Talk:Atlantis
|
|
Added info about the India/Indonesia theory of Atlantis by Prof. Santos as well as link to his website.
--Atla 14:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the altiplano info!! Can you please clarify why cocaine is considered to support this theory?? (Found in Egyptian mummies, right?)
- Out only ancient source for the existance of Atlantis is Plato, who claims that his father got the story from some Egyptian. The cocaine in the mummy shows that there had to be cross Atlantic contact of some sort or another (perhaps even just sporadic) in ancient times. Proving that there was contact is a necessary step to link a South American Atlantis to Plato. --BlackGriffen
I agree!! Finding cocaine in Egyptian mummies is very interesting!! But our Wikipedia Atlantis entry doesn't mention that cocaine WAS found in Egyptian mummies. It just says that cocaine is evidence of contact with Egypt. I think we need to clarify this. Thanks.
- The notion that the cocaine finds in the mummies are legitimate is vulerantly rejected by most archaeologists. Most do not like anything that upsets established notions, such as that nobody crossed the Atlantic before Colombus. By the way, some archaeologists have said in recent years that they believe Europeans may have crossed the atlantic in ice-age times due to the similarity of tools found on both sides of the atlantic.
"a great many films"? Name ten. :-) I certainly don't think "Atlantis films" are considered a genre like, for example, "War movies" or "Westerns".
- here's 46: http://us.imdb.com/Tsearch?atlantis :)
Ya got me!! :-)
Other issue: The name of an ancient historian or author named Marcellus shows up twice in the text of "Atlantis." One claims that he wrote in the first century (A.D.), and the other that he wrote in the fourth century. Could somebody comment on this? Were they different persons or the same, and there is an inaccuracy? --zasimon
Aren't maize and quinoa cereals? They come from Southern America and N American Indians cultivated other grains with lower yield, whose names I don't remember? -- Error
Am I the only one who gets the distinct impression that the whole Atlantis story was a confusion of two separate histories? - various accounts of the Americans, and of the sinking of the seven islands off the coast of Spain just after the ice age .
Notice that in all the name-dropping of ancient sources, there are no citations to surviving texts, other than the Plato references. Now, when will Plato's actual cave as described in the Republic be identified by some literal-minded owl? Wetman 17:03, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Please someone check the most recent additions.
---
Grammar is at times confusing. Perhaps a knowledgable native english speaker could review and edit the article.
| Contents |
Linked from Slashdot: Scientists claim to have found Atlantis
There are two (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_28-4-2004_pg9_14) stories (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1098162.htm) linked from the Slashdot story (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/30/0319217&mode=thread&tid=134&tid=162&tid=99). -- Jim Regan 08:58, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
---
"Atlantis in Gibraltar, between Iberia and Africa"
Comparisons between the theory of the Hispano-american investigator Georgeos Diaz-Montexano and French geologist Jacques Collina-Girard. Simple Coincidences or Plagiarism?
By María Fdez-Valmayor
Dear Sirs:
The French geologist Jacques Collina-Girard claims no one before him (Sept, 2001, publication date of his article) had realized Atlantis Island could be located in one of the sunken islands or shoals at the Strait of Gibraltar, which was exactly where hispano-american investigator Georgeos Díaz-Montexano has been upholding for the last years: he could prove the first publication of his theory was in April, 2000 (see: [1] (http://civilizaciones.webcindario.com/news31.htm) Proofs 1 and [2] (http://civilizaciones.webcindario.com/release_news.htm) Proofs 2)
Georgeos Díaz-Montexano ----- Theory in April, 2000 Jacques Collina-Girard -- Theory in September, 2001
Collina-Girand has successfully confused the National Geographic Society, as well as everyone else, with his "influence", "degrees", and "academic references". He has "more credibility" than Georgeos Díaz, as he is part of the "oficial" and "academic world". However, he is neither entitled to nor has the right to take advantage of someone's effort and intellectual property, even from an "amateur".
