Atlantis

[Abramelin]

The discussion here today has been excellent so thanks to all. The links with Tantalis and the creation of the Black sea are valid for sure. The question is how far does the story of a sunken homeland go back and can we find links in cultures to suggest common origins. I think it would be hasty to assume that Lydia was the source of the Atlantis myth but is one of many cultures that preserved the legend.

Here is a really intersting link. http://www.atlan.org...ating_evidence/

I had never thought before how close Eden and India are. They supposedly are linked and India has similar tales to Ataltins with many commonalities.

There also appears to be evidence of a Sri Lankan people in antiquity who suffered a loss of land as sea levels rose. I am constantly reminded of the vastness of the atlantis myth.

It's to be expected there are myths the world round about submerged countries: a lot of land got flooded after the end of the last ice age.

But we will have to find out which ones got catastrophically flooded, and not slowly during thousands of years.

The Aegean comes to mind, and my pet topic, Doggerland.

Sundaland, the Persian Gulf, the coast of India, areas in North America could also be candidates, but we don't know for sure if their submergence occurred catastrophically and fast.

And then again, none of these submerged lands could have anything to do with Plato's Atlantis if it ever really existed.

Or legends about many of these submerged countries mixed (by travellers/sailors), and then eventually, after thousands of years, it arrived in Greece and was used as the basis for Plato's myth about Atlantis. and hence we will never have a real clue where his Atlantis was located (because it was made up from other flood myths).

Edited January 4, 2010 by Abramelin

[The Puzzler]

The discussion here today has been excellent so thanks to all. The links with Tantalis and the creation of the Black sea are valid for sure. The question is how far does the story of a sunken homeland go back and can we find links in cultures to suggest common origins. I think it would be hasty to assume that Lydia was the source of the Atlantis myth but is one of many cultures that preserved the legend.

Here is a really intersting link. http://www.atlan.org/articles/corroborating_evidence/

I had never thought before how close Eden and India are. They supposedly are linked and India has similar tales to Ataltins with many commonalities.

There also appears to be evidence of a Sri Lankan people in antiquity who suffered a loss of land as sea levels rose. I am constantly reminded of the vastness of the atlantis myth.

Vast alright.

This part in that link says to me that Plato could place it all into that timeframe regardless of whether it was or not since this is truly what the Egyptians believed...

Manetho, the Egyptian historian, places the start of the dynasty of the "Spirits of the Dead" 5,813 years before Menes, the first king of unified Egypt. Now, Menes flourished between 3,100 and 3,800 BC or perhaps, even earlier, as some specialists claim. Again, this gives a date between 11,000 and 11,600 BC, in close agreement with the one given by Plato.

Then Herodotus tells us:

About Heracles I heard the account given that he was of the number of the twelve gods; but of the other Heracles whom the Hellenes know I was not able to hear in any part of Egypt: and moreover to prove that the Egyptians did not take the name of Heracles from the Hellenes, but rather the Hellenes from the Egyptians,—that is to say those of the Hellenes who gave the name Heracles to the son of Amphitryon,—of that, I say, besides many other evidences there is chiefly this, namely that the parents of this Heracles, Amphitryon and Alcmene, were both of Egypt by descent, and also that the Egyptians say that they do not know the names either of Poseidon or of the Dioscuroi, nor have these been accepted by them as gods among the other gods; whereas if they had received from the Hellenes the name of any divinity, they would naturally have preserved the memory of these most of all, assuming that in those times as now some of the Hellenes were wont to make voyages and were seafaring folk, as I suppose and as my judgment compels me to think; so that the Egyptians would have learnt the names of these gods even more than that of Heracles.

In fact however Heracles is a very ancient Egyptian god; and (as they say themselves) it is seventeen thousand years to the beginning of the reign of Amasis from the time when the twelve gods, of whom they count that Heracles is one, were begotten of the eight gods.

If they think their version of Heracles was from 17,000 years before Amasis, 9000 years ago is like yesterday to them...placing this story in a time frame of 9000 years before Plato really does fit without any need for finding evidence from this time since according the to Egyptians they had their Gods over 17,000 years ago.

Lydia is on my list. I think Niobe and Leto were old Anatolian friends before the hooked up as enemies in Greek myth.

[Abramelin]

Just as an aside...I compliment you on your willingness to wade through all these myths, Puzzler.If even you get nothing substantial out of this concerning Atlantis, you will at least have become on expert on ancient Greek and Middle Eastern mythology.

