Lost Cities and the states of Atlantis

Then there wouldn't be any reason to include any part of greece. I assume by tyrrhenia he meant etruria (aka modern tuscany?)

900 years before plato would be 1300 bc no?

Dang, you've caught me posting from memory and I've made a mistake as to the numbers. Right now I'd just about kill to know what exactly I was thinking of around 900 that i confused with 400 (closer to 450 BC if memory serves this time).

As for Tyrrhenia, it didn't show up at all when I put it through wikipedia, so I took a wild guess that this could be a variation of Tyre. As I've already said, you caught me "shooting from the hip" and making a mistake or two.

So it doesn't look like any sort of hemispherical empire is going to work out here, certainly the nations existing in these areas wouldn't exist.

There probably -wasn't- a hemispherical empire. I never was too strong a believer in that aspect of Atlantis. I was curious to see if there was evidence of Egypt having been conquered or goign through any significant upheaval around the time "Atlantis" supposedly ruled over them. My suggestion was actually made with the belief that nothing would be found, and that the idea of Egypt belonging to a hemispherical empire was unlikely.

As for Gadir, I was aware of the walled city meaning, however it did make me curious that the supposed name of an Atlantean king was founded on a meaningful word in Phoenecian. So here's the test: Gaderius' Greek name is Eumeleus according to Plato. Anyone here know their greek and want to tell us if that name has any relation to walls or the like? I suppose all it would really prove is that plato was billingual I suppose, but if the names -don't- mesh it will show another discrepency in plato's account.

If you stick to the primary source documents (Plato's Kritas and yes i appologize the Timeas as well. Although the Timeas is more of a prelude into the Kritas so its information is limited and expanded on in the Kritas ) and if you want to take the leap that the Egyptians historic conflict with the sea people who when captured by the Egyptians reported fleeing their sunken homeland and forcing their way into Egypt you find absolutely no evidence of seven distinct colonies ever even existing. These notions stem from the writings of modern authers who prevent shakey evidence at best. If you want to simply belive that Atlantis had seven distinct colonies you need to have historical proof to atleast back that up and unfortunatly a name of a city that sounds like a name of another more ancient city is by no means evidence that either city was Atlantean in origin. Thats like 500 years from now saying New York and New Jersey were the same thing because their names were close enough and the geographic location was close enough. That i'm sorry to say is simply a poor analytical approach to solving any problem. Remember to Deny Ignorance dont take a claim on face value go back to your primary sources and examine them. Atlantis is so damn elusiave not because it simply couldnt exist but rather because everyone seems to be jumping on flavor of the month hunches based on shreds or partial facts. I suggest that anyone intrested in Atlantis read Plato's Kritas which by the way many of you will be surprised to find out that he only wrote like 4 typed pages of it and not some 400 page modern book full of wild theories about global civilizations, aliens, crystals, super modern technologies, and geographic anonomlies. The modern legend of Atlantis started with a mere 4 page unfinished allegory which is perhaps factualy bases only because Plato himself says it was. ( Plato begins the Kritas by stating that this is one allegory of his which he swears to be based ancient scrolls obtained via the father of one of his students who recieved them from a long dead athenian who visted egypt and spoke with a high priest about the past of ancient egypt.) Today Atlantis has turned into a multimillion dollar industry that has become a self prepetuating legend in itself.

[edit on 4-8-2004 by IndianaJoe]

Nygdan brings up some good points of contention which is good in looking into any problem but let me further explain my previous statements and appologize for making them without a sufficiant amount of supporting information.

Plato mentions them as having a world spanning empire (at least most of the world known at the time), not a trading emporium per see. Its also important to keep in mind that Plato mentions that Athens is the only city free from atlantean rule, which is just plain ludicrous. Athens was not a city that could at any time fend off a gobal empire on its own, and certainly not in the extremely early age that atlantis is -said- to exist in.

Plato does say the Atlantians had a world spanning empire. Plato does not say the Atlantians ruled or occupied the majority of the known world. He does hint that Atlantis was economically powerful and probably played a role similiar to the United States. Though the United States by no means rules the world it does have sizeable political and economic power and therefore becomes a powerful persuave force in global affairs. Now Plato goes into tremendous detail about a specific type of copper that is mined by the Atlantians he calls it Orichalch. Plato also states that Atlantis is ruled by 10 kings who each controlled a seperate region autounomusly. Plato states that Orichalch was the principal source of Atlantis wealth. He also states that it was mined not in the home city of Atlantis but rather overseas . Based on Plato's description of Atlantis we can envision an extreamly mercantile economic empire comparable to Britians economic explotation of much of the globe during its period of empire. The only nation free from this form of economic explotation being who else other than Platos home of Athens and presumeably ancient egypt. Now why would these nations be free of the economic clutches of Atlantis, well because they themeselves were naval trade giants maybe not to the extent of the Atlantians but more so than the rest of the known world. So now we have a picture of three rapidly advancing cultures who's economy is based on an acquistion of reasources via trade (athens and egypt... there are published historical studies on how these nations traded in ancient times btw so dont take my word for it that they did) and Atlantis who's economy is based mainly around its controll of Orichlach. A historical allusion that everyone would be familiar with would be of course Britian, France, and Spain. Now the only deviation taken in this analysis from plato's own written account is the assumption on the working of an ancient global economy, but this assumption can be justified as a plausible solution because well it eventualy happend in western history under similiar conditions.

