Atlantis: The TRUTH behind Plato's Story
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 12. 2022
- Did Atlantis really exist? There are many people who investigate the myth of Atlantis, hoping it is real, and Graham Hancock is one of those who believes it could be. But I feel he isn't telling you a complete picture and so in this video I fill in the pieces he misses, so as to let you really understand the truth behind the Atlantis.
If you want to support my research and see behind the scenes work, watch my videos early and without adverts, and have access to the mythology database, along with other insights then please become a Patreon* here: / crecganford
Stephan Milo has made an video supporting archaeological academia here, which provides strong arguments against much of what Hancock persists in saying.
• Fundamental Objections...
Here is the article about the archaeologist from Malta...
timesofmalta.com/articles/vie...
"My point, once again is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally."
-John Dominic Crossan,
The Bible and other myths, yes. But that this applies to "Atlantis", I'm not convinced.
While not necessarily "Atlantis" There was, it seems to me, certainly a global culture at some point in prehistory....the distance from quarry to site, the immensity, shape, finish, and fit of stones in Peru and Egypt are too similar (e.g. like a Hyundai car compared to a Honda or Ford) to have been a case of independently developed, convergent evolution of stone working technology, imo.
Thoughts & feedback encouraged 👋
@@john-ic5pz I doubt it, there's actually very little similarity between Peruvian and Egyptian architecture, a lot of the similarities are due to the physical characteristics of the stones and the physical limitations of building with stone - people dealing with the same problems come up to similar solutions a lot of the time. We know that Europeans and Native Americans invented practically the same style of stone spear point independently, on different sides of the world, thousands of years apart.
@john-ic5pz
There is only one to cut and fit stone individually.
On a large scale however the application is vast between Peru and Egypt.
Peru often use the landscape to support strictures. Egypt dont
I always get suspicious when someone precedes with, "I'm going to tell you the truth that all the other scientists/historians/doctors are keeping from you." Great detailed expose, sir!
Thank you.
Yeah, the problem with academics is usually to get them to _stop_ talking about their favorite interests.
My personal red flag is hearing "mainstream academia"
@@therealdarklizzy That's a good one.
These are red flags?
P.S. On Atlantis being the daughter of Atlas. Atlas was one of the Titans rising against the olympian gods. He is also one of three brothers (out of four) to be punished by Zeus for doing so. The place for his punishment was Northern Africa which is a region in which the (seafaring) Phoenicians had colonies IIRC which is opposite to the place where Prometheus was banished (the Caucasus). Just my two cents and food for thought.
🤘
Eye of Sahara/Richat Structure!!!
@@isawamoose JImmy? :D
I prefer Numenor.
Way better than grahams fictional island full of blondes who just wanna build pyramids everywhere smoke peyote and really like purses for some reason.
I would love if Crecganford made a video about Tolkien and myths. He's the guy who I think kind of revived the "genre" (not really the right word), he loved myth, and he had unbelievable success. That's the power of myth.
Or Yokuda. Both are awesome.
I prefer Santorini...
@@owli-wankenobi3727 I wonder what real world myth the Pankratosword most closely resembles. Truly a frightening form of spiritual magic those ancient Yokudans wielded.
Devil's Advocate: the Iliad and thereby the city of Troy were considered a work of fiction until Schliemann's discovery. Troy was a city of great importance at the time and had a major influence on both Greek and Roman culture, yet only it's myths and legends survived.
Indeed, myths have elements of truth, and Hancock is a great myth maker. But he is using facts somewhat out of context, as if he were more generous with the context his myths would be seen as being even more academically flimsy.
Yes. But troy wasn't a huge nation half the size of africa.
It was a city state. Turns out they're often easily lost to time.
Thank you. I had read Hancock's book years ago, and recently watched the Netflix series. The guy has a way of telling a story that always made me wonder if there might be something to what he's saying, but like you pointed out most academics and scientists have more important things to do than dispute him. I really appreciated seeing this video, and seeing someone who I respect taking the time to point to the flaws in Hancock's reasoning.
The point of academics being to busy is a strawman argument. Micheal Shermer tried to use this as a talking point on the jre, it disregards the accumulated evidence Graham has done the leg work on as an investigative reporter. Which graham weaves in to his narrative storytelling in his books. It's unfortunate that he tried to use it as a main point for his argument in my opinion. He can dispute Grahams interpretation of a story all he wants. It's just obvious to someone like me who has kept up with the argument he is attempting to join, that he cherrypicked the work done by Graham and Randall Carlson to attempt to present a narrative against Graham, which micheal Shermer made in the jre debate which was met with backlash, but since there is no one here to argue the strawman against him, he presents it in a way to his audience that's like "come on, we're to busy with real science" it's very disingenuous.
@@conorsabol tbh, as a former academic, they are rather busy chasing grants/funding and alternately glad handing each other's egos and wielding petty "nerd-king" ego to cut at each other (lots of weird petty politics in academia like a fancy game of king of the hill).
I'm not a huge fan of Hancock, i take him with a pinch of salt but that said, of course the arrogant sh*ts wouldn't debate him, as they see him (and other independent researchers) as hopelessly amateurish peons, for lack of a better word, because to an academician's logic, if they had an actual analytical mind and a reasonably high IQ, CLEARLY they'd have had the good sense to come join our Sacred Guild*; only quacks do independent research.
* dual meaning. 1. ...come join the Ivory Tower club, 2. The ridiculous caps and gowns they wear at commencement ceremonies are taken directly from the medieval guild system. 🤷♂️🤦♂️
They really don't. They are just protecting their own careers.
Milo does a good video debunking Hancock's nonsense if interested.
I love it when one favorite CZcamsr name-drops another favorite CZcamsr. I am also a fan of Stefan Milo! Thanks for taking the time to explain why Mr. Hancock's popularized misinformation is indeed an important issue!
Another man of culture. Long live the spoon!
Hello, I really like this channel because it presents interesting legends and myths in a very professional way. I know you like to make videos about 'the world's oldest story' and such things, and I have stumbled across a really interesting one.
Now, it might seem like a long shot, but I was reading about the mythology of the Hadza tribe in Tanzania, I believe. They, along with the Khoisan and Sandawe tribe, are believed to be some of the oldest and most isolated people in the history of the world. All their mythology is fascinating and has parallels to other mythologies around the world, but the Hadza in particular have an interesting story of their history.
In their mythology, there are four eras, and in the first era there lived primeval giants that were covered in fur and had no tools. The giants also had no fire, either because it wasn't possible, or because they didn't know how to make it. They chased down animals until they died of exhaustion, which is an ancient hunting method known as persistence hunting. In the second era, the giants either had less fur or no fur, and I believe they were more advanced, and in the later eras was when the Hadza identity arose and they came into contact with other people and got metal tools. Now this is obviously very interesting.
I know it might be a longshot, but some of your attempts at connecting mythologies gave shown that some might data back to the Ice Age. I know you have shown some might date back 30,000 years ago, and some possibly even further, up to 70,000 years. If a broad concept like an interpretation or an idea of how life used to be can survive that long, then why not further? Is it possible the Hadza might have come into contact with ancient hominids or creatures in the very distant past? I know scientists believe the hominid Homo Naledi might have lived in Africa until only several hundred thousand years ago, alongside early humans. Perhaps the Hadza might have one of the oldest stories in the world.
I know it might be a longshot, but your videos have shown that sometimes, oral history can preserve very ancient concepts. It is also true that these stories might be just that, unfounded myths, but it is interesting to ponder nonetheless. I just wanted to let you know.
The problem we have is that to age a story, it helps if we can trace influence, and this is particularly difficult with this example, as an isolated tribe would not leave a trail we can follow, and we can also not be sure if the stories have changed with time, which they no doubt have, although by how much we will never know. If time allows in the future, I will look into these "older and more isolated" tribes more, and see what we can come up with. But I hope you see the challenge we have in doing this work with such data.
@@Crecganford Yep, I totally understand. I just find it fascinating. If you are interested in more recent examples of ancient creatures being talked about, you should check out the following. The first is the story of the Ebu Gogo on the island of Flores, which is where Homo Floresiensis, also known as 'the Hobbit' lived, and incidentally the locals have a myth of short humanoid, hairy creatures. It is generally seen as a cryptic, butcthe similarity to Homo Floresiensis makes you wonder whether it could be a true oral history of something that happened. Then you have the Mapinguari, which is a legendary creature among tribes in the Amazon that some believe is a folk memory of giant ground sloths. The Mapinguari is said to be covered in thick hair, have giant claws, be able to rise up on its hind legs, and to be impervious to arrows. All those match up with what we know of giant ground sloths, even the ability to withstand arrows, because scientists think some ground sloths had bony platelets in their skin that acted as a sort of armor. There is also a reference to a giant deer called a Shelk/Shelch in some ancient Germanic folk story or epic, which I can't remember off the top of my head, and it was said to be a deer with antlers the size of a man, and some think it might be a folk memory of the Megaloceros, also known as the Irish Elk, which was a giant deer with huge antlers that lived throughout Eurasia. I went on a deep dive into legendary creatures trying to connect them to extinct animals a while back, and it is definitely quite the rabbit hole.
