The Atlantis Thread

[Xanatic*]

Which are the islands between St Brendans Island and Greenland? I assume one of them is Iceland but what is the other?

 

[EnolaGaia]

Which are the islands between St Brendans Island and Greenland? I assume one of them is Iceland but what is the other?

If you're referring to the Giuseppe Rosaccio map (last / bottom image in BMCS' post of 16 January ...

This detailed document about the map (actually an evolving series of maps) has a matching illustration with the following caption:

Groenlant [Greenland], Islandia {Iceland], and the mythical islands of Fislat {Frislandia], St Brendan, Drogeo de Francesi, and Icaria

SOURCE: http://www.myoldmaps.com/475-rosaccio.pdf

 

[Xanatic*]

No, I was thinking of the top map. There seems to be towns mentioned on both of them.

 

[EnolaGaia]

No, I was thinking of the top map. There seems to be towns mentioned on both of them.

The green one is Frisland (aka multiple similar names) - a phantom island that somehow persisted on maps for a century or more at the time (16th century). This was probably a result of borrowing from earlier accounts and maps. It's also theorized to have been a common misidentification of some portion of Iceland or Greenland.

The yellow one is labeled "Thule." During this period the name "Thule" was attributed to a number of different islands, including one or the other of Iceland and Greenland. I suspect "Thule" on this particular map represents Iceland.

 

[gerhard1]

This is an interesting video, presenting fairly different theories.

 

[Mythopoeika]

This is an interesting video, presenting fairly different theories.

The video editor can't spell 'Antarctica'. Nevertheless, an interesting video and worth watching.

 

[skinny]

Been a sub to that channel for years. She's only recently begun to appear on camera in her uploads and I don't really see the point. I tend to prefer voice only narration for the most part.

Atlantis makes all sorts of sense from myriad geohistorical perspectives. I recently became aware of yet another - the (theoretical) Zanclean event.
https://mappingignorance.org/2014/02/07/how-the-mediterranean-was-refilled/
wiki

Given it is supposed to have occurred 5mya, it stretches the bounds of credulity to suggest this event forms the basis for some sort of genetic memory of a defunct pre-Ascent-of-man civilisation or biblical deluge myth. But something prompted both of those.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

This is an interesting video, presenting fairly different theories.

Indeed. I didn't realise quite how many pyramidal ruins (140!) had been discovered on The Azores.
Can only speculate as to what lies beneath the water.
Definitely on my bucket list to visit.
Strange though that she didn't even mention Göbekli Tepe, which is solid evidence for major Neolithic building projects roughly contemporaneous with Atlantis.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

Organised archaeological tours are now available to visit the pre-European megalithic sites on Terceira Island (Azores).

Seriously thinking of making The Azores our first proper post-Covid holiday next year, as I'm convinced walking around such prehistoric sites, built by an unknown and obviously seafaring people is the nearest I'll ever get to visiting Atlantis.

https://www.viator.com/en-GB/tours/Terceira/ARCHEOLOGY-TOUR/d4539-68965P5

 

[Lobeydosser]

I'm sure someone must've mentioned this elswhere, but in case anyone wasn't aware Graham Hancock has a new series on Netflix -

Oddly I see the main line of attack against him these days seems to be that he is promoting "white supremacist theories" - even though the series doesn't claim any racial type at all for an ancient civilisation. In fact it hints at it possibly being Neanderthal which isn't even the same species.
I always get the impression that those who attack him "doth protest to much, methinks"
This sort of thing - https://slate.com/culture/2022/11/ancient-apocalypse-graham-hancock-netflix-theory-explained.html
It doesnt explain anything, just that the author doesnt like him, compares him to Donald Trump and complains about what he "doesn't" say ... "nudge, nudge, wink wink" then complains about an unamed author of an unrelated Atlantis book who complained to his Uni and got him to change a review (which he did - so some moral standard there chum).

