South America: The Definitive Geographic Location Of Atlantis

Originally posted by Doug Fisher

Thanks Hanslune. Totally agree. No harm in speculating for a likely dig site.

Yes and you've been speculating for about 17 months just in the thread, not that there's anything wrong with that, but I will predict that on 19/3/2015 you'll still be speculating on it.

An empire such as descibed by Plato would not be hard to find, archaeologically speaking, civilizations leave massive traces, or that which removes those traces leaves traces.

Good luck

Originally posted by Doug Fisher
If you have a different personal interpretation of this passage, I honestly look forward to hearing it. Here is the passage in its entirety:

The island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. In this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent." - Timaeus 24e-25a

-Doug

If you check the Greek version, you'll find that Plato refers to this exactly as Jowett translates - as a "true ocean" and not as Oceanus:

Εὐρώπην καὶ Ἀσίαν͵ ἔξωθεν ὁρμηθεῖσαν ἐκ τοῦ Ἀτλαντικοῦ πελάγους. τότε γὰρ πορεύσιμον ἦν τὸ ἐκεῖ πέλαγος· νῆσον γὰρ πρὸ τοῦ στόματος εἶχεν ὃ καλεῖτε͵ ὥς φατε͵ ὑμεῖς Ἡρακλέους στήλας͵ ἡ δὲ νῆσος ἅμα Λιβύης ἦν καὶ Ἀσίας μείζων͵ ἐξ ἧς ἐπιβατὸν ἐπὶ τὰς ἄλλας νήσους τοῖς τότε ἐγίγνετο πορευομένοις͵

I bolded the word "Heracles" in the above to provide people with some reference frame in the above.

Oceanus, in ancient Greek, looks like this: Ὠκεανός.

Now, why would Solon mean Oceanus but not say Oceanus?

Harte

reply to post by Harte

Now, why would Solon mean Oceanus but not say Oceanus?

Probably for the same reason he would mean the Mediterranean but similarly not assign a name. Solon was consistent in describing both bodies of water quite clearly without naming either. Or by your logic are you also suggesting that he was not referring to the Mediterranean when speaking of the λιμήν or harbor inside the Pillars of Heracles?

You do understand and agree Solon is describing a sea that completely surrounded the known world, correct? I believe it may be one of the best descriptions of Oceanus, an πόντον, or open sea, believed to completely surround the ancient Greek world?

Again, it would be very helpful if I knew how you were interpreting Solon's description of this true ocean enclosed by a surrounding continent. You made the bold and apparently unfounded claim that I was "misrepresenting Oceanus here as a belief held by Solon," and you went further by claiming it was a thing that I "cannot possibly know," but you have yet to prove he is not describing Oceanus or explain what body of water he is describing.

-Doug

Originally posted by Doug Fisher
You do understand and agree Solon is describing a sea that completely surrounded the known world, correct? I believe it may be one of the best descriptions of Oceanus, an πόντον, or open sea, believed to completely surround the ancient Greek world?

The word used by Plato for the above is "πέλαγος," which is pelagos which means open sea. You can see it in the quote I provided.

Originally posted by Doug Fisher
Again, it would be very helpful if I knew how you were interpreting Solon's description of this true ocean enclosed by a surrounding continent. You made the bold and apparently unfounded claim that I was "misrepresenting Oceanus here as a belief held by Solon," and you went further by claiming it was a thing that I "cannot possibly know," but you have yet to prove he is not describing Oceanus or explain what body of water he is describing.

-Doug

I do not need to prove what Solon is not doing, as it is you that has postulated what Solon is doing, even though you have no way in the world to know whether what Plato wrote even came from Solon.

I told you what the Greek concept of Oceanus was. You wish to believe that to Solon, an island in the ocean would be seen as "offensive" to Oceanus. That's complete bull, as there are islands all over the ocean. As I stated, the consensus is that Oceanus represents an equatorial current, though some think it means all oceans (including the Med.) If the latter was the case, how could we explain Sicily (for example) within the framework of what you claim about Solon?


Harte

Ok, a little light reading was just what I needed this morning, thanks!

I have to say I had thought of this a while ago when reading some threads on here and other sites that the Germans (Nazi) were constantly making trips to Antarctica and I remember that they always seemed to be stopping off in South America, too. I started trying to make connections to the lost world(s) of long ago but gave up as my research was not panning out.

