Case for Atlantis being South America...

Just coming into this- I'll read all before coming back.

The title is ah "interesting"

Something I have believed for years.

I want to read all here and follow the links to see if anyone has the same 'theory' about this that I do.

Thanks for posting this-

I do not think South America could be Atlantis.

Some said that pictures of elephants where found in South America, but in Plato's text he allso speaks of horses and bulls, and neither of these animals existed in South America.

Also, if I am not wrong, I think that the civilizations in South America did not had carts with wheels.

In Plato's text he also talks about Summer and Winter, and this only ocurs in the southernmost part of South America.

Being Portuguese, as Kangaxx, I also remembered about the A�ores (Azores in English) islands being one of the possibilities. I also noticed that one of the regions was in front of the "Pillars of Heracles, facing the country which is now called the region of Gades". Gades is today's Cadiz, in Spain.

Also, one of the princes was Elasippus and the name the Romans gave to Lisbon, when they arrived here, was Olissipus, supposedly because of Ulysses, and is supposed to be founded by the Phoenicians around 1200 BC.

So, I think Atlantis, if it was real, could be between the strait of Gibraltar and the A�ores islands. That region is ,geologically, extremely active, and is the region where all the great earthquakes of North Africa and Portugal occur, the last big one in Portugal occurred in 1755 and killed thousands of people.

Also, there are signs that a even greater earthquake changed the course of the river Tejo (Tagus in English) and the river now reaches the Atlantic Ocean in a place that was obviously cut with that earthquake and is some 70m above sea level, some 20Km North of the original estuary.

I do not think South America could be Atlantis.

Some said that pictures of elephants where found in South America, but in Plato's text he allso speaks of horses and bulls, and neither of these animals existed in South America.

As I mentioned, pre-columbian sculptures and art have been found in South America depicting these creatures. Also, you must remember that Plato even admits to having to fill in the gaps and make the tale understandable to his fellow Greeks, as he heard it from Solon. He is not speaking of a place he visited, but of a place described to him, by another, and which existed 900 or 9000 years prior (to Plato's time).

Also, if I am not wrong, I think that the civilizations in South America did not had carts with wheels.

Numerous art examples would disagree with you. Not to mention, the mention of chariots is in describing a god's statue, which Plato already said that he changed the gods to fit his Hellenic audience...

In Plato's text he also talks about Summer and Winter, and this only ocurs in the southernmost part of South America.

If you're refering to this...

Where the Acropolis now is there was a fountain, which was choked by the earthquake, and has left only the few small streams which still exist in the vicinity, but in those days the fountain gave an abundant supply of water for all and of suitable temperature in summer and in winter.

Then you are referring to a passage describing ancient Greece (ancient to Plato) He makes it very clear when he switches and then describes Atlantis... He first describes Greece at the time of the Atlanteans. He only speaks of summer in regards to Atlantis.

Being Portuguese, as Kangaxx, I also remembered about the A�ores (Azores in English) islands being one of the possibilities. I also noticed that one of the regions was in front of the "Pillars of Heracles, facing the country which is now called the region of Gades". Gades is today's Cadiz, in Spain.

I was unaware that these islands were the size of Libya and Asia combined, had a rectangular plain surrounded by mountains, with a central mountain low on all sides, and alternating belts of sea and land....not to mention, the plain being situated on the longest side of the continent and in the middle of the continent.... ALL of this exists in the Altiplano.

This could be a long post, but I prefer to leave all quotes.

Originally posted by Gazrok

I do not think South America could be Atlantis.

Some said that pictures of elephants where found in South America, but in Plato's text he allso speaks of horses and bulls, and neither of these animals existed in South America.

As I mentioned, pre-columbian sculptures and art have been found in South America depicting these creatures. Also, you must remember that Plato even admits to having to fill in the gaps and make the tale understandable to his fellow Greeks, as he heard it from Solon. He is not speaking of a place he visited, but of a place described to him, by another, and which existed 900 or 9000 years prior (to Plato's time).