@@Crecganford I actually searched for the story that references the 'shelk,' and it is a medieval German epic poem called Nibelungenlied, and the following verse is found in a section of the poem called 'The Hunting and Death of Siegfried":
"Him the limehound started; his bow Sir Siegfried drew; With a keen-headed arrow he shot the lion through. But three faint bounds thereafter the dying monster made. His wond’ring fellow-huntsmen thanks to Sir Siegfried paid.
Then one upon another a buffalo, an elk He slew, four strong ureoxen, and last a savage shelk. No beast, how swift soever, could leave his steed behind; Scarcely their speed could profit the flying hart or hind . . . . . . .
They heard then all about them, throughout those forest grounds, Such shouting and such baying of huntsmen and of hounds, That hill and wood re-echoed with the wild uproar. Th’ attendants had uncoupled four and twenty dogs or more."
I do not remember where it references the shelk as having "antlers the size of a man," since I read about this years ago, but it mentions that in reference to the creature, which is what would imply it would be a Megaloceros. The Megaloceros is believed to have survived into the Neolithic in parts of Siberia, so them coming into contact with the ancestors of the Indo-Europeans seems pretty likely, and I have seen other references to giant legendary deer I believe in Scythian myths too, but I can't say for sure.
Thanks for your fascinating comment and adding some details from your deep dive in the thread. I think those would be great topics for him to tackle. Definitely would watch those videos.
🍀✌️😎
@@Crecganfordhello sir, I've loved your channel and work but this one fell a bit short. I understand that you have other very important research to conduct, it's an exciting time in history. But perhaps a year later, given the prominence of these ideas, especially in the wake of the Netflix documentary, you may revisit the subject. I'm not pushing for any particular conclusion - just a video that is more true to your typical spirit, picking out what little bits might be unexpectedly available, what we don't know and how things might relate to forgotten mythologies, and perhaps a more detailed explanation of your views on the subject. Atlantis is a persistent and modern myth - with influence around the world since the information age. It must have come from somewhere - and dismissing the myth by questioning the credentials of a single person with one popular presentation doesn't really fit the spirit of your typical videos. Apologies if I offend, it's not my intention. Just a request if you get time to look at the situation again and consider a follow-up. Remember we are living in a world where science has become quite politicized as technology rapidly expands cultural and historical understanding. There have been plenty of examples throughout history when the mainstream authorities of knowledge turned out to be hostile to competing ideas in retrospect. Taking seemingly foolish ideas seriously, especially when they've amassed considerable attention, is probably the best way to earn trust and move human understanding forward.
Yeah asking why historians aren't engaging with and contradicting his claims is like asking why geneticists and biologists aren't engaging with and debunking the 2nd graders arguing that we should totally make bear-tiger-gorilla hybrids and have them fight resurrected t-rex for sport.
Exactly this.
Stephan Millo is a great researcher. I'm very glad to see that you guys are somehow in touch.
and his videos are very entertaining!
Hey Crecganford!
As I've learned from this channel many myths have similar themes, like the slaying of a dragon/serpent for example.
I was wondering if invincibility was also a theme.
My thought process was this:
we all know of achilles who gained invincibility by bathing in the river styx, except for his heel which ended up being his weak point. In the Nieblungenlied (medieval german poetry) the hero siegfried bathes in the blood of dragon, which grants him invincibility. Except a tree leaf fall on his nape, so his nape is not covered by the blood. needless to say his nape was his weakpoint, and ends up being killed because of it.
Now these two stories of achilles and siegrfied are obviously really similar. So similar in fact that I don't think it is coincidence. I can't however think of any other myths or legends which involves invincibility. Maybe you or omeone in the comments can help me figuring this out?
It is a very popular mytheme, and if you look for invincibility as a motif, it is part of one of the most popular motifs of the many headed monster... www.mythologydatabase.com/exreport.php?result=W3RVjWhdqkKia8CtSBZqew And so perhaps I should make a video about it. Thanks for your comment, and suggestion, it is appreciated.
Again, I have to say thank you.
Around the early 2000s, I started noticing channels like the History Channel putting out shows that explored "alternate theories" on ancient civilizations like the Egyptians, Sumerians and many others.
Usually these theories centered around these civilizations having been influenced by aliens or other unknown highly advanced foreign civilizations, with not a shred of proof to back up any of these claims.
The argument for these stories was often "well, there's nothing proving that this DIDN'T happen," which is pure and utter horseshit in terms of defending a belief.
If you believe in something, you should be able to prove why it makes sense.
In any case, TV along this vein has definitely contributed to lazy thinking and dissuaded people from seeking out actual verified information on civilizations in antiquity, usually referring to accounts of these civilizations as "mainstream" and "what they want you to think."
I feel that there is a lack of critical thinking in this latest generation and it is directly due to being raised around garbage shows like Ancient Aliens.
A&E owns the History channel, Disney owns A&E. Any wonder that history is being rewritten to entertain and make money, regardless what the truth is?
It really didn't help that it was the "History Channel" that did this, and that they had for previously put out some decent content. It's confusing/annoying to have content like Modern Marvels juxtaposed with Ancient Aliens.
@@erinmac4750 No kidding!
And I don't know if it's just me, but I hate seeing anyone going on national/international television without bothering to comb their messy, tangled hair.
Bad enough to spout baseless conspiracy theories, but you could at least look presentable when you do it.
I'd argue, compared to his other works, that Plato's story of Atlantis is at least not merely a "philosophical point".
His story telling and his use of myth/allegory is quite different in Gorgias, Phaedo, Republic, Phaedrus than in Timaeus.
Could it have been based on embellished memories of the huge volcanic eruption which wrecked um, the Minoan civilization...?
Or do I mean Minoan?
@@Anna-tj7mp I cannot make specific claims who they were.
I just think the story of Atlantis is not a mere "thought experiment".
@@umutcangun fair enough. I don't know enough but I know how even within three generations, family legends grow out of some factual event. Therefore, I wonder about the Minoans since they were a sophisticated society and wiped out by a huge natural disaster.
@@Anna-tj7mp This could very well be the case. I just look at it from a literary perspective.
I'm 3 weeks late, so i'm not sure many people will see it, but speaking as somebody who does a lot of stuff with Mesoamerica (the Aztec, Maya, etc), I wanted to give my thoughts on Ep2 of Ancient Apocalypse which focuses on that region: My impression is that Hancock relies on the general public ignorance about Mesoamerica to present accepted info as extraordinary , and then acts as if that info totally undermines everything archaeologists say they know, when in reality it's not really a big deal. For example, with Cholula, he presents the fact that the Pyramid has layers as some sort of unexpected find, the implication being that it calls into question the pyramid's age. But pyramids being built sequentially in layers like a Russian doll is VERY common in Mesoamerica:, with expansions built as new kings took power or during important cosmological milestones.
And the specific layers of the Great Pyramid of Cholula is well studied in particular, due to fact that the structure wasn't destroyed by the Spanish (see below). Hancock even explicitly says he doesn't even dispute that dating (which makes this whole segment feel pointless and dishonest, since he's clearly still trying to make people skeptical). I also found his framing of it being located over water as something special and then asking "What made these people build it here?" to be sort of absurd: He answers his own question! Pools of water, mirrors, caves, etc were all tied to underworld entrances in Mesoamerican cosmology, with Pyramids at Teotihuacan or Chichen Itza's Temple of Kukulkan also being over pools/caves. He even draws attention to this, bringing up that the Giza Pyramid etc were built over water sources too, so he's siluntanously acting ignorant and trying to draw a global pattern (but doesn't establish it being a wider pattern in Egypt, SEA, etc). His "all pyramids have connections to death and rebirth" point also falls flat, as Mesoamerican pyramids were primarily temples, not tombs like in Egypt (I know Hancock disputes Egyptian pyramids were tombs, but Egypt sn't my area so I can't comment). Yes, there were occasionally buried remains and ceremonial goods, but even these were usually ritual offerings to consecrate the construction of new phases/layers of the pyramid's construction, not burials the monument itself was dedicated to. Fundamentally Meso. and Egyptian pyramids were different structures that just have a similar shape. (There's even Meso. Pyramids used as administrative buildings, sorta!)
