the myth of Atlantis in context

[Atlantisresearch]

Completely unsupportable statement.

Even if Homer had no personal knowledge of the geography of the western Mediterranean past, say Tyrrhenia he could have had access to second (or third, etc)-hand accounts from merchants or other travellers. He could have, through such anecdotal sources, have been told of the Pillars of Hercules far to the West - beyond the lands he knew of.

There is no reason to suppose, given the trading that was taking place throughout the Mediterranean at that time, that accounts of places beyond the regional influence of any particular culture would be unknown in that culture. Making such an assumption - of complete cultural isolation - contradicts what we have observed throughout history.

Once again you are going against the facts and classical scholarship.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Once again you are going against the facts and classical scholarship.

Somewhat ironic coming from someone who wilfully defied modern scholarship in order to make a point.

[Atlantisresearch]

"The Odyssey's myths and folktales go back to a much earlier and more primitive time, to a world that believed in monsters and witches and the notion of a small habitable landmass surrounded by the all-encircling world river. To the east the Greeks looked across the Aegean Sea and knew of Asia Minor, southward they were in contact with Crete and with Egypt. But the west was terra incognito. The unknown began at the very fringe of Greece itself." (Severin, 1987)

Edited October 21, 2014 by Atlantisresearch

[Atlantisresearch]

Somewhat ironic coming from someone who wilfully defied modern scholarship in order to make a point.

There are classical scholars who support my stance. What Leonardo posted has support from none and is wrong. Bizarrely though he criticizes Atlantis proponents because only the minority of academia supports it, when he has been posting absurd or kooky claims himself for the last couple of pages that a single scholar doesn't even back.

[Leonardo]

The 9th century BC terminus ante quem is for Phoenician trade/contact with Iberia, not the Greeks.

Ah, right - so the Phoenicians didn't trade with the Greeks. Of course, how silly could we be to think they did!

...when he has been posting absurd or kooky claims himself for the last couple of pages that a single scholar doesn't even back.

When I speculate on probabilities I make certain the language I use makes that clear - hence I said the Hellenes could have heard of western Mediterranean landmarks/geography from traders/travellers before they became aware of it through their own explorations. This is not a 'claim', it is supposition and so I am not required to evidence it - however, the supposition is based on how cultures have interacted in the past and so is not unreasonable, unlike the claim that said cultures were isolated from each other and no stories/anecdotes were exchanged between them.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Leonardo

[granpa]

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Erythraean_Sea

The word Erithraean gives a perfect meaning as Burning sea in Tamil language, where Ery(Burning) + Thraean(wave or a long sea), the word "thirai" used in similar words like "Thirai kadal" which means a long wave of sea, as the Greek "Ερυθρά" actually means "red".

[Atlantisresearch]

Ah, right - so the Phoenicians didn't trade with the Greeks. Of course, how silly could we be to think they did!

When I speculate on probabilities I make certain the language I use makes that clear - hence I said the Hellenes could have heard of western Mediterranean landmarks/geography from traders/travellers before they became aware of it through their own explorations. This is not a 'claim', it is supposition and so I am not required to evidence it - however, the supposition is based on how cultures have interacted in the past and so is not unreasonable, unlike the claim that said cultures were isolated from each other and no stories/anecdotes were exchanged between them.

You are apparently unaware what the Pillars were, so your claim is highly irrational. They marked the terra incognita, that is unknown land. Therefore the Pillars were only ever placed on the western edges of the mapped regions the Greeks knew. They were not placed in regions through questionable claims or hearsay of traders/travellers.

Why are you even here trying to debate this when you are unaware of the basics?

[Atlantisresearch]

I don't agree with much of the following source as a whole, but some is straight to the point:

The positive fact that results from all these traditions is that the so-called Columns of Hercules were neither near the Iberian Ocean, which, until the 7^th century bc had been unknown to the Phoenicians and Greeks, nor near the Northern Sea or Baltic, which became known to the ancient world only since Cesar’s times.

http://www.pelasgians.org/website3/16_03.htm

http://www.pelasgians.org/website3/16_04.htm

[atalante]

I tend to agree with this and your last post.

Epirus is certainly an ancient area within the Hellenic world, the origin of them lies there, according to Aristotle and with the River Archeron there, it's also the sanctuary of Hades and Persephone where adventures with them probably took place, so this can be considered Hades also, in the West (of Greece).

Atlantis imo is definitely placed in the Atlantis Sea, that lies within the Pillars of Heracles, over-looking Gades - and subdued all those within the Pillars to Tyrhenia and Egypt.

Puzzler,

I agree with what you are saying recently.

The invasion that Critias called "Atlantean" came out of the western Mediterranean. It was a well-documented invasion. Indeed it was so substantial that people misplace the African branch of the invasion. It is easier to recognize the invasion, if the code-name Atlantis is not used for it.