unfortunately the conflict with the 'Sea Peoples' is not one of them. Thats an historic conflict, no one is certain where they came from but no one at the time seemed to think they were atlanteans or that they had even come from a sunken homeland. Keep in mind that plato tells the story as having been told to Solon by the egyptians. The egyptians certainly wouldn't confuse the 'Sea Peoples' with any atlanteans. Also note that the Atlanteans, acoording to the myth, ruled egypt. They weren't defeated by it.

True no one is certian as to where they came from, but guess what no one is certian as too the location or existance of atlantis either. Now am i taking some what of a scholarly leap in assuming that these see people may infact be Atlantean? Yes of course I am, but based on sound reason and primary source factual evidence. Solon was the Egyptian priest who dictated to an unknown Athenian the story of atlantis but recall the story of atlantis was even ancient in Solon's time. Solon accquired the legend from a set of ancient scroll that he as a high priest was in possesion of. The victory temple of King Ramses (i may be wrong on the pharoh here but i think it was Ramses) gives a detailed account of an invading people who claimed to be fleeing their homeland which had sunken into the sea. This conflict has been dated based on the age of the victory temple to around 1200 BC. The victory temple clearly states that the story of the captured Sea People was investigated by Egypts greatest scholars and military leaders via an interegation of captured Seap People. Now how did Egypt coin the phrase of Atlantis but did not attribute its battle with a mysterious sea people to in fact being Atlantean? Well if one steps back and looks to our own times its not so improbable of a paradox. The egyptians at first did not know who was invading or for what reason all they knew was that they were under attack and must respond. After obliteratng the enemy leaving only a few survivors to tell a tale that to an egyptian that would seem as ridiculs as a sunken civilization sounds to us today. It would be years if not decades for Egypt to actualy piece together who invaded them and why and to learn the social, economic, political and historical motivations of their desperate enemy. It is impossble to say for sure but it is highly plausible that Rames constructed the victory temple as soon as possible for his own political reasons and then the egyptians began a study of their obliterated enemy which did not come to an end via the scrolls that were entrusted to solon for years to come. Therefore we see that the Sea People were eventualy transformed into the Atlanteas after an egyptian study on the history of egypts mysterious invaders. Lastly Plato never says Atlantis ruled Egypt therefore the only factual evidence that does exists suggests that the Egyptians were never ruled by the Atlanteans.

Finally...

Even if one allows the existence of atlantis, placing it in the bronze age is probably untenable. We have lots of evidence for the existence of bronze age civilizations and their interactions, and none for this atlantic empire controlling europe and north africa and the med. island and even asia minor and the levant. Also, I think, and I may be recalling incorrectly here, but I think that plato put the estimate of the age of atlantis so far back that its out of the Bronze Age.

In fact Plato not only dates Atlantis out of the Bronze Age but rather dates it so far back in time that any scholar would absolutely deny the existance of any civilization that was capable of traversing the ocean, mining any form of metal, or interacting with any other distinct social group. But once again their is a logical factualy based reason for why this may have accured and why Atlantis is not some ultra ancient super civilization. Solon and his egyptian counterparts did not use the same calander as the Greeks. While the Greek calander was nearly identical to our modern one because it measured time based on the movement of the sun it was incredibly different from the Egyptian calander. The Egyptian caleder of ancient times, the era that Solon would have existed in was Lunar based. Now since the moon revovles around the sun approximatly 10 times more often than the Sun (actualy 9 point something) 9000 Lunar/Egyptian years is about 900 Greek years. (this is why there exist records of ancient pharos living for hundreds of years btw) Now if we go back from the time of Solon, this can be done by roughly estimating the lifespan of one of Socrates students who's father was the one who recieved the story from Solon we come to the roughly estimated year that Atlantis existed before and up till the year.... you guessed it 1200 BC. Wow quite coincedental that Rameses victory temple was built around the same time wouldnt you say. Even more coincidental is that a series of charted metoric activity accured aroudn the same time enough so that it is highly probable that that a meteor landed on the volitile Atlantic ridge off the coast of spain (right outside the pillars of hercules btw) which may have caused intense volcanic activity, and many "flood myths" of the world cultures can be attributed to roughly the same time frame. Now why wouldn't any evidence of Atlantis exist if it was infact a bronze age civilization, simple it sunk, a whole culture collopased and eventualy its ten kingdoms with no place to call home married into and assimilated into the native cultures present in each of their distinct region. Therefore leaving little to no culteral or material evidence of Atlantis ever existing.

