Introduction to Atlantology

An Atlantologist is someone who studies legends, myths, reports and evidence about and for Atlantis specifically and ancient lost and sunken civilizations in general.

Conventional Archaeology and History does not recognize advanced “pre-historic” civilizations. According to conventional archaeology/history we were primitive hunter-gatherers before 7000 B.C.

The reason given for this is that no evidence that satisfies scientific scrutiny has been found - yet. Atlantology is therefore not taken seriously in academic circles - and rightly so. Science priorities should be with what is more likely to be proven.

Meanwhile however, dreamers and adventurers continue the search.

This is not a thread for the debate “Atlantologists vs. Conventional Knowledge”. We have enough of those threads here. It is also not a thread about “Did Atlantis exist or not?”. It is a thread for those who have decided to pursue the belief that Atlantis did in fact exist – a thread for Atlantologists and those interested in Atlantology to compare their data and dig deeper...much deeper than the Base-1 question “Did Atlantis exist?”.

Image: Ancient Egyptian Statue in the Mediterranean


Atlantology is based on some of the following core-concepts:

1. "Heliocentric Diffusionism"

This is the idea that all cultures originate from one culture. This would explain why the myths and legends of cultures around the globe have more in common with each other than not.

Only one example: From the wilderness of South American Forests to the Barren Planes of Australie, to the icey frost of Scandinavia we find myths on Serpents, Flying Serpents, the worship of serpents. Other examples of commonality or even exact matches will be shown in this thread.

2. Euhemerism

Euhemerism is a method of interpretation that treats mythological accounts as a reflection of actual historical events. It acknowledges that mythological accounts may have been distorted, exaggerated and coloured by cultural contexts, but respects them as being based on some type of reality nevertheless.

3. Occult/Hermetic Study Traditions

"Occult" or "Hermetic" in the original sense of the word, refers to knowledge that is hidden, secret or only passed down among elite initiates.
The Occultists worldview (the term "Occultist" has nothing to do with the modern christian interpretation of the word) is that there are two streams of knowledge throughout history: The knowledge fed to “the masses” or the general populace and knowledge reserved for those in power. Many conceptes of Atlantology originate from hermetic/occult sources, secret societies, the inner circles of various religions and cults, and upper levels of organizations. It is believed that the information given to the general populace by religion, science and mass-media, is watered-down, distorted and oftentimes completely wrong.

One side-belief of the hermeticist is that a human is able to “channel” information from higher, non-physical sources in order to gain and gather information on various subjects. Apart from ancient textbooks, sacred scrolls and scriptures, “channeling” is seen as an additional source of information on Atlantis. According to occult tradition, the less a channel “filters” information, the more accurate it will come out.

Among Occultists it is known that there are more "channeling" mediums which are frauds/hoaxes than genuine ones. This is measured by whether the medium can make statements and predictions that are verifiable. One example of a medium where this is considered the case by Atlantologists, is Edgar Cayce.

4. Ancient Astronaut Theory

This is a fairly modern theory that proposes that either extraterrestrials or interdimensional beings or technologically advanced humans visited or roamed the earth in the stone age but then left the earth taking their technology and knowledge with them. I will later outline how exactly this ties in with Atlantology.

5. The Disaster/Deluge/Flood/Cataclysm Myth

Atlantologists refer to an event of massive proportions which destroyed the civilization and ended the Atlantean Empire.


Most discussions on Atlantis only touch the surface. This surface-layer is, in the opinion of the Hermeticist, only a diversion from the deeper aspects of Atlantology. One of these surface-layer discussions surrounds the Greek Philosopher Platos account of Atlantis. Plato is, however, neither the only source of Atlantological information, nor the most important, nor even especially accurate.

Another diversion/deflection tactic of surface-discussions is to say “Atlantis was in...” and to fill in the blank with one specific location at the expense of any other location. Examples:

“Atlantis was in Cyprus!”
“Atlantis discovered off the coast of Cuba!”
“No, Atlantis was actually in Bolivia!”
“Atlantis was in the Atlantic were now the Azores are!”.

