Atlantis

[Oroblanco]

Springfield, No more Easter Bunnies. Life loses all meaning! Take care, Joe

Horrors!

Next you will be saying frightening things about leprechauns! Is nothing sacred?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oroblanco]

PS - don't forget the library found at Heraculaneum, the town also buried at the same time as Pompeii. A good number of scrolls were found there, all carbonized by the heat, but our scientists have been working on recovering what is in them. Perhaps even maps, or the third book by Plato, Hermocrates. I had heard that a lost work by Archimedes was recovered there.

Also, it is not known how many lost books and manuscripts may yet be hidden in and around Timbuktu; we may yet see things lost for thousands of years if we get lucky.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Yeah, I resisted mentioning them, but there may be others in possession of iñformation that are also stonewalling. On one hand, the Vatican can be considered the greatest organized crime ring the world has known for perpetrating such a massive fraud on so many vulnerable humans for so long; on the other hand, they have also provided pretty effective crowd control in the western world for a couple millennia. Who benefits?

Let's NOT "go there"... turning WEST again, I thought THE INCREDIBLE JOURNEY OF SOLON by Mary Whispering Wind was a "good read"; check it out by "googling" it!
ALL about Atlantis!

 

[markmar]

Roy

You wrote how the Athenians in the war against Atlanteans , were an alliance of tribal powers . Could be true if that war had been occured around 9000 BC .

Plato wrote " Now , in this island of Atlantis there existed a confederation of kings, of great and marvelous power, which held sway over all the island, and over many other islands also and parts of the continent . "

Critias said " The walls were constructed of red, white and black rock quarried from the moats, and were covered with brass , tin and the precious metal orichalcum , respectively . "

Now , the kings , the brass ( bronze ) , the tin and the orichalcum ( cooper ) , belonged all to the Bronze Age .

 

[Oroblanco]

Roy You wrote how the Athenians in the war against Atlanteans , were an alliance of tribal powers . Could be true if that war had been occured around 9000 BC . Plato wrote " Now , in this island of Atlantis there existed a confederation of kings, of great and marvelous power, which held sway over all the island, and over many other islands also and parts of the continent . " Critias said " The walls were constructed of red, white and black rock quarried from the moats, and were covered with brass , tin and the precious metal orichalcum , respectively . " Now , the kings , the brass ( bronze ) , the tin and the orichalcum ( cooper ) , belonged all to the Bronze Age .

I must beg to differ, respectfully.

When did the idea of a "king" first get invented? According to the Egyptian chronicle, as well as Sanchoniathon, there were "kings" as far back as recorded history, and keep in mind that Plato's re-telling of the story, it was being Hellenized, (put in Greek terms for those whom are unfamiliar with Hellenic) so we do not know that they were even called "kings" in Atlantis.
　
Next - brass, bronze, copper, tin - all are very ancient metals. In fact, even the experts are not in agreement as to when they were first "discovered" or invented, as the case may be; especially so since copper and orichalcum, as well as tin, can all be found as natural metals needing no smelting to use them, just hammering. Copper can be dated to at least 9000 BC, or right in the time frame of Atlantis. Perhaps the spread of copper was due to the Atlanteans for that matter.
　
Did you notice that Plato makes no mention of IRON weapons or tools? The Minoans had some iron weapons and tools, especially toward the end of their civilization.
　
Last - you have cited Critias, which is the text of Plato which shows clear signs of having been embellished, and not Timaeus, which has no such references to otherwise anachronistic things like triremes and chariots. None of the other ancient sources on Atlantis include the details you see in Critias, however they do support Timaeus.

Trying to fit the Minoan empire collapse as Atlantis, which included a volcanic eruption and did not sink into the sea nor vanish in a day and a night, was not located in the sea of Atlantis, had no elephants, and the islands were certainly not large enough, simply won't work. Some elements are certainly a "match" like the advanced plumbing in Crete, and a bit in Santorini as well, or that they fought a war with the Mycenaean Greeks, however a closer look shows that it is not a good match - the war with the Mycenaeans for instance, did not start until after the eruption of Thera, and was a case of the Greeks invading the Minoans, not the reverse, as well as the slaves rising in revolt against their masters the Minoans.


