Atlantis

[The Puzzler]

He does:

lol y'know, as I logged off and headed to bed, I thought, hang on, I think HE DOES mention Atlantis, I recalled it now, I borrowed the book from the library about a year ago.

[questionmark]

does archaeology excite you still? do new finds

like this

that are unexpected really get your juices flowing anymore?

Nothing excites me about speculation. Bring me the evidence and we can talk.

[cern]

Nothing excites me about speculation. Bring me the evidence and we can talk.

well if we go by mythology there should/could be a great big city near the ruins of atlantis. built by poseidon while apollo tended sheep. near it should be a giant round temple to apollo. there should also be a big cowpen belonging to geryon somewhere too.

would you agree?

there is a city thats bigger than rome there. the article by anthony harding has a question mark in the title meaning they are very surprised. i have talked to harding. he is very surprised.

after that i was going to show you the giant round temple, then the pen of geryon and then some canals and then some ports and them some gridded up farmland etc.

[questionmark]

well if we go by mythology there should/could be a great big city near the ruins of atlantis. built by poseidon while apollo tended sheep. near it should be a giant round temple to apollo. there should also be a big cowpen belonging to geryon somewhere too.

would you agree?

there is a city thats bigger than rome there. the article by anthony harding has a question mark in the title meaning they are very surprised. i have talked to harding. he is very surprised.

after that i was going to show you the giant round temple, then the pen of geryon and then some canals and then some ports and them some gridded up farmland etc.

Well, if you need fictitious characters to get exited, may I suggest a comic book?

There was no Poseidon, there was no Apollo and the only sheep I see are those who fall for this rigmarole.

I doubt there is a city bigger than Rome there, because if it was every archeologist in the world would have written something about it and would be digging there instead of an article whose title ends in a question mark in Antiquity Journal, a journal that publishes about everything they can lay their hands on without peer review. Including highly speculative articles about bronze age cities that were bigger than Rome (which in the bronze age was a two cow settlement).

[cern]

Well, if you need fictitious characters to get exited, may I suggest a comic book?

There was no Poseidon, there was no Apollo and the only sheep I see are those who fall for this rigmarole.

I doubt there is a city bigger than Rome there, because if it was every archeologist in the world would have written something about it and would be digging there instead of an article whose title ends in a question mark in Antiquity Journal, a journal that publishes about everything they can lay their hands on without peer review. Including highly speculative articles about bronze age cities that were bigger than Rome (which in the bronze age was a two cow settlement).

remember i said science had never been to the sea. you can see that 1800hectare city clear as day from the main highway in western romania. the article is from antiquity mag.uk. open it up instead of saying it doesn't exist. harding is the guy that canned the bosnian pyramid scheme in his role as president of the european archaeological society.

[kmt_sesh]

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.

I know this post is from much earlier but this discussion is frantic, and it's hard to keep up. I wanted to return to it.

But yes, such ceramics mark the beginnings of a more settled people. By this point the Egyptians had long been tending animals and had begun practicing intensive agriculture, so we see the very start of a material culture of peoples who've given up hunting-gathering for a more settled existence.

But why would we assume that black-topped ware had to be "brought" to prehistoric inhabitants of the Nile Valley? There's nothing technologically advanced about such pottery. Anyone could make them, which is why they've been found in such abundance. Many graves were packed with at least a few examples. Nile mud shaped into a vessel and baked in the ashes of a fire--this sort of thing didn't need to be taught to the prehistoric people residing there. The D-ware is a lot more distinctive and technologically refined, given the marl clay that required higher temperatures to fire. And yet the D-ware was decorated with motifs and images germane to the Nile Valley. The Egyptians developed this stuff on their own.

There's no evidence that an outside force "kickstarted" the Egyptians. They were more than capable of achieving their cultural developments on their own merits.

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.

The Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts are purely funerary in nature. The Duat, in fact, is one of the commonest terms in ancient Egyptian (dwAt) for the afterlife. In the Pyramid Texts this pertains really only to the journeys the souls of the kings (and a handful of queens) would take upon death, and the Duat is described as a mix of the subterranean realm and the heavens. In the Coffin Texts we see in such things as the Book of Two Ways how the Duat was becoming more fixed in the subterranean realm, as the afterlife cult of Osiris was spreading and was no longer restricted just to kings. All of this, in other words, relates to the growing and developing concept of the afterlife observed by ancient Egyptians. Any attempts at connecting these funerary texts with Atlantis is an anachronism on the part of modern people and has no relevance to the pharaonic religion or culture.

Usually I see posters try to do the same thing with "Amenti" (imntt), so using the Duat is a bit of a different spin. Nevertheless, like Duat, "Amenti" ("Imentet" is my preference) is another term for the afterlife.

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

Are you familiar with this papyrus? It does indeed involve Khufu, but the setting is at the court of Khufu where his sons are telling stories. Most of this has to do with magic and sorcery. And the consensus is that Westcar was written around Dynasty 12, around 600 years after Khufu's time. It's a typical genre of Egyptian literature in which deeds and events of much earlier kings are written, although it's certainly not meant to be taken as literal history. It was entertainment, in other words.

[Abramelin]

wow for a guy you sure remind me of my wife.

"Environmental stakes in this case are high: The wetlands involved are the remains of the only inland delta in Europe. This delta has survived since the last Ice Age, when the Pannon Sea filled the Carpathian Basin. Some 400 unique species have survived from that time. Today, in the Szigetkoz ("the region of a thousand islands" in Hungarian), not a single island remains. Since the rerouting, there is no water."

bela liptak

You remind me of my exes too. Promises, but no delivery. Or somethingg

And what you quoted is what *I* quoted.

Great.

Hi honey, how are you?

.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Abramelin

[cern]

I know this post is from much earlier but this discussion is frantic, and it's hard to keep up. I wanted to return to it.

But yes, such ceramics mark the beginnings of a more settled people. By this point the Egyptians had long been tending animals and had begun practicing intensive agriculture, so we see the very start of a material culture of peoples who've given up hunting-gathering for a more settled existence.

But why would we assume that black-topped ware had to be "brought" to prehistoric inhabitants of the Nile Valley? There's nothing technologically advanced about such pottery. Anyone could make them, which is why they've been found in such abundance. Many graves were packed with at least a few examples. Nile mud shaped into a vessel and baked in the ashes of a fire--this sort of thing didn't need to be taught to the prehistoric people residing there. The D-ware is a lot more distinctive and technologically refined, given the marl clay that required higher temperatures to fire. And yet the D-ware was decorated with motifs and images germane to the Nile Valley. The Egyptians developed this stuff on their own.

There's no evidence that an outside force "kickstarted" the Egyptians. They were more than capable of achieving their cultural developments on their own merits.

The Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts are purely funerary in nature. The Duat, in fact, is one of the commonest terms in ancient Egyptian (dwAt) for the afterlife. In the Pyramid Texts this pertains really only to the journeys the souls of the kings (and a handful of queens) would take upon death, and the Duat is described as a mix of the subterranean realm and the heavens. In the Coffin Texts we see in such things as the Book of Two Ways how the Duat was becoming more fixed in the subterranean realm, as the afterlife cult of Osiris was spreading and was no longer restricted just to kings. All of this, in other words, relates to the growing and developing concept of the afterlife observed by ancient Egyptians. Any attempts at connecting these funerary texts with Atlantis is an anachronism on the part of modern people and has no relevance to the pharaonic religion or culture.

Usually I see posters try to do the same thing with "Amenti" (imntt), so using the Duat is a bit of a different spin. Nevertheless, like Duat, "Amenti" ("Imentet" is my preference) is another term for the afterlife.

