Scientists think they have found Atlantis

[JJsDietFitness]

Can't wait until they excavate. I think that more than one city may have been built with this "ringed" blueprint; so it may not be Atlantis, but just a companion city of the time.

[cormac mac airt]

Are you seriously basing your rejection of possible history on the fact Egypts histories were destroyed along with many scolls and texts fron around the world in the buring of the Alexandrean Library?

I know you were somewhat rhetorically directing this question to Harte, but I have to ask. On what basis can anyone assume that the entirety of AE history resided solely within the Library of Alexandria? Particularly as there is no known, AFAIK, extant comprehensive reference catalog to the contents of said library. Nor is one ever mentioned. Plato's claim that the priests of Sais had it written down means that it would likely have been kept in the local temple or other repository for written documents. And that if the place was, even remotely, as important as is claimed the Egyptians would have mentioned it on any number of stelae dealing with known cultures and battles with others within their area of knowledge. None of this exists. Not even as a myth or legend.

Herodotus' mention of the Atlantis Sea only comes down to a meaning of "Sea of Atlas", which should be obvious as Atlas was believed to reside in the west where he held the heavens up. Also, that the Atlantes that Herodotus mentions reside in northwest Africa, close to the Atlas Mountains which is obviously NOT an island. Neither of these can be used to support Plato's claim of Atlantis being a large island past the Pillars of Hercules, IMO.

Is it your most ardent belief no texts of scrolls were ever there as they can not be produced?

I can tell you, definitely, that that is not what Harte believes. But it all boils down to not being able to substantiate a location based on evidence that doesn't exist.

cormac

[Taita]

I know you were somewhat rhetorically directing this question to Harte, but I have to ask. On what basis can anyone assume that the entirety of AE history resided solely within the Library of Alexandria? Particularly as there is no known, AFAIK, extant comprehensive reference catalog to the contents of said library. Nor is one ever mentioned. Plato's claim that the priests of Sais had it written down means that it would likely have been kept in the local temple or other repository for written documents. And that if the place was, even remotely, as important as is claimed the Egyptians would have mentioned it on any number of stelae dealing with known cultures and battles with others within their area of knowledge. None of this exists. Not even as a myth or legend.

Herodotus' mention of the Atlantis Sea only comes down to a meaning of "Sea of Atlas", which should be obvious as Atlas was believed to reside in the west where he held the heavens up. Also, that the Atlantes that Herodotus mentions reside in northwest Africa, close to the Atlas Mountains which is obviously NOT an island. Neither of these can be used to support Plato's claim of Atlantis being a large island past the Pillars of Hercules, IMO.

I can tell you, definitely, that that is not what Harte believes. But it all boils down to not being able to substantiate a location based on evidence that doesn't exist.

cormac

You got me. I was being over the top in pointing out the source of this information would not logically be expected to still exist, at least there would be a tremendous amount of trepidation in the average scholar if he was asked to confirm what appeared on some scroll that was known or suspected to exist in Egypt during the time of the Libraries existence. My mothers school records were destroyed in a fire along with most of the counties official records. In 20 years, if I wrote a story based on what I heard happened at a football game or how she was elected and DAR and attended Girl's State in representing the school, all would be equally impossible to prove for exactly the same reason.

The only supporting evidence would likewise be anecdotal and supplied by equally unsupported individuals or very old writings(newspaper etc) which allude to the activities in question or mention someone with a similar name.

In this case, I have no personal care on if Atlantis existed or not. Coincidences would, to me, seem to say a place with a name like Atlantis did exist at one time, things like the Atlantis Sea mentioned by Herodotus for example. Even without external corroboration even on this small scale, other cities and kingdoms have been tracked down and proven by a single passage or present in 1 single story.

If a person feels a story has no substance then saying so is all that is needed. Denigrating others in this instance, or the stories that are the initial cause is a bit impotent and seem to beg for confrontation and arguments. I don't like drama.

Mark

[Harte]

Sorry, point taken and well corrected. I knew that too :/ Point was it wasn't Plato's story. It was in fact much much older and corroberated amoung many other writers and histories and these far older than Plato.

Sorry if it hurts your feelings, but the above is complete falsehood.

Your use of the phrase "in fact" is completely inaccurate. There exists no reference to Atlantis or anything resembling Atlantis anywhere in any ancient history, prior to Plato, who made the story up to illustrate the fate of an ideal society similar to what he considered to be the ideal society of the former Athens, which during his time had fallen into, shall we say, less than ideal conditions.

This description of Athens is as close as Plato could come to real criticism of Athens. Consider the fate of his teacher.

He was in fact making money telling a history as he had heard and read about it. Nothing more.

Not even that. Plato wasn't paid for his dialogues. He also never wrote anything he would call a "history" of anything.

This doesn't mean it was a fantastic place either. Just that IMO it likely existed in some form, somewhere, likely west of Italy and possibly beyond the pillars of Hercules in what Herodetus called the "Atlantis Sea".

Herodotus exoplains the term "Atlantis Sea" in terms of the Titan Atlas. It has nothing to do with Plato's allegory.

