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 3
UM-Bot

Divers uncover relics of Stone Age 'Atlantis'

23 posts in this topic

Stone Age artifacts left behind by Swedish nomads have been unearthed on the floor of the Baltic Sea.

Divers have uncovered a treasure trove of artifacts off the coast of Sweden dating back more than 11,000 years. The team had been diving in the bay of Hanö when they discovered the items that are thought to have been preserved by the lack of oxygen and abundance of sediment on the ocean floor.

Read More: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/261512/divers-uncover-relics-of-stone-age-atlantis

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if they found my stone axe from my previous life ?

~

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing the lost artifacts of people long since forgotten being found in such an environment, I know the area wasn't flooded when they were nomad-ing around but it must have been a harsh and nearly unforgiven life style, all that's left are these tools and bits of bones. Archeology, you humble me.

Edited by Hasina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who else hates when they always use the "Atlantis" angle? Good gads! Can't we just be in awe of a new discovery without comparing it to a fictional island?

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in my back yard last summer. I was digging a hole for my clothes line. I found an atlantis-like arowhead.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who else hates when they always use the "Atlantis" angle? Good gads! Can't we just be in awe of a new discovery without comparing it to a fictional island?

The view Plato's Atlantis is not entirely fiction has academic credibility, even if not mainstream. As classicist John V. Luce wrote: "Many of those who begin by calling Atlantis a fiction end up finding deeper levels of truth in the story".

It is annoying though that the term Atlantis is slopped on underwater archaeology news articles (Japan, Sweden, Italy, wherever...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who else hates when they always use the "Atlantis" angle? Good gads! Can't we just be in awe of a new discovery without comparing it to a fictional island?

Agreed, I thought the same thing. The word Atlantis was used to grab attention but has nothing to do with this truly outstanding find.

Tip of the hat to these guys. The already difficult task of discovery is made so much harder by being underwater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come in the movies the Atlantians are always portrayed as being a highly advanced civilization capable of possessing technologies as great as the ones we currently use today or possibly even greater, but whenever some scientist wants to waste millions of some investors dollars to explore a find that could possibly lead to the lost city of Atlantis all they can bring home is some technologies that the Native Americans were capable of coming up with 200 yrs. ago?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The view Plato's Atlantis is not entirely fiction has academic credibility, even if not mainstream. As classicist John V. Luce wrote: "Many of those who begin by calling Atlantis a fiction end up finding deeper levels of truth in the story".

It is annoying though that the term Atlantis is slopped on underwater archaeology news articles (Japan, Sweden, Italy, wherever...)

I know of no solid evidence that supports atlantis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The view Plato's Atlantis is not entirely fiction has academic credibility, even if not mainstream. As classicist John V. Luce wrote: "Many of those who begin by calling Atlantis a fiction end up finding deeper levels of truth in the story".

It is annoying though that the term Atlantis is slopped on underwater archaeology news articles (Japan, Sweden, Italy, wherever...)

Well, gosh, if one quote taken out of context from a non-historian on a historical subject says so, it must surely be true.

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrific discovery, ridiculous title for the article. Yet another example of pandering to the uninformed to try to accumulate readership. Why not just say "…alien relics of Stone Age 'Atlantis'"? That would attract the Sitchin and von Däniken crowd, right? Nevertheless, it's an interesting find.

The view Plato's Atlantis is not entirely fiction has academic credibility, even if not mainstream. As classicist John V. Luce wrote: "Many of those who begin by calling Atlantis a fiction end up finding deeper levels of truth in the story".

It is annoying though that the term Atlantis is slopped on underwater archaeology news articles (Japan, Sweden, Italy, wherever...)

I don't know of any respected historian of ancient Mediterranean societies who views Plato's allegorical fable as credible history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know of any respected historian of ancient Mediterranean societies who views Plato's allegorical fable as credible history.

Contemporary? Well, John V. Luce only died three years ago and he was an academic proponent of the Thera-Cretan (Minoan) hypothesis. His book is what introduced me to Atlantis years back, although I don't myself support the Minoan theory. I'm not sure though what the other poster above means by "the quote taken out of context from a non-historian". Luce was a prominent historian and classics professor at Dublin University.