You have certainly given may people here a reason to give this some serious thought. A mud flow over a delta complete with intense liquefaction could most certainly swallow everything overnight.

I will reread this post in its entirety again and see what else I can contribute. In the meantime, this may just go to show the lengths that those who have the power to write and re-write history have gone to keeping us obscured.
It would be interesting to see what the geophysical and astral alignments of your proposed site for the capital may yield in relation to Orion, Pleiades, the earth ley-lines, Giza, other significant earthly places and so on.

While you post a plethora of information.
I think you're missing out on something.

You have to rule out any underwater places as well.

reply to post by Harte

The word used by Plato for the above is "πέλαγος," which is pelagos which means open sea. You can see it in the quote I provided.

This is true. I pulled pontos from my original quote, which included the entire passage. I saw both words were used, but since pontos is mentioned first I chose it.

Anyway, when the earth was still believed to be a disk in form, Oceanus was indeed believed to flow around the known world as I have described all along. Here’s some definitive proof that runs contrary to what you are suggesting. Herodotus may have been skeptical of the concept, but at least he was able to admit the belief did exist:

"I for my part know of no river Ocean (Okeanus) existing, but I think that Homer or one of the poets who were before him invented the name and introduced it into his verse."

"For it says that the river produces these effects because it flows from the Ocean (Okeanus), and that the Ocean (Okeanus) flows round the whole earth." - The History of Herodotus, Book II

"I cannot but laugh when I see numbers of persons drawing maps of the world without having any reason to guide them; making, as they do, the ocean-stream (Okeanus) to run all round the earth, and the earth itself to be an exact circle, as if described by a pair of compasses."- The History of Herodotus, Book IV

At the time of Solon, most still believed the earth existed in disk form surrounded by Oceanus. Anaximander, a contemporary of Solon believed in a variation of this that placed the world atop a cylinder.

The belief in a spherical earth was still a fringe theory at the time of Solon if it existed at all. It was not until Plato's day that many philosophers were finally starting to buy into the concept, including of course Plato himself. So the possibility that Solon adhered to a theory like Anaximander's, a theory known to have existed around his time is more than reasonable. Whether Plato recorded a true account as is claimed within the account, or he drafted a work of fiction, it is either an impressive insight into Solon’s worldview or an impressive insight into Plato’s clever ability to weave a tall tale.

What is clear is that the Solon of Plato’s account was describing a world very similar to Anaximander’s worldview. And I believe you may be able to realize this, but are simply reluctant to concede this fact.

You wish to believe that to Solon, an island in the ocean would be seen as "offensive" to Oceanus. That's complete bull, as there are islands all over the ocean.

Unfortunately you are misrepresenting what I said. Of course they believed there were islands in the ocean, but Atlantis was said to be an island continent larger than the continents of Libya and Asia combined and hence would have had a tremendous impact on Oceanus. Here is what I actually said:

”[Oceanus] was believed to be a large unimpeded river populated only with a few small islands. The notion of a large continent sized island sitting in its midst impeding flow would not mesh with Solon’s worldview.”

"even though you have no way in the world to know whether what Plato wrote even came from Solon."

I wish you would have thought of that argument earlier, I would have completely agreed and that would have been that. But when you suggested that 'I' was "misrepresenting Oceanus here as a belief held by Solon" and I was putting forth MY "personal opinion of Solon's belief in Oceanus" you gave the impression I was pulling these ideas from thin air. If nothing else comes of this, hopefully you are now willing to acknowledge that Oceanus was indeed once thought to encircle the known world.

I believe that will be it for me on this specific topic unless others have questions.

-Doug

My statement concerning my belief that you misrepresent Solon is valid, considering that you have no way of knowing what Solon believed.

If you read Critias, you'll find the reason Atlantis sank. It wasn't Oceanus that was offended. Since that is spelled out in the text itself, your claim of an offense to Oceanus is, IMO, a misrepresentation.

Also:

”[Oceanus] was believed to be a large unimpeded river populated only with a few small islands

Oceanus was impeded by all the continents. Why didn't they sink as well?

Attempting to place a fictional place (Atlantis) in South America might be a fun mental exercise, but in the end it is as bogus as the Antarctic Atlantis or Greenland Atlantis.

Harte

So,
I've followed along with the recent modern sion, in this thread, between Harte and Doug Fisher, and somewhere in between these extreme positions lies the truth.
On one hand you have the ultra denial of all things atlantean, and on the other a fanciful construct based on an allegorical tale, with historical roots.
Both camps seem to miss the historical clues Plato left us in his narrative, historical clues that are backed up by modern archeological work.