I also found that the show misrepresents the Cholula researcher's statements (something the researcher has claimed himself): At one point, Hancock asks "Is that enough to be confident enough about the full story", and of course he basically says "No, there's a lot of work to be done to teach us more about Mesoamerica". That's not the researcher saying "Everything we think we know is wrong" (which is what Hancock implies it to be) it's just saying that there's still more excavations to do that will help fill in what gaps are left, as there's always more we can learn. And when the researcher said something like "Knowing more about Cholula would let us rethink Mesoamerican as a whole": The researcher's point was likely that a better understanding of Cholula would give us a better picture of how social, political and religious trends changed in Mesoamerica over time (since Cholula existed as small village in 1000BC all the way to being a large city with 40k denizens as of Spanish contact) and since the city had widespread religious influence, that more info on Cholula would likewise yield insights into other parts of Mesoamerica.
The 3d Cholula render the episode used is also pretty wrong: It just had buildings evenly spaced in a solid sheet around the Pyramid. No roads, city planning, etc: Mesoamerican cities usually had a central urban core with temples, palaces and other elite housing, civic buildings, ball courts, etc, all richly painted and decorated, organized around open plazas for communal activities and ritualistic alignment. And then around that you had suburbs of commoner housing interspersed with agricultural land, etc, with the suburbs gradually decreasing in density the further out you go (in some cases, covering hundreds of square kilometers). Both the core and in some cases the suburbs had roads, aquaducts, etc. The Pyramid in the render was also grey and mossy, in ruins. If this is meant to be at the Pyramid's apex, then it should be painted and adorned with sculptures, reliefs, etc. If it's depicting it as of Spanish contact (which is what the graphics suggest), then it would've been buried in soil: The entire reason it's intact today is the Spanish mistook it as a hill, as Cholua had abandoned it in favor of a new Great Pyramid centuries prior. The show also mislabels some Teotihuacan frescos as being from Cholula; gets some of the dating wrong; and claims the whole pyramid was straw and adobe brick when that's just the earliest layers and some of the structural fill: The exterior layers of most stages (and even the internal fill of some later layers) was stone.
Moving onto Texcotzinco: Firstly, this is an INCREDIBLE site more people should know about: This was a royal estate/retreat for rulers of Texcoco, the second most powerful Aztec city. It sourced water from 5 miles of aqueducts (some elevated 150 feet off the ground) which brought the water to a series of pools and channels to control the flow rate on an adjacent hill, then across the gorge between there and Texcotzinco, where it flowed into a circuit around Texcotzinco's summit, into the site's painted shrines, pools, fountains, etc, and then formed artificial waterfalls which watered the botanical gardens at the hill's base, which had different sections to mimic different Mexican biomes. Of course it also had a palace at the top of the mountain's peak, etc. We outright have written sources discussing the site being designed in the 1460s AD by Nezahualcoyotl, Texcoco's most famous king who also designed levee and aqueduct systems at other Aztec cities.
But, in the interest of intellectual honesty, those written accounts which credit Nezahualcoyotl are written by his descendent, Fernando de Alva Cortés Ixtlilxóchitl, for the specific purpose of glorifying Texcoco to the Spanish and we do know he twisted details (EX: claiming Nezahualcoyotl worshipped a monotheistic god and rejected sacrifice). There's a whole book on this, "The Allure of Nezahualcoyotl" and I know Dr. Susan Toby Evans has a lot of papers on Texcotzinco, but a lot of her faculty page's links are down: I did find one mention that the site probably had some shrines built under earlier Texcoca rulers before Nezahualcoyotl, and the papers do mention there being archeological evidence for dating rather then just textual sources, but sadly no specifics are listed.
However, Hancock's points are still unconvincing: The guy he talks about Texcotzinco with pretty much gives zero actual scientific analysis or actual criticism of any sort of dating method, just vague commentary about weathering, so there's no real evidence to review, and isn't a specialist of the site like the Cholula guy was: this guy just runs an Atlantis blog. Hancock's other point is that there's Tlaloc iconography at the site, and uses a pre-Aztec Tlaloc sculpture from another site to imply Texcotzinco could be pre Aztec too... BUT WE ALL ALREADY KNOW TLALOC IS PRE AZTEC! The evolution of Tlaloc and other Mesoamerican rain gods from Olmec ""were jaguar" (there's some debate of what they're depicting) sculptures is VERY well documented, there's even full Digimon style charts showing the specific stages of development the iconography went through at different times in different parts of Mesoamerica! So the presence of Tlaloc iconography doesn't inherently suggest any time period, and if anything the Tlaloc depictions at the site are consistent with Aztec period examples. Even if Texcotzinco DID have Pre-Aztec construction, it would likely just mean it was from the dozens of Pre-Aztec civilizations in Mesoamerica we already know about. Again, Hancock relies on the fact that most viewers don't know much on Mesoamerica to present normal finds as unusual.
Lastly (skipping Xochicalo as i'm at the char. limit) Hancock's telling of the myth with Quetzalcoatl mixes details from different accounts or just gets stuff wrong: The flood he references is from myths detailing the cyclical creation and destruction of the world (and was done by Chalchiuhtlicue, not Tlaloc), wheras Quetzalcoatl sailing on a raft of snakes comes from Aztec accounts about the 10th century Toltec lord Ce Acatl Topiltzin, who is tied to Quetzalcoatl: These are largely separate narrative eons apart. There's many versions of these, and only SOME of the latter involve the raft, and in them, he is LEAVING rather then arriving into Mesoamerica. Even these versions recorded in the early colonial period we know have catholic influences from Friars re-writing them to aid in conversion and to make their rule seem pre-ordained. Stuff like Cortes being mistaken for Quetzalcoatl (a myth invented for similar reasons) comes from these, too. Hancock's telling is, if anything, closer to even later and more nonsense versions that make Quetzalcoatl white, blond, etc. Some of the earlier ones do have him as bearded, but the Mesoamericans had facial hair! We know it was customary in Aztec society for everyone other then rulers (Moctezuma II had facial hair!) or the elderly to shave, and Topiltzin was both.
Instead of listening to hancock for "stuff archeologists don't want you to know about" people should look up the REAL civilizations most books, classes, etc ignore because Prehispanic history is underappreciated: Teotihuacan, the Moche, Zapotec, Chimu, Mixtec, Purepecha, etc!
This post is worth the read. I'm also really glad I follow the Ancient Americas channel so I could read the names 😅
Thank you for what probably took a long ass time to type and is very informative
@@writethepath8354 As it happens, I actually help Ancient Americas with some of his videos: The Teotihuacan one was one I contributed a LOT to, for example... we used to have a pinned comment up from me that went into more depth on stuff that got cut from the video but CZcams removed it for some reason.
@MajoraZ that's absolutely amazing, thank you many many times over for helping expand and share the knowledge!
I taught in academia for 40 years and possess all the requisite alphabet soup after my name. It's a relief that you give them no more due than they deserve. Your creative thought does you credit.
The problem of invoking Atlantis is that they're dogmatically treating Plato's myth as having to be real, not placing it within Plato's larger and cohesive dramatic project, and considering what role it could serve other than being a literal recountjng.
So one is using something as a springing board without taking the time to assess whether they're really standing on firm ground.
GH speaks of world culture/civilisation going back way before Sumer. He speaks of a flood that every culture records. The common understanding of the cause is that a god, or the gods, were unhappy with the behaviour of human beings at that time. That notion that we must have done something wrong if a catastrophe occurs correlates with the mentality of children towards the wrath of their parents. That's the level they were at.
Call it people struggling with the wrath of Jehovah over their levels of violence or a Zeus punishing them for their level of pride, the theme involving guilt is universal.
Civilisation started again. This is GH's argument. How it started again is the issue and it invites a lot of questions. I'm grateful to him for proposing possible answers.
The last theory I have read that it was in current Mauritania, the Eye of Sahara, back when the Sahara was green.
This guy seriously needs to watch Randal Carlsons geological 10 part on this.
The one I'd heard in recent years is that it might be based upon a volcanic eruption that destroyed much of the island of Santorini, which is close enough to Crete where it might have been part of the Minoan cultural sphere.
I have heard that as well including the resulting catastrophe(s) severely diminished Minoan influence in the Mediterranean. I think part of it was that the about 9000 years ago was a clerical error and should have only been 900 years ago. Basically the Time of the Event, the Size of the Island, and the Distance to the Island from where Plato lived all had an extra zero added. I wonder if it was originally part of an Explanation to reconcile the reports of "Sea Peoples" (Ekwesh in Egyptian) conducting Raids that took advantage of what is now called the Bronze Age Collapse. They seemed to suddenly disappear in the records as quickly as they appeared.
At any rate, it's easy to imagine these ancient myths as some conglomerate of true events, hyperbole, and story-tellers' added fictions, along with whatever was considered the most rational (or other value) mainstream explanation for the time.
