Atlantis

[Oroblanco]

Greetings Scubasalvor,

Scubasalvor wrote:

There is a feature out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean called the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. This has been there for millions of years. There is no way a continent or island could have sunk there.

Well we can rule out "continent" specifically, because Atlantis was never a continent, just a large island. It is common in modern times to call it a "continent" but Plato never referred to it as a continent, just a large island and none of the other ancient sources refer to Atlantis as a continent. (Unless you want to count Aelian's report, which sounds more like he is talking about the Americas and no mention of them being "sunk".) As for an island being "sunk" at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, no doubt your statement is correct, but the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is not the only site in the Atlantic ocean that will "fit" with Plato's fairly imprecise description - he only says "in front of" the Pillars of Herakles, which could mean literally right in front, and in that case we do have a large island that is sunk below sea level (Spartel) and this island was above the sea 11,000 years ago.

Then there are the Azores, Madeira and the Canary islands; in particular La Palma island in the Canaries has had catastrophic shelf-subsidence of large proportions in the past, resulting in mega-tsunamis that appear to have actually re-shaped some islands in the Bahamas and tossed massive blocks of coral onto shore. Many other sites have been proposed as Atlantis including Ireland, Iceland, Greenland even Cuba but all of these are today above sea level - however there are a number of islands that existed 11,000 years ago when sea levels rose abruptly and massively, in fact right around 9600 BC when the Younger Dryas period ended - some scientists have said that the Earth lost one-fourth of the total land area to flooding at this time. (Coincidentally, apocryphal texts have said this also, that the great flood of Noah covered "a fourth part" of the lands) We can find one recorded measure of how much water rose that seems to be taken at the time - in Genesis, describing the flood of Noah, it says the sea levels rose "fifteen cubits" or around 23 feet in a matter of days! Think what that would do today, if it occurred at that speed.

Of course it could all be simply a morality play imagined by Plato (even though we can prove he did not invent it) and Man was living as a 'cave-man' in 9,600 BC as the historians insist; even though we know that not ALL mankind was living the 'cave-man' life, just consider the list :

Events
c. 10,000 BC — Pottery was first produced in Japan.[2][1]
C. 10,000 bc — Bottle Gourd is domesticated and used as a carrying vessel.
c. 9,500 BC — There is evidence of the harvesting, though not necessarily of the cultivating, of wild grasses in Asia Minor about this time. [1][verification needed]
c. 9,500 BC — First building phase of the temple complex at Göbekli Tepe.
c. 9,300 BC — Figs were apparently cultivated in the Jordan River valley.[3]
c. 9000 BC — Neolithic culture began in Ancient Near East.
c. 9000 BC: Near East: First stone structures are built at Jericho.
The dog is domesticated.[citation needed]

(Wikipedia, not the most reliable source I realize but this is just a sample) - also:

-10000 The discovery and use of silver, gold, carbon, copper, tin, iron, mercury, sulphur and lead

(from http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/timeline1.html)

Then we can look at sunken monuments, such as one stone circle (Er-Lanic island) in France that lies partially submerged beneath the ocean or "Sea-henge" in Britain. Are we to suppose that "cave-men" built these megalithic structures back when sea levels were lower? Or do we propose that the builders deliberately built their stone circles partly out into deep water? Or, is it just possible that not ALL of mankind was living the life of "cave-men" 11,000 years ago, that SOME peoples were forming what we would call a "civilization" today? If we accept this idea (which is not such a leap, after all the humans of 12,000 years ago had the exact same size brains we do today, the exact same capabilities of reasoning, memory and even capacity to invention) then the tale of Atlantis, along with the numerous Flood Myths which exist in virtually every human culture world-wide, might just be telling us the truth about what happened!

I am also well aware of the continental drift theory (and the supporting evidence) which would clearly make it impossible for any continent to exist lying in between Africa and South America, but remember we are not talking about a continent, and the area it could be located covers a MUCH larger area than simply that region lying between Africa and South America. Plato gave us the actual size of the main island of Atlantis, so if anyone hopes to ever find Atlantis, they need to find a sunken island or perhaps one that still exists today, located somewhere in the Atlantic ocean of approximately the size described by Plato.

