Is it posible at all that Atlantis mentioned by Plato existed. Did Orihalcum (a supposed precious metal used by Atlantians) exist and was it gold copper alloy some suggested or likely something else completely. Perhaps a foreign language for an existing alloy we know today? Discuss...

Not.
There's nothing to discuss - it was a simple didactic story.

When you read Æsops fables, do you think that Lions used to talk?

It is possible.

It is possible.

It is also possible that lions used to talk, but is highly unlikely, and there is no evidence what so ever to back the claim up.

Orihalcum means mountain copper in Greek.

Atlantis was a device used by Plato to criticize Athens without suffering the same fate as his predecessor, Socrates, who was put to death for "polluting young minds" as well as apostacy. Socrates was openly critical of Athens, which got him in hot water.

To make his point without fear of retribution, Plato needed to create a hypothetical state. If you read the dialogs of Critias and Timeus, you'll see many close parallels to Athens of the day contemporary to Plato. Indeed, if one reads other philosophical works of Plato, it was a common device for him to create entirely fictional dialogs to make a salient point about very non-fiction situations. His account of the trial of Socrates for instance.

Atlantis is just the thought experiment of a long dead philosopher.

But teh Lion King talks... :p Seriously though a great philospher of that time made up crap? Anyhow I do agree that there's hard a trace of evidence. Could it just be a seafaring nation of that time that traded far off places? Perhaps being but an early civilization of a place that does exist even on our map today?

Orihalcum means mountain copper in Greek.

Atlantis was a device used by Plato to criticize Athens without suffering the same fate as his predecessor, Socrates, who was put to death for "polluting young minds" as well as apostacy. Socrates was openly critical of Athens, which got him in hot water.

To make his point without fear of retribution, Plato needed to create a hypothetical state. If you read the dialogs of Critias and Timeus, you'll see many close parallels to Athens of the day contemporary to Plato. Indeed, if one reads other philosophical works of Plato, it was a common device for him to create entirely fictional dialogs to make a salient point about very non-fiction situations. His account of the trial of Socrates for instance.


Ah finally a decent argument. A good one at that. But how does that explain the supposed advance civilisation of that time? A metaphor of Greek's greatness?

A metaphor of Greek's greatness?

Perhaps their arrogance?

Ah finally a decent argument. A good one at that. But how does that explain the supposed advance civilisation of that time? A metaphor of Greek's greatness?People of that time--and people of this time--make up myths about beings who are entirely supernatural, live in the clouds, shoot lightning out of their fingers and break mountains in half when they get angry.

Many humans seem to be infected with a sense of abject humility. They feel more comfortable "knowing" that there's a much more advanced civilization out there.

Civilization leaves enormous traces of itself even when it dies. All the "barbarian" tribes for miles around trade, learn or steal its technology and artifacts and slowly civilize themselves. Even a neighboring pre-civilized Neolithic tribe will adopt their agriculture and its descendants will have DNA-identifable descendants of their cultivated hybrid crops.

For a civilization to collapse and completely vanish without a trace--even one on a continental shelf that slowly submerges over a span of decades--is an extraordinary assertion which, according to the scientific method, requires extraordinary substantiation. The uncorroborated writings of people famous for blending myth with fact and calling it "history" don't comprise that substantiation.

Eventually we'll explore the continental shelf in microscopic detail and look for the foundations of their buildings. But until then the lack of traces of civilization on the higher ground, to which they could have walked at a very leisurely pace and rebuilt their homes long before the cities sank, is pretty strong evidence of absence of civilization.

The city of Troy was considered a myth until they uncovered its remains. There very likely was an Atlantis sometime in the past, as we have seen how an island can disappear after a tsunami ( The Indonesia tsunami). And we know that massive seismec disturbances can cuase giant tsunamis ( Krakatoa). Recently, there was an eruption on an island in the East Atlantic that liquified the soil on the west side and caused about half the island to start sliding into the ocean. The next eruption will cuase that to slide in, and WILL cause a massive tsunami that WILL hit the West Coast of America and Mexico. It will hit New York, Miami, and several other major West Coast cities. granted it will take about 5 hours for it to reach the West Coast, but can you evacuate New York in just five hours? I think that whatever cuased the Marianas trench is what destroyed Atlantis. That, or one of the above reason. Atlantis could of possibly of even been England. But if the pictures of Plato's Atlantis are to be beleived, then it was likely some kind of massive volcanic eruption that destroyed it, or a large, so-called super tsunami swept over the island, covering it in water an carrying its remains all over the world. Or it was a combination of the two. Perhaps a massive volcanic eruption that was larger and more powerful then Krakatoa, which caused Pyroclastic flows that swept over water made a tsunami so larrge, it compleatly engulfed a 15 or so story tall lighthouse and carried it out to sea, having compleatly ripped it apart. I think the super-massive eruption is what destroyed Atlantis. It fits the story, and given the translation of the metals name, it could of been sitting on a massive, in-active volcano, which self-destructed like Krakatoa and maybe cuased the Marianas trench. I mean, Krakatoa was much smaller, and it compleatly destroyed the island. Imagine what kind of destrouction a a contient sized super-volcano could do. if it erupted just as violently as Krakatoa. All the evidence points to some kind of absolutely massive volcano, which would explain the huge amounts of extreamly rare metal and its quality.

Sound likely?

I'll say: nnnot.

