Atlantis

[cormac mac airt]

Since the writings of Plato are the origin of the story of Atlantis and later writers were referencing his work as relates to the story, added to the fact that he gave it a specific location and timeframe that has never been validated by scientific research, then yes we can say that the place known as Atlantis by Plato didn't exist. This is not rocket science. As to inspiration it "might" have been inspired by stories of earlier peoples or places, but that doesn't make either Atlantis. That should also be obvious.

cormac

[whitegandalf]

Since the writings of Plato are the origin of the story of Atlantis and later writers were referencing his work as relates to the story, added to the fact that he gave it a specific location and timeframe that has never been validated by scientific research, then yes we can say that the place known as Atlantis by Plato didn't exist. This is not rocket science. As to inspiration it "might" have been inspired by stories of earlier peoples or places, but that doesn't make either Atlantis. That should also be obvious.

cormac

I do not agree that platon gave exact location for atlantis. He said it lied outside the medterian past the pillars. Inside the mediterian was one world, quite isolated. Outside was another world ruled by a different culture. You also asume that atlantis is one island, if you use ordinary logic, which seaculture in history only ruled over one island? All seaculture would have ruled over several islands. Perhaps hundreds. Therefor the kingdom of atlantis lied outside the pillars, not their main capital. It lied somewhere else. Also the greeks and egyptians would only have second hand information about atlantis as they themself was not a seaculture, and did not have the ships to travel to atlantis itself. It was a one way highway. The atlantians went to them and concured the mediterian, not the oposite.

I agree that past ten thousand years it probably did not exist a atlantis like culture, The evidence would have turned up. But backwards we have no possibility to rule a seaculture out, because the evidence is deep beneth water, and we know very little of these seacultures from that time, the time platon said it existed. The sealevel rised considerable around 10 000 years ago.

Also i can agree that a place that is 100 percent like the tales of atlantis did not exist, but then again no one is stating that. We are talking about tales from over ten thousand years ago, told by person to person. A second hand tale about a people far away which they probably never even visited. On the way some inacurasites might have gotten in the tales we read about today.

I also belive that the bible version of atlantis is the noah and the flood story. He lived amoung the gods, on the coast, in a seaculture. Built a large ship, which means they must have been quite good shipbuilders. It also says it rained in 40 days and 40 nights. This is not correct acording to the earlier sumer version. Therefor we can asume that the word IN does not means time but place. It rained in (location) 40 days and 40 nights. This is cordinates. This means the gods and noah lived around the arctic circel where there in the summer was sun all the time during 40 days and during the winter was dark for 40 days straight. I you travel along the coast from the pillars north you will find the place. If you go to far north it is 50 days, to far south 30 days. It is also a fact that during bronseage and backwards the calendar had 40 days, which fit perfectly for the gods life in the arctic circle. 40 x 9 months is 360 days. This is a very acurate calendar, and easier than today, where some months has 29 days and other 31.

Edited April 14, 2013 by whitegandalf

[cormac mac airt]

I do not agree that platon gave exact location for atlantis. He said it lied outside the medterian past the pillars. Inside the mediterian was one world, quite isolated. Outside was another world ruled by a different culture. You also asume that atlantis is one island, if you use ordinary logic, which seaculture in history only ruled over one island? All seaculture would have ruled over several islands. Perhaps hundreds. Therefor the kingdom of atlantis lied outside the pillars, not their main capital. It lied somewhere else. Also the greeks and egyptians would only have second hand information about atlantis as they themself was not a seaculture, and did not have the ships to travel to atlantis itself. It was a one way highway. The atlantians went to them and concured the mediterian, not the oposite.

I agree that past ten thousand years it probably did not exist a atlantis like culture, but backwards we have no possibility to rule a seaculture out, because the evidence is deep beneth water, and we know very little of these seacultures from that time, the time platon said it existed.

Also i can agree that a place that is 100 percent like the tales of atlantis did not exist, but then again no one is stating that. We are talking about tales from over ten thousand years ago, told by person to person. A second hand tale about a people far away which they probably never even visited. On the way some inacurasites might have gotten in the tales we read about today.

