Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 17th, 2012, 12:28 AM   #51

Shaddam IV's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,194

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarin View Post
Gobekli Tepe demostrates that a formerly unknown civilization existed at the same time that Atlantis existed as was postulated by Plato. For years the archeological community argued that there was "no possible evidence" of any advanced societies existing at this time. Gobekli Tepe categorically disproves this contention especially since it is precisely contemporaneous with the Atlantis timeline. You just hate to admit that archeology has been very wrong about its' assumptions about the past. And Gobekli Tepe forces Academia to eat crow.
Oh now a "religious site" covering 25 hectares is somehow not a civilization. Get real. You weasles will slip out of responsibility like greased pigs. Every single day even more startling discoveries are being made about this "Neolithic" civilization. A convenient way to denigrate the incredible accomplishments this unknown people had created. Egypt was essentially a "neolithic civilization since it built in stone, which is what "neolithic means. You don't get a complex this size without organization and a huge "religious site" automatically implies what civilization actually means. Organization, planning and logistics. Or may be your definition of civilization is always going to coincide with your vacillation about anything that doesn't fit your current view or Gobekli Tepe's purpose as well. Only 10% of this huge complex has been uncovered and implications are already showing up that it was far more than just some simple temple. THat it was also a trade center certainly undermines your simple religious site fantasy.
The existence of an unknown civilization found to have existed contemporaneously with the exact timeline Plato gives for Atlantis certainly does offer some credulity for a civilization, that up until now; was considered "unlikely, impossible, far fetched and lunatic fringe." Or are you unaware of what the term "credulity" actually means?
So is Atlantis. Now that brings into question what other assumptions has Archeology gotten wrong?
Just that Archeology would have instantly denied the possibility of the existence of Gobekli Tepe a mere 20 years ago. It has been denying the existence Atlantis for hundreds of years. Now with the existence of the previously "unknown" Gobekli Tepe, Archeology cannot maintain a 100% surety on that former position on the non-existence of a possible Atlantis. If Archeology was unaware of Gobekli Tepe what else is it unaware of?.

Well now archeology has new evidence that their iron-clad assumptions are no longer crack proof.
First of all, I am not trying to demean anything. I do not have to do what archeology has already amply demonstrated. That it does not have all the answers. Not even close. Certainly Gobekli Tepe has demonstrated this. That there are many archeologists, who have an arrogance of knowledge that they should know will never be complete. Never.That there are possibilities still awaiting the examination and discovery of those archeologists that do not have concrete closed minded opinion and can approach this field with an open mind. Future discovery will very much depend on having an open mind. Nothing can ever be discovered in any field of endeavor with a closed one. And you should know this.
And if you continue to refer to examination of the Atlantis legend or mythos as "Pseudo-History" this merely demonstrates how closed your mind actually is. There is no information of any credulity, anywhere that proves or disproves the existence of Atlantis. It has all been speculation and often quite viscious in intent. Not at establishing knowledge but undermining personalities, credibility and imagination. One would think that any person of inquiry and conscience would want to know the complete truth about mankind's past. No matter where it leads. No matter how many assumptions have to be discarded. And I for one am willing to do so as well. I often discard my own assumptions. Can you?
However, as to Atlantis, many of the current archeological trends point to a growing interest in finding or proving its' existence once and for all. The discovery of which will make whomever finds Atlantis, the most famous archeologist of all time (outside of Indiana Jones). However, I personally have always believed everyone has been looking for it in all the wrong places. Moreover, Plato didn't get it transmitted down to him 100% accurately. Plus he added a few imaginative stretches. But he did the best he could under the intellectual circumstances.
Sigh, more of the same I see.

And I see you’re already throwing up the straw man arguments; please point out where I ever said that professional archeological was all knowing or infallible. Oh that’s right; I never stated any such thing.

Your interpretation of what the Gobekli Tepe site means and your view of mainstream professional archaeology are meaningless to me. So far you have not cited one piece of modern academic scholarship supporting anything you have said. All you have done is thrown up Gobekli Tepe or the existence of Troy as a smoke screen to deflect from your inability to present any logical argument based actual evidence for why I or anyone else should believe that Atlantis was a real civilization that existed at some point instead of plot device created by Plato. Neither the existence of Gobekli Tepe or Troy provides any inherent support for the possible existence of Atlantis.