I had heard the same. Now I think more likely that it was a "character" in a philosophical treatise as said here.
Good day sir! I'm happy to see you call out Stephan Milo and his great channel. I truly enjoy both your channels and would love to see a collaboration between the two of you, maybe around upper paleolithic culture, and how archeology and mythology overlap (or don't?).
Cheers from Salt Lake City!
Peace
Your arguments seem valid, but by six minutes in I have a few points to remark on: there was a historic fire circa 500AD, which is claimed to have taken a library in which ALL the known historic texts of antiquity perished, therefore one cannot definitively claim that lack of evidence equates to lack of proof. Also, I would argue (given regional trends) that all flood myths have a potential of reflecting seasonal trends along riverside farmlands susceptible to flood; of course I also cede to your flood myth videos from the past, but am just observing how any one that dates -3,000 years ago could have been influenced by such trends.
Please continue your incredible work, and know that even if I argue I'm HIGHLY impressed by your video today; thank you for tackling such a controversial subject!!!
Thank you for you thoughtful comment, and your kind words.
@@Crecganford THANK YOU for your hard work; I look forward to a sequel.
What a brillian CZcams channel you have
Thank you.
It's a bit good ain't it.
I suppose I found you ( or the algorithm found you for me ) in some via Graham Hancock. For me, you absolutely nailed it in describing GH as entertainment. I love his ideas and they really spark my imagination without me feeling the need to discredit or embrace them. I don't feel there is any malice in his ideas other than a little footstamping because the big boys won't play with him. I am concerned at the level of vitriol I have recently seen directed at him ( not from you ). I don't see how Hancocks ideas are any less valid than any religion. Certainly not as dangerous.
As ever, great content. Thank you.
Agree
Thank you.
Perfectly said!
" I don't see how Hancocks ideas are any less valid than any religion. "
i think you kinda nailed it on the head there. I like that people are debunking him, but yeah, people should keep it level headed
I should have read these commemts before commenting.
While I agree that Hancock plays loose with the facts at times, sadly i think the same can be said of this video. Just to note on a couple points that caught my attention..
1. You imply that for the story of Atlantis to be taken seriously Hancock should explain how a nation's corruption could lead to a catastrophic flood, but there are plenty of stories with much more fantastical assertions that are nonetheless accepted by historians as based on true events. With Atlantis at least we can say that cities absolutely can sink to the sea, so it's only the cause given by Plato that is contentious. In comparison, Jesus was claimed to have walked on water and raised the dead, yet biblical scholars don't need to explain those to claim him to have been a real person.
2. Also, the dating of the sinking of Atlantis seems rather solid, whether the story is true or not. As you said, we're fairly certain that Solon was a real person and there appears to be two separate sources confirming his visit to Egypt. And the fact that the date coincides with a known rise of sea levels is definitely to be taken as a corroborating evidence. It doesn't prove the Atlantis story to be true, of course, but it absolutely does lend it some credibility.
3. You question how Plato could have come to know about Atlantis as Herodotus doesn't mention anything about it. But Plato himself tells in Critias how the story supposedly came to him; told by Solon to Critias' grandfather who then passed it down to Critias, and Critias to Plato.
4. As for the Atlantians having Greek names.. again, whether true or not, Plato himself explains that the names originally weren't greek but for the purposes of his writing have been translated to greek equivalents.
So, in this case, accusing Hancock of sloppy work or disingenuousness rings to me awfully like the pot calling the kettle black. And for the record, as far as i'm concerned Atlantis wasn't a real, though i'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Crecganford replied to Karl Sapp's comments here: To be honest I haven't watched his series, and I won't. These were just responses to two questions I was asked a lot over the last few weeks. I just wanted to give a solid, basic view of the key issues.
@@danieltangkilisan3074 What a clown! Accusing someone of sloppy work without even bothering to look into their work in the first place!
Good points! I don't believe in the Atlantis of Plato either but Hancock has a place in modern discourse as much as anyone.
Great video! Just wondering, have you ever done a bookshelf tour of the many awesome looking books behind you? That’d be a fun video.
I will do this when I next move, probably in the next 12-18 months. I hope to have a proper library in my next house, and this would then be an ideal time for a tour. I have about 30 meters (100 feet) of bookshelves, so it will be a long video, so much tea will need to be drank!
Thank you again Jon. Your vast knowledge inspires me to read more on these periods.
Great video. I haven't seen Hancock's Netflix show but my understanding from his podcast was that rocks from the region formed above water making it more of atlantis as a possibility rather than a statement of fact.
It's impossible for a fictional place to become real.
Atlantis never existed.
@@damenwhelan3236 Like Troya.
i have not enjoyed learning about myths before, because they are taught in such a haphazard way, and i can’t remember what happened to whom unless i’ve heard them over and over. but, since you connect myths and meanings across cultures and history, they mean so much more. and when you relate a myth, you point out the meaning as you go. it’s so much easier to connect them in my head and also really enjoy them even though i have always been interested in cross cultures. (e.g. fairy tales are
fascinating - so many of them are found all over the world.) thanks soo much. 🌷🌱
And thank you for taking the time to watch them, it is appreciated.
At about 6:32 you talk about Atlantis being a Greek centric name. Plato himself commented on that in Critias. Hellenic names to foreigners. He explains that Solon got the names from his Egyptian informers, who had translated the original names into Egyptian. Solon found the original meanings of some of those names, and translated them to Greek. An example of how this works is if we have a story of Germany, involving a man named Wassermann. When rendered in English, the name becomes Waterman. Then translated further into Spanish we have Aguahombre. We can conclude that Atlantis is Plato's name for the island and civilization, as it was out in the Atlantic Ocean. But Plato never claimed that the Atlanteans called themselves that. After all the Germans call themselves the Deutsch and their nation Deutschland. Though they recognize Germania as a poetic name for their homeland.
There are however, two very interesting things Plato mentions. In Timeaus, he describes Atlantis as a large island right in front of the Pillars of Hercules and beyond this island the opposite continent which surrounds what can be called the true ocean. This he wrote 1360 years before Leif Erickson. Columbus did not discover America, he confirmed a rumor.
The second very interesting thing is in Critias. He describes the filling of the Aegean. Before it was a fair and bountiful land, of which:
"The whole country is only a long promontory extending far into the sea away from the rest of the continent, while the surrounding basin of the sea is everywhere deep in the neighbourhood of the shore. Many great deluges have taken place during the nine thousand years, for that is the number of years which have elapsed since the time of which I am speaking; and during all this time and through so many changes, there has never been any considerable accumulation of the soil coming down from the mountains, as in other places, but the earth has fallen away all round and sunk out of sight. The consequence is, that in comparison of what then was, there are remaining only the bones of the wasted body, as they may be called, as in the case of small islands, all the richer and softer parts of the soil having fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the land being left. But in the primitive state of the country, its mountains were high hills covered with soil, and the plains, as they are termed by us, of Phelleus were full of rich earth, and there was abundance of wood in the mountains. Of this last the traces still remain, for although some of the mountains now only afford sustenance to bees, not so very long ago there were still to be seen roofs of timber cut from trees growing there, which were of a size sufficient to cover the largest houses; and there were many other high trees, cultivated by man and bearing abundance of food for cattle. Moreover, the land reaped the benefit of the annual rainfall, not as now losing the water which flows off the bare earth into the sea, but, having an abundant supply in all places, and receiving it into herself and treasuring it up in the close clay soil, it let off into the hollows the streams which it absorbed from the heights, providing everywhere abundant fountains and rivers, of which there may still be observed sacred memorials in places where fountains once existed; and this proves the truth of what I am saying."
Many of the Greek Islands today are barren, the soil having washed away but with plenty of evidence of rich forests that once grew. Pollen grains of the abundant plant life described by Plato. When the ocean rose with melting of the ice sheets, a million cubic miles since the Younger Dryas, that explains what Plato describes. Cultivation of the soils combined with torrential rains and soils wash down into the bays, silting them up. Thus we describe Greece and Turkey today.
As for Atlantis, there are 236,000 people living on the 908 square miles of the Azores. These islands were larger during the Younger Dryas, and a civilization of even 50,000 people would have been a Big Deal back then. Why don't we find any remains of the Atlantean civilization? All the shorelines they would have lived at and visited are presently under 20 fathoms of salt water. And how do we explain artifacts from the Younger Dryas times? "It's not Atlantean" the way we say that the Wow! signal and the Oumuamua object "are not aliens."
Except that the whole North Atlantic has been mapped ad-nauseam since the 1940s. The Azores theory is the best thing in all of this, though. They wouldn't need to be "extremely advanced" to sprout some tall tales either. The mistake seems to be to think it probable that we may someday find something extraordinary where sonar over more than half a century has found nothing.
