Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Minoans=Atlantians
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Monday, 24th July 2006
Anyone have any thoughts on the theory that the civilization know as the Minoans was actually the subject of Plato's story of Atlantis? Evidence shows that the story actually originated in Egypt 3000 years ago and that the Greek traveler Solon brought the legend to Greece. I find it interesting that in the Egytian version of the story, the name of the subject civilization when translated means Cretans. It is also interesting that most Minoan cities collapsed at around the same time, most likely as a result of the volcanic eruption on the island of Thera and the violent tsunamis that ensued. Any thoughts on this most intriguing theory?
-
Message 2
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Tuesday, 25th July 2006
Knossos appears to be the heart of Minoan culture. I would say that is a long way from Atlantis.I'm not sure of the latest in linier code A, but that may enlighten all of us. At the moment I would put Atlantis at ancient Thera (Santorini)
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 3
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Tuesday, 25th July 2006
I'm not sure if you are aware of this or not, but Thera, or Santorini as it is now known is home to the ancient site of Akroteri. Akroteri is a Minoan city. Which is why the theory is so intriguing.
-
Message 4
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Wednesday, 26th July 2006
Hi yank,
Well I wouldn’t rule your inquiry out altogether, but my own opinion is they are two separate entities. The Minoans as you know were all over, and I think we have yet to find out a lot more about them. Do you recall if the Boxer mural in Santorini was Minoan? It is very similar in style to the Priest King in the Iraklion museum.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 5
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Wednesday, 26th July 2006
I agree. The theory needs more research. However, I feel it's the best out there. Thanks for your insight though.
cheers, Tom -
Message 6
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 27th July 2006
Yankee and Buz, I have discussed in the past my disbelief on the Thera-Atlantis theory, first proposed by a Greek archaiologist, Spyridon Marinatos in the late 1930s some 20-30 years before he excavated Thera. I have also expressed my disbelief on the alignment of Atlantis to pre-historic Athens (a theory supported some months ago by a contributor 'Artorius' - though his insight made me think a lot) and more disbelief in the alignment of Atlantis to any Native American Empires.
I also do not believe the story is Plato's fantasy or will to support his political theories through it. I will explain why:
1) This was not a myth just like any other. It was not widely spread in the Greek world or a part of its culture. It is only developped in the Timaeus-Critias texts of Plato referring to a discussion that was held one night within Socrates' circle.
2) This is no Plato's fantasy: he involves historical people inside (Solon, Dropides, Timaeus and Critias etc.), and some from the most well known Athenian families including his own (like Critias he was related to Solon but from his mother's side). The events the texts refer to (Solon's visits to Egypt) were only 150 years old and if not in details then in general well known to most Athenians of that time.
3) Off course many pinpoint that Plato wrote the text 2-3 decades after the talk took place but then the text could actually be a compilation of different discussions Socrate's company had on the issue and Plato could as well write off his notes and not only out of his memory or out of his head. A possible proposition I make is that Plato himself could had heard the myth in a brief being a descendant of the family of Solon (Solon did not exactly kept things to himself, but talked a lot!).
4) A hint that helps me is that the myth actually helps in no way Socrates' company in their discussion, the myth did not build any discussion around it - on the opposite, it seems to had puzzled them as it puzzles us and it seems that Socrates (judjing by his reaction) did not believe it at all, setting it aside by saying (beggining of Timaeus):
Socrates asking Critias to talk:
"...Very good. And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?"
Socrates after a short introduction on the myth:
"And what other, Critias, can we find that will be better than this, which is natural and suitable to the festival of the goddess, and has the very great advantage of being a fact and not a fiction? How or where shall we find another if we abandon this? We cannot, and therefore you must tell the tale, and good luck to you; and I in return for my yesterday's discourse will now rest and be a listener."
... some take it as it is while others could just take it as Socrates' irony on the subject... my view is that he did not exactly believe it or he just took it as a weird myth of no use. -
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 27th July 2006
* correction above (I just refreshed myself): 'Atlantis' or 'Atlantians' are presented in 2-3 other texts but without details - for Herodotus Atlantians lived in North Western Africa. For Thoucydides Atlantis was an island destroyed by rising level of sea. However, not surprisingly all texts were written after Solon's times. As I said Solon talked a lot about his trips and many people were aware about things he heard on way or another.
having written the above I may continue:
5) the myth is not even the myth of Atlantis... but.. the myth of pre-historic Athens that was more developped than Atlantis to be able to save 'whole continents' from the expansionism of Atlantians... such a myth could not be made-out by Plato for any kind of propaganda apart from boasting how old and progressed was Athens but then it was not a boast to tell that Egyptians told us that while Athenians stood and heard like idiots?
