153 replies to this topic

[Abramelin]

The Puzzler, on 03 January 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

Yes, I agree, but maybe it was earthquakes that actually sunk most of the island before the eruption..? The people fleed when the island was breaking up from earthquakes and being inundated with water - yes, knowledge of the eruption would have been widespread but it could be a loophole as to how Thera if saying to be Atlantis could sink by earthquakes and flood rather than volcano, not mentioned by Plato - because the people who landed on Egyptian shores...? only knew they left because it was sinking and inundated.

Personally I don't think Crete is Atlantis but haven't ruled it out completely, there would have to be more loopholes...

Those who landed on Egyptian shores left because of the earthquakes, and those who had managed to escape just in time would no doubt have told about this massive eruption that blasted their island to smithereens.

I will bet a dime those that survived had seen more than a sinking island. Add boiling water, clouds of steam, dust, huge waves, glowing hot rocks falling down everywhere around them.

[The Puzzler]

Abramelin, on 03 January 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

Those who landed on Egyptian shores left because of the earthquakes, and those who had managed to escape just in time would no doubt have told about this massive eruption that blasted their island to smithereens.

I will bet a dime those that survived had seen more than a sinking island. Add boiling water, clouds of steam, dust, huge waves, glowing hot rocks falling down everywhere around them.

Yeah, but Plato hasn't mentioned it, you think he would if it was Atlantis. Just trying to think why he wouldn't mention it.

I'm an Atlantis in North West Africa and Southern Spain kinda gal anyway.

Edited by The Puzzler, 03 January 2013 - 02:47 PM.

[Abramelin]

The Puzzler, on 03 January 2013 - 02:45 PM, said:

Yeah, but Plato hasn't mentioned it, you think he would if it was Atlantis. Just trying to think why he wouldn't mention it.

I'm an Atlantis in North West Africa and Southern Spain kinda gal anyway.

I'm just saying that it thus could not have been Crete.

And we should not look for it on land... because it sunk.

[Proclus]

Abramelin, on 03 January 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

And we should not look for it on land... because it sunk.

Are you sure of this?
Egyptian accounts love to destroy the enemy totally ... but Egyptology found out that this is only theopolitical rhethoric. Maybe the island still exists? It's just a possibility, you do not have to believe this. But it's worth to think about. I suggest to get informed about the characteristics of Egyptian war accounts. They are very strict in some sense, because it's not historiography but theology.

[docyabut2]

Still Atlantis was a tale of ninety year old Egyptian priest told to Solon that had said happened a thousand years before,  perhap not knowing what a volcano may have been, Thera did have many earthquakes and floods before the final euption, spoke more of the floods that affected Athens and destroyed Atlantis.

[Proclus]

docyabut2, on 04 January 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

Still Atlantis was a tale of ninety year old Egyptian priest told to Solon that had said happened a thousand years before,  perhap not knowing what a volcano may have been, Thera did have many earthquakes and floods before the final euption, spoke more of the floods that affected Athens and destroyed Atlantis.

The assumption that Egyptians did not know volcanism is reasonable.
They were very concentrated on their own country.
Only the Levant was of interest for them outside their boundaries.

[kmt_sesh]

Abramelin, on 03 January 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

I'm just saying that it thus could not have been Crete.

And we should not look for it on land... because it sunk.

I wouldn't place too much stress on the details of the Thera event as perceived or understood by Plato. Thera was destroyed in the seventeenth century BCE; Plato lived in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE—Thera had been destroyed almost 1,200 years before Plato was born. It's highly unlikely either Plato or anyone else from his time would've understood in any detail what had happened on that island back in the distant Bronze Age. All they would've known is what they saw: a crescent-shaped, ruined island, barely a shadow of its former self.

Most of the details would've been long lost by the time Plato lived, but it's possible something of the original event had been handed down in numerous cultures through oral traditions. The more the telling went on, the farther accuracy strayed, but in the least the destruction of a powerful and sophisticated culture (the Minoans) might have been remembered. The fact the Minoans seem to have struggled on for a couple more centuries is beside the point. Who supplanted them? The Mycenaeans, the ancestors of Plato's people.

No one can say with certainty that the Thera event inspired Plato's fable of Atlantis, but it remains plausible. The fact that Plato didn't write about a volcano is immaterial. The volcano itself would've affected few other people directly. But the resultant tsunamis, floods, and related upheavals probably affected peoples throughout the eastern Mediterranean. That is more germane to the situation.

As for the volcano itself, when it blew around 1620 BCE it would not have been missed by peoples living in the Aegean and its surroundings. Aside from ash deposits found throughout the region, the fiery debris rising from the volcano as well as dense ash clouds would've been visible for miles around. The large population living on nearby Crete could not have mistaken it for what it was, and it is probably to Crete that most of the population of Thera fled. To mainland Greece and perhaps even to coastal Anatolia are also possible, but I doubt many if any Therans fled all the way to the shores of Egypt.