@@juliahenriques210 Volcanic islands surrounded by deep ocean sometime lose big pieces of themselves in large landslides. The sonar scanners map these landslides around the Azores, the Hawaiians, and the Emperor Seamounts. When this happens your beautiful port city goes with it. Plato's account of the disappearance of Atlantis sounds suspiciously like a tsunami at the same time of a sudden sea level rise, another fun thing that happens around volcanic islands when the ice sheets are melting Did Lake Agassiz suddenly drain into the ocean?.
Interesting points.
There's also myths that Carlson uses, that would help Hancock with his point but right now I think his frustration is getting in his way. I believe there had been a more advanced ancient civilization do to the fact that we keep finding older anatomically modern human bones, that's a long time to be around as a people and not figure something cool out. I think we should do more research into humanities past but with an unbiased either way view. Maybe both academia and hancock are wrong, lets look and find out.
Would appreciate a video on the Hesperides or Atlantides and the island they lived on that might have been the inspiration for Atlantis.
I'm glad there are people pushing back against his claims in various ways -- the garbage he puts forth doesn't stand up to logic or evidence.
I do agree that Hancock should not be taken very seriously as a legitimate source, but I don't think the question of human civilization prior to the ice age can be reduced to his work or even the Atlantis myth. Unless iIm mistaken there are questions about Megalith culture that academia is unable to answer and this will always be a potential source of conflict between the academic community and other communities interested in ancient civilization. I'm curious about your opinion of Megalith culture(s) more generally, do you think there is still more to be revealed there?
Let's not loose sight of this channel. @Crecganford scientifically dissects the planets Myths and explores patterns and concepts based on evidence. Its a myth based channel.
@@benjiman_OBE I do understand, the mythic analysis is great, but that doesn't really address the point about Megalith culture and the different possibilities that might be attached to it. I just think there is a deeper issue here than Graham Hancock vs Archeologists.
@@mayonnaisenin2198 I'm not saying your question isn't a good one. But Jon explores Myths. He might have an opinion and might come back to you but the question would of been better placed on an archeology channel or a channel based on ancient culture
@@benjiman_OBE Definitely, but I only mentioned it due to the context of the video which is talking about this topic specifically.
Study some Randall Carlson to see how wrong they were when they said sea waters rose slowly. I say this as somebody who doesn't necessarily subscribe to any of Hancocks's theories. There were however catastrophic floods and plenty of evidence of it.
There were floods, huge flows of water from the North American continent into the sea, but it wasn't dumped out in one go, in one year, it took years to happen. I do appreciate some of Carson's work, much more than Hancock's.
It is worth saying that Egypt in Ancient Greece (1st millenium BCE) was considered superior to Greece. The Greeks thought of themselves a civilised and pretty much everyone else as being uncivilised. Still, they looked at Egypt the way we look at Ancient Greece today (from the 1800s to the 2020s at least), as a source of extraordinary enlightenment. It does make sense that the Greeks would have thought that Greece was superior to Egypt in the past but Egypt surpassed it as time went on becoming what it was in the time of the "Greek golden age" or "Classical Greece" in the 1st millennium BCE.
I have read claims that Atlantic shouldn't be considered "Greek" or better said Hellenistic as a civilisation. In other words they had a different architecture and culture altogether. Still, you are right, a different culture wouldn't name itself after a Greek/Hellenistic god.
I also have to wonder if there weren't any islands, not continents, a bit west of the Gibraltar strait before the sea rise and maybe some civilisation on it. If there would have been a civilisation, it probably would have been a seafaring civilisation. I think I also see the influence of some Phoenicia there with the circles part. Phoenician military harbours were circular quite often.
Yes, this is what most academics think was the point Plato was trying to make, although I would add that they actually thought the city he used as a template was Babylon. And Bell Beaker culture was very much sea faring, and so peoples from Briton and Spain, would have come to Greece, and perhaps help influence the story Plato wrote. There is much to be said on this, but I just wanted to put the basics out there so people understood the challenges to that could be made towards the less reliable work.
Weren't the ancient Egyptians supposed to be the ones who kept track of the history?
They also had connections to Sumer which can be seen in some aspects of the mythology in both regions. Also, Greek myths were heavily influenced from there as well.
Maybe the Atlantis myth wasn't part of the Greek world / history but came from the region of Sumer.
This is somewhat disingenuous - Hancock doesn't ever claim that Atlantis existed exactly as described in Plato, he purports that the Atlantis myth (and a multitude of others) is based on earlier memories of what happened at the end of the last Ice Age where there were global sea level rises and a great deal of coastal land drowned. You've based your argument on a cherry-picked and misrepresented aspect of his views, which is basically what you're stating he's doing.
Now, I'm not saying his views are in any way right, of course, but this really isn't a good way to rebut them.
@@ario4795 And if our host had chosen to rebut that point, it would be relevant.
Hancock is not taking the story of Atlantis literally in every Platonic detail and you appear to imply that he is doing that. He is certainly saying that there is a memory of an ice age civilization, whether or not that is really true. But the main thing is that there was a huge sea level rise at the end of the younger Dryas. This was very rapid (as in catastrophic) according to the asteroid impact theory. Connect this now with Hancock’s personal research into undersea archaeology and the still unrecognised ruins at great depth and you can see how his theory hangs together. By the way, he has never said that he is a journalist not a scientist as far as I know. I’ve heard him say that he is a journalist not an archaeologist, but I suspect he doesn’t view archaeology as a proper science. Oh, and I believe there is evidence Plato and Solon were relatives so Plato probably got the story directly from Solon or from his records.
"Atlantis must have undergone the same fate as the others, and the catastrophe which submerged it falls obviously into the same cause as that which buried, 48 centuries later, under a profound sheet of water, Egypt, the Sahara, and the countries of Northern Africa. But more favored than the land of the Atlantean, Egypt gained from a raising of the bottom of the ocean and came back to the light of day, after a certain time of immersion. For Algeria and Tunisia with their dry "chotts" covered with a thick layer of salt, the Sahara and Egypt with their soils constituted for a large part of sea sand show that the waters invaded and covered vast expanses of the African continent."
Younger Dryas, man. 👍🏻
Where are the goddamn pots, smelted metals, grains, or animal bones Krzysztof?
Glad to here you shout out for Stefan Milo. I just referred him to you. Should have known ya'll were acquainted...
they'd collaborate well, I think
I did ask him a while ago for a discussion, but he said no, which is fair enough. He has his reasons and I have to respect him for that.
@@Crecganford Well darn. I think it would be fascinating if you two could produce a joint video.
@@Crecganford dude tends to take on a lot sometimes, and I reckon he often spreads himself thin. He seems like a lovely bloke.
Personally, I think your fields of study would compliment each other well.
As is seen, cross-academic research can produce exponential results across multiple fields, and giant leaps made.
There's just not enough polymaths around, man, and there's definite links between some myths and real events that are ripe for exploration.
Love a good shredding with logic and fact! Enjoying the shorts! (As an off side note: I can't identify your newly acquired piece)
My love graham didn’t look at things from the archeological or scientific perspective. His arguments start strong but fizzle quick due to lack of historical continuity.
Nobody hates him and nobody wants to hide history.
Like I said on the pyramids video, thanks for bringing some truth to this nonsense. Thanks for that sawed off truth!!
History with Kaleigh is a great youtuber who also debunks every single episode of hancock, and *shock* the rising sea level was faster before the date hancock said
I am glad you could easily explain how these idea’s snowball into their own myth’s. Atlantis has many who cling to it to fulfill some greatness or other they attached to the tale. It’s good to know that those who seriously want truth they have a place to find it.😊
Loved these last two videos. I would definitely watch more
You raise a few good points but I think to truly demonstrate that Hancock's theories are baseless a 10 minute video doesn't really get that done. I think challenging Hancock to a debate about it would be very interesting and it would introduce your channel to a new audience.
But alas Hancock has never accepted such invitations despite all his assertions.
@Crecganford except for when he had a debate with Zahi Hawass, or even Micheal Shermer.. but yeah Graham doesn't debate 🙄😂😂😂
Thank you so much for this video. I confess that I am a Hancock fan: Hancock the writer; Hancock the story-teller; Hancock the myth-maker; Hancock the entertainer. I can't say I've ever regarded him as anything but a journalist, and certainly not an authority on archaeological matters. His conspiracy about academia is absurd, and his victim/heroic truth-teller stance is annoying. However, he does inspire the imagination and often leads people to an interest in archaeology and mythology. I really enjoy his books, they are page-turners, at least for me.But it only takes a little research to realize his interpretations are often stretched, selective, and speculative rather than evidential, so his books are to me, more like romantic archeological fiction.
