Atlantis

[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.

Read the table on the last page, page 4; there is a line that says:

15. The religion of Atlantis involved the sacrifice of bulls. (in Bolivia llama sacrifice is common)

(...)

Plato stated that he gave all the original names Greek equivalents "to make it more agreeable to his readers", it is important to remember that he never actually visited the site himself and neither the ancient Greeks nor ancient Egyptians had probably ever seen or heard of a llama, thus "bull" was substituted, just as "trireme" was substituted for whichever type of ship or boat was originally used.

A llama doesn't look much like a bull (but much more like a small camel to which they are related, so why not call them camels instead? Plato must have known of camels), but yes, a trireme is a ship alright.

[Abramelin]

And did Plato know what a "Wanp'u" was ??

[Qoais]

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

I realize that what he's saying about the etymology of the word "atl" has diddley squat to do with anything, other than that he's trying to find as much as he can to support this theory, but some of it doesn't hold up very well if one digs deeper. A lot of people just like the story, think hey, this is cool, and go on with their lives. BUT if Atlantis WAS found it would be monumental discovery and everyone, would be running to the location to dig for proof. And if they dug in Bolivia and found a temple city or ruins of one, Jim Allen would be a household name for the rest of man's existence on earth.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Qoais

[Qoais]

And did Plato know what a "Wanp'u" was ??

Huh? What's a Wanp'u? Does it have anything to do with that "atl" that ran away from home, married "antis" and crossed the ocean to Egypt?

Edited January 5, 2010 by Qoais

[Harte]

Huh? What's a Wanp'u? Does it have anything to do with that "atl" that ran away from home, married "antis" and crossed the ocean to Egypt?

On a related note,

The term atlatl is quite easily explained using the Jim Allen method.

When Viracocha (who as everyone surely knows, was from Atlantis) first showed up in South America, the Indians asked him what that stick thing was that he was holding. Viracocha, who was a stutterer, though that they had asked where he was from. So he told them Atlantis. But with his stutter, it came out "Atl...Atl...." and they missed the last part.

Thus was the term Atlatl born.

Harte

[cormac mac airt]

On a related note,

The term atlatl is quite easily explained using the Jim Allen method.

When Viracocha (who as everyone surely knows, was from Atlantis) first showed up in South America, the Indians asked him what that stick thing was that he was holding. Viracocha, who was a stutterer, though that they had asked where he was from. So he told them Atlantis. But with his stutter, it came out "Atl...Atl...." and they missed the last part.

Thus was the term Atlatl born.

Harte

And here I thought it was because when the natives first came into contact with Viracocha, who was dehydrated from his forced journey from Atlantis (after its destruction), that he raised his stick at them and demanded "Atl...Atl" (water...water). They assumed that what he held in his hand was what he was talking about, so the name stuck.

But I could be wrong.

cormac

[Oniomancer]

Huh? What's a Wanp'u? Does it have anything to do with that "atl" that ran away from home, married "antis" and crossed the ocean to Egypt?

That's that thing that grabbed Luke Skywalker on Hoth ain't it?

[Harte]

That's that thing that grabbed Luke Skywalker on Hoth ain't it?

I didn't know anything grabbed Skywaker's hoth.

Must've been the unrated version.

H.

[jaylemurph]

oooooooooh Cormac!

Well, if it's clear to cormac I'm willing to do as I said -- (ahem)

I was wrong; I clearly got the wrong end of Q's stick. She was quite correct in her critique.

(Although I did see that kmt sort of shared my confusion!)

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.

Indeed, their language is demonstrably related to languages spoken much farther north, into the southwestern United States -- as I mentioned, Nahuatl is a member of the Uto-Aztecan family -- the Uto- referencing the Ute tribe of Utah and Colorado.

--Jaylemurph

[Harte]

Well, if it's clear to cormac I'm willing to do as I said -- (ahem)

I was wrong; I clearly got the wrong end of Q's stick. She was quite correct in her critique.

No, you just misread.

Jim Allen got the stick!

You go Qoais!

Harte

[kmt_sesh]

...

(Although I did see that kmt sort of shared my confusion!)