Sorry for the length but I tried to be as detailed and factual as possible. I'm aware that some evidence presented is based on hypothosis, but I have tried to back up each hypothosis on the basis of fact and not on the bases of conjecture.

[edit on 4-8-2004 by IndianaJoe]

Hey, maybe atlantis was a ship and it landed in the water to not disturb the local population because being off the coast was strategic. Let's say they were involved in space exploration and our solar system only comes close to an area of the galaxy at certain times so they landed on our planet for genetic engineering and the mining of natural resources. Let's say an experiment got out of hand and the people from atlantis tried to wage war with the local inhabitants or something so Atalantis was destroyed from orbit and any chance of the people from atlantis escaping. The people/beings involved in the conflict were kept on the planet earth because where they originated only comes close like every 10,000 years or so. The reason why they were able to help build things is because they possesed the knowledge of advanced stuff but all of their equipment was so high tech and contained so much data but was destroyed. Let's say about 2013, the original members of the Atlantis whatever will return.

Just a theory and an interesting way of looking at after I read a lot of information about the pyramids and the story of the eye or Ra and how the atlantis was sayed to have gone to war at some point.

All those details were wonderful and so logically thought out. Vagabond also has some great thoughts as well.

Now I would like to share some interesting facts from a book, Peoples of th e Sea by Immanuel Velikovsky. The author includes in his book actual Egyptian war scenes taken from the Medinet-Habu.

The war pictures depict each waring nation in different clothing attire. The Sea People have a helmet with one or two horns coming out of it. Also in many cased the top of the helmet has a small sun disc along with the horns. Maybe the higher rank individuals had all these features.

Now these horns kind of resemble horns of bulls, because the drawing shows them short and sharp. Heres a portion out of the Critias, by Plato, which makes an interesting connection:

"And when they (the 10 kings) were gathered together they consulted about their common interests, and enquired if any one had transgressed in anything and passed judgement and before they passed judgement they gave their pledges to one another on this wise:-There were bulls who had the range of the temple of Poseidon; and the ten kings, being left alone in the temple, after they had offered prayers to the god that they might capture the victim which was acceptable to him, hunted the bulls, without weapons but with staves and nooses; and the bull which they caught they led up to the pillar and cut its throat over the top of it so that the blood fell upon the sacred inscription."

[edit on 4-8-2004 by lostinspace]

[edit on 4-8-2004 by lostinspace]

[edit on 5-8-2004 by lostinspace]

gazrok said
There are THREE distinct times when Plato claims this is a TRUE tale

ah, good point.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Then there wouldn't be any reason to include any part of greece. I assume by tyrrhenia he meant etruria (aka modern tuscany?)

900 years before plato would be 1300 bc no?

vagabond:
Tyrrhenia, it didn't show up at all when I put it through wikipedia, so I took a wild guess that this could be a variation of Tyre.

ah here it is

I have seen this west coast of italy sea being given this name in association with the etruscans. However, I too am saying this from a oft fuzzy memory.

vagabond

nygdan:So it doesn't look like any sort of hemispherical empire is going to work out here, certainly the nations existing in these areas wouldn't exist.

There probably -wasn't- a hemispherical empire.

It seems like that is a relatively important part of the story tho.

You mention the phoneciean connection, which is interesting of course, sincethe phonecians were a skilled sea faring people, which is usually what the atlanteans are supposed to be. However the phonecians have a relatively non-paranormal history; to say the least, the historical phoenecians wouldn't make a good candidate for atlanteans.

This article provides some intresting evidence in congruence with my views of a mediteranian Atlantis. Check it out for some further reading.

www.edgarcayce.org...

To all:

I came across some spanish text regarding atlantis. This is the (machine) translation, so please excuse the "anomalies":