Did Orichalcum exist and was it gold copper alloy some suggested or likely something else completely.
Current hypotheses go with it either being a gold/copper alloy, a copper/zinc brass, or maybe an earlier form of copper/tin bronze.
Those are the main ones.

Whatever created the Marianas trench had to of been incredibly violent. The asteroid that killed the dinosuars creatd or enlarged the Gulf of Mexico to its current size. It landed in the Yucatan peninsula nd wiped out almost all life on the planet. Massive changes can happen in a short period of time. Atlanti probably was a volcanic island in the midle of the ocean. Back then, they didn't know that volcanic islands had extreamly fertile soil, which would explain why Atlantis was self-sufficent. And the story describes fire falling from the sky, great waves that swollowed the island, and the sun disapearing. All of this can happen during an extreamly violent volcanic eruption. Krakatoa did all of those things. I think that is best to say that Atlantis was somekind of massive volcanic island with a super-volcano under it. When it erupted, it destroyed the island and possibly created the marianas trench. I mean, the trench is rich in thermal vents and small underwater lava flows. If the destruction of Atlantis did cause the creation of the Marianas trench, then imagine how powerful and large the eruption had to be. the story also mentions an un-earthly roar, which is also a characteristic of volcanons. you have to remember that we are talking about people who thought that eruptions and tsunamis were cuased by the gods. I think that it did indeed have a massive volcano at its center that erupted, spewing ash, smoke, and lava bombs into the air. The shockwave of the massive blast cuased huge waves that engulfed the city and island ( Volcanic islands are usually low lying islands, the highest point being the volcano at the center. If the volcano exploded, I mean like hundreds of times worse then Mt. Saint helens, then it would of destroyed the island, and the channels and the lakes they led to would have a massive tsunami coming towards them.)

If you think such a blast is unlikely, consider this. Lake Toba is 50 miles long and 15 miles wide, and was formed from the blast of a super-volcano. that same eruption, which was smaller then the one is was talking about, plunged the world into a volcanic winter, killed 60% of the humans alive at that time, and was responsible for the sulfuric acid in the atmosphere. If a relatively small super-volcano can do that, imagine what one the size of an island would do. There would be fewer casualties since its in the middle of an ocean, not the middle of an inhabited contient like the lake. But you would still get a lot more destruction. The Earth rends itself apart in ways we can't imagine.

Orihalcum means mountain copper in Greek.

Atlantis was a device used by Plato to criticize Athens without suffering the same fate as his predecessor, Socrates, who was put to death for "polluting young minds" as well as apostacy. Socrates was openly critical of Athens, which got him in hot water.

To make his point without fear of retribution, Plato needed to create a hypothetical state. If you read the dialogs of Critias and Timeus, you'll see many close parallels to Athens of the day contemporary to Plato. Indeed, if one reads other philosophical works of Plato, it was a common device for him to create entirely fictional dialogs to make a salient point about very non-fiction situations. His account of the trial of Socrates for instance.

Atlantis is just the thought experiment of a long dead philosopher.

Celts - Cantref Gwaelod meaning "Country of the Bottom"

The Hindu Mahabharata - Describes war with Altantis.

The Etruscans(Roman ancestors) - had traditions concerning their coming from an overseas land submerged under the seas in a cataclysm shortly after or during a great war.

The Indians of the Brazilian Amazon jungle - Tucanos, Desanas, Barasanas, etc. - claimed to have come from a sunken Paradise, destroyed and submerged by the Flood. This Paradise they called by many names such as Yvymaraney ("Evil-less Land" or "Pure Land"), or Emekho Patolé ("Navel of the Universe")

Not only Plato, but other contemporary writers such as Herodotus, Aristotle, Hecateus of Miletus and Skylax of Carianda explicitly utilized that name of "Atlantic Ocean", which indeed dates from before the times of Plato. Plato specifically acknowledges the fact that the name is due to Atlas and the Atlanteans.

The end of the Pleistocene Ice Age - the date of whose closely coincides with the one of 11,600 BP given by Plato for Atlantis' demise - also marks the rise of agriculture, of city-building and of the Neolithic both in the Old and the New Worlds.

Whatever created the Marianas trench had to of been incredibly violent.

Please, you are embarassing yourself. Look up plate tectonics, subduction, ocean trenches and then come back.

Whatever created the Marianas trench had to of been incredibly violent.

I can't really add more to what another poster already has with regard to the amount of embarrassment you will probably feel should you ever actually obtain an education on the topic of plate tectonics.

The asteroid that killed the dinosuars creatd or enlarged the Gulf of Mexico to its current size. It landed in the Yucatan peninsula nd wiped out almost all life on the planet.

This was 65 million years ago and has little to do with the myth of Atlantis. But if you're goal is to prove that "Massive changes can happen in a short period of time," then one can agree. One should also agree, however, that such changes are marked by global evidence, such as a universal stratagraphic layer of iridium, common in asteroids. No such evidence is available to mark any event that might surround the fictional "Atlantis."

Atlanti probably was a volcanic island in the midle of the ocean.

Probably isn't a word I would have chosen, but then, I'm not encumbered by your lack of education. There is no geologic evidence to suggest such an island existed or that technological advancement among humanity was present among any culture to the degree Plato described in his dialogs at the period in which he placed "Atlantis."

Back then, they didn't know that volcanic islands had extreamly fertile soil, which would explain why Atlantis was self-sufficent.

"Back then?" What year and what culture are you referring to? What evidence do you have of what they may or may not have had with regard to technology or what knowledge they would have had about agriculture and volcanic soils? Or, are you simply making stuff up to fit the story?