Naddaf (1994) summarizes: "the vast majority of classical scholars take the story to be what Plato explicitly denies it to be: invented myth (the serious exceptions to this rule are writers who adhere to the Thera-Cretan hypothesis)." The fact remains that these "serious exceptions" still exist in the case of John V. Luce.

Edited by OliverDSmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come in the movies the Atlantians are always portrayed as being a highly advanced civilization capable of possessing technologies as great as the ones we currently use today or possibly even greater, but whenever some scientist wants to waste millions of some investors dollars to explore a find that could possibly lead to the lost city of Atlantis all they can bring home is some technologies that the Native Americans were capable of coming up with 200 yrs. ago?

Edgar Cayce the (in)famous "sleeping prophet" claims he saw Atlantis with (basically) ray guns.

He started it, everyone believed him and ran with it. Platonic Atlantis is basically "county full of d********s".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very cool!

Nilsson admitted that "lousy Swedish tabloids" had blown the story out of the water by labelling the find "Sweden's Atlantis", even though the remnants never belonged to an actual village. The people were all nomadic at the time, he explained, so there was no village. Imagine that! I'm shocked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who else hates when they always use the "Atlantis" angle? Good gads! Can't we just be in awe of a new discovery without comparing it to a fictional island?

I hate that too it's aynoing. I am excited by this find even thought they were probaly nomadic tribes in the area at that time. Stone Age people were nomadic not city dwellers like us as such we shouldn't say they were city dwellers just saying. Althought I like the story of Alantis

Edited by Ryinrea
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contemporary? Well, John V. Luce only died three years ago and he was an academic proponent of the Thera-Cretan (Minoan) hypothesis. His book is what introduced me to Atlantis years back, although I don't myself support the Minoan theory. I'm not sure though what the other poster above means by "the quote taken out of context from a non-historian". Luce was a prominent historian and classics professor at Dublin University.

Luce was a classicist, /not/ an historian. Mainly, it's the classicists themselves who go out of their way to make the distinction: they generally seem dead set on retaining archaic and exclusivising critical methods (like using German for commentaries -- although they're relenting on this -- and refusing to translate quotations in their articles into vernacular) and apparatus (You need guide books just to crack the code of their journal title references or the give name of texts. I spent a merry hour trying to figure what the hell the Eytm. Gud. was in December), so historians are happy to let them play their own games.

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contemporary? Well, John V. Luce only died three years ago and he was an academic proponent of the Thera-Cretan (Minoan) hypothesis. His book is what introduced me to Atlantis years back, although I don't myself support the Minoan theory. I'm not sure though what the other poster above means by "the quote taken out of context from a non-historian". Luce was a prominent historian and classics professor at Dublin University.

Naddaf (1994) summarizes: "the vast majority of classical scholars take the story to be what Plato explicitly denies it to be: invented myth (the serious exceptions to this rule are writers who adhere to the Thera-Cretan hypothesis)." The fact remains that these "serious exceptions" still exist in the case of John V. Luce.

I'm not familiar with Luce so I looked into him, and he seems like the real deal—a well-published classicist. I'll depart from my esteemed colleague jaylemurph (who knows his stuff, trust me) in saying that a professionally educated classicist is wellI equipped to dissect Plato's story, due to Plato himself, his motives behind crafting the story, and the events of Plato's own time. From my own experience with jaylemurph I can say he's more familiar with classicist methodology than I am, but I'm willing to allow Luce as a credible source.

I may have misinterpreted your intent and don't want to put words in your mouth, so allow me to go so far as to say that I thought you were implying what Plato wrote in Timaeus and Critias was actual history; that is, everything Plato wrote about the fabled Atlantis really happened. On that score any critical thinker would disagree. I haven't read Luce's material but many scholars and specialists have posited a foundational connection between the Thera eruption and Plato's story. A book concerning this theory which I really enjoyed is Atlantis Destroyed (Routledge 1998), by a skilled researcher named Rodney Castleden. I don't think he's even a professional historian but his work speaks for itself.

