Atlantis

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

good morning fellow addicts.

Oro, you posted an article which reads this --> "For more than 2,000 years Plato has been accused of making the entire Atlantis story up. Now for the first time we know that his source, Solon, was working from a pre-existing and genuine tradition".

True, but none of the so called 'facts' on Atlantis / Aztlan fit Turkey.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[cactusjumper]

Don Jose,

"True, but none of the so called 'facts' on Atlantis / Aztlan fit Turkey."

Nor does the era of Atlantis fit the Aztecs own story of when they left Aztlan.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Hola Cactus (<-- code name for Guadalcanal, 1942 ) You posted-->"True, but none of the so called 'facts' on Atlantis / Aztlan fit Turkey."

Nor does the era of Atlantis fit the Aztecs own story of when they left Aztlan.
*************
On the first we are in agreement.

On the second, regarding eras, there is a vast difference in the periods. The forefathers of the "Aztecs came to the shallows - Aztlan - thousands of years after Atlantis was submerged. They are not survivors of Atlantis, but Aztlan. They were a nomadic group, possibly from Palestine / Israel.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

[Is Dolni Vestonice your best evidence that the story of Atlantis could be true?

Is that what I said? I said it is proof that man was making advances toward civilization FAR earlier than what is commonly supposed, and that to propose that mankind (in general) was at that level circa 26000 years ago, then went for 14000 plus years without making advances is a poor proposition. I did not say that Dolni Vestonici IS direct evidence of Atlantis at all, nor wish to give that impression.]

I would agree that man was moving "toward civilization"......from the start. Dolni Vestonici was very early in that process. It was only a winter camp, consisting of a few large structures made of Mammoth bones and skins. They built a wall around the camp using the same material as their shelters, with the addition of brush and small boulders.

The estimated total population was around 85-125 people living in four or five such structures. They were hunter gatherers and, basically, were attracted to that location because the Mammoth's wintered there.

It took them around three thousand years to reach that level of civilization.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Roy,

<snip>

I would agree that man was moving "toward civilization"......from the start. Dolni Vestonici was very early in that process. It was only a winter camp, consisting of a few large structures made of Mammoth bones and skins. They built a wall around the camp using the same material as their shelters, with the addition of brush and small boulders.

The estimated total population was around 85-125 people living in four or five such structures. They were hunter gatherers and, basically, were attracted to that location because the Mammoth's wintered there.

It took them around three thousand years to reach that level of civilization.

Take care,

Joe

Dolni Vestonice is more ancient relative to Atlantis, than Atlantis is to us. The Atlantis of Plato's story, would be largely underwater so we are not talking about direct evidence of Atlantis. Dolni Vestonice was mentioned as proof that man was not simply wandering tribes living in caves, and was already taking the steps to what we consider civilization, over 10,000 years before Atlantis.

I would like to know your source for that statement that Dolni Vestonice was a "winter camp" as my sources have it as a year round settlement, hence the need for food storage and a defensive perimeter wall.

" This Paleolithic site was inhabited from ca. 27 000 to 23 000 B.C. To give some sense of scale, the rounded structure in the lower center, which perhaps was a wind screen, measured 27 by 45 feet. The settlement had perhaps 100 people who inhabited the site the year round."

Your second statement I would also like to ask your source for as well, for I have no such estimate from any source. The people of Dolni were not making a major leap but a step, from nomadic hunting/gathering to permanent settlement but still hunting and gathering for sustenance. Such a step does not require thousands of years to develop, and we can see evidence of (forced) examples in which fully nomadic peoples converted to permanent settlements in a single generation. Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

Your source could be right. I have read it, but prefer the logic of Professor Walter A. Fairservis, Jr. The professor wrote "The Threshold Of Civilization: An Experiment in Prehistory".

Why the people did not stay at that location year round is explained by the land itself. Each summer they would move into the plains to the south:

"Yet when the winter ended and the flies returned to the marshes, men and animals (like the Eskimo and animals of the north) moved onto the plains. On the plains the abundant flora drew the ungulates in their herds, and this plus the presence of berries and other edible plants drew men far from the winter settlement. Whereas concentration of human settlement had advantage in winter, summer dispersal of animal herds made similar dispersal necessary for man." Page 94

The men of Dolni Vestonice had to band together in the winters to successfully hunt the Mammoth. The evidence shows that they killed "over a thousand" of the animals.

