Lost city of Atlantis, swamped by tsunami, may be found

[Dark Knight]

NORTHAMPTON, Mass (Reuters) – A U.S.-led research team may have finally located the lost city of Atlantis, the legendary metropolis believed swamped by a tsunami thousands of years ago in mud flats in southern Spain.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_tsunami_atlantis

 

[tlcya]

I almost hope they never find proof of an actual Atlantis. It is one of those things that is legendary because of its very mysteriousness. Solve the myster, remove the allure and excitement.

 

[Cypros]

This is a perfect example of irresponsible scholarship. Somebody finds evidence of an ancient site and immediately proclaims that it must be the fabled Atlantis. Huh?! There are literally thousands of ancient settlements, including entire cities buried under the ground in places all over the world. Many of them have been located and studied, many have been located but no excavation, and there and many, many out there yet to be found. If everyone who discovered a new site proclaimed it was Atlantis, we would be inundated with them! (pun intended). Really, the link with Atlantis is an age-old ploy to draw attention and to get quick funds. Such claims of connections with sites of ancient tales are very common. Sadly, the archaeology of the Middle East and Mediterranean are badly maligned by excavators (some amateur and some professional) who prey on the public and wealthy donors by drawing links to the bible and other well known ancient texts in order to get their moment of glory. It is a crime against science.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that archaeology never uncovers sites and artifacts that are recorded in ancient texts. That happens quite often. I am just saying that it is irresponsible and unfounded to announce the discovery of Atlantis based on nothing but the new discovery of an archaeological site. They should wait to see what they have before making such announcements if they wish to be taken seriously by the scientific community. But obviously that is not their concern.

And as for Atlantis, the description of an ancient Utopia was presented by Plato as a made up place. He is presenting a "what if?" scenario, not recounting history. Of course, it is very possible that his description of a utopia has some historical foundation. Even when making things up we tend to incorporate things that are familiar to us. I recommed the chapter on Atlantis in Ken Feder's Frauds Myths and Mysteries to anybody who wishes some background on the context of the Atlantis story.
Personally, I believe that Plato was describing what was "remembered" about the earlier Minoan civilization of the Aegean which dated more than 1000 years before his time. Ruins of Minoan cities and palaces were visible and they were famed maritime traders, architects, and artisans of their time. One of their islands, Santorina (ancient Thera) was destroyed by volcanic eruption in the 16th century BC and the civilization slowly collapsed over the next 200 years due to economic decline and the invasion of the Myceneans of the Greek mainland. The collapse and loss of such a great civilization would have surely caused much contemplation to any who heard of it and wondered and worried if their own civilization could meet a similar fate.

 

[grayjay]

A city? I thought it was a continent. Hmmm.

 

[Chiquita71]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/us-tsunami-atlantis-idUSTRE72B2JR20110312

(Reuters) - A U.S.-led research team may have finally located the lost city of Atlantis, the legendary metropolis believed swamped by a tsunami thousands of years ago in mud flats in southern Spain.


Atlantis? I don't know. But it is always interesting to discover more of our ancient past. Interesting.

:twocents:

 

[Nova]

I don't mean to be picky, but that very article dates Plato's dialogues as both "2600 years ago" (or 589 B.C.E., i.e., wrong) and "360 B.C.E." (more or less correct, although I suspect the specific dialogue that mentions Atlantis could be dated more precisely).

Not a big deal, I suppose, but not an error that gives me confidence in the rest of the article.

 

[Chiquita71]

I don't mean to be picky, but that very article dates Plato's dialogues as both "2600 years ago" (or 589 B.C.E., i.e., wrong) and "360 B.C.E." (more or less correct, although I suspect the specific dialogue that mentions Atlantis could be dated more precisely).

Not a big deal, I suppose, but not an error that gives me confidence in the rest of the article.

Respectfully Quoted Nova

I would not have picked up on that. You think like I like. I didn't like the whole article, if you follow the link you will see it is a weak advertisement for a television show. I'm pretty sure that is what this "news" story was meant to be. Why did I create a thread? Because I always find it interesting when there are new archeological finds.

I purposely did not make the title say anything about "atlantis" because: they don't know that...unless they have some kind of good proof but they would not wait to air it on a show...imo. Anywho...its not like you asked but I thought I'd explain.

I think they like to attach the name atlantis because of obvious attention reasons. I am a person who believes there is something to Plato's telling of Atlantis. Something to the idea of advanced civilizations on earth previous to written history. Not speaking of lazer beams or whopper burgers, I feel confident to say there have been very advanced civilizations on earth previous to written history. But that is just :cow:

eace: Thank you for posting.

 

[Nova]

Respectfully Quoted Nova

I would not have picked up on that. You think like I like. I didn't like the whole article, if you follow the link you will see it is a weak advertisement for a television show. I'm pretty sure that is what this "news" story was meant to be. Why did I create a thread? Because I always find it interesting when there are new archeological finds.

I purposely did not make the title say anything about "atlantis" because: they don't know that...unless they have some kind of good proof but they would not wait to air it on a show...imo. Anywho...its not like you asked but I thought I'd explain.

I think they like to attach the name atlantis because of obvious attention reasons. I am a person who believes there is something to Plato's telling of Atlantis. Something to the idea of advanced civilizations on earth previous to written history. Not speaking of lazer beams or whopper burgers, I feel confident to say there have been very advanced civilizations on earth previous to written history. But that is just :cow:

eace: Thank you for posting.

My point was really just the lapse in editing. I'm actually fascinated by the legend of Atlantis and over the years have read several books and watched numerous TV docs on it. None of them ever proposed a location in Southern Spain, so this is new and very interesting.

One thing that has always amused me is the way they treat Plato's brief mention as if it were an encyclopedia entry or a sworn deposition. Plato was writing 1,200 years after the time when he believe Atlantis was destroyed, IIRC. So Atlantis was already a distant legend. One sees the problem when one considers that in terms of time, Atlantis was to Plato as King Arthur is to us.

It may well be that the "Atlantis" to which Plato refers is really several destroyed civilizations that had been conflated in legend by his day.

(ETA: what is particularly striking is the suggestion that they have found a city with a harbor built in rings as per Plato's description. Of the several ancient sites (such as Crete or Santorini) proposed to be the source of the Atlantis legend, I don't remember any of them showing evidence of that feature.)