6) Within the story (till the myth) the Egyptian priests (who self-declared distantly related in some way to Athenians and this mysterious pre-historic Athens) make an excellent description of how myths are born (making the link of natural phenomena with mythical explanations - which is amazing! Do we know other myths-stories that do that?). They even make a valid explanation of how it is the most progressed that are hit most by natural catastrophes being more vulnerable and why them in Egypt managed to maintain some archives, others had lost and knew only "childish myths".
7) As for the place?
I am not aware if this is a successful translation but I remember in modern-Greek edition it was like that:
Egyptian Priest's part of speech:
"Many great and wonderful deeds are recorded of your state in our histories. But one of them exceeds all the rest in greatness and valour. For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end. This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent."
And what does it says? In "those days", the Ocean was navigable and that in the mouth of the straits you (i.e. the Greeks) call Pillars of Heracles (pretty much obvious! What do you think the Greeks meant by that?) there existed an island which was large as Libya and Asia together (probably north Africa and Minor Asia... or just an exaggeration to impress...who knows?).... ok now the most amazing is that it says.. behind this large island there are other islands and behind them a really boundless continent!!!!!! I.e. the Carribean islands and America?
I am sorry but the description cannot be more obvious than that! The priest described Mediterranean as 'a small harbour' and the ocean as the 'real thing' and the continent behind the islands as the real continent! Sorry but it cannot be more obvious than that! Where can we fit any other place here?
8) The problem with all that is "how to establish that there existed a really large island in the Atlantic ocean and near the Gibraltar? The answer came quite recently:
Geologist J. Collina-Girard in 2003 though not the first to develop such a theory, gave evidence that there was indeed an island of about 120km2 (well, not that large as the myth says) surrounded by other small islands all situated... just in the mouth of Gibraltar. The theory was checked and supported also by another geologist from a french geological institute, Marc-AndrΓ© Gutsher. The french geologists have built on the work of Spanish/Portuguese researchers on the tsunamis that hit the atlantic coast in the past millenia.
Now the theory is not yet complete as it is fresh but it seems it may take up in the following years. But it seems to go hand in hand with the myth! 9000 years before Plato's and Solon's era... that was around 12,000 B.C.!!!! The small island geologists say existed around 9000 B.C.!!!! Other research talks about tsunamis that accured in that era and that water rose up to 3 meters per year!!!
I am sorry but according to the above, if in 9000 B.C. there was left a small island, in 12,000 that could had been a really large one!! And not only that? If in 9,000 there was a small island and 10s of islands here and there that (yet) again goes hand in hand with the priest's narration that says that the Ocean became 'unavigable' due to the mud created... a sinking land can became an unavigable sea... and in Gibraltar's case that meant that the entrance was closed for millenia! Explains also why the routes out of the Ocean were largely forgotten -
Message 8
Posted by Xenos5 (U1814603) on Friday, 28th July 2006
Hello Nikoloas
Atlantis has never really grabbed me, but your post was very interesting, thank you.
Wouldn't it be very obvious to submarine exploration if there was a great big land mass rising up from the ocean floor, but not breaking the surface ?
X -
Message 9
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 1st August 2006
Xenos5, I have been mentioned here as an Atlantologist (as we say Ufologist) in a funny sense by many contributors but then I will not go very far in what I propose: saying that Atlantis might had existed does not imply anything more than that: thus no talk about intergallactic evetns, no UFOS and no missions to Moon or Mars in pre-cataclysmic civilisations!
All I am saying is that the existence of a civilisation that was a bit more progressed from the level we expect from civilisations (neolithic) of 10,000 B.C. could explain actually a lot of questions on the ancient cultures myths (all of them!) and on how some knowledge of the ancient seemed to had been fragments of older knowledge rather than derived out of the natural discovery processes. Hesiod with his 'golden', 'silver', 'bronze' generations could not be more explicit.
Now, what could mean 'progressed civilisation'? It does not have to had been an industrialised culture, nor even a culture that spread all over the world (not even in one continent). Afterall Europe that had been the driver of our modern global civilisation is actually the smallest corner on earth while still after having sent missions to the moon and landed and walked we had 'first contacts' with tribes that still live in paleolithic conditions (not even neolithic!), and believed they were the only people in the world!
