Where did the theory of Atalntis start?

Originally posted by EdenKaia
In their myth there was an ancient land called Keftiu,(Think I got that right) which was a nation said to contain one of the pillars that held up their sky. I believe it was also an Island Nation, as Plato describes. They were supposed to be extremely advanced for their time and dominated all the other lands around them. They were a seafaring people that held trade all over the known world.

Can you provide any links?

This doesn't match the Egyptian tales that I know. In their world, a goddess was the sky; there were no pillars and she did not sit down or touch any land. The only dominating culture that the Egyptians came into contact with was the Hyksos, a Semitic people who show up during 1670 BC - 1550 BC and conqured Egypt. They got kicked out around 1550 BC. They were seafaring people and did have trade networks, but were not unusually advanced.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by EdenKaia
I've tended to sway more towards the idea that he was making Atlantis out to be sort of a doppleganger of Athens itself, the peaceful nation versus the non;pros and cons of a singular society in which two warring factions of that way of life bring about a moral insight.

I'd agree with this if you mean the ancient Athens he wrote of in the Timaeus. Taken in context with his day and age, however, it makes more sense to me that he was comparing the ancient Athens to that of his day as a way to illustrate how far Athens had fallen. Remember how the Egyptian priest of Sais praised the ancient Athenians, the greatest of all heroes, etc. The priest is the one that makes the point that Solon's countrymen are a mere shadow of their former greatness. Similarly, Plato trashes Athens in the Republic, without ever coming out and actually saying it. He does it by comparison, without actually making the comparison.

Originally posted by EdenKaiaNevertheless, I believe he was referring to a real historical event, and not something he just invented, as has been suggested here before. Stretched maybe, but not invented.

I suppose it depends on which event you're talking about. There can be very little doubt that the Athenians never defeated the Minoans in war. You can also safely assume that the Minoans never held all the countries around the Med. in their thrall, as was described in the Timaeus.
But if you mean the eruption of Thera, I think I've already agreed with this. But it didn't necessarily have to be Thera or the Minoans. It might well have been just an echo of an old tale of destruction associated with that eruption. You know, a lot of people living near the ocean had to have died due to that eruption. And there have been many other eruptions with tsunamis throughout the region - it's quite active volcanically. You could say the entire area is rife with ancient stories of destruction, all of them based on this or that actual cataclysm.

Harte

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by EdenKaia
In their myth there was an ancient land called Keftiu,(Think I got that right) which was a nation said to contain one of the pillars that held up their sky. I believe it was also an Island Nation, as Plato describes. They were supposed to be extremely advanced for their time and dominated all the other lands around them. They were a seafaring people that held trade all over the known world.

Can you provide any links?

This doesn't match the Egyptian tales that I know.

Byrd,

Check the links in my earlier post to find out about this "pillar" that held up the sky. I believe that somebody somewhere has tried to connect Keftiu to Atlantis based on this "pillar's" similarity to the myth of Atlas. Perhaps Edenkaia is confusing Greek mythology with Egyptian. As far as I know, there is no Egyptian mythology associated with Keftiu. But the Egyptians are so old most people think of mythology when they think of any Egyptian communications. One such Egyptian report is Keftiu, a place the Egyptians spoke of and traded with. It's just too easy for an outsider like Edenkaia or myself to confuse such reports with mythology. Especially if you read some of the sillier Atlantis webpages about this. They always make these things out to be "mythology", probably because it's easier that really looking into it.

Harte

It all stems from this: Keftiu is called by the Egyptians in the few records we have referring to the city, a place that supposedly existed past where the Straight of Gibraltar is today, separating Spain and Morocco. Keftiu is rooted in the Egyptian word for Pillar, this is then "pushed and stretched" to encompass the story of the ends of the earth where the sky is held up. Atlantis breaks down to Island of Atlas. The similarities now seen between Greek and Egyptian are obvious, not "confused". They end up becoming one in the same.

The tomb-paintings at Thebes are very important material. Eor it is due to them that the voice of the doubter has finally ceased to be heard, and that now no archaeologist questions that the Egyptians were in direct communication with the Cretan Mycenæans in the time of the XVIIIth Dynasty, some fifteen hundred years before Christ, for no one doubts that the pictures of the Keftiu are pictures of Mycenaeans.

