Introduction to Atlantology

I think this post by you, Sky, illustrates very well why the study of Atlantology is in poorer shape today than it was 200 or 400 (or a thousand) years ago.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
It has been suggested that the Lady of Elx - a strange statue discovered in the Tartessos region of unknown origin and uncertain date - is a rare artifact of the Tartessos civilization, and possibly even of Atlantis.

I looked into this further, and it seems that the statue comes from an archaeological dig in the mid 1800's. It has had several owners and it's not entirely clear that the one that they identify now is the one that was dug up. A little more research (which was not done by the writer who proclaimed it might be from Atlantis) shows that the dig was held at a site thought to have artifacts and that artifacts were found.

The writer's assumptions are:
* any artifact that looks unusual must be from an unknown culture
* that any odd (or possibly out of place) artifact must be 11,000 years old (the date of Plato's Atlantis) or of alien influenced origin.
* that the artifact he shows you is in no way culturally similar to anything else.
* that it was found in isolation and nothing else was around it that would give clues about the culture and so forth.
* that if you can't find a similar picture on the Internet, it must be unique because every museum and every scholar has been busy putting up pictures of everything they own on the Internet and with keywords that you could Google for. Keywords that would describe the thing the way he would.
* therefore it's all about Atlantis.

The writer dismisses ideas such as:
= it could be the work of a local nutty sculptor (the Picasso or Klimt of his time)
= that other things around it tell the history of the place where it was found
= that things when they are buried (house burns down or is abandoned) are never found in layers.
= that some of these items are hoaxes (Dropa Stones, for example)
= that occasionally an archaeologist has committed fraud (a stupid thing to do because the rest of the archaeological community figures it out pretty quickly)
= that later work on that culture or that dig may be around and the culture/artform may be very well known to some.

It's lazy research. It takes "unknown artifacts" that someone decided were mysterious back in the 1950's or earlier and proclaims them from Atlantis.

A true Atlantis artifact should be:
* found at a site over 10,000 years old
* have traits that identify it as a unique cultural object.
* be connected with similar unique artifacts found in place (and by now, many feet below the surface) on the plains around Athens (because Athens and Atlantis went to war and Atlantis was defeated. Battlefields aren't tidy places and lots would have been left behind.) These artifacts would be dated no later than 1400 BC (when the Ionian kings ruled Athens).
* be connected with similar style unusual artifacts in Egypt, found in the tribute chambers of temples (because that's where the wealth was kept.) These artifacts should be found in dateable sites with some sort of context (not lying around in the sand in the middle of nowhere.)
* associated with writing from that culture, including letters to and from various kings in the area (we have, for instance, letters to and from Pharaohs to various Mesopotamian and Mediterranean kings.) And it should be a real language with a real grammar... not some of the made up nonsense that is seen.

This tendency to announce "Atlantean Artifact!" for out of context objects that the viewer can't immediately identify has led to a flood of web pages that are taken as evidence by those who don't spend a lot of time dealing with artifacts.

The gold birds and insects and fish from Costa Rica are a very good example of this. In spite of the fact that this is a type of art found in digs, associated with certain tribes, and still a part of their art tradition today, they end up in Atlantology books identified as things from Atlantis or things influenced by aliens.

Posting for the page turning glitch, I wanted to see what Byrd had to say.

reply to post by Byrd


Please notice Skys use of words 'suggests' and 'possibly' both are correct!!!!!!! Despite the chance it may not be Atlanean there is also the 'POSSIBILITY' that it could. Good find Skyfloating and one worth exploring in my opinion.

[edit on 27-11-2008 by MCoG1980]

I find the style of the statues interesting all by themselves, regardless. I would like to know more about it. Both of them. Doesn't mean we BELIEVE, and follow the presumption is it from Atlantis, but not knowing more about it makes it interesting and mysterious.

Originally posted by MCoG1980
reply to post by Byrd

 

Please notice Skys use of words 'suggests' and 'possibly' both are correct!!!!!!! Despite the chance it may not be Atlanean there is also the 'POSSIBILITY' that it could. Good find Skyfloating and one worth exploring in my opinion.