As I see it, here is the invasion --

According to Egyptian records, the African branch first expanded to the border of Egypt in the reign of pharaoh Amenhotep III -- but at that time warfare was not involved. At that time the westerners were still "noble", from the viewpoint of Critias. They sold cattle to pharaoh Amenhotep III.

The African branch of the invasion goes by the name Meshwesh in ancient Egyptian records.

Meshwesh invaders were defeated several times. But ultimately, the Meshwesh became pharaohs of Egypt.

Edited October 22, 2014 by atalante

[Atlantisresearch]

Ok that sound like a very convincing argument.

Why don't you guys ever like to answer direct questions ?

Actually that guy was pretty clever, and I can see why he left. You were asking us to answer your questions and provide evidence, but its evident from this thread and the 'skeptics' in general that no answer or presented evidence will ever be good enough.

[kmt_sesh]

Puzzler,

I agree with what you are saying recently.

The invasion that Critias called "Atlantean" came out of the western Mediterranean. It was a well-documented invasion. Indeed it was so substantial that people misplace the African branch of the invasion. It is easier to recognize the invasion, if the code-name Atlantis is not used for it.

As I see it, here is the invasion --

According to Egyptian records, the African branch first expanded to the border of Egypt in the reign of pharaoh Amenhotep III -- but at that time warfare was not involved. At that time the westerners were still "noble", from the viewpoint of Critias. They sold cattle to pharaoh Amenhotep III.

The African branch of the invasion goes by the name Meshwesh in ancient Egyptian records.

Meshwesh invaders were defeated several times. But ultimately, the Meshwesh became pharaohs of Egypt.

"Meshwesh" (transliterated maSAwASA) is the ancient Egyptian word for a specific tribe of Libyans probably originating from Cyrenaica or the region of Tunis. Yes, they and other Libyan tribes were repeatedly beaten back in the late New Kingdom, including during their failed alliances with the Sea Peoples. They rose to power in Egypt only in the Late Bronze Age, c. 1064 BCE, in Dynasty 21 (Third Intermediate Period). The biblical pharaoh Shishak, who took away the treasures of Jerusalem, was most likely the real pharaoh Sheshonq I (648-927 BCE), the most powerful of all the Libyan pharaohs.

So in reality the Meshwesh were neighbors of pharaonic Egypt, occupying an area not far to the west (in what's now Tunisia), in the eleventh century BCE. I don't know how one can possibly force them into any context in Plato's allegory.

Edited October 22, 2014 by kmt_sesh
Clarification

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

You are apparently unaware what the Pillars were, so your claim is highly irrational. They marked the terra incognita, that is unknown land. Therefore the Pillars were only ever placed on the western edges of the mapped regions the Greeks knew. They were not placed in regions through questionable claims or hearsay of traders/travellers.

Why are you even here trying to debate this when you are unaware of the basics?

Which means, by him saying that Atlantis is "beyond the Pillars" that he's saying "from who knows where"?

[Leonardo]

Which means, by him saying that Atlantis is "beyond the Pillars" that he's saying "from who knows where"?

Which kind of fits in with my supposition of lands that had been heard of - indirectly through foreign traders/travellers - but were unknown in specifics to those of that particular [Hellenic] culture.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Leonardo

[The Gremlin]

The only stumbling block is Plato's description of it being in front of the straights, not beyond the pillars.

So infront of the gates to the unknown, not behind them.

[Leonardo]

The only stumbling block is Plato's description of it being in front of the straights, not beyond the pillars.

So infront of the gates to the unknown, not behind them.

Gades, or Gadeira, was located to the west of the Strait of Gibraltar, on the Atlantic coast of Iberia. For one shore of Atlantis to be 'facing Gadeira', as Plato describes it, the island has to be outside the Strait of Gibraltar in the Atlantic Ocean - hence in the 'unknown'.

[The Gremlin]

Gades, or Gadeira, was located to the west of the Strait of Gibraltar, on the Atlantic coast of Iberia. For one shore of Atlantis to be 'facing Gadeira', as Plato describes it, the island has to be outside the Strait of Gibraltar in the Atlantic Ocean - hence in the 'unknown'.

One does wonder about his geographical knowledge of the area, surely if he meant beyond, behind or through he would have said so

[The Puzzler]

"Meshwesh" (transliterated maSAwASA) is the ancient Egyptian word for a specific tribe of Libyans probably originating from Cyrenaica or the region of Tunis. Yes, they and other Libyan tribes were repeatedly beaten back in the late New Kingdom, including during their failed alliances with the Sea Peoples. They rose to power in Egypt only in the Late Bronze Age, c. 1064 BCE, in Dynasty 21 (Third Intermediate Period). The biblical pharaoh Shishak, who took away the treasures of Jerusalem, was most likely the real pharaoh Sheshonq I (648-927 BCE), the most powerful of all the Libyan pharaohs.

