Ancient and Archaeology permalink
Atlantis 2
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 18th August 2005
This forum is the least crowded so I start a new discussion for our convenience – Atlantis is my favourite subject, not that I sit night and day dreaming about it as our beloved UFOlogists do of their flying Ferraris!. So...Aaaatlantisss, yes! What is the big deal? Why everybody is so apprehensive, it is just a story, either it is true either it is false – it is interesting to know what lies behind, try to prove if it is true or false, but I really do not understand those commencing from the fact that it is all Plato’s fantasies and try to establish it by any means and without having the evidence required. Afterall it is not so much up to those who believe it to prove it right, it is more up to those who do not believe it to prove it wrong – they cannot do it. On the other hand, there is yet no full proof for Atlantis existence, thus we can say we do not know.
It is important to forget about all that we have heard, read or think, extra-terrestrials and UFOS and nuclear wars and nuclear catastrophes or those perfect, platonic, ideal, fantastic, philosophical, societies. You do not have to believe people who want to debase Plato's texts to anything other than what it actually is in order to fit their own absurd or naive stories so as to the developers of a new theory (and such are the most innocent), to ‘be the smart guy’, sell more books, defend their religious or other beliefs, justify funds received for excavations and work, and of course the good old inner silent not spoken dislike/hatred due to a complex of inferiority towards these writers and these civilisations.
In case you have spare time and lots of interest, try googling something like 'Timaeus Critias', to find the English translation of the texts ‘Timaeus’ and ‘Critias’ and read the initial part of ‘Timaeus’ and the whole of ‘Critias’ where it mentions the myth of Atlantis – it would be better if you read all parts of both texts to have a clear idea of what they were talking about. It will not take much time. A quick 5 minutes scanning is enough to get the idea. -
Message 2
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 18th August 2005
Before going to the ‘roasted meat’ it would be good to define the word ‘myth’, because if we accept light-heartedly that Atlantis is a myth then we instantly imply there is a part of it that corresponds to real events. The word myth in (very) ancient Greek comes (most probably) from two basic roots ‘mi’ (omilo=say, speak) and ‘theomai’ (see, understand, know), ‘theomai’ gives also ‘theos’=god (i.e. the gods are the ones that have the knowledge), theomai has also another possible meaning which is to supervise things from above and understand quickly. Thus the ‘myth’ is a real story long-story-short, i:e history narrated in a way easily remembered by children in order to last for 1000s of years. For example that definition makes our first history books in preliminary schools nothing more than written myths. Naturally all ancient myths Greek, Egyptian, Indian etc. hide a part corresponding to real events; nonetheless, establishing what is corresponding where and happened when is the real difficulty since in the lapse of 1000s of years many myths being narrated most often orally and less often written, were being ‘inter-confused’ and events or names of heroes of one myth could be evoked in another. The interesting thing is when myths of different civilisations talk about common events such the creation of the world, the era before the cataclysm and the cataclysm itself (actually Greek and Egyptian mythologies mention that there were more cataclysms local and intercontinental than the main one mentioned by all).
-
Message 3
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 18th August 2005
Going to the ‘roasted meat’, we have two texts ‘Timaeus’ and ‘Critias’ (the only reference to Atlantis) named after two real persons from within the circle of students of Socrates (mentor of Plato). Critias, son of Dropides and grandson of Critias and great-grandson of Dropides, was from a well known wealthy Athenian family and a historic person since he has been evoked in other writers as well. Timaeus must had been a well known Syracusean, very educated and from a wealthy family although his name is not evoked by any other writer – nontheless, there is absolutely no reason to suspect that he was an imaginary person when all others were indeed historical persons (as some ‘smart’ ones suggest in their ‘ideal-society’ Atlantis theory). Socrates was executed in 404 hence, the dialogues described in the texts must have occurred (if not indeed imaginary) before that date. Plato, born around 427 BC, and died around 347 BC, must had been young when the dialogues took place – interestingly most analysts presume he wrote Timaeus and Critias as late as 360 (i.e.more than 40 years difference). Plato was a strong believer of the good-old ‘learn-by-heart’oral method and like Socrates he must had memorised much of what he was taught, however memorising dialogues after 40 years is quite difficult. On the other hand, none has ever solidly proved when Plato wrote each of his texts – especially these two which do not mention any specific contemporary event or if he wrote his texts based on pre-written notes, therefore all suppositions are plausible. Another interesting thing is that Plato was a relative of Critias and was himself a descendant of Solon from his mother’s side, Solon is the one mentioned to have brought this story to Athens from Egyptians. Hence, it would be not surprising at all if Plato had already some notions of the myth at the time these dialogues happened, or if following these evenings, Plato went on researching the myth.
