Ancient Civilizations

Araysar said:

Doesn't Plato mention that?

Click to expand...

Chris said:

How do you know that Atlantis had 3 concentric rings?

Click to expand...

Yeah Plato mentions it, plus it's kinda the entire claim to fame of the place, "the ringed city". It had 3 concentric rings with moats between them and limited bridges between them. AKA a very good defensive position, if it was someone's capitol. A large engineering project even by modern standards, Dubai has spent billions trying to re-create things like this.

Araysar said:

Atlantis being by sea or not is a pretty big detail. In fact, it would be the biggest detail since the whole premise of Atlantis's design is based on it being a coastal city, so this dismissal of Chris's point is just deflection

P.S. they were not called the Atlantis mountains, they're called the Atlas mountains

Click to expand...

Because the very idea that names of things get distorted over millennia and multiple civilizations is just ridiculous yeah?

TJT said:

Because the very idea that names of things get distorted over millennia and multiple civilizations is just ridiculous yeah?

Click to expand...

Hmm, you are saying that they were originally called the Atlantis mountains but maybe the name was changed later to Atlas mountains?

Araysar said:

Hmm, you are saying that they were originally called the Atlantis mountains but maybe the name was changed later to Atlas mountains?

Click to expand...

I'm saying that the name persisted through the ages for some reason. I have no idea what Richat is but since its still visible and not just a non-starter under a mountain of sand its one of the most obvious things to look at. My position is that I have absolutely zero doubts there was some advanced civilization(s) on earth that existed long before the Mesopotamia cradle of civilization official narrative. That some civilization did exist in the lush African period. Most things wont survive 10,000 years of neglect. Other than robust megalithic stone structures it seems like.

That recorded Western history was able to remember that the Sahara used to be nice and green is some evidence that that knowledge did escape the area and was passed down through the millennia that followed. That we have maps from the Middle Ages that display a somewhat correct African interior (in hits prehistoric state) long before Western civilizations ever explored it does communicate that they were looking at something. That that knowledge came from somewhere.

TJT said:

I'm saying that the name persisted through the ages for some reason. I have no idea what Richat is but since its still visible and not just a non-starter under a mountain of sand its one of the most obvious things to look at. My position is that I have absolutely zero doubts there was some advanced civilization(s) on earth that existed long before the Mesopotamia cradle of civilization official narrative. That some civilization did exist in the lush African period. Most things wont survive 10,000 years of neglect. Other than robust megalithic stone structures it seems like.

That recorded Western history was able to remember that the Sahara used to be nice and green is some evidence that that knowledge did escape the area and was passed down through the millennia that followed. That we have maps from the Middle Ages that display a somewhat correct African interior (in hits prehistoric state) long before Western civilizations ever explored it does communicate that they were looking at something. That that knowledge came from somewhere.

Click to expand...

My comment here is strictly about Atlantis and Atlantis mountains so I dont want it to be misconstrued as a comment on ancient advanced/lost civs in general, a premise I dont really disagree with

The name "Atlas" predates the name "Atlantis". In fact, the words "Atlantic" (as in the ocean) and "Atlantis" are both derived from the root word "Atlas". In Plato's work, he doesnt call it just "Atlantis", he calls it "Atlantis Nesos" which translates as "Island of Atlas", which in English translation got shortened to "Atlantis".

The Atlas mountains were named after the titan Atlas from Greek mythology who was supposedly holding up the heavens (or the world depending on the story) at the westernmost edge of the known world, which at the time was the Gibraltar straits, roughly the Western edge of the Atlas Mountains.

This brings up 2 interesting points.

1. This map that Chukzombi talks about that has "Atlantis mountains" I'm extremely skeptical of and I'd like to see a picture of it, since Chukzombi claims it exists. I think its bunk.
2. The name Atlantis is recent, relative to when Plato wrote about it and when Greek mythology was formed (1000 BC - 500 BC) vs. when Atlantis supposedly existed (9000 BC). This makes it almost certain that they didn't call themselves Atlanteans or Atlantis and that the whole premise of Atlantis is likely manufactured by Plato who uses Atlas mountains to name this mythical advanced Western civilization.

So I'd like to see an ancient map that has Atlantis mountains if there is one

Chukzombi said:

its too odd to ignore.

Click to expand...

Seriously?

The Herodotus map shows "Atlantes" where the Atlas Mtns are, this is based on Herodotus' writings, not a map he drew himself. In this case "Atlantes" refers to a people he wrote about, not a place. You can see the same on that map with Celts in Gaul or Bactrians in what is now India.

Since Herodotus writes just before Plato, its likely that Atlantes is just a name of people of Atlas mountains, not people of Atlantis.