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

 

[markmar]

Roy

But , Critias was the person who knew the story from his grandfather , the others have made only philosophy around Critias story . You choosen Timaeus because he had a more spiritual philosophy and fit better with your biblical theory .

You wrote : " and keep in mind that Plato's re-telling of the story, it was being Hellenized, (put in Greek terms for those whom are unfamiliar with Hellenic) so we do not know that they were even called "kings" in Atlantis. "

I believe Plato wrote what he had heard . The history says how maybe (!!!) Solon had Hellenized the text when he did the translation . All these statements could be claimed only from those whom know the true story . Knows anybody ? We must to make our theories only from what documents have and not from our imagination . As to say , to call the things with their names . If we are thinking in this way for all the ancient documents , I believe all become useless . Put triremes , chariots and kings in a specific era , and you will find when occured the war between Greeks and Atlanteans . Without triremes , how could the Atlanteans to reach the Greeks ? Flying or swimming ?
You wrote how the continent was beyond of Atlantis . Beyond , how afar ? Beyond could be anywhere , just some miles , or some meters .
Confederation of kings ? This seems to me something like Iliad .

Good day amigo mio .

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

G'd morning my friend Marius. want some fresh, hot cookies to go with your coffee ?

I don't think that the remark that " Critias was the person who 'knew' the story from his grandfather " has a specific bearing as being correct.


The time difference between Critias and ourselves,fades when we consider how far 'he' was removed from Atlantis' time. Of course the intention and clarification of "Knew" is important

Actually, I fail to see why there is any question on the location and existance of Atlantis which has been tentatively established as being off of the coast of Spain. This location meets every criteria, no other location does. The rim of a gigantic Caldera formed the rings of the islands of the kingdom of Atlantis, and SUBSIDED

Even that sheep herding, hard headed Dakotian is gradually giving in.

Don Jose de La Mancha -------formerly of Atlantis -----

p.s. Jodie there is your target.

 

[Oroblanco]

Markmar wrote

Roy But , Critias was the person who knew the story from his grandfather , the others have made only philosophy around Critias story . You choosen Timaeus because he had a more spiritual philosophy and fit better with your biblical theory .

　 Plato wrote Critias into the story, we can not know if it was truly Critias whom "heard" the story as a boy of ten at the knee of Solon. In fact Plato very probably got his information from written sources which we do not have today. In fact I am certain of that point but won't share why, as I am saving that for my own book. My separating Timaeus from Critias is done on the basis of what points each is supported by, from other ancient sources. Not for a "better fit with my biblical theory". 　 Markmar also wrote

You wrote : " and keep in mind that Plato's re-telling of the story, it was being Hellenized, (put in Greek terms for those whom are unfamiliar with Hellenic) so we do not know that they were even called "kings" in Atlantis. " I believe Plato wrote what he had heard . The history says how maybe (!!!) Solon had Hellenized the text when he did the translation . All these statements could be claimed only from those whom know the true story . Knows anybody ? We must to make our theories only from what documents have and not from our imagination . As to say , to call the things with their names . If we are thinking in this way for all the ancient documents , I believe all become useless ..

　 Several points there to address. Firstly, Plato wrote several statements in these two texts which indicate that the story has been Hellenized, that it was NOT originally with Greek names etc. I did NOT simply pull up that from my "imagination". Example:

Yet, before proceeding further in the narrative, I ought to warn you, that you must not be surprised if you should perhaps hear Hellenic names given to foreigners. I will tell you the reason of this: Solon, who was intending to use the tale for his poem, enquired into the meaning of the names, and found that the early Egyptians in writing them down had translated them into their own language, and he recovered the meaning of the several names and when copying them out again translated them into our language. My great-grandfather, Dropides, had the original writing, which is still in my possession, and was carefully studied by me when I was a child. Therefore if you hear names such as are used in this country, you must not be surprised, for I have told how they came to be introduced.

<from Critias> and

Crit. Let me proceed to explain to you, Socrates, the order in which we have arranged our entertainment. Our intention is, that Timaeus, who is the most of an astronomer amongst us, and has made the nature of the universe his special study, should speak first, beginning with the generation of the world and going down to the creation of man; next, I am to receive the men whom he has created of whom some will have profited by the excellent education which you have given them; and then, in accordance with the tale of Solon, and equally with his law, we will bring them into court and make them citizens, as if they were those very Athenians whom the sacred Egyptian record has recovered from oblivion, and thenceforward we will speak of them as Athenians and fellow-citizens.

