Pseudohistory

[Kosmo]

Who controlls the past rules the future. Is not this the message of Big Brother and the Ministry of Truth?

It s hard to draw lines between pseudo-history (like the Atlantis story), purposly distorted history ( all the "isms") and historian error.

[Julius Ratus]

Who controlls the past rules the future. Is not this the message of Big Brother and the Ministry of Truth?

 

I think they said this as well in the old "Red Alert" game on the PC .

 

But nonetheless, its true. History can often be turned into a political weapon, and often is.

[caldrail]

Very often this 'psuedohistory' is created by people who really don't know very much and want people to listen to them, whether for profit or simply because they're hopeless cases. In some cases psuedohistory is the basis of a religious cult. On the other hand, sometimes history/archaeology does turn up things that don't fit accepted thinking. Like the water erosion on the sides of the sphinx. or those incredibly mammoth chinese ships used during the dark ages. Problem is, many learned people have taken a great deal of time and effort to learn the accepted history and don't like that work being overturned by some upstart newcomer without any credentials. So some oddities get suppressed. I think you need to look at each of these new ideas and treat them objectively without being swayed by coincidental or misinterpreted evidence.

[Septimus Flavius Galarius]

Atlantis may actually be based on the Minoan civilization.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Atlantis may actually be based on the Minoan civilization.

Is there evidence for that?

[Septimus Flavius Galarius]

Is there evidence for that?

 

Here is a article on the subject.

 

http://ancienthistory.suite101.com/article...antis_and_thera

[Moonlapse]

Now is the only thing thats real.

[caldrail]

Atlantis may actually be based on the Minoan civilization.

 

Oh yes. The dreaded Atlantis. Trouble is, the legended city has been placed at just about every point on the earths globe in an attempt to fit in with plato's description. I think thats wrong. Plato originally got the story from Solon, who heard it from egyptian priests. Plato used the story for a morality tale and his version of the city is deliberately exaggerated to emphasise the fall of a great civilisation. In no way can you take his description absolutely literally.

 

There was an interesting report last year about someone who was surveying the mediterranean between cyprus and israel, where undersea rock formations apparently resemble plato's description. This is not entirely impossible. The northward movement of the african tectonic plate has blocked the straits of gibraltar at least once, and perhaps as many as ten times in prehistory. Each time the med has evaporated and become a huge salt desert valley. Eventually of course the dam breaks and the sea floods back in, with a wave moving at an estimated 400mph and filling the sea again over the course of a century. What a waterfall that would have made! So there is a remote possibility that people lived down there - but its a hot salty desert. A great city state, with verdant pastures and all manner of wild beasts? It just doesn't fit the facts.

 

As for myself, I 've come to the conclusion that the minoans were antlanteans. The explosion of Santorini is probably the most likely cause of the legend. During an eruption of the volcanic cone in the island centre, sea water got into the fissure after an earthquake. This causes a massive explosion, like krakatoa in the nineteenth century. The coastal cities and facilities of the minoans were inundated by a truly awesome tidal wave resulting from it, and their culture devolves into cannabalistic survivors. But - there is a tantalising picture somewhere that shows an ancient city on a conical mountain rising out of a sheltered bay. My guess is that Atlantis may well have existed, as an important city in the minoan state, and that it stood on the volcanic cone at Santorini. Which is why we can't find it because its now spread over the mediterranean! Its also why Plato made his wild story about it - there was nothing to see and describe for real. So he decided to write about it 'beyond the pillars of hercules', way out there in unexplored earth.

 

As for the tales of widom and ancient mystical science far exceeding our own.... yeah right....

[Northern Neil]

he decided to write about it 'beyond the pillars of hercules', way out there in unexplored earth.