I regard Lost Civilization and Ancient Alien theories as quasi-religious movements that have certainly generated their own mythologies and, as interpretations, are tinged with fundamentalist literalism. Their arguments sound more like religious apologetics rather than scientific reasoning. Sometimes they're claims are downright deceptive. Hancock is certainly a persecuted prophetic figure (as are Sitchin and Von Daniken for the Ancient Alien denomination). Ignatius Donnelly is like the Apostle Paul and Plato is Moses. Hancock's basic religious message is that we look to the stars for a sense of Eternity, and that humanity's hubris and excess will be its downfall, for the survivors of the last Apocalypse have left us their message.
It would be interesting to see you do a video on the myth of the Lost Civilization or Lost Golden Age if you haven't done so already or these interpretations as modern myths in the making.
They aren't quasi religious, i amq uire sure there are some religious movement (more like cults) in american on these topic.
i was a hancock and von daniken fan a long time ago, like you their enthusiasm got me into those topics, but gradually i saw they exaggerated their claims, plus the constant playing of the victim card is simply annoying (they never think: maybe the ''establishment'' ignore you because you ignore them).
i still like using ancient astronaut theories about aliens creating eden as a funny response to religious fundamentalists, it's funny watching bullshit-merchants struggle against another bullshit-merchants theory lol!
I’m the same. I binge watched Ancient Apocalypse on Netflix quite recently and, I have to say, I quite enjoyed it. It was well shot, well edited, the graphics were beautiful, and the ‘storyline’ was wildly entertaining. And after watching it, I concluded that I genuinely like Graham Hancock. He seems to be a really nice person, and I perfectly understand why he would be pissed off at the nature reserve in Ohio for not allowing him to take pictures of their snake mound. Just because you disagree with his ideas doesn’t mean you have to slander him or treat him like a criminal. I myself am not persuaded or convinced by his theories, but I strongly admire him for his enthusiasm. I mean, seriously, he’s not hurting anyone. I would rather listen to him talk about his belief in Atlantis than hear privileged royalty whining about their victimhood.
I don't find Hancock credible. But what always amazes me is how his critics use logical fallacies after claiming Hancock does the same. For instance to say, Since it maybe Hancock didn't do the research I'll do it for him. That is the equivalent of , "So you're saying...." Strawmanning. Or stating we don't have definitive existence Solon ever visited Egypt, yet historians and other scholars cite Plato in other cases. The case being, nit picking one fact and delegating it false, should nullify all of Plato or Herodotus's histories. But the same scholars cite these works all the time in other references.
Arguments such as, we don't have other evidence of Atlantis means it didn't exist. For a very long time Mopsus was considered a fabricated story, until the found his name near Tarsus. We do have examples of societies that suddenly disappeared with no explanation or written record of why, many of these being in Central and South America. The one argument that is the most annoying is when an academic, scholar, expert says something akin to, so and so has critics, or so and so's theory has been refuted, or so and so's theory has been questioned. So was Einstein, so was Galileo, so was Stephan Hawking, and at times they were wrong about something.
It's an interesting trend how when someone like Hancock grows in popularity his "critics" ride along all while accusing Hancock of just doing it for the money. I'm not against making money but accusing someone else of making money off a false narrative then riding the train of critics to make money off being a critic of the guy making money off the narrative, seems a troubled position. We saw that when people were making a lot of money in the media going after Trump, while accusing Trump of just being in it for the money. But a lot of people hesitated knowing it could make them look bad, but once the train got close they jumped on it, otherwise they wouldn't profit off the fad of hating someone.
Been waiting for your take on this one for a while now
“Academics don’t bother refuting Hancock because we think his field has no value. Tune in next time as I refute academics who think my field has no value.” I’m sorry. Love the channel but I found this funny.
Excellent video. Thank you for clearing this up. You should be on Netflix.
And you make some good points there. We're looking at a story that is coming from 2:00 to 3 people that's over 11,000 years old. So at the very least the story would be questionable.
Indeed Hancock forces his point too much. But I think Randal Carlson is much harder to dismiss. His geological argument about Atlantis being a complex of islands now sunk somewhere around Azores in the Atlantic rift is plausible. On the top of that, there are other academics that support the idea that Atlantis was literal, like Mary Settegast. Moreover, there are many specific points in Plato’s account that are very specific. The priest mentions “declinations” of objects around earth, that is, asteroids as a major cause of the periodic destruction of humankind. Plato also stresses that it was a “real story” passed within his family by Critias the elder. Also, something that always puzzled me is the extremely precise astronomical and geometrical precisions found in megalithic structures, as well as astronomic information found with many ancient civilizations which presupposed very detailed calculations.
I find it disrespectful you don't just pull up passages from Timaeus/Critaeus and let the people decide for themselves rather than attack Graham Hancock strawman.
That's why I think Bright Insight is more genuine then people who claim "academic" status.
Great! I completely agree with everything you say. In Spain, where many "Atlantists" tend to locate Atlantis, serious archaeological research on issues of its own prehistory is hampered. It's a shame.
I have read his books, the latest is America Before. He argues that human civilisation is way older than we thought and no, Atlantis didn't sink, it was destroyed due to drastic climate catastrophe.
One thing I notice is that some people have no concept of the distance of time between two events in past ages and act like it was just a few years. An example is where Plato was 200 years after Solon in Egypt. Think about how long 200 years is. The American Independence War was 246 years ago.
Exactly, humans are really bad at perceiving time when it comes to more than 20 years or so.
I'm writing a science fiction along very similar lines to Hancock's theory, although mine is more history based, and involves some reconsideration of what you previously considered intelligent/successful and obviously the scale comes from being of first person perspectives as perceiving these events as cataclysm.
Anyway, my point is, I think I could get a few people to change their mind about their presumptions about Hancock being wrong. If anyone is interested in helping get this off the ground leave a comment.
Very densely packed short video, thanks!
I wander, how many people in a 1000 year will be saying Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion were actual events. It is not hard to see crackpots twisting Tolkiens work and twisting history to try an fit them together. Just seeing what crackpots have done with Atlantis tells me that it's only a matter of time before someone claims that the Red Book from The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings was a real book Tolkien found.
I've only recently subscribed to your channel. I wonder why some people, don't spend more time talking about the wonders, that real archeologists have discovered, like Gobekli Tepe. Anyway, good video. Thank you.
Thank you.
Oddly enough Hancock writes and talks extensively on Gobekli Tepi.
I do and hear crickets. Know of any cool sites to see more of the inventory of artifacts with out a pay wall or University firewall? I watch all kinds of videos of the area just to be able to see it, even in other languages. Happen to know of a video showing them excavate between the two main monoliths in Enclosure D while open to the public? I searched back a year in videos and that far back in the computer, can't find it again, IIRC, it was just tourists that shot it. What do you think it is? I like the large ancient lithics, but it is secondary to mythology. One time I was about to turn off a video about the pyramids because it was about the 'frequency' and they started talking about the Nile meandering through time, I had forgotten about that phenomena in relation to that river. If the Nile was right up to the Giza Plateau, the Archaeologist should look down along the edges of where it would have receded from, for lost artifacts of the harbors, that could help explain more than what we now know. Maybe a good forum? Usenet used to be the place...
@@jonstfrancis I'm afraid I don't know who he is. But from all the comments, I'm assuming he's a bit controversial.
@@bardmadsen6956 Most of the stuff I've seen has been on television. I'm always looking for information on these sites. I even watched the Ancient Aliens story on them, trying to glean what I could about the site, and other related sites.
I do not understand why Hancock is mentioned here circa 12 times, Solon 11 times, Plato 10 times and finally Herodotus 7 times?
Hancock has forced more debate whether he be right or not. He got you to make two videos about him. I am more will to accept that the past needs more investigation and openness. There is evidence that the people of the past knew more than is being acknowledged. And from a myth point of view he hasn’t insulted modern intelligence or ancient intelligence by saying the first creation myth was “and god farted” which you have.
A myth is not scientific fact, and so to state something is a myth, is not the same as stating something is true.
@@Crecganford So I guess the city of troy doesn't exist? I mean what homer wrote obviously can't be true, gods, cyclopes, witches. So that's a myth so the city that archaeologists claim to of found is fake?
I don't need his world view to be true but It would be very interesting. I think some of the angry debunkers need to take some psychology courses. If their is going to be a coordinated campaign by individuals news orgs magazines about how dangerous his ideas are and why they need to be scrubbed from reality.
If the establishment would of just ignored the story it wouldn't have triggered the second wave of attention. Regardless of the Atlantis story validity I'm fairly sure in the next twenty years the old world's dates will be pushed a step or two back.