I think that is best to say that Atlantis was somekind of massive volcanic island with a super-volcano under it. When it erupted, it destroyed the island and possibly created the marianas trench.

I think its best you go to school, read a book, and get an education. Volcanoes make islands, not destroy them. The Hawaiian islands are testament to this. If there were a "super-volcano" (the very term appeals heavily to the significance-junkie and mystery-monger) in the Atlantic Ocean, don't you think there'd be geologic evidence for it today? Humanity is a recent ecological phenomenon and geologic changes occur with comparatively very slow rates, so any geologic event would still be evident today.

And, for the record, the Mariana Trench was not created by a volcanic event. It is a point where two continental plates converge with one being subducted under another. When plates converge, they have two possibilities: 1) one subducts under the other as with the Mariana 2) or they push upwardward, as with the Himalayas

I mean, the trench is rich in thermal vents and small underwater lava flows. If the destruction of Atlantis did cause the creation of the Marianas trench, then imagine how powerful and large the eruption had to be.

This line of thinking is based on ignorance and not on anything that someone educated in the slightest with geology would be thinking.

you have to remember that we are talking about people who thought that eruptions and tsunamis were cuased by the gods.

So, you're saying that magical-thinking is a human affliction, eh? I agree. This is why the myth of Atlantis persists. It is magical thinking and ignorance that keeps people in the dark about geology and science and their minds are cluttered with stories of mythical places like Atlantis, Mu, etc. The human brain thirsts for explanation and, in the absence of information, it will concoct all manner of mystery and explanation based on the knowledge it has. The way to best inform that natural desire to explain the universe around you is to educate your mind. You're on the right track, so don't let the harsh criticisms of me or anyone else here dismay you in that endeavor. We're just saying that you don't want to jump at the first thing your mind say's "aha!" to until you've gathered all the data (i.e. the Mariana Trench).

The Earth rends itself apart in ways we can't imagine.

Actually, I can image quite a lot. However, your point is good. The problem with it is that each of the events you mention have geologic evidence that exists to show what happened. Geologic events are slow and make their mark. Even the apparently "sudden" events of volcanoes and earthquakes are the result of millions of years of geologic activity: plates moving, magma hotspots moving, etc.

The myth of Atlantis is not associated with any geologic evidence whatsoever. The most parsimonious assumption that can be made with regard to Plato's account of Atlantis is that it was a fictional device used in dialog as he was known to do. Nearly every single one of his dialogs involved a hypothetical person, place or event. Every single one. I've yet to read the dialog that didn't. The reason is this: he created thought experiments for people to use their brains on. The Atlantis thought experiment is one that was intended to get the people of Athens to think about their own government.

Celts - Cantref Gwaelod meaning "Country of the Bottom"

I fail to see what it has to do with anything Plato said.

The Hindu Mahabharata - Describes war with Altantis.

Please, share with us the passage that mentions "Atlantis." It will be enlightening.

The Etruscans(Roman ancestors) - had traditions concerning their coming from an overseas land submerged under the seas in a cataclysm shortly after or during a great war.

The Aegean was volcanic and tectonic, so I'd be more surprised if they didn't, but I'd be interested in what "Estruscan text" these traditions are based on.

The Indians of the Brazilian Amazon jungle - Tucanos, Desanas, Barasanas, etc. - claimed to have come from a sunken Paradise, destroyed and submerged by the Flood. This Paradise they called by many names such as Yvymaraney ("Evil-less Land" or "Pure Land"), or Emekho Patolé ("Navel of the Universe")

I fail to see any connection beyond that people all over the world live near water and floods/tsunamis/tectonic events happen. Again, I'd be more surprised if people didn't have stories. Should they *not* create myths because Plato copyrighted the idea? Your point is no more salient that that of the creation nutbars that go on and on about how there are "flood myths all over the world so this proves Noah was their god's prophet" nonsense.

Not only Plato, but other contemporary writers such as Herodotus, Aristotle, Hecateus of Miletus and Skylax of Carianda explicitly utilized that name of "Atlantic Ocean", which indeed dates from before the times of Plato. Plato specifically acknowledges the fact that the name is due to Atlas and the Atlanteans.

Are you saying that these writers are contemporary to Plato? They weren't even contemporary to each other. I'm confused on your use of the word here. Maybe you can also help us out with who "Skylax" was. Regardless, not a single author mentioned "Atlantis" before Plato. Not a single one. Plato invented the term and used the fictional city as an allegory for Athens in a thought experiment contained in two dialogs: the Critias and Timeous. Period. Anyone who's even taken an introductory course in philosphy and has read these understands this.

The end of the Pleistocene Ice Age - the date of whose closely coincides with the one of 11,600 BP given by Plato for Atlantis' demise - also marks the rise of agriculture, of city-building and of the Neolithic both in the Old and the New Worlds.

So? It didn't mark the existence of any culture capable of using iron and advanced metallurgic techniques that would have been necessary for Plato's fictional Atlantis. Nor were there societies at the time that were using megalithic architecture in the manner depicted. The story is a thought experiment.

I do not have a lack of education. And If you think that volcanos do not destroy islands, look at Krakatoa. It destroyed two thirds of the original islanda super-volcano did that, then what do you think would happen were one to go off.
A poratrait of Krakatoa in the 1800's before the eruption:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Krakatoa_01.JPG


And a satillite image of the island after the eruption.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Landsat_krakatau_18may92_cropped.jpg
Now tell me that Atlantis couldn't of been destroyed by a volcano.