...However, geologists suggest that the plateau under the Azores was once above sea level, and that the ongoing separation of the North American and African plates caused it to subside rapidly, leaving only the mountaintops (Azores) visible. This in turn resulted in a sudden northerly turn to the Gulf Stream, (of course - the plateau was no longer there!) which resulted in a rapid melting of the Wurm ice cap - at about the same time that Plato said Atlantis was inundated. Sea levels rose worldwide, giving rise to the various 'Noah' legends - which are extant both sides of the Atlantic. It is not inconcievable that refugees from this disaster fled to both sides of the Atlantic, giving rise to further legends. In addition to this, the very name of the Atlantic Ocean itself, and the Atlas Mountains lends place name support to this dialogue.

 

I am not a supporter of the Edgar Cayce - Graham Hancock school of thought, which sensationally mixes a modicum of historical fact with mysticism and a great deal of speculation. But neither am I of the inclination to disregard a theory, because such individuals have rendered it 'unfashionable' in the first place. I ask my friends on this forum to give that point considerable thought.

 

As for the tales of widom and ancient mystical science far exceeding our own.... yeah right....

 

Indeed. In this respect Solon was probably exaggerating - it is human nature to remark on a golden age superior to the present, wether it be the 1940's or the remote past. But whereas exaggeration of facts is a characteristic of much ancient literature, geographical alteration of facts is not. For what possible reason would Solon/Plato move the site of this legend from the mediterranean to the mid Atlantic? Place name, geological and mythological evidence suggests the mid - Atlantic was indeed the seat of this alleged culture. But consider this - as regards the alleged civilisation of the Atlanteans, the details outlined in Criteas are incidental. If Atlantis was, for example, a high Neolithic culture slightly superior to the rest of the world, with perhaps literacy skills and superior seafaring, this would indeed translate through the ages as a glittering civilisation, superior to anything the rest of the world had to offer, whose streets were paved with gold.

 

Here's another thought - the actual atlantis may well have been the Minoans, but the legends associated with the demise of the mid - Atlantic landmass may also be true, in which case the 'chinese whispers' aspect of ancient recording may have fused the two into a single entity, much as the tales of King Arthur might originally have referred to two or more separate individuals.

 

To ignore the somewhat compelling evidence for this culture / empire because of a dislike for pseudo historians, mystics and their sometimes ludicrous assertions, is not scientific, and does not do justice to the analysis required of this subject.

Edited April 8, 2007 by Northern Neil

[caldrail]

...However, geologists suggest that the plateau under the Azores was once above sea level, and that the ongoing separation of the North American and African plates caused it to subside rapidly, leaving only the mountaintops (Azores) visible. This in turn resulted in a sudden northerly turn to the Gulf Stream, (of course - the plateau was no longer there!) which resulted in a rapid melting of the Wurm ice cap - at about the same time that Plato said Atlantis was inundated. Sea levels rose worldwide, giving rise to the various 'Noah' legends - which are extant both sides of the Atlantic. It is not inconcievable that refugees from this disaster fled to both sides of the Atlantic, giving rise to further legends. In addition to this, the very name of the Atlantic Ocean itself, and the Atlas Mountains lends place name support to this dialogue.

Oh Neil.... I used to think the same way about these things. The name atlantic is based on the legend of atlantis, not the other way around. The rising sea levels were just as likely due to the earth wobbling on its axis, the same reason for the ice ages, but since the hothouse period following the K/T event the earths climate has refused to stabilise. The atlantic opened up from the jurassic period onward. Even if the azores plateau was above sea level at any time, I don't believe this accounts for the atlantis legend. How did elephants get there? Please don't say by atlantean ship.... The arguements you give above are standard for those supporting the atlantic landmass theory, which has no substantial proof. The atlantic floor is rising and has been since pangaea pulled apart. There may well be a future landmass in the atlantic, but not in the past.

 

I am not a supporter of the Edgar Cayce - Graham Hancock school of thought, which sensationally mixes a modicum of historical fact with mysticism and a great deal of speculation. But neither am I of the inclination to disregard a theory, because such individuals have rendered it 'unfashionable' in the first place. I ask my friends on this forum to give that point considerable thought.

Graham Hancock, Erich Von Daniken, Andrew Tomas - they all want to make a name by discovering some truth about the world that has been hidden or ignored by respectable science. Truth is, they look for coincidence and call it evidence. They look at ancient art and appraise it for modern technology. They see what they want too and misinterpret without question.