[edit on 27-11-2008 by MCoG1980]

I believe he was only reporting that it was suggested it was possibly from Atlantis.

Worth exploring, yes (if you have access to a library that has access to archaeological journals, you'll find that it's identified as an Iberian fertility goddess and that the rosettes are a known Iberian type design).

I explore it by checking to see who else has written about it, where it was found, and what the dig reports are about it. I also check to see who agrees with the record and what the latest findings are about it. Then I check to see if those people work in the field (would be familiar with the literally thousands of other artifacts in the same area. Someone can be very familiar with artifacts in one region and clueless about another. Zahi Hawass could be trusted in his comments on Middle Kingdom Egypt but wouldn't know a Clovis point from a Woodlands point if we plopped him down in the middle of a site here in Texas.)

So my question is, "what do YOU think is a reasonable way to explore it?"

* would you accept an opinion from someone who reads about "out of place artifacts" but doesn't know anything about what ordinary statues from Tartassos (or about the fertility goddess from there) look like?
* would you accept an opinion from someone who makes the opinion without looking at how it was found and where it came from?
* what defines "acceptable" to you, and "inacceptable"?

Sadly, the ancients who studied these things wouldn't have found the evidence for the Lady of Elx being from Atlantis very convincing. If you think my insistence on logic is annoying, you should see what THOSE guys who were studying Atlantis thought was reasonable!

Originally posted by seagrass
I find the style of the statues interesting all by themselves, regardless. I would like to know more about it. Both of them. Doesn't mean we BELIEVE, and follow the presumption is it from Atlantis, but not knowing more about it makes it interesting and mysterious.

Appears to be an Iberian fertility goddess, according to museums. It's dated to about 400 AD, and from Tartassos. The culture there is very interesting -- some Biblical scholars are attempting to find out if there's a link between the area and Phoenecia and some Biblical references.

I just did a hasty read on those, so no mor detail from me. I'm off to do Thanksgiving (so Happy Thanksgiving, readers!)

Originally posted by Byrd

I looked into this further, and it seems that the statue comes from an archaeological dig in the mid 1800's. It has had several owners and it's not entirely clear that the one that they identify now is the one that was dug up. A little more research (which was not done by the writer who proclaimed it might be from Atlantis) shows that the dig was held at a site thought to have artifacts and that artifacts were found.

In earlier days I had the tendency to post whatever any author says. With this item (and some others) I at least look it up in the internet to gather other opinions on it. I did see that it was found at a site where other artifacts were found. I also so that it is ascribed to the Iberians...automatically...without any reason for doing so other than the Iberians having been in proximity.

The writer's assumptions are:
* any artifact that looks unusual must be from an unknown culture
* that any odd (or possibly out of place) artifact must be 11,000 years old (the date of Plato's Atlantis) or of alien influenced origin.
* that the artifact he shows you is in no way culturally similar to anything else.
* that it was found in isolation and nothing else was around it that would give clues about the culture and so forth.
* that if you can't find a similar picture on the Internet, it must be unique because every museum and every scholar has been busy putting up pictures of everything they own on the Internet and with keywords that you could Google for. Keywords that would describe the thing the way he would.
* therefore it's all about Atlantis.

No objection. Just because an object is of unknown origin does not mean its of atlantean or alien origin. This is why words such as "possibility" are used. Whereas archaeologists are often too quick to use words such as "certainly" and "fact".

Even if this artifact has nothing to do with Atlantis, its still interesting. It is found near the Atlantic and does not immediately spark associations with known cultures.

The writer dismisses ideas such as:

Its often the case that other, more simple explanations are dismissed and ignored. But in this specific case it could also be true that the author in question did consider these ideas. We dont know.

