Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Atlantis


stevemagegod
 Share

Recommended Posts

the paleolithic mesolithic transition took place where? where were they making ceramics by 25000bc? not the levant. and weaving? and starch coated grindstones are not found in paleolithic europe? does it not all come to an end before the levant even starts? europeans couldn't even chip a decent spearpoint till the starcevo come back.

and the copper industry was born on the danube. the microscopic amount of microscopic beads of copper at catal hyuk that were said to be the birth of the copper industry are now thought to be from burning paint are they not?

The transition did not happen everywhere at the same time. While in Anatolia it is considered to be 11.000 to 9.000 BC in Greece it is considered to be 8000- 7250 BC and in Germany it is considered to be somewhere between 5000-6000 BC (sse Detlef Gronenborn, Beyond the models: Neolithisation in Central Europe, Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. 144 (2007), pp. 73-98 (87)). On a Nicobar Island (Great Nicobar near India) the Mesolithic has ended in the 19th century by the colonization of Britain.

These time periods are not defined by a universal starting or a cut off age but by the time a first group reached a certain technological level within a geographic constraint. And yes, there were cultures in the stone age while others were in the bronze age. Just as to this day there are cultures living in the bronze age (see Papua New Guinea) while most of the planet is in the atomic age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The transition did not happen everywhere at the same time. While in Anatolia it is considered to be 11.000 to 9.000 BC in Greece it is considered to be 8000- 7250 BC and in Germany it is considered to be somewhere between 5000-6000 BC (sse Detlef Gronenborn, Beyond the models: Neolithisation in Central Europe, Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. 144 (2007), pp. 73-98 (87)). On a Nicobar Island (Great Nicobar near India) the Mesolithic has ended in the 19th century by the colonization of Britain.

These time periods are not defined by a universal starting or a cut off age but by the time a first group reached a certain technological level within a geographic constraint. And yes, there were cultures in the stone age while others were in the bronze age. Just as to this day there are cultures living in the bronze age (see Papua New Guinea) while most of the planet is in the atomic age.

ah you mean the mesolithic neolithic transition. i mean the transition before that. the paleolithic mesolithic.

at the end of the ice age the europeans displaced by the flood went to anatolia so the maps say. your neolithic is simply man choosing [or luckily finding] a genetically deficient [2 defects] wheat. it doesn't mean the process of living on grown food started then right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ah you mean the mesolithic neolithic transition. i mean the transition before that. the paleolithic mesolithic.

at the end of the ice age the europeans displaced by the flood went to anatolia so the maps say. your neolithic is simply man choosing [or luckily finding] a genetically deficient [2 defects] wheat. it doesn't mean the process of living on grown food started then right?

Wow, are we throwing a lot of pieces together. Good if you want to make a cocktail, real bad if you want to know what you are drinking.

First, there is no evidence of "the flood". There were localized floods with the melting of the ice but over a period of at least 5000 years.

Second, the evidence that the Mesolithic people of Anatolia came from Europe is shaky, at least the planting variety. The hunting variety, as seen with Gobeliki Tepe most probably came from the north.

The first evidence of agriculture is found somewhere on the southern border of Egypt, now desert. The evidence shows that from there it spread over the Sinai all along the Fertile Crescent into Anatolia and India (Charles E. Redman (1978). Rise of Civilization: From Early Hunters to Urban Society in the Ancient Near East. San Francisco: Freeman). Wherein we have to say that maybe (the jury is still out on that) they all were beaten by a thousand years by the Mexicans. But in any case, our agriculture comes from North Africa, not from Europe.

The oldest pottery did not come from Europe either but from China while the oldest evidence of weaving came from Georgia. If we take these as indicatives for the start of the Mesolithic (which by definition is the transition time between the Paleo and Neolithic) then we have to say that in China it happened 18.000 years ago and in Georgia 34.000 years ago.

And now, in view that it is 4:30 in the morning around here I must bid all patience for the next response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, are we throwing a lot of pieces together. Good if you want to make a cocktail, real bad if you want to know what you are drinking.

First, there is no evidence of "the flood". There were localized floods with the melting of the ice but over a period of at least 5000 years.

Second, the evidence that the Mesolithic people of Anatolia came from Europe is shaky, at least the planting variety. The hunting variety, as seen with Gobeliki Tepe most probably came from the north.