Is it possible at all that Atlantis mentioned by Plato existed?There are any number of unremarkable explanations for the Atlantis legend. I suggest you read up on Thera, which is one of the most plausible. It was an island in the Mediterranean that was destroyed by a volcanic eruption at the right time. It supported a civilization that's difficult to pinpoint but perhaps an outpost of Minoan. Because of its location it was peaceful and prosperous, trading with all nearby city-states. The citizens had some warning and a good many of them escaped to the mainland, and lived to tell a story which grew into a legend. The volcano caused a tsunami of outrageous proportions for a body of water as small as the Mediterranean, and the dates work out well enough that this could have been what destroyed the Minoan civilization on Crete. The combination of all these factors could have easily merged into a legend.Celts - Cantref Gwaelod meaning "Country of the Bottom" -- The Hindu Mahabharata - Describes war with Altantis. -- The Etruscans (Roman ancestors) - had traditions concerning their coming from an overseas land submerged under the seas in a cataclysm shortly after or during a great war. -- The Indians of the Brazilian Amazon jungle - Tucanos, Desanas, Barasanas, etc. - claimed to have come from a sunken Paradise, destroyed and submerged by the Flood. This Paradise they called by many names such as Yvymaraney ("Evil-less Land" or "Pure Land"), or Emekho Patolé ("Navel of the Universe")The legend of a city lost in an aquatic catastrophe is what Jung calls an "archetype"--a motif that occurs in nearly all cultures in nearly all eras. It is a type of instinct, something that is hard-wired in our synapses. Religions are built upon combinations of archetypes, and they spread so easily because we all "know" that they are true--by instinct! Like all instincts, each archetype may have been a survival trait in the distant past during some bizarre condition we can't imagine, so only those who had it survived to breed. Or it could be a random mutation passed down through a genetic bottleneck like Lucy. Or it could be breathed into us by the Goddess on the way down the birth canal. :)

BTW, the Etruscans were not the ancestors of the Romans. They were a pre-Indo-European people who were already established when the Indo-European Romans arrived. IIRC they are the only defunct pre-Indo-European people about whom we have enough information to say with a straight face that we can "study" them.The end of the Pleistocene Ice Age - the date of whose closely coincides with the one of 11,600 BP given by Plato for Atlantis' demise - also marks the rise of agriculture, of city-building and of the Neolithic both in the Old and the New Worlds.Agriculture was the defining technology of the cusp between the Mesolithic and Neolithic. People built permanent settlements and learned to live in harmony and cooperation with people outside of the extended family of hunter-gatherers. Civilization--the building of cities in which people had to learn to live in harmony and cooperation with complete strangers--was the next step, which followed the dawn of the Neolithic by about 2,000 years in Mesopotamia, somewhat later in China, India and Egypt, and six or seven thousand years later in the Americas.

Sure sure, I will wear the egg on my face happily right now. I don't care, but they are really coming along with being able to perform some real in-depth "digging" under water, more and more each day. So if they find some relatively advanced civilizations that blow apart these narrowminded(frankly looking back 10000 years physically is very hard to do accurately) views, you guys can....wel you'll probably just write some huge posts saying you knew it all along.

I do not have a lack of education. And If you think that volcanos do not destroy islands, look at Krakatoa.

The limits of your education are not defined by whether or not volcanoes destroy islands. It is defined by your clear ignorance of geology in general, specifically with regard to subduction zones. It's also defined by your credulous nature with regard to mythical places.

So you think that Atlantis never existed because of what a geological theory descibes? there is a certain famous qoute that I am reminded of. Oh yeah. " I reject your reality and subsitute my own". I am not saying I'm crazy. Just that while a theory might explain something, that doesn't make it true. The only real exceptions are Einstein's relativitys.

A geological theory (or any other scientific theory) is an explanation of natural phenomena that has been researched and peer reviewed to the point that its probability of being proven false is very small. You are correct that a valid explanation does not make a theory true, but you are incorrect in the implication that a scientific theory can be proven true. Only mathematical theories can be proven true. The theories we accept and work with are ones whose probability of being proven false is so small that it fits the American legal definition of "true beyond a reasonable doubt." Even Einstein's theory could conceivably some day be proven to need a small correction, as Newton's did before him, but it won't invalidate 99.99999% of the science that has been based on that theory.

What we're all saying is that the theory of Atlantis's existence in its most fanciful presentation is an extraordinary assertion, which according to the scientific method requires an extraordinary substantiation before we are obligated to take it seriously. The burden falls on the person making the assertion to state his case meticulously. Quoting from legends--some of them from Neolithic tribes--is absolutely not an extraordinary substantiation!

Another element of the scientific method is Occam's Razor: Look at the least complicated explanation first and try to falsify it. Not because it has a higher probability of being true than the most complicated explanation, but simply because it will be far easier to analyze and find fault with. Arguably the least complicated explanation for the legend of Atlantis is the undisputed historical case of the destruction of Thera by a volcano and the concomitant tidal wave that wrought havoc over a wide area of the Mediterranean.

First you must cast doubt upon the Thera explanation for it is a quite reasonable theory. Then after you succeed in that, we will start on the arduous task of filling in all the missing details of the more fanciful and complicated Atlantis story so that we can apply the principles of science to it.