= it could be the work of a local nutty sculptor (the Picasso or Klimt of his time)
= that other things around it tell the history of the place where it was found
= that things when they are buried (house burns down or is abandoned) are never found in layers.
= that some of these items are hoaxes (Dropa Stones, for example)
= that occasionally an archaeologist has committed fraud (a stupid thing to do because the rest of the archaeological community figures it out pretty quickly)
= that later work on that culture or that dig may be around and the culture/artform may be very well known to some.

Yes, in general this is what "Atlantologists" often fall for :sad:

In this specific case however, hoax and fraud is ruled out by most scholars.

A true Atlantis artifact should be:
* found at a site over 10,000 years old

One premise of Atlantology is that only single objects are left, as "the cataclysm" and time have made sites dissappear entirely. Following the theory that certain objects were only passed down among the ruling class, the King of a place may own one object while the rest of the site shows objects belonging to another culture.

* have traits that identify it as a unique cultural object.

Which is the case in the specific Lady-of-Elx example.

* be connected with similar unique artifacts found in place (and by now, many feet below the surface) on the plains around Athens (because Athens and Atlantis went to war and Atlantis was defeated. Battlefields aren't tidy places and lots would have been left behind.) These artifacts would be dated no later than 1400 BC (when the Ionian kings ruled Athens).

The Atlantis I am referring to, did not go to war with Greence (even if Plato says so), because it went down 10 000 B.C.

* be connected with similar style unusual artifacts in Egypt, found in the tribute chambers of temples (because that's where the wealth was kept.) These artifacts should be found in dateable sites with some sort of context (not lying around in the sand in the middle of nowhere.)
* associated with writing from that culture, including letters to and from various kings in the area (we have, for instance, letters to and from Pharaohs to various Mesopotamian and Mediterranean kings.) And it should be a real language with a real grammar... not some of the made up nonsense that is seen.

Again, the whole idea of Atlantis is based on it having been destroyed...completely...and therefore being a lost civilization we do not remember and have no evidence for. If it werent a lost civilization Im sure we would find all the things you say we are supposed to find.

This tendency to announce "Atlantean Artifact!" for out of context objects that the viewer can't immediately identify has led to a flood of web pages that are taken as evidence by those who don't spend a lot of time dealing with artifacts.

Im sorry that fringe-minds sometimes obstruct serious research.

The gold birds and insects and fish from Costa Rica are a very good example of this. In spite of the fact that this is a type of art found in digs, associated with certain tribes, and still a part of their art tradition today, they end up in Atlantology books identified as things from Atlantis or things influenced by aliens.

Well...since they look more like planes than like fish it is no surprise that we take them as such. Them being associated with certain tribes doesnt change that...especially if those tribes say that they are depictions of "the Gods".

Hey, Sky! Longish post in response to your thoughtful (and well stated) response.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
With this item (and some others) I at least look it up in the internet to gather other opinions on it. I did see that it was found at a site where other artifacts were found. I also so that it is ascribed to the Iberians...automatically...without any reason for doing so other than the Iberians having been in proximity.

Actually, it was found at an Iberian site.

But the connection to the Tartessos culture is really interesting because it's a culture that disappears rather suddenly (after being attested to by other civilizations so we know it's not just someone making this up) and at least one very real archaeologist connected this culture to the story of Atlantis:
en.wikipedia.org...

... that connection (which I just found) would make an interesting line of research as long as you stuck to the material provided by Plato.

Even if this artifact has nothing to do with Atlantis, its still interesting. It is found near the Atlantic and does not immediately spark associations with known cultures.

In the text that was part of your posting, it was said to be "possibly Atlantean", as though someone had identified things that would be Atlantean.

Yes, in general this is what "Atlantologists" often fall for :sad:

No kidding... (hey, I once went along with those things, too) The discipline would gain respect if it quit falling for sloppy scholars who produce bad books.

A true Atlantis artifact should be:
* found at a site over 10,000 years old

One premise of Atlantology is that only single objects are left, as "the cataclysm" and time have made sites dissappear entirely. Following the theory that certain objects were only passed down among the ruling class, the King of a place may own one object while the rest of the site shows objects belonging to another culture.