But why do we accept some parts of the text and not others, why there could not have been horses and bulls in Atlantis? Or could there be other animals and he used that names? Lamas and other animals like that could be called "horses" for sake of comprehension by the readers, but there are nothing like bulls in South America and I never saw a Lama pulling a cart.

Also, if I am not wrong, I think that the civilizations in South America did not had carts with wheels.

Numerous art examples would disagree with you. Not to mention, the mention of chariots is in describing a god's statue, which Plato already said that he changed the gods to fit his Hellenic audience...

I said I could be wrong ...

In Plato's text he also talks about Summer and Winter, and this only ocurs in the southernmost part of South America.

If you're refering to this...

Where the Acropolis now is there was a fountain, which was choked by the earthquake, and has left only the few small streams which still exist in the vicinity, but in those days the fountain gave an abundant supply of water for all and of suitable temperature in summer and in winter.

Then you are referring to a passage describing ancient Greece (ancient to Plato)

He makes it very clear when he switches and then describes Atlantis... He first describes Greece at the time of the Atlanteans. He only speaks of summer in regards to Atlantis.

No, I'm referring to this:

Twice in the year they gathered the fruits of the earth-in winter having the benefit of the rains of heaven, and in summer the water which the land supplied by introducing streams from the canals.

Being Portuguese, as Kangaxx, I also remembered about the A�ores (Azores in English) islands being one of the possibilities. I also noticed that one of the regions was in front of the "Pillars of Heracles, facing the country which is now called the region of Gades". Gades is today's Cadiz, in Spain.

I was unaware that these islands were the size of Libya and Asia combined, had a rectangular plain surrounded by mountains, with a central mountain low on all sides, and alternating belts of sea and land....not to mention, the plain being situated on the longest side of the continent and in the middle of the continent....

ALL of this exists in the Altiplano.

Wasn't Atlantis supposed to be destroyed by an earthquake? I was trying to say that if it was destroyed, it could be in the Atlantic Ocean, West of Portugal and Morocco, in a geologically unstable region.

I also remembered one thing, the reason for the "discovery" of the Americas to be only in the 15th and 16th century is that before that time, the ships could make a journey from Europe to the Americas, but it was very difficult to return, even if they could get there in the first place. This only became possible with the invention of the triangular sail, who gives the ship the possibility of sailing almost against the wind. Before that, the ships only could sail with back winds because they had square sails. If they used ships with oars they could make the journey against the winds, but it was not a easy way, and if Atlantis had some kind of trade with others they could not be that far away from them.
Do not forget that Christopher Columbus spent more than a month from the Canary Islands to the Bahamas.

But why do we accept some parts of the text and not others

Because trying to describe what a society was like 900 or 9000 years ago is not as exact as measurements, geography, etc. (which would have been more accurately recorded by scribes) Besides, there is evidence that pre-columbian south americans knew of these beasts, as evidenced by their artworks... Another reason is that he (Plato) specifically stated where he was taking artistic license, namely in his description of their gods, names, etc.

As for the passage about summer...they still have agricultural seasons, even if there isn't a discernable winter. Heck, in Florida it isn't even right to call it winter...

Destroyed by earthquake? Yes, and the Altiplano has a history of this, and flooding as well.

On trade, you must not have looked through the whole thread. Ancient Egyptian mummies have been found to have been stuffed with herbs and flowers that grow only in South America! It has been proven by at least two expeditions, that the Egyptian style boats of the time could make a round trip voyage to South America...this was proven by building such a boat with primitive methods and even navigational tools... There is also the issue of the scultures and other art depicting African creatures, caucasians, etc., all predating Columbus.

