Talk:Location hypotheses of Atlantis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] cleanup?

Reflex Reaction, why did you retag this page for cleanup? I just think there should be a clear reason here, because the article doesn't seem messy to me. And your edit comment didn't mean anything. Snargle 19:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Snargle, my apologies for being unclear. I originally created this article so that the source article Atlantis would be better simply for it's removal. There is A GREAT DEAL wrong with this article and I'm surprised that you would not think so. First there is a mix of Atlantis theories (Santorini, Sardinia, Ireland, Israel, etc) and areas which share some element of Atlantis but are completely unrelated (Kumari Kandam, Japan - Yonaguni, Ponza). Additionally it reads a poorly organized set of hypotheses, jumping from area to area to area. Most importantly many of the locations were written by advocates of the proposed location. These often include original research and POV arguments that surely this must be Atlantis because of X and Y reason. Because most of the contributors don't know wiki-code, formattting is inconsistent between entries. I have thought about cleaning up this article, but frankly I haven't had the time to clean out the dumping ground of Atlantis theories. If you feel otherwise please let me know. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Reflex Reaction, thanks for the explanation. If I'm not mistaken, this article is just intended to be a list of hypotheses, instead of a normal article. Considering that, its "flow" isn't an issue, the grammar is fine, and the formatting doesn't seem terrible enough by itself to warrent the cleanup tag. As for the other issues, I suggest replacing {{cleanup}} with {{verify}} and {{npov}}. The only reason I care is that I've been working on the cleanup backlog, and I feel that this article should be fixed by the atlantis people. -- Snargle 07:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Snargle, I applaud your efforts to do cleanup. You guys are my heroes, cleanup is a difficult and sometime dirty job. Best luck to you. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific minority opinions

Hello, what about scientists who do not think that Plato invented Atlantis? Are they only mentioned here in Location hypotheses? Would be a shame, I think. --84.176.189.83 20:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


I think this should be mentioned either on the main Atlantis page and referred to from this Location hypothesis page, or here. Here is a draft:
"Some earth scientists suspect that the tale is partly reality-based. They argue that the tale mentions facts that were not known in Plato's time, which makes it far-fetched to regard it as pure fiction. For example, Atlantis is a deluge myth involving the sinking of an island. At the peak of the last ice age some 25,000 years ago the world sea level was about 125 m below the present. The most rapid transgression was at the end of the ice age, when large areas of coastal lowlands got flooded including many islands. This global transgression may have inspired many flood myths, including Atlantis."
The appropriate reference to this is the proceedings from the Atlantis conference on Milos in July 2005, but unfortunately the proceedings from the event is still not available. In any case, that link is necessary at this page. --Lindorm 23:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to charter and conference

Please first see WP:NOT. We do not needs lots of links to every event related to Atlantis. As far as the links themselves I'm not sure what the links to the charter and conference provide to the discussion. They are as far as I can tell only discussions of agreements between a few interested researchers, which I think is bordering on WP:NOR. While a few researchers were able to present that they did not think that Atlantis existed, conferences like these can suffer from confirmation bias and may not be "neutral" as was the reported findings. Additionally academic conferences are generally not linked in articles because again they can cover specialized info. If you have any other thoughts please let me know. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I read the pages and agree with the rules defined on them.
But:
The conference: Pros and Contras have been there, the whole spectrum. Known and unknown researchers. It has been a singular event. There is no comparable other event. The conference will be held again 3 years later. It is an institution of Atlantis Research. It is really important for all interested in location and other hypotheses. It is not specialized on few problems about location hypotheses. It is THE link on this page. And it is no "new" research, it is from 2005. Time goes by. And: You list links to pages of single researchers who took part in the conference, but not to the conference, which gives a really nice overview over the whole spectrum. If I would come to Wikipedia to be informed about location hypotheses, I really would be excited about this link.
The charter: Maybe we have to define the scope of this article first. Is it wanted to list only one hypothesis after the other - or to provide a more general background, too? For example, we can identify groups of authors of location hypothesis, dividing them into rational and less rational, in ideologists (National Socialism e.g.) and esoterics, in hypotheses whose authors tried hard to comply to scientific methods and others etc. etc. etc.
I think, the article should not only simply list the hypotheses, but tell the reader something about them more in general. And here the charter represents an interesting group of authors.
Furthermore it is strange: You list links to the pages of authors of the charter, but not to the charter itself. This I will never understand, really :-)))
Furthermore it is strange, that now there is a category of links called "General information". Well, that is not so far away from what the two links are intended to be.
I am ready for further discussion, of course. My first thought is always: What would a reader expect, if he wants to be informed on location hypotheses? Would he like the links? I would say: Yes, very.
--Athenaios 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
You make a convincing argument...and consider me convinced, I'm sorry to have taken so much of your time discussing this but this topic seems to draw lots of "speculation" that sometimes needs to be vetted. Thanks for contributing and login in, though you are already probably a member of the German wikipedia. BTW (By the way), thanks for spotting that image violation I wasn't sure when I posted it and said so in the comments. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to you for reading my contribution to the discussion. I am member of both - english and german - Wikipedia now. --Athenaios 17:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you about changing the tone of the page. Two other lists that I have worked with Films_considered_the_worst_ever and Films that have been considered the greatest ever have moved from a strict alphabetical listing to a logical grouping. I unfortunately don't have the amount of wiki-time that I would like but I could help were possible. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Same problem with me, unfortunately, but we are now two who agree, maybe there will be others joining us. --Athenaios 22:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
yes, the article needs logical grouping, and a coherent overview evaluation of the status of the hypotheses (which have academic credibility, which are just batshit crazy). The grouping "in and out of the Mediterranean" is a good start, since non-Mediterranean hypotheses further than just outside Gibraltar or the Bosporus are hardly candidates for serious proposals. dab (ᛏ) 07:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Why does not allow to the theory of the Spanish Diaz-Montexano? discrimination, racism?