If you cannot falsify the Thera theory, then the more complicated one retains its status as an extraordinary assertion because of its poor fit with what we already know about tectonics and all the rest of modern geology. In that case it will fall to you to present the extraordinary substantiation for this assertion, tighten up the theory, and present it for peer review.

As has already been noted, you will absolutely have to move much farther ahead in your understanding of the basic principles of geology before you will have the resources and knowledge to be able to do this.

So you think that Atlantis never existed because of what a geological theory descibes?

I don't think Atlantis existed because I see no good reason to believe it did. No one has made a compelling argument. You might as well be saying, "so you think pigs don't fly without being shot from cannons because of what gravitational theory descibes (sic)?"

Ah finally a decent argument. A good one at that. But how does that explain the supposed advance civilisation of that time? A metaphor of Greek's greatness?

I don't recall reading anything in Plato suggesting that they were especially advanced. They certainly had a strong navy and military, but I rather envisioned their technology as being similar to that of the Athenians. I suppose that would have been "advanced" given the age in which Atlantis supposedly existed, but I don't think Plato really grasped that technology advanced as history progressed.

I think most of the "technologically advanced" Atlantis sources may have come later.

http://www.mysterious-america.net/bimini2007.html

How about a nice marble lintel off the coast of the Bahamas?

Not much like anything else yet discovered in that part of the world. In 100 feet of water and therefore probably not above sea level for, maybe 10,000 years.

Just a thought.

Oh that's "natural" rock, haven't you heard??

Atlantis Theories (http://www.crystalinks.com/atlantistheories.html)

http://www.mysterious-america.net/bimini2007.html

How about a nice marble lintel off the coast of the Bahamas?

Please cite the evidence that this is marble and not simply limestone bedrock with orthogonal jointing.

Atlantis Theories (http://www.crystalinks.com/atlantistheories.html)

None of these are actually theories. Some do, however, barely qualify as hypotheses, though not very good ones.

http://www.mysterious-america.net/bimini2007.html

How about a nice marble lintel off the coast of the Bahamas?

Not much like anything else yet discovered in that part of the world. In 100 feet of water and therefore probably not above sea level for, maybe 10,000 years.

Just a thought.

Please cite the evidence that this is marble and not simply limestone bedrock with orthogonal jointing.


Since when are marble columns and gables, as well as slabs of marble facing to be construed as jointed bedrock?

Can you give us other examples?

Since when are marble columns and gables, as well as slabs of marble facing to be construed as jointed bedrock?

Can you give us other examples?

Since the credulous believe whatever the mystery-mongers tell them. Here's a link that describes the so-called Bimini Road in more detail.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-01/geologists-adventures.html

... Here's a link that describes the so-called Bimini Road in more detail.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-01/geologists-adventures.html


Apples and oranges, aka, obfuscation. The link above concerns ruins at a different location than the one under consideration.

Having summarily dismissed the irrelevant red herring above, the diligent student will now consider the information in the relevant link ...

http://www.mysterious-america.net/bimini2007.html

... and ask oneself, "Do the marble ruins pictured look like limestone bedrock"?

Is it posible at all that Atlantis mentioned by Plato existed.

It is a STORY, not a FACT. When will people ever learn the difference?

... and ask oneself, "Do the marble ruins pictured look like limestone bedrock"?

Cite a primary source for these alleged "ruins" other than a website that might or might not represent a real place in the world, and then we'll have something to discuss. I see no reason to believe that "Greg Little" is anything more than a con artist along the same grain as Semir Osmanagic that claimed to have found a "pyramid" in Vissoko, Bosnia.

Where are the published proveniences and contexts of this alleged "Dr.'s" finds? Where is the site-plan of the area? Where are the analyses of pollen, phytolyths, and carbon dating? Where are the stratagraphic analyses of local geology? Etc., etc.

This is a good example of pseudo-archaeology in progress. Thanks for sharing it.

... Where are the analyses of pollen, phytolyths, and carbon dating?


Do Bronze Age marble ruins actually emit pollen? Please provide evidence of such from a peer reviewed scientific paper.

The limits of your education are not defined by whether or not volcanoes destroy islands. It is defined by your clear ignorance of geology in general, specifically with regard to subduction zones. It's also defined by your credulous nature with regard to mythical places.

Atlantis was most likely a mythical place. It could have been inspired by some great island civilization in the Atlantic ocean, but Plato was using it in a metaphorical sense to compare it to Athens of his time. I find this completely apparent.

The only plausible notion in all of this is the "Great Flood". No one can deny that practically every civilization had its own similar flood story that took place around the time of 'Plato's Atlantis'.

Do Bronze Age marble ruins actually emit pollen? Please provide evidence of such from a peer reviewed scientific paper.
[/COLOR]

You're demonstrating your complete and utter ignorance. Indeed, you are an unknowing embarrassment to yourself.

In making the statement above (Bronze Age ruins actually *do* contain pollen and phytolith remains -in LARGE quantities), you assume that the site is "Bronze Age." Yet, my point remains: what is the data that shows that this is a site of human activity, much less one that is Bronze Age? There is none. This is a great example of pseudo-archaeology in action and the credulous buying into the garbage.

The only plausible notion in all of this is the "Great Flood". No one can deny that practically every civilization had its own similar flood story that took place around the time of 'Plato's Atlantis'.

This isn't as plausible as you might think since the flood myths common to many civilizations occurred at times that did not coincide.