[edit on 2-9-2004 by Gazrok]

Yes, he said that he was using Greek names, but I was speaking of the animals, and even if they changed the names, I do not see any reason to call an animal "bull" if it looks like a "rabit" or if it is completely different from a bull but does not look like any other known animal. Also, I do not understand what animals you say the pre-Columbian south Americans, knew, elephants, horses or bulls.

As for the Summer and Winter, I said that only the southernmost part of South America has Summer and Winter, I did not said they did not have it, only I am too lazy to look for it.

What was destroyed with the Earthquake, Atlantis the country or Atlantis the city? Reading the text it looks to me that what was destroyed was the country:

the combatants on the other side were commanded by the kings of Atlantis, 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.

About the trade, yes, I read all the thread, and what I read did not said that the mummies where Egyptian, only said:

many of the most ancient mummies were found stuffed with herbs, plants, etc. that come ONLY from South America!

Seriously, the fact that some plants and flowers were found does not show that there was trade between South America and Egypt, do you think that they crossed all that ocean only to get some plants and flowers for the mummies? Don't you think they would get more things, and that they would let some of theirs in South America? I do not know if they have found more things, but if you only speak of plants and flowers I think that is because you do not have anything better.

Also, I doubt that Columbus was the first to reach Central America and that Pedro �lvares Cabral (the Portuguese explorer that discovered what is now Brasil) was the first to reach South America. I also believe that the experiments made with replicas of ancient boats are a good way to show that they could have reached that far places. But one thing is going there and back and other thing is making a commercial route between the two points.
For example, I am one of those that believe that men went to the Moon and back. That was a great achievement, but if we have found someone with whom we could have trade, we needed larger space ships, and considering the cost of the travel, we needed a lot of interested people who could send a lot of merchandise.
In the Egyptian and Greek times, the situation was the same, the goal of trade is to gain something. If there was trade between America and Europe, they must had lots of things from South America here and lots of Greek and Egyptian things in South America. And Bolivia is in the West side of the continent, not the East side, so that means that:

1. that place in Bolivia is not where Atlantis existed.
2. Atlantis was in that place in Bolivia but all of what is now Brasil did not existed.
3. Atlantis was in that place in Bolivia but for Atlantis, the city, to be in the middle of Atlantis, the country, a lot of land West of what is now Bolivia must have been destroyed.

Also the part that says:

In this mountain there dwelt one of the earth born primeval men of that country.

reminded me of the fact that the last Neanderthals lived in the Iberian Peninsula, so maybe I have an Atlantean ancestor.

I thought I did not like to write, but looking at the size of my posts I think I need to change my mind about that.

Excellent counterpoints...

It's my belief that a main problem is that Atlantis, in Plato's narrative, is obviously describing a city AND a continent. It's his lack of distinction as to when he's talking of one or the other, that makes the matter confusing. It's also my belief that he was mistaken about the continent sinking, and that it was the city that was destroyed. Whether this was Solon's error, or Plato's, I cannot say, but here's the big contradiction....

Plato states that a continent the size of Libya and Asia combined sank beneath the waves, but 3 times, he mentions this tale is fact, not fiction.

Modern science tells us no such continent can be said to have sunk...

So, either his size is wrong, this is all fiction, or he was confused as to whether the continent or city sank, as they both had the same name.

Personally, the latter is more plausible, especially considering a tale that is 900 to 9000 years old when HE heard it....

As for the animals, horses, bulls, elephants, cheetahs, caucasian man, etc. sculpture has all been found. This is also evidence of trade.

Some other things found with Egyptian mummies were coffee and cocoa as well. There was likely a string of trading posts between Atlantis and Egypt (even hinted at in Plato's tale), so it wasn't necessary for a long voyage from one to the other. Just as in trade with the Orient, the early trade likely centered around exotics...like herbs, precious metals, and rare animals, etc. It's not hard for me to imagine young animals being shipped to be some noble's pet or mount...or to later grow into an animal for gladatorial like games, as the scultures seem to depict.

