Atlantis & Orihalcum... They existed or not

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...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is possible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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?

 

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?

 

Perhaps their arrogance?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

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."

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?" 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 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

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

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).

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And a satillite image of the island after the eruption.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now tell me that Atlantis couldn't of been destroyed by a volcano.

 

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.

 

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.