Atlantis

[Oroblanco]

Greetings,
<EDIT>I was in the process of posting this reply yesterday when I got bumped off and T-net went into maintenance, so my apologies for the delay.<end edit>
There were several points raised in Joe's response, so the reply got to be very long of necessity. I must ask your indulgence again, thank you in advance.

Hi Roy,

That is a lot to digest.

Your "oldest ship" was found in 1997......15-years ago. Here's what one of the finders had to say:
Note! I believe the wood was found in or around 1992, and only announced in 1997.

"The mind-boggling thing is it is not 2,000 years old as we were hoping, it turns out to be 6,431 years old," said a member of the team, Don Bullivant, 64, yesterday.

"We don't really know what we have got. It could be a clump of trees, which we think is unlikely, or it could be a building or it could be a ship. We are hoping very much for it to be a ship."

I should imagine they know what they have by now. Are there any recent confirmations?

Sorry but no, my subscription ran out about the time that issue came out, which is how I knew about it. It is not *my* "oldest" ship, it was posted as an example that we do not know the earliest ship, for it has not been found - and likely won't. Wood does not survive for thousands of years in most environments. Point was that no "earliest date" for mans invention of ships ought to be carved in stone.

Cactusjumper also wrote

I am in this conversation to learn more about, what I consider to be, the legend of Atlantis. It's true I'm a doubter, but I have no axe to grind. Just waiting to be convinced.

Well I am in the conversation because it intrigues me, you could probably learn more from others among our group than me; I have no axe to grind, nor any expectations to convince you or anyone else. I certainly do not have all the answers and am still learning, and have not done much research on the topic recently so much of what I have is fairly out of date. More on this in a moment.

Cactusjumper also wrote

The Ice Age was just coming to an end, and people (for the most part) were just coming out of caves.
To be sure, things were developing at a relatively fast pace beyond 9,000 BC. Digging canals to divert water from rivers for irrigation did not take place until around 5,000 BC.

It is not possible to make any sweeping statement about when the very first attempt was made to divert water from rivers for irrigation purposes, in fact simple ditch digging has been found in some of the oldest known human encampment sites that have no obvious purpose; for that matter, the flood irrigation systems (and accompanying raised mounds) in the recently discovered ancient sites in the Amazon jungle, formerly believed to have always been a pristine wilderness hostile to human occupation, may well prove to reach back to the Ice Age, and the similar flood-mound irrigation technology of the Titicaca basin has been estimated to date to 15000 years old by one researcher whose name escapes me at the moment.

Cactusjumper also wrote

Sailing ships were invented around 3,100 BC., <snip>

I don't know your source for that date, but as I tried to point out in earlier posts, this date assignment is clearly not accurate. Perhaps you missed this, "The earliest seaworthy boats may have been developed as early as 45,000 years ago"

Cactusjumper also wrote

the wheel around 3,400 BC.

Again I do not know the source for this date, but we ought not be making assertions about exactly when such innovations appeared when there is no consensus even among historians. The wheel is one of the inventions that appears in different populations at different dates. Quote
"Up till now, it is still a mystery as to who invented the wheel and when the wheel was invented. According to archaeologists, it was probably invented in around 8,000 B.C. in Asia."
<http://library.thinkquest.org/C004203/science/science02.htm>

The oldest KNOWN wheel ever found is close to your date, as this source also points out, but as wheels were originally made of wood, the oldest are most probably long gone.

Cactusjumper also wrote

Horses were not domesticated until around 2,000 BC.

I do not know your source for that date, but like the others cited, it is a matter of dispute;

'How and when horses became domesticated is disputed. The clearest evidence of early use of the horse as a means of transport is from chariot burials dated c. 2000 BCE. However, an increasing amount of evidence supports the hypothesis that horses were domesticated in the Eurasian Steppes (Dereivka centered in Ukraine) approximately 4000-3500 BCE.[1][2][3]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_horse>

There are cave paintings of horses wearing what appear to be for all intents and purposes, bridles with reins, up to 30,000 years old; new discoveries are pushing the date back, with a fair amount of political (nationalist pride) involved in the arguments presented by the various theorists.