The first evidence of agriculture is found somewhere on the southern border of Egypt, now desert. The evidence shows that from there it spread over the Sinai all along the Fertile Crescent into Anatolia and India (Charles E. Redman (1978). Rise of Civilization: From Early Hunters to Urban Society in the Ancient Near East. San Francisco: Freeman). Wherein we have to say that maybe (the jury is still out on that) they all were beaten by a thousand years by the Mexicans. But in any case, our agriculture comes from North Africa, not from Europe.

The oldest pottery did not come from Europe either but from China while the oldest evidence of weaving came from Georgia. If we take these as indicatives for the start of the Mesolithic (which by definition is the transition time between the Paleo and Neolithic) then we have to say that in China it happened 18.000 years ago and in Georgia 34.000 years ago.

And now, in view that it is 4:30 in the morning around here I must bid all patience for the next response.

i'll go with the hunter gatherers. people migrating generally don't farm. the grindstones they had back home would be useful with defecto wheat.

evidence sketchy? what is the evidence thats sketchy? you mean this from a current, orthodox and credible scientific source?

aur1.jpg

quote me something that says its sketchy. i would like to read that.

i hate to say it but wiki ceramics and weaving. ceramics [not pots] are dolni vestonice and weaving is right there too.

Edited by cern
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the fact is that up until the generation that found they could make money and an ego by foofooing their helpless dead peers, scientists and historians certainly did believe there was an atlantis. one reason they believed it was because they actually had a better understanding of the geography of the world at 10bc [in some cases believe it or not]. look at maps published in 1920. look at maps published in 1990. there are new maps in 2012. they are the same as 1920.

I don't know of any credible, modern, vetted scientist who believes in Atlantis. The same for historians. I'm not talking about 10 BCE, when most people living on one side of the world didn't even know there was another side of the world. I understand there were plenty of highly intelligent people back then, and people were exercising practices that approached science, yet at the same time they enmeshed science with shamanism.

I guess I should just ask if you know of modern scientists or historians who actively postulate that Atlantis was a real place. I'm not talking about some half-baked kook who set up a website to promote his fringe whimsies, but a real scientist or historian employed by a credible institution. Enough said on that.

I need not try to debate maps. If you think a map published in 1920 is more precise and accurate than a map published in 2012, I'm not interested in taking it any further with you. No need to dwell on that. I'll leave it to you and questionmark.

you're egypt heavy. where were black topped pots invented? are they important in the study of egypt? would you say you should be able to find them in atlantis many many hundreds or a even a thousand years before egypt if atlantis existed? and the figurines? etc? just curious.

Yes, I'm heavy on Egypt. As I'm sure you know, part of the Atlantis story involves Egypt, yet it is completely mythical on all fronts. But that's another story.

I'm not sure where you're going with your question about black-topped ceramics, but I like the question. Most people don't appreciate the importance of studying material culture, and as hard as I and others might be on you, I appreciate this kind of scientific approach.

I certainly can't claim that black-topped pots were "invented" in Egypt because I can't claim to be familiar with the material culture of all societies the world over. However, black-topped red ware such as this one are common in many prehistoric contexts in Upper Egypt, at grave-sites in particular. They are important in the study of prehistoric Egypt, certainly. You would not see them in abundance, however, before the fifth millennium BCE. Plato places the saga of Atlantis in the tenth millennium BCE (around 9600 BCE, to be specific), which is absurd on the face of it. But that's also another story.

I can't say much on figurines unless you're more precise. Different sorts of figurines date to different periods.

Nothing has ever been found in archaeological excavations of the Mediterranean world or the greater Near East that would lead an archaeologist to state: "This is Atlantean." There is no such material culture, so I don't know how comparing Egyptian artifacts would be useful. While there is definitely cross-cultural transference, material culture is identifiable to Egypt as it is to the Levant as it is to Asia Minor as it is to Greece, et cetera. But seeing as how nothing "Atlantean" exists in the real world of the archaeological record, I don't know how I can respond to your question authoritatively. Please let me know if I've misunderstood your intent in asking it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know of any credible, modern, vetted scientist who believes in Atlantis. The same for historians. I'm not talking about 10 BCE, when most people living on one side of the world didn't even know there was another side of the world. I understand there were plenty of highly intelligent people back then, and people were exercising practices that approached science, yet at the same time they enmeshed science with shamanism.

I guess I should just ask if you know of modern scientists or historians who actively postulate that Atlantis was a real place. I'm not talking about some half-baked kook who set up a website to promote his fringe whimsies, but a real scientist or historian employed by a credible institution. Enough said on that.