THE ATLANTIDA
"S�crates Listening, says Critias, a history
admirable and very ver�dica, that counted Sol�n ".
Thus, Plato is first whom officially mention of a missing continent does. The text of the great philosopher is transformed as it follows:
"S�crates Listening, says Critias, an admirable and very ver�dica history, that counted Sol�n, first between the Seven Wise people. There was counted often my Critias grandfathers, the one that me as well counted it in my childhood, between the events happened to our mother country. Remarkable events, that the long passed centuries and the calamities, through which has passed the sort human, have made them almost forget."
"It mentioned one very extraordinary one that excelled between the others. This event had known Sol�n to it by the father of Sa�as of which there are the words here: "Before the last so destructive deluge, your villa,Oh Sol�n! it bloomed already rich and well off... It is told that it has resisted, at the same time, often the attacks of the troops of innumerable enemies who left from the borders of the Atlantic Ocean, invading almost at the same time Europe and Asia, because at that time our sea was easy to cross. To its entrance, in the corner that now is called "Columns of Hercules", there was a portion of earth greater than the together Lybia and Asia. it was possible here to be gone easily to other islands that were next, and by means of these to the neighboring earth that were to the front and to the sea. But in this rinconada there was a port and a small gulf. This water extension was a true sea and this earth a true continent... This
it was Atlantis, where princes of a formidable power reigned, that extended to all the whole island, on many islands and the greatest part of the continent. They also dominated until the other side of the earth that to the present are in our power, because by a side they had conquered this third part of the world denominated Lybia, until near Egypt, and by the other side, had occupied part from Europe to the West of the Tirrenean Sea ".
This passage of the Timeo is clear in which it concerns an existing continent in this period, before the deluge, that extended from the "Columns of Hercules" (Straits of Gibraltar) to the other part of the passage. This is important because it comes to confirm the theory of so many successive deluges, of which the last one took place 2.168 years before Christ.
The text continues and deals with the wars:
"immediately after a terrible earthquake one took place a deluge caused in the continuous torrential rain of" a day and one night ", opening the Earth and swallowing to your soldiers along with the enemies, and thus Atlantis it disappeared within a vortex. This is the reason by which this sea is not so navigable, because the mud and the low bottom are insurmountable ".
"So it is the summary, S�crates, that my grandfathers said to have heard of Sol�n".
By the dialogue of Critias, we come to know that this war took place does 9.000 years. By some indications, we can reach the conclusion that quickly the Mediterranean Sea did not have the same length at that time (easy to cross, it was said) and that a continent existed at which could be arrived happening through a rosary of islands.
The climate of Atlantis that was southern, allowed to obtain two harvests to the year. To the north they excelled numerous mountains, whereas the plain where it was the capital of the Atlantes, it descended until the sea. The signals are numerous in reference to the lost continent, but we did not wish to extend the list of details.
From Green Cabo to Venezuela the continent extended that is not due to confuse with that it sank before Atlantis, and that united to the Senegal with Brazil. The Desert of the Sahara is the vestige of the waters that separated the Atlante Continent of their Colonies (extended from North Africa to Egypt), that is, that is the salient bed of an old sea. If we examined the chain that forms the Islands You embarrass, Wood, the Canary Islands, and Green Cabo, we will see that all rests on a sedimentaria base, proving that these constitute the vestiges of a submerged continent. The comparison of its flora and its fauna with the one of America is surprising in similarity. The moluscos found in the Islands are analogous to fossils of the Tertiary Age in Europe, and more than 15 families different from them they have been in the coasts of the Senegal, as well as in the Antilles; it is impossible that they have been dragged by a submarine current, because the life of the embryos would have been in danger.
The Popol Vuh (Sacred Book of Central America) relates an immigration of people come from very distant territories of the East; it is possible that this one has penetrated to the continent by the terrestrial route, happening of island in island, whereas the one second immigration had to make roundups to cross a part of the sea already overflowed.
In summary, all the traditions that the stories have done, let suppose more and more, the existence of that continent that scientifically comes to demonstrate itself in the middle of a variety of theories.
Let us watch through the times to determine better the Ages and for this we resort to the races: within each racial type are types of spiritual races, that mark the true evolution of the material races.
Thus, the three children of Adam and Eva are the spiritual types that follow one another within each one of the four races, materially speaking.
The races followed one another thus: white, yellow, red black and (the green race is not but the yellow, that in its origin was color olive tree). These appeared in a particular continent, with their special flora and its fauna, just like their language and its own tradition. One says that the aim of a race is marked by the collapse of a continent, in order that new one arises another.
The white race that was the original one, has almost not left treads some. Which is said that this fundamental race inhabited the Boreal Continent, sank, arising the Austral one later. But this is part of a theory that indicates to the white man like first, and native of the North Pole, place where it would have appeared the first species of the human sort.
The yellow race inhabited a continent in the north of the Pacific, from whose collapse were the plains of the east of the Asian Continent, being the Aleutianas its vestiges.
The black race comes from the Lemuria, whose rest include from Nueva.zelanda to Madagascar. It was the appearance of plains of the Africa of the South, after that collapse.
The red race (cobriza) extended on which it is now the Atlantic Ocean and of whose collapse has been born America, part of which it existed back from long time.
The duration of each race is more or less about 13.000 years (average round of an equinoccial precession). A Day for and a one Night for others, they mark these cycles of 25.920 years (the Great Year of Plato), time that requires our star to pull back to begin with to its same angle.
The Atlantis disappeared then a little more than 11.000 years before ours Era. The Atlantes was the deposit takers of the Traditions of the Patriarchs, transmitted in the Ad�mica writing. It says the legend which they had arrived at a knowledge point so, impossible to imagine, specially in the sonorous magic, that in its anxiety to condense the solar force they did not refuse, by pride, to let itself drag by the terrible catastrophes that made disappear their earth and appear the American Continent. Between that they escaped, some went to give until their colonies of Africa.
Cobriza the red race or, that to a large extent had arrived at a high degree of civilization, had colonies that extended until Ethiopia, and it says that the Egyptian civilization comes from them.
The inclination of the Earth axis changed the inclination of the terrestrial Pole, oriented then towards the Pleiads (the Atlas Daughters), constellation called "the Atlantises generally", near Fertile valley.
The Xibaldaides, as it is called to them to "the Atlantises", is mentioned quite often in the referring American traditions to the cataclysm. Without resorting to the legend, the stragglers of the red race of the Atlante continent, present/display common characteristics with those of America. The Egyptian civilization is similar to the American, as much of Mexico as of Peru or Central America. Etruscan, the iberos ones, guanches, berberiscos, Arabs, Basoues and the people of the American continent, present/display great affinities that denote origin and common races.

