Atlantis: An Overlooked Element

There sure doesn't seem to be a lot of investigation in this or scientific explanation of this place!

originally posted by: MiaBandetoh
There sure doesn't seem to be a lot of investigation in this or scientific explanation of this place!

The site has been excavated twice.

Found some stone tools from Homo Erectus, or one of the descendants.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: MiaBandetoh
There sure doesn't seem to be a lot of investigation in this or scientific explanation of this place!

The site has been excavated twice.

Found some stone tools from Homo Erectus, or one of the descendants.

Harte

That area is HUGE it cannot possible be excavated other than a tiny corner. I am wondering if anyone is using Lidar to see if this has any larger artificial structures!

originally posted by: MiaBandetoh

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: MiaBandetoh
There sure doesn't seem to be a lot of investigation in this or scientific explanation of this place!

The site has been excavated twice.

Found some stone tools from Homo Erectus, or one of the descendants.

Harte

That area is HUGE it cannot possible be excavated other than a tiny corner. I am wondering if anyone is using Lidar to see if this has any larger artificial structures!

Do you think they missed it? Just happened (both times) to be digging in areas that were unused when this place was Atlantis?
Pretty absurd - and far too convenient.

Harte

Azores Plateau and southerly areas of mid Atlantic ridge.
Shorelines proven at the time period Plato described.
Triple plate junction , isostatic rebound, sea level rise
proven at this time period from glacial meltwater .
(See Greenland ice core data)
Recipe for disaster... or catastrophe.

originally posted by: bluesfreak
Azores Plateau and southerly areas of mid Atlantic ridge.
Shorelines proven at the time period Plato described.
Triple plate junction , isostatic rebound, sea level rise
proven at this time period from glacial meltwater .
(See Greenland ice core data)
Recipe for disaster... or catastrophe.

No such shorelines have been proven, and the Azores Plateau has actually risen, not sank.

Harte

No such shorelines have been proven, and the Azores Plateau has actually risen, not sank.

So sure, are we?
I forget the authors of the peer reviewed paper from 1947 , but core samples have been done, showing late Pleistocene shorelines containing shallow water fossils of fauna and marine life - stuff only found in shallow coastal areas.
I’ll try and find it in my files, but as you would say “I’m not doing your research for you - find it yourself ..”
Also look for Portuguese paper on Azores crust anomaly , showing that the plateau rises and falls over thousands of years due to an anomaly in the crust that makes it behave like a balloon there.
But hey Harte , if you want to go ahead with your baseless sweeping statements , go ahead, just don’t ignore the peer reviewed work , eh?
Really, with the literature that’s available on the mid Atlantic ridge, shorelines , isostatic lift and fall post ice age , I want proof from you that Plato’s Atlantis DIDNT exist. Just saying it isn’t enough anymore , PROVE to me it was allegory, PROVE to me it didn’t exist. Until you can , your word carries zero credence over mine . And the peer reviewed papers. a reply to: Harte

a reply to: bluesfreak

Look, if you want to speculate about Atlantis being out in the ocean, then I would suggest you look at "Cruiser Tablemount" as being a good candidate for Atlantis.

I'm going to stick with my theory though that Atlantis is buried under a landslide in northern Italy.

Look, if you want to speculate about Atlantis being out in the ocean, then I would suggest you look at "Cruiser Tablemount" as being a good candidate for Atlantis.

My ‘speculation’ follows Plato’s description. And yes, Cruiser , Great Meteor Tablemounts are part of the pieces of this puzzle too.
When these shorelines existed, (coupled with a lower sea level -and 400ft is the conservative estimate) then this a huge mountain range would be visible stretching southwards.
But hey, you go for Italy , each to there own, but think “beyond the pillars of Heracles” and “Larger than Asia (Turkey) and Libya combined”.
The Ancient Greeks knew where Italy was, and I’m thinking Plato would just have said “ it’s in northern Italy” if that’s the case. But he doesn’t does he? He tells us where it is.
Speculation comes more into play when discussing your ideas than Plato’s description.
- a reply to: Guyfriday

a reply to: bluesfreak

A few things you should be aware of when "poo-pooing" my thoughts on this:

We are talking about an event that took place around 9300BC

During that period of time a massive glacier sat on the southern facing side of the Alps, that is the side facing Italy

The Pillars of Hercules could very easily the furthest accepted regions of the Heracleidae People, this would have been northern Attica heading into Italy

And then you have that War to deal with, a land war would make better sense during that time at the end of the glacial period. People fighting for resources and limiting animals to hunt due to the climate changing. A Sea Battle makes little sense in the world of 9300BC.

When it comes to Atlantis you have to speculate since there is nothing to find so far. In my theory the island itself was covered in a massive landslide. This would explain how this great kingdom just vanished without a trace to it. If many of these other theories were true, than something should have popped up by now.