[jaylemurph]

Don't answer that. It just so happens that it's a bad word to ask that question about. But I'm sure you get my meaning. Specific to this scenario about Bolivia, we have a Spanish spelling for words in the Nahuatl language, so the root word would be the Spanish root, not the Nahuatl root. If the English would have conquered S. America, we would have written their words in the English language. So when we look for the root of the word, we have to look for the English root because that's the language it's written in. I suppose the Nahuatl language HAS roots too, it wasn't born full fledged I wouldn't think, but using the Spanish spelling of the word, isn't going to give the root of the Nahuatl word.

No, we wouldn't. Which was my original point. They don't speak Nahuatl in Bolivia. They never have. They don't even speak anything even distantly related to Nahuatl. So no matter what sort of historical linguistic moves you make, you're never going to find any sort of Nahuatl morphemes in any language spoken in Bolivia, Spanish intermediates or no.

(Even though, as I also pointed out, languages do not borrow words or morphemes for something so basic as "water".)

(Even if changing spelling -- which is what I *think* you're mainly pointing out in the Spanish/Nahuatl example above -- somehow changed meaning of words in/from the source language. But just because the Spanish changed the spelling of the word "xoatl" into "chocolate" or something close in Nahuatl doesn't change what the word means in Nahuatl, nor does it mean you'd go trying to figure out the derivation of "chocolate" from Latin components. But to be honest, I'm just not sure what point you're trying to make. Generally speaking, historical linguistics isn't something that you can tinker around with without a pretty substantial knowledge of the mechanics of language and language change, which I'm not thinking you have a good grip on.)

--Jaylemurph

[cormac mac airt]

No, we wouldn't. Which was my original point. They don't speak Nahuatl in Bolivia. They never have. They don't even speak anything even distantly related to Nahuatl. So no matter what sort of historical linguistic moves you make, you're never going to find any sort of Nahuatl morphemes in any language spoken in Bolivia, Spanish intermediates or no.

(Even though, as I also pointed out, languages do not borrow words or morphemes for something so basic as "water".)

(Even if changing spelling -- which is what I *think* you're mainly pointing out in the Spanish/Nahuatl example above -- somehow changed meaning of words in/from the source language. But just because the Spanish changed the spelling of the word "xoatl" into "chocolate" or something close in Nahuatl doesn't change what the word means in Nahuatl, nor does it mean you'd go trying to figure out the derivation of "chocolate" from Latin components. But to be honest, I'm just not sure what point you're trying to make. Generally speaking, historical linguistics isn't something that you can tinker around with without a pretty substantial knowledge of the mechanics of language and language change, which I'm not thinking you have a good grip on.)

Jaylemurph,

Please read that again. Qoais is not putting forth the “Nahuatl is used in Bolivia” argument, that belongs solely to Jim Allen. At this point Qoais has realized that Nahuatl and Bolivia are two different subjects which aren’t remotely related. It’s solely Mr. Allens contention that one can take -atl- from the Uto-Aztecan language family and -antis- from the Quechuan language family and somehow relate them to a Greek word -Atlantis- when none of the three are related in time or geographical location. Qoais might not have the way with words that you have to discuss the differences in linguistics, but she is saying pretty much the same thing that you are. Finally she’s starting to research things herself to discover the facts, shooting her down at this point is counter-productive, IMO.

Cormac

[jaylemurph]

Jaylemurph,

Please read that again. Qoais is not putting forth the “Nahuatl is used in Bolivia” argument, that belongs solely to Jim Allen. At this point Qoais has realized that Nahuatl and Bolivia are two different subjects which aren’t remotely related. It’s solely Mr. Allens contention that one can take -atl- from the Uto-Aztecan language family and -antis- from the Quechuan language family and somehow relate them to a Greek word -Atlantis- when none of the three are related in time or geographical location. Qoais might not have the way with words that you have to discuss the differences in linguistics, but she is saying pretty much the same thing that you are. Finally she’s starting to research things herself to discover the facts, shooting her down at this point is counter-productive, IMO.

Cormac

I'm aware this isn't Q. own postulation about he Nahuatl/Bolivian connexion, and that she's contradicting it, although her posts at times make it difficult for me to tell what she's reporting and what she's espousing -- note her use of "we", for example.

My main in concern is her attempt to disprove it (as I understand it) using Spanish is just as wrong as the original theory. As always, I'm totally willing to admit I have the wrong end of the stick and just plain misunderstand what it is she's trying to say.

--Jaylemurph

[Edit: I did try to go back and edit the previous post, but it seems I can't. So I'd just ignore the first two paragraphs.]

Edited January 4, 2010 by jaylemurph

[cormac mac airt]

I'm aware this isn't Q. own postulation about he Nahuatl/Bolivian connexion, and that she's contradicting it, although her posts at times make it difficult for me to tell what she's reporting and what she's espousing -- note her use of "we", for example.