"Horses may first have been tamed as long ago as 7000 BC, <snip> “The procured evidence may potentially debunk a previously established theory that the domestication of horses originated 5500 years ago in the Central Asian country of Kazakhstan,” the Vice-President of the Kingdom’s Commission for Tourism and Antiquities announced in a press conference in Jeddah.

“This site shows us clearly, the roots of the domestication of horses 9,000 years ago,” said Ali Al Ghabban, citing human DNA evidence that allowed researchers to date the prehistoric civilization to the New Stone Age.

A number of other artifacts, including handicrafts such as arrowheads, scrapers, grain grinders, tools for spinning and weaving were also unearthed and suggest that the ancient Neolithic society may have had skills that were more diversified than just horse-taming."
<http://arabiangazette.com/fresh-finds-in-saudi-arabia-may-alter-horses-domestication-history/>

According to this source, humans have been herding horses for some 50,000 years as meat animals; herding of livestock is a form of agriculture by most definitions of the term. It is but a small step from herding to riding the livestock, as we see even today in the Lapps of the high arctic riding on reindeer to help herd the rest; my bet would be that man started riding on horses not so long after they first started herding them. Horses, like dogs, are a rather tractable, easy to tame sort of animal. As is only recently being rediscovered, ala "horse whispering" to learn the secret language of signs (body language and attitudes) a human can become friends with a wild horse in a single day. Horseback riding was bareback for a very long time until the invention of saddles, so there can not be any artifacts to show that man was riding before the saddles appeared.

Cactusjumper also wrote

How do those things fit into Plato's Atlantis?

If we accepted those dates as absolutely definitive, then it would make Plato's Atlantis either a case of pure fantasy, or of mixing in anachronistic elements into the story, or of human innovations which arose in the Atlantian period but were lost with the end of Atlantis and later re-invented. However those dates are all disputed in the academic world, so we are not forced into making such a choice. I do not rule out the second possibility, that Plato was in fact borrowing features of the Minoans and northern Celts to flesh out his story and make it more romantic for his audience, (basing this on what Plato was accused of adding to the story - posted earlier - and the fact that other ancient sources do not include these same features like advanced plumbing and huge excavated canals for ships) but neither do I conclude that he must have done so.

We do not know all that much of our prehistory, and that is the period in which Plato set his Atlantis. Yet despite all the fanciful sounding details he described, none of them are so far out, so farfetched as to be virtually impossible. Who would have expected to find sophisticated plumbing of both hot and cold water, with flush toilets, in the ruins of Santorini for example? That civilization underwent a death blow by the volcanic eruption, which sealed those ruins for us to find, but those advancements were not re-invented for over a thousand years, to re-appear in Rome and Carthage. The size of the human brain has not undergone any major change in size for a very long time, we very often tend to think of our ancient ancestors as being primitive, superstitious and not too bright; the 'cave man' image, yet in fact they had brains the same size as our own, with the same capabilities of conceptualization and innovation. If Atlantis of 11,500 years ago existed, (I believe it did) there is no reason to state it is impossible for them to have had chariots, horses, or even triremes. A trireme for instance is really just an innovation of the old single row oared boat, it does not require an Archimedes or Einstein to think of adding extra rowers to attain greater force; and among any population of humans there have always been the free-thinkers who dream up new inventions or want to explore the far horizons.

If you are expecting to see absolute proof, like photos of the ruins of the ringed city, you will be disappointed for I certainly do not know of any such absolute proof. However perhaps tomorrow will see the unearthing of the fabled city, or one of its satellites, and the centuries long debate can be settled. I will leave you with something to think about; evidence that man was already taking the steps to what we consider "civilization" at a very early date, much earlier than we see in our history books - the site at Dolni Vestonice.