How about a nice marble lintel off the coast of the Bahamas?This has been meticulously debunked and the link was provided in a thread on SciForums last month. Please do your homework! The orientation of the sedimentation in each individual slab is horizontal. No mason would have put his building blocks together this way, and there are too many of them for it to be an accident.The only plausible notion in all of this is the "Great Flood". No one can deny that practically every civilization had its own similar flood story that took place around the time of 'Plato's Atlantis'.The myth of the great city lost beneath the sea is an archetype, a motif that arises in almost all cultures in almost all eras. Other archetypes are the human rising from the dead and the supernatural creature who directs worldly events. Religions are collections of archetypes. The archetype is a kind of instinct: its power lies in the fact that we all "know" it's true instinctively, without proof or empirical observation. The genetic origins of archetypes have been discussed on other threads as well.You're demonstrating your complete and utter ignorance. Indeed, you are an unknowing embarrassment to yourself.You're in a scientific subforum so please comport yourself like a scientist. We're all free to mock pseudoscience and anything else that is unscientific or antiscientific so long as we stay more or less on topic. But personal attacks are a violation of the rules of the website and are grounds for an infraction. The average age here is about fourteen. You would do much better to explain to all the inquisitive young minds why these assertions are wrong, than to behave in a less mature manner than some of the fourteen-year-olds.This isn't as plausible as you might think since the flood myths common to many civilizations occurred at times that did not coincide.Yes. "Almost all cultures in almost all eras." Another archetype. Perhaps a synapse resulting from a random mutation that was passed through a genetic bottleneck... or perhaps the remnant of a survival instinct from an era whose conditions we can't imagine.

You're in a scientific subforum so please comport yourself like a scientist. We're all free to mock pseudoscience and anything else that is unscientific or antiscientific so long as we stay more or less on topic. But personal attacks are a violation of the rules of the website and are grounds for an infraction.

So are you saying that his ignorance was not complete or utter or that it was not ignorance that generated the statement? Nutter's comment was completely ignorant of archaeological method and practice; it was utterly to the point in its insistence that he was knowledgeable on a topic in which it would seem he is not.

Or are you saying that my pointing out that he created an unknowing embarrassment for himself is the ad hominem. I ask these questions so that I might fully comply with the forum rules and present a better example to my peers whilst still not settling for blatant pseudoscientific and unreasoned claims -indeed, claims that are anti-scientific.

Moreover, I insist that I was not "mocking" pseudoscience, the un- or anti- scientific, or even Nutter. I was educating him to the nature and degree of his ignorance. I would ask no less of anyone else should I demonstrate ignorance while professing to have knowledge.

Finally, I *did* in fact also educate briefly on why the assertion that Bronze Age sites contain pollens as well as phytoliths. I suppose I could have gone on further with an explanation as to how both of these have shown to be very useful in identifying and dating archaeological sites in nautical environments, particularly since the pseudo-archaeological website mentions "possible amphorae" present. Greg Little conveniently does not produce any, however, the seriation of which would also serve to date a site. If there are any actual man-made artifacts present, the most likely explanation is that they are the result of shipwrecks in this very busy sea lane.

Yes. "Almost all cultures in almost all eras." Another archetype. Perhaps a synapse resulting from a random mutation that was passed through a genetic bottleneck... or perhaps the remnant of a survival instinct from an era whose conditions we can't imagine.

Or perhaps a result of humans in antiquity as well as modernity living near fertile and well irrigated lands for best foraging and food production strategies, subsequently resulting in being more likely to experience the effects of floods both minor and catastrophic. I would find it more strange if the flood motif didn't make its way into human myths, stories, legends and histories.

... what is the data that shows that this is a site of human activity, much less one that is Bronze Age? There is none ...


1. Oh yeah? Should marble cut slabs and columns, as well as stone building foundations, be considered "signs of human activity?"

2. What Age do you suppose the megalith ruins are from, if not from the Bronze Age?

3. The contemplative student realizes that pollen is washed off by ocean currents. Now produce a peer reviewed paper where submerged
megaliths were dated by pollen on them.

1. Oh yeah?

Now there's an irrefutable retort.

Should marble cut slabs and columns, as well as stone building foundations, be considered "signs of human activity?"

What "marble cut slabs and columns" are you referring to? What are their provenance and contexts? What strata were they located in? Where is the site plan? Show these things that we might actually discuss them. The pseudoscience site you linked to had some pictures, but no mention of provenance (provenience to Americans) or context.

2. What Age do you suppose the megalith ruins are from, if not from the Bronze Age?

Without actually analyzing the data, I don't [i]suppose any "Age." They might be Iron Age. Indeed, they may be Paleolithic if the site is actually the mythic Atlantis! I'm the skeptic and its interesting that I'm the more open-minded between us in this regard!

3. The contemplative student realizes that pollen is washed off by ocean currents. [B]Now produce a peer reviewed paper where submerged
megaliths were dated by pollen on them.

The actual student (I must be cautious about comments regarding ignorance apparently) understands that pollen and phytoliths will be present in undisturbed sediments that are trapped in artifacts created by man. These become clear evidence of human activity in many nautical sites and are most readily present in amphorae. But they can also be found in undisturbed sediments below megalithic remains (by the way, a megalith is generally any stone too large for a single man to carry); embedded in clays used in bricks, pottery, ceramics, etc.; embedded in cements and mortars; and so on.