<fom Timaeus> Clearly, by Plato's own written words, the story of Atlantis he relates, has been made to sound as if it were the Athenians involved, and other alterations to better tell the story to his Greek readers which is whom it was written for after all. 　 Markmar also wrote

Put triremes , chariots and kings in a specific era , and you will find when occured the war between Greeks and Atlanteans . Without triremes , how could the Atlanteans to reach the Greeks ? Flying or swimming ?

Next - the ships of the Atlanteans would more likely have been similar to the outrigger canoes of the Polynesians, than to the triremes which were not invented until the late 8th century BC, which by the way was centuries AFTER the Minoans had disappeared from the scene. The boats of the Minoans are not different from the punting boats used in Venice today. I never implied nor stated that the Athenians nor Atlanteans could not cross the sea, in fact the evidence found in Greece in Franchthi cave proves that these proto-Greeks, whom the Greeks themselves called Pelasgians, were deep sea fishing, trading across the sea etc. Not in triremes however, and it would hardly be necessary to have such a large and powerful warship simply to cross the water. No triremes were used in the Trojan war for example, the largest "ships" being penteconters with a single deck of rowers. Or do you contend that it would have been impossible for anyone to cross the sea in the time of Atlantis, without a trireme? 　 Markmar also wrote

You wrote how the continent was beyond of Atlantis . Beyond , how afar ? Beyond could be anywhere , just some miles , or some meters . Confederation of kings ? This seems to me something like Iliad . Good day amigo mio

　 I wrote only what Plato wrote. I will re-post it here to remind you: 　

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was greater than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent.

<from Timaeus by Plato> 　 Plato does not give us the distances you ask for, but a look at the map of the Atlantic, with the Americas which truly do bound the Atlantic ocean and would seem to an explorer to be a single vast continent, which in reality they are. Again, not from my imagination, these are Plato's words. By his directions, you would pass the pillars of Herakles to Atlantis, then from there to another island and another, and past these continuing in the same direction (he did not say turn left, for instance) you would reach the vast American continents bounding the Atlantic. 　 The Trojan war won't work either. Again, it was a case of Greeks invading another country (Troy) and not the reverse; Troy was not destroyed by any earthquake and flood but by violent overthrow, nor had Troy been on a war of conquest as the Atlanteans had been according to Plato. It seems to me you are shoe-fitting to make Atlantis fit some place and time which really do not fit. 　 For our readers here, and I did not intend on saying anything about it but the people of Greece in the time of Atlantis, known to later Greeks as Pelasgians, are a very good fit for the story told by Plato. The Pelasgians held a rather large area including much of what is Romania today as well as Asia Minor (Turkey); they were trading with others across the Aegean sea, and were not hunter-gatherers, in fact the artifacts found at Pelasgian sites dating to 9000 BC indicate that they were beginning to be agricultural in their mode of life; even in the cave mentioned before, wild grains were found as well as imported foods and goods, here is an extract (from Wiki, but confirmed on a university site

almonds, pistachios, bitter vetch, and lentils all appear at the same time,[2] while wild oats and wild barley appear from 10,500 BCE, while from 7,300 BCE peas and wild pears also appear.[1] None appear to be native to the region, while two are certainly from Asia Minor. This would seem to indicate that the farming of legumes and nuts preceded that of grain in Greece

<from Wiki> 　

The Pelasgian Greeks were the opponents facing the Atlantean army. To further support this, the Athenians themselves believed they were descended from the Pelasgians, and archaeology has confirmed this, quote Attica During the early 20th century, archaeological excavations conducted by the Italian Archaeological School and by the American Classical School on the Athenian Acropolis and on other sites within Attica revealed Neolithic dwellings, tools, pottery and skeletons from domesticated animals (i.e., sheep, fish). All of these discoveries showed significant resemblances to the Neolithic discoveries made on the Thessalian acropolises of Sesklo and Dimini. These discoveries help provide physical confirmation of the literary tradition that describes the Athenians as the descendants of the Pelasgians, who appear to descend continuously from the Neolithic inhabitants in Thessaly. Overall, the archaeological evidence indicates that the site of the Acropolis was inhabited by farmers as early as the 6th millennium BCE

　

So Plato's story, citing Solon and Egyptian priests, is not so far-fetched; there were people living in Greece in the time of Atlantis that were farmers, herders and fishermen, they held control over a larger area than the boundaries of Greece today, and the Athenians could trace their line to those ancient people. 　

