Discussion in 'Community' started by SuperWatto, Nov 10, 2012.
I vote we move to this new and "controversial" topic.
After we've dunked or debunked Atlantis, sure.
Just out of curiosity, what is the crieria for establishing whether a myth is "dunked" or debunked"?
Harmonious agreement among Senate folk.
I think it is likely Atlantis existed, although where is still obviously a big subject of debate.
I've even seen theories that claim it was actually miles inland and that a massive Tsunami then flooded the area. I'm sure at some point there will be a discovery that pretty much proves where what would have been Atlantis was and what happened to it.
I have seen numerous TV programs that have strong evidence to support the claim that Santorini may well be the place where Atlantis once was, only time will tell if that is true.
Plato mentioned it.
I've always wondered about these widespread and varied accounts and how they might relate to an actual event. I suppose I've assumed that it would have had to do not necessarily with a flashpoint flood event in 40 days, but that it might be the way many societies worldwide recorded the aftermath of the ice age and the ice caps melting. (I know there's more specific stuff on this, and more specific theories as well about other possible floods, but I confess to not having a deep knowledge of those).
What I do know is that archaeology has shown in recent years that human civilization is indeed much older than we used to think. Obviously there are the older and older cave paintings that we've discovered going well back to 30,000 BCE and beyond. But then there are actual structures. You have the Theopetra Cave in Greece, which has a manmade wall in front of it dating to about 21,000 BCE. So okay, ancient man could build walls. That's not really indicative of a city-based society.
However, what about the section of a tower in Jericho that dates to 8,000 BCE? I got to visit this site as part of an archaeology course in Palestine a couple years ago, and it's pretty damned incredible to think about. If there was a city there 10,000 years ago, could there have also been cities elsewhere? In fact, isn't it likely that it wasn't the only city in the world (and certainly the region)?
My point is that I find the possibility of an ancient city in the Mediterranean that was flooded to be fairly plausible both from an archaeological and climatological perspective. Would it have been huge? Probably not. Would it have had lots of advanced technology and knowledge? No, though perhaps to other peoples of the era it might have seemed so. More than likely if such a city did exist and was overtaken by flooding (and, as I think Mike pointed out, it might have been made of wood and left no evidence that could survive this long... though not many stone structures would have either, to be fair), stories of it would have been exaggerated over the years, just as stories of a possible real massive flood would have been.
Anyway, I'm not saying Atlantis definitely existed. I'm saying that I think it's plausible.
I say it's based on a real place(perhaps not literally Santorini) but has been warped as a story so much to make it all far too removed from its reality.
I'm leaning more towards "Atlantis" being a boat which sunk in bad seas and the story just grew from there.
Well duh. Any BSG fan would know this.
On the other hand, perhaps they wouldn't since the finale taught us that technology is the root of all evil, and the best way to solve everything is to live like animals on the savannah while interbreeding with Australopithecus.
As someone who hates the "this guy said something so therefore it must be true" school the pervades much of accepted ancient history (Atlantis fortunately being largely an exception), I feel the need to weigh in. In all likelihood, it's complete bull****, or near enough that it makes no difference. The similarities Plato's account (that he wasn't terribly concerned with anyway) have to real world civilizations are vague enough that they could easily just be coincidence and the result of overreaching by historians and archaeologists with fringe ideas. Never mind that Plato is practically the only source we have-- yes, perhaps due to other sources being lost or never written down in the first place, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be extremely skeptical.
Although I accept the possibility it is "based on" something factual, the story is still mostly fictional. I would consider Plato's story as good a source for whatever Atlantis actually was as LotR is for WWI battles.
I started to argue this point via IM before you left (BECAUSE YOU WERE AFRAID), but what the hell are you talking about? Middle Eastern settlements being very ancient isn't exactly a new idea.
I fairly well agree with Darth Guy's point, it may be based off of something, but it's so vague as to not be useful, and certainly not of the scope at which is expected. A huge portion of people live close to the ocean, and most civilizations were located next to the ocean or along rivers. Rivers flood, and oceans have storm surges, tsunamis, and changes in sea levels. It's only natural that stories will be about that because that stuff happens. Especially as we know about plenty of cities that did end up submerged, in full or part. It's a common enough thing that it's reasonable more fanciful stories were developed.
It's a legend.
We've kinda found Troy, right?
Kind of. In that there's a place that various people over the millennia (including Romans) pointed to as the Troy from The Iliad. Another source of annoyance for me. Besides the fact that it's where Troy would probably be (within the area Greeks settled at the time) and it's old enough and "GUYZ THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A BATTLE HERE," there's absolutely no evidence that it actually is the Homeric Troy. Blegh, fiction.
Right - it could have been inspired by real Troy, but really isn't that close to the one of legend.
To be fair, it would be very difficult to find something to qualify any place definitively as the "Homeric Troy," assuming one exists.
And it's even harder to find "Atlantis".
Where's the Garder of Eden?
Yes, it would be. That doesn't mean we should use the label anyway.
The Garden of Eden actually has a number of plausible reasons it can't be found using the story's own internal logic. Those being: A) the angels bearing flaming swords who kill those who try to approach and B)a global flood that logically would have destroyed any sort of garden that existed prior.
THAT's why we can't find Atlantis. Angels with flaming swords.
I didn't mean to impugn anyone's swordsmanship.
Most myths are based on something real and then exaggerated & distorted by many centuries or more of re-telling by different people.
I'm not that informed on historical myths, but the existence of many mythical beasts can easily be explained by ancient people misinterpreting fossils of creatures we actually know of (such as Protoceratops being mistaken for a Gryffin) or ones that currently exist (Narwhal tusks were often used in the past to explain the existence of Unicorns).
So even if Atlantis is not the way Plato described it or Troy the way it is portrayed in the Iliad, it is possible they existed somewhere and were bigged-up by time and dramatic license.
People, it's not Santorini.
The old Greek made it very clear that Atlantis woulda been outside the Mediterranean Sea:
The only place that I can find, relatively close to the Mediterranean and relatively close to 10,000 BC, that's flooded and sunk, is this.
THE MEGAFLOOD THAT MADE BRITAIN AN ISLAND
It would seem Poseidon anticipated British euroscepsis.
Those were clearly Homo sapiens.
Stop being a racist.