Cheers

JS

IMO,

Atlantis was destroyed by nuclear weapons .....

Elohom the culprits ....

sodom and gomorrah ....

gomorrah meaning submersion .....

This destruction is what created the oil deposits, ring of fire, continental drift and Earthquakes as we know them today are mere aftershock of the attack which cracked the earths crust ......

noahs ark in my mind is a fallout shelter.... reason being you do not have to make a 'closed' structure to float on water .... Partly closed would be suffice to keep man and animal out of the rain ....

If you locate sodom you have located Atlantis .....

This theory is WAY crazy enough...lol

~peace

edited for spelling ....

[edit on 8-11-2004 by ShawNee922]

[edit on 8-11-2004 by ShawNee922]

Originally posted by IndianaJoe
you find absolutely no evidence of seven distinct colonies ever even existing.

Nope, But there is evidence today of SEVEN distinct Continents ,,,, Having been created perhaps, in part or in whole, by the destruction of Atlantis.

Originally posted by IndianaJoeThese notions stem from the writings of modern authers who prevent shakey evidence at best. The modern legend of Atlantis started with a mere 4 page unfinished allegory which is perhaps factualy bases only because Plato himself says it was.
[edit on 4-8-2004 by IndianaJoe]

Word ... Because he said it was fact does make it so .... I agree

Excuse me if I press you just a little bit. We have a lot of people here who do WAY too much reading, and they've set a certain precedent which you are about to fall victim too.

Originally posted by ShawNee922
IMO,

Atlantis was destroyed by nuclear weapons .....

Although Ancient Nukes aren't a totally unheard of topic here, would you care to present evidence that nuclear weapons have been detonated at any time during the existance of human civilization prior to the early 1940s?

Elohom the culprits ....

Who is that, how did they do it, why did they do it, and how do you know? I'm just asking for a full story to go with that sentence fragment.

sodom and gomorrah ....

gomorrah meaning submersion .....

Care to tell us in which language that is, and perhaps tell us where we could check that out?
Also it bears mention that the nuclear destruction of 2 cities wouldn't cause the world-shattering changes you speak of.

This destruction is what created the oil deposits, ring of fire, continental drift and Earthquakes as we know them today are mere aftershock of the attack which cracked the earths crust ......

What evidence is there for nuclear weapons initiating the breakup and drift of the tektonic plates, and please explain how nuclear weapons created oil.

noahs ark in my mind is a fallout shelter.... reason being you do not have to make a 'closed' structure to float on water .... Partly closed would be suffice to keep man and animal out of the rain ....
[edit on 8-11-2004 by ShawNee922]

If we are going to believe the noah's ark story at all, why shouldn't we just take it at its word instead of morphing rain into nuclear devastation. There is a slight difference. I just dont see why Noah and any possible nuclear scenario would necessarily be related.

Just wondering if any geo guru's have any comments regarding the spanish text that was translated above WRT Atlantis??...

Does the translated text point to a possible location?

Cheers

JS

First of all, it is 'Kritias', not 'Kritas'.

And secondly, Atlantis is ...in the atlantic ocean, below the ridge in the middle of the Atlantic. Here is map of the Atlantic ocean:

Atlantic ocean map

What happened 12,000 years ago? there was a great flood, recorded in Greek, Hindu and Mayan mythology.

What caused the great flooding? how about the same thing that created massive earthquakes that sunk Atlantis?

Has the Atlantic ocean been excavated? nope. I bet Atlantis is down there.

Originally posted by IndianaJoe

unfortunately the conflict with the 'Sea Peoples' is not one of them. Thats an historic conflict, no one is certain where they came from but no one at the time seemed to think they were atlanteans or that they had even come from a sunken homeland. Keep in mind that plato tells the story as having been told to Solon by the egyptians. The egyptians certainly wouldn't confuse the 'Sea Peoples' with any atlanteans. Also note that the Atlanteans, acoording to the myth, ruled egypt. They weren't defeated by it.