 

Here's another thought - the actual atlantis may well have been the Minoans, but the legends associated with the demise of the mid - Atlantic landmass may also be true, in which case the 'chinese whispers' aspect of ancient recording may have fused the two into a single entity, much as the tales of King Arthur might originally have referred to two or more separate individuals.

No. King arthur is based on a story written by a medieval writer based on legend. It was a novel of the thirteenth century, that has become accepted by the masses as semi-historical. The same is happening with Dan Browns Da Vinci Code. Or the Holy Grail? What a wild goose chase that is. In this case, the grail never existed at all. It was first mentioned by a medieval writer named Chierten Des Troyes who wrote an arthurian tale called Percival - and he never actually finished it, dropping dead somewhat inconventiently. Later writers added their own endings to the tale and the original purpose of the grail was lost, replaced by a christianised plot about the last supper. Arthur was a real person - he's mentioned in dark age writings - but probably wasn't a king, more likely a warlord defending against saxon aggression. The possibility of an individual hero from seperate real people doesn't work for me. It happens the other way around. An individual does something, gets remembered, then his story grows and becomes romanticised out of proportion.

 

To ignore the somewhat compelling evidence for this culture / empire because of a dislike for pseudo historians, mystics and their sometimes ludicrous assertions, is not scientific, and does not do justice to the analysis required of this subject.

The legend of atlantis is compelling but then it was intended to be from the start. Starting with a legend then trying to prove it against all odds isn't good history/archaeology, because you become blinded to the evidence that disproves it. I'm not saying there weren't any civilisations we're not aware of in distant ancient times, but that I don't think they were as succesful as later ones nor as expansive as plato claims.

[Northern Neil]

Whoops - accidentally posted twice. see below for edited response.

Edited April 9, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Northern Neil]

You are quite right in what you say - however, I am not saying I believe in the Atlantis story, all I am saying is that there is some evidence to support it. And like I said, the proper Atlantis may well be Thira, but that does not discount the possibility of subsidance of the mid Atlantic ridge, and the amalgamation of legends and myths of that place (Whatever it may have been called) with those of the pre - Dorian Greek world. And as you say, even if these civilisations did exist, they are unlikely to be nearly as grand as stated by legend - hence my suggestion that Atlantis may have been a fairly affluent Neolithic culture. Quite unable, as I realise, to import elephants, wether by ship, plane or spaceship to Crete or to the mid Atlantic!

 

Again, yes, Arthur was one person, but I believe that some exploits attributed to him were in fact the exploits of other individuals such as Ambrosius, Germanus and Cadwallon, and even mythical figures from way back in Celtic folklore. I am aware of the gross embellishments of later mediaeval writers.

 

What I am saying is, it is a shame that the activities of the likes of Hancock and Van Daniken have made research into these subjects unfashionable and virtually off limits, when they may in fact be perfectly viable things to research.

Edited April 9, 2007 by Northern Neil

[caldrail]

You are quite right in what you say - however, I am not saying I believe in the Atlantis story, all I am saying is that there is some evidence to support it. And like I said, the proper Atlantis may well be Thira, but that does not discount the possibility of subsidance of the mid Atlantic ridge, and the amalgamation of legends and myths of that place (Whatever it may have been called) with those of the pre - Dorian Greek world. And as you say, even if these civilisations did exist, they are unlikely to be nearly as grand as stated by legend - hence my suggestion that Atlantis may have been a fairly affluent Neolithic culture. Quite unable, as I realise, to import elephants, wether by ship, plane or spaceship to Crete or to the mid Atlantic!

Strictly speaking the possibility of upward and downward movement of areas of the earths crust can occur, though this is usually at the contact area of tectonic plates rather than places where they're coming apart. For instance, there are places along the mediterranean coast which have risen above and fallen below sea level as the coast buckles under pressure from the african plate. For any appreciable land mass to rise is something exceptional. Not completely impossible perhaps. The Deccan Hills in India are the result of a single volcanic lava flow occurring in the cretaceous period. However, to my mind something isn't right about this theory that a large land mass appeared then vanished. Its another case of seeing what you want to.

