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 0
rezna

Crete was not Atlantis

74 posts in this topic

"Out in the middle of the wine-dark sea there is a land called Crete, washed by the sea on every side; and in it are many peoples and ninety cities. There, one language mingles with another... Among the cities is Knossos... "

I've seen numerous documentaries claiming that they've discovered Atlantis, it had to be the Minoans on Crete. Almost every single one claims this. Then why would Plato say what Crete is and not call it Atlantis? Why would he describe it like this quote does? If Atlantis and Crete are the same place, he would not have said the above quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well generally it is because atlantis is allegory made up by plato, to represent a point in his story. he even states this. why do you people think that there is more to the story? there is no other evidence for anyplace called "atlantis" .

although there was around the black sea a civilization from which the thracian ancestors were part of. their burial mounds are still being found and dug up. you can google it if youd like. they were great metal smiths, the thracians. it is suspected that the civilization around the black sea was inundated when the bosphorus straits gave way and the sea rushed in, and the dates are by no means known, possibly at the end of the last ice age melt off.maybe 7000bc? it is also known that the ancient sumerians came from the north over the mountains, from their own quasi mythology-history. they maybe came from the "flood" that washed away the black sea inhabitants. everyone knows that there is not enough water to cover the earth in a giant biblical flood, so the flood was more of a local event, of which the sumerians recorded in their mythology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there is enough evidence out there to put Atlantis on the map once and for all.

Linguistic evidence -

Atlan / Atlántepec is the ancient name for Mexico. Quite likely this was Atlantis (The Gulf of Mexico was once dry land)

Hard evidence suggests that Sanskrit is the father of most world-class languages. If we use Sanskrit to explain the true meaning of "Atlantis," we'll learn that the initial A means "Not; No longer." The final Tis derives from the Sanskrit Desa, Des, or Tes, meaning "Nation." Atlantis = "No-Longer-the-'Tlan'-or-'Tollán'-Nation." When A-Tlan-Tis sank under the ocean named after it, it certainly ceased to exist. However, the westernmost extreme of Atlantis, which is Mexico, is still above water. It continues to be Tollán or Tlan.

The Nahuatl word for "Water" is Atl. Perhaps it evolved from the Atala meaning "Not-Surface." Therefore, for the Mesoamericans, Atlán came to mean "Nation of Water," also "from, in, into, on, or through the water." Atlanteca = "People of the Water Nation." The ancient Indians and the Nahuatl-speaking tribes in the Americas shared the same word for "Hill; Mountain:" Skt. Tepe; Nahuatl, Tepetl/Tepec. The early Mexicans also used it as an epithet of "Region." Although I have no proof of this, the real name of Atlantis could have been Atlántepec.

More on this at http://atlantis.onestop.net/atlantis-in-mexico.html

Platos directions-

And if you follow Plato's own description of where Atlantis is located, he says its a place far away in the atlantic ocean, opposite the strait of gibraltar. The Strait of Gibraltar is the strait that divides Spain from Morocco. If you travel through it and thus to the opposite side and continue until you reach another continent you end up in South America.

More at http://atlantis.onestop.net/america-atlantis.html

Physical evidence-

As allready mentioned above, parts of Mexico is now under water, completely in accordance with the Atlantis legend. In addition Atlantis is supposed to be a place of great achivements and high technology. This fits perfectly with ancient latin americas - all the wonders there we still cant explain how they did. It is possible some atlanteans migrated to other parts in the world, such as Egypt, after the destruction of Atlantis. Related- ancient egyptian stone technology: http://atlantis.onestop.net/ancient-egypti...technology.html

Technology of the Gods (Video) - http://atlantis.onestop.net/videos/technol...f-the-gods.html

Interesting research by Jim Allen also makes the Andes a good candidate for Atlantis:

“The continent of Atlantis is still there opposite the Pillars of Hercules (Strait of Gibraltar) only now it has been re-named South America. The part which sank was a small volcanic island which sank into a large inland sea in the centre of the continent.”

He also comments, “People sometimes say; ‘How can Atlantis be in the Andes when it is supposed to have sunk into the sea?’ We must remember that Atlantis according to Plato was on a level plain "high above the level of the sea and surrounded by mountains". In fact the entire plain has been periodically submerged beneath the sea i.e. it became a giant inland sea at various dates going back thousands of years succeeded by dry periods.

More evidence for this theory at http://atlantis.onestop.net/atlantis-andes.html

And his documentary: http://www.dark-truth.org/okt272006-311-atlantis-andes.html

So to put it short, to me its almost no doubt that Latin Americas was Atlantis, with Mexico probably being the location of the main city/capital. Atlantis was a large continent, and its civilization was probably wide spread through it (from Mexico and down the rest of south america, and the evidence for this lost civilization is all over, Macchu Picchu is one example in Peru)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was Crete. When you see a hoof print in the mud you look for a horse not a zebra. The main body of Atlantis evidence points at either the Canary Islands or Crete. Anywhere far over an ocean is just speculation. Those people in far off places had a high degree of civilization and were very powerful, but Atlantis was linked to Greece and they spoke Greek, I believe.

