Could Atlantis Have Been A Mobile City?

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Byrd
Much smaller than Plato's description.

Yeah, but it fits so many of the other things in his description, like the tops of the mountains that are now islands. Naturally, using old sources, he was going to get some things right and some things wrong. It's a helluva lot better match than Santorini, and it has the advantage of being a logical and practical place for the city to have existed. Along a river running from the mountains through a fairly large fertile plain. Within a large, protected bay, perfect for developing sailing skills. That's where I'd put it. You might even have those elephants (mammoths) transported from the northern regions to help you build it.

Ok, now explain how Atlantis was at war with Athens 9000 years before Greek culture even existed
Some people, just don't get it do they...
Plato was not a historian, he was a philosopher, he created analogies to make a point to educate people with. The whole point of Critias and Timaeus is that trusting the Gods will mess you up. The same story that his teacher Socrates was executed for, because Socrates unfortunately, made the point about his Gods and his own culture and pissed off the powers that be..

Now you can look for the disaster that gave Plato the idea of the destruction of Atlantis, which was undoubtedly Santorini, but looking for a fictional city from a fictional dialogue, that's pretty pointless.



Mammoths, seriously, I'll have what he's smokng

originally posted by: Marduk
Ok, now explain how Atlantis was at war with Athens 9000 years before Greek culture even existed
Some people, just don't get it do they...

No, I guess they don't. They want everything to match perfectly, when we know that's just silly.

Plato was not a historian, he was a philosopher, he created analogies to make a point to educate people with.

Then why go into so much detail that has nothing to do with proving his philosophical point? The ancients certainly didn't have the same sense of narrative that we have these days, where adding fictional specifics is generally thought to enhance the authenticity of the story. I like to think that it's just as plausible that he adapted an old story he heard or read in an old archive to create a hybrid of history and philosophy. Things weren't quite so distinctly categorized back then.

As for the "moral" of the story that they were punished for their aspirations of divinity, he elaborates upon that a little in Timaeus, possibly as a result of ancient convention, but in Critias he's a lot less judgmental and suggests that an errant celestial body is the real cause of the civilization's demise, which is itself surprisingly plausible these days with all we know about Earth catastrophes (including possibly the Younger Dryas) caused by meteorite or asteroid impact:

There is a story, which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Paethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long intervals; at such times those who live upon the mountains and in dry and lofty places are more liable to destruction than those who dwell by rivers or on the seashore. And from this calamity the Nile, who is our never-failing saviour, delivers and preserves us.

Mammoths, seriously, I'll have what he's smoking.

Mammoths survived on Wrangel Island in eastern Siberia until 1365 BCE, and North American mammoth populations existed until around 7,600 years ago, well after Plato says "elephants" existed in neighboring Atlantis. So maybe the Atlanteans were smoking some tasty mammoth meat.

Bits and pieces of the puzzle. But please feel free to ridicule, rather than research. I understand it's a lot less mentally taxing.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Then why go into so much detail that has nothing to do with proving his philosophical point?

What detail did Plato provide?
(he queried Socratically)

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Marduk
Ok, now explain how Atlantis was at war with Athens 9000 years before Greek culture even existed
Some people, just don't get it do they...

No, I guess they don't. They want everything to match perfectly, when we know that's just silly.

Plato was not a historian, he was a philosopher, he created analogies to make a point to educate people with.

Then why go into so much detail that has nothing to do with proving his philosophical point? The ancients certainly didn't have the same sense of narrative that we have these days, where adding fictional specifics is generally thought to enhance the authenticity of the story. I like to think that it's just as plausible that he adapted an old story he heard or read in an old archive to create a hybrid of history and philosophy. Things weren't quite so distinctly categorized back then.