I would also respectfully disagree with the idea that a continent cannot sink, since we know of two that are sunk today. Both are submerged for millions of years (Zealandia and Kerguelen) plus are far from the Atlantic, so are not contenders for the title of "Atlantis" but then we are not really searching for a continent - just a relatively large island, but not even so large as Greenland is.

Good luck and good hunting amigos, I hope that you find the treasures that you seek.
your friend,
Oroblanco

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Salvor6]

Thanks Oro. I hope I find the treasures that I seek too.

 

[Eu_citzen]

I just want to make an input about "earthquakes and the floods" in regards to the volcanoes.
As I suppose you know there are "many" variations of volcanoes.
Some of these have enough power to literally shake the earth and cause tsunamis.
Now say a super volcano (very powerful type of volcano like the one in Yellowstone national park) exploded it can indeed trigger a landslide which can result in a tsunami.
If I remember right Italy also had a super volcano.
Don't forget that possibility even if it is small or not mentioned. I'm not saying it was what happened just wanted to fill ya in.

Cheers,
Eu

 

[Old Dog]

If that Caldera in Yellowstone ever decides to do the big thing it will most likely change the face of the map on a global scale.
2/3 of the U.S. will just disappear. Not to mention the global climate changes that are possible.
That is a big one...
Thom

I can't believe I am actually responding to one of Blindblowman's posts

 

[Springfield]

... I can't believe I am actually responding to one of Blindblowman's posts

Perhaps you're ill.

 

[Oroblanco]

Old Dog wrote:

I can't believe I am actually responding to one of Blindblowman's posts

No amigo, this is not one of Blindbowman's posts or threads, in fact as far as I know he has not posted in this thread -YET-. So you are not really responding to Blindbowman here so far. The far-fetched theories might give the impression that Blindbowman is here but like I said, I have some far-fetched theories of my own!

I do think that if some kind of volcanic eruption were involved in the destruction of Atlantis, then Plato would have included it - instead all we have are the less-exciting image of "earthquakes and floods". Hollywood would not like that version I am sure!

Good luck and good hunting amigos I hope that you find the treasures that you seek.
your friend,
Roy ~ Oroblanco

 

[Old Dog]

Whew...

Scared me for a second there.
Thanks Roy,

Thom

 

[Eu_citzen]

I do think that if some kind of volcanic eruption were involved in the destruction of Atlantis, then Plato would have included it - instead all we have are the less-exciting image of "earthquakes and floods". Hollywood would not like that version I am sure!

Yes but you might also think that lets say a massive landslide happened on a isolated island or something he might just not know of it this could then indeed cause a tsunami or "floods". though the earthquake might be harder to explain with a volcanic eruption then he'd have a greater chance to note it.(this is not as likely to "travel" half way around the world thus it can basically be considered a more "local" event)

There might be a chance he simply did not know what happened thus not mentioning it. A tsunami can "travel" very far and still cause quite a massive damage when it hits land, though this depends on many factors which I feel might not be of interest in this topic.

Cheers,
Eu

 

[Zeitgeist_Xero]

There are several problems with anyone here thinking that Plato's account of Atlantis can be utterly factual (below are a few - of many - points to think on:

1) Atlantis is only spoken of in two Platonic dialogues: 'Timaeus' and 'Critias.' Both accounts talk about the war attempts by Athens to attack Atlantis. However, the history of Athens shows us that Athens didn't exist during the time in which Socrates (i.e. Plato) and Critias say Atlantis met it's demise. There is the presumption by Plato that Athens was much older than is known today.

2) (From Wikipedia) "According to Plato, Solon told the story to the grandfather of the Critias appearing in this dialogue, who was also named Critias, and who retold the story to his grandson." Thus, the story was passed down through multiple generations - and crosses between cultures.

3) There is MUCH debate as to whether Plato wrote correctly about Socrates. Socrates is the person in the Socratic dialogues 'Timaeus' and 'Critias' - who talks about Atlantis. You'd have to be very familiar with the dialogues; Xenophon's writing's on Socrates, Aristophanes, and the scant other writings about Socrates - to better understand the arguments as to 'who Socrates really was' - let alone if Plato wrote word-for-word/verbatim what Socrates spoke. Plato wrote both books some time after the death of Socrates - and thus the source would only be memory (a memory from Solon, from a memory by Critias the elder, to memory via Critias the younger, to Socrates, to Plato, etc.). If you've actually read the 'Timaeus' and 'Critias' - you'd notice a lot of wild mythology, and unusual cosmology throughout; which is largely ignored or not read by modern readers, and yet the mythical references are a key part of the two dialogues and the faith/culture of Plato's Athens.