 

Again, yes, Arthur was one person, but I believe that some exploits attributed to him were in fact the exploits of other individuals such as Ambrosius, Germanus and Cadwallon, and even mythical figures from way back in Celtic folklore. I am aware of the gross embellishments of later mediaeval writers.

I've just posted athread on this subject. No, Ambrosius and others got their own glory. Arthur wasn't regarded as a particularly worthy guy by the kings of his time, and I strongly suspect that they let him strut his stuff because it suited their purposes. In fact, the chroniclers of the time either ignore Arthur or condemn him, whereas his competitors simply don't have Arthurs presence in dark age britain.

 

What I am saying is, it is a shame that the activities of the likes of Hancock and Van Daniken have made research into these subjects unfashionable and virtually off limits, when they may in fact be perfectly viable things to research.

I agree. They have muddied the waters somewhat but also remember that if you want to rewrite history, even with the best intentions, you have to convince the establishment that everything they've studied and taught is... well.... wrong. Learned people do tend to get upest about that!

[Northern Neil]

For any appreciable land mass to rise is something exceptional. Not completely impossible perhaps.

I think the presence of Iceland further north on the mid Atlantic ridge would be a fine example, and I believe it is the presence of this land mass which lends credence to some geologists view that the plateau under the Azores was something similar. I believe it is entirely possible that such a landmass would slump as a result of the continuing separation of Africa/Europe and the Americas. I do not, however, subscribe to the 'crustal displacement' theory.

 

Regards Arthur: Yes. He is significantly absent from Gildas' writings.

Edited April 10, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Marcus Caelius]

Sea levels rose worldwide, giving rise to the various 'Noah' legends - which are extant both sides of the Atlantic. It is not inconcievable that refugees from this disaster fled to both sides of the Atlantic, giving rise to further legends.

 

Not inconceivable as a recreational hypothesis, but it bears no relation to a well-founded theory. The simple fact is, if you live near water you are occasionaly going to have a major flood; pretty much all cultures live near water, and most have flooded out and have flood survival stories of some sort.

 

I am not a supporter of the Edgar Cayce - Graham Hancock school of thought, which sensationally mixes a modicum of historical fact with mysticism and a great deal of speculation. But neither am I of the inclination to disregard a theory, because such individuals have rendered it 'unfashionable' in the first place. I ask my friends on this forum to give that point considerable thought.

 

As I say, it's not so much a theory as a recreational hypothesis. If you are truly looking for the reason for widespread Flood legends, I believe my own version, above, is far closer to the truth than any Atlantis legend. Thing is, any disaster of the Atlantis sort is going to leave some sort of physical evidence. Not just man-made, as in the Thera explosion, and not just landforms, but in twisted and broken strata. A distaster of that magnitude is going to leave a footprint and, if humans witness it, it's going to leave a lot of stories. To date, there is no discernable geological evidence, and we have precisely one story of questionable authenticity.

 

Indeed. In this respect Solon was probably exaggerating -

 

More to the point, I've often wondered if Plato wasn't making up the entire affair; not just Atlantis, but Solon's conversation with the priests. That was his style, wasn't it, to phrase everything in the form of a dialogue?

 

To ignore the somewhat compelling evidence for this culture / empire because of a dislike for pseudo historians, mystics and their sometimes ludicrous assertions, is not scientific, and does not do justice to the analysis required of this subject.

 

I, personally, am neither compelled nor impelled. Yes, we must keep an open mind, but not so open our brains fall out. "Science" is not based upon speculation, but upon observation and interpretation of phenomena. As far as Atlantis goes, the phenomena include a single dubious story (perhaps a single dubious story within a single dubious story), the mythology that has grown around it, and nothing else. I suggest that any scientific theory based upon this should have more to do with sociology than history.

Edited April 12, 2007 by Marcus Caelius