If this is just a geologic formation, there will be no pollens or phytoliths. Phytoliths, by the way, are the microscopic silicates that develop in plants and are darn near indestructible. The seriation of these has shown to be very helpful in dating sites as well as informing on dietary habits, food subsistence strategies, etc.

Now produce a peer reviewed paper where submerged megaliths were dated by pollen on them.

I've not said anything about dating megaliths, primarily because I've yet to see evidence of "megaliths" (large stone shaped by humans). But the pseudoscience website you linked mentions amphorae and pottery. And, if it were a site of human habitation, there are likely to be artifacts beyond "megaliths." A hallmark, however, of pseudo-archaeology is when the only thing the "discoverer" can produce is "megaliths" which show ambiguous signs of "tool marks" or are "too regular" or "angular" to have been "created by nature."

Reference:

Gorham, L. Dillon and Bryant, Vaughn M. (2001). Pollen, phytoliths, and other micorscopic plant remains in underwater archaeology. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology. 30 (2), 282-298.

It is also possible that lions used to talk, but is highly unlikely, and there is no evidence what so ever to back the claim up.
I don't know about this "Orihalcum", but there's pretty good evidence that Atlantis was a Minoan city built on an "island" that turned out to be a volcano. It was destroyed when the volcano erupted and destroyed most of the island.

And that "pretty good evidence" is....?

And that "pretty good evidence" is....?Just do a Google search on "Thera" like all the rest of us did. You can spend a whole day reading about it. "Pretty good evidence" is an understatement.

I presented a summary of the evidence for Thera as Atlantis way back at the beginning of this thread. If my quaternary research is not good enough for you, I suggest you do your own tertiary research.

You did read the entire thread, right?

I did, indeed. In one post, I observed that you mentioned Thera to be a likely origin of the Atlantis myth and in another you attempted to qualify the Thera hypothesis as one that fit Occam's Razor since it is the most parsimonious (if memory serves correct about each).

However, I didn't see any evidence given. There are some very basic questions and problems that go unanswered if we accept the Thera explanation. First, why did Plato place Atlantis in the Atlantic ocean as an island much larger than Crete (Thera was smaller)? Second, why did none of Plato's contemporaries seem to be aware of this "Atlantis?" Third, the date of the Thera eruption is between the 15th and 17th centuries BCE (depending upon which dating one relies upon), which is only 900-1000 years before Plato rather than the 9,000 years prior he assigns to the destruction of Atlantis. Why the difference if it truly was Thera?

I saw no good evidence to link Thera to Plato's Atlantis. Occam's Razor doesn't favor the Thera hypothesis at all. It just becomes too complicated to sustain an appeal to Occam. A more parsimonious explanation is that Plato was concerned with the fate of Athens and used an allegory of a very ancient, but very similar to Athens, city. Greece and the Aegean knew well the catastrophic force of volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis. The story of a great city that perished and was lost forever to history is a warning and core message behind Plato's trilogy, Timaeus, Critias, and Laws. The parsimonious explanation takes into account that the best story tellers begin their tallest tales with "this is absolutely true" as Plato did, and that Plato's chief concern was Athens. Finally, the most parsimonious explanation considers that if such a city actually existed that one as prolific as Plato might have made more careful mention of it in a work dedicated to Atlantis and not one dedicated to Athens.

So, I ask again: that pretty good evidence is....?

I would really like there to be an "Atlantis." It would be nice. But if there were "pretty good evidence," there would be at least some documented in the field of archaeology.

Could Atlantis have disappeared like Port Royale did? It didn't take a volcano, just an earthquake and it was gone...sunk into the ocean.

However, I didn't see any evidence given. There are some very basic questions and problems that go unanswered if we accept the Thera explanation. First, why did Plato place Atlantis in the Atlantic ocean as an island much larger than Crete (Thera was smaller)? Second, why did none of Plato's contemporaries seem to be aware of this "Atlantis?" Third, the date of the Thera eruption is between the 15th and 17th centuries BC (depending upon which dating one relies upon), which is only 900-1000 years before Plato rather than the 9,000 years prior he assigns to the destruction of Atlantis. Why the difference if it truly was Thera?

There are many simililarities in the story of Atlantis and Thera. The history channed had a really good show on the subject which is how I became aware of the theory. The primary problems are the time and location. Both of these can be accounted for by a simple translation error and a factor of 10.

In Timaeus, he declared that one day the whole population "sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea." Plato dated the disaster as 9,000 years before the time of Solon, the Athenian statesman who lived in the 7th century B. C. But modern oceanographers can find no trace of Atlantis—was Plato wrong?

Perhaps not. Last week a U. S. oceanographer announced that what may be a completely intact Minoan city was unearthed recently on the Aegean island of Thera, now called Santorin. The discovery could well substantiate the most intriguing of all Atlantis theories—that Plato was right but simply mislocated Atlantis, which was actually an island kingdom comprising Thera, Crete and other Aegean islands.

Divide by 10. That theory was proposed in 1960 by University of Athens Seismologist Anghelos Galanopoulos, who believes that Plato misread by a factor of 10 the dimensions of Atlantis and the date of its destruction given in an Egyptian manuscript. Dividing by 10, Galanopoulos came up with an area roughly encompassing Thera and Crete; similarly reducing Platos date to 900 years before Solon, he moved the destruction of Atlantis forward to about 1490 B. C. At about that time, a well-documented volcanic eruption plunged large portions of Thera into the sea, rained lethal vapors and debris on Crete 75 miles to the south, and generated 160-ft. tidal waves that battered Crete and perhaps Egypt as well.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,837123-2,00.html


In regard to the two principal discrepancies with Plato's account in Timaeus:

1. Time Difference
Plato gives a date of 9000 years before his time. However, at that time no one had an accurate method of estimating dates of such antiquity. This date would have been calculated by his relative Solon from what he was told by the Egyptians. Unfortunately, ALL such calculations of ancient Egyptian events that I have been able to find by the classical Greek and Roman historians are similarly "inflated." Today we can only speculate on what method they used. But whatever it was, it was wrong.