Are you familiar with this papyrus? It does indeed involve Khufu, but the setting is at the court of Khufu where his sons are telling stories. Most of this has to do with magic and sorcery. And the consensus is that Westcar was written around Dynasty 12, around 600 years after Khufu's time. It's a typical genre of Egyptian literature in which deeds and events of much earlier kings are written, although it's certainly not meant to be taken as literal history. It was entertainment, in other words.

i didn't go back far enough this am to see your response. apologies.

i said the best case scenario would be that a complete culture came to egypt from some place. gods, pots, arrow heads, architecture the works. picked up from "atlantis" and dropped on egypt. maybe some ongoing back and forth. the story has to get to egypt as early as possible carried by people in whose homeland are the rings and canals etc etc.

black topped pottery currently is being listed as invented in egypt marking the birth of the civilization [not the birth of the dynastic with the merging of the maadi and naqada]. it would be a good marker but only a small part of the material culture. i was starting there.

the point would be to show there was an outside force. petrie said there was and now the world has alot of new artifacts to look at. the world changes.

''''

the duat in unas is a place, even says duat region. you have to go north then west to get there. there is a great lake [neserser] and in the lake are the hidden circles of ra. they were built for him by the souls who conquer the the lake. thats from seti. the circles of ra are apparently mentioned 75 times but i've never counted them. there is a god pen that survives the great flood [not the Great Flood]. thats from going forth by day ala faulkner. there are lots of landmarks and dirt and sand and etc etc. if you get into the edfu texts you get lots more detail. but its in the sky right? all made up by the egyptians.

if the black topped pots and all the other predynastic stuff come from a place far from egypt that has all these landmarks, rings, canals, sand mounds etc etc some folks might be convinced of a simpler solution than crazy imagination on the part of the ancients.

''''

westcar?

i am familiar. you didn't mention the bit i'm talking about so are you familiar? science has some interesting confirmations on its truthiness

so i see you volunteered at a good museum. what is your education re egypt? if i gave you a sheet of hierglyphics could you read it for me? its not a test i just need a sheet of heirglyphics read.

Edited March 29, 2012 by cern

[cern]

You remind me of my exes too. Promises, but no delivery. Or somethingg

And what you quoted is what *I* quoted.

Great.

Hi honey, how are you?

.

"This delta has survived since the last Ice Age, when the Pannon Sea filled the Carpathian Basin."

i don't think that is exactly the same sentence you had.

[questionmark]

remember i said science had never been to the sea. you can see that 1800hectare city clear as day from the main highway in western romania. the article is from antiquity mag.uk. open it up instead of saying it doesn't exist. harding is the guy that canned the bosnian pyramid scheme in his role as president of the european archaeological society.

Well, I don't know how somebody could pass this thing as a new discovery because as soon as I bothered checking I find this (sorry, In French but bing translator is your friend) that funnily seez that the place is being studied since 1933.

Made me curious, so I google around and what else do I find? A PDF in Romanian and a article in German that suddenly does not talk about a big town but a big fortification wall ring, typical for the Celtic times. So much for the city bigger than Rome. The actual settlement in those places generally was a one cow village inhabited by those that kept up the fortification. And that type of fortification only had a significant number of people living in it in case of war.

So, that really gets me going and I pay $4.99 for the Antiquity article and well, let me tell you, don't spend that money if you expect to find Atlantis nor if you expect to find a 10.000 year old city. All new of substance it brings compared to the Romanian pdf is that there was a radiometric measurement and tons of speculation.

And yes, the dating they suppose is not 10.000 years either, more like 500 BCE (which certainly, as far as archeology goes would be a sensation as similar constructions, like the Donnersberg fortification in Germany are 400 years younger)

I guess we can put the sheep to sleep on this one.

[cern]

Well, I don't know how somebody could pass this thing as a new discovery because as soon as I bothered checking I find this (sorry, In French but bing translator is your friend) that funnily seez that the place is being studied since 1933.