This is taken directly from the History of Egypt and references the Tomb Paintings of Rekhmara in Thebes. By the clothing style and headresses, as well as tributes portrayed in the paintings, the Keftiu are connected to Cyprus and Crete. This is another origin for the theory. Later, the Egyptians say that Keftiu was destroyed by cataclysm. The most convincing argument, in my opinion, came when Harte advised me to do some studying on the sea peoples of Ramses time. I did, and this is what I found out. They were made up of three tribes---Berbers, Sherdein, and most importantly, Keftiu. I believe that the reason "Atlantis" is described as having dominance over all the tribes and peoples of the area, is because it refers to the ferrying the Sea Peoples did for all of the displaced tribes to northern Europe after the severe desertification of the central Sahara. They had a mastery of the sea, and therefore carted those people all over the place, making them, in a sense, "masters of all". When I refer to the Egyptians and Keftiu, this is what I mean. In 1190 B.C., these people made war against Ramses III by both land and sea. They were put down. Those on land were captured, those on sea retreated to the west. This is the part I liked the most. In 1180, only ten years after the defeat in Egypt, the League of Seapeoples staged a massive attack on the eastern Mediterranean, Athens included, but it was the only one not destroyed. This seemed to obliterate the Hittite empire. War between Athens and Atlantis sound familiar? I can concur with the idea that there are way too many theories and placemarks for where Atlantis could be, and I can also agree that it was an overexaggeration in Plato's mind of either one event, or a compilation of several, but these pieces all seem to be just too many to toss out coincidentally. I will close with an interesting quote from the Republic:
"I wonder if we could contrive some magnificent myth, that would in itself carry conviction to our whole community?"




[edit on 5-6-2006 by EdenKaia]

I was out of room, but I just wanted to add that there is a common theory that Plato might have been a zero off on the 9000 year calculation. If the above theory on the Sea Peoples can be taken at its value, that would place the time of the war and Plato's writing of the Timaeus and the Critius to roughly nine hundred years.

Originally posted by EdenKaia
I was out of room, but I just wanted to add that there is a common theory that Plato might have been a zero off on the 9000 year calculation. If the above theory on the Sea Peoples can be taken at its value, that would place the time of the war and Plato's writing of the Timaeus and the Critius to roughly nine hundred years.

Edenkaia,
I must have used that same quote from the Republic a hundred times in various discussions on this subject, here and elsewhere. Cetain sections of The Republic make a good argument that Plato made the entire Atlantis story up. Especially when you add in the fact that Critias says his Grandfather told him the tale when he was a child, on "Children's Day" during the festival of Apatouria. This festival involves the induction of infants, youth and wives into the clan of families, where the next generation is inducted into the fold. How nicely this dovetails with certain quotes from the Republic where Plato (as Socrates in the Dialogue) talks about "getting them while they're young":

In this education, you would include stories, would you not?… These are of two kinds, true stories and fiction. Our education must use both and start with fiction. . . . And the first step, as you know, is always what matters most, particularly when we are dealing with those who are young and tender. That is the time when they are easily moulded and when any impression we choose to make leaves a permanent mark

From The Republic (376) My emphasis.

your quote from the Republic - fleshed out:

"Now I wonder if we could contrive one of those convenient stories we were talking about a few minutes ago," I asked. "Some magnificent myth that would in itself carry conviction to our whole community, including, if possible the Guardians themselves. . . . Nothing new-a fairy story like those the poets tell and have persuaded people to believe about the sort of thing that often happened 'once upon a time,' but never does now and is not likely to: indeed it would need a lot of persuasion to get people to believe it"

The Republic (414) My emphasis.
Note the part "...like those the poets tell." Also note how Solon, who was primarily a statesman, is referred to in the Timaeus and Critias as a great poet.

There is a fairly long discussion here at ATS concerning the Sea Peoples and their possible role in the Atlantis story. But sorry, I don't buy it.

BTW, I wish you'd provide some links to the Sea Peoples info you gave us. I've found that there is really very little verifiable info about them out there. Here's a couple of mine for you:
nefertiti.iwebland.com...
www.phoenixdatasystems.com...
If you go to these pages, you'll see again that the Philistines were supposedly part of the Sea peoples, I guess this is the connection with Keftiu you mentioned, since Keftiu no longer existed at the time of the Sea Peoples. (Assuming Keftiu was the Minoans, anyway.)

Anyway, the timeline you lay out has the war between Athens and "Atlantis" occuring after the destruction of Thera (circa 1620 BCE.)

Also, your 900 year timeline between Plato's day and the attack on ancient Athens by the Sea Peoples might be "roughly" correct, but you should remember that Plato said the story came from Solon. Solon visited Egypt sometime around 560 BC. You do the math. It fits neither the Thera eruption, nor the Sea People's invasion.