Ceramic (fired clay) Venus goddess figurine from Dolni Vestonice, dating to around 29,000 years ago.

This site was of a culture that built permanent homes, had specialization of tasks, stored food and created the earliest known map. Some good photos of some of the artifacts and jewelry found there at:
http://www.donsmaps.com/dolnivpottery.html

If you think about it, when man became hunters of large game like mammoths, it is only logical that the beginnings of organization should appear, and with that the birth of civilization as we define that term.

Good luck and good hunting Joe and everyone reading our discussion, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Roy ~ Oroblanco


PS

Uncle Roy,

Here is a more recent claim for the world's oldest ship:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/fsu-wos030606.php

That ties into the claims that the Egyptians invented the sailing ship.

Uncle? I think you were born before I was amigo, but as interesting as this discovery is (and helps prove the legendary voyages to Punt a reality) they likely date to Pharaoh Amenemhat III, who ruled between 1844-1797 B.C. so are hardly the oldest ships or first ever invented. I am working from memory so may be wrong, but think there are Sumerian depictions of boats or ships that date to 4000 BC fitted with sails; there are prehistoric paintings of boats similar to Viking long boats found near what was a much larger Caspian sea at Gobustan, dating from 5000 to 8000 years old. (up to 6000 BC) Anyway thank you for that link, it is an interesting article especially as it pertains to Punt.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

My personal opinion is that Atlantis is a fictionalized version of historic events on Thera/Santorini and Crete. Because the history of those islands was well known in Plato's time, the period of the Atlantis story had to be changed to an era beyond the memory of the people of Athens.

The battle of Djahy is probably the Egyptian history that Solon learned of and passed on in a garbled version. It's likely he learned of that battle and even saw the temple relief, that describes the Egyptian's victory, which still survives to this day. I have a nice copy of the relief and will copy and post it when I get home.

It depicts the defeat of (primarily) the "Sea Peoples" by Usimare Ramesses III around 1178 BC. The history of the two great battles, land and sea, are documented.

My opinions are based on a small number of books I have read on Atlantis, including "Atlantis: The Antedeluvian World" by Donnelly and "The End of Atlantis by Luce.

Because of Plato's description of the Island, people and era, I can't accept his story as anything but fiction......based on much later events and places.

"Uncle? I think you were born before I was amigo".

Uncle was being used in an affectionate manner. Are you saying that an uncle must be older than a nephew?

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

Ramesses III commemorated his victory over the "Sea People" on the temple walls at Medinet Habu. That battle took place around 1190 BC.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Nephew Cactusjumper wrote

It depicts the defeat of (primarily) the "Sea Peoples" by Usimare Ramesses III around 1178 BC. The history of the two great battles, land and sea, are documented.

This is but one of the problems; Solon lived (approx) 638 BC – 558 BC, so that makes a range of 540 to 620 years. Plato has the Egyptian priest state:

As touching your citizens of nine thousand years ago, I will briefly inform you of their laws and of their most famous action; the exact particulars of the whole we will hereafter go through at our leisure in the sacred registers themselves. <Timaeus>

Let me begin by observing first of all, that nine thousand was the sum of years which had elapsed since the war which was said to have taken place between those who dwelt outside the Pillars of Heracles and all who dwelt within them; this war I am going to describe. <Critias>

Adding in Solon's day, that puts the story back around 9500 BC, or perhaps 8000 BC if we use the passage about Egypt being founded a thousand years later. How do we reckon from 540 (or 600 say, if Solon were twenty when he received the story which is stretching it a bit) to equate to the 8000 to 9000 year date? Clearly it can't be a simple case of a missing decimal point as some have proposed.

Cactusjumper also wrote

Ramesses III commemorated his victory over the "Sea People" on the temple walls at Medinet Habu.

