Atlantis has been found

Dr Kuehne from the University of Wuppertal in Germany, says he may have found the remains of Atlantis.

from the BBC
Satellite photos of southern Spain reveal features on the ground appearing to match descriptions made by Greek scholar Plato of the fabled utopia.

Dr Rainer Kuehne thinks the "island" of Atlantis simply referred to a region of the southern Spanish coast destroyed by a flood between 800 BC and 500 BC.

news.bbc.co.uk... BBC News Story

If he is right what could this mean?

[edit on 12/6/04 by Hyperen]

It means a real boat load of books on Atlantis are not going to sell anymore, and a bunch of guys are going to feel like idiots.

Interesting find. Will have to keep udated on this one.

Here's a link to Dr. Kuhne site with his other works and more about atlantis. www.beepworld.de...

[edit on 6-6-2004 by I See You]

none the less - Good research! Keep us updated!

This is very interesting. Definitely something to keep an eye on. It certainly does (so far) come close to Plato's original description of Atlantis. Of course much more research is needed before we can say it definitely is/is Atlantis.

Completely off topic ... While reading this thread, I think I have discovered the identity of the Antichrist

Is this it? Is that all they have? I dont think that's Atlantis... or maybe it is....

...ain't no maybe it is.....it isn't!

According to Plato, in the Critias, this is the description he gives that refutes this whole article and its findings:

...which, as was saying, was an island greater in extent than Libya and Asia, and when afterwards sunk by an earthquake, became an impassable barrier of mud to voyagers sailing from hence to any part of the ocean.

Critias
Atlantis

Secondly, I'm not making out or seeing the concentric rings that this article is trying to pass off....image:


Atlantis was clearly an 'island'.
Atlantis was said to be 6 days sailing past the Pillars of Hercules.
Atlantis was surrounded by ocean(s).

I'm inclined to go with Antartica or a couple of other possible locations for Atlantis rather than anything I'm seeing and reading from this article and its findings.



seekerof

[edit on 6-6-2004 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Pisky
Completely off topic ... While reading this thread, I think I have discovered the identity of the Antichrist

Yeah that is quite good.

I don't really know that much about Atlantis (I spend most of my time here in the weaponry and aircraft zones) but I came across this by accident and thought some people on here might like to know

Interesting, but a bit disappointing really if this fabled, legendary land turns out to be no more than a dusty old temple in Spain.

i think Antartica too deep under the ice thats why thay have not found it yet

I dont think Antarctica is 6 days sailing from anywhere but I'd guess that it was once an awesome place with awesome stuff, that is all now frozen.

Seekerof...

A couple things...

I don't know Greek, nor have I seen the Critias in its original form, but it's possible that Plato was refering to a city that was just six days sailing from the Pillars of Hercules. We're talking about an era that was centuries before Plato... and it's accepted that (military) ships in his era -- though more advanced -- often had to come ashore every night and, so, couldn't go very far in a few days' time. If the strait is considered a starting point, six days sailing would put the site either in Iberia or Morocco... easily.

As for the size of 'Atlantis'... Plato could have been talking about the territory they controlled, not just the city itself. As the researcher in the article states himself, the Atlantians may have been the same group that invaded Egypt centuries before Plato's time. These 'sea people' -- who are mentioned by a variety of med. groups. -- would have needed bases near Egypt and Greece considering the technology at the time. It's conceivable, then, that his size estimate includes the the area covered by the overseas possessions of the Atlantians.

The island issue... I think the key, here, is the series of concentric moats (which, even if the city was inland, make it an artificial island). These 'canals' were Atlantis' distinctive feature (and, considering the era we're discussing, an amazing achievement by themselves). If they exist at this site -- in the form of silted-up troughs -- then I think we've just found Atlantis.

And.. two temples are still impressive if they're at the center of a huge canal system. For that region (western med.) and that era... they would, indeed, have been very advanced and impressive.

onlyinmydreams,
I can agree with your position to a degree. The only thing that I contest is that military ships were what of that period? Galleys: row or sail or combined? Were there also trading ships that sailed the ocean and were not tied to the shore, as was the case with many military type vessels of that time period? I fully understand that the method of ancient seafaring was to stay relatively close to shore (coastal shipping/ships). As such, were their no ocean going type vessels, not restricted to coastal operations? I have read Atlantis of the North, by Jurgen Spanuth, but he is not very specific when considering new theories dealing with ocean going vessels verses coastal.
My contention is that does he take into account the supposed trade that has been theorized that existed between Egypt and those inhabitants of South America or those theories on Chinese/Olmec connections or African/Olmec connections that took place in the Atlantic/Pacific and not being restricted to coastal type vessels?