True no one is certian as to where they came from, but guess what no one is certian as too the location or existance of atlantis either. Solon was the Egyptian priest who dictated to an unknown Athenian the story of atlantis but recall the story of atlantis was even ancient in Solon's time. Solon accquired the legend from a set of ancient scroll that he as a high priest was in possesion of.

Far from being an Egyptian priest, Solon was a greek poet. It is known that Solon went on a “world” tour for about ten years. It is also known that Egypt was (of course) one of the foreign lands he visited. Exactly when he visited Egypt is unknown, but we can make a good estimate of what year. Plato says that while in Egypt, Solon heard the tale of Atlantis. No such record of this telling survives today, Greek or Egyptian, save that in Plato’s two Dialogues, Timaeus and Critias.

Originally posted by IndianaJoeThe victory temple of King Ramses (i may be wrong on the pharoh here but i think it was Ramses) gives a detailed account of an invading people who claimed to be fleeing their homeland which had sunken into the sea. This conflict has been dated based on the age of the victory temple to around 1200 BC. The victory temple clearly states that the story of the captured Sea People was investigated by Egypts greatest scholars and military leaders via an interegation of captured Seap People. Now how did Egypt coin the phrase of Atlantis but did not attribute its battle with a mysterious sea people to in fact being Atlantean? Well if one steps back and looks to our own times its not so improbable of a paradox. The egyptians at first did not know who was invading or for what reason all they knew was that they were under attack and must respond. After obliteratng the enemy leaving only a few survivors to tell a tale that to an egyptian that would seem as ridiculs as a sunken civilization sounds to us today. It would be years if not decades for Egypt to actualy piece together who invaded them and why and to learn the social, economic, political and historical motivations of their desperate enemy. It is impossble to say for sure but it is highly plausible that Rames constructed the victory temple as soon as possible for his own political reasons and then the egyptians began a study of their obliterated enemy which did not come to an end via the scrolls that were entrusted to solon for years to come. Therefore we see that the Sea People were eventualy transformed into the Atlanteas after an egyptian study on the history of egypts mysterious invaders.

First of all, a quote from a site about what is written at what you are calling Ramses III’s “Victory Temple”: (this is from www.phoenixdatasystems.com...)

This second attack of the Sea Peoples by land and sea occurred during the reign of Pharaoh Ramesses III, years five and eight, around 1175 B.C. The battle scenes and names of the invaders are recorded at Medinet Habu, near Thebes in Upper Egypt (Pritchard 1969, hereafter ANET, 262):
Other spelling/pronunciation
1. Pe-ra-sa-ta/ Peleset (Pw-r-s-ty) Philistine
2. Tjikar (T-k-k[-r]) Tjekker
3. Sa-k(a)-ru-su Sheklesh
4. Danuna (D-y-n-yw-n) Danaoi
5. Wasasa (W-s-s) Weshesh
The first on the list are the Philistines; the second are the Tjekker, who may have settled on Cyprus at the end of the thirteenth century B.C. and who later settled in Dor, south of Mount Carmel on the Palestinian coast, according to a late twelfth- and an eleventh-century b.c. Egyptian document; the third are also in the Merneptah list and are the only ones to be mentioned in two records; the fourth are the Homeric Danaans; and the fifth possibly are Carians of western Anatolia.3 All the Sea Peoples, according to Albright, came from the Aegean orbit (1975, 508). At Medinet Habu the Philistines and the names of the other Sea Peoples occur together, probably because the Egyptians knew them to be related geographically.

The following words on the walls at Medinet Habu attest to the Sea People alliance:
. . The foreign countries made a conspiracy in their islands. All at once the lands were removed and scattered in the fray. No land could stand before their arms, from Hatti, Kode, Carchemish, Arzawa, and Alashiya on. . . . They were coming forward toward Egypt, while the flame was prepared before them. Their confederation was the Philistines, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denye(n), and Weshesh, lands united. They laid their hands upon the lands as far as the circuit of the earth, their hearts confident and trusting: "Our plans will succeed!" [ANET, 262]

(My bolded italics.)

As you can see here, the Egyptians knew with absolute certainty who the invaders were. They named them at Medinet Habu (Ramses III’s “Victory Temple,” actually his mortuary temple.) Our problem is that we can’t be absolutely certain who these people were ourselves, since we don’t know who the Egyptians referred to by these names they wrote. It’s pretty clear, though, that the Egyptians knew who they were talking about.

Secondly, nobody in Egypt coined the term “Atlantis.” If you had actually read the Dialogues in question, you would have seen Plato’s explanation for why Greek names appear in the story for obviously foreign places. He said Solon translated the names as part of his preparation for immortalizing the story in verse, a task he apparently never got around to. I’d say it’s extremely likely that Solon in fact never heard the story of Atlantis.

The word “Atlantis” refers to Atlas, the Titan that was given the task of holding up the sky (I think he was forced to do this by Zeus, when Zeus took over control from the Titan forefathers of the Greek Gods.) “Atlantis”, I have read, actually means “the world” when used in this context (I read this, but it may not be true.) It is by no stretch of the imagination an Egyptian word.