Made me curious, so I google around and what else do I find? A PDF in Romanian and a article in German that suddenly does not talk about a big town but a big fortification wall ring, typical for the Celtic times. So much for the city bigger than Rome. The actual settlement in those places generally was a one cow village inhabited by those that kept up the fortification. And that type of fortification only had a significant number of people living in it in case of war.

So, that really gets me going and I pay $4.99 for the Antiquity article and well, let me tell you, don't spend that money if you expect to find Atlantis nor if you expect to find a 10.000 year old city. All new of substance it brings compared to the Romanian pdf is that there was a radiometric measurement and tons of speculation.

And yes, the dating they suppose is not 10.000 years either, more like 500 BCE (which certainly, as far as archeology goes would be a sensation as similar constructions, like the Donnersberg fortification in Germany are 400 years younger)

I guess we can put the sheep to sleep on this one.

wow you really try hard don't you

500bc? the date is 1400bc and the city is surrounded by a large wall. area 1800hectares. rome was 1400 hectares within its wall.

the antiquity article is free for me. it asks you to pay? maybe its an eu greek thing.

the "new" article is the first report and it only went in journals. it got harding there. antiquity is the first public article by the team. did you know about it? anyone here???? no? i guess its a new discovery then isn't it.

so what have you learned and what have you tried to slide by people now? i think knowingly fibbing about the date of the city is pretty bad behaviour but again youre surprised and angry.

[questionmark]

wow you really try hard don't you

500bc? the date is 1400bc and the city is surrounded by a large wall. area 1800hectares. rome was 1400 hectares within its wall.

the antiquity article is free for me. it asks you to pay? maybe its an eu greek thing.

the "new" article is the first report and it only went in journals. it got harding there. antiquity is the first public article by the team. did you know about it? anyone here???? no? i guess its a new discovery then isn't it.

so what have you learned and what have you tried to slide by people now? i think knowingly fibbing about the date of the city is pretty bad behaviour but again youre surprised and angry.

It is free for you? Other people get this:

Which means that you have to pay a subscription to read it.

And 1400 is a speculative date not corroborated by either the German nor the Romanian article.

But: You are right (before this ends in a ten page discussion).

[cern]

It is free for you? Other people get this:

Which means that you have to pay a subscription to read it.

And 1400 is a speculative date not corroborated by either the German nor the Romanian article.

But: You are right (before this ends in a ten page discussion).

sorry old bean. i'm curious to know why you can't get in but not really.

"

The three radiocarbon dates, along with the suggested pottery dating in the Late Bronze

Age, indicate construction and use of the rampart of Enclosure I in the centuries around

3000 BP. Unfortunately the calibration curve is relatively flat at this period, which means

that there is a sizeable potential spread of calendar dates, from 1400 to 1000 cal BC or even

wider. The earlier part of this period might relate to the change to the Urnfield period and

the spread of the cremation rite, while by the later part iron was starting to be used, and

the Urnfield cultures were well developed. In this context we need to consider why the site

came to an end, apparently after a relatively short occupation, and what this tells us about

social and economic conditions in Central Europe at this time.

It is noticeable how many archaeological phenomena have produced radiocarbon dates

at just this period. This was, for instance, the time when the dates for the great tumuli of

the Suciu de Sus culture at L˘apus¸ in the Maramures¸ fall (Metzner-Nebelsick et al. 2010;

C. Metzner-Nebelsick pers. comm.), and many other phenomena across Europe have been

radiocarbon dated close to 3000 BP. Wolfgang Kimmig suggested many years ago that the

start of theUrnfield period could be connected with far-reaching movements of people across

the whole of Southern and Central Europe (Kimmig 1964), a theory that has never been

refuted and continues to be attractive in many ways. Although it would be too simplistic

to see a straight correlation between the new burial rite of cremation, and the rise of major

fortifications, there are certainly attractive possibilities to explore in this general field. What

seems certain is that major changes in economy and society were under way in Europe in

the centuries after 1400 BC, and the construction of the Iarcuri enclosures is part of that

development."

