View Full Version : Atlantis?


Gelion
Dec 01, 2004, 10:57 AM
I'm very curious about it currently :). I want to hear your views on what you think it was and after I will post a very interesting story I read recently. :crazyeye:
In your view - what was Atlantis?

Amenhotep7
Dec 01, 2004, 01:11 PM
Probably a Hellenized kingdom on the Atlantic coast that was (almost disgustingly so) very prosperous. That makes it (most likely) Tartessos, but who knows what new findings shall uncover?

Xen
Dec 01, 2004, 01:21 PM
Tartessos- no doubt abou tit, matches everythign that plato described, and more, matching the descriptions of the egyptians about the sea people invaders as well.

Amenhotep7
Dec 01, 2004, 01:23 PM
Plato described a city with manmade (or divinely made:hmm: ) sea channels (trenches) and a temple of Poseidon. Tertessos had all of this?

Xen
Dec 01, 2004, 01:28 PM
yep- its citadel was on island in a river delta after all.

(that said, its so early, that it couldnt have been hellenized as hellenic civlization did not yet exist)

Amenhotep7
Dec 01, 2004, 01:44 PM
So then Tartessos couldn't be exactly what Plato described. (No Poseidon.) Or could Peseidon refer to the Tartessian water god?

Thorgalaeg
Dec 01, 2004, 02:03 PM
But Tartessos was not 10000 years old. In any case Tartessos would be a remanent of the Atlantis.

However, If I would be looking for Atlantis and if i think it was related to Tartessos, I would look under the sand on the bottom at the Gulf of Cádiz . There the continental shelf is very vast, shallow (an average depth of only 30-40 meters) and very dynamic due to strong undercurrents. It is full of unstable sand banks that almost touch the surface and that change its position every year. There are countless sunken galleons buried there.

Have in mind that 10000 years ago ocean level was much lower.

Amenhotep7
Dec 01, 2004, 02:21 PM
@Thorgalaeg

Or Plato could have screwed up the dates...

Xen
Dec 01, 2004, 02:24 PM
But Tartessos was not 10000 years old. In any case Tartessos would be a remanent of the Atlantis.

However, If I would be looking for Atlantis and if i think it was related to Tartessos, I would look under the sand on the bottom at the Gulf of Cádiz . There the continental shelf is very vast, shallow (an average depth of only 30-40 meters) and very dynamic due to strong undercurrents. It is full of unstable sand banks that almost touch the surface and that change its position every year. There are countless sunken galleons buried there.

Have in mind that 10000 years ago ocean level was much lower.

dosent need to be; the egyptians dont actually have a heiroglyphic for any number over 1000- which is why it is imposisble that anyone other then a mis-inteprreted solon of plato woudl have said it was 10,000 years old- that entuire fact is, literally, made up- part of the atlantian ledgend becaus eplato didnt know better, and niether do most people whom are educated in ancient history.

Xen
Dec 01, 2004, 02:26 PM
So then Tartessos couldn't be exactly what Plato described. (No Poseidon.) Or could Peseidon refer to the Tartessian water god?

at the very beginijgn plato explains that the names of things are translated into greek, and are not what they were in thier origional language- so yes, poseidon refers not to greek poseidon, but to what the closest diety that matched it (well really, it woudl have been greek poseidon, but in native termonolgy- thats how ancient polythiesm in the wes towrked- one universal set of gods, nbu tlocal interpreitatiosn of those gods)

Mongoloid Cow
Dec 01, 2004, 02:40 PM
Well, here's the obligatory monthly Atlantis thread... and it's only the first of December. :rolleyes: I'd post my opinion, but I did that on the last 10 or so monthly Atlantis threads and I don't like repeating.

rbis4rbb
Dec 01, 2004, 04:17 PM
Where is a map of this "Tertarros"

Gelion
Dec 01, 2004, 04:19 PM
Well, here's the obligatory monthly Atlantis thread... and it's only the first of December. :rolleyes: I'd post my opinion, but I did that on the last 10 or so monthly Atlantis threads and I don't like repeating.
Uh :blush: can you post links to the old ones plz?

Mongoloid Cow
Dec 01, 2004, 04:36 PM
Well here's last months Atlantis thread. I hardly want to scroll through and find October's, September's, August's, etc.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=105046

mrtn
Dec 01, 2004, 04:56 PM
10 000 years is also a good way of saying "Lot's man! Ages!".

Gelion
Dec 01, 2004, 05:00 PM
Cow I did not mean that particular case. I wanted to know your opinions :).
Thanks ofr hte link anyway I now remember it...