The sad fact is, there exists no evidence whatsoever for the existence of Atlantis beyond Plato's two dialogues mentioning it. And note what Plato says here in Timaeus:

And now, Socrates, to make an end my preface, I am ready to tell you the whole tale. I will give you not only the general heads, but the particulars, as they were told to me. The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. Let us divide the subject among us, and all endeavour according to our ability gracefully to execute the task which you have imposed upon us. Consider then, Socrates, if this narrative is suited to the purpose, or whether we should seek for some other instead.

Source

Of course, that's Plato talking, not Timaeus. He's referring in the bold part to Socrate's tale that was just finished in the previous dialogue. You may have heard of it. It's called "The Republic" and describes an "ideal" society, just as I was trying to tell you.

Yes, Plato says a lot of things in a lot of his dialogues. While many of them are "true" in the sense of philosophical truth itself, there's no reason to believe any of them are particularly factual.

Harte

[Harte]

This really doesn't need a reply but here goes. Are you seriously basing your rejection of possible history on the fact Egypts histories were destroyed along with many scolls and texts fron around the world in the buring of the Alexandrean Library?

Are you basing your belief in Atlantis on the burning of scrolls in a Library that wasn't even concieved of until after the death of Plato and that certainly had no ancient Egyptian contents, being built by the Greeks and all?

Is it your most ardent belief no texts of scrolls were ever there as they can not be produced?

I have to agree with you on this one. As Alexandrea would have been the city the scrolls and texts would have been kept in at that time and the Library is the place learned scholars from around the known world went to study, this is were Solon would have traveled to to study the histories and advanced teachings of the world. It must stand to reason then that it is all a bunch of poppycock and all the stories sent down to us second hand( by those supposedly studying the texts) are balderdash. There simply are no supporting papyrus scrolls or texts, no books or other evidence they ever read anything at all. Pure speculation and fiction.

What's poppycock is your timeline.

The city of Alexandria was named after Alexander. Alexandria didn't even exist when Solon lived.

Please, let's be intellectually honest, shall we?

Harte

[Taita]

Are you basing your belief in Atlantis on the burning of scrolls in a Library that wasn't even concieved of until after the death of Plato and that certainly had no ancient Egyptian contents, being built by the Greeks and all?

What's poppycock is your timeline.

The city of Alexandria was named after Alexander. Alexandria didn't even exist when Solon lived.

Please, let's be intellectually honest, shall we?

Harte

You missed the point in a timeline problem. According to texts concerning Egypt and world texts at the time of the Library, the histories and scrolls of Egypt were stored there by decree. Not all records were stored there but the vast majority were. As this happened relatively soon after the incident is to have occurred it is unlikely IF the text ever existed that it would not have been deposited there when the capitol was moved to Alexandria. If, as it is likely a real scroll would have been moved, was moved, then it is highly unlikely it could have survived, just like the 100% loss that was reported to have happened suggests.

How does a Titan map explain an Atlantis name? You could be right in that it was a creation but, your explanation does not convince me. If this is the sum total of all proof Atlantis should be seen as shear fantasy, it is no wonder the myth persists.

I get you don't buy it. I will have to say, ~ I feel Herodotus meant~ and ~ there is no proof a scroll ever existed in Egypt~ are at best flimsy and more fodder for bar room blusterings after a few to many beers. Admit it, what you are using is feelings and yelling or chastising people that do not accept them as sacrosanct. At least, that is what I am observing.

Do you have proof Plato invented Solon or Atlantis?

If you had simply asked if I believe Atlantis existed and place a % to this belief I would have answered 10% at best. On the other hand Tutankhamen had a smaller % chance to exist and people proposing a child king of that period were derided and scoffed at quite strongly. The miniscule number of references were seen as myth and legend.

If it were not for Herodotus using the same name I would place my circumspection less in favor of an Atlantis possibility, maybe <1%. You may can convince me. How is an Egyptian story told to Herodotus leading him to use Atlantis Sea as a descriptive name for a western area sea? I am being my sincere in this, I don't understand how it could be coincidentally the same.

Mark

[Taita]

I have spent the better part of my free time today reading Herodotus' descriptions of his travels and in particular his book on Egypt. I do not wish to cast aspersions on someone unable to defend themselves so I will only say, WOW! Regardless of his inclusion of a reference to Atlantis Sea, if Pluto spun them as easily and grandly as Herodotus then I retract any confidence I had concerning anything he said concerning the subject of Atlantis.

The history of Egypt, Greece, the world of the last 20k years and Homer's Illiad are inaccurate sometimes in an extreme degree if you compare it to what is relayed by Herodotus.

Be that as it may, he describes a pretty fantastic Egypt which I would love to have seen. Point of note, he calls a temple and palisaded and pillared complex a Labirinth. The Pharaoh attributed with the possible lake referenced made 2 pyramid 2 km apart and could have fit within the description Herodotus makes in the following. Hold your breath, he may have exaggerated slightly.

"~ situated a little above the lake of Moiris and nearly opposite to that which is called the City of Crocodiles.

This I saw myself, and I found it greater than words can say. For if one should put together and reckon up all the buildings and all the great works produced by the Hellenes, they would prove to be inferior in labour and expense to this labyrinth, though it is true that both the temple at Ephesos and that at Samos are works worthy of note.

The pyramids also were greater than words can say, and each one of them is equal to many works of the Hellenes, great as they may be; but the labyrinth surpasses even the pyramids.