My main in concern is her attempt to disprove it (as I understand it) using Spanish is just as wrong as the original theory. As always, I'm totally willing to admit I have the wrong end of the stick and just plain misunderstand what it is she's trying to say.

--Jaylemurph

[Edit: I did try to go back and edit the previous post, but it seems I can't. So I'd just ignore the first two paragraphs.]

Even I see what Qoais was trying to say and I understand it. In a nut shell, Mr. Allen can't expect to take a word, or the etymology thereof, from one language/alphabet, combine it with another word/etymology from a second (unrelated) language/alphabet and claim it's relevant to the meaning of a third word/etymology from an even more unrelated language. All of which is what Mr. Allen appears to be doing. All to somehow prove that Bolivia is Atlantis.

cormac

[Qoais]

Jaylemurph,

Please read that again. Qoais is not putting forth the “Nahuatl is used in Bolivia” argument, that belongs solely to Jim Allen. At this point Qoais has realized that Nahuatl and Bolivia are two different subjects which aren’t remotely related. It’s solely Mr. Allens contention that one can take -atl- from the Uto-Aztecan language family and -antis- from the Quechuan language family and somehow relate them to a Greek word -Atlantis- when none of the three are related in time or geographical location. Qoais might not have the way with words that you have to discuss the differences in linguistics, but she is saying pretty much the same thing that you are. Finally she’s starting to research things herself to discover the facts, shooting her down at this point is counter-productive, IMO.

Cormac

oooooooooh Cormac!

[Qoais]

I'm not sure I want to take this any further and come back at him again for the simple reason I'm trying to walk a fine line in the other forum between critiquing and badgering. That forum is a bit more "civil" than here!! No dissing on anyone over there! I don't know what he's talking about in the first paragraph. Maybe he's answering someone else and got confused between the two of us.

Hello Qoais,

It seems like you have summed it up now, that Plato based the geographic part of his story of Atlantis upon a description of a region of South America which he inherited, adding to that an account of the wars of the Sea Peoples which may have been part of the same notes and polished it up with a few details of his own like the disposition of the “Atlantean” forces on their home “allotments” with “guardians” placed closest to the king etc.

So in the end there is nothing unreasonable in what Plato wrote, except the wrapping up of all these events in one combined place which renders certain aspects out of context but not out of history nor geography when the individual events are analysed.

To answer what you call “Just a silly question. Did Atlas's brother Eumelous get Canada then? Plato said he got the extremity of land nearest Gades (Spain).”

I would assume that mean probably the north eastern part of Brasil as being nearest Gades. It is interesting though that the first inhabitants were born in pairs just like they were in the Andes, the Aymara kingdoms existed in pairs, the Aymara nation was organised in twin parts, one being “mountain kingdoms” and the other being “water kingdoms” and if we look at the entire continent of America it is like a twin continent with North America being twinned to South America and joined at the hip!

Now as to the inclusion of the “atl”. First of all I point it out as yet another factor in the correspondence between the Americas and Plato’s story, a correspondence which does not exist for any other location.

You say of “atl” quote “that it was a Greek source word, not a Quechua or Nahuatl source word. At least as far as Plato writing the words down goes.” How do you know that? It is quite common for words of foreign origins to pass into host languages, for example in English we say “week-end” and the word was borrowed by French who say “le week-end”. Again we have a very popular world-wide drink whose name is known in every language of the world as coca-cola. You can guess where the coca came from!

If the story came from Egypt, then the “atl” part could also have been passed from Egypt. The point being that it is appropriate to the South American continent.

So you continue, ”atl” – “but it would not have influenced the use of the word in Plato's writings. Again, because of the time line.”

”Solon lived 638-558 BC and it is supposedly from his notes the story comes. If we add your 9000 lunar months (675 or so years) we get say around 1275 BC which gives us from today, about 32-3300 years ago.”

So are you saying that the “atl” never existed in native American languages before 3,300 years ago? That would be absurd. You base your idea upon the date the Aztecs moved into the Valley of Mexico. It is not known where they originated from, the idea they came from the north is only a loose assumption and they could have wandered around for hundreds of years, taking their language with them.

You say that "of Atlas" “ which is specifically Greek” Can you demonstrate that for me?

According to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_understanding_of_Greek_mythology

The Greeks borrowed their pantheon of gods according to Herodotus, from THE EGYPTIANS. And according to other investigators from Indo European sources, i.e. other nations of the Near East. So they weren’t even theirs to begin with!

When Spanish conquistadors wrote down native names, they couldn’t pronounce them properly, so gave them Spanish sounding equivalents. Like “Antis” becoming “Andes”.