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

I'm sure someone must've mentioned this elswhere, but in case anyone wasn't aware Graham Hancock has a new series on Netflix -

Oddly I see the main line of attack against him these days seems to be that he is promoting "white supremacist theories" - even though the series doesn't claim any racial type at all for an ancient civilisation. In fact it hints at it possibly being Neanderthal which isn't even the same species.
I always get the impression that those who attack him "doth protest to much, methinks"
This sort of thing - https://slate.com/culture/2022/11/ancient-apocalypse-graham-hancock-netflix-theory-explained.html
It doesnt explain anything, just that the author doesnt like him, compares him to Donald Trump and complains about what he "doesn't" say ... "nudge, nudge, wink wink" then complains about an unamed author of an unrelated Atlantis book who complained to his Uni and got him to change a review (which he did - so some moral standard there chum).

I'll give it a watch and hope that, amongst the probable extensive bunkum, there may be some genuinely interesting and thought-provoking material.
I agree that it's probably best to ignore hysterical claims of "Nazism" or "promoting white supremacism" and dismiss them as conservative academia's venting and indignation at having the traditional narrative challenged.

 

[ramonmercado]

I'll give it a watch and hope that, amongst the probable extensive bunkum, there may be some genuinely interesting and thought-provoking material.
I agree that it's probably best to ignore hysterical claims of "Nazism" or "promoting white supremacism" and dismiss them as conservative academia's venting and indignation at having the traditional narrative challenged.

There's no white supremacism in the series but Hancock does use the work of some white supremacists, leaving out the dodgy bits. I found it to be entertaining, it made me a tad nostalgic. Brought me back to my teens when I believed in all of that sort of bunkum.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

There's no whir supremacism in the series but Hancock does use the work of some white supremacists, leaving out the dodgy bits. I found it to be entertaining, it made me a tad nostalgic. Brought me back to my teens when I believed in all of that sort of bunkum.

Well the Russian and American space programmes in the 50s and 60s were hugely assisted by scientists from the erstwhile Third Reich, but that doesn't make space exploration inherently wrong or evil does it?

At 30 minutes an episode, Ancient Apocalypse is highly watchable - I've just completed the Malta episode and enjoyed it immensely.
Am saving the Atlantis one for tomorrow!

Oh and for someone accused of racism, GH has an interesting choice of partner!

 

[maximus otter]

…the main line of attack against him these days seems to be that he is promoting "white supremacist theories" …compares him to Donald Trump…complains about what he "doesn't" say ... "nudge, nudge, wink wink"…

Pretty standard, boiler-plate stuff in these hysterically polarised times.

maximus otter

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

Watched the Atlantis episode this morning. The most disappointing one of the series so far, as it focused almost entirely on the Bimini road/causeway and the Piri Reis map - both worthy Fortean subjects in their own right, but with only the most tenuous link to Atlantis. disappointingly there was not even one mention of The Azores. Hope he revisits the subject properly later in the series.
if you ignore the silly reviews with their hysterical accusations of racism, the series is rated 7/10 on Imdb.com which, overall, seems reasonable.

 

[stu neville]

I3m sure someone must've mentioned this elswhere, but in case anyone wasn't aware Graham Hancock has a new series on Netflix..

My review is with the Ed already, but it won't hit the stands until the end of December.

At 30 minutes an episode, Ancient Apocalypse is highly watchable - I've just completed the Malta episode and enjoyed it immensely.

Look at the length, look at his name - the pun wrote itself . It's in the review.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

My review is with the Ed already, but it won't hit the stands until the end of December.

Look at the length, look at his name - the pun wrote itself . It's in the review.

H-Hancock's half hour?
Nice one!
Look forward to your review bemoaning the fact that there wasn't a blood doner in sight.

 

[stu neville]

I bemoan the lack of Sid James as balance.

Not sure it'll make the edit.