As for the "moral" of the story that they were punished for their aspirations of divinity, he elaborates upon that a little in Timaeus, possibly as a result of ancient convention, but in Critias he's a lot less judgmental and suggests that an errant celestial body is the real cause of the civilization's demise, which is itself surprisingly plausible these days with all we know about Earth catastrophes (including possibly the Younger Dryas) caused by meteorite or asteroid impact:

There is a story, which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Paethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long intervals; at such times those who live upon the mountains and in dry and lofty places are more liable to destruction than those who dwell by rivers or on the seashore. And from this calamity the Nile, who is our never-failing saviour, delivers and preserves us.

Mammoths, seriously, I'll have what he's smoking.

Mammoths survived on Wrangel Island in eastern Siberia until 1365 BCE, and North American mammoth populations existed until around 7,600 years ago, well after Plato says "elephants" existed in neighboring Atlantis. So maybe the Atlanteans were smoking some tasty mammoth meat.

Bits and pieces of the puzzle. But please feel free to ridicule, rather than research. I understand it's a lot less mentally taxing.

Quote mining Plato.

Plato suggests no such thing with the Phaeton story (which, by the way, appears in Timaeus, not Critias.) That story (Plato says) the priest of Sais uses to tell Solon why the Greeks are nothing but "children" compared to the Egyptians.
The priest's assertion is that the Nile saves them from such calamities, allowing them to have more understanding of ancient (to Plato) history than the Greeks.

It's the set up to the Atlantis story, and Plato has to explain first why no Greek knows their true heroic history of defeating the Atlanteans and freeing the people all around the Mediterranean basin.

The Greeks had forgotten it because of the several cataclysms that have occurred since, which didn't affect the Egyptians - they were preserved by the magical Nile.

Again, if one read these two dialogues, one would understand that. I mean, that's what it says, after all.


Harte

It's only based on speculation now I don't know much about Plato or his stuff but like every other philosopher we know they talk about real things in a different way or even using different names but it doesn't make their message less credible or pure imagination. a reply to: Marduk

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Blue Shift

Then why go into so much detail that has nothing to do with proving his philosophical point?

What detail did Plato provide?
(he queried Socratically)

There is a lot of detail on Atlantis imo. Not just the politics or the people who lived and ruled Atlantis, but also where the island was located, how it looked(vegetation, mountains, plains), how it was destroyed, that it existed 9000 years ago(+11000 years bp),...
I would call that detail, yes.
I imagine you have a copy of the writings so you know what i'm talking about.
You could say it's a matter of interpretation, but as another member said, why go in such detail? and wouldn't that question his other works?

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Byrd
Much smaller than Plato's description.

Yeah, but it fits so many of the other things in his description

Elephants?
Lots of gold?
Extensive set of well maintained roads?
Ruins of a vast city with five sub-cities?
Temples to Poseidon?

That's where I'd put it. .

But did he?

He appears to have put it in the land of "long ago and far away"... like Middle Earth and Narnia.

The question I prefer to ask is, giving Plato the benefit of the doubt as to the accuracy of the source material he might have used to illustrate a particular philosophical point, what do we know now that could add plausibility to the basic Atlantis story? Could a relatively advanced and sustainable proto-agrarian/urban culture have existed on a fairly large and already volatile mid-Atlantic land mass that for some reason - plate shift, asteroid, whatever -- mostly sank and destroyed all but fragmentary traces of that culture?

Is it completely impossible? I'm not so sure, particularly with what we scientifically know now about how vulnerable Earth and all the life on it is to all kinds of catastrophes, and how quickly and easily we can lose evidence of large settlements and societies without them even having to sink into the ocean. Plenty just get slowly buried in the dirt.

Like I said, it's easy to take the standard position and mock the folks who "believe" in Atlantis, because so many of them over the years have figuratively "gone off the deep end," turning them into mystical supermen. And the Nazis didn't do anybody any favors with their obsessions with it. But how about taking more a middle road? How about, just as a thought exercise, we look at the scenario and see what Plato might have improbably gotten right, given what a learned man of his time supposedly knew?

