Atlantis was Sardinia

[Erpingham]

Do we know anything about 9000BC from any literary sources, in any geography, on any topic?

If we are just following the internal logic of the story, we wouldn't expect to.  Civilisations arise and fall in cycles, punctuated by catastrophes (floods or fiery events from the heavens).   Their records are all destroyed and, indeed, they forget all about their previous civilised state.

While convenient in plot terms, I think even Patrick would acknowledge archaeological difficulties with this theory.

[Patrick Waterson]

To take these points in order of posting:

Hang on - I've never encountered an Atlantis believer in the flesh, so to speak, so I just want to check - Patrick, is it your position that Plato's account of Atlantis is historically accurate in (pretty much) every detail?

No.  Quite a bit has been 'Grecised' though the broad essentials are correct.  The initial point to be made was that Plato's account is quite incompatible with Sardinia being Atlantis, but what Atlantis actually was and when it was is quite another question.

I would also not use the word 'believer', but rather someone who almost reluctantly ended up being persuaded by what he kept finding.  I went through the customary stages of complete disbelief, complete credulity and finally a degree of knowledge.

That Atlantis really was a continent in the Atlantic which disappeared without trace about 9000 BC?

Stretching roughly from the Bahamas to the Azores.  Dates for disappearance vary between 11,600 and 8,400 BC, with 9,000 BC being an average.

That Athens and Egypt (at least) supported literate civic societies in 9000 BC?

Literate priesthoods, yes.  Not so sure about the civic societies, but possible.  The invention of writing by 'Thoth' is ascribed to the later Atlantean period (where apparently it was much frowned upon because it was felt that people would no longer bother to exercise their memories) and hence would have predated both cultures.

That in Egypt's case at least, this literate society was continuous down to historical times?

The literate priesthood, yes.  One may note that the further archaeologists look into Egypt's 'predynastic' (really pre-Manetho) history, the more there is to find.

That the Atlanteans fought a war with the Athenians at that time of which Plato preserves an accurate record?

He (or his quondam Egyptian source) preserve a record that there was a war and who won.  I would prefer rather more detail.  Present-day Greeks incidentally have a certain amount of extra tradition on the subject, involving beam weapons and mirror countermeasures, and I seem to recall encountering a similar reference in one of our fringe Greek sources (perhaps Deipnosophistae?), so it would seem there was more to tell about this particular escapade.

That these same Atlanteans are also the ancestors of the Aztecs? That none of these literate city dwelling societies have left any archaeological trace (or extant literary trace before Plato)?

The Atlanteans appear to have been the original 'red race' of which certain Amerindians are either descendants, members of the same grouping, or both.  Archaeological traces are doubtless there, but we would need to look for them under e.g. early Mayan cities (fancy digging up Chichen Itza?), and present dating of pre-Spanish events in Central and South America does not seem particularly reliable.  I realise that the argument: "the evidence is under existing cities" is not going to convince anyone until something is actually found, but that is nevertheless where one would have to look.

I also don't think you should walk away quite so quickly from that earlier post:
<snip>
Is it not well established that Aztlan was not an island, was not in the east, did not sink, and the Aztecs did not leave it ages ago? If according to the Aztec's own account they lived in Aztlan around 1100 AD, 1,500 years after Plato and 10,000 years after the destruction of Atlantis, how can Atlantis and Aztlan be the same place? How do you conclude that 'Aztlan' and 'Atlantis' are the same name?

Frankly it is not 'well established', but rather the currently fashionable academic view, which is by no means the same thing.  It was not the Aztecs who came up with the AD 1100 date: this is an artefact of modern historians and in my view no more to be relied upon than Bishop Ussher's 4004 BC date for the creation of the world, which was arrived at by very similar means.  There is indeed not much that is 'well established' about the Aztec origin story, except that they thought their ancestors had come from a place called 'Aztlan'.  When a bearded man dressed in black arrived by ship from the east, they thought he was a deity from the land of their ancestors, an interesting consideration given current scholarship's emphasis on the supposed siting of 'Aztlan' in northern Mexico.

