1584 replies to this topic

[Likely Guy]

cormac mac airt, on 21 August 2012 - 02:30 AM, said:

Most of us know this, but still there are some who will try to reinterpret what Plato said in order to rationalize Atlantis into existance. Talk about desperately wanting something to be true.

cormac

I tnink that they should , at least, study the source of the legend a bit. He was a philosopher, for friggin's sake, not a historian and certainly not a geographer.Swift described Lilliput, and Tolkein described Middle Earth.

[kmt_sesh]

Likely Guy, on 21 August 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

I tnink that they should , at least, study the source of the legend a bit. He was a philosopher, for friggin's sake, not a historian and certainly not a geographer.Swift described Lilliput, and Tolkein described Middle Earth.

A lot of the pro-Atlantis crowd which has come through UM have presented arguments that are quite divorced from most anything Plato wrote, even though Plato is the earliest source for Atlantis. In the course of debates it's come out that some of these people have never read Timaeus and Critias at all or have, at most, lightly skimmed it. And yet they think they can reinterpret Plato with all manner of information not the least relevant to the original source.

So it goes.

[cormac mac airt]

Likely Guy, on 21 August 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

I think that they should, at least, study the source of the legend a bit. He was a philosopher, for friggin's sake, not a historian and certainly not a geographer.Swift described Lilliput, and Tolkein described Middle Earth.

My experience, here and elsewhere, suggests that they just don't care. That's why, if you look deep enough, you'll come across claims of Atlantis being pretty much everywhere. Have even seen the excuse "we just don't know what we'll find in the future", as a counter to the lack of evidence, as somehow supporting something that doesn't exist.

As to the latter two places believers don't need any more fuel for their fantasies, since I've seen some claim that Tir na Nog, St. Brendan's Island or Lemuria were real places as well.

cormac

[Likely Guy]

kmt_sesh, on 21 August 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

A lot of the pro-Atlantis crowd which has come through UM have presented arguments that are quite divorced from most anything Plato wrote, even though Plato is the earliest source for Atlantis. In the course of debates it's come out that some of these people have never read Timaeus and Critias at all or have, at most, lightly skimmed it. And yet they think they can reinterpret Plato with all manner of information not the least relevant to the original source.

So it goes.

*facepalm**headshake**shrugs shoulders*

[Likely Guy]

cormac mac airt, on 21 August 2012 - 03:02 AM, said:

My experience, here and elsewhere, suggests that they just don't care. That's why, if you look deep enough, you'll come across claims of Atlantis being pretty much everywhere. Have even seen the excuse "we just don't know what we'll find in the future", as a counter to the lack of evidence, as somehow supporting something that doesn't exist.

As to the latter two places believers don't need any more fuel for their fantasies, since I've seen some claim that Tir na Nog, St. Brendan's Island or Lemuria were real places as well.

cormac

I believe that I live in Shangrila and vacation in Brigadoon. Yeah, a vacation every 100 years.

[cormac mac airt]

Likely Guy, on 21 August 2012 - 03:13 AM, said:

I believe that I live in Shangrila and vacation in Brigadoon. Yeah, a vacation every 100 years.

There you go. Because you believe it, it must be true.

cormac

[whitegandalf]

Quote
The islands in the North Sea aren't where Plato said Atlantis was nor did they subside at the time that Plato claimed, so really aren't relevant to the discussion of Atlantis.

Platoon describes it as lying outside the pillars, which most likely mean outside the mediterian sea. When he talks about atlantis he means the whole empire which was probably 20 atlantis islands or more in the atlantic ocean. When he talks about the size of libia and asia together. He could have meant that america was controlled by the atlantians. He never talks about the exact location of the atlantis main island and city.

It is just common sense, how could one single island controll the world without having other island outposts.

Platoon describes the empire exicted before 9600 bc, The new north sea civilization exicted from, and a proven fact that people settled and lived on these islands, from at lest 12.000 bc, maybe older. Around 6.000bc the islands of the north sea was wiped clean by a large tsunami.  How does that not fit the timeframe?



Quote

However, close to half of the island of Santorini collapsed into the sea after the volcanoes eruption.

So what, still not the same. If these island was totally submerged in water we most likely would never heard of it. It would still be a myth and we would know nothing of the minoan civilisation.

Thank you for serious critics.

Edited by whitegandalf, 21 August 2012 - 10:49 AM.