4) Plato believed in Universals; and explained his theory's with parables. I.E. the 'parable of the cave.' The dream of the Utopia of 'The Republic.' (From Wikipedia) "The dialogue (Timaeus) takes place the day after Socrates described his ideal state (The Republic). In Plato's works such a discussion occurs in the Republic. Socrates feels that his description of the ideal state wasn't sufficient for the purposes of entertainment and that "I would be glad to hear some account of it engaging in transactions with other states." Again, this is an area where you would have to be more familiar with the dialogues: the purpose of each the Socratic dialogues (written by Plato) - is to come to an understanding about a specific topic, idea, universal, etc. Thus, the purpose about speaking on Atlantis is not so much as to be any sort of historical/geographical account; but a moral, social, and philosophical account - in this case - how best to govern; and how to recognize the abuse of power, etc.

" I feel the following Wikepedia quote gives the best simple explanation:

As a story embedded in Plato's dialogues, Atlantis is generally seen as a myth created by Plato to illustrate his political theories. Although the function of the story of Atlantis seems clear to most scholars, they dispute whether and how much Plato's account was inspired by older traditions. Some scholars argue Plato drew upon memories of past events such as the Thera eruption or the Trojan War, while others insist that he took inspiration from contemporary events like the destruction of Helike in 373 BC or the failed Athenian invasion of Sicily in 415–413 BC. "

It is a pity that 'Atlantis Treasure Hunters' often have very little familiarity with the general themes/purposes of the Socratic dialogues by Plato; and the history of criticism toward's Plato's attempt to truthfully convey who the real Socrates was; in light of other known contexts in the historical/literary account. Truly delving into these old sources of material - in their breadth - would reveal that the Atlantis in Plato's accounts - has little to do with facts - and a lot to do with ideals/universals being extolled via parable and the Socratic dialogue format. In the manner in which most of the Socratic dialogues end; the 'True Atlantis' can never be a solid idea, and likely not a solid place on the map (in accordance with Plato's details) - but we are better person's for seeking out the Ideas of what an ideal republic might entail. It's great archeaologists and other seekers are looking for lost Civilizations; but lets not try to frame them in the mold of Atlantis - based on Plato's dialogues, of a previous conversation, of a memory, from a memory, from another country.......................... and several thousand years before Athens ever existed.

 

[allen_idaho]

Sure, if yellowstone erupted it would be devastating. But 2/3 of the U.S. gone? I don't think so. You have to keep in mind that it has erupted in the past. The only concern now is that it is overdue.

Granted it will probably destroy most of the forest around Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming as well as rain down a couple of feet of ash as far east as the Dakotas. But it can be dealt with. It will not be the world ending cataclysm you are expecting.

 

[pegleglooker]

hey all,
I have just one question... Could it be that the mid-atlantic ridge did not " sink " but that the watertable rose, or a mega tsunami that leveled it ??

PLL

 

[Oroblanco]

Well amigo we know that sea levels did rise substantially at the end of the last Ice Age, which flooded about one fourth of the total land area that was above sea level prior to this. I found that little tidbit quite a coincidence when compared to an apocryphal text that said the great flood of Noah flooded "a fourth part of the Earth". As the science has matured, we now also realize that the sea level rise was not a matter of a fraction of an inch per year, but came in successive and sudden floods, one in particular caused sea levels to rise about 100 feet in perhaps less than one year.

Of course the opponents of catastrophism have made the argument that if any such mass flooding occurred, well we should have some kind of human record of it - even if there were no written records; hmm and is it coincidence that we have flood "myths" found among cultures all over the world?
Oroblanco

 

[pegleglooker]

Hello Oro,
I agree with you, but what I'm asking is, could a " rare " but large earthquake on the east coast cause a big enough tsunami to flood or level a land somewhere in the Atlantic ? Such as the Azores ?? Or could it cause enough damage to islands that would be closer to Gibraltar

PLL

 

[Oroblanco]

HOLA Pegleglooker,

Though earthquakes are rare along the east coast - you are quite correct they can cause tsunamis. For that matter the earthquake could occur OFF the coast, under the sea and still cause massive tsunamis, just like the horrific Dec 26th 2004 incident.
Oroblanco