One last thing but to further sink the idea of Minoans as Atlantis, several have pointed out the bull-leaping practiced by the Minoans and the supposed "bull worship" of the Atlantians, which was not bull worship at all, they sacrificed bulls to their gods. What was the religion of the Minoans? We have Diodorus' version of what the Atlantians religion was, and it was mostly male deities; the religion of the Minoans is not well known, but most of their gods were female, not male. There are simply too many differences to fit the Minoans as Atlantis, even though there are a few similarities. 　

Don Jose de la Mancha - I never said that your site is NOT Atlantis, only that I am not convinced that it is. I am surprised that you have not spotted Atlantis, which a part remains above water today and Plato is the clue. So far not much evidence to support that volcanic caldera, however evidence has been turning up well north of there.

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

 

[markmar]

Oroblanco

So , the sources in Plato writings about Atlantis , are :

1) The Solon writings via Dropides
2) The Solon tale via Critias

This shows how the others had made only philosophy .

Oroblanco quoted Plato :

" Yet, before proceeding further in the narrative, I ought to warn you, that you must not be surprised if you should perhaps hear Hellenic names given to foreigners. I will tell you the reason of this: Solon, who was intending to use the tale for his poem, enquired into the meaning of the names, and found that the early Egyptians in writing them down had translated them into their own language, and he recovered the meaning of the several names and when copying them out again translated them into our language. "

In the text above , I can't see how the translation had been Hellenized . The meaning of this text is how the Egyptians had translated the story from other language , and Solon with his skills had recovered the meanings and the names . The word " recovered " means how the original was Hellenic .

Oroblanco also wrote :

Next - the ships of the Atlanteans would more likely have been similar to the outrigger canoes of the Polynesians, than to the triremes which were not invented until the late 8th century BC, which by the way was centuries AFTER the Minoans had disappeared from the scene. The boats of the Minoans are not different from the punting boats used in Venice today

If you read at http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/00336/greek_ships.htm , you will see these Minoan paintings which have found in Thera ( Santorini ) and show the " canoes " from that era . To me seems little bigger than canoes .



I suggest to search the truth out of metaphors and biblical comparisons .

 

[cactusjumper]

Oroblanco So , the sources in Plato writings about Atlantis , are : 1) The Solon writings via Dropides 2) The Solon tale via Critias This shows how the others had made only philosophy . Oroblanco quoted Plato : " Yet, before proceeding further in the narrative, I ought to warn you, that you must not be surprised if you should perhaps hear Hellenic names given to foreigners. I will tell you the reason of this: Solon, who was intending to use the tale for his poem, enquired into the meaning of the names, and found that the early Egyptians in writing them down had translated them into their own language, and he recovered the meaning of the several names and when copying them out again translated them into our language. " In the text above , I can't see how the translation had been Hellenized . The meaning of this text is how the Egyptians had translated the story from other language , and Solon with his skills had recovered the meanings and the names . The word " recovered " means how the original was Hellenic . Oroblanco also wrote : If you read at http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/00336/greek_ships.htm , you will see these Minoan paintings which have found in Thera ( Santorini ) and show the " canoes " from that era . To me seems little bigger than canoes . View attachment 953953 View attachment 953957 I suggest to search the truth out of metaphors and biblical comparisons .

Roy,

I know this was not your post, but it does create this question: How many boats of this size do you believe the Atlantians would need to invade the other islands and indeed continents which they attacked? Was the technology available to build more than small fishing boats/dugouts in that era? Do you believe they were the only ones with such abilities?

When we look back at the existing societies/tribes at the end of the Ice Age, current archaeology does not support anything close to Atlantis existing. It just seems too much of a stretch for this poor brain.