 

[Shadowsot]

Well the Russian and American space programmes in the 50s and 60s were hugely assisted by scientists from the erstwhile Third Reich, but that doesn't make space exploration inherently wrong or evil does it?

The space program wasn't using arguments like the natives were too stupid and savage to get their rockets to fly, though.
Hancock's main theory is the hyper diffusion proposed in the 18th century based off the belief that natives were too savage to have built the sites.
Its sort of baked into their assumptions, and makes citing their opinions to support your theory a bit problematic at least.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

The space program wasn't using arguments like the natives were too stupid and savage to get their rockets to fly, though.
Hancock's main theory is the hyper diffusion proposed in the 18th century based off the belief that natives were too savage to have built the sites.
Its sort of baked into their assumptions, and makes citing their opinions to support your theory a bit problematic at least.

Welcome back @Shadowsot - long time no chat!
Whilst the example I gave was perhaps not the best, my point was that the Russians wouldn't have been capable of launching Sputnik into orbit in 1957 and Gagarin in 1961, nor would the Americans have been able to put a man on the Moon by 1969, without substantial help from ex-Nazi scientists. But that doesn't make them Nazis.
Hancock's argument may coincidentally share some tenets with a racist fringe, but with very different motives.
Hancock believes the commonality of legends from around the world of "gods" arriving following cataclysmic floods to help survivors build a new civilisation, may have had a basis in historical events.
Did he convince me? Not really, but he should be able to present his theory behind the sudden explosion of megalithic construction amongst hitherto hunter-gatherer people, without being accused of racism.
I'm enjoying the series overall - watched the Göbekli Tepe episode last night, but prefer it when he sticks to the established facts about the sites and doesn't spend too long on speculation.

 

[Shadowsot]

Welcome back @Shadowsot - long time no chat!
Whilst the example I gave was perhaps not the best, my point was that the Russians wouldn't have been capable of launching Sputnik into orbit in 1957 and Gagarin in 1961, nor would the Americans have been able to put a man on the Moon by 1969, without substantial help from ex-Nazi scientists. But that doesn't make them Nazis.
Hancock's argument may coincidentally share some tenets with a racist fringe, but with very different motives.
Hancock believes the commonality of legends from around the world of "gods" arriving following cataclysmic floods to help survivors build a new civilisation, may have had a basis in historical events.
Did he convince me? Not really, but he should be able to present his theory behind the sudden explosion of megalithic construction amongst hitherto hunter-gatherer people, without being accused of racism.
I'm enjoying the series overall - watched the Göbekli Tepe episode last night, but prefer it when he sticks to the established facts about the sites and doesn't spend too long on speculation.

To your example Nazi ideology is completely seperate from being able to launch rockets.
That's not really the case with anthropology from that time period.
If his theory is sound he wouldn't really need to go back that far for published material to build an argument from.
It's probably just as simple as that's where he could find material that supports his claims, but it's still a bad look.
It's not a coincidental comparison when he's citing them and their research in his books.

If I were to build an alternative history claim starting with Nazi produced anthropology research people would probably be a bit reactionary to my claims.

Now speaking more personally...
I do know he doesn't explicitly name the race of the lost civilization in the series. It the past he was a little more blatant. And when I followed him on Facebook years ago he was cheerfully sharing every account of white giants in the Americas he could as proof of his claims.

Between the sources he chooses to use and his own posts on his social media I do suspect he does have some beliefs about the ethnicity of the lost civilization he claims.

 

[Lobeydosser]

The space program wasn't using arguments like the natives were too stupid and savage to get their rockets to fly, though.
Hancock's main theory is the hyper diffusion proposed in the 18th century based off the belief that natives were too savage to have built the sites.
Its sort of baked into their assumptions, and makes citing their opinions to support your theory a bit problematic at least.