I can accept the first but it really is a weak premise. We do find isolated things (like arrowheads)... but we also find sites with things that link that arrowhead to a whole group. I don't see a group of "OOPARTs" that appear to be culturally linked (which would indicate a single country/culture produced them.)

Your second point really is far more plausible, and frankly that does happen. Kings were also likely to raid other countries for their gold artifacts and place them in temples (which sort of functioned as banks) or their treasuries. Temple placement is most likely because it was an honor to the gods. The only sticking point I can see here is that it's a marble statue and they usually didn't transport heavy statues when they could transport more convenient gold and silver.

The main problem is that nobody has identified a style of artifact that everyone says is "Atlantis."

The Atlantis I am referring to, did not go to war with Greence (even if Plato says so), because it went down 10 000 B.C.

Okay...this leaves me a bit confused. This implies that Plato WAS making things up and that some/most/all of his story is fiction (which is what the skeptics claim). The question would be then "how do you know what bits were made up?"

Again, the whole idea of Atlantis is based on it having been destroyed...completely...and therefore being a lost civilization we do not remember and have no evidence for. If it werent a lost civilization Im sure we would find all the things you say we are supposed to find.

But Tartessos (and Troy and Sumeria and the Olmecs and the Anasazi and a whole long list of others) *were* lost civilizations... and the list I gave was part of the evidence that proved the culture existed. To go back to prehistoric culture, it's the same evidence we have for the "Pecos River Culture" here in Texas (dated to about 1,000 BC) and the same evidence for the archaic Chumash in California (dated to 9,000 BC). And the Mesa Verde in South America (dated to about 15,000 BC)... and so on.

The gold birds and insects and fish from Costa Rica are a very good example of this. In spite of the fact that this is a type of art found in digs, associated with certain tribes, and still a part of their art tradition today, they end up in Atlantology books identified as things from Atlantis or things influenced by aliens.

Well...since they look more like planes than like fish it is no surprise that we take them as such. Them being associated with certain tribes doesnt change that...especially if those tribes say that they are depictions of "the Gods".

...ahhhh.... you're saying they worshipped airplanes as gods???


Anyway, thought you might like to peek at the Tartessos material. There's a bunch of interesting papers about them... sadly I can't get to the one on the warrior stelae. It mentions fertility goddesses and rosettes (like the ones on her hair). But it might be interesting to find the papers of Adolf Schulten and W.A. Oldfather to see what they had to say on Tartessos (Schulten's the archaeologist.)

I was reading the link you provided Byrd on the Iberians, and it occurred to me that since they were so adept at making tin and metal work, that perhaps they wore their "craft" or "art" on their bodies to display that ability. I don't see how they are considered rosettes though and could you post a link to that term in Archaeology? (meaning they don't look floral to me)

Originally posted by seagrass
I was reading the link you provided Byrd on the Iberians, and it occurred to me that since they were so adept at making tin and metal work, that perhaps they wore their "craft" or "art" on their bodies to display that ability. I don't see how they are considered rosettes though and could you post a link to that term in Archaeology? (meaning they don't look floral to me)

Yes, they had some lovely and elaborate jewelry. Take a look at this stunning piece with similar rosettes to what The Lady is wearing:
badlyknownspain.blogspot.com...

"Rosettes" is actually a term from art and means... well, anything that looks rose-like.

Here's links to the other "Lady" statues... note that this one is surrounded by Iberian artifacts and the style is very similar to the Lady of Elx.
en.wikipedia.org...

And this one even more similar, with wheels/rosettes on the side of the head (someone had attempted to destroy it). It has been very clearly associated with the Tartessos culture. There's a reference to the dig and the position of the fragments, which was really very nice reporting on the author's part:
en.wikipedia.org...

And two "ladies with offerings"... the first one is in a style that culturally looks like these previous two. The one below that is in an older style that belongs to an earlier phase of the Iberian culture (several statues in this style are around) en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 28-11-2008 by Byrd]

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Skyfloating
One premise of Atlantology is that only single objects are left, as "the cataclysm" and time have made sites dissappear entirely. Following the theory that certain objects were only passed down among the ruling class, the King of a place may own one object while the rest of the site shows objects belonging to another culture.

