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 18th, 2012, 02:53 AM   #61

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaddam IV View Post
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.

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a terrible habit of misconstruing historical sources, inventive interpretation of the meaning of artifacts, citing well outdated sources or theories as is they are still accepted, and of just making unsupported conclusions based on nothing but their own personal speculation.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.


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.
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


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
All of this fails to take into account what you conveniently wish to ignore. That numerous documents in countless numbers (possibly in the millions) were destroyed with the three destructions associated with the Great Library of Alexandria. All that we have of Hellenistic literature is that which the Arabs and Byzantines managed to save and this is paltry compared to what the Great Library once held.
However, the Greeks knew and wrote about a people called Atlanteans, who lived near the Atlas Mountains in Morocco long before Plato. They even associated the Garden of the Hesperides to the same region. A garden that sounds strangely like Eden. Why Morocco? Could you get any farther from Greece and not take one more step and be where Plato said Atlantis was? Herodotus created a map which included the name for the Atlantic Ocean on it at least 50 years before Plato wrote the Timaeus and Critias dialogues. So there are credulous reasons to suggest that ideas around the concept of Atlantis already existed among Greek writers and thinkers long before Plato created his dialogues.
As to any Egyptian materials, far too much of their writings, papyri and carvings have been defaced, decayed or destroyed by the many offended religious and other groups that occupied Egypt over the last two thousand years. I am surprised anything remains. Most likely because much of their carving in stone was buried by sand. Not to mention what was lost of Egyptian records in the destruction of the Great Library. And our current understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphics is based only on what the Rosetta Stone and subsequent logical extension has provided. The proof of Atlantis could be staring us in the face and many archeologists would simply not see it. This is because the Egyptians did not call it Atlantis. Nor did the actual Atlanteans themselves. This word comes from the Greeks and is a reference to the "Island of Atlas." Which Plato also used. Plato never referred to what the Egyptians may have called Atlantis. He only used Greek terms to express any terminology associated with Atlantis. Which is a common fault in all transcriptions from any foriegn source. Morover, all these references to godlike beings with the capability of flight (including Isis herself) could be long held cultural memories of the actual Atlanteans and their effect on the world they so ruthlessly ruled. A world that ceased to exist at about the same time Gobekli Tepe was first being constructed. A world going through so many changes, I am surprised any information about it is available, This was a world in which entire cities were subsumed by rising ocean levels. Vast amounts of land surfaces are now under water, that at the time of Atlantis were well above it and far from any ocean. That Gobekli Tepe, itself, disappeared from historical memory is no real surprise. And there are many civilizations still awaiting discovery that have also escaped any historical remembrance. Atlantis is only "remembered" because the Egyptian priests of Sais remembered it and passed this memory onto Plato, who then managed to record it in his dialogues. What is amazing to me is that archeology can discover a totally unknown archeological complex such as Gobekli Tepe. One that completely revolutionizes our understanding of the history of man 12,000 years ago. Yet archeology refuses to accept the possibility of the existence of a civilization known about for over 2,000 years. True, one that scant evidence exists for. But what would you expect from a civilization suddenly buried under trillions of tons of water? And at a location impossible to reach until only recently.
However, in the light of the previously unknown Gobekli Tepe and many other lost sites now being discovered all over the globe; it becomes ever more difficult to outright discard the possibility, that Atlantis actually did exist. And there may be references to it that are being completely ignored or outright missed. Especially when a civilization, that no previous evidence of any kind existed for it, is now being rapidly accepted as fact. How many other Gobekli Tepes are out there? Places no one in the archeological community has any idea or proof that they ever existed? At least a few references to Atlantis do exist and yet for some strange reason, this is the one place singularly considered to be "impossible." It really doesn't makes any sense and seems more like intellectual intransigence rather than the kind of open-minded enquiry archeology should always be based on.
However, the search for Atlantis is alive and well and all over the place. Soon evidence will come to light that will demonstrate quite clearly to those closed minded unimaginative individuals, the ones who consistently drone on about what they are so absolutely sure has happened and not happened in human history. Be prepared for many surprises and numerous shocks.