I think where jaylemurph and I will both agree is the tedium of Atlantis believers to which we're subjected at UM. So if we're talking historical theory and possible sources of inspiration or influence that might have affected Plato when he was crafting the tale, I am in agreement with you. This goes with the caveat, of course, that the posited Thera connection is strictly theoretical and cannot be proved. But if you're arguing that Atlantis was a real place and the events of Plato's story are true, then in all frankness I flatly disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not familiar with Luce so I looked into him, and he seems like the real deal—a well-published classicist. I'll depart from my esteemed colleague jaylemurph (who knows his stuff, trust me) in saying that a professionally educated classicist is wellI equipped to dissect Plato's story, due to Plato himself, his motives behind crafting the story, and the events of Plato's own time. From my own experience with jaylemurph I can say he's more familiar with classicist methodology than I am, but I'm willing to allow Luce as a credible source.

Also Desmond Lee, but Luce is better known.

I may have misinterpreted your intent and don't want to put words in your mouth, so allow me to go so far as to say that I thought you were implying what Plato wrote in Timaeus and Critias was actual history; that is, everything Plato wrote about the fabled Atlantis really happened. On that score any critical thinker would disagree. I haven't read Luce's material but many scholars and specialists have posited a foundational connection between the Thera eruption and Plato's story. A book concerning this theory which I really enjoyed is Atlantis Destroyed (Routledge 1998), by a skilled researcher named Rodney Castleden. I don't think he's even a professional historian but his work speaks for itself.

I think where jaylemurph and I will both agree is the tedium of Atlantis believers to which we're subjected at UM. So if we're talking historical theory and possible sources of inspiration or influence that might have affected Plato when he was crafting the tale, I am in agreement with you. This goes with the caveat, of course, that the posited Thera connection is strictly theoretical and cannot be proved. But if you're arguing that Atlantis was a real place and the events of Plato's story are true, then in all frankness I flatly disagree.

I think there is some confusion regarding the schools of thought on Atlantis. Castledon I consider a proponent of a historical Atlantis. Those that argue Atlantis has some historical basis or a kernel of truth, I label "euhemerist", but this should not be confused with textual literalism (the view everything Plato describes is factual).

"If the fantasists described earlier can be described as ‘literalists’, then these last scholars can be called the ‘Euhemerists’ party, because they hold that there must be some historical nugget, or kernel of truth, at the heart of this otherwise fantastic story.” (Runnels & Murray, 2001)

So we have the literalists or fantasists, the euhemerists, and finally the skeptics (those that assert Atlantis is entirely fiction). Those are the three viewpoints. Only the latter two have academic credibility.

Castledon argues for a non-fantasist historical Atlantis, identifying it with Minoan civilization - so I consider him a euhemerist, not a skeptic.

Since the three categories are not clear-cut, this probably explains the confusion. Some authors overlap in euhemerism and skepticism for example (so they may argue for a weak historical truth in the myth, as Robert Scranton notes: "even if Plato's account of Atlantis is mere fiction, there may be details taken from nature, history").

My position is that Atlantis was a real place, but non-spectacular. The main problem the euhemerist faces is how to distinguish the historical truth and fiction in Plato:

"By judicious selection of those parts of the account to be taken literally and those to be taken as distortions, seekers after a historical Atlantis can make a case for almost any part of the world as the site of Atlantis" - Dorothy B. Vitaliano, Atlantis: A Review Essay

Edited by OliverDSmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luce was a classicist, /not/ an historian. Mainly, it's the classicists themselves who go out of their way to make the distinction: they generally seem dead set on retaining archaic and exclusivising critical methods (like using German for commentaries -- although they're relenting on this -- and refusing to translate quotations in their articles into vernacular) and apparatus (You need guide books just to crack the code of their journal title references or the give name of texts. I spent a merry hour trying to figure what the hell the Eytm. Gud. was in December), so historians are happy to let them play their own games.