We are talking about an event that took place around 9300BC

No, we are talking about an event that was 11,500 ish it was 9,000 years before Solon. And it coincides with Meltwater pulse 1b from the Greenland ice cores.
Im not poo poo ing your theory just laying out some facts about Plato’s description .
Plato describes great earthquakes preceding the event and that Atlantis sunk beneath the SEA. He says they were a ‘sea power ‘ which would make sense if they were island dwellers.
It’s your theory about Italy and it’s just a theory and that’s fine by me.
Geological evidence exists in the peer reviewed papers that the mountain range we know as the Mid Atlantic ridge has been both below and above water level several times in its existence . If sea level is lower worldwide during ice ages, then this is strong evidence that isostatic adjustment has come into play several times relating to the ice ages that this planet has endured.
Please enlighten me on the specific archaeological work that has been done specifically searching for Atlantis around the Azores.
Lastly, with such a cataclysmos, as the Greeks say ( cataclysmos specifically refers to a water based event) there isn’t going to be much left to find, or hard to find under thousands of years of sediment .
Marine archaeology is going to be a big one in the future if we start looking for human settlements at late pleistocene shorelines and river mouths . Which are all a minimum of 400ft under water at present . a reply to: Guyfriday

a reply to: bluesfreak

The war took place 9000 before the telling of the story by Critias. That would be about 11,300 years ago, or 9300BC.

From the Critias:

when afterwards sunk by an earthquake, became an impassable barrier of mud to voyagers sailing from hence to any part of the ocean.

The island kingdom didn't sink into the ocean, but was sunk as in buried, and became an impassible barrier of mud. There is no evidence that the Atlantic Ocean was ever an "Impassible Barrier of Mud". Northern Italy on the other hand if victim of a massive land slide would have become that.

Can you point out in the Critias where it says that the Armies of Atlantis were sea power?

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: bluesfreak

Look, if you want to speculate about Atlantis being out in the ocean, then I would suggest you look at "Cruiser Tablemount" as being a good candidate for Atlantis.

I'm going to stick with my theory though that Atlantis is buried under a landslide in northern Italy.

I've looked into these seamounts myself. I believe I did so because of what I read here.

They don't work either.

I mean, obviously there have been lands that were once above water now drowned. But none of them will work as some lost civilization, and the concept of a truly ancient lost civilization itself is a non-starter because of the utter and complete lack of any evidence.
For example, Atlantis conquered a humongous amount of territory. They weren't confined to one little island that could sink and destroy all this missing evidence. Yet they left nothing? When we can find million year old wooden spears, and dwellings built by Homo Erectus?
Nah.

Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak

We are talking about an event that took place around 9300BC

No, we are talking about an event that was 11,500 ish it was 9,000 years before Solon. And it coincides with Meltwater pulse 1b from the Greenland ice cores.

Pulse 1b averages to about 40 millimeters a year.

Right. That'll destroy yer civilization!

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Well if I'm correct in thinking that the Pillars of Hercules could very easily the furthest accepted regions of the Heracleidae People, then all of Europe would be bigger than the known regions of north Africa and the Middle East. We know from the Otzi Ice Man that well established trading routes existed in the 3rd millennium BC so that had to have been established some time earlier. It would be possible that during the 9th millennium those areas in central and northern Europe was already known.

The fact that with all the adventurers and Archeologists poking around haven't found any signs of the island kingdom of Atlantis, was one of the reason why I started from scratch and rereading the Critias in looking for clues.

The island kingdom didn't sink into the ocean, but was sunk as in buried, and became an impassible barrier of mud. There is no evidence that the Atlantic Ocean was ever an "Impassible Barrier of Mud". Northern Italy on the other hand if victim of a massive land slide would have become that. Can you point out in the Critias where it says that the Armies of Atlantis were sea power?

Have a read in Timaeus very interesting

For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end. This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean

a reply to: Guyfriday

a reply to: bluesfreak

The Timaemus comes after the Critias and is just a retelling of the story with a healthy dose of myth added in. Why don't you look at the source material?

The Timaemus comes after the Critias and is just a retelling of the story with a healthy dose of myth added in. Why don't you look at the source material?

I’ve looked at everything , of course. Please refer me to the part in Timaeus that states there’s a ‘healthy dose of myth ‘ added in .

a reply to: Guyfriday

Pulse 1b averages to about 40 millimeters a year. Right. That'll destroy yer civilization!

Forgetting that Plato talks of terrible earthquakes preceding the sinking event.
Earthquakes would destroy yer civilisation.
A combination of the two would destroy yer civilisation too.
The fact that Plato is describing earth changing events, that have now been proven to have occurred when he said they did is just ‘luck’ I suppose?
What’s your point here?
But hey, ignore the shorelines and fossils on MIR, they aren’t important here... move on

Still waiting for your PROOF that this is all allegorical , and still waiting for your PROOF that ‘Atlantis’ didn’t exist.
Other than you just saying so.

a reply to: Harte

glad you guys are having fun!

I got another one related to this thread coming up.. when i get around to it that is...