Xen
Dec 01, 2004, 05:22 PM
Where is a map of this "Tertarros"

your not goign to find anything lookign for "tertarros"

its Tartessos your looking for- essentially, it was right here, at the mouth fo the Guadalquivir river, which in even imperial Roman times was known as the river tartessos, and the gul of Cadiz was the the Sea of Tartessos

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/tartessos_NES_start.gif

Thorgalaeg
Dec 01, 2004, 05:56 PM
Only clarifying than that river in the map is the Tajo. The Guadalquivir is 500 km to the south.

North King
Dec 01, 2004, 06:00 PM
I don't know really what it was. Many interesting theories have been posited everywhere... People have claimed that it was on the shores of a much smaller Black Sea, in the basin of the dried up Red Sea (read Pastwatch for a fascinating theory in an entertaining story), the ruins of Tiahuanuco, the ruins of the marble Bahama based citadel, the pyramids on the Canaries, Tartessos, Cyprus, Thira, on the coast of Ionia, Crete, Malta, and enough other places to make one's head spin. All have their own merits. I'm undecided as of yet. Note also that when Plato wrote of Atlantis he said it was the most prosperous of TEN cities. It could be a combination of all of them.

Xen
Dec 01, 2004, 07:00 PM
@NK- half those theories cant exist- tihuanaco wasnt even a dream in a meso americans eye during the med sea bronze age,and the red sea was never dry.

regardless, The tartessos-Atlantis connection still holds- tartessos is recorded as being effectivlyl destroyed by natural disasters by boththe egyptians, and in the old testiment, and from the egyptians, it is also the capital fo the sea peoples- of which thier were twelve kingdoms of; if we take out the Minoans and Mycenaens as people who took advatage of the chaos inspired byt he sea peoples to start thier own raids, then we have 1 kingdom empire, as reocrded by plato, led bya rich an dmighty citadel on an aislands, surrounded by circles of land and water (a river delta), that was ina geograpgich region that matched plato description, as iberia was though to be an island at one time, and tartessos was still outside the pillars of hercules ;)

North King
Dec 01, 2004, 07:03 PM
Wrong. Tiahuanuco has traces of a much earlier city below it; Red sea was dry much as the Med was once; the Bal al Mandab (sp?) was closed during the ice age, and it had no major rivers into it... Thus Ice age comes, it's dry.

Xen
Dec 01, 2004, 07:25 PM
A)that early city dosent count- it was built by chupracabras

seriouslly though, how old is it? it wont date past the european iron age, I'll bet you $50 on that

B)when was the red sea as dry as the med- because when the firts humans were crossing over to arbia, thier was a red sea- smaller, but still thier, and offerign no basis for atlantis, or even areas of island sinside it

North King
Dec 01, 2004, 07:26 PM
So?... (ten)

Xen
Dec 01, 2004, 07:28 PM
*note, edited my response, to actually have a point, and not be stupid

North King
Dec 01, 2004, 07:34 PM
A)that early city dosent count- it was built by chupracabras

seriouslly though, how old is it? it wont date past the european iron age, I'll bet you $50 on that

B)when was the red sea as dry as the med- because when the firts humans were crossing over to arbia, thier was a red sea- smaller, but still thier, and offerign no basis for atlantis, or even areas of island sinside it

A) Um... I forget. Some book claims it is about 9,000 to 10,000 years old, but I don't believe it. I might place it at a few thousand. This meaning that it would be in time for Atlantis.

B) Ice Age (ten). Like I said, read Pastwatch, by Orson Scot Card. Might be fiction, but it posits an interesting theory. At your local library, almost certainly. ;)

Xen
Dec 01, 2004, 07:41 PM
A) Um... I forget. Some book claims it is about 9,000 to 10,000 years old, but I don't believe it. I might place it at a few thousand. This meaning that it would be in time for Atlantis.

B) Ice Age (ten). Like I said, read Pastwatch, by Orson Scot Card. Might be fiction, but it posits an interesting theory. At your local library, almost certainly. ;)

A)"some book" wont cut it- at least give me a web link to evidence that claims it to be that old- because considering agriculture wasnt even in the area at that time, such a claim is absurd- my book to back me up onthat woudl none other then the prolific book "guns, germs, ans steel"- honestlly about the best beeok on the development of civlization that i have ever read.

B) a)as you siad its fiction, baey fiction with an interestign theory, but fiction noen the less

b)it isnt corraborated int he lsightest by geology- duirng the ice age, africa and the middle east werent actually connected, but seperated by a relitivlly flat, leval surfurs nightmare- a med sea like sea- that was passable, but reather unremarkable geology wise

Xen
Dec 01, 2004, 07:45 PM
actually I have adjust Be, i confused it for early in th eMiocene period then it was- duitng the ice age, it was essentially even worse- it a was abif all lake, connected in the south by east africa to arabia, and up in the sianai peninsula, bu was apperntlly as fiarlyl modern day levals geology wise

regardless though- this was all still before the development of argirculture

Lonkut
Dec 01, 2004, 08:11 PM
Age of Mythology gives a location for Atlantis which is located west of spain. Is that true that Atlantis was located west of the coast of spain or is it inaccurate?
Whats so special about Atlantis?