On the other hand, I look forward to seeing myself (and a few others) proven wrong. Let's hope for that next "turn of the spade".

Take care,

Joe

 

[Salura]

Gentlemen,

I have thoroughly enjoyed your discourse and learned a lot from it. As a newbie to the forum, real history, research, and one of the few ladies on the board I thank you.

HH

 

[Salura]

Gentlemen,

I have thoroughly enjoyed your discourse and learned a lot from it. As a newbie to the forum, real history, research, and one of the few ladies on the board I thank you.

HH

 

[Oroblanco]

Extra coffee alert!

Markmar wrote

In the text above , I can't see how the translation had been Hellenized . The meaning of this text is how the Egyptians had translated the story from other language , and Solon with his skills had recovered the meanings and the names . The word " recovered " means how the original was Hellenic .

Hellenized means made Greek; I don't know how much more plain it can be than from Plato's own words, that the names had been changed into Greek by Solon. So I must respectfully disagree, and hold that Plato's version of Atlantis has been Hellenized. I would also point out that in another passage, Plato points out that an Atlantean city was named with a Phoenician name! NOT Greek!

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!

Markmar also wrote

If you read at ThinkQuest : 404 - Page Not Found , you will see these Minoan paintings which have found in Thera ( Santorini ) and show the " canoes " from that era . To me seems little bigger than canoes .[/quote

] Where did I say that the Minoans had CANOES? You and I seem to always have problems in communicating meanings. A Polynesian outrigger canoe, is NOT like the little slender craft used for fishing on a lake amigo; here is an example:

Here is an African war canoe (fairly modern, but the same design basically, easy for primitive cultures to build) and as an example of what sort of sea craft that primitive cultures can build.

The Polynesians crossed the wide Pacific on such craft as these, and variations of them; when fitted with sail and outriggers, they were and are quite seaworthy. Polynesian people managed to reach the most remote island in the world, Easter Island, centuries before Europeans "discovered" them there, and had brought their animals, veggies etc as well as women. I state that Atlantis of 11,500 years ago, more likely had boats like those of the ancient Polynesians, than TRIREMES which were not invented prior to the 8th century BC, which as you know is centuries after the Minoans.

Markmar, probably you and I should not try to discuss this topic for we end up in constant misunderstandings and I do not know how to state things more clearly for you.

Cactusjumper wrote

Roy, I know this was not your post, but it does create this question: How many boats of this size do you believe the Atlantians would need to invade the other islands and indeed continents which they attacked?

Your question is open to a string of variables; if you mean boats the size of the Minoans, obviously it would take more of them than an eighth century trireme. But then how large is the force being transported? Remember, a Norse raiding party might be only 20 or 30 warriors, and could be devastating to the recipient. The Norse did not use giant warships to invade Ireland or Britain, nor anywhere for that matter, and were able to conquer large areas. Don't assume that you must have large ships to transport fighting men. A dozen boats could transport enough warriors to seize an area. A series of such raids could quickly gain control over a large area.

To further illustrate this point - look at the size of the Polynesian war canoes - up to 140 feet long and with up to 80 men paddling, more than a platoon strength in modern terms. Or look at the stone age colonists of the island of Orkney, whom were able to transport not just the people but also their pigs, plants and even cattle! This done with only the sort of "primitive" boats you seem to think of as little better than a floating log!

Cactusjumper also wrote

Was the technology available to build more than small fishing boats/dugouts in that era? Do you believe they were the only ones with such abilities?

Do you consider 140 feet long, a small dugout? Men were building "dugout" canoes using nothing more than fire, before the time of Atlantis. I do not believe that Atlantis was the only people capable of building boats in that day, as is shown by the artifacts found in Greece itself, people were crossing the seas from Greece, and probably the British isles as well, as shown by the evidence on the Orkneys.

Cactusjumper also wrote

When we look back at the existing societies/tribes at the end of the Ice Age, current archaeology does not support anything close to Atlantis existing. It just seems too much of a stretch for this poor brain.

I must respectfully disagree, entirely. The anachronistic elements of Plato's story are entirely within only Critias, and are not DIS-proven. It is almost impossible to disprove an unknown; and none of these anachronistic things are SO advanced as to be utterly impossible. The Atlantis of Timaeus however is far more probable as a reality.