The myth on Atlantis of course does not say a lot on the progress: it talks generally about a society progressed in sciences and philosophy but when it comes to achievements we hear that they used soft metals like zinccopper, gold and silver (first metals to be ever used), and in building they used some short of stones found in their area. We have proof of metal working in the middle east around 6000 B.C. but then personally I do not see a reason why metal working would not had started much earlier in other places and it is just that we do not know it! Metal working in Australia started in 1700 A.D. afterall isn't it? Same for agriculture.
The problem is this: ok but do we have a proof? What I am saying is that it will be difficult to find such. On cultures that existed previously than 6000 B.C. we know that there existed impressively large cities in northern India around 8000 B.C. - cities of a size that was reached only if they a proper sanitary system.
Lets talk theoretically and built a scenario. What if in dates prior to 11,000 B.C. (say cataclysm happened +-1000 years) there were 1-2-3 points on earth where civilisation had progressed? Possible isn't it? Say 1 was Atlantis, say the other was Greece-Egypt-Middle East and the other northern India. What means progressed? Nothing more than a general understanding of nature and of some sciences (mathematics, astronomy, architecture, lingiustics etc.) and nothing more than the use of soft metals such as gold, silver and zincopper (thus no titanium alloys here!). It is still with such basic materials to do miracles isn't it? Now, what about the rest of the world? Why do they had to be equally proegressed I do see the reason. It could be that 1% of the population lived in those few progressed societies and the other 99% lived in neolithic conditions worshipping the 1% as ... gods! Makes some sense! The 1% of course had all the benefit of not giving to the others the knowledge in the same sense that 20% of the global population benefits of our modern civilisation while the 80% is living in lesser conditions - million in nearly primitive ones.
Now if a cataclysmic destruction hit these few cultures we do not expect that a lot would have remained, especially considering the types of materials they used (clay stones and soft metals). Say Atlantis sunk under the sea and now it must be many 10s of meters under the bottom of the sea, say Indian kingdoms we just start to find some elements... and say in middle east, the later cultures (minoan, egyptian, mesopotamians) just were born out of the ashes of these previous cultures but then in that way they built right on spot using whatever they could get out of the old ones. I mean - why do you think we do not find in a place like Greece any houses older than 100 years old (not even a trace)? Because, its a place hit anyway by earthquakes but in any way people took materials out of the old wrecked ones to use them in the new ones. Thus if one digs and finds say a byzantine village he will date the housing remains as of middle ages ignoring that those farmers actually used materials from houses built in classical times who in turn used components from houses in mycenian times ... and so on... a bit like the story of the Roman helmet (that everyone though it had to be iron since we found only iron... but they had actually a lot of bronze it is just that bronze was continuously reused.
I do not know if you are getting the point. Now I will play the devils' advocate. We have quite a problem here: Even if we say that 1% of the global population only had the chance to live in progressed societies then we have to find some evidence. Ok, Atlantis its sunk its nearly impossible to dig 100-200m under the bottom of the earth, in Greece and middle East, things built might had been gone forever (especially into later constructions) while in India we might only find bits and parts that cannot glue the puzzle. But then, if indeed these precataclysmic cultures were quite developped that means they must had some short of mobility around the world (at least in and out of the Mediterranean or in between Europe, Africa and America... at least. Hence, even if they were a few, they must had left a trace, some construction here, some mechanism there etc. For example, if the heads in the island of Easter were dating 10,000 B.C. then that could be a hint - unfortunately they date in A.D. times thus it is of no use. Pyramids in Egypt and America date also in later times thus are also of no use. Pyramids in Greece and other various places (Bosnia, Japan, France etc.) are of unknown dates (and I do not think there is still any serious attempt to study these building) thus still of no use. We are only left with myths which does not provide solid proof.
Now, specifically for the case of Atlantis, could we ever find anything, say if it sunk in the Atlantic ocean? I think not. 10,000 years afer, 1-2-5 km under the sea and some 50-100m under the bottom of the sea you do not expect to find remains of soft materials such as gold, silver and clay stones in a form that is recognisable as 'man made'! Isn't it? Thus I think proof must be sought in the little details that will connect the puzzle, all around the world. -
Message 10
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Tuesday, 1st August 2006
Hi Nik,
Which side of the debate were we on the last time?
I think I was arguing that looking for Atlantis is roughly equivalent to the search for Noah's Ark, or a belief in creationism.