 

[Highmountain]

Hey Allen, you have the most reasonable explaination. There were no aliens involved, just nature. The reason Thera is small is that Atlantis exploded, Thera is all thats left! The rest of the continent is in the deep sea. There are no tons of gold and silver. That is just a myth. Where would they get it from and for what purpose? And if they did have tons of gold, it disappeared in the explosion. Yonagumi has not been proven to be man made. If you look at the topography of the land above water you will see the same rock shapes that look like buildings. It is called beach stone and flag stone. Plato gives no hard evidence that Atlantis is more than a fable. Serious treasure hunters use hard evidence and archival documents to find treasure. Crackpots use legends with no hard facts to search for their dreams.[/b] This is just my worthless opinion but lets see if Atlantis is found in the next 10 years.

Good post, though it might lean to the extreme side of things. Probably there's treasure out there ancient writings might offer hints to finding, but usually it's just not the case. Someone stumbles across a good find, most often, and once it's examined thoroughly they're able to reconstruct what it was, or what it might have been. That's not always the case, but it's more the rule than the exception.

Plato? He was a philosopher from whom we moderns have been able to learn a lot about Greek life and those times. But he was a philosopher, not a historian, and aside from using him as a tool to add moxie to the Atlantis legend, nobody's ever accused him of being a sound source for historical information. Historians still argue on forums and in books and PHD dissertations whether his character, Socrates, ever existed and if so, who he was.

Atlantis might have existed and it might have been wealthy. Might even be the location of lost treasure. But the fact nobody can even state with sound historical documentation where it was, when it was, what the population was, what life there might have been like, it seems a stretch to assume it will ever be located [or recognized if it is located].

Accepted history is often wrong and PHD historians have more than their fair share of shortcomings, frequently copying the mindsets and works of others without giving credit or doing original work. Sometimes they even twist facts around to support a particular hypothesis.

But in the end, if nothing is offered up as contrary evidence other than a lot of conjecture based on previous conjectures stacked a mile high, probably formal history offers the best avenue of approach if there's anything at stake. It ain't perfect, but it's the best we've got.

In a lot of ways the 'ideal' historian [or historical research method] isn't much different than the 'ideal' scientist or scientific method. It begins by a thorough examination of a particular set of evidence. That's followed by an attempt to formulate a theory or hypothesis to explain known facts and observations. Once the theory or hypothesis is formed it's put to the test by all manner of means to try to find exceptions [as well as support] by further objective examination.

Scientists and historians are both guilty of not following that route, but it's the ideal. It's not a matter of beginning with a premise such as, Atlantis exists, then searching for shreds of writings, yarns, traditions and obscure fantasies to support it.

Some of the best historians I've ever known weren't formally educated. But they were good because they recognized a responsibility to maintain some 'lowest common denominator' for evidence and proof. Otherwise every geneologist would be a direct descendant of Cleopatra, George Washington and Louis XIV. They could probably make a case for it if that was their motive. But their motive is finding truth.

Just my thinking.
Jack

 

[Oroblanco]

Excellent points amigos. I have posted what I am about to, in several other threads here recently but since this thread IS on Atlantis and some might have missed it, I will repeat it here. So I beg your indulgence.

First point, whether Plato invented the tale of Atlantis, this is a false claim made by quite a few historians. We can prove that the story cannot have originated with Plato since it is mentioned by Herodotus more than a century before Plato. We also have Plutarch's work "The Life Of Solon" which is the character I believe Highmountain is referring to rather than Socrates, and though this is written after Plato, a couple of important points are brought up by him; for one, he does accuse Plato of embellishing the tale, granting the Atlanteans some rather grand architecture and plumbing etc; the next point is that Plutarch does affirm that Solon (the famous Athenian philosopher, statesman and wise man) did at least attempt to write the history of Atlantis; the last important point is something NOT mentioned by Plutarch - for he never accuses Plato of inventing the country, only of embellishing it.