No that is not his main theory, in fact he explicitly states in the series that he doesn't propose that the local hunter gatherers were incapable of coming up with the technology, it's the suddenness of it - ie nothing bigger than a twig hut to a big Pyramid all one Thursday about 5pm with nothing in between that makes one stop and think. That, combined with the surviving myths, stories etc that seem to have several common threads running through them again add to the conjecture.
It's an interesting, and not unfeasible speculation that deserves some sane and rational consideration - that is all.
Anyone reading "supremicist" stuff into it of any type are bringing their own agenda to the debate and aren't helpful in the least.

Also reality (whatever that is) doesn't care about race, religion, food preferences etc - these are human abstact constructs. What did or did not happen at some distant time in the past isn't affected in any way by our predjudices or even the lack of them.
I am again very reminded of the refusal to even consider continental drift and plate techtonics in any serious way - even after hard scientific proof had been found. it basically took the "old gaurd" to drop dead along with massive incontravertible proof.
See yesterdays Google doodle - https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidb...helped-prove-plate-tectonics/?sh=dcd70442f3db
And the riducule heaped on Alfred Wegener - https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/continental-drift-versus-plate-tectonics
The dismissal Of Marie Tharp's work as "girl talk" and the frankly despicable vilificaton of Alfred Wegner in his lifetime shine a light on the not very pretty world of Science and Academia, and how reason seldom prevails (at least in the short to medium term).

Oh, and for the for the record I think what all those old myths prove is that folk who can grow large beards (like me) are obviously the true leaders of civilisation

 

[Lobeydosser]

To your example Nazi ideology is completely seperate from being able to launch rockets.
That's not really the case with anthropology from that time period.
If his theory is sound he wouldn't really need to go back that far for published material to build an argument from.
It's probably just as simple as that's where he could find material that supports his claims, but it's still a bad look.
It's not a coincidental comparison when he's citing them and their research in his books.

If I were to build an alternative history claim starting with Nazi produced anthropology research people would probably be a bit reactionary to my claims.

Now speaking more personally...
I do know he doesn't explicitly name the race of the lost civilization in the series. It the past he was a little more blatant. And when I followed him on Facebook years ago he was cheerfully sharing every account of white giants in the Americas he could as proof of his claims.

Between the sources he chooses to use and his own posts on his social media I do suspect he does have some beliefs about the ethnicity of the lost civilization he claims.

In all likelyhood it would seem to point to it being Neanderthal - so you know not white, or black or even Homo Sapiens.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

In all likelyhood it would seem to point to it being Neanderthal - so you know not white, or black or even Homo Sapiens.

The episode about Malta was particularly revealing about that.
The official narrative is that Malta was first occupied around 6,000 BC. The presence of Neanderthal remains near the (I think) Ġgantija site surely pushes that back to at least 20,000 BC.
As Neanderthals were indigenous Europeans and thought to be pale-skinned and fair or ginger-haired people, I suppose they would be classed as "Caucasian", but the reason for their demise I've always found of far more interest than their ethnicity.
The fact that Hancock is bringing such fascinating archaeological facts that go against the traditional narrative to our attention is what makes this series so compelling. If the football weren't on, I'd watch another episode now!

 

[Shadowsot]

coming up with the technology, it's the suddenness of it - ie nothing bigger than a twig hut to a big Pyramid all one Thursday about 5pm with nothing in between that makes one stop and think.

So the thousands of years from the start of the Egyptian culture to the pre-Dynastic to Dynastic Egypt is a long weekend to him?
Odd, almost like he's downplaying how much development went on in Egypt before they built the first mastaba.

That, combined with the surviving myths, stories etc that seem to have several common threads running through them again add to the conjecture.

Right, yes. He's cherry picking myths and legends across cultures that lasted thousands of years that support his theory.

Anyone reading "supremicist" stuff into it of any type are bringing their own agenda to the debate and aren't helpful in the least.

I mean, it's not reading into it when they're the references in his books the TV series is based on.
If that's the well you're going to for your material people can be justified into wondering why.