That is a neat panel of the battle, can you identify the Athenian contingent fighting alongside the Egyptians? A second issue is to find where there is mention of a naval battle in Timaeus or Critias, which I have failed to find. Recall this part,

Of the combatants on the one side, the city of Athens was reported to have been the leader and to have fought out the war; the combatants on the other side were commanded by the kings of Atlantis, <Critias>

Cactusjumper also wrote

Are you saying that an uncle must be older than a nephew?

Legally, no, but in this case YES!

Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Uncle Roy,

[Adding in Solon's day, that puts the story back around 9500 BC, or perhaps 8000 BC if we use the passage about Egypt being founded a thousand years later. How do we reckon from 540 (or 600 say, if Solon were twenty when he received the story which is stretching it a bit) to equate to the 8000 to 9000 year date? Clearly it can't be a simple case of a missing decimal point as some have proposed.]

There in lies the rub. I don't reckon it at all. If you accept the dates, then, like Donnelly, you accept the premise that the entire Plato account is true history. I don't.

[Of the combatants on the one side, the city of Athens was reported to have been the leader and to have fought out the war; the combatants on the other side were commanded by the kings of Atlantis, <Critias>]

See the answer above.........

"Uncle" was used as meaning an older (in knowledge) trusted family member. Years has nothing to do with it.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Uncle Roy,

[Adding in Solon's day, that puts the story back around 9500 BC, or perhaps 8000 BC if we use the passage about Egypt being founded a thousand years later. How do we reckon from 540 (or 600 say, if Solon were twenty when he received the story which is stretching it a bit) to equate to the 8000 to 9000 year date? Clearly it can't be a simple case of a missing decimal point as some have proposed.]

There in lies the rub. I don't reckon it at all. If you accept the dates, then, like Donnelly, you accept the premise that the entire Plato account is true history. I don't.

[Of the combatants on the one side, the city of Athens was reported to have been the leader and to have fought out the war; the combatants on the other side were commanded by the kings of Atlantis, <Critias>]

See the answer above.........

"Uncle" was used as meaning an older (in knowledge) trusted family member. Years has nothing to do with it.

Take care,

Joe

So Plato picked 9000 out of a hat, and tacked Athenians into a naval battle between Egypt and the fleeing refugees of the Minoans (former slaves of them) which occurred close to the time of the Trojan war and certainly would have been known to the Greeks. Plato then enlarges the rather tiny islands of the Minoan empire into something larger than Sicily, transplants elephants onto them and moves them into the Atlantic ocean, which then is named for...? I don't see a good fit here amigo just some interesting near parallels that are not quite parallels.

Then too, Herodotus found that the Egyptians had records relating to the Trojan war, Menelaus himself visiting their land. Also he was informed by the Egyptian priests of records dating well back to the time of Atlantis, just as Solon supposedly was informed, though Herodotus was writing before Plato; consider this passage from his description of Egypt.

So far in the story the Egyptians and the priests were they who made the report, declaring that from the first king down to this priest of Hephaistos who reigned last, there had been three hundred and forty- one generations of men, and that in them there had been the same number of chief-priests and of kings: but three hundred generations of men are equal to ten thousand years, for a hundred years is three generations of men; and in the one-and-forty generations which remain, those I mean which were added to the three hundred, there are one thousand three hundred and forty years. Thus in the period of eleven thousand three hundred and forty years they said that there had arisen no god in human form; nor even before that time or afterwards among the remaining kings who arise in Egypt, did they report that anything of that kind had come to pass.

Herodotus was dead by the time Plato was born, but it is interesting that he was told of records that reach so far back in time, just as Plato claimed Solon had heard.

Just my opinion but I suspect that we do not have the whole of the Egyptian annals today.
Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

Herodotus, nor any other historian, ever wrote of Plato's Atlantis before he did. You would think it would have been a well known story before Plato's time.