The point is that after the end of Atlantis the people had to leave the high plateau and wander around to find new homelands…. To begin again as Plato said… And whether you like it or not, the people of Aztec Mexico built a city very similar to that described as Atlantis on an island in a lake. Another similalrity…

You almost forgot to include the part about the Incas – it would have been better if you had done – the Incas were only the last of a long line of people who lived in the Andes and are only famous because they were the ones there at the time the Spanish invaded, but the history of the Andes goes back thousands of years and the region of the Altiplano is more famous for the Tiwanaku civilisation, even then, little nothing is known about the city of Tiwanaku itself and the people who built it, how they managed to cut the stones or melt the metal clamps that held the stonework together. Etc.

What we are interested in of course is whoever might have lived on the Altiplano before Tiwanaku and whose civilisation was destroyed by earthquakes and floods….

All the best,

Jim Allen

Edited January 4, 2010 by Qoais

[cormac mac airt]

I would assume that mean probably the north eastern part of Brasil as being nearest Gades.

Somehow, I’d have thought he’d know what happens when one “assumes” something.

You say of “atl” quote “that it was a Greek source word, not a Quechua or Nahuatl source word. At least as far as Plato writing the words down goes.” How do you know that?

What evidence does he have that contradicts that? And no, his supposition is not evidence. Also, how is it that he can claim one single word, or part thereof, originated in S. America when no other words/word parts did? That’s not how cross-cultural trade or contamination works.

If the story came from Egypt, then the “atl” part could also have been passed from Egypt.

Except that Plato claims the original names were translated from (presumably) Atlantian to Egyptian to Greek. As the name Atlantis, in Greek, was originally translated from the Egyptian (again according to Plato) he’d have to show evidence that -atl- existed in Egyptian at any point in its history.

So are you saying that the “atl” never existed in native American languages before 3,300 years ago? That would be absurd.

What’s really absurd is the assumption that a Uto-Aztecan word/word element must have been used by a member of the Quechuan language group to denote a place only known about in a Greek story.

It is not known where they originated from, the idea they came from the north is only a loose assumption…

But it’s what they said of their own history. Interesting how the Aztecs had to have been liars as Mr. Allen, somehow, knows the real truth.

The Greeks borrowed their pantheon of gods according to Herodotus, from THE EGYPTIANS.

The Greeks, by and large, had much of their own pantheon from the time of the Mycenaean’s with no evidence that the Mycenaeans acquired theirs from Egypt. As Herodotus could only adequately speak for the Classical Greek period and therefore not the Mycenaean period, that rather makes his claim to the origins of the Greek pantheon highly suspect, if not irrelevant.

And whether you like it or not, the people of Aztec Mexico built a city very similar to that described as Atlantis on an island in a lake.

Yes, Tenochtitlan, founded over 1600 years AFTER Plato and also irrelevant to the Atlantis myth.

Another similalrity…

Let’s see…Wheels are round and so are Ritz crackers. So they must have been used for the same thing, RIGHT. Now I see how his theory works.

cormac

[Qoais]

Mr. Allen added this:

Take this statement by Qoais,

“From Wikipedia… Inca expansion (1438-1527 AD)

The Inca people began as a tribe of the Killke culture in the Cuzco area around the 12th century AD. Under the leadership of Manco Capac, they formed the small city-state of Cuzco (Quechua Qosqo).

Much much later genesis than Plato and therefore not an influence on what he wrote.”

Answer. Obviously nobody is saying that the Incas were an influence on what Plato wrote. How could they be when they were around two thousand years later.

But what we are saying is that thousands of years after the Atlantis culture was destroyed, other civilisations arose in the region which had the same traditions as those that Plato wrote about. They covered the walls of their temples in sheets of gold, silver and orichalcum and had statues in gold of their ancestors. They had advanced systems of irrigation and cultivation with plots of land separated by water channels and had two harvests a year. One of their legends says the god of the sea adopted five pairs of twin sons… another of their foundation myths involved four pairs of brothers and sisters and they had a legend of a city punished by the gods and sunk beneath the sea.

The oldest native people in the region are called the Urus who lived on floating islands on Lakes Titicaca and Poopo and also until recently had beehive shaped huts a few inches above water level on the flat Altiplano which became flooded in the wet season. In their own language they are not called Urus, but “kot’suns” which means “men of water”. A curious parallel with “Atl” which also means “water” in Nahuatl language and AtlAntis?

and then I got kind of cheeky and said:

Just popped in for a minute to say that I only mentioned the Inca, to cover all the bases since they also spoke Quechua.

It's your explanation of "atl" I'm having trouble with. Nahuatl is apparently a Mexican language spelled in Spanish, and never has been a language of Bolivia.