-
Message 4
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Thursday, 18th August 2005
Like a lot of good tales, this story is actually several roots coming together. Ireland apparently meets the overall description of the "continent" beyond the Pillars of Hercules, whereas several places including this small island recently located and Crete have been swamped. Thus, it is a mistake to try to find one place, which fits all the details.
-
Message 5
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 18th August 2005
Now, no matter when he wrote it, people usually concentrate first on this question: why did he write it? To pass on a message through it? Did he invent the story based vaguely on similar cataclysmic myths (such as the cataclysm of Deukalion) or the destruction of Troy (as some suggest) in order to talk about his ideal society 'plato-style'? Or was it just an interesting story to write?
Lets see how it fits in the texts. In the introduction of Timaeus, we see that this discussion on politics and sociology was being held for more than 1 evenings, and it was Critias that first evoked the story of Atlantis, all that discussion on about the 'city', and its laws and its organisation reminded him a story passed to him from his great-grandfather Dropides through his grandfather Critias. Dropides had heard the story from Solon himself who had heard the full story in Egypt from the priests of a small egyptian city claiming to have very ancient greek origins.
We know that Solon, the greatest ever politician in Athens (bigger name than Pericles), who lived in the 6th century, had visited Egypt in one of his trips to study their culture and civilisation. Thus, the story of Solon visiting the city of Sais where priests kept ancient records not only for their city but for whatever other region was known, is not at all absurd. Solon must have memorised what he learned there (a usual tactic) and told the tale to more people in Athens, thus what we read in Plato's texts has come to us through an indirect path of 4 people and 4 generations. Thus some details here and there might have been slightly affected though not so much basic info such as the date of 9,000 years back.
We also know that Solon was the most reverred politician ever in Athens, Critias was his descendant like Plato and the rest were also known people of their time and reverred (Socrates was also reverred after his death). It is therefore difficult to think that Plato would have utilised the names of such important people and falsify their sayings, and 'put a false story into their mouth' in a text that was for everyone to read! Athenians were not so sympathetic at such cases - they executed Socrates on the first suspicion of corrupting the youth and introducing 'new gods/stories/religions'.
Nor does the story helps Plato in any case. It does not set an argument and does not help Plato explain better his own or anybody elses ideas about the 'ideal polis' as so many (especially modern Greek!shame!) historians love to repeat. Plato includes the story of Atlantis in Timaeus as it came into their discussion,i.e. an interesting parenthesis. It seems that the other talkers like Socrates could not verify or totally accept such a strange story unknown in most of Greece (unknown since it came from Egypt!) hence they pretty much remained sceptical. This is another proof that Atlantis does not serve as an example of an idealistic society for Plato, it is what it is, a myth that came naturally into their discussion, a myth originating from Eygpt. -
Message 6
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 18th August 2005
Dave, yes it is a mistake to search for the place. Scientists have better continue with any other reseqrch. Atlantis whatever that was will be found only accidentally.
Will come back for more, this time on the myth itself cos there is more info into the myth than we would have wished - unfortunately for those who think it is false. -
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 18th August 2005
... so far I have commented only on the possibility of this myth being a myth from Egypt as Plato suggests. As you can read above, I personally believe it is exactly what is mentioned: a myth that Solon heard in a city in Egypt. People can still argue that it is Plato's made up stories, thought it is their problem to solve all the aforementioned questions i set above, not us who believe that the events (i.e. Solon going to Egypt, to the city of Sais and listening these stories from the priests there) happened as Critias described. It is not necessary to comment more on that (unless some good argument is heard), it is more interesting to comment on the myth itself, what conclusions can we drag from it?