Ooh, ooh - Cantre'r Gwaelod... the bells of Aberdyfi. Stupid part is, the ancient sea walls of the Cardigan Bay, are still there if you know where to look, and the stumps of the forests occasionally become exposed on the beaches. There's a lot of legend and tale about it - and a lot of it I feel, being that which has "gone down in the west" (literally), has a lot to do with the Celtic/iron age and earlier "other/underworld" of the ancestors, linked with the solar deity mythologies..? Thoughts?
Thank you for stepping in to be that beacon of reason and explain just how absurd conspiracy theories are, AND for using simple logic interwoven with ACTUAL documented fact. As an trained anthropologist who actually got to KIND OF work as an anthropologist for a few years (there are precious few positions and they are severely underpaid), I can emphatically appreciate what you are doing. Thank you again...for all your videos.
Conspiracy theories are real. Which ones and how many, is yet to be proven. It's just ignorant to think that all conspiracies are false.
It isn't a conspiracy theory till the book is closed. Once closed it is. It is pretty darned neurotic if not downright delusional to keep thinking otherwise. So, no. Not ignorant.
@@michaelross8794 I bet you like to sniff your own farts and label them good ideas. You didn't specify a conspiracy theory, you said all of them are absurd. The notion of a conspiracy theory is absurd even. The city of Troy was considered by academia to be nothing more than a legend, until it was found.
and yet out of Africa theory is being found to be highly unlikely leaving a big hole for all of anthropology to follow. funny thing science, you think you know something and then there it goes.
That's only true if you read the news' misunderstanding/misrepresentation. Instead, read the journals (yes, there's a paywall). Physical anthropologists are not at all disputing the "out-of-Africa" theory. They are arguing over when it actually happened, and the order of different sub-species leaving and how much recombining /crossover there was. In other words, they are defining the minutia but the news organizations want to shock you into reading their garbage. Just read the anthropology journals.
Not sure there are already such videos but how about the wars between the old gods vs. new gods (indian, greek and north european mythology) and also the egyptian mythology of men and gods living together. I do believe the last one can also be found in sumerian mythology (same origin?)
I do want to cover this, but it is a very long and complex lecture, and so I am still working out the best way to produce this.
I wish Randel Carlson would separate himself from Graham n Jimmy. His geological assessments seem more logical and I've caught the others BS a few times. Love your work, keep it up!
So do I, and thank you.
...From the previous video. Obviously you know about Stefan Milo! Sorry for doubting ;)
Thank you again for your pieces of art aka video!
Awesome video as always!
The only reason I give Graham a little time is the grain of truth. I don't think he has a very clear picture. I'm very fascinated by what might be found off the coast of India. Also with what might be found in Egypt if the doors were flung wide open. I almost think Plato's story is a great parallel to Graham. A grain of truth. I does seem like there is this weight holding the knowledge of history and archeology closed for the most part. I think India has banned of coast archeology,, Egypt is moving at a snail's pace for what would really interest people and the middle East is almost non existent. A little bit of fantasy, or alot as the case may be, is okay as long as it's understood that someone like yourself is to be trusted more so than him. Great vid as always.
@Crecganford Just a technical comment, it sounds like you have a noise gate on your mic which is cutting it in and out when you talk... personally, I'd say don't use that gating as, though it's covering a very slight hiss, that's perfectly bearable and it cutting in and out is a distraction that only draws attention to it.
As much as I would love for Graham's version of events to be true, I am more devoted to the truth, than to the idea of a spectacular, glorious version of humanity's past. I love this channel, and I truly appreciate that you decided to post these two last videos. I don't know if you'll do something similar in the future, judging by a community post you uploaded recently, but I hope you don't take these two down.
Exactly! Graham's ideas are fascinating, but it's essentially just wild speculation.
What _is_ interesting though is that it raises the question of, what _was_ the state of humanity before that sealevels rose. Humans live at the shores after all, pretty much all of humanity would have had to relocate within a few generations.
Are there still remnants of these societies (or just small bands) who lived there? There is in Doggerland! Where Göbekli Tepe the largest of it's kind, or is there even greater megalithic monuments submerged somewhere?
@@somefuckstolemynick this is what i want to know. i didn't finish hancock's series yet. i don't care about the atlantis idea much other than "why would plato have said this" (maybe there was a seafaring civilization that couldn't hack it and they modernized the tale for their time). i want to know about the supposed apocalypse. what are we missing and could the knowledge help us
Agreed. While I certainly think some things, such as an advanced civilization existing in the ice age are possible, Hancock takes this idea and runs it to a ridiculous degree. A previous cycle of civilization is possible, and I'd even argue that it’s probable, but a utopian Atlantis-style civilization is just loony toons.
“Truth” is subjective
@vincentsanabria3160 That by definition makes no sense. Truth is by nature things that are not subjective but objective.
Assuming (big assumption) that an Atlantis existed, it's not that great a stretch to think that the Greeks would have given it a Greek name, regardless of the actual language or culture of Atlantis. After all, the Romans called China "Serica", and there's very little evidence that the ancient Chinese spoke Latin.
I don't mind myth but if you don't think that Plato, an Anatolian Greek, was inspired by stories of the Minoan civilization you haven't thought about it very long at all.
I know that its not supposed to be the thing Im paying attention too the entire time, and giving all my appreciation too, But those book sets are both Very Pretty but also I want them.
They're from a company called the Folio Society.
After viewing the documentations of archeological diving expeditions north of Egyupt, I propose the supposition Atlantis=Heracleion
how much world history is submerged along the coasts of the entire world?
Do you mean how much world history is submerged along the coasts of the entire world that belongs to a world traveling civilization that we have no record of?
Bright Insight has done some good vids on Atlantis.
Do you mean he discusses Plato's metaphors? Or does he assume it to be a real place?
Love your content!
Thank you.
I always thought that Atlantis was inspired by the Flood myths and therefore is completely mythical as well.
I don't think Atlantis exists. But I do believe, now even more with Crecganford mentioning that steady but slow rise of sea levels 11,400 years ago, at a rate which would allow for people to leave their cities and migrate, that there must many civilizations that slowly flooded and eventually remained underwater. Just not named Atlantis. In that way maybe places like Venice will become the future-modern-climate-change Atlantises.
Yes, there are places lost to sea level rising, and so I totally agree with you.
@@Crecganford Cheers!
Thank you I just watched the series- not overwhelmingly seriously as I think a lot of it is likely to be junk but I'm a sucker for these things.
I was hoping you'd comment on it though given his constant use of myth as support. I do have one question I was wondering if you could help with. Throughout the series groups of geographically distant people having the same stories are one of his main pieces of evidence, while I don't think this supports some wakanda-style ancient civilization is it somewhat reflective of an older shared 'culture' (say older than say mesopotamia or the typical 'beginnings of civilization)
So these shared myths are one of the things I do talk about regularly, now not all are shared, some are common thought, but where they are I try and highlight them and show why they are connected.
@@Crecganford Thanks for the reply. So sometimes the commonality is basically "humans being humans" so the same sort of idea shows up rather than a direct link between the peoples?
I think it's likely alot of these myths have their basis in doggeland.
It's Around the right time frame and although not an overnight event, you are talking about a land mass the size of Belgium that was lost to the Ocean.
Although not an advanced civilization there is plenty of evidence of fishing villages and many artefacts in the area.
It's likely that word would have spread about the land that disappeared into the sea and then transformed overtime into many stories.
Do you have any opinions on unchartered X analysis of ancient granite vases machined to millionths of an inch?
Tales of the Ancients an interesting channel about speculation on bronze age civilizations (now sadly closed) had made an interesting hypostasis about atlantis, far from being the incredible lost civilization of conspiracy theories, might possibly have simply originated from a greatly overblown and misremembered tale about the fall of crete as observed by the early pie settlers of greece (the eruption of Thera having mixed with the flood myth as the tale became myth)
He supposed Plato, as he often did, might have picked an old wives tale among many to use as dressing to his points for no other reason that it somewhat sounded cool and could be made to fit what he wanted to say.
It was an interesting take if anything
ahh! im so excited! brb gonna watch this
i like this short format and im looking forward to more videos like this like you have anticipated! also i really appreciated the last point you made today about potentially disrespecting and discrediting ancient cultural traditions, very much needed perspective ^^
I have been fascinated by the Atlantis story since I was 12. Still I don't think Hancock is doing it justice by stretching the truth of the melt water pulse. I do think there is has been a resistance to new and more scientific archeology. It is especially true that the early members of archeology were more interested in proving the Bible with it than discovering the unvarnished truth. It is my belief from reading many accounts that some of them even destroyed evidence that did not fit their views. I have watched the videos of them (the regular archeologist) using a copper crosscut saw and sand to prove that granite can be cut with it. It took them 8 hours to cut 6 inches. I think that is too slow to make all the cuts that are in the pyramid and get them in place. I would like to see some hard mathematics on that with the estimations of the workforce. Plus that a copper crosscut saw has never been found in Egypt nor is depicted in any art of the time. If I am wrong then show it to me. You might get enough speed with this system if you had diamond dust instead of just sand. But the saws would grind to nothing soon too. So far I have seen no one demonstrate how the perfectly round holes were cut. Or explain the "overcut" marks that look like they were made with a power tool. I have done the same thing in wood with a circular saw many times. With a hand saw you stop well before you overshoot by 6 to 8 inches. No one has given me adequate explanation of that yet. If any of you have seen these explained then please show me the vid.