Reason logical does not exist ningun to eliminate my version. The contributed data are recognized international level, in more than 25000 paginas of Internet. if it is allowed to mention Jaime Manuschevich, and his theory of Israel, why does not allow to the theory of the Spanish Diaz-Montexano? discrimination, racism?

Greeting, --RobertMc 01:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, your English is terrible. Not acceptable. This simply is enough to delete it.
Diaz-Montexano is allowed, but only within the flow of others who thought, that Atlantis is in Spain. These are many. If you think, that Diaz-Montexano was the first, then add the year of his publication.
--Athenaios 09:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith RobertMC, why not write it in Spanish and I'll help you translate it . I know enough Spanish. I am always interested in things about Atlantis.--Jondel 09:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that this article should mention a Central American hypothesis - which is one of three plausible hypotheses. I claim that all three hypotheses could have been "correct" to Plato - who would have conflated him, just as is done today in the article already in question. Kaimiikekamaila 22:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)kaimiikekamaila

[edit] Draft for classification and cleanup

I have tried to classify the hypotheses according to a rather simple to check criteria, i.e. if a scholar is behind it or not. Of course it does not mean that all of those are good (obviously all except possibly one is wrong!), nor that all the others are bad, but it's a little indication. I am also suggesting some changes for the sake of clarity.

Locational hypotheses advanced or supported by a scholar (i.e., having a doctor degree in any subject): Andalucia, Santorini, Spartel, Malta, Troy, England (though first, reference is lacking, and second, Land's End is Cornwall, not England, if I'm not mistaken--should be merged with British Isles to "Britain", IMO), Ireland, North Sea, Sweden (this was advanced by a Swedish scholar in the 17th century, Olof Rudbeck, in his book Atland, but nobody takes it seriously. Still, if the list is to be complete, it must be mentioned. Also, note that he used the name Atland before the Oera Linda book was "discovered", which may be of importance in judging if it is a hoax).

Other hypotheses: Cyprus, Israel, Sardinia, Antarctica, Bahamas and the Caribbean, Bolivia, British Isles (this overlaps England and Ireland but the explanation is different, see comment), Indonesia/Sundaland, Cuba, Finland, Sea of Azov.

Not yet categorized: Azores (lacking references), Mid-Atlantic Ridge (this should be merged with Azores IMO), Tantali (Peter James is a research student according to wikipedia, need to check if he is Dr. yet), Black Sea (it says S and C Schoppe are researchers, but I seem to recall they are not Drs), Canary Islands (no references), Estremadura, Portugal (lacking references).

Not Atlantis but a similar story (should be removed?): Ponza (lacking references), India and Sri Lanka.

Comment: This classification into locations is a bit artificial. Two persons can present two different hypothesis arguing that the same place was Atlantis (or overlapped), but for two different reasons, and during two different periods in time, and in two different contexts. One should really classify according to time also.