Let us recap the points: Plato states that the Atlantic was "navigable" then, with more islands like stepping stones; a glance at a map of the Atlantic as it was circa 10,500 BC, with the sea level lower by over 100 feet, there are indeed more islands and less ocean to cross. It would have been easier to cross, for a boat could land more frequently to resupply fresh water etc.

<borrowed from http://www.iceagenow.com/SeaLevel_LastIceAge.gif

Plato stated that the main island of Atlantis vanished in a single day and night of "earthquakes and floods" - note NO mention of any volcanic eruption whatsoever. It is a scientific fact that large land masses can and do subside beneath sea level. The most recent that I know of was along the coast of Chile, in 1960 <Validivia> when several thousand square miles of land suddenly collapsed below sea level and is now sea. Our current state of science and archaeology do NOT know exactly how many, when, nor the locations, of ancient land subsidences, as far as I could determine. Besides this known method of sudden sinking, volcanic type islands also suffer island collapse, which can happen very suddenly and drop thousands of feet below the surface, as has happened in the Canary islands, Hawaiian islands and others.

There were a people living in Greece, and a good size part of the Balkans and Asia Minor as well, whom were also farmers and crossing the seas, whom the ancient Greeks referred to as the Pelasgians; these would be the people whom the Atlantians were fighting when the disaster destroyed Atlantis. Not the Minoans vs the Myceneans, which by the way, some archaeologists have pointed out, there is very little evidence that the Minoans even had an army.

It seems to me, Joe, that you have your own image of what Atlantis must be, taken from Critias mostly and ignoring all other ancient sources, which we all do when we read any ancient history. Illustrators of Medeival history books depicted ancient Romans dressed in Medeival suits of armor, which we know is utterly incorrect. We should not try to picture Atlantis in terms of Classical Greek imagery. Remember what Plutarch said - that Plato had embellished the story with grand estates and things which no one ever had. Not that there was not a real Atlantis, complete with the island sinking below the sea, but that Plato had added things to the story which did not rightly belong to it. I think it is very easy to see the embellishments, like chariots, triremes etc even the hot and cold running water which is not SO far fetched.

Very little archaeological work has been done beneath the sea in the Atlantic; what little has been done, shows a human presence on lands which are now beneath the surface, as for example the human habitations found on the bottom of the English channel. It is FAR too premature to make the assumption then, that since the evidence has not been found, that it can not exist. Look at some recent false ideas held by our historians, like the number of chariots that the ancient Egyptians had; most historians stated the numbers listed in ancient sources like the Old Testament are wild exaggerations, but recent discoveries have shown that Egypt did indeed have many hundreds, perhaps several thousand chariots. Or the great sea battle of Actium between Antony, Cleopatra and Octavian; our historians insisted that the numbers listed in the ancient sources are wild exaggerations, and no such large ships existed, but again recent study of the triumphal monument erected by Octavian which had held the "beaks" of his opponents warships, proved not only that the numbers are not exaggerated at all, but that the ships were indeed just as large as the ancient record states they were.

We should not project our own idea of what Atlantis must be, rather we should be patient and keep our minds open to what the evidence will, and I believe already has started to show. If you insist that we stick to Critias literally, then it almost certainly never existed and no one will ever find that place. No other ancient source supports all the things listed in Critias. On the other hand, I am firmly convinced that there was an ancient civilization called Atlantis or some name similar to that, which was lost during the catastrophic end of the last Ice Age and remains under the sea.

Salura - welcome to Treasurenet! I think you will find there are more ladies among us than you may suspect, though they have not been posting as much as some of us loudmouths!

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

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

It seems possible that outriggers and sails were used shortly after the last Ice Age but that is pure speculation, as far as I know. Most drawings or records of such things are well after that era. Norse/Viking ships were from a much later era. They were used for raids, for the most part, not conquering distant nations. With the oldest cave art being around 42,000 years old, I would think something as important as large war canoes with outriggers and sails would be showing up.......somewhere. I am not really locked into either of Plato's stories. For the most part he wrote fiction rather than history. I believe there was no (physical) place for Plato's Atlantis. On the other hand, I do believe it was another of Plato's idealistic places.

I reserve the right to change my mind if evidence is found to confirm its past existence.