In this passage ,

The island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. In this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent." - Timaeus 24e-25a

we have clues to the true nature of the atlantean empire, or as we know them now , the minoans,
The passage starts with ,"the island was larger than lybia and Asia minor" this is clearly misinterpreted, as a size is given for the island that is not that big, it should read the empire was bigger that Libya and Asia minor, just as the Minoan empire was.
The last sentence , " In this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent." Accurately describes the Minoan controlled portions of the med.,, they had client states among the Myceneans, military outposts throught Iberia, and trade posts as far as britain, and Sweden.

Originally posted by punkinworks10
So,
I've followed along with the recent modern sion, in this thread, between Harte and Doug Fisher, and somewhere in between these extreme positions lies the truth.
On one hand you have the ultra denial of all things atlantean, and on the other a fanciful construct based on an allegorical tale, with historical roots.
Both camps seem to miss the historical clues Plato left us in his narrative, historical clues that are backed up by modern archeological work.
The last sentence , " In this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent." Accurately describes the Minoan controlled portions of the med.,, they had client states among the Myceneans, military outposts throught Iberia, and trade posts as far as britain, and Sweden.

I agree with you on the Minoans, but I don't agree that Plato was writing about them.

Plato's tale is pure allegory. The reason he invented the story about Solon writing a poem about it is that Solon was revered as a legitimate reformer. Many in Plato's time, including Plato himself, likely saw Solon as the saviour of Athens, and rightly so. He was the saviour of Athens during his time there as an Archon in Athens. His reforms actually withered, but set the stage for and the shape of future reformations that did eventually succeed and allowed Athens to flourish to a greater extent than ever before.

Plato, after the death of Socrates, held the Athens of his day in poor esteem. The allegory of Atlantis was about what would (or, at least, should) happen to cultures that turn their backs on peace and harmony and their own people.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Hey there Harte,
I would have to disagree with your last post, to a point, there are so many aspects of the story that fit with want we know about the minoans, that it's is a near certainty that a historical reference was used as the frame work for the dialogues.
It was upon this historical foundation that Plato builds his purely philosophical critique of the Athens in which lived.
To take this work as either a strictly philosophical exercise or a literal account of past history, is a mistake, as it is both. The story is much like a woven textile, with a mix of threads combining to form a tapestry of history and philosophical/political commentary.

Beyond what i I have mentioned previously , other aspects of the story are clearly historic references. The mention of having hot and cold fountains, fits with what we know of the ruins at Akrotiri.

The part of the tale that says the island was unreachable due to a"sea of mud", very likely is an account of an encounter with a pumice raft around the island of thera after the eruption.
The tremendous amount of ash and pumice deposited on the island alone was only a small portion of what it spewed out, the rest would have fallen on the sea around the island.

reply to post by Harte

My statement concerning my belief that you misrepresent Solon is valid, considering that you have no way of knowing what Solon believed.

If you read Critias, you'll find the reason Atlantis sank. It wasn't Oceanus that was offended. Since that is spelled out in the text itself, your claim of an offense to Oceanus is, IMO, a misrepresentation.

Oceanus was impeded by all the continents. Why didn't they sink as well?

Your claim that my "claim of an offense to Oceanus is, IMO, a misrepresentation" is an extreme misrepresentation of my claim. :-)

I was hoping to give you somewhat of an easy out and let you have the last word, but I didn't foresee this. I have no idea where you came up with this story of Oceanus—the titan and ocean personified I assume—being offended and being responsible for the sinking of Atlantis. And you clearly believe I am claiming that Atlantis sank as you are asking why other continents didn't sink likewise by my logic.

Yet this is entirely opposite of what I have claimed. My argument was that Atlantis never actually sank. How did you go from originally challenging me because I claimed Atlantis had not sunk and exists today in the form of South America to now arguing that I am claiming Atlantis did sink and at the hand of Oceanus no less?

Just a quick refresher: My claim is that Solon in adapting an ancient Egyptian tale to his Greek worldview, may have applied the sinking of Atlantis' capital island city to the whole of the continent since it was believed that no large continents occupied Oceanus.

Modern researchers have similarly made grand scale adjustments to the ancient Greek tale of Atlantis, applying the sinking of a large continent in the Atlantic to a small island in the Mediterranean as in the case of Santorini and Crete, two top candidates for Atlantis according to some historians. This adjustment was due in part to the fact that there is no evidence of a sunken continent in the middle of the Atlantic.