A century of Atlantis hunters have found nothing to prove it even a plausible possibility, let alone its actual existence. This is a fact.

When you actually have argument or evidence let me know, so far all I have seen is your posts are you displaying your lack of understanding of real archaeological work, appropriate scientific methodology, and a clear lack of critical thinking skills on your part. Just because something might exist does not mean that it did or must have as you seem to be arguing with Atlantis.

Atlantis is a fictional place created by Plato for a story, nothing more.

Last edited by Shaddam IV; November 17th, 2012 at 12:54 AM.
Shaddam IV is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 17th, 2012, 05:44 AM   #52

Dreamhunter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 2,733
Blog Entries: 1

Maybe we should all have a word with Commander Adama over coffee about this. Who knows, he might have a clue or two. The Sumerian-Mayan link, I mean.
Dreamhunter is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 06:02 AM   #53

davu's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2010
From: Retired - This Mountain isn't on a Map
Posts: 3,807

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarin
If Archeology was unaware of Gobekli Tepe what else is it unaware of?.
oh - ouch. this one really hurts --

i want to know how the "natives" (you know - the ones who could barely rub two sticks together for fire) cut, moved, shaped, and mounted these stones.

lets start with the engineering behind Tiwanaku - Tiahuanaco

Tiwanaku - Tiahuanacu, Kalassasaya, Gateway of the Sun, Akapana and Puma Punku!

chances are the usual crowd of 3 monkeys will launch the usual screaming denials and then jump right off the cliff into the van daniken stuff - all i want from the deniers is simple --- "how did they do it and when?" -- that's all -- simple -- a 7 word question.

Click the image to open in full size.


edit -- almost forgot

could the deniers be so kind as to include the "report" from the smithsonian with the listed professionals who contributed to the research -- it would be really helpful.
davu is online now  
Old November 17th, 2012, 06:23 AM   #54

Hresvelgr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,025
Blog Entries: 1

For the love of god look at your own source first. Here are the people who you are using to support your argument, from your very own source's "About Us" page. And "could barely make fires"? I have half a mind to call you a bigot for that. You must be purposefully ignoring better sources, as even wikipedia gives a sourced article on the construction of Tiwanaku.
Hresvelgr is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 06:36 AM   #55

davu's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2010
From: Retired - This Mountain isn't on a Map
Posts: 3,807

i asked for the "engineering" and "age" . and here is an example of the report you listed

Quote:
together by ternary (copper/arsenic/nickel) bronze architectural cramps.
Quote:
The Plataforma Lítica contains the largest stone block found in the Tiwanaku Site.[19][21] Ponce Sangines[19] estimated weight of this block to be 131 metric tons. He estimated the weight of the second largest stone block that is found within the Pumapunka to be 85 metric tons.
"architectural cramps" -- really. so, these people had smeltering capabilities......

my question was "cut, moved, shaped, and mounted these stones"

what did they use to move a "85 metric ton" rock....... or for that matter a "131 metric ton" rock

shouldn't be that difficult

another note of interest from your source

Quote:
On that occasion permission was given to Harvard's Summer School to allow a team mostly composed of untrained students to dig the site. The controversy, charged with nationalistic and political undertones that characterized the archaeology of Tiwanaku [33] faded rapidly without any response from the directors. However, the project did not continue in subsequent years.
davu is online now  
Old November 17th, 2012, 06:41 AM   #56

Hresvelgr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,025
Blog Entries: 1

On Wikipedia you can do this "amazing" thing where you check links and sources that the article hands you on a silver platter. Here's an example talking about the moving of stones. And I see you're still not explaining your shockingly rude remark claiming that the natives (and using quotation marks to imply that the Aymara aren't even really native to the region) were too stupid to build things and could barely make fire. You're lucky I haven't already reported this so you better get to explaining fast. It's a well known fact that the ancient South Americans knew how to smelt, they had metal tools and weapons. The Spanish noted this and certainly didn't seem to believe only Atlanteans or Sumerians could have taught them this.
Hresvelgr is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 09:37 AM   #57

Zarin's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,465

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaddam IV View Post
Sigh, more of the same I see.

And I see you’re already throwing up the straw man arguments; please point out where I ever said that professional archeological was all knowing or infallible. Oh that’s right; I never stated any such thing.