Maybe I'm confused, but I think you're saying that "atl" means water in the one language, (Nahuatl) "antis" means copper in another language, (Quechua - which was spoken by the Inca also) and if we put them together we can say that the "people of the Andes", not necessarily Bolivians, put the two languages together and made the word Atlantis, which was then used to influence Plato over in Greece.

Now Jim, I did say before that I wanted to go slowly so as to keep things straight. I admit that sometimes I am easily confused so I try to be sure of what's being said and I have to say, I'm confused about the journey this word "atl" takes.

Are you saying that once the word is put together from the the two languages, it is then transferred somehow to Egypt; the Egyptians write it down in THEIR language, and then when the priest tells Solon the word in Egyptian, Solon translates the word into Greek which just happens to be exactly what the origin of the word from the two languages means?

Whew! It was difficult just to try to follow THAT trail!!

[kmt_sesh]

If the story came from Egypt, then the “atl” part could also have been passed from Egypt. The point being that it is appropriate to the South American continent.

LOL I confess I'm a little confused about who's saying what to whom, and what Allen is saying to Qoais or Qoais to Allen. That being the case, please understand that I am merely responding to statements and the information therein, not necessarily to people. Pardon my addled mind.

Of the past twenty-plus years I've been studying ancient Egypt, the last fifteen or so have included a heavy dose of studying the language itself. I say this only to stress the fact that "atl" is not a root or fragment of any Egyptian word with which I'm familiar. There is ongoing debate on certain phonemes but many linguists argue that the letter "L" did not even exist in the language of ancient Egypt, or at the least was restricted to certain dialects.

In other words, and I say this with complete confidence, "atl" did not pass from Egypt.

So are you saying that the “atl” never existed in native American languages before 3,300 years ago? That would be absurd. You base your idea upon the date the Aztecs moved into the Valley of Mexico. It is not known where they originated from, the idea they came from the north is only a loose assumption and they could have wandered around for hundreds of years, taking their language with them.

It is true that no one can say with certainty where the Aztecs came from. Nevertheless, the Aztecs themselves explicitly stated the north, and it figured into all of their own origin myths. While myths are for the most part fiction, I do believe that they sometimes hold kernels of truth, and the northern origin is one thing a people would well remember.

I think what we can say with reasonable certainty is that there is no strong evidence of linguistic transference from the Uto-Aztecan language family to regions of South America. I agree with cormac and put into strong terms that the argument that "atl" is the one and only word to have transferred borders on absurdity. Or surpasses.

According to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_understanding_of_Greek_mythology

The Greeks borrowed their pantheon of gods according to Herodotus, from THE EGYPTIANS. And according to other investigators from Indo European sources, i.e. other nations of the Near East. So they weren’t even theirs to begin with!

It is true that Herodotus wrote this. It is also true that Herodotus was wrong. First off I would refrain from using Wikipedia as a scholarly reference, which it is not. Refer to works by recognized historians and specialists on the subject, who can explain it better than I. Elizabeth Vandiver is one I would recommend; she is one of the leading scholars on Herodotus and the other literature of Classical Greece. Vandiver and others would state that Herodotus was looking for connections between his "nascent" culture and the much more ancient one of the ancient Egyptians. The truth is, on a fundamental level, the religions of Greece and ancient Egypt were significantly different in most ways. A connection made between two gods merely because they possessed similar attributes is, in the end, a very poor connection to make. By that reasoning Herodotus could just as easily have written that his gods came from Mesopotamia, or Syro-Palestine, or any number of others, because the deities of all of these cultures possessed similar characteristics.

The point is that after the end of Atlantis the people had to leave the high plateau and wander around to find new homelands…. To begin again as Plato said… And whether you like it or not, the people of Aztec Mexico built a city very similar to that described as Atlantis on an island in a lake. Another similalrity…

The Aztec capital Tenochtitlan was indeed a wonder. The Spanish were awed by it and considered this city the Venice of the New World. But in truth it's a marked exaggeration to say Tenochtitlan was similar to Plato's Atlantis. Really the only similarity is the fact that the city was built on an island. And this happened because when the Aztecs originally migrated into central Mexico, all of the land around Lake Texcoco was already in the possession of native peoples more powerful and established than the Aztecs. The Aztecs had no choice but to go out to the island. No, not another similarity.

[kmt_sesh]

...

Are you saying that once the word is put together from the the two languages, it is then transferred somehow to Egypt; the Egyptians write it down in THEIR language, and then when the priest tells Solon the word in Egyptian, Solon translates the word into Greek which just happens to be exactly what the origin of the word from the two languages means?

Whew! It was difficult just to try to follow THAT trail!!

Qoais, that was really well put!

[Qoais]

Thank you kmt_sesh. I intend to quote what you've said.

The thing is, It seems Jim Allen is trying to say that the physical city of Atlantis was in Bolivia, so what the heck has that got to do with a city the Aztecs built?