It has twelve courts covered in, with gates facing one another, six upon the North side and six upon the South, joining on one to another, and the same wall surrounds them all outside; and there are in it two kinds of chambers, the one kind below the ground and the other above upon these, three thousand in number, of each kind fifteen hundred. (2 story building of 1500 rooms each floor)

The upper set of chambers we ourselves saw, going through them, and we tell of them having looked upon them with our own eyes; but the chambers under ground we heard about only; for the Egyptians who had charge of them were not willing on any account to show them, saying that here were the sepulchres of the kings who had first built this labyrinth and of the sacred crocodiles.

Accordingly we speak of the chambers below by what we received from hearsay, while those above we saw ourselves and found them to be works of more than human greatness.

For the passages through the chambers, and the goings this way and that way through the courts, which were admirably adorned, afforded endless matter for marvel, as we went through from a court to the chambers beyond it, and from the chambers to colonnades, and from the colonnades to other rooms, and then from the chambers again to other courts.

Over the whole of these is a roof made of stone like the walls; and the walls are covered with figures carved upon them, each court being surrounded with pillars of white stone fitted together most perfectly; and at the end of the labyrinth, by the corner of it, there is a pyramid of forty fathoms(240 feet), upon which large figures are carved, and to this there is a way made under ground.

Such is this labyrinth; but a cause for marvel even greater than this is afforded by the lake, which is called the lake of Moiris, along the side of which this labyrinth is built.

The measure of its circuit is three thousand six hundred furlongs (being sixty schoines)(a little less than 4 miles), and this is the same number of furlongs as the extent of Egypt itself along the sea.

The lake lies extended lengthwise from North to South, and in depth where it is deepest it is fifty fathoms. That this lake is artificial and formed by digging is self-evident, for about in the middle of the lake stand two pyramids, each rising above the water to a height of fifty fathoms(300feet), the part which is built below the water being of just the same height; and upon each is placed a colossal statue of stone sitting upon a chair. Thus the pyramids are a hundred fathoms high(600 feet, the Washington Monument is 555 feet); and these hundred fathoms are equal to a furlong of six hundred feet, the fathom being measured as six feet(2.953 x 4 x 6 = 70.872/12 = ~6 foot) or four cubits, the feet being four palms each(75mm, 2.953 inches), and the cubits six. The water in the lake does not come from the place where it is, for the country there is very deficient in water, but it has been brought thither from the Nile by a canal: and for six months the water flows into the lake, and for six months out into the Nile again; and whenever it flows out, then for the six months it brings into the royal treasury a talent of silver a day from the fish which are caught, and twenty pounds when the water comes in.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Taita

[Harte]

You missed the point in a timeline problem. According to texts concerning Egypt and world texts at the time of the Library, the histories and scrolls of Egypt were stored there by decree.

And I suppose you have a reference for this decree?

Please link to it. If not online, please provide a citation for your source.

Not all records were stored there but the vast majority were. As this happened relatively soon after the incident is to have occurred it is unlikely IF the text ever existed that it would not have been deposited there when the capitol was moved to Alexandria. If, as it is likely a real scroll would have been moved, was moved, then it is highly unlikely it could have survived, just like the 100% loss that was reported to have happened suggests.

Apparently you are unaware that Plato says that Solon claimed that he saw the story recorded on a set of pillars in Sais, not on any scroll.

Also, you're supposing that we know the entire story of the death and "waking death" and subsequent sex with his wife that Osiris had, that we know the entire story of the creation of the (Egyptian) world from the Ben Ben and that we know hundreds of tales of the exploits of the Egyptian gods, yet we know nothing about any Egyptian myth concerning anything even resembling Atlantis - simply because of a fire accidentally started by Julius Caesar.

How does a Titan map explain an Atlantis name? You could be right in that it was a creation but, your explanation does not convince me. If this is the sum total of all proof Atlantis should be seen as shear fantasy, it is no wonder the myth persists.

Cormac explained why the Atlantic was called the Atlantis Sea. Did you not read his post?

The Greeks had a myth that the Titan Atlas was consigned to hold up the heavens on his shoulders. His location was somewhere in the west. At first, it was the Atlas mountain range in N. Africa. Once it was discovered that he wasn't there, the myth pushed him off further west.

The Atlantic was given the name "the sea of Atlas' (which is a straight-up translation of "Atlantis sea" from Greek to English) because Atlas was somewhere in the west.

Herodotus reported on the peoples living around the Atlas mountain range. These are the "Atlantes" he referred to.

I get you don't buy it. I will have to say, ~ I feel Herodotus meant~ and ~ there is no proof a scroll ever existed in Egypt~ are at best flimsy and more fodder for bar room blusterings after a few to many beers. Admit it, what you are using is feelings and yelling or chastising people that do not accept them as sacrosanct. At least, that is what I am observing.

If it makes you feel better, I'll admit to a high level of frustration with this topic, which has been done to death here and elsewhere, and with the lack of serious investigation that is obvious on the part of people, such as yourself, that make claims like you have made here (claiming there are documents older than Plato testifying to the existence of a nonexsitent place like Atlantis, for example.)

Do you have proof Plato invented Solon or Atlantis?

Plato did not invent Solon. Solon, during Plato's time, was a revered (former) leader of Athens. He was credited with creating the system of laws that Plato very much admired.