You presume too much. What Plato actually said, in part, per the Timaeus:

...and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together...

and

But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.

So yes, he gave it a pretty specific location.

No evidence of any culture exists which can be shown to have conquered the eastern Mediterranean from an original location in or just outside the western Mediterranean.

cormac

[whitegandalf]

Some texts say in front, some say outside. Different translations i guess. The difference is huge.

"No evidence of any culture exists which can be shown to have conquered the eastern Mediterranean from an original location in or just outside the western Mediterranean"

A culture far away from the mediterian did conquer lands inside the mediterian two times in history. Once during bronseage and once during vikingage. Both were cultures based around the north sea. Both times land and islands were qonqured in the west and east mediterian. And both times it was a seaculture who did it, like atlantis was supposed to be a seaculture. Im just saying if it happened twice, why not a third time earlier during stoneage?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Viking_Expansion.svg

" because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island"

What is so specific about that? Could this description only be in front of the pillars?

Edited April 14, 2013 by whitegandalf

[cormac mac airt]

Some texts say in front, some say outside. Different translations i guess. The difference is huge.

"No evidence of any culture exists which can be shown to have conquered the eastern Mediterranean from an original location in or just outside the western Mediterranean"

A culture far away from the mediterian did conquer lands inside the mediterian two times in history. Once during bronseage and once during vikingage. Both were cultures based around the north sea. Both times land and islands were qonqured in the west and east mediterian. And both times it was a seaculture who did it, like atlantis was supposed to be a seaculture. Im just saying if it happened twice, why not a third time earlier during stoneage?

http://upload.wikime...g_Expansion.svg

Because there's not a shred of evidence in support of such a contention. It's that simple.

cormac

[whitegandalf]

Because there's not a shred of evidence in support of such a contention. It's that simple.

cormac

Again why is lack of hard evidence, evidence itself that something doesent exist? History has again and again proven that lack of evidence there and then is not proof that something does not exist. 2 years ago we got finally proof that a pocket inside the ice during iceage was warm, with forest and animals. I can probably make a list of hundred other examples where lack of evidence has been just that, lack of evidence, not proof for something else.

[docyabut2]

Atlantis had to be close to Athens.

Critias

Such was the vast power which the god settled in the lost island of Atlantis; and this he afterwards directed against our land.

[whitegandalf]

Atlantis had to be close to Athens.

Critias

Such was the vast power which the god settled in the lost island of Atlantis; and this he afterwards directed against our land.

The north sea is close to athen, if you have good ships. And took the shortcut trough black sea

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Viking_Expansion.svg

Edited April 14, 2013 by whitegandalf

[Mario Dantas]

Edited April 14, 2013 by Mario Dantas

[whitegandalf]

Because there's not a shred of evidence in support of such a contention. It's that simple.

cormac

So you do not concider the worlds ancient texts and myths as a sort of evidence?

[cormac mac airt]

Again why is lack of hard evidence, evidence itself that something doesent exist? History has again and again proven that lack of evidence there and then is not proof that something does not exist. 2 years ago we got finally proof that a pocket inside the ice during iceage was warm, with forest and animals. I can probably make a list of hundred other examples where lack of evidence has been just that, lack of evidence, not proof for something else.

The geological record as researched by the Deep Sea Drilling Project, Ocean Drilling Program as well as the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program have taken an extensive number of core samples from the Northern Atlantic and none of their samples support a claim for anything resembling Atlantis having existed. And said geological records extend back several million years. So are we to presume that said record, as relates to Atlantis, magically disappeared? Not possible.

So you do not concider the worlds ancient texts and myths as a sort of evidence?