I need not try to debate maps. If you think a map published in 1920 is more precise and accurate than a map published in 2012, I'm not interested in taking it any further with you. No need to dwell on that. I'll leave it to you and questionmark.

i'll read the other bit afterwards.

the first open lecture at sgem2011 was about the location of atlantis. i know real currently employed government academic geologists and university archaeologists actually physically working on it.

off to read the other bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm heavy on Egypt. As I'm sure you know, part of the Atlantis story involves Egypt, yet it is completely mythical on all fronts. But that's another story.

I'm not sure where you're going with your question about black-topped ceramics, but I like the question. Most people don't appreciate the importance of studying material culture, and as hard as I and others might be on you, I appreciate this kind of scientific approach.

I certainly can't claim that black-topped pots were "invented" in Egypt because I can't claim to be familiar with the material culture of all societies the world over. However, black-topped red ware such as this one are common in many prehistoric contexts in Upper Egypt, at grave-sites in particular. They are important in the study of prehistoric Egypt, certainly. You would not see them in abundance, however, before the fifth millennium BCE. Plato places the saga of Atlantis in the tenth millennium BCE (around 9600 BCE, to be specific), which is absurd on the face of it. But that's also another story.

I can't say much on figurines unless you're more precise. Different sorts of figurines date to different periods.

Nothing has ever been found in archaeological excavations of the Mediterranean world or the greater Near East that would lead an archaeologist to state: "This is Atlantean." There is no such material culture, so I don't know how comparing Egyptian artifacts would be useful. While there is definitely cross-cultural transference, material culture is identifiable to Egypt as it is to the Levant as it is to Asia Minor as it is to Greece, et cetera. But seeing as how nothing "Atlantean" exists in the real world of the archaeological record, I don't know how I can respond to your question authoritatively. Please let me know if I've misunderstood your intent in asking it.

for the egyptians to have the story of atlantis the best case scenario would be to show that people from the proposed atlantis came to egypt with their unique material culture right? if they kick started the whole egyptian thing, all the better. black topped pottery according to the british museum marks the start of it all. we check the badari, naqada and maadi right? its not alot of material. must start with badari.

you say there is no atlantis in the pyramid texts or coffin texts etc. i disagree.

the structures in and layout of the duat are written about in great detail. its not a mystery what exactly should be there.

ps. khufu seems to have gone looking for the duat. westcar papyrus.

Edited by cern
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish people would get over it, Atlantis has been found.

http://www.hartford.edu/daily/article/view/10082

The Spanish site has not been shown definitively to be Atlantis: in fact the majority of archaeologists think that the idea is absurd.

I may not be the most widely agreed-with person here, but I think that anyone and everyone who is up-to-date in the archaeological field will have to agree with me on this. After all, it is the mainstream view I'm supporting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think you're thinking way to broadly. I don't think there ever was, otherwise I am positive we would've found it by now. thumbsup.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a point... However, is your location a plainly distinct continent? Plato speaks of both a continent and various islands--the Greek makes it quite clear.

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back and answer this.

Your other quote in Post #1417

Have you read it in Greek? The distinction between the continent (ήπειρος) and the island (νήσους) is explicit.

OK, so does Plato use the word CONTINENT? No.

The word continent

From the 16th century the English noun continent was derived from the term continent land, meaning continuous or connected land[46] and translated from the Latin terra continens.[47] The noun was used to mean "a connected or continuous tract of land" or mainland.[46] It was not applied only to very large areas of landin the 17th century, references were made to the continents (or mainlands) of Isle of Man, Ireland and Wales and in 1745 to Sumatra.[46] The word continent was used in translating Greek and Latin writings about the three "parts" of the world, although in the original languages no word of exactly the same meaning as continent was used.

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

Which makes you (me) wonder what word Plato used or if indeed he actually said these parts in these words...

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; 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 was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back and answer this.

Your other quote in Post #1417

OK, so does Plato use the word CONTINENT? No.

The word continent

From the 16th century the English noun continent was derived from the term continent land, meaning continuous or connected land[46] and translated from the Latin terra continens.[47] The noun was used to mean "a connected or continuous tract of land" or mainland.[46] It was not applied only to very large areas of land—in the 17th century, references were made to the continents (or mainlands) of Isle of Man, Ireland and Wales and in 1745 to Sumatra.[46] The word continent was used in translating Greek and Latin writings about the three "parts" of the world, although in the original languages no word of exactly the same meaning as continent was used.

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

Which makes you (me) wonder what word Plato used or if indeed he actually said these parts in these words...