[cormac mac airt]

Thank you kmt_sesh. I intend to quote what you've said.

The thing is, It seems Jim Allen is trying to say that the physical city of Atlantis was in Bolivia, so what the heck has that got to do with a city the Aztecs built?

One has nothing to do with the other, Qoais, of which I believe kmt_sesh would agree. Mr. Allen appears to be working off the "similarities make it a fact" mindset, which doesn't work on many levels.

cormac

[Swede]

Mr. Allen added this:

Take this statement by Qoais,

“From Wikipedia… Inca expansion (1438-1527 AD)

The Inca people began as a tribe of the Killke culture in the Cuzco area around the 12th century AD. Under the leadership of Manco Capac, they formed the small city-state of Cuzco (Quechua Qosqo).

Much much later genesis than Plato and therefore not an influence on what he wrote.”

Answer. Obviously nobody is saying that the Incas were an influence on what Plato wrote. How could they be when they were around two thousand years later.

But what we are saying is that thousands of years after the Atlantis culture was destroyed, other civilisations arose in the region which had the same traditions as those that Plato wrote about. They covered the walls of their temples in sheets of gold, silver and orichalcum and had statues in gold of their ancestors. They had advanced systems of irrigation and cultivation with plots of land separated by water channels and had two harvests a year. One of their legends says the god of the sea adopted five pairs of twin sons… another of their foundation myths involved four pairs of brothers and sisters and they had a legend of a city punished by the gods and sunk beneath the sea.

The oldest native people in the region are called the Urus who lived on floating islands on Lakes Titicaca and Poopo and also until recently had beehive shaped huts a few inches above water level on the flat Altiplano which became flooded in the wet season. In their own language they are not called Urus, but “kot’suns” which means “men of water”. A curious parallel with “Atl” which also means “water” in Nahuatl language and AtlAntis?

and then I got kind of cheeky and said:

Just popped in for a minute to say that I only mentioned the Inca, to cover all the bases since they also spoke Quechua.

It's your explanation of "atl" I'm having trouble with. Nahuatl is apparently a Mexican language spelled in Spanish, and never has been a language of Bolivia.

Maybe I'm confused, but I think you're saying that "atl" means water in the one language, (Nahuatl) "antis" means copper in another language, (Quechua - which was spoken by the Inca also) and if we put them together we can say that the "people of the Andes", not necessarily Bolivians, put the two languages together and made the word Atlantis, which was then used to influence Plato over in Greece.

Now Jim, I did say before that I wanted to go slowly so as to keep things straight. I admit that sometimes I am easily confused so I try to be sure of what's being said and I have to say, I'm confused about the journey this word "atl" takes.

Are you saying that once the word is put together from the the two languages, it is then transferred somehow to Egypt; the Egyptians write it down in THEIR language, and then when the priest tells Solon the word in Egyptian, Solon translates the word into Greek which just happens to be exactly what the origin of the word from the two languages means?

Whew! It was difficult just to try to follow THAT trail!!

Qoais - One would be underestimating your capabilities if one were to speculate that you have not seen through this sham. In addition to the notable linguistic and time-line flaws, the "author" is now presenting the proposal that "thousands of years of years after the Atlantis culture was destroyed, other civilizations arose which had the same traditions as those that Plato wrote about". Really? Supporting documentation?

In addition, the various irrigation systems utilized by numerous South American cultures are quite well documented and dated. Is he maintaining that this manner of knowledge was passed down, unused, for millenia?

The "oldest native people in the region are called the Urus"? He may wish to study qualified research. See below. Please make an attempt to obtain the complete report. If not, pay particular attention to the abstract at the bottom.

Rather sad that the site you are working with is not open to the presentation of qualified data. Such a position does not speak well of credibility.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/124854

[Qoais]

Qoais - One would be underestimating your capabilities if one were to speculate that you have not seen through this sham. In addition to the notable linguistic and time-line flaws, the "author" is now presenting the proposal that "thousands of years of years after the Atlantis culture was destroyed, other civilizations arose which had the same traditions as those that Plato wrote about". Really? Supporting documentation?

In addition, the various irrigation systems utilized by numerous South American cultures are quite well documented and dated. Is he maintaining that this manner of knowledge was passed down, unused, for millenia?

The "oldest native people in the region are called the Urus"? He may wish to study qualified research. See below. Please make an attempt to obtain the complete report. If not, pay particular attention to the abstract at the bottom.