[cormac mac airt]

whitegandalf, on 21 August 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

Quote
The islands in the North Sea aren't where Plato said Atlantis was nor did they subside at the time that Plato claimed, so really aren't relevant to the discussion of Atlantis.

Platoon describes it as lying outside the pillars, which most likely mean outside the mediterian sea. When he talks about atlantis he means the whole empire which was probably 20 atlantis islands or more in the atlantic ocean. When he talks about the size of libia and asia together. He could have meant that america was controlled by the atlantians. He never talks about the exact location of the atlantis main island and city.

It is just common sense, how could one single island controll the world without having other island outposts.

Platoon describes the empire exicted before 9600 bc, The new north sea civilization exicted from, and a proven fact that people settled and lived on these islands, from at lest 12.000 bc, maybe older. Around 6.000bc the islands of the north sea was wiped clean by a large tsunami.  How does that not fit the timeframe?



Quote

However, close to half of the island of Santorini collapsed into the sea after the volcanoes eruption.

So what, still not the same. If these island was totally submerged in water we most likely would never heard of it. It would still be a myth and we would know nothing of the minoan civilisation.

Thank you for serious critics.

Wrong, he says exactly where the island of Atlantis was. Which he claims was "in front of" the Pillars of Hercules and sufficiently so that when it subsided it made the entrance to the Mediterranean un-navigable. This does not describe the North Sea so the North Sea area could not have been Atlantis. And he further claims that Atlantis was destroyed c.9600 BC and NOT in c.6200 BC so you're reinterpreting what he wrote to support your idea. That's not how it works.

One single island didn't control the world since Atlantis, as written about by Plato, didn't exist.

This is also wrong since the island of Santorini/Thera collapsed c.1613 BC, well within recorded history, so we'd of course have heard about it or the impact from its disappearance. And it wasn't all of what existed of the Minoan Civilization so we'd still have discovered the Minoans anyway.

cormac

[whitegandalf]

You have some good points. The timeline is somewhat off. And it is strange that no archeological evidence for this has survived. There should be at least a couple of places that would have survived the rising water and tsunami. So far nothing proven by certainly that can link it with Hyperborea (Røst) and Atlantis (doggerland)..

But then again not impossible. I know that the archeology in norway is extremely poor funded and that the region nordland (hålogaland-holy land) and its islands, have been examined poorest of all 18 regions of norway. The possible Hyperborea remendents islands, where ruins could be found is also a off limited area, because of some rare birds. It is illegal to visit them. No people live there.

Also platoons tale, if true, could be somewhat inacurate, as it was probably was translated from egypt to greece. And the egyptians might have gotten it a bit wrong too, if this was thousands of years before it was written down and Platoon got it.

I also look at all the ancient texts and tale out there, especially the viking sagaes and tales and greek myth, as i find it more belivable and true than Platoon. They all point to something, that the todays archeology need to explain our past. Something is missing. Why did the Maya, Egypt and Sumer began their building and their writing exactly the same, so far apart? And why do they all say in their text and myth that they got help from a advanced godlike tribe that was destroyed by a flood?

What i am saying that if an iceland based civilisation did exist in the stoneage, it would be extremely hard to find it, wheteher in the mediterian, north sea or on the other side of the world, as the island and ruins must have sunken between 50 and 100m down the sea. If they lived on island and the sea was their resource, not farmers, only cattle and small gardens, their cities and settlements would have all been at the coast, and would have been all submerged by the rapid rising water in the period.

A  iceland based civilization, like the minoans and their settlements, in the bronseage, would not have been submurged in the same degree and therefor much easier too find.

Edited by whitegandalf, 21 August 2012 - 12:26 PM.

[whitegandalf]

Heres a link of a sacred cave 33.000 years old, untouched by water and ice during last iceage, on one of the surving island of the possible hyperborea. It has cavepaintings, very interesting take a look, 4 fingers and two horns. The cave is on the island Trenyken, because of its tree mountains. The cave is called Helvete, which means Hell. Archeologst has discovered flutes and string instuments in the cave. One bone in the cave was dated to 1500 bc but it could have been in use much earlier. It is located 50m above water in the center mountain.

http://www.mythic-lo...m/Trenyken.html

Edited by whitegandalf, 21 August 2012 - 01:18 PM.

[cormac mac airt]

whitegandalf, on 21 August 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

You have some good points. The timeline is somewhat off. And it is strange that no archeological evidence for this has survived. There should be at least a couple of places that would have survived the rising water and tsunami. So far nothing proven by certainly that can link it with Hyperborea (Røst) and Atlantis (doggerland)..

