Atlantis - Maybe not a myth?

[Skgoa]

Why is it a problem to say those cities were the same place? If its the "best fit" to make sense of the story and there is no evidence contradicting it, should it not be considered a viable explaination?

[Simon_Jester]

Why is it a problem to say those cities were the same place? If its the "best fit" to make sense of the story and there is no evidence contradicting it, should it not be considered a viable explaination?

Because we have a pretty good idea of what Tartessos was, and saying "this was the source of the legend of Atlantis" probably isn't true. Indeed, it would be actively misleading, because Tartessos wasn't an amazingly advanced super-civilization that lived ten thousand years ago or whatever. They were just another reasonably sophisticated Mediterranean-style trading culture... who just happened to be located on the Atlantic coast of Spain.

If we say "this is Atlantis," there's no evidence that the real city of Tartessos gave rise to the myths of Atlantis. And we mislead people into thinking Tartessos was a super-civilization, instead of just being some pretty cool guys who lived in Bronze Age Spain before the Carthaginians and Romans moved in on the area.

[Jaepheth]

I imagine academic funding is rather tight right now.
I would further suppose that you may want to make a fantastic claim with what preliminary data you have so that you can secure the funding to go dig up something more concrete to use in a peer-reviewed paper later.
So it would be in the researcher's best interest to get as close as possible to claiming they've found Atlantis; just short of damaging their credibility. Tartessos doesn't have the brand recognition that Atlantis does.

[Simon_Jester]

The kind of people who fund archaeology will know what Tartessos was, and respect a claim to have found it.

They won't respect a claim to have found Atlantis, because they know perfectly well Atlantis is a myth.

[Thanas]

I imagine academic funding is rather tight right now.
I would further suppose that you may want to make a fantastic claim with what preliminary data you have so that you can secure the funding to go dig up something more concrete to use in a peer-reviewed paper later.
So it would be in the researcher's best interest to get as close as possible to claiming they've found Atlantis; just short of damaging their credibility. Tartessos doesn't have the brand recognition that Atlantis does.

BS. You do something like this and you are finished in the field of archeology.

Also, unlike your idea, most donors who finance such things are actually extremely well-informed people who carefully weight the risks of funding something. Sure, you get the occasional rich gullible idiot, but those are very few - I for one never happened to chance upon someone like that, nor have any of my acquintances. The bulk of third-party funding actually comes from corporations or fonds, and these guys require a well-sourced proposal before they will fork up anything.

Also, making claims like this is not only damaging to the reputation of the scholar, but to the whole field as a whole.

You know, it's a shame..because the news is so misleading.

Really now? The OP was dripping with sarcasm.

Whether or not it's "Atlantis", or even some other ancient city, at least it's an exciting discovery. Always great to find brand new archeological discoveries. I'll be anxiously awaiting the story to come..

I would be very careful with making such a presumption. For one, we already know of even more important cities that have not been dug up yet (with good reason in some cases). Odds are people will take some measurements and then file it under "to be done later", while they focus on cities that are currently much more important to our understanding of antiquity. For example, the great metropolis Antiochia is essentially lost to us at the moment and funding any excavation there would be far more beneficial than funding any excavation on the yet unidentified city.

[Skgoa]

Indeed, it would be actively misleading, because Tartessos wasn't an amazingly advanced super-civilization that lived ten thousand years ago or whatever. They were just another reasonably sophisticated Mediterranean-style trading culture... who just happened to be located on the Atlantic coast of Spain.

If we say "this is Atlantis," there's no evidence that the real city of Tartessos gave rise to the myths of Atlantis. And we mislead people into thinking Tartessos was a super-civilization, instead of just being some pretty cool guys who lived in Bronze Age Spain before the Carthaginians and Romans moved in on the area.

WTF?
edit: Seriously, I don't get what tangent you went of there.

[Thanas]

It was in response to your question of whether it could fit or not.

Suffice to say that this is not a new theory. A german archeologist already proposed that in the 1920s, but was ridiculed and never found anything that would prove the theory.

[Justforfun000]

Justforfun000 wrote:
You know, it's a shame..because the news is so misleading.


Really now? The OP was dripping with sarcasm.

??

What do you expect me to say in the OP? Over 100 News stations are reporting it as "maybe" the lost city of Atlantis. Not a single one of them mentioned Tartessos. I'm reproducing the story as it's being trumpeted everywhere in the media. I didn't say I believed it one way or the other. I repeatedly said maybe, might and possibly.