I am not trying to say that Dolni Vestonice has anything to do with Atlantis. We were discussing man's early movement towards civilization. Since, at that time, only one in ten of the inhabitants reached the age of 40, and one third of the population died before 20, technical advancement was slow in coming. About the time you got a really good idea, you were close to death.

Changes in the society were even slower in evolving. Change among such tribes was looked on with distrust and suspicion. While they gathered/lived together for the common good/hunting, their lifestyle had not changed that much from living in caves.

Anyway, that's just my opinion from the few books I have read on early civilization. I'm sure my knowledge is nowhere near what you, my friend, have learned over the years.

I appreciate the debate.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Cactusjumper wrote

Anyway, that's just my opinion from the few books I have read on early civilization. I'm sure my knowledge is nowhere near what you, my friend, have learned over the years.

I am sure you are wrong there amigo, thank you for the kind words even if they are 100% off the mark.

Thank you also for the reference, I do not have that and will have to hunt up a copy some time. The theory of a year round use was based on the food storage pits and defensive wall, which would not be needed for a temporary camp, and on the idea that the game was sort of 'bottlenecked' at that point. If it was only a winter camp, we might wonder why they bothered with food storage, especially if they were obtaining fresh meat regularly as a winter hunt-camp for mammoth. Also, we might wonder where the summer camp was located? It is not possible to say for certain, but (to me) the argument for a year round use seems more logical. Until I can read that source however I do not think it safe to take a stand that they must have used it year round.

Thanks again, I hope you and everyone reading this are having a very pleasant evening.
Roy

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

"I would like to know your source for that statement that Dolni Vestonice was a "winter camp" as my sources have it as a year round settlement, hence the need for food storage and a defensive perimeter wall."

In hunting the Mammoth, they ended up with a lot of meat......much more than they could eat right away. No doubt a place to store meat was needed. That would be much better in a small camp than having it laying all over the place.

They killed quite a few young Mammoth's. They alone would weigh in at 300 to 1,000 pounds each.
It would seem they favored the young ones.

The wall was to keep out the animals who would want to get to that meat and the people within. African's built a boma out of thorny brush for the same purpose. While traveling about, such a wall
could be constructed each night.

The Dolni Vestonice winter camp had a more permanent protective wall.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Cactusjumper wrote

The wall was to keep out the animals who would want to get to that meat and the people within. African's built a boma out of thorny brush for the same purpose. While traveling about, such a wall could be constructed each night.

Exactly why a STONE protective wall makes no sense for a temporary camp. If it were really just a temporary camp, why bother? Nomadic peoples rarely bother with food storage too, as there is no real reason to store it in anything like a permanent arrangement.

I hope all is well with you and yours,
Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Cactusjumper wrote

The wall was to keep out the animals who would want to get to that meat and the people within. African's built a boma out of thorny brush for the same purpose. While traveling about, such a wall could be constructed each night.

Exactly why a STONE protective wall makes no sense for a temporary camp. If it were really just a temporary camp, why bother? Nomadic peoples rarely bother with food storage too, as there is no real reason to store it in anything like a permanent arrangement.

I hope all is well with you and yours,
Oroblanco

Roy,

I did not mean to imply that the wall around the Dolni Vestonice settlement was temporary. The Arctic winters were quite long there, and the summers were very short. Each winter the people would return to the same settlement and do a reverse "snowbird" migration. For the most part, it was predicated on the movements of the Mammoths, but there were other factors as well.

The walls were, primarily, Mammoth tusks & bones, with rocks added to the mix. It is believed that skins (probably Mammoth) were spread over the bones and tusks as an added barrier. To be a little more accurate, I might have called it a semi-permanent boma. No doubt, there were improvements made each year.

Our best to you, Beth and the pups.

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

OK, I will move our last posts about Atlantis over here. As you can see we were drifting away from Atlantis in this one. That seems to be the nature of these kinds of discussions.

"Don Jose,

Wrote this back in 2011:
___________________________

Roy,

The kind of mining required in 9,600 B.C. to conform to Plato's description of Atlantis, simply did not exist in that era. The technology needed to work metals to the degree that is was said to be used in Atlantis was well into the future.