Yes, I was confused. That's why I wanted to stress I was commenting on the material, not so much on the person--because I wasn't sure who was saying what. Rereading it, I can see it was Qoais calling Allen to task, and I still think she was right to do so. If Allen pouts and gets testy, that's his own problem. He probably shouldn't come to bat against the big boys. And girls.

Indeed, their language is demonstrably related to languages spoken much farther north, into the southwestern United States -- as I mentioned, Nahuatl is a member of the Uto-Aztecan family -- the Uto- referencing the Ute tribe of Utah and Colorado.

--Jaylemurph

Doh! I knew I had read that at some point but couldn't remember where or when, so I didn't comment on it. I didn't want to guess, but it's obvious now that you explained it. Thanks.

Edited January 5, 2010 by kmt_sesh

[SlimJim22]

Check this out evrybody. some may have come across this site already but worth a look.

http://www.atlan.org/articles/checklist/

[Abramelin]

Huh? What's a Wanp'u? Does it have anything to do with that "atl" that ran away from home, married "antis" and crossed the ocean to Egypt?

It's Quechua for "boat" or "ship".

Plato was nothing less than a genius.

He understood the Egyptian translation to mean "ship"/"boat".

Come on....

This whole Jim Allen thing is nothing but a very captivating theory.

Thruth be told: he gets the most points... but failed like all the others.\

Atlantis SUBMERGED, it disappeared, it's below sea level NOW.

No, it's not Antarctica, it's not some Bolivian high plane, it's below sea level.

NOW.

But he has one of the best theories to my taste.

But still. I think he is wrong.

Say, did you all check my Doggerland thread?? Hahahahahahahaha !!!!!!

At least it has some of the necessary ingredients.

AND... it is really submerged, and after its submergence the sea was unnavigable. But alas, not the size of Libya and Asia.

Was Plato an idiot (I don't think so) or did he just fabricate a lovely story based an a mix of several legends?

The guy was a ****ing philosopher: he told a story, an anology, to prove his point.

He didn't care about details or facts, he used some old stories to tell his story, to tell his political convictions.

These days there are many like him that act the same.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Abramelin

[Qoais]

Where would Francis Bacon get the notion that navigation was greater 3000 years before his time?

"The New Atlantis" by Sir Francis Bacon, 1627...

YOU SHALL UNDERSTAND THAT ABOUT THREE THOUSAND YEARS AGO, or somewhat more, the Navigation of the world (specially for remote voyages) was greater than at this day…. Whether it was, that the example of the Ark, that saved the remnant of men from the Universal Deluge, gave men confidence to adventure upon the waters, or what it was; but such is the Truth. The Phoenicians, and specially the Tyrians, had great fleets. So had the Carthaginians their colony, which is yet further West. Towards the east the shipping of Egypt, and of Palestine was likewise great. China also, and the great Atlantis, (that you call America) which have now but junks, and canoes, abounded then in tall ships. At the same time, and an Age after, or more, the inhabitants of the great Atlantis did flourish…..Yet so much is true, that the said country of Atlantis, as well that of Peru then called Coya, and that of Mexico then called Tyrambel, were mighty and proud kingdoms, in arms, shipping, and riches so mighty as at one time (or at least within the space of 10 years) they both made two great expeditions, they of Tyrambel through the Atlantic to the Mediterranean Sea, and they of Coya through the South Sea…..But whether it were the ancient Athenians, that had the glory of the Repulse, and resistance of these forces, I can say nothing. But certain it is, there never came back, either ship, or man, from that voyage. But the Divine revenge overtook not long after those proud enterprises. For within less than the space of one hundred years, the Great Atlantis was utterly lost and destroyed not by a great earthquakes as your man saith (for that whole tract is little subject to earthquakes); but by a particular Deluge or Inundation. Those countries having, at that day, far greater rivers, and far higher mountains, to pour down waters, than any part of the Old World. But it is true, that the same inundation was not deep; not past forty feet in most places from the ground. So that although it destroyed man and beast generally, yet some few wild inhabitants of the wood escaped. For as for men, although they had buildings in many places, higher than the depth of the water, yet that inundation, though it were shallow, had a long continuance: whereby they of the Vale, that were not drowned, perished for want of food, and other things necessary. So as marvel you not at the thin population of America, nor at the rudeness and ignorance of the people…..and having in their mountain regions been used to clothe themselves with the skins of tigers, bears and great hairy goats, when after they came down into the valley, they found the intolerable heats which are there, and knowing no means of lighter apparel they were forced to begin the custom of going naked, which continueth to this day. Only they take great delight in the feathers of birds. So you see, by this main accident of Time, we lost our trafick with the Americas, with whom we had most commerce." Extracted from "New Atlantis" by Sir Francis Bacon, published posthumously in 1627.