According to Plato's account, there was another continent past Atlantis. If your theory is correct, then this other land would have to be Asia... surely in Plato's time, they knew of the Asians, and would have mentioned this fact in describing the Atlantis location... unless, of course, it was Lemuria or Mu.

But it wasn't, especially if you take into consideration that the South American's had tales of Atlan (or was it Aztlan?), sinking in the west, also the Atlantic Ocean. This gives related legends a connection, that a land mass had sunk in the Atlantic.

As for the Mayan picture, that could coincide with their own Flood legend, or maybe perhaps the sinking of Mu.

I've read a book last year... don't remember what it was called... but the author is a historical archeologist, and he theorised that Atlantis was actually Troy. The site digs have turned up the circular canals as described by Plato, along with similiar military structures.

But keep up the good fight, Gazrok!

Plato does not say that it was a continent, he says that it was an island greater in extent than Libya and Asia, what may mean that it was greater than Libya and also greater than Asia, but not greater than both together, but this maybe is just because I do not speak English very well and I am not reading this right.
Also, the Greeks called Asia what is now Turkey.

I did not knew that had been found sculptures of so many animals that do not exist in South America, and I did not knew that they found cocoa, but if they found coffee then that is nothing special, coffee is African. Could you give some links to some of these sculptures?

One big possibility is that this is all fiction. In the beginning of the text, says Socrates to Critias:

And now, friend Critias, I will announce to you the judgment of the theatre. They are of opinion that the last performer was wonderfully successful, and that you will need a great deal of indulgence before you will be able to take his place.

We should never underestimate peoples imagination.

According to Plato's account, there was another continent past Atlantis.

Where did you see this in the Dialogue? I don't doubt it's there, just that I don't remember it offhand, and I didn't see a mention of it in a quick skim... (don't have the time to read and reanalyze it just yet)...

As for the animal sculptures, I quoted from the link on the first page of this thread...I'd have to find the link again...but will do so. As I mentioned, I came upon it in another search on a completely different topic... The scientist's name in the quote should be a good search identifier...

I think I follow this discourse- if I missed something excuse me as to other things on my mind.

The Atlantis/south America premise seems O.K. to me at the present. It's as good as any I've heard.

I have thought for a long time that the entire Amazon river basin could easily have been ocean many thousands of years past or at least mostly ocean. There was a Discovery channel or something like that program about a city found on the northern edges of the Amazon basin with canals and the remnants of buildings. I thought it fascinating.

Atlantis (I do believe �it� existed) was probably the capital city of a vast empire. As to summer/winter why does that have to be distinctive seasons? To a Greek or Egyptian wouldn't just elevational changes be the same?

The area of South America of your focus would have at the present time and probably in the past river valleys that to a Greek were summer-like and higher mountains that were surely winter-like.

Things that have always puzzled me about the Atlantis stories are the agriculture. Corn and potatoes- why were they not found anywhere but the Americas? This leads me to believe that trade between the ancient and new worlds virtually ceased prior to the domesticatian of either.

Corn I believe is one of the keys to unlocking time of contact. Indepth studies regarding the development of corn are in existence. A rather simplistic story of corn shows that as long as 7,000 years back corn was nothing more than a large grass (maize). Further vegetable differences abound.

What are the dates of the modern development of these foods? Any continual trade between the worlds would have ceased by the time any of these foods were developed in the modern sense.

Cotton is another of the clues to historical dating. As far back as 7,000 years (similar to corn development) cotton was present in the valley of Mexico- so any travels between the old and new worlds surely existed prior to that time?

On the surface it appears to me that Solon had his times wrong?

By 6-7,000 years back trade of any magnitude had ceased. Cotton was existent in both worlds but the other vegetative remains were not.

As to horses- how big would a horse be even 5,000 years back- 3,000 B.C.? Certainly not large enough to ride and maybe not large enough to be of much use. Early (modern) horses were used in war only for chariots. Cavalry was a much later development. The earliest domestic horses simply could not support the weight of humans.
As horses developed warfare changed. The most modern armies rode instead of being pulled. Cavalry quickly became dominant to chariotry.