The website you referenced blatantly falsifies and misrepresents its evidence ...

An example being ... ?

I could be wrong, but I can't remember any reference to a textual tradition for this story? Solon heard it "in a bar" from an Egyptian... we don't know where he got it from?

He would have been in a temple, not a 'bar' , and I did post the following quote from the Timaeus:

Upon hearing this, Solon said that he marvelled, and with the utmost eagerness requested the priest to recount for him in order and exactly all the facts about those citizens of old. The priest then said: "I begrudge you not the story, Solon; nay, I will tell it, both for your own sake and that of your city, and most of all for the sake of the Goddess who has adopted for her own both your land and this of ours, and has nurtured and trained them,—yours first by the space of a thousand years, when she had received the seed of you from Ge and Hephaestus, and after that ours. And the duration of our civilization is set down in our sacred writings is 8000 years. Of the citizens, then, who lived 9000 years ago, I will declare to you briefly certain of their laws and the noblest of the deeds they performed: the full account in precise order and detail we shall go through later at our leisure, taking the actual writings."

'Writings' would appear to indicate a textual tradition.

Duncan raises a good point.
To try establishing the source's credible transmission might be overthinking it, when some of its claims - that  Athens was a military power in 9000BC - are clearly false.

The proof of this assertion being ... ?

Do we know anything about 9000BC from any literary sources, in any geography, on any topic?

If we are just following the internal logic of the story, we wouldn't expect to.  Civilisations arise and fall in cycles, punctuated by catastrophes (floods or fiery events from the heavens).   Their records are all destroyed and, indeed, they forget all about their previous civilised state.

While convenient in plot terms, I think even Patrick would acknowledge archaeological difficulties with this theory.

Curiously enough, Colonel James Churchward discovered throughout India numerous tablets detailing events which he ascribed to C.12,000-14,000 BC, as they dealt with the Pacific continent of Mu and its loss.  He was able to learn and read the languages involved - and was sufficiently convinced of what he found to spend 65 years on the subject.  Preservation of records is not a problem provided they are placed in a reasonably secure location (e.g. under a pyramid or a particularly well-built temple).  Finding them afterwards is the challenge.

Getting the academic world to bother with them is, however, something of an impossibility.

Curiously enough, when Herodotus was talking to the Egyptian priesthood, they told him:

"Thus far went the record given by the Egyptians and their priests; and they showed me that the time from the first king to that priest of Hephaestus, who was the last, covered three hundred and forty-one generations, and that in this time this also had been the number of their kings, and of their high priests. [2] Now three hundred generations are ten thousand years, three generations being equal to a hundred. And over and above the three hundred, the remaining forty-one cover thirteen hundred and forty years. [3] Thus the whole period is eleven thousand three hundred and forty years; in all of which time (they said) they had had no king who was a god in human form, nor had there been any such either before or after those years among the rest of the kings of Egypt. [4] Four times in this period (so they told me) the sun rose contrary to experience; twice he came up where he now goes down, and twice went down where he now comes up; yet Egypt at these times underwent no change, either in the produce of the river and the land, or in the matter of sickness and death."

Given that Herodotus is deemed to have visited Egypt c.450 BC, this would suggest that Egyptian records began around 11,790  BC.  Hence perhaps the most valid argument that could be advanced concerning doubts regarding sources is an apparent 3,340-year inconsistency between the date of commencement of Egypt's culture between Solon's priest and Herodotus', or that the records began c.3,000 years before the culture.

We may note in passing the reference to the earth reversing its rotation (or being inverted, which would have the same apparent effect) four times during this 11,000+ year period. This suggests scope for four major planetary catastrophes, and it is interesting that the Hopi have a tradition that three worlds have so far been destroyed and we are living in the fourth.  By itself it seems just a tale for children; in conjunction with Herodotus' mention it is food for thought.