The ensuing fight and discussion is a waste of time. Atlantis is merely an umbrella term for an Empire that was spread across the entire earth. If there are ancient underwater artifacts found off the coast of Indonesia, and others found off the coast of the Bahamas, there is no sense in fighting over which one of them was “Atlantis”. Instead, both are remnants of an ancient lost civilization.

In time I intend on adding material in support of Atlantology as an interesting field of study.

Image: Artists Impression of Atlantis, near Cuba

I understand that I cannot determine what is and what is not discussed in this thread, but will make two polite requests, so that this thread is pleasant to read:

To "true believers": Do not start attacking skeptics and turning this into another "believers vs. skeptics" thread. Skeptics sometimes ask good questions...forcing us to dig deeper. And in digging deeper we sometimes find new information and better answers.

To "skeptics": No claims of proof or evidence are being made in this thread. The purpose of this thread is to go beyond the base-1 question "Is Atlantis real?" and simply act as if it is real to see what data we can find from that vantage.


[edit on 17-11-2008 by Skyfloating]

If you wish to "become an Atlantologist", these would be points-for-study to get up to speed with the fields current standing:

* Atlantis and Ancient Egypt

* Atlantis according to Ignatius Donnelly

* Atlantis according to Edgar Cayce

* Lemuria

* James Churchwards Mu

* Atlantis according to Theosophy

* Platos Atlantis

* The Lost City of Helike

* The Legendary Tartessos

* The Lady of Elx

* The Origins of the Basques

* Ancient Trans-Atlantic Contact

* Ancient Irish People

* Ancient Seafarers

* Carthage

* Troy

* Tantalis

* Ancient Crete (Minoans)

* Underwater Cyprus

* The eruption of Thera

* Atlantis according to Rudolf Steiner

* Lemuria according to Tibetan Scrolls

* The Aztecs & Atlantis

* The Toltects & Atlantis

* The Mayans & Atlantis

* Native Americans & Atlantis

* The Incas & Atlantis

* The canals of the Altiplano

* The Azores & Atlantis

* The Canary Islands & Atlantis

* Atlantis in Myth, Legend and Religion

* Spartel Island

* Ireland & Tara

* Austrialian Aboriginal Tales going back 75 000 years

* Bahamas, Bermuda, The Bimini Islands & Atlantis

* Cuba, Jamaica & Atlantis

* Antarctica & Atlantis

* Ancient Indian Mythology & Religion

* Hy-Brasil

* Sundaland

* Kumari Kandam

* Madurai

* El Dorado

* Lyonesse - the lost land of Tristan

* The lost city of Ys

* Tir Nan Og

* Shambalah, Shangri-La

* Agartha

* Hyperborea

* The Kingdom of Prester John

Knowing how this stuff ties in to Atlantology would earn someone his first "degree".

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Skyfloating]

Howdy Skyfloating

Well this should be an interesting thread. I would make one comment not on Atlantis but on your first commentary.

Conventional Archaeology and History does not recognize advanced “pre-historic” civilizations.

Actually they do, Catal huyuk and Gobeki Tepe are examples but of course it depends on your definition of "advanced". I'd say they were more advanced than a base line hunter-gather society.

Recognize is not the proper term. I believe the correct one would be, "A consensus of scholars agrees that", there is no central organization that would recognize anything, its all individual opinion -based on evidence.

According to conventional archaeology/history we were primitive hunter-gatherers before 5000 B.C.

Not truly accurate, its not "according to X and Y" its according to the evidence found. Again look at Catal Huyuk and Gobeki Tepe are these 'primitive'? The concept of when pre-historic civilizations began has already been pushed back to aroud 9,000 BC it will probably go further, in my opinion back to around 14,000.

The reason given for this is that no evidence that satisfies scientific scrutiny has been found - yet.

Correct but there is also evidence that contra-indicates the existence of large advanced civilizations. That information is known and cannot be ignored when one is considering the existence of advanced civilizations

Atlantology is therefore not taken seriously in academic circles - and rightly so.

Some aspects of what you list as 'Atlantlogy' is taken seriously but in general the interpretation of it in support of Atlantis existing is not considered compelling.

Science priorities should be with what is more likely to be proven.

