Slashdot Mirror
On the Trail to Atlantis
Bifurcati writes "Scientists claim to have found the lost city of Atlantis, off the coast of Cyprus. They apparently have used sonar to detect the sunken landmass, and even identify geographical features. They seem confident, but all the same, I wouldn't go buying Atlantian artifacts on Ebay just yet."
"Scientists" are also planning a trip up Mount Ararat to take photos of "Noah's Ark." I'd like a little verification that there ever WAS an Atlantis first.
Greek legend holds about as much proof for me as the Bible does proof there was a Noah's Ark, btw.
According to Plato, Atlantis can be found westward of the "Heracles columns", Gibraltar. Atlantis location should be somewhere in the atlantic ocean, probably near Cuba.
But Schliemann at least had this going for him, he was looking for Troy right around where Homer suggested it was.
People looking for Atlantis have the distressing tendency to look for it, and claim to have found it, in all the places where the Platonic tale says it isn't.
Now, maybe I'm just being an old fuddy-duddy, but it seems to me you can't land on Hispaniola and get away with calling it India for very long, no matter how exotic it looks.
KFG
Plato's work refers to the location of Atlantis as beyond the "The Pillars of Hercules" which is now known as the strait of Gibraltar. This is the gateway between the Mediterranean sea and the Atlantic ocean. This of course is quite far from Cyprus. According to measurements of the bottom of the sea, if the sea-level dropped by 100 metres, a new archipelago of islands would be exposed just beyond the straits of Gibraltar. This is a probable location for Atlantis.
As for the civilisation being more advanced, that could have been because they were on an island that was cut off from the mainland which was infested with barbarians. The islanders could then develop their technology in peace. Seeing that the story took place some 9000 years ago, even 7000 year old technology would seem advanced to outsiders. When the flood came, either everyone on the island drowned, or those that escaped did not manage to establish their advanced civilisation on the mainland (those pesky barbarians again).
Another theory about submerged civilisation being more advanced is that at the time of the end of the ice-age, the lands that are submerged now were more fertile than other lands. Climate models of India have shown that 10000 years ago, the part that is now above sea-level was a desert, and the part now below was fertile. The land could have been fertile because it had remained underwater so long before the last ice-age, and rivers could have been continuously been depositing sediments on the sea-floor. The fertile land encouraged agriculture which made the peoples more sedentary in nature, and thus more likely to become advanced. The people on the highland remained hunter/gatherers, were more nomadic, and consequently, did not develop as well.
I can't find links for everything offhand, but do have a look at Graham Hancock's web-site.
The Piri Reis Map was drawn in 1513 by a Turkish admiral. The interesting thing is that on the map he describes how his map was created by piecing together and copying 20 much older maps, some going back to ancient Egypt.
The US Navy map bureau's chief engineer analyzed the map, agreed it was highly accurate, and agreed that the coast line at the bottom could only be the land mass of Antarctica. That coast has been completely obscured by ice for 6000 years.
Unfortunately, the crackpots have given the word "Atlantis" and the search for very ancient advanced cultures a bad name. I want every smart scientific person on Slashdot to take a long look at the map linked below. The information on that map contradicts every mainstream history book. There's a lot more to the story of human civilization than we currently understand.
A good picture and story about the map
-B