Tempting as it is to discuss such matters further, and enticing though the potential prospect of army lists for 11,000-8,000 BC might be, I feel we are (I am) straying a little from the original point of the thread, namely whether Sardinia was in fact Atlantis, which I feel we can confidently answer in the negative.

Though if anyone wants to continue this discussion ...

[Jim Webster]

One avenue to test this theory must surely come with genetic studies.
Given that Atlantis must by its position have been in contact with both Europe and the Americas surely we'd see a sign of more modern European genes appearing in the American population long before they should have done.
At the very least the continent would be a bridge to allow populations to reach the Americas without doing the whole trudging through Asia first.

Jim

[Duncan Head]

It was not the Aztecs who came up with the AD 1100 date: this is an artefact of modern historians

That's not completely true, is it? The Aztecs (the 16th-century Nahuatl-language Annals of Tlatelolco, and several pictorial codices) provide the year 1 Tecpatl, and while various modern interpretations put this at 1064, 1116, or 1168, a date around 1100 seems fairly clear.

It is also my understanding, incidentally, that the several Aztec pictorial codices which show accounts of the migration from Aztlan do not involve crossing an ocean.

[Erpingham]

Though if anyone wants to continue this discussion ...

Alas, I'll have to decline.  My hierarchy of evidence (archaeology, geology, critical approach to literature) is too incompatible in this case.  However, I wish you well in your search for Atlantis, on whatever plane that may be.

[valentinianvictor]

There is another possible location of 'Atlantis' that has passed most researchers by.

Tenerife has been mooted as the location of Atlantis. Thor Heyerdahl investigated the structures on Tenerife known as the Pyramids of Güímar and was convinced they were connected to an indigenous people known as Guanches. This is a link to these interesting people- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanches. Some researchers have poo-pooed the idea that these pyramids are ancient structures, believing they were constructed during the 19th century. However, they appear to have been unaware of Pliny the Elders writings where, drawing upon the accounts of Juba II, king of Mauretania, he stated that a Mauretanian expedition to the islands around 50 BC found the ruins of great buildings, but otherwise no population to speak of (Pliny, "Natural History" Bk 6 ch 37). The same researchers also appear to have been unaware of a 15th Century Spanish woodblock picture of a Guanche dressed in a cloak standing on one of the pyramid structures, so destroying the 19th century building theory.

Heyerdahl attempted to show a link between the South American cultures and the Guanche culture through examining pottery and other artifacts found on Tenerife which show show a remarkable likeness to each other. There is also a theory that the Guanches are linked to the Berbers in North Africa. A theory put forward is that the ancestors of the Berbers, using the prevailing winds, which blow sand from the Sahara over the Canaries and forming the famous dunes there, and the water currents, landed on Tenerife and the other islands and formed colonies. these colonies then used the same winds and water currents to sail over to South America to form colonies there and then used the winds and currents to sail back again.

I've visited the Pyramids at Güímar and I am of the belief they may well be the structures Pliny the Elder was discussing.

[Dangun]

Duncan raises a good point.
To try establishing the source's credible transmission might be overthinking it, when some of its claims - that  Athens was a military power in 9000BC - are clearly false.

The proof of this assertion being ... ?

Just simply that there is hardly any evidence for Athens before what? 2000BC?
There is hardly any evidence of any city, anywhere, before about 4500CE and no evidence of Greek agriculture that would facilitate a city..
So the idea of Athenians in 9000BC is unreasonable.

[RichT]

Thanks Patrick, good to know exactly where you are coming from.

Though if anyone wants to continue this discussion ...

Not me, thanks. I have no time for this sort of stuff, and agree it has no place on this forum.

[Patrick Waterson]

One avenue to test this theory must surely come with genetic studies.

Blood group studies have often been quoted as suggesting a common 'link' between certain Amerindian and European populations, with Basques turning up quite often.

I am not sure if anyone has yet undertaken any relevant genetic studies beyond analysing the Guanches (see Adrian's post quoted below).

