I’ve been learing about Atlantis lately and there is one major question I’d like to put to some of you. First though Ill provide some background info…
Although most historians are in agreement there was never a great island in the Atlantic called Atlantis, which housed civilization, I would like to for a moment to pretend that there was.
What could have happened to those people? And why do many people today believe the Atlanteans were the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians, the Phoenicians, the Aztecs and many other civilizations from both East & West?
There are many striking simiarities within said cultures which according to believers cannot be explained with the prevailing theory; that these traditions were passed down to the Americas by European missionaries in the 17th or 18th Century.
Ultimately my question is not whether or not you believe in Atlantis, but whether you believe that only a tale such as Atlantis can account for cultural similarities on both sides of the Atlantic ocean or if in fact the sciences of human beings can explain this one (allow me to elaborate further)…
Two men are kept isolated all their lives, locked in each their own room with no knowledge of the other or in fact any other human being’s existence, and then I threw some tools & materials into each room.
The first man over time hones his skill and crafts a table to put his items/food on. After an unknown amount of time the man in the second room will complete a table almost identical in appearance and identical in terms of purpose.
After all, how many different ways can there be to design a table before the design is no longer of a table at all?
So of these two theories for the spread of civilization, how many of you believe that it had to spread out from an ‘epicenter’ and how many believe sociology played its part in creating these ‘coincidences’ which baffle us so much because we are human? I believe the second one myself -anything created by one man can be created by another without any influence from the first.
Although I wouldn’t rule out the Atlantean theory entirely, we’re all basically the same, our wants, our needs, and we all inhabit the earth, so of course our civilizations and cultures are going to be similar, despite being isolated from one another. For example we all need to keep warm, and are environment isn’t always so, outside the tropics (mans origin), so of course we’re going to build shelters and make clothing. Would it make sense to make our clothing of metal, rock, sand or grape fruit… no, that’s why we made clothing out of cloth, silk, wool and leather. Would it make sense to build shelters without roofs, or without entrances/exits? There’s only so many ways things can be made sensibly. Why did so many cultures the world over have kings. Why is there only one alpha male in a pack of wolves, or chimps. You see, once you realise how great a role human nature plays in our cultural development, you will cease to be mystified by these similarities.
James I know I dont type short posts but my question was in there quite clearly at the end - it would be great if you could address it without telling me about your thoughts on the existence of Atlantis itself.
Excerpt from a book written by an Atlantis believer: “I cannot believe that the great inventions were duplicated spontaneously, as some would have us believe, in different countries; there is no truth in the theory that men pressed by necessity will always hit upon the same invention to relieve their wants… Civilization is not communicable to all: many savage tribes are incapable of it. There are two great divisions of mankind, the civilized and the savage…”
This is what I am disagreeing with. What are your thoughts James?
To me this reads almost racist; he is claiming some races of man are destined to be savages unless others spread civilization to them as it is the only way for them.
I personally believe that in his example the savages he speaks of were not “pressed” by the same necessities as others (eg. Indo-Europeans, whose part of the world has been eternally ravaged by war it seems)
I believe in social evolution. I believe that the savages of the Americas could have and most likely did civilize themselves and it is NOT the result of a lost island from where civilization was born - however, geologically speaking I am not saying no such island existed at any point, I’m just debating its influence over mankind even if it was there.
Now I hope you see this question is NOT about whether Atlantis existed or not. I don’t mean to seem rude but your thoughts all mean a lot as I’m currently researching this subject and have no peers, friends or colleagues from whom to gauge opinions.
For me all human beings are savages. Those that have technological advantage over others are the biggest savages of them all not to mention the biggest liars at deceiving others.
I do not have any faith at all in technology for the propensity of human beings to alleviate themselves in the world or universe.
Technology is the same beast that has created the atom bomb and the same apparatus that has destroyed countless natural environments. It is the same very apparatus that made exploitation and enslavement of others more easily constructed.
I am quite pessimistic of human beings technological capabilities because I can only see superior technology used as a tool of super oppression.
We live in a era where they are already dreaming new ways of controlling behavior by that of injected microchip.
When people say technology is humanity’s salvation I automatically distrust them.
As for the subject of atlantis to me it is just a fantastic story and nothing more.
For all we know atlanteans in the story destroyed themselves. Why didn’t they avert their own destruction being technologically capable?
Does increased technological possession lessen the hubris of a people or does it increase it?
It’s difficult to know whether advanced civilization and culture will be a benefit and/or a detriment to our species in the long run, I’m split on this issue.
I’m not a primitivst, nor a progressive, I just think man shouldn’t rush into things quite as quickly as he does.
We should debate these natural and social technologies as philosophers and as a society, far more than we do, before implementing them, that’s my two cents.
I mean, look what happened to Japan- Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Fukushima.
Great point about us being all savages - I agree with you in fact. Right now we live in a world where a few live in luxury and the majority do not. For the few their lives are made easier by technology but due to equilibrium not everybody can have this, which means the few who live in luxury are doing so at the expense of those to whom the technology is not made available (financially or otherwise).