Egypt, who was said to be at war with Atlantis, by their own recording of history, would not exist for another 1,000 years.

I mentioned that there were more things that could be brought to the debate but, like now, I would rather not lay everything on the table in one post. That gives more time for my failing mind to pry the information out of arguments I have read and forgotten.

It also provides for a more thoughtful dialog. I have no desire to address the more recent fictional revelations of Atlantis-philes and would prefer to stick to Plato's account. On the other hand, I would enjoy discussing the modern-day physical discoveries that are attributed to Atlantis and its location. Thus my comment about the coast of Spain.

My position on the legend will be.......Plato created the story of Atlantis out of whole cloth, sprinkled with legend and historical truths from his own time and near history. In his previous work, "The Republic" he describes the perfect society. The story of Atlantis, which followed, was the embodiment of that idea in a fictional setting.

I am always open to having my mind changed, but it will take a strong, logical, argument. Using Paleolithic mining to explain the description of the metal works at Atlantis will require some huge earth-moving equipment to remove the debris that is covering that evidence.

History does not change easily, but it has been done.
________________________________

Actually, I really enjoyed this thread. Believe I will go back and reread it.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Rebel - KGC]

See that this "topic" is still about... think of ATLANTIS & citizens being "time/space" travelers from our FUTURE, going back to our PAST; which then becomes "legends"/Myths. In our HISTORY, some civilizations/ppl simply PHYSICALLY vanished! COFFEE? WHERE?

 

[Oroblanco]

Revived Atlantis debate

Hola amigos;
Cactusjumper wrote

Don Jose,

Wrote this back in 2011:

Roy,

The kind of mining required in 9,600 B.C. to conform to Plato's description of Atlantis, simply did not exist in that era. The technology needed to work metals to the degree that is was said to be used in Atlantis was well into the future.


Egypt, who was said to be at war with Atlantis, by their own recording of history, would not exist for another 1,000 years.

I mentioned that there were more things that could be brought to the debate but, like now, I would rather not lay everything on the table in one post. That gives more time for my failing mind to pry the information out of arguments I have read and forgotten.

It also provides for a more thoughtful dialog. I have no desire to address the more recent fictional revelations of Atlantis-philes and would prefer to stick to Plato's account. On the other hand, I would enjoy discussing the modern-day physical discoveries that are attributed to Atlantis and its location. Thus my comment about the coast of Spain.

My position on the legend will be.......Plato created the story of Atlantis out of whole cloth, sprinkled with legend and historical truths from his own time and near history. In his previous work, "The Republic" he describes the perfect society. The story of Atlantis, which followed, was the embodiment of that idea in a fictional setting.

I am always open to having my mind changed, but it will take a strong, logical, argument. Using Paleolithic mining to explain the description of the metal works at Atlantis will require some huge earth-moving equipment to remove the debris that is covering that evidence.

History does not change easily, but it has been done.

Take care,

Joe

It has long struck me as a mistake to insist on sticking to Plato's account, verbatim, and then demanding to see supporting proof, when none of the ancient sources have all the features we see in Plato. I have attempted to point out that there are other ancient sources which refer to Atlantis, and the people of Atlantis (Titans or Tityans) and that Plutarch pointed out that Plato had embellished the story with incredible attributes. This is found in Plutarch's Life of Solon. <EDIT posted that statement below> It is a pity that we do not have Solon's work on Atlantis, to compare with Plato's.

None of the other ancient sources which refer to or describe Atlantis, include the fanstastical metal-plated walls and buildings, chariots, fountains etc. They do tell of a civilization, a mighty power in its day, but no mention of triremes and canals. I do not buy the Egyptian added zero explanation either, though it is quite possible, perhaps even probable, that Plato had taken some of the Minoan civilization achievements and grafted them onto Atlantis, like the plumbing (Minoans had hot and cold running water, even flush toilets, circa 1400 BC!) and were a sea power that was apparently so powerful at sea, that they did not bother to fortify their cities on the home islands. The explanation suggested is that no enemy could cross the sea to reach them. The Minoans are not the only possible source that Plato could have borrowed details from either, in his own time the city of Helike was "swallowed by the sea" and is only now starting to come to light.