This isn't "too odd to ignore", this is just conflation of a term for "People of Atlas mountains" with "People of Atlantis" because the word Atlantis is derived from Atlas. Herodotus himself never writes about Atlantis itself which is very odd because if there was a super advanced ancient civ, surely that Herodotus who is considered the father of history would be all about writing about it, instead of leaving it to Plato to write about it 100 years later

Chukzombi said:

the fabled Atlantis was set on a lake.

Click to expand...

Who says that? Who ever said it was on a lake? This is just more "square pegs into round holes" revisionism.

Plato repeatedly states that Atlantis was on an island, which in turn was in the sea.

""The tale, which was of great length, began as follows: I have before remarked, in speaking of the allotments of the gods, that they distributed the whole earth into portions differing in extent, and made themselves temples and sacrifices. And Poseidon, receiving for his lot the island of Atlantis, begat children by a mortal woman, and settled them in a part of the island which I will proceed to describe.

On the side toward the sea, and in the center of the whole island, there was a plain which is said to have been the fairest of all plains, and very fertile. Near the plain again, and also in the center of the island, at a distance of about fifty stadia (one stadia=606 feet), there was a mountain, not very high on any side." --Plato


If the argument is that Richat was an island that sat in a giant lake in the middle of Sahara, well I guess your very own Herodotus map disproves that. Herodotus describes the "Atlantes" people basically living around Mt. Atlas in the desert. No mentions of islands, seas, ports, ships, nothing even remotely similar to Plato's description of Atlantis

"184.1Another ten days' journey from the Garamantes there is again a salt hill and water, where men live called Atarantes. These are the only men whom we know who have no names; for the whole people are called Atarantes, but no man has a name of his own. 2When the sun is high, they curse and very foully revile him, because his burning heat afflicts their people and their land. 3After another ten days' journey there is again a hill of salt, and water, and men living there. Near to this salt is a mountain called Atlas, whose shape is slender and conical; and it is said to be so high that its heights cannot be seen, for clouds are always on them winter and summer. The people of the country call it the pillar of heaven. 4These men get their name, which is Atlantes, from this mountain. It is said that they eat no living creature, and see no dreams in their sleep. 185.1I know and can tell the names of all the peoples that live on the ridge as far as the Atlantes, but no farther than that. But I know this, that the ridge reaches as far as the Pillars of Heracles and beyond them." --Herodotus

Lenardo said:

SLIIIIGHT change of atlantis discussion. sidestep as it is..
here is a thought i had- i think we discussed it before.

the Flood Myth. most ancient civilizations have one. since some shit happened ABOUT 10k years ago, and there seems to be evidence that a giant flood like event happend in the african sahara region, and at that time the sahara was a lush green - apparently relatively densely populated given those old maps with all the cities on it area- ... could the flood myth be the recounting of said event in the sahara?

Click to expand...

Thats essentially what Chuk and people in the vein of Graham Hancock are arguing.

This guy has a whole channel on these theories that a Great Flood ripped through Africa a couple thousand years ago.

Heres a video of his where he argues that this massive tsunami not only ripped through Western Sahara but also through Eastern Sahara, Subsaharan Africa and even the Arabian peninsula by looking at striations in the bedrock. And yeah these striations do exist but he claims it was created by this flood.

So you have to ask yourself whats more likely. That a giant tsunami ripped across entire Northern Africa and Arabian peninsula at once and left these marks or is it just thousands of years of sand and wind erosion? The entire Mediterranean Sea would have to empty out to deliver this much water across hundreds of thousands of square kilometers

Araysar said:

My comment here is strictly about Atlantis and Atlantis mountains so I dont want it to be misconstrued as a comment on ancient advanced/lost civs in general, a premise I dont really disagree with

The name "Atlas" predates the name "Atlantis". In fact, the words "Atlantic" (as in the ocean) and "Atlantis" are both derived from the root word "Atlas". In Plato's work, he doesnt call it just "Atlantis", he calls it "Atlantis Nesos" which translates as "Island of Atlas", which in English translation got shortened to "Atlantis".

The Atlas mountains were named after the titan Atlas from Greek mythology who was supposedly holding up the heavens (or the world depending on the story) at the westernmost edge of the known world, which at the time was the Gibraltar straits, roughly the Western edge of the Atlas Mountains.

This brings up 2 interesting points.

1. This map that Chukzombi talks about that has "Atlantis mountains" I'm extremely skeptical of and I'd like to see a picture of it, since Chukzombi claims it exists. I think its bunk.
2. The name Atlantis is recent, relative to when Plato wrote about it and when Greek mythology was formed (1000 BC - 500 BC) vs. when Atlantis supposedly existed (9000 BC). This makes it almost certain that they didn't call themselves Atlanteans or Atlantis and that the whole premise of Atlantis is likely manufactured by Plato who uses Atlas mountains to name this mythical advanced Western civilization.