Last edited by Zarin; November 18th, 2012 at 03:04 AM.
Zarin is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 18th, 2012, 06:43 AM   #62

davu's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2010
From: Retired - This Mountain isn't on a Map
Posts: 3,824

as usual, shad4 sources only include her side. really, there are NO sides to this science. the ruins are there and the current paradigm makes no exceptions. but the really good news is, there are hundreds of very notable researchers looking into these things everyday. the issue is money. he who controls the money - controls the research. fortunately, people such as andy collins and others do not pay attention to the noise makers and i support their research and publications by buying them.

and i do love "surprises" in archaeology. its just wonderful. it goes to show the ancients were much smarter then us in so many ways. heck, we can't even figure out how the pyramids were built.

and then there is "carnac". oh, boy. watch the doubters run from that one --
davu is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 01:12 PM   #63

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by davu View Post
as usual, shad4 sources only include her side. really, there are NO sides to this science. the ruins are there and the current paradigm makes no exceptions. but the really good news is, there are hundreds of very notable researchers looking into these things everyday. the issue is money. he who controls the money - controls the research. fortunately, people such as andy collins and others do not pay attention to the noise makers and i support their research and publications by buying them.

and i do love "surprises" in archaeology. its just wonderful. it goes to show the ancients were much smarter then us in so many ways. heck, we can't even figure out how the pyramids were built.

and then there is "carnac". oh, boy. watch the doubters run from that one --
The one thing that every American election demonstrates is how easy it is to manipulate "facts" to establish any position you may desire. And this is because "facts" are so easy to manipulate. It all comes down to which "spin" one wishes to embrace. I am beginning to doubt if there are any absolute truths anywhere. And davu is quite correct in how "selective" many posters are in what they actually give links to. Which is why I prefer not to do this. I try to approach any subject with an open mind. Using both logic, reliable information and creative speculation to maintain a point of view. My own "spin" so to speak. Which is what speculation should always be about. One thing that is constantly occurring is how much new knowledge and new "spin" is flooding the internet. A great outsource, but becoming ever more confusing. Whose "opinion" should one believe? Credulity, credentials and reliability always helps. However, just because a majority of professionals support any view doesn't automatically mean their view is correct. Only that they "trend" towards what is believed to be correctness. And trends often have as much to do with politics as much as adequate information. Some of the greatest discoveries in the last 100 years in all the sciences often went against the "trend."
So it comes down to whatever is on the menu of human interface and that which you choose to order up.
Zarin is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 05:55 PM   #64
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,513

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarin View Post
Why do some people, who do not want to accept that there may have been many contacts among ancient peoples, automatically assume something is a "hoax?" Simply because they cannot "explain" its' existence.
Simple, Occam's razor - you chose the simplest explanation first. Simplest explanation is that it is a hoax, or legitimate object that somehow got transported to Boliva by later people.

Even if the bowl is geniune, it doesn't mean that it was the ancient Sumerian who brought it there. Perhaps is it was the possession of Spanish Conquistador who happened to be collector of Sumerian art, and had it with him when his party was ambushed natives. Who knows.

The reason it is rejected as evidence is that experience has shown that you typically just don't find a single item, you should find a number of items, some of them mundane, like a comb, or a knife, etc. And if the ancient Sumerians were coming to the New World, why haven't we found any evidence for them, which is a lot closer to them than Boliva. Nor were the ancient Sumerians noted for being great sailors. If you were in Montana, and you happened to find a Roman coin while digging fence post, your first thought should not be "Aha, this proves the ancient Romans were in Montana!". I am sorry, but Montana is in the middle of the North American continent, a thousand miles from either coast, and until you rule out other explanations, it doesn't prove the Romans were there.
Bart Dale is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 06:37 PM   #65