And another thing, the funerary temple of Ramses at Medinet Habu is our source for the info on the Sea People's invasion of Egypt. They were defeated by Egypt. I'm going to assume that you know enough about the Egyptians and their "revisionist" style of history to realize that there is just absolutely no way that any Egyptian priest would ever credit the Greeks with defeating the Sea Peoples, when the Egyptians themselves had done so. That just couldn't possibly be. Even Egyptian defeats are turned into "victories" in their historical records.

Harte

[edit on 6/5/2006 by Harte]

Originally posted by EdenKaia
It all stems from this: Keftiu is called by the Egyptians in the few records we have referring to the city, a place that supposedly existed past where the Straight of Gibraltar is today, separating Spain and Morocco.

Checking through scholar.google.com, I see that there's considerable disagreement with this. A number of the publications (including recent ones) are identifying it with Crete. Wikipedia adds other sources that echo this:
en.wikipedia.org...

Keftiu is rooted in the Egyptian word for Pillar, this is then "pushed and stretched" to encompass the story of the ends of the earth where the sky is held up. Atlantis breaks down to Island of Atlas. The similarities now seen between Greek and Egyptian are obvious, not "confused". They end up becoming one in the same.

You really can't transplant meaning and symbol of one culture into another one. To Americans, white clothing is worn at a wedding. To Chinese, white clothing is worn for funerals.

By the clothing style and headresses, as well as tributes portrayed in the paintings, the Keftiu are connected to Cyprus and Crete. This is another origin for the theory.

That's a given.

Later, the Egyptians say that Keftiu was destroyed by cataclysm.

Don't see this citation but will keep looking.

I believe that the reason "Atlantis" is described as having dominance over all the tribes and peoples of the area, is because it refers to the ferrying the Sea Peoples did for all of the displaced tribes to northern Europe after the severe desertification of the central Sahara. They had a mastery of the sea, and therefore carted those people all over the place, making them, in a sense, "masters of all".

It referred to "military dominance" and mention was made of a war between the Atlanteans and the Athenians.

When I refer to the Egyptians and Keftiu, this is what I mean. In 1190 B.C., these people made war against Ramses III by both land and sea. They were put down. Those on land were captured, those on sea retreated to the west. This is the part I liked the most. In 1180, only ten years after the defeat in Egypt, the League of Seapeoples staged a massive attack on the eastern Mediterranean, Athens included, but it was the only one not destroyed.

I don't see any evidence that Athens was attacked by the Hyksos.

Thirty years after Merenptah's encounter with the Sea People, around 1177 BC, Pharaoh Ramses in ordered the construction of his own mortuary temple and residence in Thebes, on whose walls architects and scribes recalled the dramatic events of the preceding decades. According to those inscriptions, the Sea People had returned, this time to attack Mediterranean shores from Anatolia, Cyprus, Syria and Palestine to Lower Egypt.

Source
Here's a start. The Sea People's were known to have began their attacks on the eastern Mediterranean shores around 1200 B.C. What we don't know, is why they were doing this to begin with. There never seems to be any motive for their wars, nor their reasons for not trying to maintain their control after the fact. They came in, cleaned house, and moved on. That is, until Egypt and Ramses III, who seemed to only have readied himself upon hearing the news of the northern countries' troubles with the Sea People. The point is, the only thing that comes to light about their motives is what they did to the places they did attack and conqueor. They would lay waste only to the "high society" cities and then take up refuge on the ruins, only they would build settlements of a lower economical standard. It seems they were attacking these places out of spite for being grand. Truly, there is no record of where they really came from, just as there is no indication of why they came in the first place. If this is the case, Athens, being the learning and trade center that it was, would have been a prime target. The description of Athens by Plato does seem to mirror the Bronze age Athens of around 1200 B.C. dramatically. Here is a link of the comparisons between the Sea Peoples and Plato's Atlanteans. They do seem to coincide fairly accurately.
Sea Peoples and the Atlanteans
Archaeological records also indicate that many Greek palaces were destroyed around the time of the destruction of eastern Mediterranean cities--circa 1200, which might explain Homer's account of Greek soldiers returning from the Trojan war only to find Greece in a bad state of crime and disrepair.
Map of Eastern Mediterranean

The power and prosperity of Mycenaean Greece were lost in a period of violent conflict around 1200 B.C. that encompassed not only Greece but also much of the eastern Mediterranean region of the Near East. The causes of this disaster are still obscure, but strife among the principal centers seems to have played a significant role in the undoing of Mycenaean Greece, as perhaps did also incursions by raiders from the sea. The damage done to Greek society by the dissolution of the redistributive economies of Mycenaean Greece after 1200 B.C. took centuries to repair. Only Athens seems to have escaped wholesale disaster. In fact, the later Athenians, of the fifth century B.C., prided themselves on their unique status among the peoples of classical Greece: “sprung from the soil” of their homeland (autochthonoi ), as they called themselves, they had not been forced to emigrate in the turmoil that engulfed the rest of Greece in the twelfth and eleventh centuries B.C.

