• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Atlantis Thread

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!
I thought I'd done with Hancock some twenty-odd years ago, didn't even realise he was still about, but thanks to all the fuss around this series I finally gave it a watch. I did enjoy it a great deal, mostly I think the views of all these ancient sites. I know how this works from past experience; if I was still interested enough to look into his individual points, his intuitive leaps of logic would probably dissolve. But it's nice to indulge the fantasy bite-sized half hour segments. It's hard not to agree with him that there're probably all kinds of discoveries of human habitation in coastal areas under the sea, even if not Atlantis.
 
Which echoes Hancock's own statement in the penultimate episode, when he rails against "what we are taught".
I mean, yeah. Most of what we pick up from school is going to be outdated or simplified to get the basics across. When it comes to what we pick up outside of school it comes down to TV documentaries and occasional articles in magazines or that pop up in our news feeds.
This means a lot of the nuance and details get cut out and the overall understanding is simplified. Since it's usually handled by journalists, not archaeoligsts, sometimes what's presented has bits factually wrong.

For instance there's a popular claim that consecutive building at Gobekli Tepe got worse with passing generations. This comes from a journalist misunderstanding that the later buildings were smaller and changed locations somewhat. They don't actually show a decline in skill and knowledge anymore than computers getting smaller over time do.

Hancock isn't seeking to expand on that lost nuance and details, though.
He presents it as though archaeoligsts say that hunter gathers just up and started building pyramids one day.
He's not giving the detail we actually have on the very different paths cultures took in the Americas and in Egypt that ended in pyramid designs.
The entire development is not really important to Hancock. Just making comparisons between the end points of their development.
And note how he refers to simple hunter gatherers or simple farmers.
Even before Göbekli Tepe was discovered archaeoligsts have been expanding on the complexity of hunter gatherer and early settled cultures.
What the Tepe sites have shown (as well as sites like Poverty Point) is that these cultures were capable of complex building and organization when the hunter gatherer life style produced enough resources to support a large enough population.
Now on the one hand they didn't just start doing this overnight. Natufian settlements show a long development from temporary shelters to seasonal to more permanent homes. Domestication of sheep, goats, and pigs. Wild plants into sustainable domestic crops.
But this happened slowly, the people involved wouldnt tell you they were doing the same as they always had.
When it comes to Gobekli Tepe itself Hancock seems to be guilty of the same mentality that he accuses archaeoligsts of. There is no "point" to human development.
Hunter gatherers weren't trying to develop agriculture. And in some real ways agriculture brings with it a host of serious issues.
He tends to ignore all the other ways we've come to understand the complexity of hunter gatherer cultures, both from the archaeologic record and from what sites like Cahokia tell us about how cities rise and fall.
As a final thing for this there's his handling of myth. He pretends that each culture is entirely unique and distinct when it comes to developing their myths and stories. And that they sat around isolated until someone came along to connect the dots.
This is really fundamentally wrong.
In the old world we know bronze age trade reached from Mesopotamia to the Balkan region. Trade brings with it culture and information spreads back and forth.
Well before most of the cultures and civilizations were writing down things for us to study later their myths and stories and legends were being passed around.
In the Americas we have something different. Most of the local writing was destroyed, the people's were decimated. The surviving accounts of their civilization and beliefs come from people who had no training in keeping their beliefs out what they were being told. You had people who were just as much interpreting the local religion into their religion as the Ancient Greeks and Romans did with the even more Ancient Egyptian religion.
And the following centuries of being a lower class people to the Christian conquerors.
Not saying this to make a moral statement, but to point out that the native cultures and their stories don't exist isolated either. Trying to tease out what is original and what's influence is difficult. Heck one of the criticisms of the PIE theory
The study of paleo indo European culture and religion is really interesting in this regard. And underpins many of the similarities that he tries to use to build his idea of of a lost civilization.
Now to get back to the other hand... Greater complexity of culture doesn't mean building monuments. There's a bulk of evidence on the complexity of trade and industry showing that these people were in no way simple.
 
Sorry for the late reply, been very busy. Even now I was writing while doing about two or three other things so... Can't be sure how rambling that got.
 
I mean, yeah. Most of what we pick up from school is going to be outdated or simplified to get the basics across. When it comes to what we pick up outside of school it comes down to TV documentaries and occasional articles in magazines or that pop up in our news feeds.
This means a lot of the nuance and details get cut out and the overall understanding is simplified. Since it's usually handled by journalists, not archaeoligsts, sometimes what's presented has bits factually wrong.

For instance there's a popular claim that consecutive building at Gobekli Tepe got worse with passing generations. This comes from a journalist misunderstanding that the later buildings were smaller and changed locations somewhat. They don't actually show a decline in skill and knowledge anymore than computers getting smaller over time do.

