe the jury is still out on the who and why of them. The early inhabitants believed they were created by the local farmers as they cleared the fields for crops. With the flat land full of such obstacles, I doubt placing them in small stacks would have worked well. Building up with terraces, seems like a great idea to me. Don't want to haul all that rock any distance, so, it's easy to see how they cleared large areas to plant between the rock fences. The excess they used to build the pyramids, and in a manner that was pleasing to the eye.

The problem is, they were not living accommodations like my picture. At this point, it does not even look like they were burial tombs. Basically, they are well constructed stacks of rocks........until someone digs up something of importance. I have read of the alleged connection to Atlantis, and it is pure conjecture right now......as far as I know. You may have more recent information.

Welcome home and take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Cache Crazy wrote:

Canaan, father of the Canaanites/Phoenicians, lived somewhere between 2000 and 2300 BC. I don't know how Sanchoniathon came up with "27,000 years"
The Levant was their homeland, which they populated somewhere around 4000 years ago (after the great flood). That land was probably populated long before the arrival of the Canaanites (there was widespread population before the flood), and since Canaan was a son of Ham and a daughter (descendant) of "CAIN", they could have been Canaan's ancestors (on his mother's side). But they would not be known as Canaanites before the time of Canaan, and I don't think they were known as Phoenicians before Canaan, but I could be wrong. Definitely not 27,000 years before Sanchoniathon.

"In conclusion, we can say that the Phoenicians came to the shores of Lebanon from somewhere else. It was Africa , tens of thousands of years ago, and from the stock that remained here, the Phoenician culture developed. Lebanon is one of the most important locations to understand the begininnings of this migration and its development, and therefore should begin to bare the fruits of this research. The Phoenician culture is a very important intersection to understand the development of the Human race, and in the light of the new information, it is no surprise that this piece of land is attributed with the rise of the Neolithic Age. These were the first adventurers that migrated from Africa at the dawn of man. "

<from>http://phoenicia.org/originphoenicians.html
I don't think we can be so sure that Sanchoniathon was NOT telling the truth. I would also point to a linguistic study done on the Gaelic languages, which found them to be so near to Punic and Phoenician that the conclusion stated that Gaelic and Punic came from a common mother tongue. (A few examples, Punic Baal vs Gaelic Bel, Punic Tanit vs Gaelic Tinnith, just to show the similarities.)

Don Jose de la Mancha wrote:

( no boozing)

NO BOOZING even at our youngest's wedding?? Hmm amigo you seem to forget our positions here don't you? You are 'the Saint' here, while I am seated in quite the opposite position,

or do you disagree on this point?

Cactusjumper wrote:

The problem is, they were not living accommodations like my picture. At this point, it does not even look like they were burial tombs. Basically, they are well constructed stacks of rocks........until someone digs up something of importance. I have read of the alleged connection to Atlantis, and it is pure conjecture right now......as far as I know. You may have more recent information.

I am not proposing the pyramids of Tenerife ARE Atlantis amigo, only showing you ancient ruins *which the jury remains OUT on as to age and whom created* but as mentioned earlier, presenting something that MIGHT just fit what you would prefer before you could accept Plato's story as anything other than a morality play. The Canary Islands have in fact suffered from massive volcanic-type collapses of huge parts of the islands in the past, reshaping the Bahama islands on this side of the Atlantic. These subsidences occurred in various time periods, but at least one of these just happens to coincide with our time frame fairly well. I remind you of what the first Europeans to reach the Canaries in the 'age of exploration' reported about the natives they found there - that the Canary Islanders (known as Guanches) believed that their ancestors came from an island that had sunk in the distant past. It might be more "coincidence" that Guanches mummified their dead. http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/group/guanche.htm
Those stepped pyramids might have been built as recently as the 1800's, which would be very curious in my opinion, but their construction method certainly parallels those of Tiahuanaco and most Mayan pyramids, being simply stacked stone walls that reach a certain height, then the space the walls enclose are filled with earth and a new smaller walled enclosure is built on top of this, repeated until the desired pyramid is complete. Mayans also enlarged on pyramids repeatedly by the same simple and effective expedient. Unless some tomb is found beneath at least one of the Canary Island pyramids I don't think we can say they were tombs, but it is also curious that beneath one of the pyramids a cave was found, which also parallels a number of American pyramids. I doubt that any farmer, however industrious, would have wasted so much labor and time simply removing rocks to stack them in this manner. Just look at various regions where a lot of stone is in the ground and has to be dealt with by farmers, most stack them into walls yes, but walls to enclose fields, form corrals, and build houses like we find in the British isles or the northeast US, or to build terraces along hillsides as we find in many places like Peru. None build them into stepped pyramids.