Sure, they're evidence that we as a species have a fantastic imagination. BTW, your earlier claim (in part) as relates to Ancient Egypt having a legend of an ancient flood where the survivors made their way to Egypt and helped build the pyramids is an utter fabrication on the part of whomever actually claimed that. No such legend exists in any Ancient Egyptian text.

cormac

[whitegandalf]

"the geological record as researched by the Deep Sea Drilling Project, Ocean Drilling Program as well as the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program have taken an extensive number of core samples from the Northern Atlantic and none of their samples support a claim for anything resembling Atlantis having existed. And said geological records extend back several million years. So are we to presume that said record, as relates to Atlantis, magically disappeared? Not possible."

They did not search for atlantis either, and i doubt very much they have mapped the entire ocean floor. I know that the relevant areas in the north sea has not been examined because the worlds largest fish resource lies here, and there is no way in hell norway would even concider drilling for oil and other resources in these places. There are plenty places not examined, besides the possible atlantis Cities sites would geographicly only cover under 0,1 percent of the ocean floor. And impossible to find unless they are incredible lucky. The seafloor is not mapped. Where are in case the maps? They are not available for the public atleast. We have much more knowledge of the backside of the moon and mars than our own ocean floor.

We know that several of landareas and island sank in the sea during the atlantis period. This is geological proven. This goes for the north sea too. Geological evidence for floods in the north sea is also plenty.

Edited April 14, 2013 by whitegandalf

[Harte]

Some texts say in front, some say outside. Different translations i guess. The difference is huge.

"No evidence of any culture exists which can be shown to have conquered the eastern Mediterranean from an original location in or just outside the western Mediterranean"

A culture far away from the mediterian did conquer lands inside the mediterian two times in history. Once during bronseage and once during vikingage. Both were cultures based around the north sea. Both times land and islands were qonqured in the west and east mediterian. And both times it was a seaculture who did it, like atlantis was supposed to be a seaculture. Im just saying if it happened twice, why not a third time earlier during stoneage?

http://upload.wikime...g_Expansion.svg

" because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island"

What is so specific about that? Could this description only be in front of the pillars?

Should you ever care to actually read Critias, you will find the following:

He (EDIT: Poseidon) also begat and brought up five pairs of twin male children; and dividing the island of Atlantis into ten portions, he gave to the first-born of the eldest pair his mother's dwelling and the surrounding allotment, which was the largest and best, and made him king over the rest; the others he made princes, and gave them rule over many men, and a large territory. And he named them all; the eldest, who was the first king, he named Atlas, and after him the whole island and the ocean were called Atlantic. To his twin brother, who was born after him, and obtained as his lot the extremity of the island towards the Pillars of Heracles, facing the country which is now called the region of Gades in that part of the world, he gave the name which in the Hellenic language is Eumelus, in the language of the country which is named after him, Gadeirus.

Critias (scroll approximately halfway down.)

Gades:

Cadiz (pron.: SNIP ; Spanish Cádiz [ˈkaðiθ], locally: [ˈkaðis] or [ˈka.i]; Phoenician גדר Gadir; Greek τΓάδειρα Gadeira, Latin: Gades, Arabic: قَادِس Qādis) is a city and port in southwestern Spain

Source

Cadiz (North of San Fernando, at left):

Pretty much locates the place, I'd say.

So you do not concider the worlds ancient texts and myths as a sort of evidence?

There are no ancient myths anywhere in the world that concern Atlantis.

Obviously, ancient myths can have some root based in fact. However, as there exist no such ancient texts about Atlantis (or anything even roughly similar to what Plato described,) it would appear that your argument above is specious, to put it kindly.

Harte

Edited April 14, 2013 by Harte

[cormac mac airt]

"the geological record as researched by the Deep Sea Drilling Project, Ocean Drilling Program as well as the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program have taken an extensive number of core samples from the Northern Atlantic and none of their samples support a claim for anything resembling Atlantis having existed. And said geological records extend back several million years. So are we to presume that said record, as relates to Atlantis, magically disappeared? Not possible."