The story of Atlantis certainly would fit with the nearly universal legend of a catastrophic flood, and how that ancient flood destroyed the civilization of mankind that existed at the time. The evidence of such a flood, not one that overtopped ALL land everywhere but one that was global and disastrous, does exist, and dates to the end of the last Ice Age when about one quarter of the world's land area was lost to rising seas. As most civilizations tend to be located close to the seas and not on the highest elevations, it is logical that if any civilization(s) existed at that time (around 11,000 BC) they would have been lost to the rising waters in a catastrophic way. Recent discoveries on the bottom of the Black Sea, along the coast of Britain, off the coast of Israel and several other areas prove that this is exactly the case.

Now as to the Egyptian history -

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, The Histories, book 2>

The point here is that Egyptian records must have run back considerably farther than is corrently believed. I don't think we can use that extra zero explanation to move Atlantis to 1200 BC, even though that makes for a tidy argument, since you can then point to the Minoans as "the" Atlantis civilization. Second aspect to this is that the Egyptian people or their predecessors anyway, could very well have been "at war" with the invading Atlanteans, without having a "civilization" of their own. The USA had a whole series of wars with Amerindian peoples, several of which could hardly be called a civilization or even having permanent homes, and still it could be termed as being a war. To illustrate the point, how would you term it, if the civilized Atlanteans invaded what is now Egypt, finding nomadic hunter/gatherers (or as the evidence suggests, livestock herding culture) and trying to conquer them by force of arms? Would that not be recorded as "war", between "Egypt" and Atlantis?

As this has already gotten very long winded, and I have not yet gotten to the point I wanted, I will try to close this with something to think about Atlantis.

Virtually every culture world-wide, has a flood myth. This cannot be the result of common invention. Our written versions hint at much older origins, probably passed down via oral histories until the art of writing was invented. In these written versions we have a common thread - that humanity had some kind of civilization(s) going, dating back into the Ice Age. When the last Ice Age ended, it did go away gradually over centuries, but then the geological evidence points to a sudden and catastrophic end, including massive floods of meltwater that coincides almost perfectly with the date Plato gives for the end of Atlantis. In America, the Clovis people suddenly disappear, along with vast herds of the megafauna that roamed the continent. Recent discoveries on the floor of the Black Sea, off the coast of Britain and Israel, as well as Dogger Bank and even on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland, prove that humans were living near the sea shore during the time period when the Ice Age ended. The flooding that resulted from the melting of the massive glaciers of the ice age caused the loss of one quarter of the world's land area, which matches one of the apocryphal biblical sources. Even in Genesis, which I believe to have gotten mis-interpreted into a titanic flood covering the tallest peaks on the planet, it says that the waters suddenly came up 15 cubits, in just forty days time. This is right within the same span that geologists say the last big meltwater pulse caused, and within the same range of sea level rise.

The world of 10,500 BC was quite different from what we see today; the Black Sea was a large freshwater lake, a fraction of the size it is today; Britain was connected to the mainland of Europe; the Sahara was a vast grassland dotted with numerous lakes, and peopled by a cattle herding culture that left us mysterious clues of their life. Other peoples were beginning to practice agriculture, while still others were living in permanent villages or even towns. I won't say cities as that is a very subjective term. Just as Plato describes, the Atlantic ocean was not as wide as it is today, and there were more islands above water as well; it would indeed have been easier to cross the Atlantic at that time than it is today, or in Plato's time. The fact that we have so many flood myths, which tell of the destruction of the cultures that existed at the time, and survival of a fragment, supports the possibility that the story of Atlantis being a reality, if we do not lock our thought process to the exact literal description given by Plato.

To buttress my argument to "filter" Plato here is what Plutarch has to say:

Plato, willing to improve the story of the Atlantic Island, as if it were a fair estate that wanted an heir and came with some title to him, formed, indeed, stately entrances, noble enclosures, large courts, such as never yet introduced any story, fable, or poetic fiction; but, beginning it late, ended his life before his work; and the reader's regret for the unfinished part is the greater, as the satisfaction he takes in that which is complete is extraordinary. For as the city of Athens left only the temple of Jupiter Olympius unfinished, so Plato, amongst all his excellent works, left this only piece about the Atlantic Island imperfect.