Your interpretation of what the Gobekli Tepe site means and your view of mainstream professional archaeology are meaningless to me. So far you have not cited one piece of modern academic scholarship supporting anything you have said. All you have done is thrown up Gobekli Tepe or the existence of Troy as a smoke screen to deflect from your inability to present any logical argument based actual evidence for why I or anyone else should believe that Atlantis was a real civilization that existed at some point instead of plot device created by Plato. Neither the existence of Gobekli Tepe or Troy provides any inherent support for the possible existence of Atlantis.

A century of Atlantis hunters have found nothing to prove it even a plausible possibility, let alone its actual existence. This is a fact.

When you actually have argument or evidence let me know, so far all I have seen is your posts are you displaying your lack of understanding of real archaeological work, appropriate scientific methodology, and a clear lack of critical thinking skills on your part. Just because something might exist does not mean that it did or must have as you seem to be arguing with Atlantis.

Atlantis is a fictional place created by Plato for a story, nothing more.
This OP is not about proving the existence of Atlantis. A subject I have spent a considerable amount of my time examining, collating and evaluating. I have written many dissertations on Atlantis and even have a pamphlet available for free download on this very subject.
It is true that a century of Atlantis hunters have not found the actual site of Atlantis...yet. Mainly because the technology for exploring the depths of the ocean have only recently become possible. But does it not seem strange to your unimaginative mind that so many credible archeologists are actually out seeking it? And millions are being spent on this "useless" search? Apparently there are many archeological teams who do not agree with your assertion that "Atlantis is a fictional place." Moreover, there are several places on this planet being seriously investigated as the actual location of the Atlantis legend. Santorini is currently considered the best or leading contender. And Plato could very well have integrated some of the legends surrounding the Minoans into his account. However, several locations in the Caribbean and the Eastern Atlantic are also being investigated. Not to mention several new very interesting sites discovered near Cuba. Plus, several off the various coasts of the Gulf of Mexico. Where have you been for the last 30 years?
I, for one, consider that the actual remains of the physical Atlantis can not be found. Unless my estimation of what trillions of tons of water cascading down upon it would do to its' remains are wrong. We might find small pieces and some indications of a civilization there. But no enough to prove it is Atlantis. However, Atlantis did have colonies and one of these might soon be located or discovered. But you have to accept the existence of Atlantis in order to discover one of these colonies and realize who actually established it. Sort of like finding a completely unknown and undiscovered purposely buried civilization. One that built its "temples" in a three ringed motif. Who would dream of ever connecting such a place to a progenitor considered to be a fantasy?
I have also considered the very real probability that repositories of information concerning Atlantis may have been created before the final subsumation. Moreover, I have always suspected everyone is looking for the actual Atlantis in the wrong place. Moreover, I do not accept Plato's account as 100% accurate. Which is a reasonable assumption and not a blatant rejection of this brilliant man's capacity to engender or record what he believed was history.
All I have ever argued about any subject is to have an open mind and not close it like a steel trap to ideas that somehow insult your intellectual assumptions and vanity. You say: "Atlantis is a fictional place created by Plato." A very tired and unprovable refrain that may have once held water before Gobekli Tepe was discovered. Not anymore. And the arrogance of the modern mentality that goes to great length to insult the intelligence of one of the greatest philosophers, who ever came out of the Hellenistic era. Plato was a very logical man and was not prone to inventing or creating some "fantasy" about a lost continent. You do not go to the great length and detail to describe a culture, such as Plato did in the Timaeus and Critias dialogues. Especially if you do not believe the information you are presenting is both credible and logical. It has never occurred to those, who poo-poo Plato's account; that he actually believed Atlantis existed. And Plato most likely would have acquired and collated various information to establish Atlantis as a real place. You do know that the Greeks were well aware of a place in Morocco where a race of people they referred to as "Atlanteans" resided? These people actually lived near the mountain chain named after Atlas. And this is not any fantasy. So Plato had certain reasons to believe Atlantis itself was real and that these Moroccan Atlanteans were related to the inhabitants of the lost continent. Might it not be very interesting to check out the mythos of the peoples who still reside in the area these ancient Atlanteans once also resided in? There is a very likely possibility that Plato may also have mixed information on several regional historical accounts including Santorini. One of the arguments used in supporting Santorini was that the timeline on Atlantis was often porported as a mathematical "mistake" on either Plato's behalf or the priests of Sais. Gobekli Tepe now casts tremendous doubt on this line of reasoning. Especially since Gobekli Tepe is dated at the exact same time as Plato gave for Atlantis. So much for Plato's incompetence in math.
For all that is so far known, Atlantis and Gobekli Tepe may very well be directly connected. All the structures there appear to have been constructed in a three ringed pattern. A singular assignation of Atlantis as well. Three concentric rings. There is no logical reasoning for this unique design (that we are so far aware of) accept as a possible homage to the land of origin? But would anyone investigating Gobekli Tepe even deign to notice this?
It has never dawned on the Plato "fantasy" theorists, that Plato had access to many resources. And very likely sources of knowledge that no longer exist. Or have you conveniently forgotten about what records may have once existed in the Great Library of Alexandria? A library destroyed in three distinct phases. Information totally lost to us. Who knows how many other references to Atlantis once actually existed?
All of these are very likely probabilities that would be just too much for any "logical" mind such as yours to remotely acknowledge.