Hancock isn't seeking to expand on that lost nuance and details, though.
He presents it as though archaeoligsts say that hunter gathers just up and started building pyramids one day.
He's not giving the detail we actually have on the very different paths cultures took in the Americas and in Egypt that ended in pyramid designs.
The entire development is not really important to Hancock. Just making comparisons between the end points of their development.
And note how he refers to simple hunter gatherers or simple farmers.
Even before Göbekli Tepe was discovered archaeoligsts have been expanding on the complexity of hunter gatherer and early settled cultures.
What the Tepe sites have shown (as well as sites like Poverty Point) is that these cultures were capable of complex building and organization when the hunter gatherer life style produced enough resources to support a large enough population.
Now on the one hand they didn't just start doing this overnight. Natufian settlements show a long development from temporary shelters to seasonal to more permanent homes. Domestication of sheep, goats, and pigs. Wild plants into sustainable domestic crops.
But this happened slowly, the people involved wouldnt tell you they were doing the same as they always had.
When it comes to Gobekli Tepe itself Hancock seems to be guilty of the same mentality that he accuses archaeoligsts of. There is no "point" to human development.
Hunter gatherers weren't trying to develop agriculture. And in some real ways agriculture brings with it a host of serious issues.
He tends to ignore all the other ways we've come to understand the complexity of hunter gatherer cultures, both from the archaeologic record and from what sites like Cahokia tell us about how cities rise and fall.
As a final thing for this there's his handling of myth. He pretends that each culture is entirely unique and distinct when it comes to developing their myths and stories. And that they sat around isolated until someone came along to connect the dots.
This is really fundamentally wrong.
In the old world we know bronze age trade reached from Mesopotamia to the Balkan region. Trade brings with it culture and information spreads back and forth.
Well before most of the cultures and civilizations were writing down things for us to study later their myths and stories and legends were being passed around.
In the Americas we have something different. Most of the local writing was destroyed, the people's were decimated. The surviving accounts of their civilization and beliefs come from people who had no training in keeping their beliefs out what they were being told. You had people who were just as much interpreting the local religion into their religion as the Ancient Greeks and Romans did with the even more Ancient Egyptian religion.
And the following centuries of being a lower class people to the Christian conquerors.
Not saying this to make a moral statement, but to point out that the native cultures and their stories don't exist isolated either. Trying to tease out what is original and what's influence is difficult. Heck one of the criticisms of the PIE theory
The study of paleo indo European culture and religion is really interesting in this regard. And underpins many of the similarities that he tries to use to build his idea of of a lost civilization.
Now to get back to the other hand... Greater complexity of culture doesn't mean building monuments. There's a bulk of evidence on the complexity of trade and industry showing that these people were in no way simple.
Don't really disagree with any of those points. But Hancock's oversimplification of human development doesn't justify accusations of racism.
As already mentioned, I enjoyed Hancock's Ancient Apocalypse for its spectacular travelogue content and for simply raising the profile of these ancient sites. The Atlantis episode though was disappointing and I hope Hancock will devote a future programme to analysing the evidence for prehistoric occupation of the Azores,
 
Don't really disagree with any of those points. But Hancock's oversimplification of human development doesn't justify accusations of racism.
As already mentioned, I enjoyed Hancock's Ancient Apocalypse for its spectacular travelogue content and for simply raising the profile of these ancient sites. The Atlantis episode though was disappointing and I hope Hancock will devote a future programme to analysing the evidence for prehistoric occupation of the Azores,
I've mentioned it before but he likes to use historical arguments that were used for white supremacism.
That they notably both quote the legend from South America but cut off the part about his skin color shows they're aware of doing it obliquely. That the legend is now known to have been created during the conquest shows they don't care.
People take the TV show as of it was the entirety of his body of work. The show doesn't touch on how he developed his ideas. And what he doesn't acknowledge these days is how he very clearly stated he believed his lost civilization was white.
You cut out the context of the arguments and his own writing I get why the claims seem bizarre.
While I've mentioned before I don't think he himself is necessarily racist. He is very comfortable reviving these arguments. And greatly misrepresents the status of the early people's depicted in his program to support his claims.
 
OK, so I know it's Ancient Origins and so tends to big up the woo factor, but I did find one point they make quite interesting.

The first image below is a 2021 oceanographic chart showing the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, with the current day Azores at the lower right.

atlantis.png



The second image was sketched in or around 1886 by psychic Frederick Oliver, during a claimed clairaudient dictation of a past life in Atlantis in 11,160 BC. He referred to the island by the name Poseid.

atlantis2.png


Obviously Victorian knowledge predates detailed oceanographic scans, but the similarities between the mid-Atlantic ridge/plateau, which would have been above sea-level in 11,000BC and Oliver's drawing, are quite striking.

https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-europe/azores-atlantis-0017844
 
If you are into theories around Atlantis then you might like this podcast:

"In this episode, we delve into the mystery of Atlantis revealed by an occult classic from the late 1800's. We explore the writings of a young man who claimed an advanced being, who once resided in the fabled city, channeled through him a enigmatic text that offers invaluable esoteric insights into the legendary civilization. From strange, deadly crystals to alchemical technology, we discuss the most unusal elements of this incredible mystery."