<Plutarch, Life of Solon>

I wonder, if we had Solon's version of the history of Atlantis, even unfinished as it was (apparently Plutarch either saw it, or knew of it somehow) how different it might be from the highly embellished tale we get from Plato.

My apologies for the long post, have to agree with Joe that it is/was enjoyable and productive (I love having an excuse to go back to the ancient classics) and also agree that it tends to get terribly sidetracked as it did in this thread. My whole reason for posting that example of Dolce Vestonici was to show that at least SOME humans were advancing along the trail to "civilization" - living in permanent, or semi-permanent settlements, storing foods, having specialized labor assignments for starters, long before the age of Atlantis. As that village of mammoth hunters dates to over 10,000 years before Atlantis, I hold that it supports the contention that human beings certainly had time enough to have started developing a true civilization, even a maritime empire as Atlantis was supposed to be. For even though Plato certainly exaggerated the technologies, the other ancient sources likewise indicate that Atlantis was a real power in its day, holding sway over large areas along the seaboards and islands. This agrees with Plato's statement about the Atlanteans having conquered into the Mediterranean as far as Greece in the north and Egypt in the south, though he does not enlarge on this to say that any great areas had been conquered will inland.

I don't expect we will settle the question but it is a fascinating subject. Thank you Joe for moving this to an appropriate thread, probably should have done that myself.
Roy

YO REB - here is your coffee - until we can meet by the campfire

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

I don't think I have asked for any proof, just pointed out that the story, as you have just stated, could not exist in the era that Plato indicated. Since Plato is our sole source for this story it gets a bit dicey to stray from his account and assign other possibilities as to what he really meant.

Whether Plato's account is truth or fiction. it remains his and his alone. For us to bend his story to fit our own notions of what he really meant, seems a bit presumptuous. On the other hand, since he is no longer around to ask and we know the story is not possible, as written, we must stray from what he wrote. Others have been doing that for many, many years, so we see some incredible yarns being concocted.

From what you wrote, I think we probably agree on more than what we disagree on here. While I agree that Dolce Vestonici was a good example of what humans were capable of thousands of years before Atlantis, I don't agree that they could have advanced much beyond the basic needs of food and protection. That kind of lifestyle (arrested development) can be seen in the modern era still.

I am shivering just thinking about the weather back there right now. Not sure three dogs are enough.​

Take care,

Joe

 

[Rebel - KGC]

THANKS for the coffee, "Joe", "Java"... ORO! GREAT for this cold, wet morning (calling for sleet, snow, later), here in Lynchburg, Va.!!! "Google" The Incredible Journey of Solon; INTERESTING reading!

 

[Oroblanco]

Cactusjumper wrote

Roy,

I don't think I have asked for any proof, just pointed out that the story, as you have just stated, could not exist in the era that Plato indicated.

In our previous discussions, I have gotten the distinct impression that you wished to see proof, in the form of chariots, triremes, metal working etc that dates to the time of Atlantis, or perhaps I was completely mistaken by your meaning. I have discussed the topic with other folks whom were far less inclined to even consider the possibility that Atlantis is based on real events, so the frustration sometimes carries over to you, however un-deserved.

Cactusjumper also wrote

Since Plato is our sole source for this story it gets a bit dicey to stray from his account and assign other possibilities as to what he really meant.

Have to respectfully disagree that Plato is not our sole source, however his highly embellished account is singular. I also must respectfully disagree that it is at all risky to look at other possibilties, especially if these possibilities will conform to Plato's account, in those portions of his account which can be verified by alternate sources. So for example, when Plato refers to the Atlantians as the sons of Atlas, one of the Titans, we can find in other ancient texts references not only to the Titans but to Atlas as well. I would say that this is not twisting Plato to conclude that this portion of his story (that Atlas and his progeny existed) is more likely true. another example would be that the basic frame of the story, and island empire located in the Atlantic, is supported in other sources as well, though when Plato describes such things as chariots, it is an anachronism, since none of the other sources include that.