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; 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 was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html

In any case, the words are clearly distinct: continent and island. The above translation fails to make that distinction on multiple points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, the words are clearly distinct: continent and island. The above translation fails to make that distinction on multiple points.

I agree there is a distinction but the word Plato used would not be continent so it doesn't have to be a 'continent'.

What continent SURROUNDS THE TRUE OCEAN? How does a continent surround the true ocean? What he might mean is that the opposite continent is the opposite side of the continent - which in his day was not nec. one of the 3 parts but the whole mass of Europe, Asia and Libya (Africa) - so he meant exactly what Columbus did - and in fact Columbus read Aristotle - the idea of sailing out of the Pillars and reaching the opposite side of the continent - that is Asia, which Columbus was convinced he did. Another option is they actually sailed around Africa and came out at the area of the Persian Gulf. They (Atlanteans) also had rule over the whole island and parts of the CONTINENT - again, this reference imo is the the whole continental landmass of Europe and Asia and this is where they also had rule over.

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; 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 was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree their is a distinction but the word Plato used would not be continent so it doesn't have to be a 'continent'.

What continent SURROUNDS THE TRUE OCEAN? How does a continent surround the true ocean? What he might mean is that the opposite continent is the opposite side of the continent - which in his day was not nec. one of the 3 parts but the whole mass of Europe, Asia and Libya (Africa) - so he meant exactly what Columbus did - and in fact Columbus read Aristotle - the idea of sailing out of the Pillars and reaching the opposite side of the continent - that is Asia, which Columbus was convinced he did. They (Atlanteans) also had rule over the whole island and parts of the CONTINENT - again, this reference imo is the the whole continental landmass of Europe and Asia and this is where they also had rule over.

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; 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 was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia

Each of the "island"s I have underlined below are in fact the same word as is used in the following lines as "continent". Just as a fact (thought I would better clarify what I was attempting to state in previous posts).

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; 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 was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia

Edited by Arbitran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look guys.. I'll fix this problem for you.. since its been going on for a couple of years now..

Atlantis was Australia..

It didnt sink into the ocean..

It was over run by Drop Bears and its buildings were kicked down by Kangaroo's and Emu's..

Argument solved :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each of the "island"s I have underlined below are in fact the same word as is used in the following lines as "continent". Just as a fact (thought I would better clarify what I was attempting to state in previous posts).

So, it's better to not take it all word for word imo.

The word may have been more like nesos, meaning island or peninsula, the Iberian Peninsular is like Africa, it's only joined by a small neck, also like the Peloponnese (Greek form of Pelop's nesos - these can be called islands or great peninsulas.

Polynesia 1766, Latinization of Fr. polynésie, coined 1756 by de Brosses from Gk. polys "many" (see poly-) + nesos "island."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Polynesia

Look guys.. I'll fix this problem for you.. since its been going on for a couple of years now..

Atlantis was Australia..

It didnt sink into the ocean..

It was over run by Drop Bears and its buildings were kicked down by Kangaroo's and Emu's..

Argument solved :)

lol

Yeah, and I was just thinkin' it's an island AND a continent! :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, and I was just thinkin' it's an island AND a continent! :w00t:

Yup.. Largest Island Continent in the world mate :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it's better to not take it all word for word imo.

The word may have been more like nesos, meaning island or peninsula, the Iberian Peninsular is like Africa, it's only joined by a small neck, also like the Peloponnese (Greek form of Pelop's nesos - these can be called islands or great peninsulas.

Polynesia 1766, Latinization of Fr. polynésie, coined 1756 by de Brosses from Gk. polys "many" (see poly-) + nesos "island."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Polynesia

Actually, the word used is "ἤπειρον", or "ēpeiron". It is of course totally distinct from the word used for "island" here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say Arbitran:

Another thing: between that plain in the Bolivian Andes and the Atlantic Ocean lies the largest tropical jungle in the world.

OK, so maybe these South American 'Atlantians' sailed all along the Amazon and its tributaries to the Atlantic, then crossed the Atlantic, entered the Mediterranean and finally started a war with the Athenians.

Or, they went to the Pacific coast, sailed south to Cape Horn, and then crossed the South Atlantic, and so on.

I would like to see some proof of ancient (= 11,000 years old) South American boats that could sail that distance.

You found any proof of those boats yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where's that plain that was on the island that submerged but isn't actually submerged now then Arbitan?

A Googlemaps link would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where's that plain that was on the island that submerged but isn't actually submerged now then Arbitan?

A Googlemaps link would be nice.