It was Crete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TANTALUS was once thought to have ruled an earthly kingdom. It's center was the city founded at Mount Sipylus, in the gold-rich coutry of Lydia. when Tantalus fell from favor (for either serving up his son in a stew for the Gods or stealing Ambrosia), his city was shatered and swallowed by a massive earthquake, then drowned beneath a lake. The name of the city was TANTALIS.

There is a remarkable resemblance between Tantalis and Atlantis. Both were a fabulously rich city favored by the gods that fell from grace and were destroyed by Earthquake and flood

Tantalis was a Lydian story and was known to the courts when Solon (Plato's ancester, who first told the tale) visited the King of Lydia in about 570 B.C. The Greek historian, Herodotus described their meeting, saying that the two swapped stories.

As the story was passed down, the name could have mistakenly been changed to Atlantis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it all depends on what you believe on this topic realy. Did Atlantis really exist or was it just a fablous story told through the ages. Now just checked that website out and having not researched fully into these Plato's directons then if this is right and Mexico/South America is really the lcoation of Atlantis i don't believe that to be true. Now i have to admit the factors that give it some water to be held is the Aztecs disappeared alogn with many other advanced cultures like those who supposedly lived in the Amazon Rain forest and so on. And to be honest i can see why it would be believe this place held the arguement, and i probably agree more with this beign Atlantis than Crete or the Canary Islands as they hold very little proof to ever holding a advance civilisation.

But the question is this Atlantis if it did exist and it got took out by a earth even earthquake volocano etc whose to say it wasn't the first signs of an attack on earth as we were getting powerful?

Still Atlantis for me isn't crete, americas or the carany islands it's somewere out there not sure were but it is. But whose to say it was on Earth....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

crete was more into bulls then lione like in egypt ,this is close but the early settalars of crete would have bine the survivers of atlantis.

but still this is just a peice of the puzzle you must go further back in time to come to atlantis and crete is inside the pillars not outside.

now in egypt we see the lione in crete the bull were at do we have the eagle and the face because they all have to be present when you come to atlantis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there were no way how Plato could know about America and the civilitation over there. And none of the pre columbian civilitation never reached Europe and the mediterran. No for me Atlantis was just a myth, as others pointed out, a allegory...and this was confermed by Plato (why should we belive Plato about A. but not when he confess the allegory?) IMO many people WANT TO BELIVE about Atlantis, that's why they build in their mind every kind of connection around the world with the lost continent.

BTW there is no lost continent ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he might of not known it as america by name more like an eagle ,look at north america on google earth it looks like a larg eagle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing an eagle when looking at North America

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iunno if Atlantis exists or whatever, but Edgar Cayce said that Atlantis would resurface sometime in the 60's(I think he said 1969? Not sure). Well, the year he said Atlantis would resurface, Bimini Road resurfaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Atlantis did exist, to what extent or to where it exisisted is up for arguement. For me Atlantis might be what once was a great continent/island. But theres no evidence to back that up only that Plato wrote about it, maybe liek i said in my previous post Atlantis is off world, and whose to say the 'earth' isn't Atlantis....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that chamber that edgar speaks of in my eyes from what the shadows tell me that lie beneth the sphinx and pyamids is more of a time of atlantis .

being below was carved out of the bedrock,and the rock in that spot shows a good example of how the atlantean peaple could carve out a place called home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eygpt is not the place to find atlantis but the time to find atlantis in place at that time.

it was atlantian preast that took the knowledge and dictated to the tribes that were in the area at the time.

but the head the cap stone which is the father was cut off and hid from site,when this great disaster accured

leaving these survivers a unik oppertunity to take controlle.

they hid the past of eygpt at that time and made their own version which they called the truth

and today you got three major religons fighting over that crooked truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard once that Atlantis was inbetween the closest tip of Africa to Spain and Spain. It was stated that as a result of tectonic plate movements the city sunk, thus connecting the mediteranean to the Atlantic. If there were a river running through it, it would have made them Freakin Loaded and being inbetween two continents would also do much for commerce. It would be no wonder that a civilizaiton located here would advance techonologically and commercially faster then surrounding civilizaitons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yay I had no idea this thread had replies to it!