Unfortunately for Solon, in his own time he became less liked and was eventuially forced from his civic position.

Plato did make up Atlantis. How can anyone have proof of this? Can you prove that Steven King made up his story of a haunted Colorado hotel?

were not for Herodotus using the same name I would place my circumspection less in favor of an Atlantis possibility, maybe <1%. You may can convince me. How is an Egyptian story told to Herodotus leading him to use Atlantis Sea as a descriptive name for a western area sea? I am being my sincere in this, I don't understand how it could be coincidentally the same.

The Atlantic was called "the Sea of Atlas' (the Atlantis Sea) before Herodotus was born.

Harte

[Taita]

I concede defeat. This is neither interesting nor fun for me. When exchanges degrade to simple personal barbs and defamation over useful dialog feelings and emotion control the dialog and progress is at best an accident at that point. You win. You see a people referred to as people from Atlantis Sea (or people from Sea of Atlas)as different from people from Atlantis Sea and that is entirely reasonable to me as well. I am sure they lived in Atlantis land or land of Atlas as you already proposed these are people that existed long before Solon made his trip to Egypt, which you seem to acknowledge as having occurred.

Sadly for Plato and Salon, at least 99% of all that was Egypt thru antiquity (likely a much larger number) has been lost or destroyed outright, such as the Labyrinth complex described by Herodotus. The remaining legible columns are an infinitesimally small number of all columns and pillars ever created and incised or painted on in the history of Egypt. New construction projects are the largest culprit and most cause the inscriptions and painted inscriptions used previously illegible, sometimes completely, and according to Egyptologists, reuse of materials could eliminate all previous information in favor of new paintings and inscriptions.

If we are hoping this information came from a column and was incised into the column, then we can hope it is merely lost and will be discovered one day. The guru and leader and protector of all thing Ancient Egyptian, Dr. Zahi Hawass, said in a discovery channel special that he believes there is much more not yet discovered than has been discovered to date.

You say you can not prove if Plato made Atlantis up. That was intended to show the difficulty in what you yourself are demanding. How can a person legitimately ask for physical proof a person made a story up? Likewise can this erudite individual expect to find proof of the existence of a single column(or indeed scroll) when the chance the column has not been lost or destroyed has already been established as extremely unlikely. To me, it seems you are not just asking to spot a particular bat flying out of the mouth of Carlsbad Caverns, you require taking it down with a BB gun after a night of drinking.

I have wasted too much time explaining why people do not let up on searching for or hoping Atlantis exists. A subject, I have to date, spent no more than 1/1000th the time discussing than in that past few days rather less than cordial confabulations. Enjoy your continued colloquy uninterrupted by my inane contributions. Good Day and best wishes on what will likely be fascinating and fruitful conversations to follow.

Mark

Edited September 23, 2011 by Taita

[Oniomancer]

I concede defeat. This is neither interesting nor fun for me. When exchanges degrade to simple personal barbs and defamation over useful dialog feelings and emotion control the dialog and progress is at best an accident at that point. You win. You see a people referred to as people from Atlantis Sea (or people from Sea of Atlas)as different from people from Atlantis Sea and that is entirely reasonable to me as well. I am sure they lived in Atlantis land or land of Atlas as you already proposed these are people that existed long before Solon made his trip to Egypt, which you seem to acknowledge as having occurred.

(snip)

You have to understand Taita, you're coming into a relatively recent thread in the middle of a long-standing debate. All of the points you've brought up have already been discussed almost to death and largely countered and unfortunately, even the most even-keeled users get a little testy having to go over the same ground for the hundredth time. The less patient ones, well...

The topic of this thread itself is at least something new, though even aspects of that have been addressed before. Don't get too discouraged then if things seem to get too negative right away.

[cormac mac airt]

You see a people referred to as people from Atlantis Sea (or people from Sea of Atlas)as different from people from Atlantis Sea and that is entirely reasonable to me as well.

Your wording is a bit confusing to say the least, here. That being said, here are a few items that come to mind.

The Atlantes, of whom Herodotus mentioned in his Histories IV; 184 and 185, would have resided on mainland northwestern Africa with their contemporary neighbors to the east, the Garmantians, whom themselves don’t appear to have existed much before 1000 BC. And both well after the earliest evidence for domesticated cattle, which only dates to c.4500 BC - 4700 BC.

Source for the latter dates above:

The Neolithic of the Middle Nile Region

An Archaeology of Central Sudan and Nubia

Pages 83-86

~From Plato’s Timaeus~

And whatever happened either in your country or in ours, or in any other region of which we are informed-if there were any actions noble or great or in any other way remarkable, they have all been written down by us of old, and are preserved in our temples.

Meaning that this wasn’t just a locally known event (if true), but was well known and distributed amongst multiple temples. Yet not a trace of such information exists anywhere in Egypt, during any period. Not even as a myth or legend.

~Again from Plato's Timaeus~

She founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours, of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old.

The Egyptian city of Sais didn’t exist until c.1100 BC and the date of 8000 or even 9000 years before the time of Solon grossly predates any evidence for any culture in Ancient Egypt to include the Merimda, Maadi, Badari and Naqada Cultures. This does not speak well for the veracity of Plato’s claims.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

Let's recap several things here.