I assume you don't believe that Atlantis was born full grown, so how many years do you think it took the Atlantians to develop the technology and skills required to build Plato's Atlantis? How long would it take to create such an advanced society.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Roy,

Herodotus, nor any other historian, ever wrote of Plato's Atlantis before he did. You would think it would have been a well known story before Plato's time.

I assume you don't believe that Atlantis was born full grown, so how many years do you think it took the Atlantians to develop the technology and skills required to build Plato's Atlantis? How long would it take to create such an advanced society.

Take care,

Joe

I hate to answer a question with a question, but how much advanced society/technology do you attribute to Plato's Atlantis? Thank you in advance,
Roy

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Hmm touche' Oro de Tayopa.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

Well.......They did go from logs with the limbs cut off to ocean going vessels that could carry multiple warriors. They went from hunting horses to riding them well enough to create a race track, stables and baths for the animals. They worked with metals to the point where they could plate the walls of the city with a variety of different refined ores.
They went from simple weapons to items that were advanced.......for the era. They were the first to develop the wheel, attache it to a chariot, pulled by horses and use it for battles. They were the first in history to have hot and cold running water for bathing.

I know I have left a lot out, but my mind is not working that well this morning. I am in the store, so I don't have my books to lean on.

Best I can do for now, my friend.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Geeze Oro de Tayopa, you also posted with a picture --> Ceramic (fired clay) Venus goddess figurine from Dolni Vestonice, dating to around 29,000 years ago post #420.
****************

Now we finally have a bit of concrete data which can be dated, see accompanying attachments.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Oroblanco]

Cactusjumper wrote

Well.......They did go from logs with the limbs cut off to ocean going vessels that could carry multiple warriors. They went from hunting horses to riding them well enough to create a race track, stables and baths for the animals. They worked with metals to the point where they could plate the walls of the city with a variety of different refined ores.
They went from simple weapons to items that were advanced.......for the era. They were the first to develop the wheel, attache it to a chariot, pulled by horses and use it for battles. They were the first in history to have hot and cold running water for bathing.

Thank you, now I can make some kind of intelligible reply to the original question;

Cactusjumper also wrote earlier

I assume you don't believe that Atlantis was born full grown, so how many years do you think it took the Atlantians to develop the technology and skills required to build Plato's Atlantis? How long would it take to create such an advanced society.

To save you (and anyone reading this) the short answer would be a pure guess, 200 years or even less. Explanation took seven thousand words, if anyone cares to read on or just skip to the next post.
_________________________________________________
Long answer:
As Plato does not give any indication of how long the development and growth of Atlantis was, other than alluding to their having been virtuous early in their history, it is not possible to do much other than speculate. One would think that such developments as you list, might well take thousands of years to develop.

The seaworthy lightweight boats rather than logs or rafts were invented before the time of the Titans, (according to Sanchoniathon) so this part of their culture was likely inherited.

Horses are a big question mark, for how long did it take the plains tribes to go from fearing the sight of them, to becoming the finest light cavalry in the world? Not too long. They too, soon were running horse races. Chariots could very well be an outgrowth of the simplest ox-cart, by switching what animals are attached, then making the vehicle lighter so as to be more maneuverable. Chariots appear at different places in (known) history, not always invented by what we consider "civilized" peoples, for example they are found in Scythian graves when these people are believed to have been almost wholly nomadic. So it is not necessary for a particular culture to be civilized with cities and agriculture to have invented and used chariots.

Their metalworking likewise is not deeply detailed by Plato, so we don't really know if there was any actual refining getting done. Most metals are discovered in a native state and used in that form through our prehistory, and Plato makes no mention of any smelting operations - could they have been simply mining the native metals?

The plumbing is yet more speculation, but we do have other examples we can look at for parallels. Running water in homes appeared in Minoan Crete and later in the Roman empire as well as a few other places (Carthage) with no clear chain of evidence to show how it was invented and developed. Were Atlantis uncovered tomorrow, and it had the advanced plumbing as we ascribe, it is just as probable that there would likewise be no trace of how or when the hydraulic engineering was invented or developed.