But then again not impossible. I know that the archeology in norway is extremely poor funded and that the region nordland (hålogaland-holy land) and its islands, have been examined poorest of all 18 regions of norway. The possible Hyperborea remendents islands, where ruins could be found is also a off limited area, because of some rare birds. It is illegal to visit them. No people live there.

Also platoons tale, if true, could be somewhat inacurate, as it was probably was translated from egypt to greece. And the egyptians might have gotten it a bit wrong too, if this was thousands of years before it was written down and Platoon got it.

I also look at all the ancient texts and tale out there, especially the viking sagaes and tales and greek myth, as i find it more belivable and true than Platoon. They all point to something, that the todays archeology need to explain our past. Something is missing. Why did the Maya, Egypt and Sumer began their building and their writing exactly the same, so far apart? And why do they all say in their text and myth that they got help from a advanced godlike tribe that was destroyed by a flood?

What i am saying that if an iceland based civilisation did exist in the stoneage, it would be extremely hard to find it, wheteher in the mediterian, north sea or on the other side of the world, as the island and ruins must have sunken between 50 and 100m down the sea. If they lived on island and the sea was their resource, not farmers, only cattle and small gardens, their cities and settlements would have all been at the coast, and would have been all submerged by the rapid rising water in the period.

A  iceland based civilization, like the minoans and their settlements, in the bronseage, would not have been submurged in the same degree and therefor much easier too find.

"Somewhat" is an understatement, since approximately 3400 years is the difference between the two.

Calling Atlantis "Doggerland" doesn't make it true. If you're going to use the name then you're limited to the location for same as well as written by Plato. Which is nowhere near the North Sea.

You need to get the name right. It's Plato not platoon. Plato was a person. A platoon is an army unit.

It wasn't translated from Egyptian to Greek as it never existed in Egyptian to begin with. And the earliest use of the word or it's closest match, Atlanteans, is used by Herodotus for a peoples of Northwest Africa. Which is also not the North Sea.

This is a fringe argument that has no basis in fact. The Sumerians started c.3200 BC, while the Egyptians started c.3100 BC. The Mayans didn't even exist at that time. As to the Flood story, it doesn't exist in Ancient Egypt and no such claim was ever made in regards to one.

Being hard to find is one thing, but you can't take a story out of its temporal and geographical location and attribute it to another time and place and pretend you're being relevant to the original story. You're not. Trying to rationalize Atlantis into existance is a great disservice to actual sites/settlements/etc. that we find evidence for IMO.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

whitegandalf, on 21 August 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

You have some good points. The timeline is somewhat off. And it is strange that no archeological evidence for this has survived. There should be at least a couple of places that would have survived the rising water and tsunami. So far nothing proven by certainly that can link it with Hyperborea (Røst) and Atlantis (doggerland)..

But then again not impossible. I know that the archeology in norway is extremely poor funded and that the region nordland (hålogaland-holy land) and its islands, have been examined poorest of all 18 regions of norway. The possible Hyperborea remendents islands, where ruins could be found is also a off limited area, because of some rare birds. It is illegal to visit them. No people live there.

Also platoons tale, if true, could be somewhat inacurate, as it was probably was translated from egypt to greece. And the egyptians might have gotten it a bit wrong too, if this was thousands of years before it was written down and Platoon got it.

You seem to be taking some liberties with Hyperborea and Røst, as though the two are factually linked by both ancient Greece and modern historical research. Neither is the case. You may be familiar with the term but for the sake of those who are not, in Attic Greek "Boreas" means "North Wind." The prefix hyper means "beyond" or "above." The Greeks held that the North Wind (Boreas) resided in Thrace. Therefore, "Hyperborea" is a general geographical term meaning "lands beyond North Wind" (that is, beyond Thrace).

That's all it is. There is no marker in the term "Hyperborea" for a specific spot in Europe. Nothing in Scandinavia is specified. That's only a personal assumption you yourself are bringing to the table. A strict observance must be observed in digesting ancient Greek myth, and Hyperborea belongs to ancient Greek myth—not to a factual, specific location or to factual, specific people.