First, the earliest reference to Atlantis is Plato. Plain and simple. He introduced the subject to the world in his dialogues Timaeus and Critias. These short writings do not even represent real discussions between several men but were a literary device common among Greek writers: dialogues between learned or notable figures of Greek history. It was a proven way to tell a story or spin a fable. All other mentions of Atlantis are subsequent to Plato, meaning when you see Atlantis mentioned again in ancient writings, they were the writings of men who lived after Plato.

Second, although Plato tries to convey Timaeus and Critias as "real" events, modern readers are a bit too gullible at taking such things at face value. Are we to believe that everything Herodotus wrote was real, or Manetho? A bit of critical thinking would tell you to respond decisively, no. And while Herodotus and Manetho were two of the world's first true historians, Plato was not. What he is relaying in Timaeus and Critias is not an historical account but an allegory. I honestly don't know why so many modern people have such a damn hard time accepting the obvious truth of this. I won't go into Plato's and Athens' background and experiences at this time but one has to understand the time and place to understand why Plato invented Atlantis, and why Athens stands in allegorically in this fable. In other words, the story of Atlantis is not factual history, nor did Plato mean it to be that way. Accepting it as factual history is the failing of subsequent peoples and especially modern people, who have tried to place Atlantis practically everywhere on the face of this planet. Except New Jersey. New Jersey is the only place left.

Third, although it's entirely possible Solon visited Egypt after he departed Athens, what Plato relays of Solon's events in Sais are entirely fictional. For this to make sense, one has to understand the culture and traditions of Egypt itself. From the dawn of its statehood in 3100 BCE to its surrender to Alexander in 332 BCE, the Egyptian state almost never wrote of foreign cultures and civilizations. Nearly all foreigners were viewed through Egyptian eyes as inherently inferior and not worthy of consideration--except in those cases where a foreign people had been conquered and vanquished. So the very idea that the Egyptians were the keeper of records of a civilization (Atlantis) that existed millennia earlier, simply is not to be entertained as reality. Plato employed the Egyptians as a literary device because the very antiquity of Egypt was revered by learned Greeks: the usage of Egypt would've lent an air of solidity, believability, and antiquity to Plato's fable.

Fourth, it is true the Egyptians were great record keepers. A great deal of written evidence has survived down to us from the 3,000-plus years of pharaonic Egypt. A goodly portion of this written evidence is a rich assortment of ancient Egyptian legends, fables, stories, and other literature. So much of this literature has survived because it was commonplace for scribal students down through time to practice their writing exercises by copying legends, fables, and stories. Examples of creation myths and other writings of socio-religious importance have been found not only on papyrus but on innumerable stone monuments (temples, tombs, shrines, stelae, statues, etc.). Annals of Egyptian kings have been found on the same media. All of this is to say, important stories and accounts were never really written in only one place and kept in only one pace: they were copied and re-copied down through time at sites up and down the Nile Valley. So to suggest that the history of Atlantis existed only on the pillars and monuments of the temple at Sais is entirely unrealistic. It would not happen that way. Plato may not have understood this, but he wouldn't have cared much to begin with. Again, he was not writing history, he was crafting allegory.

Fifth, and relating to above, of all of the literature and inscriptional material that has survived down to our time from the 3,000-plus years of pharaonic Egypt, not a single scrap can be discerned as anything remotely related to Atlantis or anything of that nature. The fable of Atlantis was not known to the Egyptians because it was not part of the Egyptian tradition. It was a Greek construction. It was Plato's invention.

Sixth, and last (much to everyone's relief, I'm sure), are the misconceptions many modern people have with the Library of Alexandria. Solon would never have visited this edifice nor have had access to its collections, of course. If Solon did in fact visit Egypt at all, it would have been in the sixth century BCE. The Library of Alexandria was entirely a Hellenistic invention. No one knows precisely when it was built but the Library was probably begun under Ptolemy I and completed under Ptolemy II (309 BCE – 246). In other words, neither the Library nor the city of Alexandria itself existed in Solon's time. But more to the point, Alexandria may have been founded in Egypt but it was an entirely Greek city. In both thought and practice, the city was viewed by its mainly Greek inhabitants as something apart from Egypt. In fact, the way it was often written in the Greek language, the Ptolemies who reigned over Egypt were called King in Egypt rather than of Egypt, as though they themselves thought of themselves as separate from Egypt. That said, while the Library probably did contain copies of works like Herodotus' histories and certainly contained Manetho's history, the bulk of the collections are unlikely to have been much about Egypt at all. Most of it would have pertained to Greece. To expect that the Library contained vast holdings of detailed accounts of Egyptian history going back to the beginning is, of course, not only unrealistic but rather outlandish.

Sorry for the length of this post. I just wanted to stress some things that I think are important to consider. Most important is to understand the nature and intent of ancient writings and to avoid approaching them with the agendas and whims of a modern mind.

[cormac mac airt]

Except New Jersey. New Jersey is the only place left.

Sorry, even that's been taken as they call it "Atlantic City".

cormac

[Harte]

I concede defeat. This is neither interesting nor fun for me. When exchanges degrade to simple personal barbs and defamation over useful dialog feelings and emotion control the dialog and progress is at best an accident at that point. You win. You see a people referred to as people from Atlantis Sea (or people from Sea of Atlas)as different from people from Atlantis Sea and that is entirely reasonable to me as well. I am sure they lived in Atlantis land or land of Atlas as you already proposed these are people that existed long before Solon made his trip to Egypt, which you seem to acknowledge as having occurred.