Lastly, notwithstanding your dating argument below, you are in the wrong time frame here. The Sea Peoples cannot have been Atlanteans, using your own “Lunar Calendar” (il)logic. See below.

Originally posted by IndianaJoe
In fact Plato not only dates Atlantis out of the Bronze Age but rather dates it so far back in time that any scholar would absolutely deny the existance of any civilization that was capable of traversing the ocean, mining any form of metal, or interacting with any other distinct social group. But once again their is a logical factualy based reason for why this may have accured and why Atlantis is not some ultra ancient super civilization. Solon and his egyptian counterparts did not use the same calander as the Greeks. While the Greek calander was nearly identical to our modern one because it measured time based on the movement of the sun it was incredibly different from the Egyptian calander. The Egyptian caleder of ancient times, the era that Solon would have existed in was Lunar based. Now since the moon revovles around the sun approximatly 10 times more often than the Sun (actualy 9 point something) 9000 Lunar/Egyptian years is about 900 Greek years. (this is why there exist records of ancient pharos living for hundreds of years btw) Now if we go back from the time of Solon, this can be done by roughly estimating the lifespan of one of Socrates students who's father was the one who recieved the story from Solon we come to the roughly estimated year that Atlantis existed before and up till the year.... you guessed it 1200 BC. Wow quite coincedental that Rameses victory temple was built around the same time wouldnt you say.

That would be quite a coincidence, if it were true. Unfortunately it is not.

Now I’m going to quote myself from another thread (I’m tired of typing the same info over and over. Try the search function IndianaJoe, to see all the research conducted on this subject here at ATS. You won’t believe it!)

First, it needs to be said that there is no reason at all to believe that Solon heard any Atlantis story from any Egyptian priest anytime in his life. Solon (638-558 BC) is known to have begun his travels abroad to Egypt and other countries in the 560's , returning to Athens in the 550's BC. It would then be reasonable to say that if Solon did indeed hear the tale of Atlantis in Egypt, it happened sometime around 560 BC. Note to everyone: Solon was not a contemporary of Plato's.

On the Egyptian lunar calendar, this calendar never counted lunar cycles as years. This was a calendar that gave each lunar cycle 29 or 30 days, alternatively, and stipulated 12 lunar periods (months) per year. This is of course inaccurate and the Egyptian priests knew it. But every year the appearance of the star Sirius (Egyptians called it Sothis) in the sky was used to reset this calendar back to baseline. In other words, the lunar calendar recorded years by counting lunar months and was automatically reset every actual year by the observation of the star Sirius. The calendar was later adopted for public use and adapted to a 30 day lunar month, with a five day religious festival tacked on at the end of the year, adding up to 365 days (1/4 day short of an actual year.) This calendar was the civil calendar of Egypt until Augustus introduced the leap year around 30 BC.

But never mind, let us assume against all reason that the Egyptian calendar did count months as years. The Egyptians knew the lunar period was about 29.5 days (actually it is 29.5306 days) so they originally alternated 29 and 30 days per month in their calendars. They accepted 12 months per year.

From Plato's Timaeus and Critias we know that the Atlantean destruction occurred 9,000 "years" (lunar, you say) before Solon's visit. Given 12 lunar "years" (according to you) in a solar year this places it approximately 750 solar years before Solon's visit, or approximately in the year 1310 BC. This places the existence of Atlantis well within the time of existence of the Minoans, the Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Hittites and many others, yet there are no records among these other civilizations about the Atlanteans? In fact, there exist no ancient records referring to Atlantis anywhere on Earth except in two of Plato's dialogues. How could this possibly be? The only way it could be is if Atlantis never existed, which is in fact the case.

The above quote came from: my post here.
That is one of a great many (ahem) well written and researched posts on the subject of Atlantis that I (and others, mostly others, many, many, many others) have posted at this board.

As you can see above, even allowing for an Egyptian lunar calendar that counted months as years (which is, in fact, pure fantasy), your dating method still misses the mark of the second Sea Peoples invasion (1175 BC) by 135 years.

If you want to verify the statements I have made above about the Egyptian Lunar calendar (or if you are interested at all in Egyptian dating methods), below are three websites that all deal with Egyptian calendars. See if you can find one that conforms to your ideas.
www.polysyllabic.com...
www.touregypt.net...
www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk... n_eg_cal_lun.htm

By the way, the Egyptians rarely referred to anything happening in any given “numbered” year or number of years ago. Usually, when referring to a date many years in the past, they would say it happened in such and such year of Pharaoh So and So’s reign.