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

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart Dale View Post
Simple, Occam's razor - you chose the simplest explanation first. Simplest explanation is that it is a hoax, or legitimate object that somehow got transported to Boliva by later people.
Although Occam's razor is often bandied about as the end all solution to many conundrums it doesn't offer any explanation for Einstein's approach to relativity. There are many solutions that do not come about from simplicity. And the complexity of the Universe and all other phenomena in it, underlines how truly faulty Occam's razor actually is.
Quote:
Even if the bowl is geniune, it doesn't mean that it was the ancient Sumerian who brought it there. Perhaps is it was the possession of Spanish Conquistador who happened to be collector of Sumerian art, and had it with him when his party was ambushed natives. Who knows.
But apparently, it is possible that some ancient Sumerian may have played some part in its creation. How objects come to be found in various locations is never answered by Occam's razor. Mainly beacause there are many ways objects can come to exist in the locations they are found. Mayan and Aztec objects were actually found floating in detritus that reached the Western coasts of both Europe and Africa long before Christopher Columbus reached these shores. Detritus carried by ocean currents from many possible causailties. Hurricanes, tsunamis, shipwrecks, etc. This was one of the facts upon which Christopher Columbus believed there were lands to the west of Spain across the Atlantic. This form of transfer could easily have sent objects the other way as well.
Even now materials from the Japan Tsunami/Earthquake are reaching the western shores of the US. And this type of activity has occurred all over the world for millennia.
How things get to where they are found is the proper administration of logic, training, experience, imagination and information. Occam's razor cannot answer such conundrums through "simple" answers.
That any object from any culture reaches a different culture at a great distance from it, suggests either direct or indirect contact.
Direct contact would be knowledge of each other occuring directly between these two peoples. And this cannot be absolutely eliminated. Mainly because the trading of goods has been a universal agenda since civilization began. Also, if any people has reached any part of the world, this does not occlude any other people from also doing the same. Either directly or through slow diffusion or migration.
Indirect contact comes from the transfer of objects, which can occur over many years (even millennia) and pass through many hands to end up where finally located. People everywhere do tend to collect unusual things. Or also be the result of some unpredictable natural causality such as weather. etc.
That this is a speculative forum allows anyone to speculate, based on their information, beliefs, reliable sources and imagination to determine what causes certain things to actually occur or possibly occur. Speculation allows for highly logical and/or highly imaginative pathways to consider all the possibilities in order to come to any potential conclusion.
Zarin is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 09:13 PM   #66

davu's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2010
From: Retired - This Mountain isn't on a Map
Posts: 3,824

here's a good one about the "razor" === makes for a really stupid argument.

Quote:
Take this example. There are some creationists who say that Occam's razor proves their ideology is correct. After all, isn't it a more simple explanation to say that God created life, the universe and everything than to say it was created by a Big Bang, followed by an astounding series of interrelated coincidences?

Nice try, say evolutionists. That explanation supposes that God exists, and we have no empirical evidence that he does.

This is also the case for atheists -- those who don't believe in God. Atheists use Occam's razor in conjunction with Aristotle's idea of simplicity equaling perfection to prove that there is no God. If there were, say atheists, then the universe would be a whole lot simpler right?
HowStuffWorks "Who Uses Occam\'s Razor?"
davu is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 06:24 AM   #67

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by davu View Post
here's a good one about the "razor" === makes for a really stupid argument.



HowStuffWorks "Who Uses Occam\'s Razor?"
A pretty bad comparison, as evolution is a simpler argument than creationism. Shorter and simpler to explain does not mean the actual implications are simple. YE Creationism (as opposed to normal creationism which doesn't necessarily conflict with evolution and is the mainstream religious view) posits that there's an elaborate conspiracy full of fake evidence among other things and that there's a supernatural being who takes an active (and supposedly observable) role in nature. That takes less time to type than it does to explain the workings of evolution, but the idea behind the theory of evolution is nevertheless more simple in that is simply posits observable and proven changes occur in lifeforms that over time result in large differences, a simpler idea than animals and plants springing from nowhere and dying for the wrath of an unproveable omnipotent being that chooses some to live randomly and proceeds to plant false evidence of other explanations to test the willpower of a certain species of animal.
Hresvelgr is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 07:54 AM   #68

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by davu View Post
and i do love "surprises" in archaeology. its just wonderful. it goes to show the ancients were much smarter then us in so many ways. heck, we can't even figure out how the pyramids were built.