These are the provable times that need to be fixed or established to assist in the setting of �the when for Atlantis.� Then the where may be easier to establish.

Well, this is rough- I'll pursue more as this discourse continues. I propose this become a research topic- I would volunteer as a contributor.

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
Atlantis (I do believe “it” existed) was probably the capital city of a vast empire. As to summer/winter why does that have to be distinctive seasons? To a Greek or Egyptian wouldn't just elevational changes be the same?

The area of South America of your focus would have at the present time and probably in the past river valleys that to a Greek were summer-like and higher mountains that were surely winter-like.

If that was the case why did they say that? Why should they say that they had Summer crops and Winter crops and not say that they had cold mountains with some kind of crops and hot lands with other kind of crops?

Things that have always puzzled me about the Atlantis stories are the agriculture. Corn and potatoes- why were they not found anywhere but the Americas? This leads me to believe that trade between the ancient and new worlds virtually ceased prior to the domesticatian of either.

Corn I believe is one of the keys to unlocking time of contact. Indepth studies regarding the development of corn are in existence. A rather simplistic story of corn shows that as long as 7,000 years back corn was nothing more than a large grass (maize). Further vegetable differences abound.

What are the dates of the modern development of these foods? Any continual trade between the worlds would have ceased by the time any of these foods were developed in the modern sense.

Cotton is another of the clues to historical dating. As far back as 7,000 years (similar to corn development) cotton was present in the valley of Mexico- so any travels between the old and new worlds surely existed prior to that time?

On the surface it appears to me that Solon had his times wrong?

By 6-7,000 years back trade of any magnitude had ceased. Cotton was existent in both worlds but the other vegetative remains were not.

Corn exists in Europe and the Americas, only the kind of corn we now today was created in the Americas. Potatos only existed in the Americas, not in Europe, in fact, the first potatos that where planted in Europe killed many people because they thoght that what they where supposed to eat was the leafs, and the leafs are poisonous.
Also, you forgot the tomatos, they come also from the Andes.

As to horses- how big would a horse be even 5,000 years back- 3,000 B.C.? Certainly not large enough to ride and maybe not large enough to be of much use. Early (modern) horses were used in war only for chariots. Cavalry was a much later development. The earliest domestic horses simply could not support the weight of humans.
As horses developed warfare changed. The most modern armies rode instead of being pulled. Cavalry quickly became dominant to chariotry.

Horses are more or less the same size they where 10000 years ago. Before that, they where smaller, but they where more or less the size of a donkey, and they disapered 10 million years ago.

On the surface it appears to me that Solon had his times wrong?

This may be true, or it was translated wrong. There seems to be some debate as to whether it was 900 or 9000 years. Even at 900 years, we are still talking about a society that is ancient history, even to Solon and Plato (who are ancient to us!)

Originally posted by Zero Point
Saw a show once that made a serious attempt to delve into the possibility of Atlantis, or at least into forgotten civilisations, and I saw something on there that I have not ever seen since. Discovered by accident whilst flying over the Amazon jungle, was a huge cleared area that looked like it had been used for agriculture. The area was so big that the forest still hadn't reclaimed it, and it was laid out in a geometric pattern and appeared to have been the terraced style crop fields that the South Americans were famous for. Apparently the area would of been sufficient to support nearly a million people with maize and potatoes and whatnot.

This is it!
This is the place I refer to.

.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Also, you forgot the tomatos, they come also from the Andes.

I didn't list them- as I didn't list peppers, oranges, etc.- they are on the links!

Horses are more or less the same size they where 10000 years ago. Before that, they where smaller, but they where more or less the size of a donkey, and they disapered 10 million years ago.