Cactusjumper also wrote

Whether Plato's account is truth or fiction. it remains his and his alone. For us to bend his story to fit our own notions of what he really meant, seems a bit presumptuous. On the other hand, since he is no longer around to ask and we know the story is not possible, as written, we must stray from what he wrote. Others have been doing that for many, many years, so we see some incredible yarns being concocted.

Have to agree in part, and respectfully disagree in part. I don't think it is wise to start bending his story to fit out notions, as in moving the location to a tiny islet in the Aegean sea for instance, which could never have herds of elephants nor support a large population (Thera) and yet I do not see it as "bending" the story to filter out those features which by the evidence, appear to be embellishments - like the chariots, fountains etc. These features are all in the Critias, not in Timaeus. But YES people have been building utterly incredible tales out of the frame of Atlantis, to include space ships and dimension-doors etc. Certainly not mentioned by Plato, nor any other ancient source. However again I would point out that other ancient sources do refer to Atlantis, Plato is hardly our sole source.

Cactusjumper also wrote

From what you wrote, I think we probably agree on more than what we disagree on here. While I agree that Dolce Vestonici was a good example of what humans were capable of thousands of years before Atlantis, I don't agree that they could have advanced much beyond the basic needs of food and protection. That kind of lifestyle (arrested development) can be seen in the modern era still.

Hmm - have to again agree in part, and disagree in part. While arrested civilizations are fairly common, the obvious reasons for such results are that they have reached a 'statis' level, they are able to provide for their own needs, and nothing is driving further development. Human civilizations often show their greatest growth in technologies and culture when faced by tremendous challenges, most usually wars, leading to new technologies and organizations - and again is not the tale of Plato, telling us that the Atlantians were very much a warlike people, attempting to conquer as far as they were able? And that this very attribute was what angered the gods?

In support of this, let us follow Ignatius Donnelly for a moment, and compare the story in Genesis told of the great flood. Prior to this flood, humans had increased greatly in numbers; sons of Adam had developed most of the arts assigned to "civilization" even though these statements are refuted by modern historians, these arts included metal working, music etc. This is not at variance with Plato's account of Atlantis. There is even a hint in Genesis, that may be telling the very same story as Plato too - quote

6 1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth

<Genesis 6:2-5, 6:22:13 KJV>

Note especially chapters 2 and 4; "giants in the earth" and "mighty men, men of renown". The people at the heart of Plato's story are the Titans; and what is the definition of that term:

1. Greek Mythology One of a family of giants, the children of Uranus and Gaea, who sought to rule heaven and were overthrown and supplanted by the family of Zeus.
2. titan One of prodigious size, strength, or achievement:

Where is there a conflict, to simply replace the word Titans into that story of the flood in Genesis?

Note also that these people were filling the Earth with violence, which is also not greatly at variance with the Atlantians of Plato; carrying the sword and fire where ever they went.

We can also point to another aspect of Plato's story, which is supported in earlier texts - the war between the titans and the Olympians. The Titans were supreme, and the Olympians, Greeks, defeated them. Hesiod (several centuries before Plato) told of the Titans who, after losing a ten-year war, were imprisoned beneath the waters of the Ocean in the far West.

Homer wrote about the imprisonment of the Titan Cronos at the "far end of the earth" beneath the "waters of the restless sea."

Now remember that Diodorus explained how the "ancients" (for Homer and Hesiod were ancient in his own day) would tell the true stories of the gods, but in the form of allegory; an example quote

After the death of Hyperion,29 the myth relates, the kingdom was divided among the sons of Uranus, the most renowned of whom were Atlas and Cronus. Of these sons Atlas received as his part the regions on the coast of the ocean, and he not only gave the name of Atlantians to his peoples but likewise called the greatest mountain in the land Atlas. 2 They also say that he perfected the science of astrology and was the first to publish to mankind the doctrine of the sphere;30 and it was for this reason that the idea was held that the entire heavens were supported upon the shoulders of Atlas, the myth darkly hinting in this way at his discovery and description of the sphere.

<Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, book III chap 60>

We could also take note of the way Diodorus describes the "sons of Uranus" which Uranus means "heaven" <Root word is Phoenician "Ouranos" meaning "heaven"> It would be equally correct to translate this sentence to read "the sons of heaven" and this same phrase is found in the book of Enoch, which also records the great flood, the destruction of the evil men etc.