Why would Plato be writing about a region about which neither he nor his people knew anything of substance? Are we to believe the Athenians actually fought with ancient Norwegians in the Neolithic period? Now, our resident expert on Doggerland here at UM is the poster Abramelin. He certainly knows more than I, but I think he would refute your argument that Doggerland up and disappeared over night because of a tsunami. Rather, it was a slow and long-lasting geological event. Moreover, as I recall the last of Doggerland subsided around the mid-seventh millennium BCE. There were no Greek peoples at that time. I rather doubt the earliest speakers of Proto-Indo-European even existed yet.

Why do you keep calling Plato "Platoon"?

Quote

I also look at all the ancient texts and tale out there, especially the viking sagaes and tales and greek myth, as i find it more belivable and true than Platoon. They all point to something, that the todays archeology need to explain our past. Something is missing. Why did the Maya, Egypt and Sumer began their building and their writing exactly the same, so far apart? And why do they all say in their text and myth that they got help from a advanced godlike tribe that was destroyed by a flood?

What i am saying that if an iceland based civilisation did exist in the stoneage, it would be extremely hard to find it, wheteher in the mediterian, north sea or on the other side of the world, as the island and ruins must have sunken between 50 and 100m down the sea. If they lived on island and the sea was their resource, not farmers, only cattle and small gardens, their cities and settlements would have all been at the coast, and would have been all submerged by the rapid rising water in the period.

A  iceland based civilization, like the minoans and their settlements, in the bronseage, would not have been submurged in the same degree and therefor much easier too find.

Plato and the Vikings are separated by at least 500 years of history. I rather doubt Plato knew of them, unless he had access to a time machine. Nothing of their culture or exploits could have been known to Plato, so Vikings are irrelevant to anything related to the Atlantis story. A strict adherence to timelines must be observed. The same goes for the Maya. By the time they were growing as a powerful federation in the mid-third century CE, Egypt was already long gone as a great power and was in its waning days even as a Roman province; Sumer was gone from the historical stage much, much earlier than that. While Sumer and early Egypt certainly might have influenced each other, there is no possible connection with Mesoamerica. And there's the simple fact that neither Sumer nor Egypt were great maritime cultures, so notions of Sumerians or Egyptians sailing to the Western Hemisphere is the stuff of movies and fringe books, but not reality.

Egypt has no flood myth beyond the mound of creation. In Egyptian mythology no flood ever wiped out mankind (or godkind).

[whitegandalf]

Sorry, meant indus valley civilization, not maya. he he

Here is a map over the last sea based civilization from the north sea and its settlements. 1000 years ago. The vikings.  Many forget their eastern route trough the rivers, to the black sea and caspian sea. A stoneage north sea civ would have used the same routes for eksapnsion.

http://en.wikipedia....g_Expansion.svg

Edited by whitegandalf, 22 August 2012 - 12:28 PM.

[Abramelin]

whitegandalf, on 22 August 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

Sorry, meant indus valley civilization, not maya. he he

Here is a map over the last sea based civilization from the north sea and its settlements. 1000 years ago. The vikings.  Many forget their eastern route trough the rivers, to the black sea and caspian sea. A stoneage north sea civ would have used the same routes for eksapnsion.

http://en.wikipedia....g_Expansion.svg

I think we better discuss this in the Doggerland thread.

Because that thread is about the North Sea area, and is not about Altlantis.

The timeframe is wrong, the climate is wrong (though lots better than formerly assumed, but not 'Atlantis-like'), and there were no elephants like in Atlantis (though there were mammoths once, when it still was a frozen tundra).

Doggerland slowly but surely submerged due to post glacial readjustment and rising sea levels. Doggerland got hit by a gigantic and a days-lasting tsunami around 6150 BC, after which only Dogger Island remained for another 1000 years before it too submerged.

But yes, there are those who think Doggerland/Dogger Island was the origin of the West European megalithic culture. The problem is that the megalithic culture in Western Europe started around 3500 (maybe even 4000) BC, long after anything 'Dogger' was gone.

You should read that thread, WhiteGandalf.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 22 August 2012 - 05:16 PM.

[cormac mac airt]

whitegandalf, on 22 August 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

Sorry, meant indus valley civilization, not maya. he he

Here is a map over the last sea based civilization from the north sea and its settlements. 1000 years ago. The vikings.  Many forget their eastern route trough the rivers, to the black sea and caspian sea. A stoneage north sea civ would have used the same routes for eksapnsion.

http://en.wikipedia....g_Expansion.svg

Which is still wrong as the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) dates to c.2500 BC and there is no evidence that they had a flood myth such as you're describing. You're mixing timelines together that shouldn't be.

cormac