However, you are all being very presumptuous in stating categorically that it is a fable. It is NOT proven to be a made up location. It's always been a matter of debate as to whether or not it was mythical. It very well may be but conversely there is no supporting evidence that states something to the contrary either. None that I'm aware of anyway. Do you have something to cite like: "Plato specifically made up this story..it was written on another scroll we discovered in ancient Athens"

In any event, don't shoot the messenger. It's not MY story.

[Simon_Jester]

Indeed, it would be actively misleading, because Tartessos wasn't an amazingly advanced super-civilization that lived ten thousand years ago or whatever. They were just another reasonably sophisticated Mediterranean-style trading culture... who just happened to be located on the Atlantic coast of Spain.

If we say "this is Atlantis," there's no evidence that the real city of Tartessos gave rise to the myths of Atlantis. And we mislead people into thinking Tartessos was a super-civilization, instead of just being some pretty cool guys who lived in Bronze Age Spain before the Carthaginians and Romans moved in on the area.

WTF?
edit: Seriously, I don't get what tangent you went of there.

My point is that it would be useless to say "Tartessos was Atlantis," not some kind of 'best fit.' There is no 'best fit,' because Atlantis is a myth that is, at best, a hodge-podge of half-remembered stories about various abandoned/sunken cities around the Mediterranean that was then greatly exaggerated by Plato to make a point.

[Thanas]

However, you are all being very presumptuous in stating categorically that it is a fable. It is NOT proven to be a made up location. It's always been a matter of debate as to whether or not it was mythical. It very well may be but conversely there is no supporting evidence that states something to the contrary either. None that I'm aware of anyway. Do you have something to cite like: "Plato specifically made up this story..it was written on another scroll we discovered in ancient Athens"

How about the overwhelming opinion of both ancient writers and nearly all historians of today?

"It is only in modern times that people have taken the Atlantis story seriously; no one did so in antiquity" - Alan Cameron (and if you do not know who Alan Cameron is, suffice to say he is one of the foremost authorities on classical studies).

"As for the whole of this account of the Atlanteans, some say that it is unadorned history, such as Crantor, the first commentator on Plato. Crantor also says that Plato's contemporaries used to criticize him jokingly for not being the inventor of his Republic but copying the institutions of the Egyptians. Plato took these critics seriously enough to assign to the Egyptians this story about the Athenians and Atlanteans, so as to make them say that the Athenians really once lived according to that system."
- Proclus, greatest philosopher of his age.

As for how Plato's story was regarded, I suggest reading Theopompus.

[Justforfun000]

How about the overwhelming opinion

You said the magic words. Opinions are not facts. Again I repeat...it very well MAY BE a myth. I don't know one way or the other. I'm not an archeologist and I don't own a time machine. I'm just keeping an open mind on it until they definitively disprove it.

[Justforfun000]

And I'm hastening to add...disprove this particular find. If this discovery turns out to have no relation whatsoever to the tale of Atlantis, I will go back to assuming for now it is indeed more likely to be a fable.

[Thanas]

How about the overwhelming opinion

You said the magic words. Opinions are not facts. Again I repeat...it very well MAY BE a myth. I don't know one way or the other. I'm not an archeologist and I don't own a time machine. I'm just keeping an open mind on it until they definitively disprove it.

Are you this freaking stupid? Have you ever read Plato's ancient tale?

Many great and wonderful deeds are recorded of your state in our histories. But one of them exceeds all the rest in greatness and valour. For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end. This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia. This vast power, gathered into one, endeavoured to subdue at a blow our country [Athens] and yours and the whole of the region within the straits; and then, Solon, your country shone forth, in the excellence of her virtue and strength, among all mankind. She was pre-eminent in courage and military skill, and was the leader of the Hellenes. And when the rest fell off from her, being compelled to stand alone, after having undergone the very extremity of danger, she defeated and triumphed over the invaders, and preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated, and generously liberated all the rest of us who dwell within the pillars. But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea.

What of it struck you as even remotely plausible?

[Justforfun000]

Maybe it was a grossly exaggerated version of a true place that had the name? I don't know. I really don't care. I am not arguing for or against it. I'm just keeping an open mind on it. If it's so ridiculously impossible for there to be an actual historical city named Atlantis, then why is it being reported in every major newspaper as a plausible possibility? They are all idiots? They are just running with it to sell papers? Maybe, maybe not. It's not for me to judge. I am not an expert in the field. Are you?