With several ancient civilizations, there is no clear trail of how they developed; so the Indus valley culture seems to "appear" out of nowhere, or the Sumerians or several others all around the globe. How long did it take for the Sumerians to go from a nomadic tribe of hunter gatherers to living in walled cities with armies, chariots and a writing system? The evidence suggests that civilization can rise rather quickly, as if, once that first step is taken, others follow in quick succession. Developing a regular, dependable food source (agriculture) seems to be an important phase but may not be necessary absolutely, that may even force further innovations in military defense to protect that food resource and the now immobile families.

All speculation on my part for I do not know the answers. My bet would be that an Ice Age Atlantis, as Plato describes, very likely sprang up rather rapidly, perhaps in less than 200 years or just a few generations, perhaps going from semi-nomadic to settled in a single lifetime (a supply of semi-domesticated meat animals, probably primitive fruit culture with figs and olives,possibly the first grain crops deliberately sown, fishing etc) and this necessitated better weapons, tactics and organization in order to defend their new lifestyle from the neighboring tribes that still followed the nomadic hunter-gatherer system. A reliable food supply coupled with immobile settlements also meant that more children could survive to become adults, and this meant a larger workforce and manpower for defense. Look at how rapidly our own civilization went from horse and buggy to the steam engine to space, literally in less than two centuries. The evidence of the Natufian culture seems to indicate that a period of cold and drought may have been a driving force to 'invent' agriculture, necessity being the mother of invention as it were.

It also follows that such a civilization as Plato describes could very easily then become aggressive; as did other ancient civilizations. The superior military enabled them to defeat and conquer neighbors. This too could very easily develop in a relatively order, perhaps a people felt it was justified to attack and conquer neighbors that had in past harrassed and raided them. Payback of a sort, and like several ancient civilizations once the near neighbors were defeated, the far neighbors became a new threat requiring further conquest and expansion until it becomes an empire. To those neighbors far from the original state, this growth and expansion by Atlantis would naturally appear to be an aggressive conquering power with little virtue, just as the peoples outside the Roman empire saw them in much the same light - a military power bent on conquest and enslavement that had superior technology and organization, yet to the Romans most of their wars were seen as matters of self defense. Histories tend to be written by the victors, and generally the losers are painted in dark tones so we have no information as to how Plato's Ice Age Atlantians viewed themselves or their activities.

Cactusjumper also wrote

Herodotus, nor any other historian, ever wrote of Plato's Atlantis before he did. You would think it would have been a well known story before Plato's time.

Perhaps not by that name? One of the points raised by Plato was that this story had become fantasized into the form of a myth, as the Egyptian priests seemed to enjoy poking holes in the Greek versions of their own ancient history, as Herodotus, Hecateus, Solon and probably others learned to their chagrin and embarrassment. Herodotus mentioned

Now as to Heracles I have shown already how many years old he is according to the Egyptians themselves, reckoning down to the reign of Amasis, and Pan is said to have existed for yet more years than these, and Dionysos for the smallest number of years as compared with the others; and even for this last they reckon down to the reign of Amasis fifteen thousand years. This the Egyptians say that they know for a certainty, since they always kept a reckoning and wrote down the years as they came.

It could be argued that the war between Atlantis and the Athenians, Egyptians and others, is recorded in the form of the mythical war between the Titans and Olympians. As Donnelly proposed too, it is quite possible that the flood myths so pervasive around the world, are all referring to a cataclysm that was the same with the end of Atlantis. On the other hand, perhaps it is the fact that the story was NOT already published and well known to the Greeks, that provided impetus to Solon, Hellanicus and Plato to try to write the history?

How long do you believe it took for the Minoans to develop their civilization, with its advanced plumbing, fleet of boats (they appear to have been open topped not decked, so I am going to call them boats) and weaponry?

