Anonymous asked in Society & CultureMythology & Folklore · 4 weeks ago

Is there any proof that Atlantis was real?

13 Answers

  • Dubbs
    Lv 6
    3 weeks ago
    Favorite Answer

    There's no documented proof that Atlantis existed,  but there is mountains of evidence that, when examined,  will lead one to the conclusion that at some point in the Earth's distant past, there existed a technologically advanced society that, for whatever reason,  was wiped out and sent humanity back to the stone age.

    Plato first revealed the story of Atlantis as it was dictated to him by the two Egyptian priests, Timeaus and Criteas. A similar tale is also recorded in the Temple  of Horus at the Edfu Complex. Plato was told that such a lost continent existed some 9000 years before his time. That's a very long time. So unless preserved and passed down in human hands, any documents or artifacts of such a civilization would have long turned to dust.

    Anything wooden would have long since decayed, metal long since rusted, and even if this technologically advanced society had material similar to plastic, it wouldn't last that long either.

    The only material that could withstand such a test of time is stone. So if the Atlanteans  were as architecturally inclined as they were technologically, may still see some monuments that were built in a time immemorial. Unfortunately, stone cannot be carbon dated. So we can look all over the planet, finding megalithic wonders with no clue on who or how they built them.

    The most crippling ailment that archeologists suffer from is their conceptualization of Uniformitarianism. According to this theory humanity would have grown from nomadic hunter gatherers to creating nuclear bombs and stripped toothpaste in a steady even uninterrupted pattern of growth. This form of thought has been taught as fact when it still remains a heavily debatable theory.

    In fact, most of humanity's most recent spurts in technological advancements just started to occur as recent as World War II. The rate of scientific development has more then doubled since that timeframe compared to the thousands of years before.

    Despite having a large enough gap in the timeline of human development for a severe rise and fall in technology, archaeologists refuse to date any megalithic structure prior to 5000 BC. Part of this due to religious fundamentalism, where God supposedly created man no later then 6000 BC.

    But we can look at all the ancient structures in Mesoamerica: Sacsayhuamen, Ollantaytambo, Teotihuacan, Tihuanaco, Puma Punku, Machu Picchu,  etc. Despite the Incas having no record of, nor staking any claim to the impressive ancient mesoamerican structures, archaeologists continue to credit megaliths that we couldn't even build today on a tribal empire without so much as the invention of the wheel. This has been a remarkably common trend in dating ancient structures that no records allude to. As stone cannot be Carbon dated, only materials with carbon fiber on the rocks can be tested, and this is where much of our current dating technique comes from, so it's foolish and inaccurate to attribute ancient structures to the ancestors of the people we found living there at the time and windblown pollen fibers that may have found their way in cracks on the rocks.

    So due to the lack of records it's believed that humans didn't have the archeological know how to build structures until 6000 - 5000 BC. Which really begs the question of when they think humans actually started acting like humans.

    This was the common consensus until Gobekli Tepe was discovered. Built in modern day Turkey this megalithic structure was discovered, having been intentionally buried under ground by an unknown people. The fact that this was buried and undisturbed for thousands of years has made a miraculous difference in the dating of Carbon 14. The fibers were undisturbed for centuries and revealed a date of 12,000 years! This proves humans had the ingenuity to transport and build using heavy stone.

    The Egyptian priests that relayed the story to Plato also told him that it was the Atlantean survivors, who fled to Khem (modern day Egypt) and built the first pyramids. When we look over all the pyramids in the Valley of the Kings we find that they Egyptians have records of building all of them but 3. These 3 are landmarked at the same site, Giza. The Great Pyramid and the other 2, often attributed to Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure. While all other pyramids are full of Hieroglyphics, made of much smaller stones and falling apart, the ones on Giza are stark empty, made of much heavier stones, perfectly proportionate and have withstood the test of time. The problem here lies in the reign of Khufu and his predecessors. Left in the middle of all the others. This would be akin to the Ford motor company making Model T one year, A Ford Mustang the following year, and then they go back and make the Model T again. Technology is supposed to increase.

    In his book "Fingerprints of the Gods", Graham Hancock reflects how he and Robert Bouval found a sky-ground correlation between the Giza Plateau and the stars. Using the 3 pyramids to represent Orion's Belt, the Nile as the Milky Way Galaxy and the Sphinx to represent its celestial counterpart, Leo. But due to Precession of the Equinox the position of the stars change over a long period of time. So the sky and ground last matched up in the 10,500 BC era. Which puts us right around Plato's time frame.

    Asides from the countless megalithic structures that were potentially misdated, we also have scriptural evidence. I have little double that religious writing has been fancified all over the world, but we must remember that these tales were carried on orally until man learned (or relearned) to write them. The odd thing about so many religions is that they all carry the same traditional belief of a global flood that decimated the population.  This hits pretty close to home in the story of Atlantis. Although there isn't enough water on the planet to completely cover all of the Earth's landmasses, we can take each tale of the flood as embellished, but regional reports of the same event. In some of the tales the hero builds an ark or a boat, in others the survivors run to the highest mountains or climb a tree. In each tale the local populace are killed with but a few survivors left to repopulate.