It's a fact that Solon travelled to Egypt after leaving office. Many well-to-do Greeks travelled the Med when they could.

The "Seven Wonders of the Ancient World" list that we know about came from the Greeks. They created the first "travelogue."

Sadly for Plato and Salon, at least 99% of all that was Egypt thru antiquity (likely a much larger number) has been lost or destroyed outright, such as the Labyrinth complex described by Herodotus. The remaining legible columns are an infinitesimally small number of all columns and pillars ever created and incised or painted on in the history of Egypt.

In fact, the above isn't known to be true.

Recently, it was claimed by archaeologists that they may have located the labyrinth Herodotus wrote of.

Don't be surprised if it doesn't match his description, though. Herodotus invented the field of history. These days, it's not done the way he did it anymore, however. Herodotus' "Histories" is based on interviews primarily, and not on observations he made, for the most part. Obviously, it's loaded with folklore-type tales that simply aren't true.

If you did read it, though, you found the source of the "Language of the Birds" that was mentioned in one of those "Librarian" made-for TV movies starring Noah Wyle.

If we are hoping this information came from a column and was incised into the column, then we can hope it is merely lost and will be discovered one day. The guru and leader and protector of all thing Ancient Egyptian, Dr. Zahi Hawass, said in a discovery channel special that he believes there is much more not yet discovered than has been discovered to date.

Regarding columns in Sais, there exist some that show what appear to be Minoans. This may support the idea that Plato used what Solon could have said about these columns to build his allegorical tale.

And Hawass, as usual, is absolutely right.

You say you can not prove if Plato made Atlantis up. That was intended to show the difficulty in what you yourself are demanding. How can a person legitimately ask for physical proof a person made a story up? Likewise can this erudite individual expect to find proof of the existence of a single column(or indeed scroll) when the chance the column has not been lost or destroyed has already been established as extremely unlikely. To me, it seems you are not just asking to spot a particular bat flying out of the mouth of Carlsbad Caverns, you require taking it down with a BB gun after a night of drinking.

I didn't ask for proof.

I'm a math teacher. I know what "proof" is.

I asked for evidence.

Harte

[questionmark]

That said, while the Library probably did contain copies of works like Herodotus' histories and certainly contained Manetho's history, the bulk of the collections are unlikely to have been much about Egypt at all. Most of it would have pertained to Greece. To expect that the Library contained vast holdings of detailed accounts of Egyptian history going back to the beginning is, of course, not only unrealistic but rather outlandish.

.

Quite correct, and as I do not cease to point out: Caesar took most of the content of the GL to Rome (and replaced the scrolls by copies of Byblos on Cleo's insistence). If such historic documents would have existed they would have come to us like almost everything else contained in the GL. Fact of the matter is that until the decoding of the Rosetta stone we knew squid about the pre-Greek history of Egypt (while that, as recorded in the GL, was well known).

[Harte]

You have to understand Taita, you're coming into a relatively recent thread in the middle of a long-standing debate. All of the points you've brought up have already been discussed almost to death and largely countered and unfortunately, even the most even-keeled users get a little testy having to go over the same ground for the hundredth time. The less patient ones, well...

He's talking about me, there.

I've said before that I'm the biggest a-hole on this board. There was once another one that was worse than me, believe it or not.

Sorry, it's just my way. I'm here for my own amusement, not to make you feel warm and fuzzy like Kmt_Sesh does. LOL

Harte

Edited September 23, 2011 by Harte

[kmt_sesh]

...

The Egyptian city of Sais didn’t exist until c.1100 BC and the date of 8000 or even 9000 years before the time of Solon grossly predates any evidence for any culture in Ancient Egypt to include the Merimda, Maadi, Badari and Naqada Cultures. This does not speak well for the veracity of Plato’s claims.

cormac

I am not as well versed on Delta sites as I am on the sites in Upper Egypt, but I'm pretty certain Sais was a settlement stretching back to prehistoric times. However, I agree with your dating to the extent that Sais was not of any key importance to the state until much later. Its principal deity, Neith, was certainly from deep in Upper Egypt originally, and transplanted to Sais only later in time. Sais was a very important city in the time of Solon and later Plato, but this was toward the end of pharaonic history. In any case, you bring up a good point by showing another way by which the Greeks frequently misinterpreted Egyptian history. This is not meant as derisive to the Greeks because Plato wasn't trying to write about Egyptian history, his was spinning Greek allegory and using Egypt as a literary device, as I mentioned in my previous post.

But this brings up something equally relevant, and it pertains to Athens. Archaeology of Attica has shown that the site of Athens has been a place of settlement since prehistoric times, but this hardly means the original founding of that settlement was thought of as Athens. We don't even have a very good understanding of who the original, prehistoric peoples of the Greek mainland were. The Hellenes of Indo-European lineage emerged later, from the north.