Sometimes even I get tired of debunking. It really is too easy, and unreasonable people make it even easier. And it's so boring. So rather than look at the holes in the fabric -- which there are many -- why not step back a little bit and look at the larger tapestry? Unless you're a "slippery slope" kind of person, it's not going to hurt anything. After all, there's a reason we're attracted to sites and topics like this, and asserting one's superior knowledge over the "delusional fools" really is a sad and sorry waste of time. You don't have to blindly believe the whole implausible story, but if you secretly admit to yourself that you've got a little Fox Mulder in you and really want to believe, then it might be a bit more fun and entertaining to at least find some bits and pieces of the puzzle that you actually can believe, because as much as possible they are scientifically verified and accurate.

Unless you don't like to allow yourself to have fun or be entertained. In that case, I don't know what to tell you.

originally posted by: Byrd
He appears to have put it in the land of "long ago and far away"... like Middle Earth and Narnia.

I prefer to think of it more like Camelot. Mythical? Mythologized, sure. Completely fictional? Eh...

a reply to: Blue Shift

I believe there are some problems with human history timeline, just from logic.
Modern man have been walking the earth for almost 200.000 years, they were no different than us. But history tells us that the earliest settlement only go back to ancient Sumer, which dates back to 3500 BC.
I just find it very hard to believe modern human lived for 195.000 years like cavemen without any form of real 'technological evolution'.
In only 5000 years we went to the farthest regions of the solar system.

Imagine a global catastrophe happened today and humans are send back to prehistoric times, what will remain of our civilization after let's say 50.000 years?

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
But history tells us that the earliest settlement only go back to ancient Sumer, which dates back to 3500 BC.

Nope. Last I checked history tells us of settlements reaching back to 15000 BC. The first known cities was around 3500-4000 BC maybe.

originally posted by: merka

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
But history tells us that the earliest settlement only go back to ancient Sumer, which dates back to 3500 BC.

Nope. Last I checked history tells us of settlements reaching back to 15000 BC. The first known cities was around 3500-4000 BC maybe.

Indeed sorry, i wanted to say earliest civilizations instead of earliest settlement, my fault.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Blue Shift

I believe there are some problems with human history timeline, just from logic.

With all due respect, the problem may lie with your sources and their understanding.

But history tells us that the earliest settlement only go back to ancient Sumer, which dates back to 3500 BC.

Those are earliest civilization dates (population does not move seasonally, farms and ranches provide food for population, etc.) Earliest settlement dates go back much further than that into the Neolithic.


[quoteI just find it very hard to believe modern human lived for 195.000 years like cavemen without any form of real 'technological evolution'.
In order to develop modern things you have to develop:
* individual housing
* food surplus so that you can have specialists
* transportation animals
* agriculture
* food storage technology
* weaving
* medicine
* laws and rules
* leadership and leadership rules
* methods of dealing with large populations (200,000 people or more)
* construction (stone or mud brick or both)
* fishing technology (including fishing nets)
* hunting technology for a variety of animals (each animal requires a different technology.

You don't just wake up and decide to invent civilization without having all of the above first.

In only 5000 years we went to the farthest regions of the solar system.

Imagine a global catastrophe happened today and humans are send back to prehistoric times, what will remain of our civilization after let's say 50.000 years?

Depends on how good they are at reading.

a reply to: Byrd

With all due respect, the problem may lie with your sources and their understanding

Thanks.
My sources are just what is being said and believed by mainstream so i would guess it's a problem with my logic. I didn't cited anything other no?

Those are earliest civilization dates (population does not move seasonally, farms and ranches provide food for population, etc.) Earliest settlement dates go back much further than that into the Neolithic

I corrected myself in the post above. Sometimes i get mixed up in languages and translations, sorry.

You don't just wake up and decide to invent civilization without having all of the above first.

I understand that, but that it would take that much time to realize all of this makes little sense to me unless they were forced to rebuild their settlements and/or population by natural causes.
If humans moved/traveled with the seasons wouldn't you think they would set up different camps and every year returned to the same location, this way the settlements would grow much faster by not always rebuilding new camps?
It's not always easy the express myself because of the language difference so i hope you get some meaning in my comment.

Depends on how good they are at reading.