    We can also take the accepted version of history to back up what the climate might have been like back then, in an era known as the Younger Dryas, which would have been at the end of the last Ice age.

    Beyond assumptions, we know that the world looked slightly different back then. A map drawn from a Turkish Admiral in the late 15th Century not only depicts Antarctica 400 years before its subsequent discovery, but also shows the continent free of ice. The Turkish Admiral, Peri Reis left personal notes on the map claiming he had copied it from a previous source. Just by this, our outlook on historical cartography is destroyed, as this map passes every authenticity test we have.

    And there are other maps (which unfortunately don't pass every test) but when viewed for their merit are difficult to completely discount. The "Portolano" of Iehidi Ibn Ben Zara is a map, drawn in 1487, depicts North America and Europe covered in glaciers while the sea levels of the Mediterranean, Adriatic and Aegean Seas extend much further then they do today, as the Sea level would not have been so high.

    It would seem whomever was here before our current written history had the technology to chart the Earth's landmasses and maybe even radar or satellites to depict Antarctica free of ice.

    This flood that brought about ancient humanity's downfall would probably have come from the melted glaciers. But a casual melt wouldn't cause cause such a massive cataclysm.

    There is indeed a theory, with some good evidence that a rather large comet struck Washington state between 12,900 and 11,600 years ago in the Dry Falls area, which would have caused a massive cascade of water that may have overtaken the region of Atlantis. In this time period, no less then 35 genera of animals in North America alone went extinct.

    Atlantis didn't sink, as most stories say, but was overtaken by rising flood waters. The disaster would have been horrendous, but over time the floodwaters would probably have receded.

    In my opinion, Atlantis would've needed to be a continent, not an island, to amass the resources to become a global power of that age. Plato relates that Atlantis was west of the Pillars of Hercules (Straight of Gebraltar), so instead of looking for an island one could just continue west until they hit land, South America makes a perfect candidate in regards to location and all the stone structures. This is where I think Atlantis was.

  • John P
    Lv 7
    2 weeks ago

    Depends what you men by Atlantis.

    Some link the explosion of the Greek island, Santorini, to the Atlantis myth.

  • 2 weeks ago

    Atlantis was most likely located at what is known as the Richat structure. The concentric circles match Plato’s description to a T and there are wells at the center as he described it. However, it is clear whatever was there was wiped off the map by a tsunami long ago. Also, it is no longer anywhere near the sea, but rather several hundred miles inland. People are looking for a seafaring nation from 11,000 years ago in the wrong place. 

  • Prince
    Lv 6
    3 weeks ago

    Yes indeed. 99% of what is written about Atlantis is risible. Any true scholar of the Classics knows that it was the Atlas Mountains. The earliest texts clearly say so and archaeology backs it up. Atlantis didn't "sink". The mountains which were islands when the sea level was higher, simply "rose" in relation to lower sea level and were exposed as the Atlas mountain range.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 3 weeks ago

    While, I agree that  this is a myth,  that doesn't mean it is out of speculation that their could have been a Atlantis.   The world is big,   things are destroyed and many things are lost to time.

    it took us 600 years to stumble upon a village that was destroyed by the Black Death.   

    It took us over 2000 years to actually  find the ruins of what is presumed Troy and turn  a Myth and Legend of a Poem into a form of reality.

    Really all that could do is search and maybe  possibly find it and hope for seeing Atlantis being a actual thing.   But overall it is just a Myth  for now.  

  • 4 weeks ago

    There is absolutely no proof of any kind.

    The island-civilization of Atlantis was only mentioned by one person, a Greek philosopher / scientist named Plato.  He also mentioned that it existed 500 years before his time, and that the island and its entire population were destroyed in a single day and night.  Not even any cousins or in-laws survived.

    Plato was not only a scientist and philosopher, he was also heavily into the arts.  He loved music, plays, visual art, sculptures, and... storytelling.  He wrote countless stories, some as allegory with morals and some as pure entertainment, but he loved fiction.  Historical researchers tend to overlook that part when searching for lost civilizations.

    There are plenty of ancient extinct civilizations that did exist in the world and have since been replaced.  All of them, every single one, left physical evidence of their existence.  The only exception is the city of Atlantis.  What does that tell you?

  • 4 weeks ago

    no in fact all evidence points to myth.

  • 4 weeks ago

    None. The reality is, Atlantis is probably nothing more than a myth. The only person to ever mention it was Plato. He said he heard about it from an Athenian lawyer, who heard about it from an Egyptian priest. That's really not much to rely on. According to Plato, Atlantis existed 9,000 years before his own time.

    Even if a civilization existed that long ago, there was no way Plato or anyone else could have known about it.

  • 4 weeks ago

    How much is based on the loss of the civilization that happened when the Minoan eruption too place is unknown.

  • God
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    Plato wrote about Atlantis in one of his dialogues.  Most scholars believe Plato was just creating an allegory.  Scholars could be wrong, but the prevailing opinion is that Atlantis did not exist.  

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.