[questionmark]

sorry old bean. i'm curious to know why you can't get in but not really.

"

The three radiocarbon dates, along with the suggested pottery dating in the Late Bronze

Age, indicate construction and use of the rampart of Enclosure I in the centuries around

3000 BP. Unfortunately the calibration curve is relatively flat at this period, which means

that there is a sizeable potential spread of calendar dates, from 1400 to 1000 cal BC or even

wider. The earlier part of this period might relate to the change to the Urnfield period and

the spread of the cremation rite, while by the later part iron was starting to be used, and

the Urnfield cultures were well developed. In this context we need to consider why the site

came to an end, apparently after a relatively short occupation, and what this tells us about

social and economic conditions in Central Europe at this time.

It is noticeable how many archaeological phenomena have produced radiocarbon dates

at just this period. This was, for instance, the time when the dates for the great tumuli of

the Suciu de Sus culture at L˘apus¸ in the Maramures¸ fall (Metzner-Nebelsick et al. 2010;

C. Metzner-Nebelsick pers. comm.), and many other phenomena across Europe have been

radiocarbon dated close to 3000 BP. Wolfgang Kimmig suggested many years ago that the

start of theUrnfield period could be connected with far-reaching movements of people across

the whole of Southern and Central Europe (Kimmig 1964), a theory that has never been

refuted and continues to be attractive in many ways. Although it would be too simplistic

to see a straight correlation between the new burial rite of cremation, and the rise of major

fortifications, there are certainly attractive possibilities to explore in this general field. What

seems certain is that major changes in economy and society were under way in Europe in

the centuries after 1400 BC, and the construction of the Iarcuri enclosures is part of that

development."

Nice citation, but notice how, besides speculation it contains no date? It seez up there that there could be a wider parameter because the calibration curve is flat that there are some thging in Europe from 3000 BCE and it continues at the end that it might have something to do with developments that started in Europe after 1400 BC. It seez NOWHERE that they can date it to 1400 BCE. Bernhard Heeb, to the contrary affirms pretty much seez that he puts it in 500 BCE.

Now, who are we to trust, the guys up there speculating that cannot find a date or Heeb? Difficult decision....

I am not angry, nor disappointed. You can only be angry if somebody wantonly harms you and you can only be disappointed if you expected something. I generally expect nothing from people discussing history and chewing my ear off with Poseidon and Apollo. It generally ends in... well the above.

[cern]

Nice citation, but notice how, besides speculation it contains no date? It seez up there that there could be a wider parameter because the calibration curve is flat that there are some thging in Europe from 3000 BCE and it continues at the end that it might have something to do with developments that started in Europe after 1400 BC. It seez NOWHERE that they can date it to 1400 BCE. Bernhard Heeb, to the contrary affirms pretty much seez that he puts it in 500 BCE.

Now, who are we to trust, the guys up there speculating that cannot find a date or Heeb? Difficult decision....

I am not angry, nor disappointed. You can only be angry if somebody wantonly harms you and you can only be disappointed if you expected something. I generally expect nothing from people discussing history and chewing my ear off with Poseidon and Apollo. It generally ends in... well the above.

1400 to 1000 cal BC should i have said 1200? ok 1200bc. whats the date on troy? me thinks your heeb date is from the old article? this is the new article and i don't see 500bc anywhere.

i know exactly what to expect from you. error error error

Edited March 30, 2012 by cern

[questionmark]

1400 to 1000 cal BC should i have said 1200? ok 1200bc. whats the date on troy? me thinks your heeb date is from the old article? this is the new article and i don't see 500bc anywhere.

i know exactly what to expect from you. error error error

Yes, you are right...