Perhaps more enlightening would be a classification in those that try to fit it into what is known (i.e., the hypothesis tries to explain it by fitting it into known geology and archaeology), and those hypotheses that claim that there is some geology or archaeology that we are unaware of (except for the Atlantis tale).

Yet another classification could be abandoned and active hypothesis. The Rudbeck theory was once taken seriously but is now abandoned. There may be more examples in this list. --Lindorm 01:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antarctica?

I believe it should be noted that a particular adventurer, one Marco Polo, once claimed to have found Atlantis and mapped its coast line. Recently, a coastline map of Antarctica was made, using ultrasonic mapping to find the actual shape of the land without ice. It has been noted that the map made by Polo and the map of iceless Antarctica are nearly identical. This is merely a speculative observation, but one that could be useful in the main article.

You're talking about some wild speculations on the Piri Reis map. That coast that some are so sure is that of Anctartica is actually Argentina but badly drawed. The map is a compilation of European charts stolen/captured by the Turks.
Anyhow it has little to do with Atlantis. --Sugaar 16:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup is definitely needed!

There seems to be no knowledge of the general principles of folkloric studies or archaeology in this article. While it is obvious that Plato is the first known historical author to mention Atlantis, there are etymological studies of the word Atlantis (as Plato used it and as it has been translated) in abundance - unmentioned, but should be in the top introduction. There is only vague mention of Plato's own "scholarship," which can be disregarded as fiction if one wishes - but why, then, the concern over the place in the first place? Many people - including ourselves today - use words improperly or as telescoped references to things we know only a little about. Plato mentions Atlantis more times than is reflected in this article - more than in C and T, in fact, and devotes rather a long section in some work to Atlantis, with an entirely different approach to the topic - I was just reading it about three days ago and could find it again (it's in Peter Bailey's book), but I was surprised that it wasn't mentioned here. Plato knows that there was some "advanced older civilization" connected somehow with "the west," and he also knows of at least one natural disaster effecting this "ancient advanced civilization." He has no maps, of course. He is using Solon's material, if he is to be believed at all. Solon was laughed at by the Egyptian priests (whose exact location is unknown, but apparently somewhere in between Cairo and Athens!) for the lack of Greek knowledge about "history." There are several different floods that could all have been conflated by Plato - and more than one "distant" civilization to which he could be referring. I think he is doing several different things at once: referring to an ancient advanced civilization that many people around him have also heard of, and refer to as Atlantis; referring to an actual geographical locale (or more than one) at some distance from Greece, from which innovations have come (is likely conflating several), referring to drowned civilizations in general. Hence, there is not just one Atlantis, but several - all collapsed (as is typical in human language) into one taxon - just as Wikipedia does every single day. Things can't be parsed indefinitely, and Plato's interest in the past, while not exactly limited, was certainly bounded by his own time constraints and what he had heard. It is obvious to me that the broad plain on the West side of the Black Sea is the ultimate location (if just one must be chosen) of a drowned Atlantis that had a higher culture than the surrounding region. Today, it's known that a massive seismic event created the Black Sea at around 7,700 BC (9,700BP) - some say 7,300BC, but these are dates that need to be obtained from competent archaeogeologists and climatologists. Underwater archaeology is expensive - but it is being arranged at the Black Sea, to determine what happened. Basically, the sea tilted (two varying theories: very fast - as in over 2 days or less - or slower - as in over a couple of years). It is thought that run off from the last ice age accumulated on continental bedrock in the drainage basin we know today as the Black Sea - it was freshwater at the time. A large and fertile plain, hosting one of the "Old European" civilizations (precisely in between the oldest continuously inhabited parts of Europe: nw Anatolia, e. Bulgaria/Transylvani, s. Russia) was once there. There is no way to have continuously inhabited cave/open air settlements in contemporary s. Russia, the Crimea, Czechoslavakia, Transylvania, etc. without the vast dry plain (replete with herd animals) that linked them being accounted for. From 45-50,000BP until 9.700BP, that plain was free of water, and at the edge of a freshwater lake. Many times earlier, hominids coming out of Africa had availed themselves of the use of this lake (Homo habilis/homo georgensis, homo erectus, etc.) It is silly to suppose that early Europeans could have somehow flown over it or avoided using it - and of course, given its geographical characteristics (when it wasn't under water) the habitable sections of the Black Sea area would have been much larger, delightful to live in, and well-connected (in fact the only route nicely connecting Europe with Kartvellia or points east). They would have had boats, if anyone did, at an early point - I think basket housing/boats had to have been in the region by 8000 BC. Allegedly, farming comes into Europe at around 6,500-7000B.C., rather abruptly and in an area immediately adjacent to (part of) the Black Sea ledge now underwater (you can see this ledge on Google Earth really nicely - the former Atlantis, including its Crimean harbors are shown - if any of the Atlantises existed, this one would have had good harbors).