To find Atlantian/Titan ruins I would suggest searching the sea floor in regions of the Atlantic where there was dry land 12,000 years ago. On the other hand, I am convinced that at least one island of the Atlantis empire is still dry land today and has many curious ruins. In fact I believe that the description given by Plato directly refers to this particular island; the geographic data was in fact available to him from either Punic or Greek explorers. (Himilco or Pytheas)

Thanks for the good wishes, everything went surprisingly well and a good time was had by all. For the first time in my life of traveling, we were not even stopped by a policeman ONCE. It was a little surprising in one incident however, when our motel room turned out to be in the sector used by the local druglords and prostitution guild; our only remaining dog (a pointer) had to answer nature's call so I took her out for a stroll and the neighbors in adjoining rooms (the aforementioned "business" people) called motel security to have them check me out. What could be alarming about a short, fat middle-aged guy walking a dog behind a motel full of "business" folks? ?

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

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Cache Crazy wrote:

Canaan, father of the Canaanites/Phoenicians, lived somewhere between 2000 and 2300 BC. I don't know how Sanchoniathon came up with "27,000 years"
The Levant was their homeland, which they populated somewhere around 4000 years ago (after the great flood). That land was probably populated long before the arrival of the Canaanites (there was widespread population before the flood), and since Canaan was a son of Ham and a daughter (descendant) of "CAIN", they could have been Canaan's ancestors (on his mother's side). But they would not be known as Canaanites before the time of Canaan, and I don't think they were known as Phoenicians before Canaan, but I could be wrong. Definitely not 27,000 years before Sanchoniathon.

"In conclusion, we can say that the Phoenicians came to the shores of Lebanon from somewhere else. It was Africa , tens of thousands of years ago, and from the stock that remained here, the Phoenician culture developed. Lebanon is one of the most important locations to understand the begininnings of this migration and its development, and therefore should begin to bare the fruits of this research. The Phoenician culture is a very important intersection to understand the development of the Human race, and in the light of the new information, it is no surprise that this piece of land is attributed with the rise of the Neolithic Age. These were the first adventurers that migrated from Africa at the dawn of man. "

<from>http://phoenicia.org/originphoenicians.html
I don't think we can be so sure that Sanchoniathon was NOT telling the truth. I would also point to a linguistic study done on the Gaelic languages, which found them to be so near to Punic and Phoenician that the conclusion stated that Gaelic and Punic came from a common mother tongue. (A few examples, Punic Baal vs Gaelic Bel, Punic Tanit vs Gaelic Tinnith, just to show the similarities.)

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

I respectfully disagree, but I appreciate and share your love for the history of people, places and events.

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy and Beth,

Welcome back. Glad your trip went well.

"I doubt that any farmer, however industrious, would have wasted so much labor and time simply removing rocks to stack them in this manner. Just look at various regions where a lot of stone is in the ground and has to be dealt with by farmers, most stack them into walls yes, but walls to enclose fields, form corrals, and build houses like we find in the British isles or the northeast US, or to build terraces along hillsides as we find in many places like Peru. None build them into stepped pyramids."

I also doubt any single farmer built all that we see. When people gathered in large communities, they moved from being exclusively hunter, gatherers and became farmers. In that process, they became a community of farmers.

The first thing I thought of, was defensive ramparts. Perhaps they even built simple wooden huts on top and lived there. Defense from the tops would have been a definite advantage, and watching for attackers while other worked the fields below would have been easy. The rock walls would have made any kind of Blitzkrieg very difficult.

"I am not proposing the pyramids of Tenerife ARE Atlantis amigo"

I did not say that. What I did say was that there was an "alleged connection to Atlantis".

In and of themselves, they are fascinating. Thanks for posting the picture.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

HOLA mi amigo Cache Crazy,

I think we have many common interests! Perhaps our slight difference of opinion here can be traced down to a date of an event? When do you believe the Great Flood ( referred to in Genesis and elsewhere) took place, approximately? Thank you in advance,
your friend,
Oroblanco

 

[Kentucky Kache]

If you trace the genealogies given in the Bible, they seems to put the flood at twenty three fifty...something before Christ. I don't know if we can pinpoint it that exact, but I believe that gets us close.

From Adam, to the flood is clearly outlined. What I'm less sure about is the EXACT time from the flood, to Christ.

 

[Oroblanco]

HOLA amigos,

This will be another long reply, my apologies and I beg your indulgence;

Cactusjumper wrote:

I also doubt any single farmer built all that we see. When people gathered in large communities, they moved from being exclusively hunter, gatherers and became farmers. In that process, they became a community of farmers.

The first thing I thought of, was defensive ramparts. Perhaps they even built simple wooden huts on top and lived there. Defense from the tops would have been a definite advantage, and watching for attackers while other worked the fields below would have been easy. The rock walls would have made any kind of Blitzkrieg very difficult.

Okay Joe, can you name a single PROVEN example of where a community of farmers gathered together to build stepped pyramids? In every case that I am aware of, pyramids are constructed by organized civilizations, not just a community of farmers removing rocks from their fields.

As for a stepped pyramid as a defensive rampart, they are singularly ill-suited for such defensive purposes. Without having protective STONE walls around the perimeters, anyone standing on such a structure is absolutely exposed to any and every missile attack from nearly every direction, without any type of cover whatsoever. As there has never been any mention of anyone finding a trace of a wooden structure anywhere ON the pyramids, to suppose there might have been such structures is pure speculation. Why would the builders construct stone walls (which are the basic architectural feature supporting the whole pyramid) and NOT grasp the superior defensive protection available by simply NOT filling in the space with earth, or building the stone wall just a bit taller so as to protect people standing on the pyramids? Also there are other problems with a pyramid as a defensive structure - there is no water source, no storage space for a food supply, no place to rest for the people. So I must respectfully disagree with this idea.

