Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Proclus

Aristotle against existence of Atlantis? No!

154 posts in this topic

The Egyptain priest did say to Solon (There have been, and will be again, many destructions of mankind arising out of many causes; the greatest have been brought about by the agencies of fire and water)

I believe the Egyptian priest didn`t know excatly what a volcano was and described it as fire and water.

Yeah, but Atlantis was supposedly destroyed by water and earthquakes, not fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the Egyptian priest didn`t know excatly what a volcano was and described it as fire and water.

No, the fire catastrophe is a change in the sun's orbit, as can be seen by the Phaethon myth told there.

Yeah, but Atlantis was supposedly destroyed by water and earthquakes, not fire.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Laws could indeed be the key to understand the Atlantis dialogues.

Because they contain much of the same written (and unwritten!) content what was planned for these dialogues.

The changes, though, could give a hint why Plato did not finish the Critias.

Personally, without knowing some exact proof of otherwise, I think that Critias IS finished. In my opinion we have to work out what Zeus spake, Plato is not going to tell us - because that is the answer to how people in Plato's eyes should behave once more, Plato knows what Zeus will speak, but does the reader? Philosophy is all about asking questions, figuring things out, that's how I see it, therefore have concluded that Critias might indeed be a finished work.

Plato liked riddles.

I agree the Laws can give insight into the Atlantis dialogues, certainly.

Zeus, the god of gods, who rules according to law, and is able to see into such things, perceiving that an honourable race was in a woeful plight, and wanting to inflict punishment on them, that they might be chastened and improve,collected all the gods into their most holy habitation, which, being placed in the centre of the world, beholds all created things. And when he had called them together, he spake as follows-* The rest of the Dialogue of Critias has been lost.

Has it? or what did Zeus speak?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but Atlantis was supposedly destroyed by water and earthquakes, not fire.

Thinking about this endlessly, I wonder if most only knew of the earthquakes preceeding the eruption as what actually sank the island of Thera, apparently the island was evacuated so the earthquake would be what most remembered, rather than the eruption.

--------------------------

Edit to add:

What is the deluge/cataclysm the Greeks DID recall?

Which one is this referring to does anyone think?

he began to tell about the most ancient things in our part of the world-about Phoroneus, who is called "the first man," and about Niobe; and after the Deluge, of the survival of Deucalion and Pyrrha; and he traced the genealogy of their descendants, and reckoning up the dates, tried to compute how many years ago the events of which he was speaking happened.

In the first place you remember a single deluge only, but there were many previous ones;

What would have been Deucalions Flood - the one the Greeks remembered?

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about this endlessly, I wonder if most only knew of the earthquakes preceeding the eruption as what actually sank the island of Thera, apparently the island was evacuated so the earthquake would be what most remembered, rather than the eruption.

You think so? They found deposits of pumice in the Nile delta and elsewhere. Those who were able to flee Thera must have told about it: it was one of the largest eruptions in human history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think so? They found deposits of pumice in the Nile delta and elsewhere. Those who were able to flee Thera must have told about it: it was one of the largest eruptions in human history.

Yes, and think of the cloud: It must have been impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think so? They found deposits of pumice in the Nile delta and elsewhere. Those who were able to flee Thera must have told about it: it was one of the largest eruptions in human history.

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Thera Deucalions Flood?

To add:

On the basis of the archaeological stele known as the Parian Chronicle, Deucalion's Flood was usually fixed as occurring sometime around c. 1528 BC. Deucalion's flood may be dated in the chronology of Saint Jerome to ca. 1460 BC. According to Augustine of Hippo (City of God XVIII,8,10,&11) Deucalion and his father Prometheus were contemporaries of Moses. According to Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata, "...in the time of Crotopus occurred the burning of Phaethon, and the deluges of Deucalion."

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

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Thera Deucalions Flood?

To add:

On the basis of the archaeological stele known as the Parian Chronicle, Deucalion's Flood was usually fixed as occurring sometime around c. 1528 BC. Deucalion's flood may be dated in the chronology of Saint Jerome to ca. 1460 BC. According to Augustine of Hippo (City of God XVIII,8,10,&11) Deucalion and his father Prometheus were contemporaries of Moses. According to Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata, "...in the time of Crotopus occurred the burning of Phaethon, and the deluges of Deucalion."

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

Now, according to Plato's cyclical time theory Deucalion's flood was the third flood after Atlantis existend (the one which destroyed Atlantis included).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, according to Plato's cyclical time theory Deucalion's flood was the third flood after Atlantis existend (the one which destroyed Atlantis included).

That's right - so if it's Thera, that pretty much doesn't make Thera Atlantis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ...

_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.org/wiki/Ancient_Thera

Why would they go to Libya?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.