I will go even further here, as you would sooner debate the story as given by Plato with ALL of the trappings regardless of the fact they are not mentioned by any other source, and say that it is hardly possible to prove that the Atlantians could not have had chariots, horses, triremes, metal plated walls or even mysterious power crystals and flying machines. It is nearly impossible to prove a negative, and we could also note that most high-tech devices do not survive long in the elements. If Atlantis had paper-thin sheets of metal plating the walls, for example, how long would that survive in the elements, if not tended and maintained by men? Finding a chariot that is 2000 years old is extremely rare today, even though we now know that chariots were used in the thousands - they were built of materials that would not survive unless under exceptional circumstances. I do not believe that Atlantis had all the stuff listed in Critias by any means, however it is certainly not impossible either.

Well I got carried away there - was mainly trying to show that Plato is not really our sole source, that most elements of the story are found in other ancient sources including sources which predate him by centuries.

Cactusjumper also wrote

I am shivering just thinking about the weather back there right now. Not sure three dogs are enough.

Now if I could just get you to help argue that point with Beth, as I have been telling her you need at least eight Huskies to haul a decent load on a sled. Otherwise the deep freeze has departed for the time being, hit 35 today in fact, and just to show you how nice a guy I am, I will say this - "wish YOU were HERE!"

Reb - thank you for the link, interesting read! <two thumbs up - they need to add a smiley for that here> I hope you did not get too hammered by that ugly storm. Warm weather is on the way to you now - should be there in a few days.

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

 

[Rebel - KGC]

WEIRD! Wife & I saw our FIRST Robin (bird) today! WTF! Robin was FAT (Preggers...?); (barely could walk, yet flew away as we got close to her). Hmmm...

 

[Oroblanco]

Reb - it has been a strange year, and especially this winter, we have had several dozen flocks of geese flying over in the past two weeks, which is a month late at the least for the geese to be migrating through here, and every flock has been flying due WEST not south! I have no idea why they are doing this, never have before.

On Atlantis - ran across something interesting, apparently Eusebius (3rd century AD historian) believed that Atlas, for whom Atlantis is named, was one and the same with Enoch! So while re-reading Enoch, remembered there was another book that supposedly goes with the book of Enoch, called the Book of the Giants, which does not exist in full, only in fragments. However reading those fragments is a trip! There are references to the 200 "fallen ones" coming to "this sphere" and a terrible battle in which 400,000 men are killed, even a line that seems to say that the angel Raphael was killed in a fight with two of the giants Ohya, Lewyātīn, that all of them killed each other and "vanished". Anyway this idea that Enoch was Atlas is intriguing, for example both are credited with having discovered astrology, will have to research this a little further.

Roy ~ Oroblanco

 

[Rebel - KGC]

BOOK OF ENOCH is "on-line"; "Google" it. I have two hard-back copies; used info for Masonic Research (R & I), which I used for presentation to my AMD "Research Lodge"... FUN! Section on ASTRONOMY was PROBABLY utilized for MASONIC ASTRONOMY in burying/hiding "Treasures"... dunno.

 

[Oroblanco]

BOOK OF ENOCH is "on-line"; "Google" it. I have two hard-back copies; used info for Masonic Research (R & I), which I used for presentation to my AMD "Research Lodge"... FUN! Section on ASTRONOMY was PROBABLY utilized for MASONIC ASTRONOMY in burying/hiding "Treasures"... dunno.

For anyone reading our discussion here is one site with Enoch;
The Wesley Center Online: Book Of Enoch

There have been a couple of attempts to re-construct the Book of Giants, not sure they have got it right, but it does dovetail very well with Enoch. What do you think Reb - could Enoch have been Atlas? From the bits of the Giants book we have, it sounds like some kind of terrible war was a precursor ot the Flood, involving the killing of 400,000 of the "righteous" or "elect" (depending on which fragment of the Giants book you have) and strange weapons, the creation of "monsters' by miscegynation of humans with animals etc - was this DNA splicing, as some have hinted that our military has been dabbling with?

I would like to hear your opinion Reb - and hope that warm weather is almost in Lynchburg by now.

Sock coffee?