Oh, and for the for the record I think what all those old myths prove is that folk who can grow large beards (like me) are obviously the true leaders of civilisation

Interestingly he likes to ignore that there were Native Americans who could grow beards. (Though in the original legend the character is wearing a mask with a beard of feathers)

all likelyhood it would seem to point to it being Neanderthal - so you know not white, or black or even Homo Sapiens

In Malta, yeah. You know he's written more than a single TV show?
In the TV show they also don't go into his belief the Egyptians used sound waves to construct the pyramids.
Almost as though he or his director recognizes some of his ideas might think some of his ideas might be a little difficult to be accepted by his audience.

 

[Shadowsot]

The official narrative is that Malta was first occupied around 6,000 BC. The presence of Neanderthal remains near the (I think) Ġgantija site surely pushes that back to at least 20,000 BC.

The claim rests on two teeth discovered and described in 1917. Later reexamination cast doubt of the context and claims of the teether.
Hancock claims the temples date back further to 10 or 11000 BC which is still long after the Neanderthals went extinct nearly 40,000 years previously.
Meanwhile he misrepresents The actual site.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

The claim rests on two teeth discovered and described in 1917. Later reexamination cast doubt of the context and claims of the teether.
Hancock claims the temples date back further to 10 or 11000 BC which is still long after the Neanderthals went extinct nearly 40,000 years previously.
Meanwhile he misrepresents The actual site.

Point taken about the editing down and the teeth, on which point I note that "...since 2016 includes a range of state-of-the-art studies of human teeth found at Għar Dalam. When these are completed, he added, they will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals and will be available to the public."

So the wheels of orthodox science do turn at a grindingly slow pace and, tempting thought it is, one should treat speculative claims with caution.
I can still enjoy the series for its picturesque travelogue content (notably Malta, where I lived as a child) and the impressive recreations of ancient sites to their original glory. I do find Hancock's enthusiasm in his beliefs that humankind's history and the rise of civilisations are stranger and less linear than the history books depict, makes for very entertaining TV.
With fewer footballing distractions today, I may binge-watch the remaining episodes.

 

[Shadowsot]

Point taken about the editing down and the teeth, on which point I note that "...since 2016 includes a range of state-of-the-art studies of human teeth found at Għar Dalam. When these are completed, he added, they will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals and will be available to the public."

So the wheels of orthodox science do turn at a grindingly slow pace and, tempting thought it is, one should treat speculative claims with caution.
I can still enjoy the series for its picturesque travelogue content (notably Malta, where I lived as a child) and the impressive recreations of ancient sites to their original glory. I do find Hancock's enthusiasm in his beliefs that humankind's history and the rise of civilisations are stranger and less linear than the history books depict, makes for very entertaining TV.
With fewer footballing distractions today, I may binge-watch the remaining episodes.

Well maybe school textbooks. Archeology doesn't really show a strictly linear development but a sort of winding road of long development with dead ends and collapses.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

Well maybe school textbooks.

Which echoes Hancock's own statement in the penultimate episode, when he rails against "what we are taught".

Watched the lot now. Disappointed that he didn't revisit Atlantis per se, but I learnt a fair bit more about the mound-building culture in North America and the astonishing underground cities in Cappadocia, Turkey.
Hancock's big punchline at the end of the final episode was built around the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, whereby much of the Earth was allegedly devastated by cometary or asteroid impacts at the end of the Ice Age and that megalithic sites built in subsequent centuries featured astronomical alignments as a warning to future generations that a similar rain of death from the "sky serpents" could happen again.
Did I believe it? No. But did I enjoy the ride and learn some things along the way? Definitely yes.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

My review is with the Ed already, but it won't hit the stands until the end of December.

Look at the length, look at his name - the pun wrote itself . It's in the review.

Was glad to see your review of Ancient Apocalypse in FT was a balanced and mostly positive one (and that you shoe-horned in the witty half hour allusion)!