So in reality the Meshwesh were neighbors of pharaonic Egypt, occupying an area not far to the west (in what's now Tunisia), in the eleventh century BCE. I don't know how one can possibly force them into any context in Plato's allegory.

He (Herodotus) also added them to be partly descended from Trojan refugees.

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

Just saying.

[The Puzzler]

The only stumbling block is Plato's description of it being in front of the straights, not beyond the pillars.

So infront of the gates to the unknown, not behind them.

Not really, if someone is out the front, or in front of my house they are beyond my gates, because I am within the gates.

Edited October 22, 2014 by The Puzzler

[The Gremlin]

Not really, if someone is out the front, or in front of my house they are beyond my gates, because I am within the gates.

If your drive leading up to the gates from the house narrowed, let's call it a straight.... Then you said in front of the straights that contained the gate, you would mean inside of the gates, from the perspective of the house....?

Edited October 22, 2014 by The Gremlin

[Leonardo]

One does wonder about his geographical knowledge of the area, surely if he meant beyond, behind or through he would have said so

The phrase, "in front of" makes sense if you have Plato describing the location not from the perspective of the Mediterranean, but from the perspective of Atlantis itself.

[The Gremlin]

The phrase, "in front of" makes sense if you have Plato describing the location not from the perspective of the Mediterranean, but from the perspective of Atlantis itself.

But in the context of the description it is from the perspective of the med, since both describer and receiver of description are both in the med.

If he meant through the gates, beyond the straights or behind the portal to the unknown, an eloquent Plato would have made such an important distinction?

Edited October 22, 2014 by The Gremlin

[Leonardo]

But in the context of the description it is from the perspective of the med, since both describer and receiver of description are both in the med.

From Timaeus 24e - 25a

"I should mention that in those days the ocean there was navigable since there was an island in front of the strait which, I've heard you say, your people call the Pillars of Heracles. This island was bigger than both Asia and Libya combined, and travellers in those days used it to get to the further islands, from where they had access to the whole mainland over on the other side, the mainland which surrounds the genuine sea. Everything this side of that strait is like a narrow-mouthed harbour, but that is the true sea, and the land which completely surrounds it truly deserves the name 'mainland'."

In all this part of the narrative, Plato grants the other non-Mediterranean geographical features he relates - i.e. "further islands", etc - as being in the same region/vicinity (i.e. inside/outside the strait) as Atlantis. There is little doubt that the context of "in front of" means, from the Mediterranean perspective "outside".

Edited October 22, 2014 by Leonardo

[The Puzzler]

The phrase, "in front of" makes sense if you have Plato describing the location not from the perspective of the Mediterranean, but from the perspective of Atlantis itself.

It makes perfect sense if you are INSIDE of the Med. You have Atlantis in front of the Pillars of Heracles - if you are inside the Med, Atlantis is in front of the Pillars, which are in front of you.

Can you link your translated text please, I read a different one.

[The Gremlin]

From Timaeus 24e - 25a

"I should mention that in those days the ocean there was navigable since there was an island in front of the strait which, I've heard you say, your people call the Pillars of Heracles. This island was bigger than both Asia and Libya combined, and travellers in those days used it to get to the further islands, from where they had access to the whole mainland over on the other side, the mainland which surrounds the genuine sea. Everything this side of that strait is like a narrow-mouthed harbour, but that is the true sea, and the land which completely surrounds it truly deserves the name 'mainland'."

In all this part of the narrative, Plato grants the other non-Mediterranean geographical features he relates - i.e. "further islands", etc - as being in the same region/vicinity (i.e. inside/outside the strait) as Atlantis. There is little doubt that the context of "in front of" means, from the Mediterranean perspective "outside".

I know, I'm familiar with the passage, I just find his choice of words interesting, conflicting, and possibly confused.

From Timaeus 24e - 25a

"I should mention that in those days the ocean there was navigable since there was an island in front of the strait which, I've heard you say, your people call the Pillars of Heracles. This island was bigger than both Asia and Libya combined, and travellers in those days used it to get to the further islands, from where they had access to the whole mainland over on the other side, the mainland which surrounds the genuine sea. Everything this side of that strait is like a narrow-mouthed harbour, but that is the true sea, and the land which completely surrounds it truly deserves the name 'mainland'."

In all this part of the narrative, Plato grants the other non-Mediterranean geographical features he relates - i.e. "further islands", etc - as being in the same region/vicinity (i.e. inside/outside the strait) as Atlantis. There is little doubt that the context of "in front of" means, from the Mediterranean perspective "outside".

I know, I'm familiar with the passage, I just find his choice of words interesting, conflicting, and possibly confused.

[The Puzzler]

I know, I'm familiar with the passage, I just find his choice of words interesting, conflicting, and possibly confused.

It's perfectly reasonable imo.