Take care,

Joe

 

[markmar]

Oroblanco

When I quoted your text about the dimension of the boats in the late bronze age , I did a mistake . The red words should been these : " The boats of the Minoans are not different from the punting boats used in Venice today " . You have commented only about the Polynesians , not the canoes but a larger boat from a new age , and you have avoided intentionally to see your mistake about the Venice turistic boats . Maybe you have blinkers and you see only what you want .

You wrote " Hellenized means made Greek; I don't know how much more plain it can be than from Plato's own words, that the names had been changed into Greek by Solon. So I must respectfully disagree, and hold that Plato's version of Atlantis has been Hellenized. "

Maybe you didn't understood or you didn't want to understood my explanation in the Plato text about how Solon had Hellenized his writings . Never mind .

And because a city name or other names called different in Greek language , this means how have changed the locations of the cities or the meanings of the names ? For your better understanding of Plato's version of Atlantis , you can translate the names in a language of your choise , but you will see how the meaning of the story will remain the same .

Is very clear how around 9000 BC , didn't exist any kind of boat capable to carry many warriors or to did a long trip . A wise leader , never puts his best warriors in Papyrela to travel hundreds miles in the sea . This would be like suicides .

I want to explain the Plato's text which you have quoted as

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was greater than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent.

The fragment " This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean " says to me how the power came outside of the sea , therefore from the land .

The fragment " for in those days the Atlantic was navigable " , What this means ? How in Plato era was not ?

And after all that , where is written how this power are the Atlanteans and had come with ships ? Where is written how the great island is Atlantis ? Just supposed ?

 

[Oroblanco]

Oroblanco When I quoted your text about the dimension of the boats in the late bronze age , I did a mistake . The red words should been these : " The boats of the Minoans are not different from the punting boats used in Venice today " . You have commented only about the Polynesians , not the canoes but a larger boat from a new age , and you have avoided intentionally to see your mistake about the Venice turistic boats . Maybe you have blinkers and you see only what you want . You wrote " Hellenized means made Greek; I don't know how much more plain it can be than from Plato's own words, that the names had been changed into Greek by Solon. So I must respectfully disagree, and hold that Plato's version of Atlantis has been Hellenized. " Maybe you didn't understood or you didn't want to understood my explanation in the Plato text about how Solon had Hellenized his writings . Never mind . And because a city name or other names called different in Greek language , this means how have changed the locations of the cities or the meanings of the names ? For your better understanding of Plato's version of Atlantis , you can translate the names in a language of your choise , but you will see how the meaning of the story will remain the same . Is very clear how around 9000 BC , didn't exist any kind of boat capable to carry many warriors or to did a long trip . A wise leader , never puts his best warriors in Papyrela to travel hundreds miles in the sea . This would be like suicides . I want to explain the Plato's text which you have quoted as The fragment " This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean " says to me how the power came outside of the sea , therefore from the land . The fragment " for in those days the Atlantic was navigable " , What this means ? How in Plato era was not ? And after all that , where is written how this power are the Atlanteans and had come with ships ? Where is written how the great island is Atlantis ? Just supposed ?

My goodness Markmar, clearly I cannot help you; I would suggest you re-read Plato's two works, Timaeus and Critias, you will find all of your answers there.
Oroblanco

 

[markmar]

Oroblanco

My questions were for the quoted text .

 

[Oroblanco]

Oroblanco My questions were for the quoted text .

It is clear from your questions that you have your own beliefs concerning Atlantis, and that I cannot state things clearly enough for you. That is why I suggested you re-read Plato, perhaps your answers are there.

Oroblanco

 

[markmar]

Oroblanco

You read a bad translation of Plato ( Timaeus and Critias ) . In ancient and modern Greek language , the text is little different and has other meanings . If you want , I will do a correct translation of the previous quoted text , just to see the differences .

The ancient word " megas ( μέγας ) " when is used for persons , means " great " , but when is used for things , means " big " or " bigger " . Just for your knowledge .

The ancient word " mizo ( μείζω ) " which said Critias , means only " big " or " bigger " .

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Oro de Tayopa & Atlantis. I believe this is of interest to both you and Marius

-----> The Explorers Club - Events - <----


Jose