Anyway, this point is, in fact, easy to solve (both in front of public opinion and court, if there was no other way but turn to Law): In order to prove Collina-Girard has formulated a theory almost identical if not really similar to Georgeos Diaz-Montexano's one, at least in the most fundamental points and the theoretical statement, he just needs to settle two obstacle, from my on point of view, easy to overcome.
1. He has to prove that those who read the basic statements of Collina-Girard's theory, which was same as Georgeos Diaz's, would find both theories similiar or almost identical to each other, close enough for them to be easy confused, regardless of who was the first person to write it. So, first of all, it would be necessary to lay down how close the two basic statements are: the major defence of Collina-Girard's is still that both theories are "totally different". Of course, what else would he say!
If there is a high similitude between both basic statements of this two theories, then, we have a problem, as both autors cannot claim in their writtings, and in front of mass media, they are the original creators of it. It can only be one, and this point could be solve if one of them says so, in public, that is, his theory is later, just a "simple" and "curious casuality". If the secondary or later author keeps saying everywhere in mass media that he was the first to announce that theory, then, of course, he would be damaging the original and previous author, who won't be able to get neither financing nor any support to develop his theory, as everybody would argue there's a previous investigator claiming to have been developing the same statement before.
2. So after laying down how close to eah other the basic statements are, it would be necessary to show who was the first publishing it. There're magazines and news to demostrate this point.
To make it easy, I've arranged a short article and clear comparative table, with the basic statements of both theories, showing the most relevant points people can see when reading them. Accurately, these comparisions should be done with investigators' first publicacions, instead of their later developing of themselves. And so it is. We have compared the main statements of both theories in Georgeos' first publication (the mass media magazine "Más Allá de la Ciencia" -Beyong Science-, April, 2000), and Jacques Collina-Girard's, in Science Academy, September, 2001. The French geologist submitted a report, with date March 15th, 2001, to French Science Academy. Collina-Girard states this theory came up to his mind just by chance in January, 2001, but the report was not accepted until June, 2001, and published in September, 2001. So, before September, 2001, no one could neither know nor even think Collina-Girard's theory did exist. Up until that date, the only theory about "Atlantis in Gibraltar, between Iberia and Morocco" was Georgeos Diaz's statement. Also, as the bulletin where Collina-Girard published his "pseudo-theory" would only circulate in academic media, it hadn't reached outside if it wasn't for the big divulgation campaign at the end of September, 2001, using all international mass media.
Why did they do so?
How many relevant and even more original reports are submitted every year to Science Academy, no announced at any international mass media?
Why even, being Atlantis a "taboo" topic, with a really bad image for scientific society, all institutions and media regarding them hastened to support this "pseudo-theory" divulgation campaign, Collina-Girard's (the Georgeos's theory) "Atlantis in Gibraltar, between Iberia and Africa"?
The French scientist (Jacques Collina-Girard and his team) did know perfectly Georgeos Diaz's investigations, and, convinced of his higher scientific possiblities, they planned to steal Georgeos Diaz's theory as soon as they realized he was not part of any University, with neither possible credibility nor institutional support with him. Looks like, as we have seen, these French "scientists" did think it is the "oficial science", not again "amateurs", the ones to represent and take the glory for (maybe, who knows) the scientific discovery of Atlantis. This is not the first time in History, "so-called" academic "scientist"had tried the same, not only against Spanish investigators.
In any case, we need your most sincere opinion and votes, after reading this article and analyzing the comparative table between both theories:
http://civilizaciones.webcindario.com/release_news.htm
Please, see to the pdf archive.
http://usuarios.lycos.es/egiptosofia/The_archaeological_evidence_in_front_of_Gibraltar.pdf
Yours, María Fdez-Valmayor
Secretary, "The Civilizations Origins Scientific Society"
Origenesinfo@todito.com (mailto:origenesinfo@todito.com)
Tel. (34) 91 408 82 84
(34) 660 89 65 70
Votes:
Survey: Think that a great similarity between both theories exists?