Then there is the tendency of many Atlantis-seekers to include a great deal of MODERN works in their research, even relying on information obtained by psychics which can not be proven to be accurate. Much modern works on Atlantis do not hesitate to graft on to the original legend an incredible array of fantastic, modern and even 'science-fiction' types of attributes, technologies and abilities. Referring back to the original texts, we find NO such attributes or technologies, in fact outside of very modern plumbing, the story could very well describe a Chalcolithic culture. There are theorists who take this as support of the idea of Akrotiri being the Atlantis of legend, and it is possible that Plato did take some of his inspiration from the Minoans but there are numerous problems with this interpretation, including the quite small size of the island, the fact that it was NOT the capital of the Minoans, the islands did not include animals specifically mentioned by Plato as being in Atlantis (eg Elephants), the location is NOT outside the Pillars of Herakles/straits of Gibraltar, the destruction of the Minoans began with a volcanic eruption and the resulting mega-tsunamis, (Atlantis was destroyed by a combination of earthquakes and floods, no mention of any volcanic eruption) plus we know that the Minoans did not vanish in a single day and night but survived for about a century. I realize that this Minoan scenario includes the idea of a mistranslation by Solon of the numbers from the Egyptians by a factor of ten, which if true then makes Atlantis a rather un-remarkable and small island with a small army etc; this also relies on a mis-translation of "larger than" to "meso" or "middle of" a word scramble that is shown to be false by the other descriptive statements of Plato which plainly tell us that this power "came forth out of the Atlantic" not "came forth out of the Aegean" and the conquest of lands inside the Mediterranean up to the borders of Egypt would be non-sensical.

So to seek Atlantis I would propose that one should follow the example of Schliemann in his quest for Troy, that is to use the ancient sources as a guidebook and not rely on much of the modern material which is at heart nearly pure fiction. We are talking about a Neolithic civilization, not one with powerful ray-guns and magic crystals for passing through dimensions; a civilization that we may already have the traces of but are not recognizing. It is academic anathema to speak of humans living 11,000 years ago as anything but near-cave-men types, living the migratory hunter-gatherer culture, yet we know that agriculture had already begun. Animal husbandry appears to date at least 12,000 years back, and some grains were being cultivated at the same date; there are clues of what might be a simple form of cultivating wild grains recently found in Israel that dates back 20,000 years. We modern people often have a very strong conceit about our own society, thinking of ourselves as the very highest attainable ever, and forget that the human beings of 12,000 years ago were anatomically virtually identical with the people of today as regards brain size, the usual physical measure used by science to guess at intellectual potential (though this "rule" has some powerful flaws such as Homo Florensiensis, with rather tiny brains a third the size of modern man yet clearly made and used tools and fire, and likely hunted large animals cooperatively - apologies for the digression) so these ancient humans of 12,000 years ago had the exact same potential for problem solving as that of modern humans, the same talent for abstract thought - we should not be quick to dismiss them as mere 'cave-men'.

Then there is another problem involved, specifically the actual size of the island. All too often I see and hear about "Atlantis the lost CONTINENT" when Plato never once stated it was a continent but an ISLAND, a large island but an island nevertheless. In fact what he said was that it was a group of islands, from which you could travel on across the Atlantic to reach the "true continent" that physically bounds the whole of the western ocean - the Americas! This is actually quite solid proof that the ancient Greeks were at least AWARE of the existence of the Americas, which would appear to be a single massive continent to seafarers coming only from the east (Europe/Africa) unless they actually ventured inland enough to find the narrow strip of land connecting the two continents or sailed in circumnavigation around South America. Plato does not provide enough information to narrow the exact location, in fact saying "opposite the Pillars" can mean just about anywhere outside of the Mediterranean. Plus we know that sea levels were considerably lower 11,000 years ago than they are today, and while this also meant that vast areas in the northern regions were covered with massive glaciers, it also meant that a fair number of lands that are now submerged were actually above sea level, including some large islands. The distance from the land mass of Europe/Africa to the Americas was shorter by a considerable distance too, which obliquely affirms the statement of Plato about the Atlantic being "navigable in those days" as the distances between lands were not as great.

We also have sites which are clearly "civilization" that date back to the time Plato assigns to Atlantis too or at least near to it, such as Gobekli Tepe in Turkey which had surprisingly good stone buildings:

and dates back 11,500 years (or 12,000 years depending on the source you cite) or Jericho in the 'Holy Land' which was founded 9000 BC (another source states there was a settlement here dating back two thousand years earlier than this) and many other sites dotting the globe - even in China where we have evidence of people living in "civilized" settlements dating back to 12,000 BC - 14000 years ago. Considering that less than 10% of the sea floors have ever been fully explored and examined, and that we have ruins of ancient sites that actually run from above sea level down below the current sea level (such as the megalithic stone circle in France that actually is partly below the sea or "Seahenge" in the UK) which demonstrates to us those people were NOT simple hunter-gatherers living in caves but were a complex society with abstract beliefs and abilities to construct megalithic structures, hardly "cavemen" at all.