Thorgalaeg
Dec 02, 2004, 07:37 AM
Being realistic, Tihaunaco dates back only from the 100 b.C. Older culture in that zone, know as Guañape, capable of working ceramics and with primitive notions of agriculture dates back from 1250 b.C. In fact, the oldest ceramic found in Peru is dated (radiocarbon) around that year.

Anyway, leaving aside the dates, I think Platon says very clear Atlantis is "in front of Hercules Pilars" so, the Gibraltar Straight. If we are going to give some credit to Platon I would go with the theories talking about the Gulf of Cadiz or even some islands in that zone of the Atlantic Ocean, so, Azores, Canarias and going further Bahamas.

As a curiosity, you can see here a schematic representation of the Atlantis as was described by Platon, and below a common petroglyph frequently found in the Iberian Peninsula (the oldest of those petroglyphs is dated about 6000 b.C.) :

Drakan
Dec 02, 2004, 09:05 AM
Age of Mythology gives a location for Atlantis which is located west of spain. Is that true that Atlantis was located west of the coast of spain or is it inaccurate?
Whats so special about Atlantis?

There was a very powerful Civilization in what is now known as the Spanish province of Cádiz and Seville (I think). It was the Kingdom of Tartessos. This is extremely well documented. This could very well be the Civilization in which Plato based his Atlantis fable. The physical description of the layout in concentric circles match his description of the lost city. Albeit, who knows...?

Hey Thorgalaeg, do you like my new signature ? Not blasphemous at all this time, eh ?

Thorgalaeg
Dec 02, 2004, 09:33 AM
:goodjob:

The physical description of the layout in concentric circles match his description of the lost city.
What do you refer? I think there is no ruins of Tartessic cities.

Lonkut
Dec 02, 2004, 12:18 PM
It still doesn't answer my question: Whats so special about Atlantis?
I have no idea what plato has written about Atlantis, so thats why I am asking.

Lord_Sidious
Dec 02, 2004, 01:55 PM
i still think that atlantis was in the middle of atlatic

Drakan
Dec 02, 2004, 02:47 PM
Atlantis was a powerful kingdom in the time of the Greeks or sometime earlier that was sunk under the waves by a catacliscm. There's nothing more than that, it could just be a myth, a fantasy or perhapos true, no one knows for sure. Links to Tartessos AND ATLANTIS:

http://www.atlantia.de/atlantis_english/myth/atlantis/atlantis_spain_tartessos.htm

http://www.returntoatlantis.com/retc/tartessos.html

http://www.andalusia-web.com/history_details.htm

Birdjaguar
Dec 02, 2004, 11:18 PM
Atlantis was a powerful kingdom in the time of the Greeks or sometime earlier that was sunk under the waves by a catacliscm. There's nothing more than that, it could just be a myth, a fantasy or perhapos true, no one knows for sure.
There is no credible evidence for any civilization anywhere, that is older than those found in Middle East and dated beginning around 3,000 BCE.

Drakan
Dec 03, 2004, 04:51 AM
There is no credible evidence for any civilization anywhere, that is older than those found in Middle East and dated beginning around 3,000 BCE.

I wrote:

"Atlantis was a powerful kingdom in the time of the Greeks or sometime earlier that was sunk under the waves by a catacliscm. There's nothing more than that, it could just be a myth, a fantasy or perhapos true, no one knows for sure. Links to Tartessos AND ATLANTIS:"

3.000 b.C. IS NOT the time of the Greeks or sometime earlier. As I wrote, it was probably one more of many Greek myths and legends. Perhaps Plato inspired himself in the inhabitants of Crete who, it seems, were greatly affected by earthquakes from time to time.

Thorgalaeg
Dec 03, 2004, 07:34 AM
There is no credible evidence for any civilization anywhere, that is older than those found in Middle East and dated beginning around 3,000 BCE.

It seems Sumerian civilization dates back from 5000 b.C or even earlier. In Eridu was found a temple tipically sumerian dated around 4500-5000 B.C, and there are older ruins in lower levels of the same archeological deposit.

Also there were urban civilizations since 7000 or 6000 b.C. I am thinking in Jerico, Catal Huyuk, or Mohenjo Daro among others.

Birdjaguar
Dec 03, 2004, 05:41 PM
I wrote:

in the time of the Greeks or sometime earlier

3.000 b.C. IS NOT the time of the Greeks or sometime earlier. As I wrote, it was probably one more of many Greek myths and legends. Perhaps Plato inspired himself in the inhabitants of Crete who, it seems, were greatly affected by earthquakes from time to time.
Oops! Next time I will wear my glasses. Please pardon my error.