--Jaylemurph

Well Atlantis falls under the study of classical civilization. Quoting a classicist is clearly more relevant than a general historian. There are prominent classicists who argue or have argued (in the case of Luce) that Atlantis was a real place. That was the only point I made. These people cannot be dismissed easily. The case for a historical Atlantis is actually stronger than the fiction view when you consider Solon and Critias considered it to be "true history" which Socrates does not even question in the dialogues. Luce (1978) also argues Plato himself believed Atlantis was real, not imaginary. Then we have the Hellanicus fragment and a very similar description of Atlantis appearing in Pindar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not familiar with Luce so I looked into him, and he seems like the real deal—a well-published classicist. I'll depart from my esteemed colleague jaylemurph (who knows his stuff, trust me) in saying that a professionally educated classicist is wellI equipped to dissect Plato's story, due to Plato himself, his motives behind crafting the story, and the events of Plato's own time. From my own experience with jaylemurph I can say he's more familiar with classicist methodology than I am, but I'm willing to allow Luce as a credible source.

I certainly wouldn't go that far. I would say a Classicist could well dissect the story as is, i. e., almost solely within the works of Plato. A Classicist would have the necessary profound knowledge of language and culture to discuss that story as it relates to Greco-Roman society.

However, outside of the story in Plato, as a historical reality, the Atlantean civilization, if it existed at all, would be by definition out of the remit of a post-Winckelmann Classical scholar -- i. e., not a Greco-Roman one. Indeed, as it has not left one letter of writing, it would be out of the remit of the historian, as well.

Now, what exactly constitutes Classicism is a thorny, complex issue, and if anyone's really interested in it, I recommend a look at James I. Porter's introduction to the book Classical Pasts.

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Atlantis falls under the study of classical civilization. Quoting a classicist is clearly more relevant than a general historian. There are prominent classicists who argue or have argued (in the case of Luce) that Atlantis was a real place. That was the only point I made. These people cannot be dismissed easily. The case for a historical Atlantis is actually stronger than the fiction view when you consider Solon and Critias considered it to be "true history" which Socrates does not even question in the dialogues. Luce (1978) also argues Plato himself believed Atlantis was real, not imaginary. Then we have the Hellanicus fragment and a very similar description of Atlantis appearing in Pindar.

Solon and Critias are /reported/ to have considered it to be "true history". To my knowledge, there's nothing definitively ascribable to them -- or indeed, Socrates -- to corroborate your statements. Everything comes through the filtre of Plato, and it's naive to suggest he was innocently passing on information with no agenda of his own. Also, to suggest Plato thought it to be a literally real place, you have to argue against his own statements -- do ask Harte about those -- and the logic of the extended metaphor present in the dialogues where Atlantis is presented.

But having participated in this argument (literally) more times than I can remember, I have no interest in doing so again. I just wanted to point out that there is a differentation between historians and Classicists.

--Jaylemurph

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly wouldn't go that far. I would say a Classicist could well dissect the story as is, i. e., almost solely within the works of Plato. A Classicist would have the necessary profound knowledge of language and culture to discuss that story as it relates to Greco-Roman society.

However, outside of the story in Plato, as a historical reality, the Atlantean civilization, if it existed at all, would be by definition out of the remit of a post-Winckelmann Classical scholar -- i. e., not a Greco-Roman one. Indeed, as it has not left one letter of writing, it would be out of the remit of the historian, as well.

Now, what exactly constitutes Classicism is a thorny, complex issue, and if anyone's really interested in it, I recommend a look at James I. Porter's introduction to the book Classical Pasts.

--Jaylemurph

I've been schooled. :w00t:

Allow me to reiterate my point that someone like Luce would have a good understanding of probably why Plato wrote the story in the first place, given his time and place and the recent history of Athens. But I agree a classicist would not be well equipped to delve into history much more ancient than that. I was merely giving Luce credit for positing that the Thera eruption may have somehow worked itself into Plato's story as a source of inspiration, a theory embraced by many scholars through time. I don't know if Luce takes it farther than that so I should refrain from saying anything more about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, to suggest Plato thought it to be a literally real place, you have to argue against his own statements -- do ask Harte about those -- and the logic of the extended metaphor present in the dialogues where Atlantis is presented.

But having participated in this argument (literally) more times than I can remember, I have no interest in doing so again.

--Jaylemurph

"Ask Harte...?"

Oh, sure. Lay it on me.

I suggest the search function. I'm quite tired of this line of "reasoning" myself. If you get to use that excuse, so do I.

Harte

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 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.