There is another possible location of 'Atlantis' that has passed most researchers by.

Tenerife has been mooted as the location of Atlantis. Thor Heyerdahl investigated the structures on Tenerife known as the Pyramids of Güímar and was convinced they were connected to an indigenous people known as Guanches. This is a link to these interesting people- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanches. Some researchers have poo-pooed the idea that these pyramids are ancient structures, believing they were constructed during the 19th century. However, they appear to have been unaware of Pliny the Elders writings where, drawing upon the accounts of Juba II, king of Mauretania, he stated that a Mauretanian expedition to the islands around 50 BC found the ruins of great buildings, but otherwise no population to speak of (Pliny, "Natural History" Bk 6 ch 37). The same researchers also appear to have been unaware of a 15th Century Spanish woodblock picture of a Guanche dressed in a cloak standing on one of the pyramid structures, so destroying the 19th century building theory.

Heyerdahl attempted to show a link between the South American cultures and the Guanche culture through examining pottery and other artifacts found on Tenerife which show show a remarkable likeness to each other. There is also a theory that the Guanches are linked to the Berbers in North Africa. A theory put forward is that the ancestors of the Berbers, using the prevailing winds, which blow sand from the Sahara over the Canaries and forming the famous dunes there, and the water currents, landed on Tenerife and the other islands and formed colonies. these colonies then used the same winds and water currents to sail over to South America to form colonies there and then used the winds and currents to sail back again.

I've visited the Pyramids at Güímar and I am of the belief they may well be the structures Pliny the Elder was discussing.

Indeed: this is not so much an alternative candidate for Atlantis as yet another surviving part of the continent.  The Wikipedia article on the Güímar pyramids fails to mention either Pliny or the woodcut; I suspect an agenda there, as it is very insistent on the 19th century being the time of construction: one might say an evident selection of selective evidence.

Just simply that there is hardly any evidence for Athens before what? 2000BC?
There is hardly any evidence of any city, anywhere, before about 4500CE and no evidence of Greek agriculture that would facilitate a city..
So the idea of Athenians in 9000BC is unreasonable.

Looking at the implications of Plato's Timaeus, if there was indeed a cataclysm that took most of the fertile soil of Greece with it, surviving city ruins might also be in short supply.  However the materials would have to go somewhere, and I suspect may be located by a patient penetrative search of the surrounding seabed.  Unfortunately this is not the sort of project that gets readily funded, having a high cost and low likelihood of yielding conclusive results, or at least results that academics would find conclusive.  No on-site stratigraphy = no dating.

That's not completely true, is it? The Aztecs (the 16th-century Nahuatl-language Annals of Tlatelolco, and several pictorial codices) provide the year 1 Tecpatl, and while various modern interpretations put this at 1064, 1116, or 1168, a date around 1100 seems fairly clear.

It is also my understanding, incidentally, that the several Aztec pictorial codices which show accounts of the migration from Aztlan do not involve crossing an ocean.

That is not in mine humble opinion safe to conclude: they show a man on a boat crossing water (Codex Boturini) or a man on a high place on an island with what appear to be multiple cities (Codex Aubin), or both (Codex Aztlatitlan).  None of this need suggest anything other than a departure from an island continent.

The dating is indeed interpretation, and may be missing out a temporal cycle or two.  These Mesoamerican calendar systems tend to run in ever-increasing cycles and I suspect one or more overlying cycles have been missed.

[Duncan Head]

Well, if you're prepared to posit calendrical cycles we don't actually have any evidence for, then no date is safe. Obviously the Aztecs left Aztlan to escape the Chicxculub meteor.

[Patrick Waterson]

If anyone is interested to note the extant classical and pre-classical sources for Atlantis, this page has a good listing.  It is part of this site, which maintains a very down-to-earth and common-sense approach to the subject - and Duncan will be pleased to observe that the site author shares his own view about the Nahuatl codices.

Definitely worth a look if interested in the subject - and it eradicates a lot of myths.