Incorrect one should follow the evidence and not be concerned with what is more "likely".

One last comment and I'll bow out. You have a long list below. There are many good and interesting subjects to look into. Many of these I have studied myself. Unfortunately you also have some that are just pure nonsense. One way to improve the acceptablilty of the study of Atlantology would be to remove the easily identified subjects of no value.

Oh and I would add a long list of scientific areas of study too - from archaeology '101' to the study of palynology to stratigraphy.

Good luck Sky

[edit on 17/11/08 by Hanslune]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Conventional Archaeology and History does not recognize advanced “pre-historic” civilizations. According to conventional archaeology/history we were primitive hunter-gatherers before 5000 B.C.

That's not really what the conventional archaelogy and history states though. There is evidence of the cities even older than 5000 BC. Isnt the first Jericho walls dated to like 7000 BC (let alone how old the city is)? And they werent hunter gatherers, but rather farmers...

Anyway, just reacted to this. Still reading the rest of the post, lol.

reply to post by Hanslune


Very interesting start to a wonderful thread.

I have a question about which recommended books above would be considered rubbish and a waste of my money and time? Not being negative, just love the subject and to have a great library of information on Atlantis without dead ends will be nice.

reply to post by merka


Howdy Merka

Yeah I pointed that out to him. I was discussing a similar subject with somebody at Abertay this morning. We figured the 1960s finds pushed that date back to 7000 BC and now it's around 9000 BC with some going for 14,000 BC based on pottery.

I edited the OP and moved the date from 5000 B.C. up to 7000 B.C. to more accurately reflect the statement "no advanced civilizations".

However: By "advanced" Atlantologists usually mean about at least as advanced as ours if not more so.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Skyfloating]

Nice start to what should hopefully turn into a megathread.

I have only one more suggestion to add to the list:

Out of place artifacts (eg antikythera mechanism) which may hint to a more advanced level of development.

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Nice start to what should hopefully turn into a megathread.

I have only one more suggestion to add to the list:

Out of place artifacts (eg antikythera mechanism) which may hint to a more advanced level of development.

Thats right OOPARTS could be added to the "first degree".

And no...this wont be a megathread...just a little intro.

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Out of place artifacts (eg antikythera mechanism) which may hint to a more advanced level of development.

The antikythera mechanism is neither "out of place" or anything special compared to the accounts of other such devices built by for example Archimedes (not that we know who built it).

Hanslune, you posted while I was posting that's why it appeared to be the same content repeated, heh.

However: By "advanced" Atlantologists usually mean about at least as advanced as ours if not more so.

I'm not so sure I agree with that. Mythical Magical Fantasy Atlantologists maybe think that's what it mean, As-Accurate-As-Can-Be Plato Historical Atlantologists does not

[edit on 17-11-2008 by merka]

reply to post by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Skyfloating

However: By "advanced" Atlantologists usually mean about at least as advanced as ours if not more so.

"

I would like to comment on that. ... It seems to me that the more we discover about ancient societies in general, the more we are astounded at their level of comfortability in every day life. THIS, to me, is a key component in measuring the "advancement" of ANY society.

It was absurd to think, even before just a few years ago, that a society more than 1,000 years old had indoor plumbing. But that is now an accepted reality in modern archaeology.
It isn't that Science isn't willing to accept these things, it is just as you stated, they cannot as of yet.

If there is more to find, Science will conform. It is just a matter of time.

Nice thread BTW. Starred and Flagged.


Mod Note: How to Quote– Please Review This Link.

[edit on 18/11/08 by Jbird]

reply to post by Skyfloating


While the study of where Atlantis might be located is very interesting, and there is mounting evidence (advanced mathematical measurements and building) that civilization is much older than previously believed, I think the addition of Edgar Cayce is dubious in itself. The name will pop out and most people will not take this subject seriously.

I would like to add a link to begin some of the research that incorporates many of the ideas Skyfloating laid out in the OP.

www.irishoriginsofcivilization.com...

I won't add any external quotes from the link because it would be short selling the information as there is an abundance to be found within it.