Rather sad that the site you are working with is not open to the presentation of qualified data. Such a position does not speak well of credibility.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/124854

Thank you Swede - I did see a few holes, and thought I'd try to poke my nose through them to see what would happen. What happened was, the OP apparently had been in contact with Mr. Allen, trying to get him to chat about his theory in the forum. So I suppose it was to be a coup of some sort, that he finally conceded to visit and I chased him away with my "negative attitude". I think Cormac was right in that it's ok to chat with him if you agree with everything he says and be a yes man, but to contradict him is a no no because he'll run away and hide. I'm treading lightly now, and that's why I posted here, the bit about being confused in following the trail of the illusive "atl" Once upon a time, I had a way with words that was priceless, but I gave it up for lent - which caused me to lose the talent!! (BSing of course) The part about a way with words is true though. I'm bragging now, but when we had a law suit brought against our company, we couldn't afford a lawyer, so I got busy and wrote out all what I thought, were the questions needed to go to court and act as a lawyer. Just before the court case, I did have to see a lawyer because I didn't know how to make my closing argument, and when he finished reading what I'd written, he asked me if I was articling to BE a lawyer, because he said I had pretty much done word for word, what he would have done. I was quite tickled with the praise to tell the truth!! (Yes we won) My point being, that I have to be kind of delicate as to how to approach the critiquing so as not to chase the prey away and yet get some kind of answer that is satisfactory and not just questions back at me like "how do you know". I don't know, and neither does he, but he's the one with the theory and the book. It's an open forum you know, so y'all can sign up and join in the conversation.

http://atlantisonline.smfforfree2.com/index.php/topic,22457.msg199947.html#new

I'm going now to peruse your link.

[kmt_sesh]

Qoais, I see no reason that you should feel obligated to tread lightly. You've done nothing improper, for goodness sake. If anything you are doing a favor for Allen. He has to know that his ideas are subject to all manner of scrutiny by all manner of people. If you or I as laypeople can see the holes so easily, just imagine what a vetted scholar of the Near East or of Mesoamerica could do! Allen has to learn to defend his position with hard science and proper research. If he cannot do so, and if he seems to pout and get flustered, that is only a sign that his personal theory is not going to last terribly long.

[nohands]

hehehe....

i don't care about antartica or any superior race

as long as we believe in magic we will live life like a superior race also

[Qoais]

Hello nohands. Are you in the right thread?

[Qoais]

Qoais, I see no reason that you should feel obligated to tread lightly. You've done nothing improper, for goodness sake. If anything you are doing a favor for Allen. He has to know that his ideas are subject to all manner of scrutiny by all manner of people. If you or I as laypeople can see the holes so easily, just imagine what a vetted scholar of the Near East or of Mesoamerica could do! Allen has to learn to defend his position with hard science and proper research. If he cannot do so, and if he seems to pout and get flustered, that is only a sign that his personal theory is not going to last terribly long.

Yes, I realize this, but I don't want to be the one to chase him away. Greg Allan was posting there too, and I'm getting blamed for him not posting any more either, even after he came to my defense and said I had nothing to do with it. He is super busy and for most of the year, hasn't time to chat in forums. Now one person has already blamed me for chasing Allen away (he came back) and then I won't be very popular at all will I, if I chase him away for good?

Have you seen his site kmt? It's quite lovely. One can't really say against the man unless one sees where he's coming from and all the work he went to. BUT, it IS out there, and it WILL be critiqued. It seems to me that if the Altiplano of Bolivia was that much comparable to Atlantis, Mr. Jim Allen would be rich and famous and we wouldn't have this thread in the forum!!

[The Puzzler]

It is true that Herodotus wrote this. It is also true that Herodotus was wrong. First off I would refrain from using Wikipedia as a scholarly reference, which it is not. Refer to works by recognized historians and specialists on the subject, who can explain it better than I. Elizabeth Vandiver is one I would recommend; she is one of the leading scholars on Herodotus and the other literature of Classical Greece. Vandiver and others would state that Herodotus was looking for connections between his "nascent" culture and the much more ancient one of the ancient Egyptians. The truth is, on a fundamental level, the religions of Greece and ancient Egypt were significantly different in most ways. A connection made between two gods merely because they possessed similar attributes is, in the end, a very poor connection to make. By that reasoning Herodotus could just as easily have written that his gods came from Mesopotamia, or Syro-Palestine, or any number of others, because the deities of all of these cultures possessed similar characteristics.

Herodotus was wrong? Surely you jest!!??

I was going to write a really long post but I'll keep it short-

That these were the real facts I learnt at Memphis from the priests of Vulcan.

The Egyptians, they went on to affirm, first brought into use the names of the twelve gods, which the Greeks adopted from them;

Challenging the Vulcan priest are we?

The Greeks ADOPTED from them, the names...

The Greeks don't use Egyptian names for their Gods though, do they?