I'm not discounting one bit what your saying/mentioning, but what I am saying is that maybe, just maybe, Plato was refering to ocean-type vessels and not the majority of coastal-type vessels of that period when he was describing Atlantis being 6 days away.

I thank you for mentioning what you did, but I still doubt this articles claims.
It does not address the size mentioned by Plato (link was provided in initial posting) in the Critias. He mentions the size twice and in two different ways:
The first was as mentioned in the intial post: " was an island greater in extent than Libya and Asia", also, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent ". The other/second being that the dimensions of the capitol were 2,000 x 3,000 stades or approximately 385+/- x 580+/- km.
Here is another cite which has the Critias and Timaeus, were Plato speaks of Atlantis:
Greco-Roman Authors

I also found a pretty good analysis/breakdown on PLato's accounts here:
Atlantis: New Hypothesis



seekerof

[edit on 7-6-2004 by Seekerof]

Shipping was not restricted to shore by ancient mariners at all. The polynesian navigators routinely crossed the pacific, with giant catamarans that carried hundreds and tons of trade with asia and south america. African ships crossed the Atlantic thousands of years before Europe, we know because their descendants left cave paintings in Brazil. Aboriginal sailors crossed into Chile and Argentina tens of thousands of years ago.
Our Ancestors were brave resourceful people, setting out on voyages lasting months, and trading with cultures on the far side of the globe.

Seekerof, you've saved me an enormous amount of repeating myself. Thankyou =)

The "impassible barrier of mud" has always made me favor the mid-atlantic ridge. It's the only feature still visible that could have blocked travel from Gibralter and been greater in extent than libya and asia (minor). What do you think Seeker?

There are very important links to Cadiz though. Wasn't the name of one of Atlantis' first two kings the root for the original name of Cadiz? I believe his island was supposed to be near Spain and hold dominion over at least part of it, including Cadiz. I'm rusty on these facts though, so if you know better, do tell. It is possible that what has been found, if it is anything, is a likeness of the Atlantean capital, constructed in a controlled territory.

As My DI would say now... ZE-RO! (that means stop). There isn't any evidence that Atlantis was in Antarctica. There may have been a civilization there but it WAS-NOT Atlantis. I know this because Atlantis is a place described by Plato and Plato alone, and he didn't describe it in Antarctica. (Nobody better try to tell me about Vimanika Shaastra or whatever either... "channeled" books from spooky teenagers in California don't count. Plato is the closest account, and the only of its kind that is known to exist at this time.

Last point: the piri reis map proves that there was not much limitation on ancient travel and geographical knowledge.

Atlantis was not, is not, and never will be found under Antartica!

Let's focus around the Mid-Atlantic Ocean and to the West of Africa. Its either sunk right in the center of the Atlantic Ocean or it was part of the two Americas. My guess it was somewhere between The Gulf of Mexico to the Amazon Jungle, or even farther south.

I think that western africa may have been the plain of atlantis:
Look at the lowland area of mauritiana, which extends into senegal and western sahara - the plain of atlantis?

Africa map

the maps not brilliant

[edit on 15-6-2004 by minimi]

That would explain Plato writing about it. He could'nt have possibly known about it if it was in the carribbean.

Originally posted by Hyperen
Dr Kuehne from the University of Wuppertal in Germany, says he may have found the remains of Atlantis.

from the BBCSatellite photos of southern Spain reveal features on the ground appearing to match descriptions made by Greek scholar Plato of the fabled utopia.

Dr Rainer Kuehne thinks the "island" of Atlantis simply referred to a region of the southern Spanish coast destroyed by a flood between 800 BC and 500 BC.

I bet it is like stonehenge, but the USA will be hiding it, like everything of value...

news.bbc.co.uk... BBC News Story

If he is right what could this mean?


[edit on 6/6/04 by Hyperen]