[Qoais]

Thank you for the kudos everyone. And Jaylemurph, I accept your apology. I think that's a pretty fancy feather in my cap isn't it?

[Abramelin]

Can you explain to me why the women here get all excited when some skeptic guy gives you kudos?

[Qoais]

No, you just misread.

Jim Allen got the stick!

You go Qoais!

Harte

Thanks Harte.

One of the other things I noticed too was that Jim Allen says the war didn't have to be launched from S. America since they held sway over the western end of the Med. Now in Francis Bacon's writings, which Jim Allen quotes, he mentions that only two expeditions went out and that they never came back. How did the communications system work then? And - how did Francis Bacon know these things?

I mean if the one expedition went out and made it to Gibraltar but never came back, I would think, as I've said to Jim Allen, or somewhere, that the men on the ship would have realized they wouldn't find their way back home, or the ship was damaged or whatever, and they stayed in the area and became locals. Marrying into the local peoples of the day. Would they still be considered "a power from outside the Pillars"? Since no one came back to S. America, how did Plato know Atlantis sank, if it was in Bolivia? And according to Francis Bacon, or Jim Allen, the other expedition ended up in the Persian Gulf and never came back either. Now let's just pretend these two expeditions did happen. I'm trying to point out that according to his own sources, there were only 2 expeditions across the ocean. Yet somehow, someone came on at least a 3rd. expedition, to give the news to the Egyptians that Atlantis had been destroyed.

[Qoais]

Can you explain to me why the women here get all excited when some skeptic guy gives you kudos?

A compliment is a compliment (It's a long story!)

[cormac mac airt]

Thanks Harte.

One of the other things I noticed too was that Jim Allen says the war didn't have to be launched from S. America since they held sway over the western end of the Med. Now in Francis Bacon's writings, which Jim Allen quotes, he mentions that only two expeditions went out and that they never came back. How did the communications system work then? And - how did Francis Bacon know these things?

I mean if the one expedition went out and made it to Gibraltar but never came back, I would think, as I've said to Jim Allen, or somewhere, that the men on the ship would have realized they wouldn't find their way back home, or the ship was damaged or whatever, and they stayed in the area and became locals. Marrying into the local peoples of the day. Would they still be considered "a power from outside the Pillars"? Since no one came back to S. America, how did Plato know Atlantis sank, if it was in Bolivia? And according to Francis Bacon, or Jim Allen, the other expedition ended up in the Persian Gulf and never came back either. Now let's just pretend these two expeditions did happen. I'm trying to point out that according to his own sources, there were only 2 expeditions across the ocean. Yet somehow, someone came on at least a 3rd. expedition, to give the news to the Egyptians that Atlantis had been destroyed.

The obvious answer is that Francis Bacon couldn't have know, since nobody returned to tell the tale. Besides, who are they going to tell, considering that neither the european countries (as such), nor their languages as we know them, existed at the time Plato claims Atlantis was destroyed.

Also, for the argument of Atlantis' army being held somewhere in the Mediterranean in preparation for the war, how does he explain this from Plato's Critias:

You might try asking Mr. Allen about this and an explaination for why there is no evidence for any of it, regardless of hemisphere:

According to Plato, that would have included, from Atlantis:

1) An estimated 60,000 leaders who had to provide a minimum of two heavy armed soldiers, two slingers, three stone-shooters and three javelin-men, who were light-armed, and four sailors to make up the complement of twelve hundred ships, APIECE. Thats 840,000 warriors per leader or 50 BILLION, 400 MILLION SOLDIERS

60,000 leaders providing (apiece):