Last edited by Zarin; November 17th, 2012 at 09:45 AM.
Zarin is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 09:50 AM   #58

Shaddam IV's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,194

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarin View Post
This OP is not about proving the existence of Atlantis. A subject I have spent a considerable amount of my time examining, collating and evaluating. I have written many dissertations on Atlantis and even have a pamphlet available for free download on this very subject.
It is true that a century of Atlantis hunters have not found the actual site of Atlantis...yet. Mainly because the technology for exploring the depths of the ocean have only recently come on line. But does it not seem strange to your unimaginative mind that so many credible archeologists are actually out seeking it? And millions are being spent on this "useless" search? Apparently there are many archeological teams who do not agree with your assertion that "Atlantis is a fictional place." Moreover, there are several places on this planet being seriously investigated as the actual location of the Atlantis legend. Santorini is currently considered the best or leading contender. And Plato could very well have integrated some of the legends surrounding the Minoans into his account. However, several locations in the Caribbean and the Eastern Atlantic are also being investigated. Not to mention several new very interesting sites discovered near Cuba. pLus, several off the various coasts of the Gulf of Mexico. Where have you been for the last 30 years?
I, for one, consider that the actual remains of the physical Atlantis can not be found. Unless my estimation of what trillions of tons of water cascading down upon it would do to its' remains are wrong. We might find small pieces and some indications of a civilization there. But no enough to prove it is Atlantis. However, Atlantis did have colonies and one of these might soon be located or discovered. But you have to accept the existence of Atlantis in order to discover one of these colonies and realize who actually established it. Sort of like finding a completely unknown and undiscovered purposely buried civilization. One that built its "temples in a three ringed motif. Who would dream of ever connecting such a place to a progenitor considered to be a fantasy?
I have also considered the very real probability that repositories of information concerning Atlantis may have been created before the final subsumation. Moreover, I have always suspected everyone is looking for the actual Atlantis in the wrong place. Moreover, I do not accept Plato's account as 100% accurate. Which is a reasonable assumption and not a blatant rejection of this brilliant man's capacity to engender or record what he believed was history.
All I have ever argued about any subject is to have an open mind and not close it like a steel trap to ideas that somehow insult your intellectual assumptions and vanity. You say: "Atlantis is a fictional place created by Plato." A very tired and unprovable refrain that may have once held water before Gobekli Tepe was discovered. Not anymore. And the arrogance of the modern mentality that goes to great length to insult the intelligence of one of the greatest philosophers, who ever came out of the Hellenistic era. Plato was a very logical man and was not prone to inventing or creating some "fantasy" about a lost continent. You do not go to the great length and detail to describe a culture, such as Plato did in the Timaeus and Critias dialogues. Especially if you do not believe the information you are presenting is both credible and logical. It has never occurred to those, who poo-poo Plato's account; that he actually believed Atlantis existed. And Plato most likely would have acquired and collated various information to establish Atlantis as a real place. You do know that the Greeks were well aware of a place in Morocco where a race of people they referred to as "Atlanteans" resided? These people actually lived near the mountain chain named after Atlas. And this is not any fantasy. So Plato had certain reasons to believe Atlantis itself was real and that these Moroccan Atlanteans were related to the inhabitants of the lost continent. There is a very likely possibility that Plato may also have mixed information on several regional historical accounts including Santorini. One of the arguments used in supporting Santorini was that the timeline on Atlantis was often porported as a mathematical "mistake" on either Plato's behalf or the priests of Sais. Gobekli Tepe now casts tremendous doubt on this line of reasoning. Especially since Gobekli Tepe is dated at the exact same time as Plato gave for Atlantis. So much for Plato's incompetence in math.
For all that is so far known, Atlantis and Gobekli Tepe may very well be directly connected. All the structures there appear to have been constructed in a three ringed pattern. A singular assignation for Atlantis as well. Three concentric rings. There is no logical reasoning for this unique design (that we are so far aware of) accept as a possible homage to the land of origin? But would anyone investigating Gobekli Tepe even notice this?
It has never dawned on the Plato "fantasy" theorists, that Plato had access to many resources. And very likely sources of knowledge that no longer exist. Or have you conveniently forgotten about what records may have once existed in the Great Library of Alexandria? A library destroyed in three distinct phases. Information totally lost to us. Who knows how many other references to Atlantis once actually existed? All of these are very likely probabilities that would be just too much for any "logical" mind such as yours to remotely acknowledge.
Still no evidence or argument I see, just more long winded bloviating that fails to address the complete lack of any verifiable evidence of Atlantis’s existence.