I hope this the technical KO we all been waiting for
Just a non nonsense look at the parts of the myths he skips, and which show he is cherry picking his information.
I don't know if Atlantis existed or not, but one thing i don't like is how people have taken the text of Atlantis, and because we don't know where it was, how it was made, who lived there, so on and so forth, we say it was a metaphor or symbolic for something else. IMO that's just an easy way out to explain something that can't be understood. And it's almost the exact same way how in mythologies and religions, how early people couldn't understand the way the world works, they chalked it up to God or Gods. It's an easy way out, and i don't like that at all. So coming from scholars who day that it was symbolic, it's almost being hypocritical.
I've come to believe that there was a Tsunami event, or a series of seismic/volcanic events that inundated any number of seaside societies. Each one of these catastrophes in isolation have been an analog to an Atlantis. And yes, I've always taken the story of Atlantis as a philosophical tale of how cruel a mistress Nature can be in wiping away our 'grand' human endeavors.
In my opinion, it is most likely based off the modern day island of Santorini. It was destroyed by a volcanic eruption around 1500 BC, which caused a part of the island to collapse and sink into the waves. At Santorini there is a mural of what the island looked like before the eruption, and it shows an enclosed, circular bay with an island with buildings on it in the center, reminiscent of Platos description of ring shaped canals. Some people also think that the person who reportedly got the story of Atlantis from Egyptian priests misheard the word 'hundreds' as 'thousands,' since apparently the words were similar, which would mean Atlantis happened 900 years before Plato, not 9000. Incidentally, the eruption of the Santorini volcano happened about 900 years before Plato, and may have also caused a tsunami that hit Crete, and some think it led to the downfall of the Minoan civilization.
I love your channel and watch Milo's channel too. You guys do a great job on your videos. I'm a bit perplexed however on why so many youtubers are are going after Hancock. I have read his books and watched him speak and he often brings valid points to the table that are worth looking into.
I don't recall him ever claiming Plato was actually talking about AN Atlantis but instead mythologizing an era of civilization that dealt with massive floods which set humanity back. Gobekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe are "recent" examples of why we shouldn't completely dismiss the idea of an advanced civilization that we have little or no information on (advanced as in building monuments and seafaring not aliens and magic tech).
Societies have often built on waterways because of the access to resources and it is easier to move goods. So why, if sea levels rose (dramatically quick in places like the Black Sea) would it be beneath science to keep the door open to the possibility of a culture and/or a civilization being completely wiped out and forgotten to our history?
Dan Carlin had a great series on the Achaemenis Persian Empire and cited a story of of a Babylonian resting in the shade of a massive wall built1500 years prior. He was so impressed that he asked around and nobody could tell him who built it. And wasn't Troy just a silly myth, relegated to a work of fiction and not history until Schliemann rediscovered it?
Point is people forget and after major cataclysms they tend to forget completely. I'm not saying he's right or wrong just that we should be open to the flow of ideas and not castigating someone for asking the question.
great video, thank you
Sir, I think you and Miniminuteman would get along well.
As skeptical as I am about the existence of Atlantis and Socratese, I have to say the argument that they left no material culture therefore they can't have existed is well worn but wrong: there are TONS of actual cultures that existed for which we only have the writing of their contemporaries or even references to those peoples.
For example: The Sea Peoples - they most certainly existed: they destroyed all the big Bronze Age cilizations. Who were they? We don't have a clue.
Or for example many First Nations societies who were destroyed prior to their contact with the European diseases and for which we have only the shattered remnants of their culture as preserved by others. The deep time hypothesis makes it perfectly reasonable for other civilizations to have arisen, fallen and been erased long before we got here, and would easily be applied to a Bronze or Tool Age civilization that was wiped out by a cataclysm, which may even have been self inflicted.
Hell, Troy was considered to be a myth, and we didn't find evidence of it's existence until the 1800s, and that's a WAY older story than the Atlantis myth.
And that doesn't account for all the material culture which has been actively destroyed over the ages, either accidentally or deliberately, such as again the case of many African and First Nations cultures where the treasures were melted down and the texts destroyed with only a dim reference to them as part of other empires when they may have been peoples in their own right. In the case of Atlantis, whatever survivors of the cataclysm existed might have just started back at a lower level of civilization, the way we will eventually when our civilization gets knocked down by climate catastrophe and the way the European Romans were when they were conquered and practically disappeared.
As such their culture would have been absorbed, changed and melded into whoever they came in contact with and eventually just disappeared entirely, even fading from memory. It's hardly inconceivable as it's happened multiple times.
Jon; assuming that our ancestors taught myths and folklore as lessons with intention and used descriptions based on real factors, even if exaggerated, how might we translate the concept of merfolk? For example, "gods" in pantheons might be translated as concepts, ancestors, or legendary heroes. Perhaps centaurs were for foreigners very bound to horse-centric cultures. I'm lost regarding merfolk though. Would they be like boogeymen for seafaring, an ever-distant tribe of island-dwelling neighbors, or warnings about being seduced by females on foreign shores? I'd appreciate your insight.
A great question, and one I should answer as a video in future months.
@@Crecganford thanks! I'll aim to stay subscribed in hopes of catching it. I have something else for you I just found myself that you may find fascinating. You'll probably need a big cup o'tea for this one... 1) look up in Strong's every mention of word "angel" and its variations; write down each unique Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek reference (don't need to read the verses, just collecting the words 2) write out those words in their symbols as given by Strongs (Chaldean/Babylonian-influenced Hebrew and late Hellenistic) 3) translate those symbols to the oldest symbols you can find from anywhere around those periods in history but to symbols that have a pictographic meaning. I used paleo-Hebrew/Phoenician modified to understand representation of the symbols NOT as taught by modern rabbis. This can be tricky, as any "M"s might look like distant mountains, waves of the sea, or even waves of the air/heavens. However, here's the key! If you have good pictures and imagine being a child taught in a tent by someone that knows about the world outside of the tent. When you do this, you may get a new picture of the council of the strong ones, messengers from the strong one, , etc. The staff, the crown/horns, the tent, other men (R), and many of these ancient symbols had MORE meaning to our ancestors than to us in modern times in our elaborate buildings and tomes and tomes of records. We are yet like children being brought along in a great migration still.
I agree that 'Atlantis' is a name invented by Greeks or by Plato himself. I would also point out that Plato claims there were triremes in Atlantis. Even though triremes were invented in Greece at a much later date. He uses this legendary ancient kingdom as an example for debate in his dialogue. All this points to the story being at least in part made up. However, it is interesting that there might have been a legendary 'empire' in the ancient past, which Plato then used as an example for his debate about the Republic.
What it was called is then unknown, and we can assume they did not have triremes.
Even so, he describes the SIZE of this kingdom as equivalent to Libya and Asia Minor (turkey), and here I don't know why he does this if he did not have some basic story to elaborate from.
This could be the missing Doggerland 'civilization', which the archaeology at Star Carr has laid the groundwork for.
I like to call it the North Sea civilization, and the DNA points to this region as the origin of the R1a branch of Y chr.
If we include the sunken lands of the English Channel and Irish Sea as also being part of this 'empire' then we have an early empire which is comparable in size to what Plato describes. We should also consider the shallow coast of West France that was above Sea level.
This is the heartland of the R1b branch, where we find ALL the early R1b branches.
So Atlantis was according to the Sagas called Miuspelheim, the relatively warm plains of the North Sea, given a little heat by the Sea at low elevations. The North part of the North Sea was frozen over with ice in the coldest periods, Norway was covered with ice.
The 'Pillars of Hercules' in the source text by Plato referenced by Solon seem to now be called 'the tower of Hercules' and is situated in La Coruna in Spain. Which actually fits with where the core area for R1b begins. The theory that Gibraltar is the pillars of Hercules is SIMPLY MADE UP.
all theories that place Atlantis in the Mediterranean are retarded.
Atlantis was the lowlands of northern Europe, inhabited by he R1a and the R1b. But it is really called Muspelheim
I am a little saddened. I like Hancock largely for the ancient sites he visits though, so that's unchanged.
He is a marvelous myth maker.
When someone creates a limited hangout and deliberately withholds relevent details they are usually displaying the characteristics of a bioluminescent entity.