[cern]

Yes, you are right...

sorry for that. i was rude. me thinks i'm hungry. my wench isn't here to feed me. shes smart and in florida.

[questionmark]

sorry for that. i was rude. me thinks i'm hungry. my wench isn't here to feed me. shes smart and in florida.

you are still right

[mandude29]

I've got a question, or a postulation. Or at least something to note on. After reading all 100 and some pages here (though I'm sure I haven't read every other thread/topic out there), and coming to view some of you as far more learned than I am, I was surprised to see that no one had mentioned the possibility that Madeira Island, or possibly the Canary islands could be remnants of what once was Atlantis---assuming that Atlantis existed. I have recently begun researching/studying after one of my friends called me on my skepticism without ever having researched the topic.

I understand the geoligical processes that say that the Canary Islands are the byproduct of undersea volcanic eruptions that have forced them upwards. But looking at Plato's work, about the sediment blockages, and him stating that: "The consequence is, that in comparison of what then was, there are remaining only the bones of the wasted body, as they may be called, as in the case of small islands, all the richer and softer parts of the soil having fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the land being left."

But seeing as we are not familiar with what the common reaction to a large landmass suddenly sinking, then possibly eroding into the ocean, who's to say that erosional unloading/volcanic underplating was the actual origin of the islands there?

[cormac mac airt]

I've got a question, or a postulation. Or at least something to note on. After reading all 100 and some pages here (though I'm sure I haven't read every other thread/topic out there), and coming to view some of you as far more learned than I am, I was surprised to see that no one had mentioned the possibility that Madeira Island, or possibly the Canary islands could be remnants of what once was Atlantis---assuming that Atlantis existed. I have recently begun researching/studying after one of my friends called me on my skepticism without ever having researched the topic.

I understand the geoligical processes that say that the Canary Islands are the byproduct of undersea volcanic eruptions that have forced them upwards. But looking at Plato's work, about the sediment blockages, and him stating that: "The consequence is, that in comparison of what then was, there are remaining only the bones of the wasted body, as they may be called, as in the case of small islands, all the richer and softer parts of the soil having fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the land being left."

But seeing as we are not familiar with what the common reaction to a large landmass suddenly sinking, then possibly eroding into the ocean, who's to say that erosional unloading/volcanic underplating was the actual origin of the islands there?

There are two problems with that IMO.

1) There's no evidence of a large landmass having existed that the Canary Islands could have been a part of.

2) The country being talked about in Critias, and to which you quoted a section about, is Greece and not Atlantis.

cormac

[mandude29]

There are two problems with that IMO.

1) There's no evidence of a large landmass having existed that the Canary Islands could have been a part of.

2) The country being talked about in Critias, and to which you quoted a section about, is Greece and not Atlantis.

cormac

Well in that case thank you. The conversations (and arguments), while occasionally humerous, have been very knowledgeable. However, I do not believe I'm any further into a belief that this was anything more than an analogy of some kind for Plato's audience. Which kinda makes me sad. lol. I think I may have been hoping to find some concrete evidence of some type when I began searching. But, thank you cormac.

[questionmark]

I've got a question, or a postulation. Or at least something to note on. After reading all 100 and some pages here (though I'm sure I haven't read every other thread/topic out there), and coming to view some of you as far more learned than I am, I was surprised to see that no one had mentioned the possibility that Madeira Island, or possibly the Canary islands could be remnants of what once was Atlantis---assuming that Atlantis existed. I have recently begun researching/studying after one of my friends called me on my skepticism without ever having researched the topic.

I understand the geoligical processes that say that the Canary Islands are the byproduct of undersea volcanic eruptions that have forced them upwards. But looking at Plato's work, about the sediment blockages, and him stating that: "The consequence is, that in comparison of what then was, there are remaining only the bones of the wasted body, as they may be called, as in the case of small islands, all the richer and softer parts of the soil having fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the land being left."