120,000 heavy armed soldiers

120,000 slingers

180,000 stone shooters

180,000 javelin-men

240,000 sailors

840,000 military total

2) 1200 Ships

3) 10,000 chariots (which didnt exist in the Americas) Earliest evidence being in Mesopotamia c.3rd Millenium BC

4) 20,000+ horses (which didnt exist in the Americas until the arrival of the Spanish)

cormac

Edited January 6, 2010 by cormac mac airt

[Qoais]

Well, since they didn't have to mount the war from S. America because they already held sway over the Western end of the Med., your question is moot - according to Mr. Allen. But I fail to see how one expedition had enough men to overtake all the western Med. in the first place. Even if it got there.

Mr. Allen's response when I told him I was a bit gaga and had to go slowly!!

OK, lets go over this again. Bolivia is a country founded in 1825 when they threw off Spanish rule and called it “Bolivia” in honour of Simon Bolivar who helped liberate them from European rule.

Bolivia largely comprises two distinct areas, the high upland plateau known as the Altiplano and the lower regions which include the Beni.

The higher regions before the Spanish Conquest about 500 years ago were part of the Inca empire which the Incas called “Tahuantinsuyo” meaning “Land of the Four Quarters.”

They divided their empire into four regions and the region along the north-eastern side of the Andes was called “Antisuyo”. This means “kingdom of the Antis”.

The Antis were a tribe of fierce warriors who lived on the eastern slopes of the Andes and Antis is also the Quechua name, or variation of it, for the word for “copper”.

So the last native rulers actually used a name for their country which included virtually half of the word representing the name of the place we are looking for.

In this part of the Andes, there are basically three native languages and one European language. Quechua is the language of the Incas who came to take over the whole region.

Aymara is the language of the “Kolla” peoples who lived in the more southern regions including around Lake Poopo

And Uru/Puquina is the language of the Uru people who are thought to be amongst the oldest original peoples of the Americas and who lived on floating islands with a water based culture all the way from Lake Titicaca to Lake Poopo.

The “atl” prefix is part of the Nahuatl language found amongst the peoples of Mexico.

Atlantis is the name for all of the continent of America including North America, Middle America and South America.

The part which Plato’s description applies to is South America and a region of South America centred on the Altiplano.

The original nhabitants of that region were overcome by earthquakes and floods so any survivors had to leave that region and settle elsewhere. They could not live on their homelands because they were under water for a considerable time.

Sir Francis Bacon tells us in “the New Atlantis” the people were destroyed and cut off by a long inundation,

“a particular Deluge or Inundation. Those countries having, at that day, far greater rivers, and far higher mountains, to pour down waters, than any part of the Old World. But it is true, that the same inundation was not deep; not past forty feet in most places from the ground. So that although it destroyed man and beast generally, yet some few wild inhabitants of the wood escaped. For as for men, although they had buildings in many places, higher than the depth of the water, yet that inundation, though it were shallow, had a long continuance: whereby they of the Vale, that were not drowned, perished for want of food, and other things necessary.”

He also mentions that the survivors left the mountains…”and having in their mountain regions been used to clothe themselves with the skins of tigers, bears and great hairy goats, when after they came down into the valley, they found the intolerable heats which are there,”….

So it seems probable that survivors set out from that region and after wandering around founded settlements and started all over again elsewhere. Perhaps they helped found the early “Olmec” or “Aztec” civilisations. It is noticeable that the Aztecs choose a similar environment in Mexico, to the Altiplano in Bolivia, it was equally an Altiplano or highland plateau, they similarly bound plots of reeds together to form islands and they created their city in a lake.

We don’t know what language the original inhabitants of Atlantis spoke, only that the present inhabitants of the Altiplano speak the above mentioned languages.

But “Atl” meaning “water” is a very relevant word to describe South America in general and the Altiplano in particular.

In the wet season large tracts of Amazonia are under water.

Large parts of the Beni region of Bolivia also suffer from flooding.

Large parts of the Altiplano suffer from flooding in the wet season.

The Uru peoples had a water based culture.

The Olmecs also had a water based culture.

What are considered as useless swamplands by Europeans were used by both Olmecs and Uru cultures who created canals and raised beds for cultivation, also they deliberated flooded areas of land because that then attracted fish and birds.