Originally posted by IndianaJoe
Even more coincidental is that a series of charted metoric activity accured aroudn the same time enough so that it is highly probable that that a meteor landed on the volitile Atlantic ridge off the coast of spain (right outside the pillars of hercules btw) which may have caused intense volcanic activity, and many "flood myths" of the world cultures can be attributed to roughly the same time frame. Now why wouldn't any evidence of Atlantis exist if it was infact a bronze age civilization, simple it sunk, a whole culture collopased and eventualy its ten kingdoms with no place to call home married into and assimilated into the native cultures present in each of their distinct region. Therefore leaving little to no culteral or material evidence of Atlantis ever existing.

[edit on 4-8-2004 by IndianaJoe]

I will stipulate that the displacement of the Sea Peoples could have been caused by a meteoric impact. But the rest of what you say here is not valid. We have evidence throughout the prehistoric timeline of cultures being assimilated by other cultures. If in fact this had happened with Atlanteans, we would be able to see the results of such an assimilation in variations in certain styles of pottery, for example, and in linguistic anomalies, for another example. We see these sorts of things often in the archaeological record.

Additionally, if you place Atlantis in the time frame where you have it, why then is there absolutely no record of it in the history of any civilization on Earth? And especially why no record of it among those civilizations that existed at and before your date of Atlantean destruction and in the same area?

To answer my own question, it is because, as I have said before, Atlantis never, ever existed, until they built it in the Bahamas.

IndianaJoe, I want to say here that I sympathize with you and others here that believe Atlantis once existed. More power to you. I once was among you all. My fervor for Atlantis is what led to my current (nonbeliever) status, though. Attempting to research Atlantis into existence led me to finally conclude that it never had existed (the irony! )

It is my hope that one day somebody will prove me wrong, but guys, don't hold your breath.

Harte


[edit on 9/9/2005 by Harte]

If you want to simply belive that Atlantis had seven distinct colonies you need to have historical proof to atleast back that up

If I recall correctly, the Critias mentions Atlantis as being made up of 10 kingdoms (united).

Excellent work IndiannaJoe, at explaining about the 900 vs. 9000 years. I think there is good reason to think the Sea People could be Atlanteans. Since this is a tale related to Plato, and he admitted to using Hellenic names for that which is not Greek, we can assume that neither the Egyptians, nor the Atlanteans themselves, actually called them by the name "Atlanteans".

Originally posted by ShawNee922
sodom and gomorrah ....

gomorrah meaning submersion .....

How do you work that one out?

Sodom סְדוֹם, Standard Hebrew Sədom, Tiberian Hebrew Səḏôm and Gomorrah עֲמוֹרָה, Standard Hebrew ʿAmora, Tiberian Hebrew Ġəmôrāh, ʿĂmôrāh.

source
Gomorrah was the name of an ancient city in Judea that is always mentioned in the Holy Bible with Sodom. The English name Gomorrah is derived from the New Testament Greek name for the city, pronounced gom-or-rah-haw which itself was derived from the more ancient Old Testament Hebrew name for the city, pronounced am-oh-raw which meant a heap, from agricultural usage meaning a heap of grain or a heap of manure. Since other Scriptures describe Sodom and Gomorrah as "filthy" (2 Peter 6:6-8, see quote below) it's obvious that the name for the city applied not to a heap of grain. Gomorrah meant a heap of manure. The location of Gomorrah is thought by many to have been on a plain that is today submerged by the southern half of the Dead Sea. Hence also that the Greek name for the city came to mean submerged.

[edit on 5/10/2005 by Odium]

Originally posted by Morzikaga
Excellent work IndiannaJoe, at explaining about the 900 vs. 9000 years.

I think there is good reason to think the Sea People could be Atlanteans. Since this is a tale related to Plato, and he admitted to using Hellenic names for that which is not Greek, we can assume that neither the Egyptians, nor the Atlanteans themselves, actually called them by the name "Atlanteans".

Morzikaga,

You must be a selective reader. My post shows, with references, why the Sea Peoples could not have been Atlanteans.

Pray tell, what are your "good reasons" for believing otherwise? Merely that Plato claimed that Solon translated the names?

Harte

Re Atlantis - check this:

www.crystalinks.com...

I think what we need to understand is that there are a lot of similarities throughout many creation myths that COULD lead us to an advanced civilization prior to the last ice age. However, everything is just rumor until evidence is found. If you want to search the "net" for that, go right ahead, but keep in mind that there is nothing new on that front, and I cannot forsee that changing anytime in the near future

The argument that Athens and the other Mediterraneans who Plato said were allied to defeat an Atlantean invasion, were "not advanced enough that far back in time to have defeated a global type of power," I would submit the following theory: We cannot say for sure if the Athenians of Atlantis' time as given by Plato were not advanced, because if a subsequent tremendous Deluge (which Plato only hints at at the very end of his "Timias and Critias") ensued upon the war between the Athenian-led alliance and the Atlanteans, then the flood very conceivably would have erased all the archaeological evidence pertaining to any civilized remains all around the Medierranean areas, including Athens and any other allies. Then all we'd know about would be the Athens and Mediterraneans who lived later on.