Origins of Atlantis/Lemuria Myths Part-1

reply to post by berenike


Thanks for your contributions.

Yeah it does show that the coastlines change over time.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Sedimentation is a bitch. The villages that use to be on the coastline of the Nile Delta are now many kilometes inland and under 15 meters of silt.

reply to post by Hanslune


I was just looking at some of the images of the sunken Egyptian port great pics.

An added comment on river sedimentation.

Ancient settlements usually set up next to rivers, not the coastline- fresh water being far more important. The early settlements are always found need sources of water, most often a river- usually a silt carrying that provides good farm land.

So if the coastline sunk the river would have continued to deposit silt and wallah! You have one buried city. Look not in the sea for your lost cities but in the silt of large river deltas.

Oh this is not an original idea the basis of it was proposed in the 1880s by a Victorian officer/scientist. The habitations in Egypt have been found but large scale excavation down 15+ meters-often thru the water level is beyond most budgets.

Originally posted by Hanslune
So if the coastline sunk the river would have continued to deposit silt and wallah! You have one buried city. Look not in the sea for your lost cities but in the silt of large river deltas.

Although they may have moved inland they could have also thought that way and settled along those rivers a little further inland as the oceans rose.

Either way thanks for the tip.

Maybe the sunken Ice Age coasts ARE Atlantis, and that's why people claim to find Atlantis everywhere?!

We need part 2 already!!!! The suspense is building up haha

Slayer, you also say you don't believe in the civilizations, but you got alot of work to back the theorys on how there are older civilizations, Do you have any belief in atlantis/lemuria or any older civilizations before 7000BC??

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Maddogkull]

Originally posted by Maddogkull


Slayer, you also say you don't believe in the civilizations, but you got alot of work to back the theorys on how there are older civilizations,

The "Atlantis and Lemuria" Civilizations as they have been written. I feel that those are simple names given to them and the tales written about them are based on possible real ancient megalithic stone age cultures that may have been wiped out.

I cant elaborate further.

A sick mind is feverishly at work now SHHhhh!


Muwahahahahaha


[edit on 2-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
Maybe the sunken Ice Age coasts ARE Atlantis, and that's why people claim to find Atlantis everywhere?!

Very well put I been saying that for years...

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Maddogkull


Slayer, you also say you don't believe in the civilizations, but you got alot of work to back the theorys on how there are older civilizations,

The "Atlantis and Lemuria" Civilizations as they have been written. I feel that those are simple names given to them and the tales written about them are based on possible real ancient megalithic stone age cultures that may have been wiped out.

I cant elaborate further.

A sick mind is feverishly at work now SHHhhh!


Muwahahahahaha

[edit on 2-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

Nope sorry. They existed in all the grandeur.
I have see them. I was there.
I can not offer you any proof!

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
Maybe the sunken Ice Age coasts ARE Atlantis, and that's why people claim to find Atlantis everywhere?!

Very well put

I been saying that for years...

When you think about it, our current civilization is also based mostly along the coasts.

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

When you think about it, our current civilization is also based mostly along the coasts.

Yet the first ancient civilizations were based on rivers, later you got coastal ones. If you go back father than the grand first civilizations to the first organized villages Catalhuyuk and Jericho weren't near the coast at all nor on a major river.

[edit on 3/10/09 by Hanslune]

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

When you think about it, our current civilization is also based mostly along the coasts.

Yet the first ancient civilizations were based on rivers, later you got coastal ones. If you go back father than the grand first civilization to the first organized villages Catalhuyuk and Jericho weren't near the coast at all nor on a major river.

The phrase "History belongs to the victors" comes to mind.

It would seem to me that there is ample evidence for coastal population in theory, and very little effort being put forth to investigate ancient shorelines (due to cost prohibition). The two villages you mention above would certainly be considered "the victors". It is not surprising that we would base our knowledge off of their history.

Originally posted by cindymars
Nope sorry. They existed in all the grandeur.
I have see them. I was there.
I can not offer you any proof!

I believe you....

I was there too.
I sat in the back near the coffee pot.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

In the area where I live, near the coast, there have been found several small sites with neolithic remains, but they are both near the coast and near a large river, so they could apply to both theories.

I think it also depends on what type of coast we talk about, an oceanic coast like the west coast of Portugal can only be used effectively with somewhat advanced boats, because although good for surf it is not good for a small, primitive vessel to enter those waters, unless it enters it from the river.

The Mediterranean coast (or even the south coast of Portugal, in the Algarve) have much smaller waves, so it's much easier to use that water for transportation or fishing.