Source
This suggests that Athens took part in the wars, but was never fully conqueored. Which would even suggest that their attackers were pushed back; defeated in combat, allowing Athens to escape "wholesale disaster". Did Plato not describe Athens as victorious over the Atlanteans?

RE the statements in this thread about the Egyptian conceot of "Keftiu," especially whether they conceptualized it in a "mythic" or "contact" way, there is, in the Egyptian "Book of the Dead" a reference within a prayer of an Osirian priest that says "I have made the Kefaiu (sic) gods to stand up."

anyone ever consider that Atlantis was just a figment of Plato's imagination. Or maybe he was referring to something else, and we just misunderstand what he's written?

Originally posted by hellfire3
anyone ever consider that Atlantis was just a figment of Plato's imagination. Or maybe he was referring to something else, and we just misunderstand what he's written?

If you read through these threads, you'll find that this is exactly what we are talking about.

If I read all the references to "Keftiu" correctly, there has been some interest in the possibility that it referred to Atlantis, at least from the perspective of the ancient Egyptian savants. My take on this question is that "Keftiu" was a contemporary Egyptian term for a vestigeal remnant of prehistoric Atlantis, a remnant Atlantis that these Egyptians regarded as "weak" and very possibly consisted of a few "cay-mini" places in the far off Atlantic region that were still holding on into Egyptian and perhaps even Greek or Roman times.

Originally posted by michaelanteski
If I read all the references to "Keftiu" correctly, there has been some interest in the possibility that it referred to Atlantis, at least from the perspective of the ancient Egyptian savants. My take on this question is that "Keftiu" was a contemporary Egyptian term for a vestigeal remnant of prehistoric Atlantis, a remnant Atlantis that these Egyptians regarded as "weak" and very possibly consisted of a few "cay-mini" places in the far off Atlantic region that were still holding on into Egyptian and perhaps even Greek or Roman times.

Strange that you should hold that belief, considering it flies in the face of what Plato tells us, as well as being almost diametrically opposed to what the Egyptians themselves indicate about Keftiu in their writings and in their artwork.

It also fails to explain the fact that stone from Crete, found in Egypt, was recorded as coming from Keftiu.

Lastly, there is no evidence at all to indicate that the Egyptians knew of anybody at all living anywhere in the "Atlantic region." There was no seafaring trade with Egypt from outside Gibraltar, at least there's no evidence of any. If there's no evidence, then there's just no reason to believe it.

Harte

The Egyptians were cognizant of seafaring activities even though we don't have evidence today that they fared as far as the Atlantic area themselves. Egyptian records speak of certain "sea peoples." Phoenicians and Minoans from Crete were known seafarers, and I don't think we can authoritatively address the limits of their capabilities today. So I think it's reasonable that the Egyptians were at least aware second hand of goings on the the Atlantic region. Contrariwise theories that all these Mediterraneans were strictly confined to the Mediterranean region and never ventured beyond the Pillars of Hercules are just that, an alternative theory. I still think "Keftiu" was an Egyptian term for a remnant Atlantean culture in a few isles far to the West. Perhaps Harte you've heard stories about ancient "Blessed Isles," the tone of which suggests they were thought of as contemporary.

Two things - the Pillars of Hercules (or Herakles if you want to be very accurate) have changed over the years, as the term has been used to refer to a number of different locations, changing as the map of the world known by the Greeks expanded. Once it referred to the Dardenelles. Then it moved the gap between North Africa and Sicily, and finally it moved to its present location - Gibraltar.
The other thing is that the Sea Peoples turn up at about the same time that the Mycenean Empire collapsed under social pressures, possibly due to drought or ecological reasons. The Phistines turn up at the same time, and it's been pretty much proved that they were in fact Myceneans.
And I'd just like to add something else. There is still NO evidence of Atlantis anywhere else at all apart from Plato, which is suspicious enough as it is, plus there ABSOLUTELY no evidence of any other land mass in the Atlantic.