This reveals the very absurdity of Plato's placement of the events 9,000 years before Solon's time. There were no great civilizations at that time, anywhere. But, again, Plato was going for allegory, not historical accuracy. However, even fudging the numbers and placing the events 900 years before Solon's time, brings us not much closer to reality. Living through much of the Peloponnesian War, Plato had seen Athens during the tale end of its ascendency and lived to see its defeat and the dismantling of its democracy in 404 BCE, at the hands of the Spartans and the brutal oligarchy they imposed on Plato's city. This was Plato's frame of reference: a once-great city striving toward the hegemony of Greece, only to have its dreams shattered and its hubris punished.

In point of fact, Athens was not always a great city. In the time of Solon the city of Athens was only beginning to emerge as a place of importance. Prior to that, Athens as the polis of Attica was more of a backwater. Athens was not even noticed as a place to be reckoned with until it almost single-handedly defeated the Persians on the shores of Marathon in 490 BCE. In fact, it was the Persian wars that brought Athens into its ascendency. This also must be considered when examining the fable of Atlantis. What too many modern people try to see as real history was, to Plato, only a morality tale.

LOL I usually try to avoid the threads on Atlantis. There is so much gibberish spewed out by modern people and especially by the fringe, that it's better for my health to avoid such debates altogether. But now look at me. Roped in. Pitiful!

He's talkintg about me, there.

I've said before that I'm the biggest a-hole on this board. There was once another one that was worse than me, believe it or not.

Sorry, it's just my way. I'm here for my own amusement, not to make you feel warm and fuzzy like Kmt_Sesh does. LOL

Harte

Can I have that hug now?

Edited September 23, 2011 by kmt_sesh

[kmt_sesh]

Sorry, even that's been taken as they call it "Atlantic City".

cormac

Aw, crap!

Well, that nails it. Atlantis has existed in every single place on Earth, from pole to pole and everything in between. Man, that was one huge island.

[Abramelin]

Just for clarity: here's what Herodotus said concerning "Atlantis":

θάλασσα ἡ Ἀτλαντὶς

203. Now the Caspian Sea is apart by itself, not having connection with the other Sea: for all that Sea which the Hellenes navigate, and the Sea beyond the Pillars, which is called Atlantis, and the Erythraian Sea are in fact all one, but the Caspian is separate and lies apart by itself. In length it is a voyage of fifteen days if one uses oars, and in breadth, where it is broadest, a voyage of eight days. On the side towards the West of this Sea the Caucasus runs along by it, which is of all mountain-ranges both the greatest in extent and the loftiest: and the Caucasus has many various races of men dwelling in it, living for the most part on the wild produce of the forests; and among them there are said to be trees which produce leaves of such a kind that by pounding them and mixing water with them they paint figures upon their garments, and the figures do not wash out, but grow old with the woollen stuff as if they had been woven into it at the first: and men say that the sexual intercourse of these people is open like that of cattle

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh1200.htm

Another source mentions "Atlantis" an older source than Plato (alas, not a island/continent), Hellanicus of Mytilene:

He also wrote a work (mostly lost) entitled Atlantis (or Atlantias), about the daughter of the Titan Atlas. Some of his text may have come from an epic poem which Carl Robert called Atlantis, a fragment of which may be Oxyrhynchus Papyri 11, 1359.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellanicus_of_Mytilene

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2317105&redirect=true

http://www.strangehistory.net/2010/12/05/platos-atlantis-before-plato/

.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Abramelin

[cormac mac airt]

I am not as well versed on Delta sites as I am on the sites in Upper Egypt, but I'm pretty certain Sais was a settlement stretching back to prehistoric times. However, I agree with your dating to the extent that Sais was not of any key importance to the state until much later.

You are, of course, correct as an early settlement of Sais dates back to at least the time of Aha, IIRC. But it doesn't really come into prominence to any significant degree until c.1100 AFAIK. What was to become Athens is much the same. Neither place of which pre-dates Dynastic Egypt as the "Athens" or "Egypt" Plato is describing and both grossly post-date Plato's c.9600 BC claim.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

Just for clarity: here's what Herodotus said concerning "Atlantis":

θάλασσα ἡ Ἀτλαντὶς

203. Now the Caspian Sea is apart by itself, not having connection with the other Sea: for all that Sea which the Hellenes navigate, and the Sea beyond the Pillars, which is called Atlantis, and the Erythraian Sea are in fact all one, but the Caspian is separate and lies apart by itself. In length it is a voyage of fifteen days if one uses oars, and in breadth, where it is broadest, a voyage of eight days. On the side towards the West of this Sea the Caucasus runs along by it, which is of all mountain-ranges both the greatest in extent and the loftiest: and the Caucasus has many various races of men dwelling in it, living for the most part on the wild produce of the forests; and among them there are said to be trees which produce leaves of such a kind that by pounding them and mixing water with them they paint figures upon their garments, and the figures do not wash out, but grow old with the woollen stuff as if they had been woven into it at the first: and men say that the sexual intercourse of these people is open like that of cattle

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh1200.htm

Another source mentions "Atlantis" an older source than Plato (alas, not a island/continent), Hellanicus of Mytilene:

He also wrote a work (mostly lost) entitled Atlantis (or Atlantias), about the daughter of the Titan Atlas. Some of his text may have come from an epic poem which Carl Robert called Atlantis, a fragment of which may be Oxyrhynchus Papyri 11, 1359.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellanicus_of_Mytilene

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2317105&redirect=true

http://www.strangehistory.net/2010/12/05/platos-atlantis-before-plato/

.