Accounts of the eruption at Santorini way have well be provided Plato with some inspiration for his fictional account of the war between Athens and Atlantis, but ruins found at Santorini are clearly not from some 12,000 year old civilization.

What little you do say is just follows the stereotypical responses from other true believers of Atlantis.

Hall of Maat - The New Atlantis and the Dangers of Pseudohistory
Quote:
Proponents of this so-called alternative view invariably interpret non-acceptance of their theories by professional scholars as a consequence of a blinkered and arrogant academic prejudice against "new thinking" that threatens to upset the status quo and show the experts up as wrong. Their writings are laden with rhetoric that characterizes university scholarship as religious dogma and criticism from professionals as a sort of inquisition bent on suppressing the truth. But investigation into the background of their "new" thoughts reveals that not a single element is original. In reality, they are a mosaic of retooled flotsam and jetsam from various speculative movements that have been with us since the 16th century. [5]
All actual available historical evidence dealing with Atlantis shows it to be a literary invention of Plato.

Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology: From Atlantis to the Walam Olum
http://books.google.com/books?id=xmDnhPNLwYwC&pg=PA71&dq=cult+archaeology& hl=en&sa=X&ei=eM-nUOXpFIao9gTJh4DQDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBA#v=onepag e&q=Atlantis&f=false
Quote:
Now consider Plato's story of a conflict between Athens and Atlantis, which surely would have been viewed as an event every bit as significant for Athens as the Revolutionary War was for the United States. It is inconceivable that there would be no mention of a great military victory by ancient Athens over Atlantis--or anyplace even vaguely like it--in the works of Greek historians who followed Plato. Yet this is precisely the case. For example, there is no mention of Atlantis in the historical work Panathecaicus by Isocrates, written between 342 and 339 BCE, even to deny its reality. The same is true in later versions of Athenian history. Similarly, you will not read the discourses of modern historians arguing for or disputing the historicity of the Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, because these are understood, of course, as works of fiction. In much the same way, Greek historians who followed Plato did not feel the need even to discuss his story of Atlantis; they understood it as the work of fiction Plato intended it to be.-pg.33
Like I said before; let me know when you have actual argument or evidence to support the actual existence of Atlantis.
Shaddam IV is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 10:27 AM   #59

