Atlantis located off the west cost of Ireland!

Great job OP.
I had thought of an Atlantis Ireland connection before due to the tuatha de danaan but never looked into it
a reply to: LUXUS

originally posted by: kieran1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: kieran1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: kieran1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: kieran1
Doggerland could be Atlantis if that place even existed? We now know miles and miles of land sunk to the bottom of the sea around 16,000 to 8,000 years ago and we that's not that far off the timeline Plato gave for when Atlantis existed.

Its fits the description of Atlantis in size. Remember Libya and Asia during Platos time was about the size of Europe. Doggerland was the size of Europe, and both Ireland and England where connected landmasses, not separate as they are now today.. Tara could have been an Atlantean town or city our outpost? Where did those survivors go?

Clear picture inside of how big this place was 16,000 years ago.
nationalgeographic.org...

Sorry, but no. Doggerland was not the size of Europe. It was the hilly island bit that was between East Anglia and the Netherlands during the height of the last ice age. The last bit, the Dogger Bank, finally vanished beneath the North Sea around 5000 BC.
There's no evidence that Atlantis ever existed, or that Athens, its main enemy, even existed 9,000 years before Solon was allegedly told about Atlantis by an Egyptian priest (who didn't write any of it down - there are no written records in Egypt of Atlantis.

I would disagree this map shows what our world looked like back then. You can see the area where Ireland and England are today was massive.
vintageprintable.com...

Plato work is evidence and we often find ancient structures below the sea level of today. To claim it could never have existed i find crazy. We haven't found a sign marked Atlantis but that does not mean anything.

Why would Plato date the destruction, place Solon in Egypt at the right time, if he was making up a story?

It would make sense Atlantis would be destroyed in the Atlantic by a flood its where the seas levels would have risen the most.

Because he was writing a work of political philosophy - one that he never finished. Critias was left unfinished, for reasons that we don't fully understand. One reason might be that he saw similarities between the tale and that of Troy.
Three other things. Firstly Egypt was not simply confined to the Library of Alexander. There are massive numbers of inscriptions and other records. Nothing mentions Atlantis.
Secondly the 9,000 year issue is a fatal flaw, as Athens was not a major power in 9,000 BC. Hell, it probably didn't even exist.
Thirdly the map you linked to is not a map of land - it's a map of the glaciated region of Europe in the last ice age.

How do we know this hes work is over 2,000 year old? We can assume was, if and buts and whys but we don't know. Plato clearly outlines, the story was told to Solon when he visited Egypt. Solon was a historical living person inserting him into this story meant something.

9,000 years is not a flaw because its a legend the Egyptians revealed to someone visiting from a foreign land.

The map was land covered by Ice. There is evidence of sunken land around the edges of Ireland today.

Because we have Plato's other works. Critias isn't a work of history, it's a dialogue, one of a series of three that Plato planned to write. However, although he wrote the first, Timeon and most of the second (Critias), he never even started the third, which he planned to call Hermocrates. Plato was first and foremost a philosopher. He was also a very famous one, who was admired in both Greece and Rome - which is why so much of his work survives. The Byzantines made an especial study of the works of Plato.
And yes, the 9,000 year part does kill the story stone dead as a work of history. Critias tells of a war between Atlantis and Athens, a war which Athens won. There's just one problem with that. Athens, as a city let alone a major power, didn't exist in 9000 BC, except perhaps as a collection of huts.
And please stop bringing up the map and just admit that you made a mistake. You said that it was a huge area of land, as big as Europe. No, it was ice. An expanse of glaciers. There might have been land around it due to the sea level being lower, but Doggerland never had a city on it.

You can't just say that you live in the 21th century how can you know if there was a city 9,000 years ago located in Greece? We create a history when we find stuff, but that does not mean it could not have existed? For most of the 20th century most historians felt Troy was just a myth all made up.

And by the way we don't know what Doggerland was like because it far too long to know for sure, and its below the seas right now. Baalbek is an out of place find and we still don't how old that is some say 9,000 years old and if its true then we have proof highly advanced civilizations was normal back then and not out of the ordinary.

We can debate the map who can say if your right or not again its too far back to know for sure and i doubt we explore and spend the money to see if more land sunk into the seas.

No, sorry, history doesn't work like that. Troy was discovered in the 19th Century and if Schliemann hadn't found it when he did then it would have been found not long after. Civilisations don't exist in solitary splendour. They have foreign relations, they have neighbours, they have rivals, they have enemies. When Hattusa was discovered they also found the archives of the Hittites equivalent to the Foreign Office. It mentions the local powers - and we think also mentions the Trojan War, but that is a highly debateable point.
Cities need a hinterland and they also scatter merchant goods around. Even when we can't find the city there's still the evidence it left behind. An excellent example of this is Tartessos. We know from trade goods and other evidence that it existed, we just can't locate it - although it might be in South-West Iberia, at the mouth of the Guadalquivir River, where there is now a large swamp.
Which is exactly my point. There's no reference to Atlantis other than Critias. No other reference to Athens ever fighting any such power. And no sign of a mysterious missing civilisation dated to that time. Now, we know a few things about Athens. We know that it was a part of the Mycenaean empire and that there was a Mycenaean fortress / palace where the Acropolis is now. But the earliest remains date back to the 4th millennium BC and no earlier.
By the way, Doggerland is very, very shallow. So shallow that fishermans nets have pulled up antlers, the remains of some prehistoric huts and prehistoric (ie: stone) weapons. No divers have ever seen any stone walls down there.

originally posted by: kieran1

Why would Plato date the destruction, place Solon in Egypt at the right time, if he was making up a story?

Plato dated the destruction as he did to explain why no one on Earth had ever heard of it, even in myth.

Regarding the rest of the above, perhaps you don't know - Solon was far more famous than Plato. Some credited Solon, albeit incorrectly, with the Greek version of Democracy. Solon was basically the greatest statesman the Greeks ever produced, and during Plato's time he was quite fondly remembered. Ironically, during his own time Solon was ousted from the government. That's when he went on his "world tour." Such trips are where we get travelogues like the "Seven Wonders." Many wealthy people took such tours upon retirement or even before.

Everyone in Greece knew who Solon was, and everyone knew that he had traveled to Egypt.
Add in the awe the Greeks held for the antiquity of the Egyptian civilization and it certainly makes sense.

Harte

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
[
No, sorry, history doesn't work like that. Troy was discovered in the 19th Century and if Schliemann hadn't found it when he did then it would have been found not long after.

Troy was discovered by Frank Calvert, seven years before Schliemann turned up and stole all the glory
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
[
No, sorry, history doesn't work like that. Troy was discovered in the 19th Century and if Schliemann hadn't found it when he did then it would have been found not long after.

Troy was discovered by Frank Calvert, seven years before Schliemann turned up and stole all the glory
en.wikipedia.org...

True, I was aware of Calvert and how Schliemann snaffled the site from under his nose. However, it's fair to say that Calvert suspected that Hisarlik was Troy - he didn't 100% know it.