It really never comes into most reader minds that the whole story of Critias along with the myth of Atlantis is quite strange in the sense that it does not start at all directly with old stories but with historic events that took place some 120 years earlier than the time of the discussion (i.e. when Solon went to Egypt). Solon goes there, hears about Sais, visits the city, talks with the old priests, boasts about Greeks being the most ancient like a proper Greek he was (so you know now were that bad habit comes from), and then priests tell him he knows nothing:
And from here on the priest starts to say amazing things like proper descriptions of how destructions occur, of how civilisations can be completely destroyed and of how their knowledge and history are forgotten, how certain destructions destroy the cities thus the surviving people are mainly uneducated and thus the stories become simplistic myths for kids with little connection with reality - and most importantly the fact that many myths shared among various nations (eg. Greeks and Egyptians) refer to the same chain of events but with different names. The priest also explains to Solon that many cataclysms of various degrees have happened and that Greece despite having repeatedly hosted great civilisations it was repeatedly returned to point zero so knowledge was always lost while Egypt due to its geography and morphology was struck less thus it was more easy to maintain archives of past eras. It is better for you to read the text in Timaeus... it could not have been said in a better way. All that for those that do not believe in past progressed civilisations. Solon is convinced and so wants to learn more, hence the priests invite him to see their archives and learn the story that is of the common ancestors of their cities as the Sais priests claimed to be. -
Message 8
Posted by BlueHue (U1943007) on Monday, 29th August 2005
"Atlantis IS accidentally" found: it is"archaiic Athens"itselves, the confusion that barred ( 55 other selfstyled "Atlantologists" at a recent"Conference"in Melos.)to spot my discovery, was the Phrase: an unprovoked force of......"Atlanteans attacked Athens" and scholars decided, that they, thus, could not be identical, for whom has ever heard of a "civil war in Athens" ?( in the crowded: 9.000 years-ago-Camp?!)
For me in the lonely: 900-years ago"Camp", Plato's "Egyptian-origin"is bogus. from:"BlueHue". -
Message 9
Posted by BlueHue1 (U1820231) on Wednesday, 31st August 2005
DEAR mr Neopopoulos,...er.....Sorry: "NIOKalaos", ...I am sorry....( must check that!)....E.NIKOLAOS !
"ATLANTIS" means what it says: "LAND-of-ATHEns"
Why look further into "impossible" explanations?
ATLANTIS, is archaïc-ATHENS,:"ATHINI"was re-built on Old-Athens wich was: "Atlantis" about 900 BC; not 9,000 BC! In THAT case renments of the "Unprovoked" Battle should still be under the soil in the 9.000-Epoch age range, but I am not aware that 9,000 BC artefacts have been found!
Than: either "Atlantis" was NOT: 9,000 BC or ( archaïc-) ATHENS were NOT "Atlantis".
But, I am in the 900 BC-Camp...So,..."AT=arc.ATH"! -
Message 10
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 1st September 2005
Your profound hatred for Greeks (ancient or modern) goes hand in hand with your blatant ignorance and trashing of even common sense (who speaks of... science.. that is a Greek invention also... we are a very disturbing race, aren't we? We make the sauce of everybody go sour cos we still continue define things, east and west, you know where it comes from).
Answer me that: Can we have a date 10,000 ago or not? Then we continue to discuss. -
Message 11
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 1st September 2005
... for those who find logical the idea the the world is older than 8000 years... Sorry of rnot finding the time to write my third and last pasrt (all previous were just an intro to the most interesting stafF). I am still willing to write them but if there is only interest by my dear friend BlueHue then there is no point since there is the following paradox:
Nick talks about a story before 12,000 years. BlueHue thinks the earth and in general this universe is only 8,000 years old. Now given the fact that the universe expands and contracts there have been innumerbale universes, the Bible for example mentions about 'other worlds' (e.g. angles and such things). Perhaps Nick talks about the previous universe just before ours. But then how is it possible a guy from our universe know things about a previous universe when all matter from this universe has no physical connection to all the matter of the previous universe other than the assumption that the matter of the previous concentrated to a point which expanded and gave the matter for the next one.....
.... see what problems arise? -
Message 12
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 2nd September 2005
trust me, All modern Greek cities are built on the exact sites of ancient ones which are built on the exact sites of the very ancient ones and that goes on... see Greece is a country with limited resources a lot of mountains and few and very small sources of water that cannot qualify for rivers. Hence, the habitable places were few and were used repeatedly again and again after every destruction that occured in the land (in the myth of Atlantis it describes that nicely).