Don Jose de la Mancha wrote

Now we finally have a bit of concrete data which can be dated, see accompanying attachments.

Don Jose - remember, that female goddess form was very probably considered the ideal form, the most beautiful and desireable in that time. Seems that our standards may have changed somewhat over time? Another notable point may be the parts of the anatomy which some effort was made to depict accurately, while others got very little attention.

Oroblanco

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Sigh, all of this chit chat when we already know where Atlantis/Aztlan is.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

"How long do you believe it took for the Minoans to develop their civilization, with its advanced plumbing, fleet of boats (they appear to have been open topped not decked, so I am going to call them boats) and weaponry?"

Once again, I am not at home, so don't take my answer to the bank.

I would say it took them around 2,000 years, just to develop pottery, which many consider the beginning of a "civilization". Their first ships (boats?) were made around 1,500 BC, and they had to import gold, tin and copper, among other goods using those ships.

From the period where they are first grouped as Minoans, around 7,000 BC, it took them around 5,000 years to build their first palaces.

I have more information at home (sources) but I believe what I have just written is (somewhat) close to historical record. You would know better than I.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Sigh, all of this chit chat when we already know where Atlantis/Aztlan is.

Don Jose de La Mancha

So many have already found Atlantis/Aztlan, and in so many different places! I am quite certain that the place I think is Atlantis/Aztlan is not the same real estate you think. Any new evidence to support your proposed location, 10,000 feet under the water? Thank you in advance.

Cactusjumper wrote

I have more information at home (sources) but I believe what I have just written is (somewhat) close to historical record. You would know better than I.

I will take your word to the bank, and doubt that second part highly.

Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

"I will take your word to the bank, and doubt that second part highly."

In this case, my friend, I would know better than you.

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Sigh, all of this chit chat when we already know where Atlantis/Aztlan is.

Don Jose de La Mancha

Don Jose,

IMHO, Atlantis, like the LDM, is "found" on a regular basis. Each time it is "found" the find fades from public view quickly. Once found, assuming it even exists, it would neve fade from sight.

It's been a bit of time since the site in Spain was located. Have they found a single artifact that can be dated?

Take care,

Joe

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Oro, you posted--> I am quite certain that the place I think is Atlantis/Aztlan is not the same real estate you think.
*************
Obviously, since you are incorrect, right Beth?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You also posted -->Any new evidence to support your proposed location, 10,000 feet under the water?
*************
Probably are, but can we recognize it as being uniquely Aztalan / Atlantis origin

Go dive on the shallows off the coast of France and Spain and earn your place in history. proving that Aztlan, Atlantis, and Tayopa actually existed.

Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Allo Cactus ( code name for Guadalcanal in the 1940's.) You posted -->IMHO, Atlantis, like the LDM, is "found" on a regular basis. Each time it is "found" the find fades from public view quickly. Once found, assuming it even exists, it would neve fade from sight
****************
Absolutely correct, your great, great, grand kiddies will be proud of you for being one of the first to acknowledge it's true location, the giant Caldera off of the coast of Spain.. Viva Atlantis / Aztlan.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You also posted -->It's been a bit of time since the site in Spain was located. Have they found a single artifact that can be dated?
****************
Site "IN" Spain ?? hmmmm A fair ways off of the coast actually.

As for an artifact that can be dated, just how would an artifact from Atlantis differ from the other cultures in the area at that time?

Don Jose de la Mancha fer mi buddy cactus &

 

[cactusjumper]

Don Jose,

Is this what you are referring to?

"As for an artifact that can be dated, just how would an artifact from Atlantis differ from the other cultures in the area at that time?"

I assume such artifacts would be, if Plato is to be believed, pre.....pre-Minoan. At a guess, if Atlantis were found, I believe any artifacts would date to the same period as Knossis or Santorini/Thera.

Take care,

Joe