So in itself technology is not a bad thing. If we could uninvent the science which led to a group of devious scientists weaponising the power of the atom with devastating results we would still be living in a world akin to the 19th century - steam powered trains and telegraphs would be our fastest means of communication. We’d have no computers, lasers etc… The trouble is that when new science is discovered people use it against one another; however, I do not see technologies to blame as savages displayed signs of violence against other humans as much as any ‘civilized’ man. And even the savage had technologies of his own.
But what I’m really asking in the OP is about whether or not civilization itself had to have had a single origin, or can there be several places where civilization developed in its own time and at different places, completely independently of other civilizations? A single-source theory to me suggests a religious theme, as it implies there would have been a ‘genesis’ of civilization, if you like.
Personally I don’t believe that man can learn to civilize himself and work out agriculture and plant/animal domesticaion (among other early Bronze Age technologies) in one place on Earth and not on another place on Earth. What do you think about these two theories?
I wouldn’t say we all “know” that at all.
According to one source on Atlantis (Plato’s) the Atlanteans brought their doom upon them by incurring the wrath of a god with their decadent lifestyles; for not being more pious.
But I am an atheist myself and so when I look at mythology like this I tend to only look to extract whatever truth there may be.
And although I do not believe in Atlantis I do believe in some submerged islands and landmasses which are generally not accepted by historians.
I’ll point out that the ancient city of Troy was thought to be mythological for centuries until somebody actually read Homer’s ‘Iliad’ as though it were an actual guide book! In other words, he simply refused to write it off as pure fiction simply because it was written in an age when even formal, official texts were often written in prose or in poetic fashion and tales like Robin Hood were born from local legends which passed down and on into the stuff of myth.
Lastly, I just want to make sure about how we are having multiple discussions here - the Atlantis myth is about ancient gods mostly; the Atlantis isle is a geological/historical myth (there may have been an island with no people there for all we know); and then there is the OP topic about whether civilization HAD to have been born in a single birthplace of origin (even if it was in Kathmandu, Chile, Ontario…)
You’re absolutely correct. And it wasn’t just the Aztecs whose ancient legends spoke of such a genesis. The Toltec peoples and many other tribes of the Americas have legends which begin with a giant flood (much like Noah and the Ark in the Bible)
and that the man who surived to repopulate was white. One tribe call him Nata.
I don’t know if you are right about the IQ thing though, I wouldn’t know about that Im afraid. I certainly hope that is not the case.
What are your thoughts on the rumors you mention though… even if you believe this is true, do you believe those natives would have eventually learned technologies themselves given enough time or instead biologically incapable of it?
Great points, and i thik you are right. We have responsibilities with science and we have deeper human responsibilities to one another
How very open-minded of you EITD - each failed civilisation thought their’s was the way to go… before they failed. Perhaps moving forward with the knowledge we have gained from the past will help longevity, perhaps nothing will… if all civilizations are doomed to fail.
Yes, there are some intriguing ‘coincidences’, who among us can be certain? Another strange coindidence is the feathered serprent, or dragon. Funny, in so many ‘isolated’ cultures from 'round the world, there’s this notion of a feathered, or winged serpent, breathing fire and bringing wisdom.
Why, you native, or are you a committed egalitarian?
I’m not sure if this historical revisionism is true or not. If it is, could Natives develop their own civilization, indepednent of Caucasian influence? Probably, as civilzation began in the middle east, among people (who were also Caucasian, mind you) with similar IQs.
Every culture and civilization has its seasons. Whether civilization itself is ultimately progressing (upward cycles) or regressing (downward cycles), whether civilization itself is ultimately beneficial (upward cycles) or detrimental (downward cycles), remains to be seen. Culture and civilization itself, has its, seasons. Right now, we’re in the summer era, the century of summer… July, to be specific. We’re over the hill, sort of speak.
Actually we don’t know if Plato believed it at all. It wouldn’t have been the first time he used a parable. Many expert historians/philosophers/scholars believe Plato was describing a utopia as real in the hope it would inspire those with power; I myself believe this may be the case but I do believe this story was handed down to him through his family and so his suspected disbelief may not even be a relevant factor if that’s the case.
Lol, no Im neither native nor egalitarian, just a curious person I guess.
Interesting you mention the serpent because snake-worship was said by many cultures on both sides of the Atlantic to be the first religion before the flood, and some believe it was snake-worship that caused their God to destory the land. The Ancient Egyptians celebrated the asp and there is a snake in the Garden Of Eden. I believe it is quite possible that before the era of Poseidon-worship there was a long-standing one of snake-worship - I’ve read a lot of references to “creeping things” as they were often referred to. One possibility in my mind is that they saw them as the grand ‘master race’ of earthworms, which no doubt would have been quite a mystery to Bronze Age people.
I wouldn’t worry too much about “historical revisionism” here. History is in a perpetual state of revision anyway if you ask me. There have been many discoveries around the world of places which were not supposed to have been real.
Fiction very often has its roots in fact, but in this case I believe it has been so long there may be little to no truth left within the tale. Atlantis makes for an interesting topic to study, and subsequently led me to pose the question of its necessity as a part of cultural evolution.