Or how fast they will invent a computer? A lot of books, data, buildings will be gone forever.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Byrd

With all due respect, the problem may lie with your sources and their understanding

Thanks.
My sources are just what is being said and believed by mainstream so i would guess it's a problem with my logic. I didn't cited anything other no?

Where are you getting your mainstream sources from? This may sound impertinent but as many here know, what we're told is "mainstream" and what is actually understood by scientists are two different things. The "mainstream" (or what people call mainstream) may be 50 years out of date compared to what we know.

If humans moved/traveled with the seasons wouldn't you think they would set up different camps and every year returned to the same location, this way the settlements would grow much faster by not always rebuilding new camps?

The (I hate to say it because I really AM an old hippie) "Happy hippie model of primitive lifestyles" is wrong. Humans will deplete the resources in an area fairly quickly. They would return to the same basic area but not to the same spot.

What's really needed for population growth is a stable food source, and that means food storage. That almost always means pottery technology (although you can use ground pits, they are subject to issues such as flooding) plus agriculture (you can't get that much food hunting and gathering. Hunting is considerably more effort and less successful than gathering.

It's not always easy the express myself because of the language difference so i hope you get some meaning in my comment.

Depends on how good they are at reading.

Or how fast they will invent a computer? A lot of books, data, buildings will be gone forever.

No, computers aren't the answer, because there's no particular reason to use the same machine language or even the same programming language. This is awfully hard to explain if you don't work in the computer field, but "windows" and "DOS" and "Linux" and "Unix" are not mandates for creating a computer operating system.

In any case, you express yourself far better than I could in your language.

a reply to: AnAlien0men

I haven't read much of the replies as of yet, but I do agree Atlantis moved.

It flew, back to the Origin Planet it came from, where ever that maybe. (I would suggest Orion's Belt, would be a good place to narrow that search)

Everything written in Plato's Narrative about the Dreadful Night, is quite specific. There are Rumblings, and Shaking of the Ground, and Flashing Lights and we all know what is noted.

SO why are we thinking that when NO ONE SAW ANYTHING, this scenario resulted in something sinking. In one night, it disappeared.

I personally believe, it just returned home. Took off, as Spacecraft do, making a Noisy, Rumbling, Spectacle of Light departure.

Ciao

Shane

originally posted by: Shane

Everything written in Plato's Narrative about the Dreadful Night, is quite specific. There are Rumblings, and Shaking of the Ground, and Flashing Lights and we all know what is noted.

Not all of us, apparently.
The complete text of Plato's description of the destruction of Atlantis:

But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.

Harte

originally posted by: Shane
a reply to: AnAlien0men

I haven't read much of the replies as of yet, but I do agree Atlantis moved.

Shane this is what I was saying. A city the size of North Africa doesn't just vanish without a trace. Although the underwater theory is plausible, an entire continent can't just be consumed by the oceans, Florida was the only thing that came close to a submerged continent (not a continent, but works for what I'm explaining). Again, being that only 5% of our oceans have been explored, what the chance that a whole continent is down there? Which is how I actually came up with the idea that it was a ship; ( That, and the fact that tsunami's and earthquakes followed it disappearance.)

originally posted by: Harte


But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.

Would this not follow the departing of a continent or island as large as North Africa???

originally posted by: AnAlien0men

originally posted by: Shane
a reply to: AnAlien0men

I haven't read much of the replies as of yet, but I do agree Atlantis moved.

Shane this is what I was saying. A city the size of North Africa doesn't just vanish without a trace. Although the underwater theory is plausible, an entire continent can't just be consumed by the oceans, Florida was the only thing that came close to a submerged continent (not a continent, but works for what I'm explaining). Again, being that only 5% of our oceans have been explored, what the chance that a whole continent is down there? Which is how I actually came up with the idea that it was a ship; ( That, and the fact that tsunami's and earthquakes followed it disappearance.)

There is a sunken continent right now that we know about. New Zealand is the highlands of this continent, often called Zealandia.

Harte