Votes (http://miarroba.com/encuestas/votar.php?id=73637)
Translate by Lc. César Guarde. Universidad de Barcelona, Spain.
Tel. (34) 660 89 65 70 / (34) 91 479 91 20
NEW THEORY OF ATLANTIS LOCATION
A new theory of the location of Atlantis, by Eagle/Wind Research, is detailed in a new book; Atlantis Motherland, by authors Flying Eagle and Whispering Wind. This book is primarily a work of Philosophy which includes extensive information regarding the location of Atlantis. Their website, beautifully illustrated by Ernist Nelson, is: [3] (http://atlantis-motherland.com)
America America America
People are so American-centric that even in the case of Atlantis they manage to put that in debate, reaching almost the ridicule. I think that the guy that wrote that should go in a boat from Greece to the US. This article needs NPOV, when a reasonable guy starts reading the article imidiatly thinks: "what an impossibility." Lets talk about the Iberian Findings and those from Greece. The only ones that are credible and not from a book that wants to sell in the USA. And take of all that non-sence, or manage to put it has a curiosity. -Pedro 02:35, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Locations
can we sort the location theories by region, please? so that we have the places actually known to the Ancient Greeks in one place, and the crackpot theories of Cuba/America/Indonesia in another? Can we also compact the horrible, unwikified, fawning India/Indonesia paragraph cut down to at most a quarter of its present length? dab 17:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- +1 I agree. Marcok 22:58, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have stumbled upon this site . Which claims to have found the true Atlantis in the Meditranian. They have Maps and 3D animations of the locations. the link to their site is. http://www.discoveryofatlantis.com/800/index.html aquaris
- thanks god, i'm not the only one that has brains in here. I would reduce the info about Cuba/America/Indonesia/India/Sri lanka to just one paragraph and stating that all these theories are very highly unlikely. The Spanish theory of the golf of Cadiz is very promissing and fit almost in everything. I think people should know that in the 18 century (???) there was found ancient pottery in the Azores, and the pottery travelled to mainland Portugal, nothing more is known about that, it is lost since then. -Pedro 20:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Locations
Deleted the reference to Riven the Seer under the Mid-Atlantic section. Confusing, poor grammer, and seemingly blatent nonsence added by one guy in order to express his particular viewpoint. Perhaps someone can rework it.
It's been up since Jul 29. Surprised it last that long untouched.
As here:
The modern day legendary Riven, The Seer, proposes Atlantis to be a mid-sized Continental island in the Atlantic Ocean based out of the Amperes/Gettysburg Seamounts that was destroyed in several stages from Asteroid and Meteoric showers combined with a major Transform Fracture adjacent to the Atlantic Ridge.In 1979 a Russian expedition team found traces of a civilization at the Amperes Seamount which was published in the New York Times. The final catastrophe occuring at 6482 bC for the time also of the Great Flood that pushed civilizations into the eastern mediterranean. Later Atlantis controlling it's foundations up to Tyrhennia and Egypt from their Lake Tritonis Region no later than 1500 bC. Riven also translated the 10 Kings of Atlantis and the meaning of the name Atlantis into Fatherland and discovered the word Araklum in Etruscan scripts that relates to the mysterious Orichalcum element found in Atlantis. He argues that this battle must have been prior to 3100 bC and that the Narmer Palette and Gebel-Arak knife(4000 bC.), found in Egypt prior to King Menes(3100 bC), is evidence of an earlier foreign Sea-People invasion. His destruction theory is also based on the Eye of Ra Myth, the eruptions of Mt.Hekla and Mt.Vesuvius,the ecliptic alignment of planets on Nov 1,6482 bC, All Saints Day, and the flooding of the Black Sea from the Bosphorous straites opening. He has quite the visual website detailing Atlantis, it's location and maps with a list of the Ten kings of Atlantis and links to research sites about Atlantis called Tribes of Atlantis by Riven. The Atlantis story is a retelling by Plato and not a myth as many scholars attest because of Plato and his idealistic philosophies. The Original authors were Solon and