They did not search for atlantis either, and i doubt very much they have mapped the entire ocean floor. I know that the relevant areas in the north sea has not been examined because the worlds largest fish resource lies here, and there is no way in hell norway would even concider drilling for oil and other resources in these places. There are plenty places not examined, besides the possible atlantis sites would geographicly only cover under 0,1 percent of the ocean floor. And impossible to find unless they are incredible lucky. The seafloor is not mapped. Where are in case the maps? They are not available for the public atleast. We have much more knowledge of the backside of the moon and mars than our own ocean floor.

We know that several of landareas and island sank in the sea during the atlantis period. This is geological proven. This goes for the north sea too. Geological evidence for floods in the north sea is also plenty.

They didn't have to search for Atlantis. All they had to do is establish what existed at any given timeframe of any of a number of core samples. None of which could be used to support the Atlantis tale. And the North Sea is entirely irrelevant to the story as, once again, it has a specific location and timeframe given for the original tale. As to where the core samples have been taken, see the following:

There's obviously alot more known than you're aware of.

cormac

Edited April 14, 2013 by cormac mac airt

[whitegandalf]

Should you ever care to actually read Critias, you will find the following:

Critias (scroll approximately halfway down.)

Gades:

Source

Cadiz (North of San Fernando, at left):

Pretty much locates the place, I'd say.

Gandalf: Atlantis must have been several islands, they probably hade a few island and bases in front of the pillars too, but the greeks and egyptians would have not have had detailed mapping over atlantis entire kingdom. But they would have known one of the largest and nearest atlantis bases that quite possible lied in front of the pillars. This change nothing.

Also this is ten thousand years ago+ so much of the texts we read today is not acurate, small words could have been different, changed over time, making a huge diffrence in todays atlantis and the one existed long ago.

There are no ancient myths anywhere in the world that concern Atlantis.

Gandalf: Yes there are, to many to mention. You should read more. Different names but same story.

Obviously, ancient myths can have some root based in fact. However, as there exist no such ancient texts about Atlantis (or anything even roughly similar to what Plato described,) it would appear that your argument above is specious, to put it kindly.

Harte

If you look at this map you will see that it is entirely plausable that a north sea sea based culture could invade north africa, spain, italy, greece++

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Viking_Expansion.svg

Edited April 14, 2013 by whitegandalf

[whitegandalf]

They didn't have to search for Atlantis. All they had to do is establish what existed at any given timeframe of any of a number of core samples. None of which could be used to support the Atlantis tale. And the North Sea is entirely irrelevant to the story as, once again, it has a specific location and timeframe given for the original tale. As to where the core samples have been taken, see the following:

There's obviously alot more known than you're aware of.

cormac

So the entire geological experts in norway is wrong? The islands offf norway did not sink in the sea 10 000 years ago, and the tsunamies did not exist or happened after all. This is huge news!!!! Can you give me specific links that supports this?

I belive that this was a local not a global flood. Do your evidence dispute this?

That ancient texts can have inacuraties, like the position of their capital and local/global flood. Small words can totally change theese things.

Edited April 14, 2013 by whitegandalf

[docyabut2]

Bury

Critias

And the name of his younger twin-brother, who had for his portion the extremity of the island near the pillars of Herakles up to the part of the country now called Gadeira after the name of that region, was Eumelos in Greek, but in the native tongue Gadeiros,--which fact may have given its title to the country.

http://www.theoi.com/Phylos/Atlantes.html

There also a island named melos in the agean

[cormac mac airt]

So the entire geological experts in norway is wrong? The islands offf norway did not sink in the sea 10 000 years ago, and the tsunamies did not exist or happened after all. This is huge news!!!! Can you give me specific links that supports this?

Reading comprehension problems, huh? Must be, since I said:

And the North Sea is entirely irrelevant to the story as, once again, it has a specific location and timeframe given for the original tale.

Meaning that the original story of Atlantis has nothing to do with the North Sea. Plato gave Atlantis a specific location in his tales, which obviously was nowhere near the North Sea.