In other words, there's no point in looking for just one Atlantis. That would be like looking for just one "early American president" (American presidents existed before George Washington, as any scholar knows - but who else knows that? - everyone conflates a bunch of "Founding Fathers" into a person or group that never existed, and George Washington knew, himself, that he was not the first American president). There are more than one. But one of them - and the one most important to Greek life - was the one on the edge of the Black Sea. Russia knows this, there are vast numbers of studies in the Crimea on it, on the underwater archaeology of the region, etc. There are lots of publications in Russia and in other languages - not well-reflected here on Wikipedia, at all.

Atlantis also "stands for" the vast continent of America, to the west. By Plato's time, the Black Sea Atlantis had been under water for 7000 years (not 9000 as he states - but wow, is he ever close, considering how far off many historical dates actually are when reviewed with physical/radioisotypic analysis). It's possible that the people of the Black Sea controlled a large trade network, although it is more likely that they stockpiled stuff brought up from the Aegean and the Levant. They were also on the vast trade network linking Eurasia with the Americas - from both east and west. Around 9000BC, the two trade networks were linked precisely in the Black Sea region, with artifacts from Japan flowing to the Americas in one direction, and artifacts from Canada/the Great Lakes reaching Eurasia from the West. Copper was mined in the Americas - and moved to Eurasia, in some manner - by the earliest phase of the Chalcolithic - somewhat later than Plato's Atlantis, but still - all of this needs to be laid out as potential hypothesis near the beginning of the article. Without hypotheses that can be physically tested (such as where the copper in the Black Sea region came from) there's no way to assess any of these various claims. As more and more archaeology is down at the Black Sea (which, as I stated, is in the works), there will be more to date - and way more "unusual" challenges to "regular history." Prehistorians have seen this coming since at least 1890, with strong data presented throughout the 20th century, apparently to deaf ears in the field of academic history. Instead, prehistorians of metals, metallurgy, trade objects, mobiliary art, pictographs, petroglyphs, ancient navigation, paleoastronomy - etc., are doing this work (and being ignored). When so many lines of evidence converge, I suppose someone needs to write a book or a new synthesis - which has already been done (and was done repeatedly in the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's), at which time the generally scornful attitude of then-historians made it a very tired dissertation/book topic. As a prehistorian, myself, I've been reluctant to touch the question with a 10 foot pole - it's a career killer, in anthropology, linguistics, archaeology - in America and Great Britain, anyway.

But Romanian, Italian, Russian, Bulgarian and other historians, linguists, archaeologists, geologists, climatologists, navigators, art historians, etc., etc. continue to write on these topics - and there's no reason to ignore the fact that these folks know way more about prehistory than Plato did - although the ways in which they support his views are quite remarkable. There was a drowned ancient civilization in the Black Sea region, it may have occurred suddenly, it was one of several flooding/dislocations in the general region (the Sindh River Valley, also relatively advanced, was inundated - but much closer in time to Plato, and that would have made him way off in dates). How about trusting Plato for a little? Since he can be backed up by modern science, in part, why not start with validating him as a potentially smarter-than-many-modern-historians type of guy? Solon was obviously correct, Plato was speaking to an audience about what they "knew" at the time (Solon being correct, of course, from the point of view of "what was known or knowable to Greeks" at the time). The mere fact that Greek literature leaps into existence along a very sharp profile of nascent literary clines is problematic and speaks to a place apart from Greece where such literary attempts had to have been made earlier (and not by the Phoenicians, who appear a mere 1800 BC out of nowhere, already possessed of a similar alphabet - the so-called Iberian script).

Anyhow, I can go edit this page a bit, but I have no magic wand. If there's going to be a discussion of Atlantis, I think it should start with scientific archaeology, etc., and with places where there are higher probabilities of Atlantis actually existing. The preceding comment was made by User:Kaimiikekamaila

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/c/Talk%7ELocation_hypotheses_of_Atlantis_78d3.html"