You can see a picture of remains of Uru houses amongst the water here www.realatlantis.com/chipayacanalsgallery.htm

So “Atl” although not in present day use in Bolivia still is a very relevant word there, in fact when the Aymara peoples proposed a new name for their country, they thought of calling it “umasuyo”, “uma” meaning “water” in the Aymara language.

So at the end of the day we have to try and use a little bit of imagination and deduction when piecing back together the story of Atlantis and I’m glad to see at last you have come up with something positive – the piece about the “camellones” in Beni – it would be much more helpful to the entire Atlantis “project” if people started working in the same direction together instead of pulling always in different directions.

There was quite a variety of different cultivation systems on the Altiplano, “camellones” or “sukka kollus” – the raised plots with their surrounding water channels were one, terracing was another, construction of long mounds and circular piles of stones which retained heat another, collections of artificial ponds joined with small channels another and the system of parallel canal at regular intervals yet another.

Well I hope that sheds more light on it, and we don’t know what language the people spoke when they first gave the story to the Egyptians but we do know that both “atl” and “antis” are native American words, also that there are many place names in Mexico which have similar sounding names such as Cuicatlan, Miahuatlan and Mazatlan – so the “Atlan” part there again is present – I note from online Nahuatl dictionary that atla means “in the water” and atlan

means “by the water” so using native America languages “Atlantis” is a perfect name to describe what we call “South America” and the cultures on the Altiplano, not forgetting “Atlas” holding up the sky since the Altiplano is where Heaven meets Earth.

All the best,

Jim Allen

I did not appreciate the comment in the third last paragraph but I see where he's coming from. Instead of always criticizing, he wants everyone that believes in Atlantis to work together to work out the kinks. I thought I was trying to do that

[cormac mac airt]

Well, since they didn't have to mount the war from S. America because they already held sway over the Western end of the Med., your question is moot - according to Mr. Allen.

But it doesn’t matter whether they mounted the war from S. America or not, all the materiel for the war with Athens and Egypt had to be within the Mediterranean to be of any use to their wartime efforts. That’s 50 Billion, 400 Million soldiers PLUS EQUIPMENT. Just in human numbers, according to Plato, that’s nearly 7X the Current Global Population.

Also, to “hold sway” would indicate that there was a defensive presence (of Native Americans?) in the western Mediterranean before and during the war. Why is there no evidence of this?

Atlantis is the name for all of the continent of America including North America, Middle America and South America.

Yet is NEVER used together to represent a place-name in either of the Americas. Interesting here how the name “Atlantis” is used for both continents, but the description is ONLY for South America.

The original inhabitants of that region were overcome by earthquakes and floods so any survivors had to leave that region and settle elsewhere.

They would have had the rest of 2 whole continents in which to settle, why would they have needed to leave for the Mediterranean? Also, why is there no physical or genetic evidence for a back-migration of peoples from Bolivia to other areas in the Americas nor evidence of immigration to the Eastern Hemisphere due to such an event?

So at the end of the day we have to try and use a little bit of imagination and deduction when piecing back together the story of Atlantis and I’m glad to see at last you have come up with something positive – the piece about the “camellones” in Beni – it would be much more helpful to the entire Atlantis “project” if people started working in the same direction together instead of pulling always in different directions.

The whole purpose of the Atlantis project is to prove it existed.

Instead of always criticizing, he wants everyone that believes in Atlantis to work together to work out the kinks.

Read: He doesn’t want to hear real answers about why it didn’t exist, he only wants to hear creative ideas for why it might have.

cormac

[Qoais]

Cormac, I don't know where you are getting your numbers from. Plato said that the land was divided into 60,000 lots, and from each was supplied the following:

As to the population, each of the lots in the plain had to find a leader for the men who were fit for military service, and the size of a lot was a square of ten stadia each way, and the total number of all the lots was sixty thousand.

So right from the start, we have sixty thousand men (60,000) who were leaders.