I can accept the first but it really is a weak premise. We do find isolated things (like arrowheads)... but we also find sites with things that link that arrowhead to a whole group. I don't see a group of "OOPARTs" that appear to be culturally linked (which would indicate a single country/culture produced them.)

I would not really accept that though, because it make no sense. According to Plato, Atlantis had control over most of the Med (from Gibraltar to Egypt) and even more so, most of Europe. Would single objects really be all that's left from a civilization that dominated half the known world?

I mean you'd think that taking controls over these lands from the homebase of Atlantis would have taken many, many years. Colonies would be inevitable, as would vast quantities of material. If nothing else, the Greeks should have stolen much of it and concentrated it to Greece.

[edit on 28-11-2008 by merka]

Byrd, Fascinating necklace. Also in the circular pattern. Looks like jars or pottery vessels. beautiful. Thanks for the links.. I will keep reading them with enthusiasm.

Another question, I don't see anything that makes these statues particularly female. yes, one of them is femininely beautiful, but I don't see "female" features.. if you know what i mean..... The Iberian king was associated with flowers and dressed in silver? Earrings aren't exclusive to females. Are they?

[edit on 28-11-2008 by seagrass]In the last link they used the term rodete. And all I see are Spanish sites. Those circles were not at her ears but on the sides of her hair. So they are not necessarily earrings.

[edit on 28-11-2008 by seagrass]

Originally posted by Byrd

Actually, it was found at an Iberian site.

But the connection to the Tartessos culture is really interesting because it's a culture that disappears rather suddenly (after being attested to by other civilizations so we know it's not just someone making this up) and at least one very real archaeologist connected this culture to the story of Atlantis:
en.wikipedia.org...

Yes. Tartessos is evidence of a civilization being able to go "lost".

Okay...this leaves me a bit confused. This implies that Plato WAS making things up and that some/most/all of his story is fiction (which is what the skeptics claim). The question would be then "how do you know what bits were made up?"

Atlantologists often dont think so, but I personally do think that Platos account was inaccurate, such as a distant memory will be inaccurate...or stories copied from copies that were copied from copies over generations.

As hinted at in my opening post, I dont believe in the Atlantis as layed out by Plato. Instead I believe in a lost and/or forgotten culture and civilization that existed in a time we have no more memory and only scant evidence of and that was not a stone-age civilization, much less "primitive".

Some call this "Atlantis", and that umbrella term will do for now. But Plato is not realy the main source of information here...only a further small hint.

But Tartessos (and Troy and Sumeria and the Olmecs and the Anasazi and a whole long list of others) *were* lost civilizations... and the list I gave was part of the evidence that proved the culture existed. To go back to prehistoric culture, it's the same evidence we have for the "Pecos River Culture" here in Texas (dated to about 1,000 BC) and the same evidence for the archaic Chumash in California (dated to 9,000 BC). And the Mesa Verde in South America (dated to about 15,000 BC)... and so on.

yes, alright.

...ahhhh.... you're saying they worshipped airplanes as gods???

yes, yes. Thats what I mean by an advanced civilization existing alongside less advanced ones and dissappearing somewhere along the line. This is, as you know, a variation of "The Ancient Astronaut Theory". No need to discuss this here though...I fully understand the objections toward this idea.

Anyway, thought you might like to peek at the Tartessos material. There's a bunch of interesting papers about them... sadly I can't get to the one on the warrior stelae. It mentions fertility goddesses and rosettes (like the ones on her hair). But it might be interesting to find the papers of Adolf Schulten and W.A. Oldfather to see what they had to say on Tartessos (Schulten's the archaeologist.)

Yes, interesting. Thanks.

@Skyfloating



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



Not entirely true, I don't buy any of that god mumbo jumbo but suspect that consciousness persists as just a higher wave form of energy. There is nothing about the idea of a "spirit" that requires magic bogey men in the sky.