Zarin's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,465

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaddam IV View Post
Still no evidence or argument I see, just more long winded bloviating that fails to address the complete lack of any verifiable evidence of Atlantis’s existence. Accounts of the eruption at Santorini way have well be provided Plato with some inspiration for his fictional account of the war between Athens and Atlantis, but ruins found at Santorini are clearly not from some 12,000 year old civilization.
The very same can be said for your responses. Although I believe I am capable of coming up with far more creative metaphors for your behavior. Like a "brick wall, stick in the mud, mind like an empty closet and the sounds of a constant vapid parrotting of other people's opinion. I could get even more creative, but wish to remain reasonably civil. Nothing of any validity from you, just more opinion on top of opinion on top of opinion from your inane responses.
Just endless links to dubious opinions about what is not fact. Except that now you can no longer hold to Plato totally invented Atlantis since you just agreed he may have included historical actuality concerning Santorini. Gosh what else might Plato have included that he believed was fact. Your logic is decaying very fast. Obviously, since you, yourself, have asserted that his account was not entirely fable. So much foryour assertion that "Atlantis is a fantasy created by Plato." What other silliness lies at the heart of your intellectual fears?
Quote:
What little you do say is just follows the stereotypical responses from other true believers of Atlantis.
And what absolutely empty response you offer, come from those who refuse to even imagine that Atlantis could have existed. You cannot defend your logic without assistance from some link. Or without buzzwords like "pseudo history, stereotypical, fantasy, bloviating." How about rigid, unimaginative, parrotting, closed minded, dull, fearful, inane, weak and vapid as designations for your not so clever blathering. Again I remove myself from the more colorful possibilities out of civility.
I can find hundreds of links to support my views, but do not do this; because I am quite capable of defending my own views on my own. Moreover, I did get you to accede to at least one of my points. Not all of Plato's information was based on "fantasy." How many other assumptions are you making about Plato's account that you cannot personally validate? Something the brilliant Plato was obviously not a victim of. But then not everyone is as smart as Plato was. But some assume they are smarter than he was and know what he was thinking.

Last edited by Zarin; November 17th, 2012 at 10:48 AM.
Zarin is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 12:08 PM   #60

Shaddam IV's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,194

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarin View Post
The very same can be said for your responses. Although I believe I am capable of coming up with far more creative metaphors for your behavior. Like a "brick wall, stick in the mud, mind like an empty closet and the sounds of a constant vapid parrotting of other people's opinion. I could get even more creative, but wish to remain reasonably civil. Nothing of any validity from you, just more opinion on top of opinion on top of opinion from your inane responses. Just endless links to dubious opinions about what is not fact. Except that now you can no longer hold to Plato totally invented Atlantis since you just agreed he may have included historical actuality concerning Santorini. Gosh what else might Plato have included that he believed was fact. Your logic is decaying very fast. Obviously, since you, yourself, have asserted that his account was not entirely fable. So much foryour assertion that "Atlantis is a fantasy created by Plato." What other silliness lies at the heart of your intellectual fears?
I have cited the opinion and views of actual archaeologist, you on the other hand have provided nothing to substantiate any of your claims except your own assertions and beleifs.

That Plato's Atlantis story may have been influenced by some real event in no way proves that the civilization of Atlantis, has described by Plato and those who today envision it, ever existed. Their are lot of fictional stories that draw inspiration from real history and events, but that does not make the any more less fictional.

Quote:
And what absolutely empty response you offer, come from those who refuse to even imagine that Atlantis could have existed. You cannot defend your logic without assistance from some link. Or without buzzwords like "pseudo history, stereotypical, fantasy, bloviating." How about rigid, unimaginative, parrotting, closed minded, dull, fearful, inane, weak and vapid as designations for your not so clever blathering. Again I remove myself from the more colorful possibilities out of civility.
I find this part quit amusing. I seem to have hit nerve, judging by this emotional driven tirade of yours. Once again you attack me personal while providing no substance argument in support of your opinions. This tactic is nothing more obvious attempt to once again distract from the fact that you have continually failed to cite any evidence or scholarly publications in support of your assertions about the exist of Atlantis.

As I myself was once someone who very much believed in the reality of Atlantis, I very much understand the fascination with it and how easy it is to see possible evidence of in places around the world. But as I eventually saw through the smoke and mirrors used by popular proponents of the Atlantis myth, I saw quite plainly that the “emperor had no clothes” so to speak. My intent is arguing against the reality of Atlantis was not to disparage people from challenging accepted historical dogma, but to point out the people need to use a critical eye and fact check using reliable scholar sources in an effort to get a fuller and accurate picture of the evidence cited by Atlantis proponents, who have a terrible habit of misconstruing historical sources, inventive interpretation of the meaning of artifacts, citing well outdated sources or theories as is they are still accepted, and of just making unsupported conclusions based on nothing but their own personal speculation.