Originally posted by michaelanteski
Egyptian records speak of certain "sea peoples."

But the sea peoples were an historical people that, despite being little more than pirate and savages, left an extensive archaeological record, and appear to be related to the "End Bronze Age Systems Collapse" (either precipitating it, fleeing from it, or both). If they left a record, surely Atlantis, bigger than "Asia and Libya", with an Empire up to Athens and Egypt, would've left a good record???

was an Egyptian term for a remnant Atlantean culture in a few isles far to the West.

I am not familiar with the term, so clearly can't say anythign about it. Though I have often wondered if perhaps the people in the azores and nearby regions, who, from what I understand, had a bronze age culture, might not be part of this.

Darkmind
plus there ABSOLUTELY no evidence of any other land mass in the Atlantic.

Indeed, that sinks it, at least as it being a continent in the atlantic, or even the azores being the mountain peaks of a continent that existed at the time, etc.

Originally posted by michaelanteski
Phoenicians and Minoans from Crete were known seafarers, and I don't think we can authoritatively address the limits of their capabilities today.

The way we address their limits today is by stories and records of the times. Culturalistically, there is often evidence that surfaces about a boundry that "no living man has ever crossed". Using references such as this, it becomes quite simple to deduce what their limitations were travel wise. There is also the issue of archaeological evidence placing what vessels and records that have been found in and around the Mediterranean itself, suggesting that they never ventured away from their trade artery. This evidence is fairly convincing, considering the vast market of trade and commerce to be had along that rim, there may not have been much reason to venture abroad. It would have been too uncertain, and not to mention costly for wary merchants. "He who has the gold makes the rules"

I still think "Keftiu" was an Egyptian term for a remnant Atlantean culture in a few isles far to the West.

Quite literally, it actually just means "pillar". The Egyptians refer to this race, but not as an Atlantean remnant. In the few records of them from Egypt, they exist as a "tolerable and civilized" people that lived to the west. There is evidence to suggest them as one of the tribes of the Sea Peoples that invaded the eastern Mediterranean seaboard around 1200 B.C., but is this connection only that seems to make them the people of Atlantis, and only then if we assume that Plato was referring to them in an exaggerated sense as the "Atlanteans" in his arguments regarding the Athenian war.

Originally posted by Darkmind
Two things - the Pillars of Hercules (or Herakles if you want to be very accurate) have changed over the years, as the term has been used to refer to a number of different locations, changing as the map of the world known by the Greeks expanded. Once it referred to the Dardenelles. Then it moved the gap between North Africa and Sicily, and finally it moved to its present location - Gibraltar.

It is very true Darkmaind. This confusion is the source of many fails to locate the true site of The Pillars of Hercules.

Please see my thread: WHERE ARE THE COLUMNS OF HERCULES?

"Atlantis in the Mediterranean" theorists like to cite the references to "pillars of Hercules other than at Straits of Gibraltar" as "debunking" interetation of Plato's description of Atlantis as referring to "the Atlantic areas." They conveniently ignore Plato's further reference in the "Timias and Critias" in that context ("beyond the Pillars of Hercules" where (quoting Plato) he refers to "west of the straits which you call the pillars of hercules: the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and from it could be reached other islands, and from the islands you might pass through to the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean..."

Originally posted by michaelanteski
"Atlantis in the Mediterranean" theorists like to cite the references to "pillars of Hercules other than at Straits of Gibraltar" as "debunking" interetation of Plato's description of Atlantis as referring to "the Atlantic areas." They conveniently ignore Plato's further reference in the "Timias and Critias" in that context ("beyond the Pillars of Hercules" where (quoting Plato) he refers to "west of the straits which you call the pillars of hercules: the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and from it could be reached other islands, and from the islands you might pass through to the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean..."

michaelanteski,

An excellent point which I've often considered in this context.

But unless I'm wrong, the Atlantis in the Mediterreanean theorist pretty much ignore Plato anyway, in that they assume his story is riddled with errors. I believe the logic is that when the Egyptian said "pillars of Hercules," Plato assumed that meant Gibraltar, whereas the theorists say that the Egyptians might have meant a location previously designated the "pillars of Hercules." Then Plato went on to (mistakenly) write the tale as if this was what was meant.

Factually, there never was an "Atlantis," IMO. But Thera provides a decent estimation because when Plato fabricated the story, it's obvious that he had some "lost civilization" or other(s) in mind. Otherwise, there's not a decent backdrop for the story.

Harte