In both instances ancient accounts were subjected to extreme modifications in order for them to conform with contemporary worldview.

-Doug

reply to post by evc1shop

Hello evc1shop.

Hope you enjoyed the read. Interesting as well that many Nazis immigrated to Argentina, of course this was for reasons unrelated to Argentina being the possible location of Atlantis' capital. Immigration laws were extremely lax and the country became a safe haven for war criminals.

As for the mud flow delta theory, you may find this essay interesting. It details a theory proposed by the late Ulf Richter entitled Plato 's Atlantis was in a River Delta.

-Doug

reply to post by Doug Fisher
Thanks for the link, I don't have time to read it today but have it bookmarked now.
As far as why there was so much travel to that area, well, immigration laws may have been lax but I wonder if someone ever looked closely at the occupations of those who went there. Perhaps they were mostly scientists of some sort, I can only guess so I will leave it at that. Great post though, thanks!

Originally posted by Doug Fisher
reply to post by Harte

 

My statement concerning my belief that you misrepresent Solon is valid, considering that you have no way of knowing what Solon believed.

If you read Critias, you'll find the reason Atlantis sank. It wasn't Oceanus that was offended. Since that is spelled out in the text itself, your claim of an offense to Oceanus is, IMO, a misrepresentation.

Oceanus was impeded by all the continents. Why didn't they sink as well?

Your claim that my "claim of an offense to Oceanus is, IMO, a misrepresentation" is an extreme misrepresentation of my claim. :-)

I was hoping to give you somewhat of an easy out and let you have the last word, but I didn't foresee this. I have no idea where you came up with this story of Oceanus—the titan and ocean personified I assume—being offended and being responsible for the sinking of Atlantis.

From here:

Likewise, Solon made it clear that he was adapting an ancient Egyptian historical account to his worldview when he described the world in the terms of a contemporary view established by Greek philosopher Anaximander and not within the Egyptian worldview. The Atlantic was believed to be part of Oceanus, a large river which flowed around the known world of Europe, Africa, and Asia. It was believed to be a large unimpeded river populated only with a few small islands. The notion of a large continent sized island sitting in its midst impeding flow would not mesh with Solon’s worldview.

Therefore, I believe that Solon, in similar fashion as modern researchers, may have made similar grand scale changes to the account so that it conformed to his worldview. The original Egyptian account of the sinking of the small island capital city was applied to the whole of the continent to return Oceanus to its known form, still flowing unimpeded, but over a submerged continent. (Go here for more details.)

I misinterpreted what you were saying about why you believe that Solon sank Atlantis.

Note that you have made several invalid assumptions yourself, quoted above.

First, you assume that the Atlantic was thought to be part of Oceanus during Solon's time. This is an idea you yourself have embraced, though it's not known from any archaeology or mythology, nor any ancient writings or artwork or any evidence at all that is extant from Solon's time, as I've indicated.

Second, you assume Solon's worldview is known well enough by you that you can state with certainty how he felt about Oceanus and why he had to change the story to "fit" this idea. I wonder where you learned this about Solon. After all, very few of Solon's works survived into a literate era.

Third, you whole-heartedly assume that Solon heard a tale in Egypt that he later turned in to a poem in which he took certain liberties with the gist of the story.

Fourth, you assume that Plato came across this tale, when Plato's time is well attested - in Greek and Egyptian archaeology and history - and no mythology in either country contains anything even slightly resembling the story.

Originally posted by Doug FisherAnd you clearly believe I am claiming that Atlantis sank as you are asking why other continents didn't sink likewise by my logic.

Here you misinterpret me. I do not think this. It was your claim that Solon had the place sink. I was under the impression that you were saying that Solon would have thought that Oceanus wouldn't like it. I see now that it is simply because you believe you know enough about the way Solon thought to ascribe to him certain qualities that make it possible for your claim to withstand the very core of Plato's tale - that Atlantis sank because they fell into disfavor with the gods due to their own actions - a moral that thinking people that are educated in the works of Plato and his contemporaries realize to be Plato's warning to Athens and the society of his day.

Harte

Amazing thread! Can't wait to dig in deeper and confirm your research for myself. From What I've read so, starting with your 2000 year old map thread, then some of this one, I'm impressed, excited and mostly mind-blown. Excellent work man!