I don't agree with this.
Egyptians and Assyrians had chariot armies-
horses, as we know them today came upon the scene very late. Not Onagers and such but genuine equis cabillus

Less than 10,000 years ago, however, many of these horse-like species became extinct, along with other browsing animals such as mammoths.. . . . In North America, however, horses were wiped out.

One of my favorite military authors, John Keenan in A History of Warfare carefully traces the development of warfare with the horse. Very eye-popping reasoning.

Also, Dupuy and Dupuy encyclopedic study of war updated beyond what I currently use.

Both of these books will provide linear discourse into the evolution of warfare as it relates to the evolution of the horse. Keenan's book will be most illuminating in other aspects as well. Bronze for example- in warfare just how important was this evolution in the arts of metallurgy?

The modern horse is a very evolved animal- much newer to the earth than man!

By looking more closely into the Atlantis story and considering available time lines perhaps thinking relative to the supposed age of Atlantis will become a little more conclusive?

*edit for bb code

[edit on 3/9/2004 by PublicGadfly]

I do not understand what did you not agree to.

Is it the fact that the previous "variations" of horses disappeared 10 million years ago? In that case your right, they disappeared much recently then that, I was wrong.

But that does not mean that horses, as we know them today, appeared more than 50.000 years ago.
When I say horses as know them today I am talking of domestic horses, I am talking of horses biologically as today's horses, one just one finger.
By the way, the name is "Equus Caballus".

Also, the fact that maybe they where smaller than today's horses does not mean that they could not be used in war.

I do not understand what you mean with:

By looking more closely into the Atlantis story and considering available time lines perhaps thinking relative to the supposed age of Atlantis will become a little more conclusive?

Its in occasions like this that the fact that I never learned English in school shows.

Originally posted by ArMaP

I do not understand what you mean with:

By looking more closely into the Atlantis story and considering available time lines perhaps thinking relative to the supposed age of Atlantis will become a little more conclusive?

What I'm getting at is this-
maybe the whole story is true BUT (because of language) we have bits of it wrong.

Gazrok has brought up an interesting place- the far side of South America-
(but is it the far side- what if it's just up a wide muddy river (Amazon)?

So time line people use to try and explain Atlantis- why not use things like vegetables and animals?

We have an easier job with this approach I think.

Its in occasions like this that the fact that I never learned English in school shows.

I don't understand your language at all- I feel bad:dn

So time line people use to try and explain Atlantis- why not use things like vegetables and animals?

We have an easier job with this approach I think.

It's why I prefer to concentrate on the information related to geography mentioned by Solon and Plato, rather than the culture details. It's more likely that the geographical details would be more accurately recorded than sociological details...

I can think of no other place in the world that matches Plato's descriptions SO perfectly, in regards to geography, nor have a seen a case for other suspected locations even coming close to this level of matching the geographical details... Combine all of the matching geography with orichalcum, red/white/black stones, evidence of trade with Egypt, local legends of destruction by flooding, evidence of foreign animals in SA before Columbus' time, etc. and at least in my mind, it makes a pretty solid argument for this place being the Atlantis described by Plato.

Originally posted by Gazrok

So time line people use to try and explain Atlantis- why not use things like vegetables and animals?

We have an easier job with this approach I think.

It's why I prefer to concentrate on the information related to geography mentioned by Solon and Plato, rather than the culture details. It's more likely that the geographical details would be more accurately recorded than sociological details...

I can think of no other place in the world that matches Plato's descriptions SO perfectly, in regards to geography, nor have a seen a case for other suspected locations even coming close to this level of matching the geographical details... Combine all of the matching geography with orichalcum, red/white/black stones, evidence of trade with Egypt, local legends of destruction by flooding, evidence of foreign animals in SA before Columbus' time, etc. and at least in my mind, it makes a pretty solid argument for this place being the Atlantis described by Plato.

My problem is that I can not find those evidences of foreign animals and trade with Egypt.