The phrase "History belongs to the victors" comes to mind.

It would seem to me that there is ample evidence for coastal population in theory, and very little effort being put forth to investigate ancient shorelines (due to cost prohibition). The two villages you mention above would certainly be considered "the victors". It is not surprising that we would base our knowledge off of their history.

Hans: Victors? In what war? However I believe you mean in our cultural evolution. Jericho was repeatedly destroyed and Hatalcuyuk was abandoned.

Stops and starts. I would think we might finds some villages along rivers lines where they hit a beach, just look for middens. Remember it took a while for man to come up with the technology to 'hunt' the sea successfully to support a large populatio

Large civilizations? Nope, not under any criteria we now understand or within the scope of our present knowledge.

That might change but at the moment the slow rise of domesticated animals and plants well after the rise of the oceans points to no precessor civilization(s).

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

In the area where I live, near the coast, there have been found several small sites with neolithic remains, but they are both near the coast and near a large river, so they could apply to both theories.

I think it also depends on what type of coast we talk about, an oceanic coast like the west coast of Portugal can only be used effectively with somewhat advanced boats, because although good for surf it is not good for a small, primitive vessel to enter those waters, unless it enters it from the river.

The Mediterranean coast (or even the south coast of Portugal, in the Algarve) have much smaller waves, so it's much easier to use that water for transportation or fishing.

The coast of Portugal may be friendly now, but it wasn't always what it is today.

If you lower water levels by about 300 feet, where does the coast line lay? Is it still near the river, and would the river still even flow through that area at that time?

RE: the waters off the shore...the Phoenicians had tales about how treachorous the Atlantic waters were. They describe dangerous eddies, whirlpools, etc. Such tales fit nicely with flood stories relating to the northern ice shelf, actually. But, even more, it would explain why a water based civilization would feel the need to move from coast lines to rivers and lakes. If you could no longer "hunt" the ocean because of newfound dangers related to eddies and whirlpools, what do you do?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
The coast of Portugal may be friendly now, but it wasn't always what it is today.

No, that's why I have found many fossils in the place where I live.

If you lower water levels by about 300 feet, where does the coast line lay? Is it still near the river, and would the river still even flow through that area at that time?

It would be 300 feet below.
Yes, it would still be near the river, and I probably know where the river was at the time, there are several evidences that point to a different place where the Tagus river entered the ocean some millennia ago, in a place where there was a large gold mine, probably with the gold transported by the river.

The coast in this area gets deeper very fast, so 300 feet below what it is now it would probably be, curiously, similar to what it is today, with an 200 feet cliff just before we get to the beach.

Also, we should not forget that what we see today is the result of a strong (at least in this area) erosion.

RE: the waters off the shore...the Phoenicians had tales about how treachorous the Atlantic waters were. They describe dangerous eddies, whirlpools, etc. Such tales fit nicely with flood stories relating to the northern ice shelf, actually. But, even more, it would explain why a water based civilization would feel the need to move from coast lines to rivers and lakes. If you could no longer "hunt" the ocean because of newfound dangers related to eddies and whirlpools, what do you do?

Well, the Phoenicians came to where I live (some Phoenician and Egyptian objects were found in what looks like a commercial post just 1 km from where I live), so it looks like they had no problems to come to what is now Portugal.

There is no record of tales like that in Portugal, and I think there would be several if the Phoenicians came here and told their tales about "our" ocean.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Then just where the hell have we been for the preceding 165,000 to 188,000 years?

-fighting and finally doing away with those Neandrathals.

-covering a lot of ground, spreading over the entire earth via ice and land bridges as you theorize.

-domesticating animals wherever possible. eg. there are 7 species of the horse and only two were domesticated for good reasons! The most important domestic species would be the cow, sheep, goat, pig, dog and cat. Interesting that Australia never domesticated a large animal species.

-domesticating crops such as barley, wheat, maize, potatoes on both sides of the atlantic but not, for instance in Australia.

-developing weapons of all sorts. Steel and gunpowder would come much later but have the greatest impact and cause the greatest change.

-developing ships, mapping and sailing the world.

-survived countless epidemics, disease devastations, paracitizations, and predations. Those with domesticated animals had the greatest survival rate!

I'm probably mixing my time lines but just to mention a few!

[edit on 13/10/09 by plumranch]

Awesome read Slayer. I read somewhere that Herodotus wrote about Atlantis before Plato did dont know how credible is though interested in your opinion. Cheers keep up the unreal work.