Sometimes allegorical tales are just that, and we should take universal truth from the tale, rather try to prove the physical context of the tale. -
Message 11
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 3rd August 2006
Yes I remember Elistan but then in this myth some details are far too weird to be an allegorical myth. Imagine that within the story surrounding this myth of Atlantis the priests in Egypt give a logical explanation for the allegorical myths like that of the chariot of Helios that was taken by his son Phaethon that represents the times when celestial bodies approach the earth (meteorites) and bring destruction. Or another explanation of how after destruction it is the 'progressed' that suffer most and the least progressed that have more chances of survival thus knowledge tends to get lost.
I think the story behind Atlantis is far too strange to dismiss as an allegorical myth. Do not get me wrong. I am not 100% convinced that Atlantis existed in the Atlantic Ocean - just trying the possibility, taking for granted the overall geography mentioned in the myth and the latest geological research on the mouth of Gibraltar.
But I am more or less convinced that there have existed civilisations that we totally ignore in the misty past between 15,000 and 5,000 B.C. - afterall we talk about a huge period of time, our modern civilisation is basically 500 years old while in some domains (hygienic primarily, sanitation systems etc.) we only surpassed cultures of 3000 B.C. just 100 years ago (and that not all over the world necessarily). Why is it impossible that the 1% of global population (that were not so many anyway) had managed to do something better than neolithical villages in the period prior to 12,000 B.C.? How far they would have progressed? It does not matter.. far enough for the rest of 99% of humanity to regard them like gods. And enough for people to have myths about them (in all cultures all over the world). -
Message 12
Posted by Xenos5 (U1814603) on Friday, 4th August 2006
Nik
Yes I follow your argument and I think it has some merit in the abstract. My problem is with the idea of a continent or even an island disappearing so completely under the sea over a period of a few millenia. Because if I understand you right you don't just mean under the surface of the sea you mean under the ocean floor. My knowledge of geology and plate tectonics - which is far from expert - just doesn't allow me to consider that as a sensible possibility.
Do you see my problem ?
X -
Message 13
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 4th August 2006
Xenos5, I am no geologist and no big-time specialist (just an engineer in another field) my country of origin is within an earthquake zone in which inherently few things survive longer than 200 years unless they are excessively overengineered and/or religiously restored (the case of many ancient and medieval temples). And I am talking about minor catastrophes such as earthquakes of 6richter every 10 years and above 7 every 50 years.
Whatever have survived that were temples using marble (a really hard element) or stone in a loose formation that can vibrate semi-freely along with the earthquake without suffering damage (and that is a real engineering achievement of those architects). However other temples have not survived at all (not even their foundations) like those of Sparta (well, some french vandals in the 18th century played also the final act!).
If Atlantis had existed in the Atlantic ocean and suffered such a fate I really do not see how we could find anything on the bottom of the sea, even if it was made of marble. If geologists are right and there was a 3m/yr rise of water (which is immense) this means not only that the island would be convered in a few years completely but also that this would be accompagnied by terrible earthquakes (7richter the minor ones!). Now, if those hypothetic Atlantians - lets not forget these would be a progressed neolithic civilisation! - built their cities with the soft materials mentioned in the myth (brown/yellow bricks, zincopper, silver and gold) then I do not thing that much would have survived of their buildigns... perhaps plenty of their larger metal objects - I do not refer to the small ones cos these were certainly re-used by survivors (taken by refugees on ships - e.g. when we find ancient gold pieces is usually because we are the first to find them after they had been lost: normally 99,99% of metal objects have been re-used into new ones). But again after so many millenia, these will be enough meters below the bottom of the sea thus not visible to us. Yes we may find ancient ships but up to classical times (usually in places where no intensive layer positioning occured). But in case of a sunken land, the layer positioning would be 10fold or more and that means that most would be covered by tons of material (the story about a muddy mouth of Gibraltar gives us an idea). -
Message 14
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 4th August 2006
My doubts are not so much based on our inability to find Atlantis (that will be the difficult task), but on our inability to identify other signs of activities of that mythical Atlantian civilisation every ancient people talked one way or another. We will have to start necessarily from there. If we find occasionally traces of Neaderdals and his tools here and there I think we should find some traces of an "enlightened culture" that should normally had been a bit more mobile rather than sitting all time in its own Atlantic island (no matter how big or small was that). And so far we have no such traces: Egyptian pyramids are dating millenia after that era, American natives built their temples in A.D. times, Soumerians developped in times after 7,000 B.C. (thus at least 3 millenia after the hypothetic date of the cataclysm)
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.