My point exactly. There is no doubting the word "Atlantis" predates Plato, as relating to Atlas and other concepts, but this is quite another matter from Plato's Atlantis. A highly evolved civilization occupying a massive island in the Atlantis and doing battle with mighty Athens over 11,000 years ago, only to be destroyed and sink into the sea? No, that was Plato's invention.

Except for Atlantic City. That is indeed a place worthy of the gods' scorn.

[questionmark]

You are, of course, correct as an early settlement of Sais dates back to at least the time of Aha, IIRC. But it doesn't really come into prominence to any significant degree until c.1100 AFAIK. What was to become Athens is much the same. Neither place of which pre-dates Dynastic Egypt as the "Athens" or "Egypt" Plato is describing and both grossly post-date Plato's c.9600 BC claim.

cormac

And we have to add that at the time of Solon (638 BC – 558 BC) Sais was already in decline and the Neith cult already as good as extinct, which makes the story of Solon and the Priest very unlikely.

[Taita]

Your wording is a bit confusing to say the least, here. That being said, here are a few items that come to mind.

The Atlantes, of whom Herodotus mentioned in his Histories IV; 184 and 185, would have resided on mainland northwestern Africa with their contemporary neighbors to the east, the Garmantians, whom themselves don’t appear to have existed much before 1000 BC. And both well after the earliest evidence for domesticated cattle, which only dates to c.4500 BC - 4700 BC.

Source for the latter dates above:

The Neolithic of the Middle Nile Region

An Archaeology of Central Sudan and Nubia

Pages 83-86

~From Plato’s Timaeus~

Meaning that this wasn’t just a locally known event (if true), but was well known and distributed amongst multiple temples. Yet not a trace of such information exists anywhere in Egypt, during any period. Not even as a myth or legend.

~Again from Plato's Timaeus~

The Egyptian city of Sais didn’t exist until c.1100 BC and the date of 8000 or even 9000 years before the time of Solon grossly predates any evidence for any culture in Ancient Egypt to include the Merimda, Maadi, Badari and Naqada Cultures. This does not speak well for the veracity of Plato’s claims.

cormac

It was confusing but, intentionally. I meant to say a land and people being referred to as from "Atlantes"(I don't intend to dispute and spelling when we know what is being addressed, I have seen this spelling used before and if probably a better translation anyway) was already established and accepted so why argue a people referred to people from Atlantes can't be the quixotic Atlante(ans)? I feel there is little gain from trying to convince people Plato could not have been referring to these same named peoples.

I do not see value in even attempting to persuade anyone in the highly contested argument, as it is in truth not a discussion really and nothing within which I am anxious to participate. Why respond to a post if it only causes a dark an unsavory portion of your character to be exposed. If you have a very strong opinion, no one will dissuade you and if they are indeed genuinely asking for info form which to develop their own opinion, angry and ugly comments are not likely to give them a good opinion of you and in extension tarnish the opinion you are arguing.

As to Plato and Herodotus, see my post on his histories. Obviously gross does little to convey the level to which some of his descriptions have been exaggerated. Plato's accountings have likewise been came under scrutiny for things that while likely truthful seemed equally over the top, either for dramatic effect or everyone made stories grander than life and what he heard was equal to his presentations and writings. My intention here is to say I don't think we can used dates and times to remove the Atlante people of Herodotus from the Atlantis people of Plato.

Thank you for the small explanation above. I fear it only proves the existence of a people and if dates are off by 7000 years an equally ardent believer would say they accept that, as long as they existed.

Anytime you have to preface a statement with "it is unlikely", then what is being discussed in an opinion. This entire topic in nothing but "I thinks" and "It is unlikelys", all opinions. The problem is, a few facts, the few there are, just get in the way.

I would rather discuss things which I can learn from and share ideas on and that may possibly have an answer one day.

Mark

[Soul Kitchen]

Scientists think they have found Atlantis

Again?

[cormac mac airt]

...so why argue a people referred to people from Atlantes can't be the quixotic Atlante(ans)?

The argument doesn't hinge on whether a peoples known as Atlantians (by whatever spelling) existed, proof of which is lacking, refardless of Herodotus' mention of same. But on the location and time for both, as well as Plato's discription of a Bronze Age society. The locations and times from both Plato and Herodotus differ greatly and are rather specific, with the younger (Herodotus' claim of Atlantes as a people, contemporary with Garmantians c.1000 BC) being used to somehow validate the older (Plato's Atlantis as a place, c.9600 BC) claim. And no, it's been my experience that ardent believers as you put it DO NOT accept a 7000 year disparity between the two. They usually swallow Plato's account hook, line and sinker while not even paying attention to the fact that, even using Herodotus' claim, they're mixing up an early Holocene timeframe with a peoples from the Iron age (and contemporary with the Garmantians) using a Bronze Age military setup. One doesn't have to wonder much why the story isn't taken seriously.

I feel there is little gain from trying to convince people Plato could not have been referring to these same named peoples.

I feel there is much less to gain by giving Plato's tale such wide latitude in its interpretation, when he makes rather specific claims. To me, that's an excuse to claim he's right no matter what.

cormac

Edited September 24, 2011 by cormac mac airt