So I'd like to see an ancient map that has Atlantis mountains if there is one

Click to expand...

I believe the maps say "Atlantae" on the Richat area, not "Atlantis". I could try to dig them up.

I don't think I've seen "Atlantis" in anything pre-modern.

Atlas "holding up the world" adds a new wrinkle to this whole thing. If the city was an ancient capitol and existed on a high plateau, then Atlas (the mountains) was indeed holding up "the world" in terms of importance. Atlas holding up the "western edge of the world" means there almost has to be a correlation between him and this ancient capitol city that happened to be on the western edge of the world.

Maybe the western edge was Gibraltar in most of known history, but pre-Sahara the western edge of the world was probably the Richat area. Ancient maps don't really show anything sub-Saharan but they sure show a lot going on in the northern areas (Mauritania across to Egypt, kind of diagonally, seems to be the south edge of the world, nobody went to the Congo I guess).

Also the first image I see when I open a laptop today:


A lake at an extremely high elevation. Place dams/walls correctly (say, the outer ring) and an indented high plateau becomes a very effective rain-catcher.

Digitally remove the mountains on the left side and background and this could be pretty similar to what the edge of the Richat plateau draining to the ocean would have looked like. Kind of funny that it shows me this particular image on this particular day when I've been mulling over it.

Rajaah said:

I believe the maps say "Atlantae" on the Richat area, not "Atlantis". I could try to dig them up.

I don't think I've seen "Atlantis" in anything pre-modern.

Atlas "holding up the world" adds a new wrinkle to this whole thing. If the city was an ancient capitol and existed on a high plateau, then Atlas (the mountains) was indeed holding up "the world" in terms of importance. Atlas holding up the "western edge of the world" means there almost has to be a correlation between him and this ancient capitol city that happened to be on the western edge of the world.

Maybe the western edge was Gibraltar in most of known history, but pre-Sahara the western edge of the world was probably the Richat area. Ancient maps don't really show anything sub-Saharan but they sure show a lot going on in the northern areas (Mauritania across to Egypt, kind of diagonally, seems to be the south edge of the world, nobody went to the Congo I guess).

Also the first image I see when I open a laptop today:

View attachment 483873
A lake at an extremely high elevation. Place dams/walls correctly (say, the outer ring) and an indented high plateau becomes a very effective rain-catcher.

Digitally remove the mountains on the left side and background and this could be pretty similar to what the edge of the Richat plateau draining to the ocean would have looked like. Kind of funny that it shows me this particular image on this particular day when I've been mulling over it.

Click to expand...

Chukzombi said:

its too odd to ignore.

Click to expand...

The Nile curving west is super interesting to me. It does have a natural western curvature even today that they could have been exaggerating, but not pronounced to this sharp <90 degree angle and not extending so far west. Depending on how far west that actually runs, there could be all kinds of cities buried under the Sahara today.

Also jumps out to me that the Indus Valley is referred to as "Eastern Ethiopians" in these maps, considering that Indus (debatably) shared a sphinx with the Nile civilization. The (alleged) sphinx in Indus is also pointed in the direction of Egypt's, IIRC. Now this could either be him mistaking Indian folk for Africans due to skin color, or it could be an indication that the Indus Valley and Nile civilizations were intrinsicly linked for a long time. I digress though, back to the Sahara:


Far left side of this we can see a lake embedded in a mountainside. The Sahara region is full of rivers and lakes.


1300's Catalan map from Spain, nothing about Atlantis here but interesting to look at.


Constrained a bit by image quality here but this map has south at the top and the Mediterranean at the bottom. Better view of the Nile curving and going west with Lake Giga-Chad in the top middle there.

Not sure why maps from under a thousand years ago show the Sahara as densely populated with numerous waterways, but that's what we're all trying to figure out.

More maps showing Africa's river system:


This one clearly shows the Richat area as a lake, draining inland towards the other lakes (which is interesting because visually it looks like it originally drained to the Atlantic ocean).


German map, 1507, yet again shows the same riverways and Richat as a mountain lake.

Araysar said:

Click to expand...

I don't think we're grasping at straws, we're all just speculating and trying to put 2 and 2 together. To me, trying to definitively say the Richat Structure is "nothing" or that there wasn't a lake up there is waaaaay more short-sighted than speculating on trade routes of a 12,000 years ago civilization that had that as their capitol.

If there's one thing all of these maps do definitively show, it's that the Sahara desert was much smaller than it is now 500-800 years ago and still had some of its major waterways.

Rajaah said:

German map, 1507, yet again shows the same riverways and Richat as a mountain lake.

View attachment 483882

Click to expand...

Can you circle for me on this grossly inaccurate map which of these lakes is supposed to be Richat?

I can't tell.