[kmt_sesh]

Proclus, on 04 January 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

The assumption that Egyptians did not know volcanism is reasonable.
They were very concentrated on their own country.
Only the Levant was of interest for them outside their boundaries.

Nubia was of even greater interest to the Egyptians. It is from Nubia, of course, that Egypt got most of its gold. Obviously the Levant was also important, so I'm not arguing that point. The Egyptians obtained tin and silver and other natural resources from or through the Levant. But notice how the Egyptians approached the hegemony of a region in which they had an interest, which is very telling unto itself. The Egyptians maintained garrisons off and on in the Levant, but not to a very effective degree. The Egyptians barely asserted governmental control over the Levant.

Nubia was altogether different. The Egyptians erected huge fortresses there for direct military control, going back to Dynasty 12. By the New Kingdom Egypt was colonizing Nubia and asserting direct governmental control over the region, placing a vizier there called "King's Son of Kush." This was mostly because of the gold, but also because of exotic prestige imports over which Egypt could exercise greater immediate control (e.g., incenses, ivory, oils, animal pelts, flora).

[Proclus]

kmt_sesh, on 04 January 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

Nubia was of even greater interest to the Egyptians. It is from Nubia, of course, that Egypt got most of its gold. Obviously the Levant was also important, so I'm not arguing that point. The Egyptians obtained tin and silver and other natural resources from or through the Levant. But notice how the Egyptians approached the hegemony of a region in which they had an interest, which is very telling unto itself. The Egyptians maintained garrisons off and on in the Levant, but not to a very effective degree. The Egyptians barely asserted governmental control over the Levant.

Nubia was altogether different. The Egyptians erected huge fortresses there for direct military control, going back to Dynasty 12. By the New Kingdom Egypt was colonizing Nubia and asserting direct governmental control over the region, placing a vizier there called "King's Son of Kush." This was mostly because of the gold, but also because of exotic prestige imports over which Egypt could exercise greater immediate control (e.g., incenses, ivory, oils, animal pelts, flora).

Hm, just a question, I don't know this: Was it not the other way round?
Did'nt the Egyptians place garrisons in the Levant region, but concerning Nubia they only placed garrisons at the border to Nubia?
When I read the book "Bible Unearthed" which reflects the up-to-date status of science it looks like this.
(See also the 4-hour youtube video I mentioned in the other threads)

[kmt_sesh]

Proclus, on 05 January 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

Hm, just a question, I don't know this: Was it not the other way round?
Did'nt the Egyptians place garrisons in the Levant region, but concerning Nubia they only placed garrisons at the border to Nubia?
When I read the book "Bible Unearthed" which reflects the up-to-date status of science it looks like this.
(See also the 4-hour youtube video I mentioned in the other threads)

Egypt did garrison the Levant and even installed something akin to governors in certain Levantine cities (e.g., Megiddo), but it did not maintain the fixed military and governmental presence that it did in Nubia. The nature of military campaigns in Dynasty 18 and Dynasty 19 is reflective of this. A powerful pharaoh like Tuthmosis III would launch campaigns into Syro-Palestine and install garrisons, but they obviously were not positioned there permanently. We find the next pharaoh or two having to do it all over again, until in Dynasty 19 the Egyptians permanently lost important Syro-Palestinian centers like Kadesh to the Hittites.

But the Egyptians were maintaining a steady and careful presence in Nubia from at least the Middle Kingdom. Think of the massive fortresses built by the Egyptians at sites like Buhen. These were fixed installations with permanent garrisons (which must have been a bleak and dreadful duty for the soldiers, second only to the distant Western Desert). These massive fortresses enabled the Egyptians to maintain a military presence in Nubia and at the same time have direct control over trading routes.

All of this fell apart after the Middle Kingdom, when Egypt shrank back to its borders, but the emergence of the Egyptian empire in the New Kingdom saw the Egyptians return to Nubia in a manner yet unseen. While military garrisons were again stationed there permanently, a greater emphasis was placed on something very much akin to colonization with the creation of permanent, new, Egyptian-built settlements like Sudla and Gebel Barkal, as far south as the Fourth Cataract.

Another thing to consider is how the various Nubian cultures emerged. The later ones in particular were deeply influenced and inculcated by the more dominant Egyptian culture, to the point that these later Nubian peoples (e.g., Kerma and Kushite) practiced cultures very similar in appearance and tradition to the pharaonic culture, albeit with their own ethnic flavors.