Here you can read all about it: http://www.atlantisbolivia.org/atlantisboliviapart1.htm

It's the Bolivian Altiplano.

.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be wrong but he seems to be saying that the formation of the island of Atlantis is what ultimately caused the rotation of the African plate. I have watched a couple online animations and in each it showed that Africa was rotating from the beginning. If true it refutes his supposition.

He shows such an animation, but that was when Africa and South America broke apart. He says that after that Africa moved north and that what he thinks became Atlantis was formed 15 (?) millions of years ago. Then Africa again started rotating further, and bye bye Atlantis (in combination with the post-glacial isostatic rebound).

Something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the word used is "ἤπειρον", or "ēpeiron". It is of course totally distinct from the word used for "island" here.

Margin is a part of any of the place, for example, of the sea, and so also got its name. Sea Coasts of the sea as it were the lowest. [43] entry and the mouth separating it from the going forth of the said of the river in the sea. The container is connected the land of perpetual and not in any discrete the sea, which the Greeks call EPEIRON.

http://sites.google.com/site/theetymologies/complete-text/liber-xiv

Not exactly sure what it's saying though...

On page 190 of this article the word is described as being Greek for 'BOUNDLESS'.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:raQ2S5M7XKkJ:jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/363/363_createschrad.pdf+epeiron+greek+meaning&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShsHx4uc4s36zD7KCcp9QEsuJDbu5HIJDBblJw0K2K0xzP3Z-TNCyRbdkCpnNTYW_oQcmQaAI-nLXC1CcgEmOpCNleQzPr2ubx8gUAWz7lCp8gK8uJpmXsKpxphkyM_y5XegHJW&sig=AHIEtbTXGTGhiPWsLaLzbdKNEeiGuW3vzA

It's a docs quick view link, if it doesn't open, let me know.

So, it's probably more like this...

and the surrounding land may be most truly called boundless.

NOT and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'll go with the hunter gatherers. people migrating generally don't farm. the grindstones they had back home would be useful with defecto wheat.

evidence sketchy? what is the evidence thats sketchy? you mean this from a current, orthodox and credible scientific source?

aur1.jpg

quote me something that says its sketchy. i would like to read that.

i hate to say it but wiki ceramics and weaving. ceramics [not pots] are dolni vestonice and weaving is right there too.

It is sketchy that agriculture originated in Europe, first the climatological problems, second the earliest evidence we have is from southern Egypt.

Dolní Věstonice is an interesting place yet certainly not an indicator of a greatly advanced civilization. It is more indicative of an artistic advancement and the establishing of a believe system then for its technological advances.

The main indicator of the Mesolithic is the tool technology, the transition from the chipped stone to the polished stone tool. or this

doubaxe.jpg

and this

126c.jpg

But I am still not getting why this relates to Atlantis, except that it is in the general time as indicated by Plato

Link to comment
Share on other sites

first you said puzzlers research on cadiz was good... i pointed out that cadiz didn't meet all the requirements you were requiring of the other guy.

then you went on to say

"Plato's description places Atlantis overlooking what is today Cadiz, Spain"

those are your words.

i know exactly what to expect from you don't i. nothing at all of value.

Glad to see you made some attept to correct your original miscomprehension of my post.

"Of value?"

You mean nothing to help you realize your fantasy of Atlantis actually existing sometime in the distant past?

Then you would be correct.

You want something of value? Note:

now of course it could be argued that the "atlantic" is not correct. gadiera and the pillars of hercules are on okeanos potamos in herodotus and okeanos was not the atlantic until after plato died.

From Herodotus' "Histories":

Now the Caspian Sea is apart by itself, not having connection with the other Sea: for all that Sea which the Hellenes navigate, and the Sea beyond the Pillars, which is called Atlantis, and the Erythraian Sea are in fact all one, but the Caspian is separate and lies apart by itself.

Source: Herodotus' "History," Book 1, passage 203

There. Now you have learned something about what happens when you make false claims - there are some people here that can tell you don't know what you're talking about. As you can see (I hope,) it was the Atlantic (Anglicised version of Atlantis) to Herodotus as well.

"The Atlantis Sea" means "the Sea of Atlas," who was thought to be holding the sky up in the west.

Note that the Atlantic is west of the Med.

Also, Plato's claim that part of Atlantis was near Cadiz indicates that, according to Plato, Atlantis was in what we now refer to as the Atlantic Ocean, and on the Eastern side of it, at that.

However, as I said earlier, Atlantis never actually existed.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.