[Thanas]

Maybe it was a grossly exaggerated version of a true place that had the name? I don't know. I really don't care. I am not arguing for or against it. I'm just keeping an open mind on it. If it's so ridiculously impossible for there to be an actual historical city named Atlantis, then why is it being reported in every major newspaper as a plausible possibility? They are all idiots? They are just running with it to sell papers? Maybe, maybe not. It's not for me to judge.

They are running with it as they run with every atlantis rumor. Note that it has barely made honorable mentions among reputable papers.

I am not an expert in the field. Are you?

Yes.

[Justforfun000]

Quote:
I am not an expert in the field. Are you?


Yes.

Oh I didn't know that. My apologies. I was honestly just trying to keep an open mind. Like I said, it's not my field at all. At first glance when you're looking through the different news articles and they look to be of genuine validity in the asssumption that they might have found something that corroborates it, I cautiously accepted that they had good reason to believe it might be based on some degree of fact.

[Simon_Jester]

How about the overwhelming opinion

You said the magic words. Opinions are not facts.

The "overwhelming opinion" of a large educated body isn't always true... but it's generally an acceptable substitute for the truth until something better comes along. Saying "Atlantis might be real, you can't prove it's not!" is silly. By the same argument we can say the same thing about Shangri-La, Lemuria, Mu, the Isles of the Blessed, the kingdom of Prester John, the Garden of Eden, and every other legendary island or land in the history of human fantasy.

They can't all be real, you know.

Look at it this way. There are several senses in which we might say a story is "true." One is when the story is a perfectly accurate description of something that happened- say, a detailed account of the Battle of Britain.

Another is when the story is substantially accurate: the broad outlines are true, and most of the details are true, but some of them are exaggerated, cherry-picked, or invented. Say, you hear the story of the Battle of Britain from some old guy who fought in it, and he claims to have shot down four enemy bomber planes when in fact he did not... but the rest of the story is pretty much right, he doesn't outright make up major events that never happened. He just exaggerates his own role. A story like that is still "true" in most important respects, but you need to double-check it if you want to know the whole truth. And because the story mostly fits together, it's worth 'keeping an open mind' on the seemingly improbable details like "this guy shot down four enemy bombers." Who knows, maybe he did. Stranger things have happened.

A third kind of story is partially accurate: a version of events which has been greatly exaggerated, or which has had important bits left out, but still contains valuable information. For example, a man whose perspective on the Battle of Britain is very limited, who only knew what happened at one place and never learned or actively made up details about the rest of it... but still tells you true things about his own experiences. Stories like this are less useful, and you can tell they're not very useful because they conflict with other known facts. But even then, there may be truths buried in the junk that are worth getting at.

And then there are stories that are wildly, totally inaccurate. They're outright made up. They bear no more resemblance to reality than The Lord of the Rings does. If anything in those stories resembles reality it is purely a coincidence, and should not be taken as important; a case of life imitating art rather than the other way around.

If Atlantis were the third kind of story, it would be worth paying some attention to, but not much- because in the form Plato told it it tells us nothing useful about any true thing in ancient history.

But by all the evidence available, Atlantis is the fourth kind of story. It's not even partially accurate, it's just made up. There is no place in the world that matches Plato's description of Atlantis in detail, and if there are historical events that vaguely kinda sorta look a little like Plato's story of Atlantis, it's a coincidence, not Plato trying to tell people about something that really happened.

[Justforfun000]

But by all the evidence available, Atlantis is the fourth kind of story. It's not even partially accurate, it's just made up. There is no place in the world that matches Plato's description of Atlantis in detail, and if there are historical events that vaguely kinda sorta look a little like Plato's story of Atlantis, it's a coincidence, not Plato trying to tell people about something that really happened.

I thought there were other sources for Atlantis as well besides Plato...Oh well. In any event, if it's really an almost certain impossibility of it being a true historical city, then I'm surprised the media is being so uncritical. Especially the major ones like Reuters.

[Thanas]

But by all the evidence available, Atlantis is the fourth kind of story. It's not even partially accurate, it's just made up. There is no place in the world that matches Plato's description of Atlantis in detail, and if there are historical events that vaguely kinda sorta look a little like Plato's story of Atlantis, it's a coincidence, not Plato trying to tell people about something that really happened.

I thought there were other sources for Atlantis as well besides Plato...Oh well. In any event, if it's really an almost certain impossibility of it being a true historical city, then I'm surprised the media is being so uncritical. Especially the major ones like Reuters.