So yes Plato's attempts at social theory and sermon are all too frequently missed by the allure of the "mythical" Atlantis, but to dismiss the story as pure fiction or accuse Plato of inventing Atlantis is just as great an error.

My apologies for the long-winded post, good luck and good hunting, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Oroblanco

Notes:

Here is the relevant portion of "Life of Solon" by Plutarch, quote:

Now Solon, having begun the great work in verse, the history or fable of the Atlantic Island, which he had learned from the wise men in Sais, and thought convenient for the Athenians to know, abandoned it; not, as Plato says, by reason of want of time, but because of his age, and being discouraged at the greatness of the task; for that he had leisure enough, such verses testify, as

Each day grow older, and learn something new
and again,--

But now the Powers of Beauty, Song, and Wine,

Which are most men's delights, are also mine.
[32] Plato, willing to improve the story of the Atlantic Island, as if it were a fair estate that wanted an heir and came with some title to him, formed, indeed, stately entrances, noble enclosures, large courts, such as never yet introduced any story, fable, or poetic fiction; but, beginning it late, ended his life before his work; and the reader's regret for the unfinished part is the greater, as the satisfaction he takes in that which is complete is extraordinary. For as the city of Athens left only the temple of Jupiter Olympius unfinished, so Plato, amongst all his excellent works, left this only piece about the Atlantic Island imperfect.

Herodotus' work is online in a number of places, but look for one that has the original Greek alongside the English translation for many translations simply change his statement about "Island of Atlas" into "Atlantic" which even so does affirm that the origin of the name cannot be traced to Plato but at least 100 years earlier.

Plato is NOT the only source for the story of Atlantis as is claimed by so many modern skeptics either - and while some do date to a later time, they often include information that clearly could not have originated with Plato, such as the works of Diodorus Siculus which has some very interesting clues that could aid an Atlantis-seeker.

Whether Atlantis was rich in gold and silver can not be proven as yet, however we do know that gold was one of the earliest metals to be utilized by humans, copper the next; and while most historians claim that copper was not used by man some 11,000 years ago, it is entirely possible that the metal was in use much earlier - one need only look at the recent example of the "Ice Man" - a man preserved in ice found high in the Alps, who was discovered to have in his possession a copper AXE - at the time of his discovery, it was believed that the use of copper dates to some 1000 years AFTER the time the Ice Man lived; yet the Ice Man was found not only in possession of a copper axe but there were traces of metals in his hair itself, which can only mean that he was involved in smelting and casting copper while he was alive. So it is not inconceivable that a civilization of 11,000 years ago might have used copper, silver and gold, and that the art of smelting it was lost when the civilization was lost to flooding and rising sea levels.

 

[Cynangyl]

Thank you Oro for the great history lesson. I was not aware that there were mentions of Atlantis prior to Plato either. I do believe that those in modern times give too little credence to the thought that early man had problem solving ability built in like they do. Seems silly to me that they would not quite frankly. The whole caveman concept is pretty hard for me to swallow. Sheesh I had only intended to put in a quick Oro marker on this thread so I could follow it more closely only to find I have started rambling so pardon my intrusion and thank you to all that contribute here!

 

[Oroblanco]

Cynangyl how could your posts ever be an "intrusion"? I for one always appreciate your posts, and BTW thank you for the kind words amigo! Please don't hesitate to join in (and this goes to anyone reading here) all are welcome and even our dress code is casual!