So far you have put forth no real cogent argument for why the existence of Atlantis should be considered a very real possibility. All you’ve done in name off a few real archaeological sites and then claim that their existence alone provides support for the probable exist of Atlantis. I’m sorry but that’s not a very persuasive argument. Your use Troy and Göbekli Tepe to bolster your beliefs about the existence of Atlantis seems little more then you grasping at straws. As no direct evidence of Atlantis has been found to exist, proponents of alternative archaeological/historical theories that argue for the existence of Atlantis must take real archaeological finds, particular ones of great significance that greatly change our understanding of the past, and interpret these find as indirect proof that Atlantis could be real because such finds are evidence that ground breaking discovery are just over the next horizon. While I’m sure that future of archaeology will be filled with unexpected and often surprising finds, this does not provide any inherent support for the contention that evidence for Atlantis will be found. I know of no archaeologist or historian that would claim that the existence of Atlantis is totally impossible, but most seem to conclude based of the known archaeological record and the lack of evidence that it most probably does not exist, which is a conclusion that I share.

Quote:
I can find hundreds of links to support my views, but do not do this; because I am quite capable of defending my own views on my own.
Sigh, its not about who cites more links, its about using real scholarship and the views of professional archaeologist and historians to support ones own opinions. You are making extraordinary claims about human history, the onus in on to substantiate said claims with scholarly sources that provide some kind of support for the opinions you are espousing. Otherwise you simply stating your beliefs, which there is little point in debating.
Quote:
Moreover, I did get you to accede to at least one of my points. Not all of Plato's information was based on "fantasy." How many other assumptions are you making about Plato's account that you cannot personally validate? Something the brilliant Plato was obviously not a victim of. But then not everyone is as smart as Plato was. But some assume they are smarter than he was and know what he was thinking.
I conceded nothing. Atlantis was a creation of Plato, that he may have drawn on a real historical event for some inspiration in creating elements of the story he told does not mean that the story of Atlantis was any less fictional or his creation.

If Plato was recounting a story he heard, how do you explain its complete lack mention before and after Plato's tale in any ancient and classical Greeks historical writings. Such a pivotal moment in Athenian history, as mentioned in Plato's story, not being mentioned by any other Greek writer seems to be pretty damming evidence that the story of Atlantis was most likely an invention of Plato for his duologue's and nothing more.

Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology: From Atlantis to the Walam Olum
Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology: From Atlantis to the Walam Olum - Kenneth L. Feder - Google Books
Quote:
The original--and, to be frank, the only--source for the Atlantis story is Plato himself, who, a few years before his death in 347 BCE, wrote the two so-called Atlantean dialogues, Timmaues and Critias, each named for its primary discussant. Though Atlantis is supposed to have flourished more than 9,300 years before Plato, there is no extant evidence that the Atlantis story predates him. In other words, there is a more then 9,000-year gap in the historical record between the supposed date of the destruction of Atlantis and the first historical reference to the lost continent.

For example, there are no records relating to Atlantis in Egypt, which is cited by Critias as the ultimate source for this tale. Herodotus, often called the "world's first historian" and who lived a hundred years before Plato, never mentions Atlantis in any of his many works. It is equally instructive to point out that chroniclers of the history of Athens, including those who discussed that city's military triumphs in great detail, do not mention a war between Athens and Atlantis, though this is a central element in Plato's story. For example, in fifth century BCE, Thucydides provides a detailed discourse on the military and political struggles of ancient Athens in his book Archaeology, yet he is absolutely silent about Atlantis. He doesn't mention it even to dispute its existence. It certainly seems that before Plato, there was no tale of Atlantis circulating among Greek thinkers. Atlantis begins--though it certainly does not end--with Plato. Its existence is unremarked upon by scholars until Plato wrote the Timmaues and Critias dialogues more than nine millennia after the events described therein and purported to have taken place.-pg.30
As I said before, all available evidence points to Plato's Atlantis being a work of fiction.

It pretty clear that you and I will not come to any sort of agreement about historicity of Atlantic. I think our views on this subject are well established in our previous comments in this thread, therefore I see little reason to keep going on about in it.


Later

Last edited by Shaddam IV; November 17th, 2012 at 02:08 PM.
Shaddam IV is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
alien, ancient, atlantis, cuneiform, sumer


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who found America Toger General History 33 December 20th, 2011 05:21 PM
Oldest Ancient Mayan ruler dated 350bc found. unclefred Ancient History 1 April 9th, 2011 03:58 PM
Mayan King's Tomb found in El Zotz unclefred American History 11 January 8th, 2011 09:27 AM
babylonian cuneiform TheGreatPumpkin Ancient History 4 November 30th, 2009 07:09 PM
Cuneiform artisticflare Ancient History 10 October 31st, 2008 01:01 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.