Cache Crazy wrote:

If you trace the genealogies given in the Bible, they seems to put the flood at twenty three fifty...something before Christ.

Your figure agrees pretty closely with the dates proposed by several biblical scholars whom have calculated the date using the genealogies listed - others came up with about ~3500 BC, the only problem with these dates is that there is no evidence of such a huge flood occurring in the Mesopotamia region at either time. Perhaps the years listed in the genealogies are not intended to give us the number of years to the date of the flood? Look at what the archaeological (and paleontological) record is telling us - prior to the end of the Younger Dryas, the world had MANY different types of wildlife from what the world had shortly AFTER that time. Mammoths, giant bison, giant deer and wolves, giant bears, all sorts of GIANT animals (and I believe also giant types of humans) which seems to fit with the Genesis "there were giants in the Earth in those days" yet SOMETHING made ALL of those giant animals suddenly disappear. The ice core records show a quite sudden warming up of the entire planet but especially in the northern hemisphere, and massive rises of global sea levels. The Black Sea suddenly flooded and changed from a large freshwater lake into a salt sea; there is the flooding of the Mediterranean basin which actually must have happened extremely fast and sudden as the event washed wooly rhinos and mammoths into caves in the Maltese islands where they have been found today. Then too, the genealogy listed in Genesis 10 does not list the years of each patriarch, only the names. If we add up the total years lived by each patriarch, we get a different figure - so what is the author of Genesis actually telling us?

(A few interesting theories:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noah.htm
http://www.kjvbible.org/lifeform.html
and especially this one, on abrupt climate change:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/arch/examples.shtml)

Here is a chart showing the sudden climate change that "fits" with the date of Plato's Atlantis:

Science tells us that Earth underwent a sudden and apparently catastrophic climate change right around the time period assigned by Solon to Atlantis, and we have flood "myths" nearly universal among human cultures, along with the DNA study that showed a sudden 'bottleneck' which also coincides with our time period - where the human population suddenly shrank to a quite small number, I believe we may be mis-interpreting the Genesis genealogies by attempting to calculate the date of Noah's flood by adding up the ages of the patriarchs. <Also, the whole concept of what is a "year" in Genesis is open to debate (very like "days" of creation, which we are informed in the Bible and in Apocrypha is intended to mean only a "period of time" and not literally a "day" - For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night (Psalm 90:4) and But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
(2 Peter 3:8 ) >

So while we may disagree on the date of the flood, which leads to disagreeing on the age of the Phoenicians etc it is possible we could reconcile on these points. It is also possible that several different flood events are the true story, this is echoed by Plato as well, quote:
Thereupon one of the priests, who was of a very great age, said: O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you. Solon in return asked him what he meant. I mean to say, he replied, that in mind you are all young; there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition, nor any science which is hoary with age. And I will tell you why. There have been, and will be again, many destructions of mankind arising out of many causes; the greatest have been brought about by the agencies of fire and water, and other lesser ones by innumerable other causes. There is a story, which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Paethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. 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; at such times those who live upon the mountains and in dry and lofty places are more liable to destruction than those who dwell by rivers or on the seashore. And from this calamity the Nile, who is our never-failing saviour, delivers and preserves us. When, on the other hand, the gods purge the earth with a deluge of water, the survivors in your country are herdsmen and shepherds who dwell on the mountains, but those who, like you, live in cities are carried by the rivers into the sea. Whereas in this land, neither then nor at any other time, does the water come down from above on the fields, having always a tendency to come up from below; for which reason the traditions preserved here are the most ancient.

In the first place you remember a single deluge only, but there were many previous ones; in the next place, you do not know that there formerly dwelt in your land the fairest and noblest race of men which ever lived, and that you and your whole city are descended from a small seed or remnant of them which survived. And this was unknown to you, because, for many generations, the survivors of that destruction died, leaving no written word. (from Timaeus) and

Many great deluges have taken place during the nine thousand years, for that is the number of years which have elapsed since the time of which I am speaking; and during all this time and through so many changes, there has never been any considerable accumulation of the soil coming down from the mountains, as in other places, but the earth has fallen away all round and sunk out of sight.
(from Critias)

(I am aware this has been posted previously, just re-posting these portions to highlight the relevant statements.)

I think it is noteworthy here to point out, that if Plato was simply making up a great morality play story, how remarkable that his Egyptian priest talking to Solon should point out that there have been MANY floods and destructions, a fact which our own civilization was unaware of for nearly two thousand years - we were like the Greeks of Solon's time, remembering ONLY the flood of Noah, yet today we know that flood was only one of many. So how convenient for Plato's fictional Egyptian priest to have made mention of such scientific knowledge, a fact which we only recently learned? You don't find that (at least) a startling bit of coincidence Joe?

Thank you for the replies and I hope you both have a very pleasant evening.
your friend,
Oroblanco