and then there is "carnac". oh, boy. watch the doubters run from that one --
Let's get this one straight here, YOU can't figure out how the pyramids were built. Actual archaeologists and historians have figured out every possible way and replicated possible techniques using ancient materials and proved that it was possible, as well as the fact that the Egyptians undoubtedly were responsible as the graves of the workers (who were not slaves) are still nearby and there is a clear record of evolution pyramid building. Imhotep is widely known to have built the first pyramids at Saqqara for example. If you can't figure out how the step pyramid at Saqqara was built then that'd go a long way to explaining why you think all ancient people save for a mythical civilization were inferior. You're also doing a stellar job of showing the real source of the modern Atlantis theories, ethnocentrism. Regardless of your intentions, the theory of Atlantis as an actual historical place that gave civilization to others is highly ethnocentric, and probably rather racist. The first incarnations of the modern version certainly were quite racist. There is a reason the resurgence of the legend in the 19th Century (ancient people including ancient Greeks were more skeptical) coincides with the rise in popularity of race theory, and this is also when the idea that Atlanteans were blonde-haired, blue-eyed people similar to if not related to Nordics came into being. And recently this gave rise to more nationalist theories, all of which are still based on ethnocentrism rather than evidence. The Sumerian theory here is one more incarnation, this time propagated primarily by Afrocentrics (despite Sumerians not being African). You have one bowl which has been dismissed by all (aside from one infamous "linguist" who makes a career in lying, unless you believe that the Minoans were Mandinke) as a hoax and a stone statue that lacks any actual writing. In lieu of evidence you use "potential evidence" and describe your opponents (one could say slandering your opponents) as conservatives with no imagination who refuse to believe new ideas. And yet you continue to have faith in every wildly ethnocentric (and often blatantly racist) theory that insists that certain peoples, often Egyptians but primarily Native-Americans couldn't build or do anything impressive without having to have foreigners show them the way. This is not to say you in particular are a racist (though I am still awaiting an explanation from Davu as to his horrible derogatory remarks) but the theory originates from popular 19th Century conceptions that were based on racism, that being the idea that Native-Americans are savages and don't have any real history or capability. This is why everyone but them seemingly created their civilization. Why people insist that Egyptians, Atlanteans, Romans, etc built their pyramids (despite them looking wildly different and having a different chronology and use), or that Phoenicians taught the Olmecs how to carve stone (who then allegedly made stone megaliths representing the Phoenicians' slaves), or any number of other theories.
Hresvelgr is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 09:42 AM   #69

davu's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2010
From: Retired - This Mountain isn't on a Map
Posts: 3,824

Quote:
Actual archaeologists and historians have figured out every possible way and replicated possible techniques using ancient materials and proved that it was possible
when i get a response like this, it shows i just clarified my position. i'm not looking for "every possible way", only "the one and only way". in particle, i'm looking for the bridgeing techniques of the ramps they had to have used and the material they used to support the transportation of the building material.
davu is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 10:21 AM   #70

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by davu View Post
when i get a response like this, it shows i just clarified my position. i'm not looking for "every possible way", only "the one and only way". in particle, i'm looking for the bridgeing techniques of the ramps they had to have used and the material they used to support the transportation of the building material.
What you're looking for is an excuse to claim either the Egyptians or archaeologists were dumb, because I'm not sure hieroglyphic transcripts of the exact methods and lists of supplies were inscribed on stone slabs and buried in the king's tomb to be found by self-important conspiracy theorists from the future. Or am I off the mark? You've already made bigoted statements claiming the Bolivian natives were too stupid to build anything from stone, so I'm pretty confident in my assessment.
Hresvelgr 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 06:21 PM
Oldest Ancient Mayan ruler dated 350bc found. unclefred Ancient History 1 April 9th, 2011 04:58 PM
Mayan King's Tomb found in El Zotz unclefred American History 11 January 8th, 2011 10:27 AM
babylonian cuneiform TheGreatPumpkin Ancient History 4 November 30th, 2009 08:09 PM
Cuneiform artisticflare Ancient History 10 October 31st, 2008 02:01 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.