There is some evidence that our ancient history is very much being ignored; the Phoenician historian Sanchoniathon for instance wrote that their own civilization (Phoenician/Canaanite) was already 27,000 years old by the time of his writing (BC) or nearly 30,000 years ago. Then we look at other ancient cultures such as Egyptians and find that they too claim to date back almost the same time span; (check out the theory on the Suphic cycle, seems to hint that the true origins of Egyptian civilization must date back at least one cycle and possibly more) now consider how many ancient civilizations seem to have been so concerned with time and cycles that they had "Great Year" cycles and had figured out the strange retrograde movement of the Zodiac (constellations) known as "precession" - this cycle takes about 26,000 years for a single cycle to complete. Are we to explain why ancient Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Mayans, Phoenicians etc had this knowledge by having observed it for only a relatively brief time span of a few hundred years? The alternate "dodge" would have us believe that cave men had kept track of precession for about 25,000 years, without being able to record it by writing down the information. Either idea strikes me (personal opinion) as preposterous. The recent debacle over the true age of the Sphinx in Egypt only serves to help point up that SOME kind of ancient civilization MUST have been in existence so far back in time, and the skeptics sarcastic dismissals of the idea by saying that those ancients would have been using the identical headgear, devices, insignia etc as those of much later Egypt doesn't hold water when we know that the Sphinx has been re-carved, and probably re-carved more than once!

To tie this back in to the subject - it is probably safe to assume that these Atlanteans, being a seafaring people with an extensive naval-based empire and trading with various places, could very well have learned the "Doctrine of the Sphere" (as Diodorus puts it) and had sent out exploring parties to learn the true geography of the world. The strange Piri Reis map (showing Antarctica's coastline as it would be WITHOUT ice, along with a notation that the climate there is "very hot"!!!) might be a document that contains information passed down to us from the Atlanteans, for we must go back that far in time to have the full coastline of the Antarctic continent free of ice.

Where in heck am I going with this navigation-mapping idea, you might well be wondering by now? Well I would suggest that it is POSSIBLE that some part of the treasure of the Atlanteans did NOT go to the bottom of the sea when the island was lost, but could still exist in some area that they had conquered or had planted colonies! Diodorus Siculus states that the Atlanteans had seized control over some areas of America, and that these areas had survived the cataclysm but had 'degraded' in their power, to the point that in various wars they were being beaten. (By none other than the "mythical" Amazons for instance.) If Atlantis did have control over some coastal regions of the Americas that did survive the end of Atlantis, any treasures they held, even if they were being stored for shipment to the home islands - would likely still be in the Americas! The fact of their being defeated by neighboring peoples much later in time has little bearing on such an ancient treasure trove, for we can surmise that any survivors would have been more concerned with ensuring their continuing survival in the period following the sudden rise of the sea than with loading up gold, silver or copper etc. We can even point to a rather surprising place for a clue of ONE possible outpost - for in Atlantis there was a particular type of metal, a natural alloy of gold, silver, copper and tin known as "orichalcum" (orekhalkoi in the original Greek) which was held in great esteem. This natural alloy is a perfectly natural mineral one could expect to find, yet no one has ever found any except in a single location - in Bolivia! This does not prove that Bolivia is in fact Atlantis (as several authors have proposed) but it does certainly suggest that Bolivia was at the least an outpost or colony of the home islands.

Sorry for taking the 'long way round' again, this is a subject that fascinates me and I have spent a respectable amount of time researching it (it is directly related to a project I am working on) so I get carried away with it VERY easily. Thank you for your indulgence...
Oroblanco

 

[Cynangyl]

pfft indulgence?? I loved it...get carried away anytime amigo! If you were to write an entire book regarding these subjects I would gladly read and re-read it.

 

[Oroblanco]

Cynangyl you are going to make me blush again! You have guessed what I have been doing, now eight years + and several hundred pages but I HOPE to finish it one day. I did contribute an abbreviated part of the study to an anthology edited by Preston Peet, it is in the bookstores (or was the last I knew) and includes contributions from many famous authors including Erik von Daniken, Graham Hancock, Andrew Collins Robert Shoch, John Anthony West and many others. The title is "Underground, the Disinformation Guide to Ancient Civilizations, Astonishing Archaeology, and Hidden History" and Google books has at least a part of it online free: (this is a WHOPPER of a linkee URL)

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...acDGo&sig=x9Xv-13Bu_Vj9jZbMccsdkbkXvA#PPP1,M1

My own part is titled "The Secret Land". Sorry for the sales pitch, I really don't get any royalties on it! (This is where I earned my place in the shameful "Tinfoil Hat Brigade" too!) Some of the theories presented are "pretty far out" in my opinion, but it is a fascinating read in spite of my bit.

Thank you again, and I hope you have a great day - you certainly made mine.
your friend,
Roy ~ Oroblanco