2. Location
Plato states that Atlantis was beyond the Pillars of Heracles. Although this was associated in later times with Gibraltar, it traditionally meant the western boundary of the known world, represented by the farthest west of Hercules' journeys. And, though the Egyptians would probably have known nothing of Hercules, from their point of view at the time of Thera's eruption, the sea between Crete and Libya may very well have been the western limit of the known world.

Or association with the Pillars of Hercules may just have been an attempt by Solon to make sense of an Egyptian reference to pillars. The few surviving Egyptian hieroglyphs describe Crete as home of "one of the four pillars that hold up the sky," something like the four corners of the earth. Indeed, you may have noticed the massive red pillars in the reconstruction of the palace of Knossos. These Egyptian words about Crete may also be why Solon chose to translate the island's name as "Atlantis", naming it after Atlas, who held up the sky. http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800010758&tstart=0&mod=1185890092499

I have been to Thera and the palace of Knossos in Crete-the red pillars are hard to miss. Even though that theory seems promising I, personally, am not yet convinced.
However it is wrong imo to assume that all of what Plato said is true and exact. Even though the Iliad and Odyssey were mostly fictional, the city of Troy did exist -as someone already posted.

orichalcum... it must be the metal the ancients (http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/600/imgegyptiangodsdb5.gif) used to make their magic staffs (moses, red sea). but i didn't know the name... until now.

check out these maps of atlantsi: http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/soa/soamap.htm

First, why did Plato place Atlantis in the Atlantic ocean as an island much larger than Crete (Thera was smaller)?Legends grow, that's their nature. As the legend was passed down, the lost civilization became much larger and farther away than it really was. How could Plato have had access to reliable measurements of the size and location of an island that vanished when the Greeks were still a Neolithic tribe?Second, why did none of Plato's contemporaries seem to be aware of this "Atlantis?"You're saying they had never heard of Thera but they knew the legend of Atlantis? That doesn't speak well of their knowledge of the history of their own region.Third, the date of the Thera eruption is between the 15th and 17th centuries BCE (depending upon which dating one relies upon), which is only 900-1000 years before Plato rather than the 9,000 years prior he assigns to the destruction of Atlantis. Why the difference if it truly was Thera?Legends grow temporally as well as spatially. People think "Home Sweet Home" is an old folk song brought over by the colonists when in fact it was written in 1852. They think the weaving of colorful blankets is an ancient Indian craft when in fact they painstakingly disassembled clothing made with eye-popping European dyes and reused the fibers. How could Plato possibly date something in the tenth millennium BCE? That predates the earliest written records by thousands of years.I would really like there to be an "Atlantis." It would be nice.Everyone would like to believe there was an ancient civilization, older than our measly efforts, that achieved greatness we can't begin to comprehend, and was then lost under the sea. It's an archetype, and that's what archetypes are: instincts that make us believe that we "know" something without any empirical evidence.

You're saying they had never heard of Thera but they knew the legend of Atlantis?

I'm saying they never heard of "Atlantis," a continent (not an island) which Plato said was "bigger than Libya and Asia put together."

I'm saying that philosophical dialogs are nearly always created with fictional characters, places and events.

I'm saying that the real topic of Plato's discussion was Athens and his fear that they might go the way of the fictive city-state he used (which bears a striking resemblance to his Athens.

I'm saying that "good evidence" is the kind that has some bit of verifiability with it; or it has some predictive power. "Good evidence" for "Atlantis" would be corroboration of Plato's account. The argument frequently gets put forth that "they found Troy, so they could find Atlantis." It hasn't, however, been shown that the site found by Schliemann and Calvert is definitively the "Troy" in the Homeric tales. It probably is, since it fits the right model geographically, temporally and culturally. But "good evidence" that Thera is "Atlantis" isn't being presented on these scales. There is no evidence that Minoans fought with Athens; there *is* evidence that the Minoans survived Thera's eruption; Thera was far smaller than Plato's Atlantis; it wasn't in the Atlantic Ocean; etc., etc. In addition, there is evidence that Troy was part of an oral tradition that existed prior to Homer. Moreover, the legend of Troy played a more integral part of the Homeric epics in the story of the Trojan war, whereas Atlantis is only used by Plato to deal with the problems of Athens. Nor is there an evidence that the story existed prior to Plato, despite the account he gives of its origin. This account is part of the dialog, after all, not independent of it and is therefore subject to the same fictional quality.

The Homeric epics were designed to tell stories of heroism and adventure; the Platonic dialogs were designed to create a thought experiment regarding the future and well-being of Athens. Literature has born out the use of historical events and places for the former; philosophical discourse over the centuries has born out the use of completely fictional people, events and places for the latter.

The conclusion is that there is no evidence that an actual Atlantis existed beyond the imagination of Plato. There may be many civilizations that share similarities to Plato's Atlantis, but none apparently are this fictive device of a philosophical dialog.