[Proclus]

kmt_sesh, on 06 January 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

Egypt did garrison the Levant and even installed something akin to governors in certain Levantine cities (e.g., Megiddo), but it did not maintain the fixed military and governmental presence that it did in Nubia.

Thanks for the lesson, I knew of campaigns but the fortresses are new to me.
Now the "black pharaos" make more sense to me ...

_

[Abramelin]

Proclus, on 03 January 2013 - 05:27 PM, said:

Are you sure of this?
Egyptian accounts love to destroy the enemy totally ... but Egyptology found out that this is only theopolitical rhethoric. Maybe the island still exists? It's just a possibility, you do not have to believe this. But it's worth to think about. I suggest to get informed about the characteristics of Egyptian war accounts. They are very strict in some sense, because it's not historiography but theology.

The only thing we can go by is what Plato told us. It's only his word we have.

When we go change and adapt what he said, then what's the use of reading his story anyway?

Maybe Atlantis was in the Med, and not in the Atlantic, maybe it's destruction didn't take place when Plato said it did, maybe Plato made a mistake, maybe he created a moralistic fable around a kernel of truth, maybe this, maybe that...

People have tried every possible twist and turn and by that 'discovered' Atlantis in every corner of this planet.

[Proclus]

Abramelin, on 06 January 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

The only thing we can go by is what Plato told us. It's only his word we have.
When we go change and adapt what he said, then what's the use of reading his story anyway?

I tried in many postings to demonstrate that there are two kinds of "twisting" and "turning":
An unreasonable one: Just trying and guessing. You are right: This is wrong.
A reasonable one: Looking for historical context of the writers and interprete their writings on this basis.
My favourite example is still the dating of pharao Menes in Herodotus, see the other threads.

Don't you agree that it is relevant in which way the Egyptians thought and wrote, if the account allegedly comes from Egypt? We have only the word of Plato, you are right, but Plato tells us that it is allegedly from Egypt, so looking for historical context in Egypt is reasonable, not just trying. It makes sense. I think I tried to explain this now for the 100th time ... *sigh*

So, I again suggest to look for the characteristics of Egyptian war reports and to ask the question:
Could these characteristics apply also to Plato's Atlantis account?

_

[Abramelin]

kmt_sesh, on 04 January 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

I wouldn't place too much stress on the details of the Thera event as perceived or understood by Plato. Thera was destroyed in the seventeenth century BCE; Plato lived in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE—Thera had been destroyed almost 1,200 years before Plato was born. It's highly unlikely either Plato or anyone else from his time would've understood in any detail what had happened on that island back in the distant Bronze Age. All they would've known is what they saw: a crescent-shaped, ruined island, barely a shadow of its former self.

Most of the details would've been long lost by the time Plato lived, but it's possible something of the original event had been handed down in numerous cultures through oral traditions. The more the telling went on, the farther accuracy strayed, but in the least the destruction of a powerful and sophisticated culture (the Minoans) might have been remembered. The fact the Minoans seem to have struggled on for a couple more centuries is beside the point. Who supplanted them? The Mycenaeans, the ancestors of Plato's people.

No one can say with certainty that the Thera event inspired Plato's fable of Atlantis, but it remains plausible. The fact that Plato didn't write about a volcano is immaterial. The volcano itself would've affected few other people directly. But the resultant tsunamis, floods, and related upheavals probably affected peoples throughout the eastern Mediterranean. That is more germane to the situation.

As for the volcano itself, when it blew around 1620 BCE it would not have been missed by peoples living in the Aegean and its surroundings. Aside from ash deposits found throughout the region, the fiery debris rising from the volcano as well as dense ash clouds would've been visible for miles around. The large population living on nearby Crete could not have mistaken it for what it was, and it is probably to Crete that most of the population of Thera fled. To mainland Greece and perhaps even to coastal Anatolia are also possible, but I doubt many if any Therans fled all the way to the shores of Egypt.

Herodotus goes on to write of a seven-year drought around the year 630 BC which forced the inhabitants of Thera to send colonists to Cyrenaica in today's Libya.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Ancient_Thera

Why would they go to Libya?

[questionmark]

Abramelin, on 06 January 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

Herodotus goes on to write of a seven-year drought around the year 630 BC which forced the inhabitants of Thera to send colonists to Cyrenaica in today's Libya.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Ancient_Thera

Why would they go to Libya?

While Herodotus is always to be taken with a pinch of salt, the evidence that Minoans with specific Thira traits have lived all over the East Mediterranean can be demonstrated by archeology. Even on the Island I live on there were settlements and burial grounds. So, Libya, which at the time was very fertile (in fact a grain producer well into Roman times) is not out of the realm of the possible, it is only 290 miles away (as a bird flies).