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2023/04/29.14-MU-Podcast-Poseidian-Playboy/
 
Far too much of a coincidence I'd say!
I'm very sceptical about past lives regression and such, but that sketch the psychic made does appear to show detailed oceanographic knowledge that shouldn't have been available in Victorian times.
 
...detailed oceanographic knowledge that shouldn't have been available in Victorian times.

"A ridge under the northern Atlantic Ocean was first inferred by Matthew Fontaine Maury in 1853, based on soundings by the USS Dolphin.

The existence of the ridge and its extension into the South Atlantic was confirmed during the expedition of HMS Challenger in 1872. A team of scientists on board, led by Charles Wyville Thomson, discovered a large rise in the middle of the Atlantic..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_Ridge#Discovery

maximus otter
 
"A ridge under the northern Atlantic Ocean was first inferred by Matthew Fontaine Maury in 1853, based on soundings by the USS Dolphin.

The existence of the ridge and its extension into the South Atlantic was confirmed during the expedition of HMS Challenger in 1872. A team of scientists on board, led by Charles Wyville Thomson, discovered a large rise in the middle of the Atlantic..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_Ridge#Discovery

maximus otter
That's interesting. Just wondering how public the findings from the HMS Challenger expedition were made though. And did they include a detailed illustration of the mid-Atlantic plateau? If so, then that would explain Frederick Oliver's detailed sketch.
 
That's interesting. Just wondering how public the findings from the HMS Challenger expedition were made though. And did they include a detailed illustration of the mid-Atlantic plateau? If so, then that would explain Frederick Oliver's detailed sketch.

Oliver's sketch does also cherry-pick a "suitable" section of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge:

Mid-Atlantic-Ridge.jpg


maximus otter
 
Oliver's sketch does also cherry-pick a "suitable" section of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge:

Mid-Atlantic-Ridge.jpg


maximus otter

That is fair enough though, if you go along with Plato's description, which associated Atlantis with a similar latitude to the Pillars of Hercules (Gibraltar). There's also the mountain on the Oliver sketch, which he called "Pitach Rokh", which seems to coincide with the current day Mt. Pico.
 
That is fair enough though, if you go along with Plato's description, which associated Atlantis with a similar latitude to the Pillars of Hercules (Gibraltar). There's also the mountain on the Oliver sketch, which he called "Pitach Rokh", which seems to coincide with the current day Mt. Pico.

lt’s all academic surely, as the only source for Atlantis is the works of Plato, in which he uses the (fictional) island as an example of what happens when you p*** off the gods.

maximus otter
 
That's interesting. Just wondering how public the findings from the HMS Challenger expedition were made though. And did they include a detailed illustration of the mid-Atlantic plateau? If so, then that would explain Frederick Oliver's detailed sketch.
Maybe they used depth soundings depending on how deep it was (rope with weight) to see and record what was below?
 
lt’s all academic surely, as the only source for Atlantis is the works of Plato, in which he uses the (fictional) island as an example of what happens when you p*** off the gods.

maximus otter
I've wondered as well if Atlantis existed at all, not meaning to be flip about it. But you're right, there were many storytellers back then.
 
I've wondered as well if Atlantis existed at all, not meaning to be flip about it. But you're right, there were many storytellers back then.

Well, if he made it all up, it turned out to be one hell of an accurate guess by Plato when he wrote about a sizeable island beyond the Pillars of Hercules out in the Atlantic, at the mercy of volcanic activity, some 8,000 years before his time.
The evidence for pre-historic (i.e, before the Portuguese officially "discovered" The Azores) occupation of the islands now cannot be refuted.
The "cart ruts" on Terceira Island look almost identical to the famous 6,000 year old ones on Malta. They can be dated with a fair degree of certainty where they are partially covered by pyroclastic flows, as the dates of past volcanic eruptions has been determined.
So, long before the Portuguese went there, some other, obviously sea-going people not only reached The Azores, but lived there for some considerable time.
The large, approximately triangular, island that existed in the mid-Atlantic 10,000 years ago (so roughly contemporaneous with Göbekli Tepe) may not have been known as Atlantis by whoever lived there, but it's in the right place and, being subject to catastrophic volcanic action, would seem to have at least some of the right characteristics.
I do check periodically the latest archaeological finds on the Azores, as the implications for human history, just like Göbekli Tepe, are potentially revolutionary.
 