Birdjaguar
Dec 03, 2004, 05:45 PM
It seems Sumerian civilization dates back from 5000 b.C or even earlier. In Eridu was found a temple tipically sumerian dated around 4500-5000 B.C, and there are older ruins in lower levels of the same archeological deposit.

Also there were urban civilizations since 7000 or 6000 b.C. I am thinking in Jerico, Catal Huyuk, or Mohenjo Daro among others.

I like to link civilzation to writing which appeared about 3000 BC. Of course, people lived and worked in sumer and other places prior to inventing writing. I would call the earlier locations "cultures" and not "civilizations".

Thorgalaeg
Dec 03, 2004, 06:12 PM
Then Incas were not a civilization for you?

Birdjaguar
Dec 04, 2004, 02:25 PM
Then Incas were not a civilization for you?
Yes, they were and one of my favorites to boot. My post about writing was related to human kind's initial rise from "tribal" cultures to cities, city states and civilization. Once the Sumerians invented writing, governments and bureaucracies could expand to new levels of complexity allowing a greatly enlarged area of influence and trade.

The interesting question raised by the Incas is: Were there any cultures similar to the Incas in sophistication and complexity in the Middle East prior to either Sumer or writing? I haven't seen any evidence for any. Or were the Incas just an aberation.

North King
Dec 04, 2004, 03:07 PM
The interesting question raised by the Incas is: Were there any cultures similar to the Incas in sophistication and complexity in the Middle East prior to either Sumer or writing? I haven't seen any evidence for any. Or were the Incas just an aberation.

The Incas were not the first massive Andean Empire with a sophisticated raods system and army. The Huari were.

Birdjaguar
Dec 04, 2004, 05:09 PM
The Incas were not the first massive Andean Empire with a sophisticated raods system and army. The Huari were.
I agree. But were there others like them in the Middle East prior to 3300 BC?

Xen
Dec 04, 2004, 05:14 PM
forget the middl east prior to 3300 BC- start nameing anyhting of real civilizaiton inthe americas before 400 BC- and pottery doesnt cut the mustard mind you-- it was known, litterally, for thousands of years in japan and other areas of the old world befor peopel actual began to settle down into permanent settlements

Thorgalaeg
Dec 04, 2004, 06:49 PM
es, they were and one of my favorites to boot. My post about writing was related to human kind's initial rise from "tribal" cultures to cities, city states and civilization. Once the Sumerians invented writing, governments and bureaucracies could expand to new levels of complexity allowing a greatly enlarged area of influence and trade.

The interesting question raised by the Incas is: Were there any cultures similar to the Incas in sophistication and complexity in the Middle East prior to either Sumer or writing? I haven't seen any evidence for any. Or were the Incas just an aberation.
I think writing as we know it is not so fundamental to build a civilization. The thing is to have a system to keeping and transporting data. The Incas had indeed a sofisticated "textil" system, the "quipu".
It was based in specially knotted strings.

Birdjaguar
Dec 04, 2004, 11:34 PM
I think writing as we know it is not so fundamental to build a civilization. The thing is to have a system to keeping and transporting data. The Incas had indeed a sofisticated "textil" system, the "quipu".
It was based in specially knotted strings.
Writing began as a method of accounting and counting. Numbers and objects were bound together in a single concrete counting term: one jar of oil and one jar of oil equaled one jar of oil and one jar of oil, not 2 jars of oil. This system prevailed until about 3100 BC when numbers were invented and separated from objects. The first record of this change is from Uruk. Abstract numerals could be associated with objects as needed by the scribe. This revolution also allowed the development of words and soon we had written names, poetry and literature as side effects of the invention of numbers.

The quipu could not be used beyond data and the Incas were restricted to an oral tradition for their history.

Fruit-Smack
Dec 08, 2004, 04:28 AM
Atlantis? I think it was in the center of the Birmuida Triangle.

~Corsair#01~
Dec 08, 2004, 02:09 PM
Atlantis? I think it was in the center of the Birmuida Triangle.
You've been reading this (http://www.greatdreams.com/bermuda.htm), haven't you? ;)

Lord_Sidious
Dec 08, 2004, 02:58 PM
Atlantis was in the middle of atlantic some where around azores . some people say that the nine islands of azores were actually the nine biggest mountains in the continent the problaby was atlantis. But... that's only a theory

Thorgalaeg
Dec 08, 2004, 06:16 PM
Is geologicaly impossible that in middle of the Atlantic was ever a continent. Azores are volcanic islands surged due to magmatic pressures in the oceanic dorsal. Oceanic crust is continuously created in that oceanic Dorsal, no continental crust. Leaving these details aside, Where is the necesary continetal crust that formed the Atlatis continent? 10,000 or 100,000, 1,000,000 or even 10,000,000 years in geological time is nothing. However Around Azores there is only oceanic crust.

Nope, If Atlantis was in the Azores Islands it was the Azores Islands themselves.