Dropides who told the story to Critias elder who told it to Critias junior. Critias detailed the story to Socrates where it was later adapted by Plato. In 570 bC, in the time of Pharaoh Amasis, the extremely elderly Egytian Priest, realizing the end of Egypt was near, let the secret of Atlantis finally fall from his well guarded lips. --Ailric 17:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think that info is very useful, why delete it? Keep it in the article and remove the stupid info about India and Indonesia. Keep that info. BTW who is Riven? -Pedro 20:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Here's the deal: Some theories of "Atlantis" are patently rediculous. The idea of there being an entire continent in the middle of the Atlantic is positively preposterous, for the simple reason that there are two oceanic plates there which are parting from one another. An island, yes; a continent, no. Also, it is very POV - "myth" is one of the strongest theories there is for Atlantis, and stating "it is not a myth" is PoV. The other problem is, of course, the numerous poor assumptions, including the final sentence. Also, the whole thing is unsourced. Riven, the Seer? Its the name of a Myst sequel, but otherwise I've never heard of them. A link to them, or to their webpage, or whatever would be nice. If someone can source and salvage (i.e. NPOVify it), then I'd have no problem with it being in the article as it is (sadly) less crazy than several theories regarding Atlantis (anything involving extraterrestrials/another hidden/lost race comes to mind). Titanium Dragon 23:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There are in Portugal some very old myths that Portugal was to Atlantis, the same that North Africa to Southern Europe (these myths are not very credible, they are supositions by some investigators). Also, It depends what you consider a continent. The Azores has ancient and enormous volcanoes (so they were very active in the past). Imagine the area of the Azores with much less water, it would create a 'continent' smaller than Europe, but has big has Turkey. Even if that info is crazzy it keept my atention, India and Indonesia did not. The Alien thing, oh God!
I would focus attention on the Spanish findings (an island near Cadiz). The pillars of Herculis are the pillars of Herculis aka Gibraltar. I believe in the ancient Greeks, they were not dumb. They manage to put their gods and myths, but at the end there is always had some truth behind it. I also think that many theories are very sad and low-minded and make Atlantis seeming ridiculous. I would keep that in the article, NPOV it, making it a sharp curiosity it could help in an investigation, it seems to have real myths, and real myths are always helpful. places that deserve attention:
- Golf of Cadiz
- Cyprus
- Santorini
- Azores
- The Black Sea
-Pedro 19:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Lost city found on unsunken part of lost continent
http://202.186.86.35/special/lostcity/
Antarctica
plz someone will delete that sentence. If I write an internet site about Atlantis in the moon, in the next day, it will be here also? Interresting. I must test it. -Pedro 19:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Huh??
" Proclus tells us that Crantor reported that he, too, had seen the columns on which the story of Atlantis was preserved as reported by Plato: the Saite priest showed him its history in hieroglyphic characters."
- Ok. According to one person, someone else saw some columns. Were these physical marble-type columns like the ruins of Athens? Either something was written physically on those columns or else a story was written about those columns, which was reported by someone else to someone else. Please clarify this sentence. - Omegatron 01:59, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Also there are like twelve different lands mentioned in this paragraph. Is one of these supposed to be related to Atlantis? Please break them up into separate paragraphs if this island and this island and this other land are all separate mentions by separate people. - Omegatron 02:03, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
"the Atlanteans were Hyperboreans were Nordic supermen who originated on the North pole"
- This article almost needs a cleanup tag. - Omegatron 02:30, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
"Strange Ideas"
Does this section even need to be in here? It's very poorly written and adds little or nothing to the article.