This short BBC video is well worth a watch.
Professor Felix Rodrigues, of the Azores University dept. of Anthropology and Archaeology, gives us a brief tour of some of the prehistoric megalithic structures on Terceira Island. The chamber with the powerful echo reminds me of the famous Hypogeum on Malta.
Remember that today's Azores are just the remaining tips above sea-level of what was once a far larger contiguous land mass. One can only speculate as to what larger, man-made structures now lie beneath the waves.

 
Last edited:
There have been many islands that have risen out of the oceans over the years, and many that have sunk back into the sea, archaeologists are always discovering lost civilizations under the sea.
But this Atlantis was supposedly west of the Strait of Gibraltar, then perhaps it was the island of Santorini, or here or there. There are countless islands in that part of the world, and if this Atlantis was real, it could even be buried under the remains of other lost civilizations.
 
There have been many islands that have risen out of the oceans over the years, and many that have sunk back into the sea, archaeologists are always discovering lost civilizations under the sea.
But this Atlantis was supposedly west of the Strait of Gibraltar, then perhaps it was the island of Santorini, or here or there. There are countless islands in that part of the world, and if this Atlantis was real, it could even be buried under the remains of other lost civilizations.
But Santorini is very East of the Pillars of Hercules, not West where Plato said Atlantis was.
Santorini (gorgeous place btw) meets the volcanic criteria, but not the location and is way too small.
 
But Santorini is very East of the Pillars of Hercules, not West where Plato said Atlantis was.
Santorini (gorgeous place btw) meets the volcanic criteria, but not the location and is way too small.
I'm well aware - what I'm saying is that the 'experts' have argued that Atlantis is actually the island of Santorini, continually moving the location to different spots.
When all the time, it may simply be sunk under yet another lost civilization.
A nice mystery, but perhaps will never be solved.
 
Sorry @Ronnie Jersey. I didn't mean to question your geographic knowledge!
It just irks me that the location Plato gave for Atlantis is summarily dismissed, when the archaeological evidence, which is still emerging, suggests that his account referred to a real place exactly where he said it was.
I'm sure the Bronze age (or possibly Mesolithic) people who lived on the land mass in the mid-Atlantic, the remnants of which we now know as the Azores didn't do so in secrecy.
They may well have left accounts of their travels with the ancient Greeks and Egyptians, which ultimately filtered down to Plato.
 
I've wondered as well if Atlantis existed at all, not meaning to be flip about it. But you're right, there were many storytellers back then.
I'm going to go with yes, possibly. I'd like it to be true.
However, I do think that much of what was written about Atlantis and its advanced civilisation was confabulated and embellished.
 
Perhaps one day time travel will become possible, and then we can take a look at Atlantis, Jack The Ripper and who actually performed the Lizzie Borden murders! :)
 
I'm going to go with yes, possibly. I'd like it to be true.
However, I do think that much of what was written about Atlantis and its advanced civilisation was confabulated and embellished.

That goes without saying, just as legends of Mount Olympus and the Trojan War have grown in the telling, but they are still very real places.
For a Stone or Bronze Age people to sail to the mid-Atlantic and then build megalithic structures, they must have possessed some cutting-edge technology at the time and been led by highly accomplished ship-builders, navigators, architects and all the other entrepreneur skills necessary for a culture to survive.
Was Atlantis some sort of science-fiction utopia? No, of course not.
But the ancient people who reached and dwelt on The Azores clearly weren't primitive cavemen with dug-out canoes either.
 
Sorry @Ronnie Jersey. I didn't mean to question your geographic knowledge!
It just irks me that the location Plato gave for Atlantis is summarily dismissed, when the archaeological evidence, which is still emerging, suggests that his account referred to a real place exactly where he said it was.
I'm sure the Bronze age (or possibly Mesolithic) people who lived on the land mass in the mid-Atlantic, the remnants of which we now know as the Azores didn't do so in secrecy.
They may well have left accounts of their travels with the ancient Greeks and Egyptians, which ultimately filtered down to Plato.
It's worth noting though there's no account of an Atlantis from the Egyptians. And when it comes to the Greeks we only have the tale from Plato.
Which when you compare to what are considered real lost places isn't how it works.
Take Kush for example, we have legends, plural. Trade agreements. Active trade. Trade goods.
For Atlantis we have... Just Platos account.
What archaeological evidence are you suggesting?
 
It's worth noting though there's no account of an Atlantis from the Egyptians. And when it comes to the Greeks we only have the tale from Plato.
Which when you compare to what are considered real lost places isn't how it works.
Take Kush for example, we have legends, plural. Trade agreements. Active trade. Trade goods.
For Atlantis we have... Just Platos account.
What archaeological evidence are you suggesting?
See what you think about the video a few posts above, in which Professor Felix Rodrigues visits the cart-ruts and other archaeology on Terceira Island.
 
Back
Top