I'm just confused why so many of these new documentaries coming out swear that Atlantis which Plato speaks of is Crete. Even though he blantantly describes Crete as a completely different place. I agree that Atlantis could have been an Allegory, it will always be a mystery. But honestly, after reading "Gateway to Atlantis" I believe South America is the right place. It makes sense that explorers could have gotten there much earlier than we think. The book I read pins the Phoenicians as being great sea farers and why couldnt they get to the American continent earlier? Plus, all the myths and legends you find in indigenous cultures in South AMerica tell stories that seem bvery very convincing of the white man coming to their cultures and teaching them the ways, Quetzocoatl. (I know the spelling is wrong, but you know who I'm talking about.) I definitely think the best option is Mexico. But, it still will always be a mystery until we find some really really convincing evidence. You can't convince the world a myth is a true until you find part of someone in the myth. For christs sake, people thought dinosaurs never existed and that it was impossible until they found a dinosaur bone. Took a long time to find that bone too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is quezet(I don't know how to spell it either) but how is that mayan feathered serpent God evidence of the white man arriving earlier then we think? I could understand if the God were described as a man riding on a horse or having the power to destroy thing from far away, but that's not the case. I can kind of understand the Aztecs may have been influenced, because they had some prophecy that a White Bearded God Incarnate would come from far far away but how is the Mayan God evidence of such cultural tampering?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But honestly, after reading "Gateway to Atlantis" I believe South America is the right place.

Atlantis was supposedly a naval power, that conquered many parts of western Europe and Africa. 8,000 years before Plato's time... the South American cultures were never a naval power, and didn't have a clue about Europe or Africa until the Spanish arrived... and these cultures didn't even exist 10,000 years ago when Plato claims Atlantis existed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone's claiming that the Mayans or the Aztecs were a naval power, but that there was a civilization in that neighborhood, like someone else said that it could possibly be the space between the gulf of Mexico and The Carribean, and that it sunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think anyone's claiming that the Mayans or the Aztecs were a naval power, but that there was a civilization in that neighborhood, like someone else said that it could possibly be the space between the gulf of Mexico and The Carribean, and that it sunk.

Yes Im talking pre Colombian societies, they are probably the descendants of the people there before. And BTW people have been in North America for a LONG time. a LONG time. They have found many bones pre dating 8,000 years ago. Plato was ttelling us a story of a real place, but it doesn't mean his descriptions of what they did were accurate. For all we know there was a lot of inner continental travel 10k ago. For christs sake, an ice age does NOT mean that the entire globe is covered in ice. Around the equator it was a beautiful place to be. I don't understand why anthropology is so limited. They wont accept any ideas without proof. Unless it helps them with something they want to be true. But when its something they dont want to be true you have to bring them the holy f-ing grail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atlantis was supposedly a naval power, that conquered many parts of western Europe and Africa. 8,000 years before Plato's time... the South American cultures were never a naval power, and didn't have a clue about Europe or Africa until the Spanish arrived... and these cultures didn't even exist 10,000 years ago when Plato claims Atlantis existed...

I know about the SHARDANA culture.

A belligerant warrior people who carried attack and battles all around the mediterrean, but in the end they were defeated by the egyptians

http://www.courses.psu.edu/cams/cams400w_a...ww/shardana.htm

and this is also interesting...

http://www.thothweb.com/article-4019--0-0.html

http://activsardegna.com/ichnusa/storie/miti_en.htm

but IMO the atlantis was nothing else than a babble from the famous greek philosofist....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Antedeluvian civilization seems to have been very widespread and eventually marine archeologists will give us some good answers to a lot of old question sooner than later I hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atlantis was supposedly a naval power, that conquered many parts of western Europe and Africa. 8,000 years before Plato's time... the South American cultures were never a naval power, and didn't have a clue about Europe or Africa until the Spanish arrived... and these cultures didn't even exist 10,000 years ago when Plato claims Atlantis existed...

Correction : "that conquered many parts of western Europe and Africa. 8,000 years before Plato's time... the South American cultures were never a naval power, and didn't have a clue about Europe or Africa until the Portuguese arrived."

About Atlantis,I think that if existed between Africa and Iberian Peninsula what happens then to the Atlantic Islands as Madeira and Açores? Plato says that is a huge continent so I dont think its the right place,it could have been a good position according the words of plato,but the best place for Atlantis according to geology,is the Indonesia islands that I supose of being the high places of the lost continent.That islands suffer a lot of earthquakes,volcanos,and tsunamis,its a very and a lot active place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard once that Atlantis was inbetween the closest tip of Africa to Spain and Spain. It was stated that as a result of tectonic plate movements the city sunk, thus connecting the mediteranean to the Atlantic. If there were a river running through it, it would have made them Freakin Loaded and being inbetween two continents would also do much for commerce. It would be no wonder that a civilizaiton located here would advance techonologically and commercially faster then surrounding civilizaitons.

that makes no sence what so ever especially knowing that africa isnt what you call "technologicly edvanced" continent (just poining out obvious)

second reason beeing that INSTANBUL is city on two continents (Asia and Europe) and as we all know these were main continents of Old World... yet i fail to see any spaceships flying over instanbull and to the best of my knowledge they arent "technologicly supirior to the rest of the world" so your idea just went PUFF my friend

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 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.