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

While the study of where Atlantis might be located is very interesting, and there is mounting evidence (advanced mathematical measurements and building) that civilization is much older than previously believed, I think the addition of Edgar Cayce is dubious in itself. The name will pop out and most people will not take this subject seriously.

Not so. His followers (A.R.E.) have provided the funding for some of the most important expeditions of Atlantology.

For me personally, channeling is a valid means of investigation. Unless one is an atheist, of course.

If that statement turns many off to Atlantology - so be it. Its not for everyone.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Atlantis is merely an umbrella term for an Empire that was spread across the entire earth.

Personally, I don't think it's such a good idea to use "Atlantis" as a generic term for a hypothetical prehistoric, world-encompassing civilization. I tend to think that Atlantis, as specifically described by Plato, would have had limited cultural influence in primarily the Western Europe/Northern Africa, Mediterranean, and Caribbean areas, possibly with the inclusion of northern South America. Influence in North America was probably minimal, due to the difficulties with remaining post-Ice Age ice, and a wide, marshy, difficult-to-navigate shoreline along the North American east coast.

I sincerely doubt that they had any real contact or influence with southern South America, the Indian Subcontinent, or any part of eastern Asia, including Australia or the southern Pacific Islands. Other significant, as-yet-undiscovered civilizations might have had influence in these areas, but not specifically Atlantis.

There may have been some insignificant contact between these other hypothetical civilizations and the Atlantic civilization, but for the most part, I suspect that a lot of the supposed similarities in culture and seminal mythologies are probably a result of good old Jungian archetypes popping up in different places at the same time.

Anyway, I prefer to keep Atlantis in the Atlantic. They may have had a somewhat developed civilization, with a relatively good handle on agriculture, law, and seafaring, but I doubt that they were such incredible (literally) globetrotters.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by Nohup]

Ignatius Donnelly




Early works on Atlantis revolve around the works of I. Donnelly, which can be read here:

Atlantis, The Antediluvian World (published 1882)

Donnelly suffered a lot of slander, character assassination and ridicule from contemporaries, so his Atlantis theories, which had started gaining momentum back them, were quickly crushed into obscurity.

Calling him a crackpot/fraud/liar/stupid is at odds with his actual lifetime achievements. He

Studied Medicine
Became a Politician
was aHuman Rights Activists (calling for more rights for women and blacks)
was a Lawyer (later under the Attorney-General of the U.S.)
Involved in Communal Home Building Schemes
Founder of an Utopian Community / Cooperative Farm
he authored a book on the Shakespeare-Bacon connection
he was a Vice-President nominee

The point? You dont get/do all that by being a stupid crackpot fraud.

But were they responding to what he did or had done or his evidence?

Although the name calling is always unfortunate (and goes both ways at times) one needs to focus on the evidence - was it creditable?

reply to post by Hanslune


I noticed your other thread about this thread.

This is to say that I do not mind think your tough responses are a "derailment" of this thread. Go ahead and comment.

__________________________________

As for Donnelly: I dont know. What I do know is that he could not have been stupid (considering the C.V.).

I bring this up because Atlantologists are frequently accused of being uneducated.

That he was attacked doesn't mean he was right.

Almost all new theories get attacked and as long as that pressure is measured its part of the process. I read Izzy so long ago I forget how he treated other scholars of the time.

Uneducated? Sky I will note that in your long list of things to study there was little if any importance given to science. It is with science that 'Atlantis" will be proved to have existed, not channeling.

Oh question in the 70's a guy came up with a test for channelers. I cannot remember his name. It involved asking channelers to (I'm paraphrasing from memory) hundreds of common words then asking them to put those words into sentences using different tenses, plurality, etc, etc. Do you remember who that was? Has any channeler ever past one of the those tests? ie demonstrated they could speak an unknown language?

reply to post by Skyfloating


I disagree about channeling being used as evidence when channeling itself cannot be proven. The research needs to be digs and archeological finds that are of an earlier age. We need physical proof of the existence of an ancient civilization, and psychic means do not count. Anyone can claim they have contact with "Atlantis", and no one can prove otherwise. If one finds ruins that are dated at over 10,000 years, that would be very good evidence.