And just in case you're confused "Atlantis" is not a catch-all phrase for every possible place of prehistoric habitation by humans. It's a specific name of a specific place in a tale originally written by Plato.

cormac

[whitegandalf]

Bury

Critias

And the name of his younger twin-brother, who had for his portion the extremity of the island near the pillars of Herakles up to the part of the country now called Gadeira after the name of that region, was Eumelos in Greek, but in the native tongue Gadeiros,--which fact may have given its title to the country.

http://www.theoi.com/Phylos/Atlantes.html

There also a island named melos in the agean

A world dominating seaculture in stoneage with large cities must have large storable foodsource, if spain was it, what was their large food resource that made this place better than all other places on earth, and what renewable valuable trading goods that lasted for thousands of years did they had. North sea had both, which had spain area to offer, that made them the most powerfull sivilasation on earth?

Platon atlantis is one of many similar stories, if you only read platons atlantis, you would get a incomplete picture of the reality. But if you read the others, it is easy to see that something, that we do not know, happened in our past. Or at least ould have happened, based on the many stories.

Edited April 14, 2013 by whitegandalf

[docyabut2]

Gades was named way after Plato.

Around 500 BC, the city fell under the sway of Carthage. Cadiz became a base of operations for Hannibal's[9] conquest of southern Iberia. However, in 206 BC, the city fell to Roman forces under Scipio Africanus. The people of Cadiz welcomed the victors. Under the Romans, the city's Greek name was modified to Gades.

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

[Harte]

If you look at this map you will see that it is entirely plausable that a north sea sea based culture could invade north africa, spain, italy, greece++

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

Changing the argument, are we?

Who here has said it is impossible to sail from the North Sea to the Med.?

Harte

[whitegandalf]

Reading comprehension problems, huh? Must be, since I said:

Meaning that the original story of Atlantis has nothing to do with the North Sea. Plato gave Atlantis a specific location in his tales, which obviously was nowhere near the North Sea.

And just in case you're confused "Atlantis" is not a catch-all phrase for every possible place of prehistoric habitation by humans. It's a specific name of a specific place in a tale originally written by Plato.

cormac

I strongly disagree. Platons atlantis could have been part of a larger atlantis kingdom, which was based in the atlantic sea and nortth sea.

That this is a specific place with a specific name that only could be used with platon is your opinion. Other part of the world could have different names of the same place, and also have different level of knowledge about this ancient sivilisation.

If existed there would have existed several similar tales, which it does, which is a good sign that it once existed. But they themself and others might have used a different name.

Edited April 14, 2013 by whitegandalf

[docyabut2]

Gee anybody can see that Jowett was n`t right in the translations by saying

To his twin brother, who was born after him, and obtained as his lot the extremity of the island towards the Pillars of Heracles, facing the country which is now called the region of Gades in that part of the world,

When Gades was not named Gades until the Romans, way after Palto

Edited April 14, 2013 by docyabut2

[Harte]

Gades was named way after Plato.

Around 500 BC, the city fell under the sway of Carthage. Cadiz became a base of operations for Hannibal's[9] conquest of southern Iberia. However, in 206 BC, the city fell to Roman forces under Scipio Africanus. The people of Cadiz welcomed the victors. Under the Romans, the city's Greek name was modified to Gades.

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

That was the Roman conquest of the area.

The Romans knew it as Gades long before that.

Plato's statement was a reflection of the times. The Romans had more dealings with Gadeira than the Greeks. Hence, his statement about how it was "now called the region of Gades in that part of the world."

In that part of the world, but not around here in Greece.

Harte

[cormac mac airt]

I strongly disagree. Platons atlantis could have been part of a larger atlantis kingdom, which was based in the atlantic sea and nortth sea.

That this is a specific place with a specific name is that only could be used with platon is your opinion. Other part of the world could have different names of the same place, and also have different level of knowledge about this ancient sivilisation.

If existed there would have existed several similar tales, which it does, which is a good sign that it once existed. But they themself and others might have used a different name.

So you wish to play "Let's pretend"? Okay, now I know not to take you seriously. Thanks.

cormac