But seeing as we are not familiar with what the common reaction to a large landmass suddenly sinking, then possibly eroding into the ocean, who's to say that erosional unloading/volcanic underplating was the actual origin of the islands there?

There are two problems with that IMO.

1) There's no evidence of a large landmass having existed that the Canary Islands could have been a part of.

2) The country being talked about in Critias, and to which you quoted a section about, is Greece and not Atlantis.

cormac

Where we additionally have to note that the Canary Islands are of volcanic origin, that is are not a rest of a landmass but have grown from the ocean's floor. Right now they are about to get a little sibling growing the same way.

[Abramelin]

I've got a question, or a postulation. Or at least something to note on. After reading all 100 and some pages here (though I'm sure I haven't read every other thread/topic out there), and coming to view some of you as far more learned than I am, I was surprised to see that no one had mentioned the possibility that Madeira Island, or possibly the Canary islands could be remnants of what once was Atlantis---assuming that Atlantis existed. I have recently begun researching/studying after one of my friends called me on my skepticism without ever having researched the topic.

I understand the geoligical processes that say that the Canary Islands are the byproduct of undersea volcanic eruptions that have forced them upwards. But looking at Plato's work, about the sediment blockages, and him stating that: "The consequence is, that in comparison of what then was, there are remaining only the bones of the wasted body, as they may be called, as in the case of small islands, all the richer and softer parts of the soil having fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the land being left."

But seeing as we are not familiar with what the common reaction to a large landmass suddenly sinking, then possibly eroding into the ocean, who's to say that erosional unloading/volcanic underplating was the actual origin of the islands there?

Oh yes they did, many times.

Check "Torre Sea Mount".

Or was it "Tore"?

Anyway, an undersea mega-vulcano somewhere west of Cadiz.

.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Abramelin

[jules99]

Where we additionally have to note that the Canary Islands are of volcanic origin, that is are not a rest of a landmass but have grown from the ocean's floor. Right now they are about to get a little sibling growing the same way.

Hi questionmark;

Whats your take on ancient Egyptian cosmology vs the Egyptian priests explanation of the Paethon myth? The explanation of the Paethon myth appears based on science.

" Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long intervals; at such times those who live upon the mountains and in dry and lofty places are more liable to destruction than those who dwell by rivers or on the seashore."

I suppose this could be due to Greek influence (pythagoras), but it does seem odd that we have an Egyptian explaining a Greek myth using a Greek scientific take on the subject..Could the Egyptians have already known and mystery schools and secret knowledge explain this or do you think Greek thought had become pervasive?

Cheers; apologies if this has been dealt with b4..

[Leonardo]

I've got a question, or a postulation. Or at least something to note on. After reading all 100 and some pages here (though I'm sure I haven't read every other thread/topic out there), and coming to view some of you as far more learned than I am, I was surprised to see that no one had mentioned the possibility that Madeira Island, or possibly the Canary islands could be remnants of what once was Atlantis---assuming that Atlantis existed. I have recently begun researching/studying after one of my friends called me on my skepticism without ever having researched the topic.

I understand the geoligical processes that say that the Canary Islands are the byproduct of undersea volcanic eruptions that have forced them upwards. But looking at Plato's work, about the sediment blockages, and him stating that: "The consequence is, that in comparison of what then was, there are remaining only the bones of the wasted body, as they may be called, as in the case of small islands, all the richer and softer parts of the soil having fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the land being left."

But seeing as we are not familiar with what the common reaction to a large landmass suddenly sinking, then possibly eroding into the ocean, who's to say that erosional unloading/volcanic underplating was the actual origin of the islands there?

Hi there mandude, welcome to UM.

re: What I have highlighted. My advice to you would be to forget about researching what others have written about Atlantis. Forget about their evidence and arguments.

Study Plato.

Study his life. What happened in his life before he started writing his dialogues. Study those dialogues and understand what they are and why he wrote them.

If you do that, you will understand what Atlantis is without having to look for it.