The leader was required to furnish for the war the sixth portion of a war-chariot, so as to make up a total of ten thousand chariots; also two horses and riders for them,

So that's 2 more men per lot so we have 60,000 lots X 2 = 120,000 more men. So now we have 120,000 + 60,000 = 180,000

and a pair of chariot-horses without a seat, accompanied by a horseman

So that's another man per lot X's 60,000. So now we have 180,000 + 60,000 = 240,000 men

and having a charioteer who stood behind the man-at-arms to guide the two horses

Each lot provided a 6th of a chariot - 60,000 Divided by 6 = 10,000 chariots.

A man at arms and a charioteer each = 10,000 each = 20,000 So we have now 240,000 + 20,000 = 280,000 men.

;

also, he was bound to furnish two heavy armed soldiers,

2 x 60,000 = 120,000 280,000 + 120,000 = 400,000 men

two slingers,

2 X 60,000 = 120,000 more men so we now have 400,000 + 120,000 = 520,000 men

three stone-shooters

3 X 60,000 = 180,000 + 520,000 = 700,000

three javelin-men

3 X 60,000 = 180,000 + 700,00 = 880,000

and four sailors

4 X 60,000 = 240,000 + 880,000 = 1,120,000 men

[cormac mac airt]

Actually, I didn't take the charioteers or men-at-arms into account, so was actually low. Here are the calculations according to Plato:

1 leader per lot - 60,000 lots = 60,000 men

Each one of the 60,000 leaders furnish:

2 horseback riders = 120,000 riders

1 horseman on foot with shield = 60,000 horsemen on foot

1 charioteer behind the man-at-arms = 60,000 charioteers

2 heavily armed soldiers = 120,000 heavily armed soldiers

2 slingers = 120,000 slingers

3 stone shooters = 180,000 stone shooters

3 javelin men = 180,000 light armed javelin men

4 sailors - 240,000 sailors

60,000

120,000

60,000

60,000

120,000

180,000

180,000

240,000

1,020,000 total furnished Per Leader

X 60,000 leaders

61,200,000,000 Total furnished

+60,000 original number of leaders =

61,200,060,000 TOTAL

Now if this doesn't make the story ridiculous, just by itself, I don't know what does.

cormac

[Qoais]

Actually, I didn't take the charioteers or men-at-arms into account, so was actually low. Here are the calculations according to Plato:

1 leader per lot - 60,000 lots = 60,000 men

Each one of the 60,000 leaders furnish:

2 horseback riders = 120,000 riders

1 horseman on foot with shield = 60,000 horsemen on foot

1 charioteer behind the man-at-arms = 60,000 charioteers

2 heavily armed soldiers = 120,000 heavily armed soldiers

2 slingers = 120,000 slingers

3 stone shooters = 180,000 stone shooters

3 javelin men = 180,000 light armed javelin men

4 sailors - 240,000 sailors

60,000

120,000

60,000

60,000

120,000

180,000

180,000

240,000

1,020,000 total furnished Per Leader

X 60,000 leaders

61,200,000,000 Total furnished

+60,000 original number of leaders =

61,200,060,000 TOTAL

Now if this doesn't make the story ridiculous, just by itself, I don't know what does.

cormac

Cormac - there's 60,000 leaders - you've already done the multiplication at the start. You can't do it at the start of the count, then again at the end of the count, and then add in once again, the first 60,000.

In other words lets say we work with just one lot at a time then.

Each lot had --- 1 leader

which supplied

2 riders

1 foot

1 charioteer

2 soldiers

2 slingers

3 stoners

3 javelin

4 sailors

18 men plus himself = 19 men per lot. x 60,000 lots = 1,140,000 men

[cormac mac airt]

Cormac - there's 60,000 leaders - you've already done the multiplication at the start. You can't do it at the start of the count, then again at the end of the count, and then add in once again, the first 60,000.

In other words lets say we work with just one lot at a time then.

Each lot had --- 1 leader

which supplied

2 riders

1 foot

1 charioteer

2 soldiers

2 slingers

3 stoners

3 javelin

4 sailors

18 men plus himself = 19 men per lot. x 60,000 lots = 1,140,000 men

Yeah, you're right. Guess I got stuck on the number 60,000. Still makes it ridiculously huge considering the times and locations. And yet, there's no evidence for any of it.

cormac