With the Egyptians, ... Pan is exceedingly ancient, and belongs to those whom they call "the eight gods," who existed before the rest. Hercules is one of the gods of the second order, who are known as "the twelve"; and Bacchus belongs to the gods of the third order, whom the twelve produced.

The account which I received of this Hercules makes him one of the twelve gods. Of the other Hercules, with whom the Greeks are familiar, I could hear nothing in any part of Egypt. That the Greeks, however (those I mean who gave the son of Amphitryon that name), took the name from the Egyptians, and not the Egyptians from the Greeks, is I think clearly proved, among other arguments, by the fact that both the parents of Hercules, Amphitryon as well as Alcmena, were of Egyptian origin. Again, the Egyptians disclaim all knowledge of the names of Neptune and the Dioscuri, and do not include them in the number of their gods; but had they adopted the name of any god from the Greeks, these would have been the likeliest to obtain notice, since the Egyptians, as I am well convinced, practised navigation at that time, and the Greeks also were some of them mariners, so that they would have been more likely to know the names of these gods than that of Hercules. But the Egyptian Hercules is one of their ancient gods. Seventeen thousand years before the reign of Amasis, the twelve gods were, they affirm, produced from the eight: and of these twelve, Hercules is one.

In the wish to get the best information that I could on these matters, I made a voyage to Tyre in Phoenicia, hearing there was a temple of Hercules at that place, very highly venerated. I visited the temple, and found it richly adorned with a number of offerings, among which were two pillars, one of pure gold, the other of emerald, shining with great brilliancy at night. In a conversation which I held with the priests, I inquired how long their temple had been built, and found by their answer that they, too, differed from the Greeks. They said that the temple was built at the same time that the city was founded, and that the foundation of the city took place two thousand three hundred years ago. In Tyre I remarked another temple where the same god was worshipped as the Thasian Hercules. So I went on to Thasos, where I found a temple of Hercules which had been built by the Phoenicians who colonised that island when they sailed in search of Europa. Even this was five generations earlier than the time when Hercules, son of Amphitryon, was born in Greece. These researches show plainly that there is an ancient god Hercules; and my own opinion is that those Greeks act most wisely who build and maintain two temples of Hercules, in the one of which the Hercules worshipped is known by the name of Olympian, and has sacrifice offered to him as an immortal, while in the other the honours paid are such as are due to a hero

Almost all the names of the gods came into Greece from Egypt. My inquiries prove that they were all derived from a foreign source, and my opinion is that Egypt furnished the greater number. For with the exception of Neptune and the Dioscuri, whom I mentioned above, and Juno, Vesta, Themis, the Graces, and the Nereids, the other gods have been known from time immemorial in Egypt. This I assert on the authority of the Egyptians themselves. The gods, with whose names they profess themselves unacquainted, the Greeks received, I believe, from the Pelasgi, except Neptune. Of him they got their knowledge from the Libyans, by whom he has been always honoured, and who were anciently the only people that had a god of the name. The Egyptians differ from the Greeks also in paying no divine honours to heroes.

Lastly but not least...

The Greeks tell many tales without due investigation

he tells us the story and then he says:

Now to me it seems that such a story proves the Greeks to be utterly ignorant of the character and customs of the people.

What no one liked is Herodotus telling us exactly what Plato tells us, the Greeks are idiots.

The ancient Greek GODS did not come from Egypt, only their names which are transferred to Greek, Manethos list gives this example...Ptah = Hephaestus

That is why the same Gods (attributes) are found in many other Gods and you can align the names to other names.

The Egyptians don't even know some of the important Greek Gods like Hera or Poseidon or a HERO named Heracles.

Take into account this is information given to him by the priests of Vulcan. By saying Herodotus is lying you are saying the priests are lying, which I would rather doubt if I was you. I am often amazed at how much we think we know about the ancients to say how wrong they were.

How about people have read it wrong and made wrong assumptions lumping these wrong assumptions onto Herodotus then saying how wrong he is because the assumption they made is actually the wrong one.

Are you going to challenge a priest of Vulcans knowledge on his people's religion or are you going to read it again and look at it the way it should be read?

[Harte]

Qoais,

Congratulations. You have made a shattered mess of Jim Allen's ridiculous musings and I, for one, enjoyed the hell out of it!

Harte

[The Puzzler]

Qoais,

Congratulations. You have made a shattered mess of Jim Allen's ridiculous musings and I, for one, enjoyed the hell out of it!

Harte

Me too! Team Q!

:clap:

[Abramelin]

For those - like me - who do not know much about Jim Allen's theory, here's a link to his theory:

http://www.atlantisb...oliviapart1.htm

Hmm... as usual a twisting and distorting of Plato's legend to fit a theory.

But I admit: it's a very interesting read.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Abramelin