I inform you that the metro project of Salonica was stopped because there is a whole ancient city (hellenistic and roman-byzantine) underneath the modern one. Have you heard anything like that during the metro building in Athens? All Greeks (especially those in Salonica) were curious to see if the government will do the same and stop the Athenian metro project because of the many ruins that certainly lie deep in the ground. Well they sent 1-2 archaiologists to be in the 'excavations' 'as if' to take away any ancient ruins but then as the project went on employing its 100tn metro-mouse that was virtually eating the earth then you do not exactly expect to find anything at all. Those pathetic broken stones and clays that exhibit in the metro are just ash thrown to people's eyes - it is ridiculus. I am not sure to what depth exactly they went but certainly to reach the layers corresponding to 9000 well you need to dig really deep down or a good earthquake so that the ground itself elevates. As far as I know there are few to no archaiological teams that dig with a spoon to such depths as that would cost 1.000.000s hence deep digging is left only to multionational projects whose last wish is to call archeologists as soon as they find something ancient - they simply put on the bulldozers and destroy it forever. Do not forget that after 9000 years most products from materials like stones and soft metals might have been forever destroyed and lost - most commonly by means of recycling, eg. christians in the first centuries AD were breaking wonderful ancient monuments from marble in order to built some pathetic chuches.
Therefore you need to search in places where human activity should have been preserved like caves... but then Greeks were the first to leave the caves and built civilisations when the others were still living on the trees. Understand? -
Message 13
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 2nd September 2005
You are an american: take the examples from your country. You saw recently two of the tallest skyscrapers falling into ashes and dust due to the fall of two civil airplanes. You also saw a typhoon not the largest that the earth causing such a destruction and you saw what was people's reaction after that. You also saw other things like the tsunami in S.E.Asia. All these destructions are only a small fraction compared to what must have happened at the time of the cataclysm that must have affected many parts of the world at around the same time. Do you think that you would find anything after it? I would think we will find mainly mud.
-
Message 14
Posted by BlueHue1 (U1820231) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
DEAR mr NIKOLAUS.
As an amateur-Historian, I just give general meanings without scientific resource-bookmarks.
I am not a rich american tourist, but a barnyard hermit from Holland. further, I read dr Velikivsky's New-revised Chronology with its main
Feature, that Conventional year: 1555 BC,is actually New-rivised Chronology Yea: 1055 BC. and so henche all MY dates are 500 years lower.
We all know that the Greeks did not live in Greece BEFORE: 1000 or: 900 bc.
The first greeks entering Greece/Hellas were the : "Achaiwoi"and secondly the Danaeans thirdly the Dorians, and inbetween the Ionians and Aeolians. Even the notion that a certain :"Kadmos"entered Greece/Boetia in 1200 BC and invented the Linear-A script is false in Date; King Kekrops may not have been the first King of Athens, but he did create a new Dynasty in 900 BC.( not in the "conventional 1300 BC.
I also maintain that Atlantis was ADEN(=archaÃc-ATHENS.)Outside Greece and that the Map-of-Greece as a colony from: South-Arabia, indeed reflects the Map of the Aden-Protectorate Coast, from about 1055 BC with the river-Styx and its 3 tributaries: Peneios, Acheron, Plegethon
that in Aden constituted the"4-Rivers-of-Paradise"
ALSO the Coast of Israel+Lebanon, reflects the ( punician-)cities from "Aden-Protectorate"& Oman.
In: 1055-50 BC the civil war in Aden/ATHENS took place and the King of ADEN, ( Megas-Sar.)Adonis or"Poseidon"went to ADANA in Turkey and called himself:"Sar-DANOS"from him came the"Dana-ean-Greeks"!
He was chased by his Brother Kadmos, who himself also founded a City:"Thebes"in Boötia.thus in 1050 BC.
The Peloponesis, was only named :"Attica"after a daughter of King Kekrops, or otherwise after "Atlantis" Thank you for your intrest!
IF you feel that You held a:"Monologue"here I whish to refer You, to the Atlantis-Website:"www.Bernardo@atlan.org" My best wishes and GOOD LUCK ( maybe I SEE YOU THERE?!)
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  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
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ 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.