The only evidence is Plato, and the story appears within the context of a dialogue about morals, philosophy etc.

As for the major ones, they report all kind of crap when it is sensational enough. However, no real paper of record has picked up on it.

[Simon_Jester]

Even if there are other sources (or rather, other stories about Atlantis), all it proves is that multiple people told stories about the same place. Ever heard of Prester John? There were countless stories in medieval Europe about this magnificent, powerful Christian kingdom that lay... somewhere. Nobody could agree on where, or how big it was, or what kind of people lived there, but there were certainly plenty of people who believed the myths, and passed them on.

It even led to confusion over real events- for example, when the Mongol hordes started storming into the Middle East through Central Asia, some western Europeans thought it was Prester John launching a crusade against the Muslims.

Does that mean there were "multiple sources" for the kingdom of Prester John, or any evidence that it "really" existed?

[Justforfun000]

Ever heard of Prester John? There were countless stories in medieval Europe about this magnificent, powerful Christian kingdom that lay... somewhere.

No, I never have actually. Interesting tale. Sounds like it'd make a good movie.

[Spoonist]

Maybe it was a grossly exaggerated version of a true god that had the name? I don't know. I really don't care. I am not arguing for or against it. I'm just keeping an open mind on it. If it's so ridiculously impossible for there to be an actual god named Jahve then why is it being reported in every major newspaper as a plausible possibility? They are all idiots? They are just running with it to sell papers? Maybe, maybe not. It's not for me to judge. I am not an expert in the field. Are you?

Maybe it was a grossly exaggerated version of a true technique that once had the name? I don't know. I really don't care. I am not arguing for or against it. I'm just keeping an open mind on it. If it's so ridiculously impossible for there to be an actual historical system that tells fortunes by planets, then why is it being reported in every major newspaper as a plausible possibility? They are all idiots? They are just running with it to sell papers? Maybe, maybe not. It's not for me to judge. I am not an expert in the field. Are you?

Maybe it was a grossly exaggerated version of a true medicinal procedure? I don't know. I really don't care. I am not arguing for or against it. I'm just keeping an open mind on it. If it's so ridiculously impossible for there to be an actual effect from dilution, then why is it being reported in every major newspaper as a plausible possibility? They are all idiots? They are just running with it to sell papers? Maybe, maybe not. It's not for me to judge. I am not an expert in the field. Are you?

Maybe it was a grossly exaggerated version of a true magical incantations? I don't know. I really don't care. I am not arguing for or against it. I'm just keeping an open mind on it. If it's so ridiculously impossible for there to be an actual effect from praying those ancient incantations , then why is it being reported in every major newspaper as a plausible possibility? They are all idiots? They are just running with it to sell papers? Maybe, maybe not. It's not for me to judge. I am not an expert in the field. Are you?

Maybe it was a grossly exaggerated version of a true being? I don't know. I really don't care. I am not arguing for or against it. I'm just keeping an open mind on it. If it's so ridiculously impossible for there to be an actual ancient being by that name, then why is it being reported all over the web as a plausible possibility? They are all idiots? They are just running with it to get attention? Maybe, maybe not. It's not for me to judge. I am not an expert in the field. Are you?

There lies the road to madness and despair.

[Justforfun000]

There lies the road to madness and despair.

Only if you stubbornly cling to it after you look into it more seriously. I hadn't read Plato's telling if it in ages. I forgot how fantastical his story was. I was also unware he was the only source. It was only fair for me to have an open mind about a subject I personally had little knowledge on. Taking skepticism too far is just as bad as being overly credulous. HIV dissidents are one example.

[Simon_Jester]

Okay then, problem solved, we're cool. Honest mistake.

It's not hard to develop false impressions about these things; there is so much rank bullshit going around that even basically functional, intelligent people will occasionally pick some up and mistake it for the truth.

[Justforfun000]

It's not hard to develop false impressions about these things; there is so much rank bullshit going around that even basically functional, intelligent people will occasionally pick some up and mistake it for the truth.

I still get fooled by Urban myths when I hear them enough...*sigh*. I remember not too long ago I thought it was true you could see the Great Wall of China from space.

It's annoying that so many things get presented as "facts" and you just assume they wouldn't continually be perpetuated without it being valid. At least the internet tends to wise you up as long as you search out enough critically minded viewpoints. It's precisely why I bring these subjects up here. I know that eventually I'll hear the closest thing to the truth in this crowd.