Since Atlantis was clearly in Morocco, does that mean that Iberomaurusians were descended from Atlanteans, or did Atlanteans simply all go extinct?
Since Atlantis was clearly in Morocco, does that mean that Iberomaurusians were descended from Atlanteans, or did Atlanteans simply all go extinct?
It means you’re a mentally ill shit coloured troon.
don't sully the name of trans people with this autism.
ouch. heard that op?
>the name of trans people
Which one?
They sully themselves
>shit coloured troon
You ever just eat too many skittles?
mauritania is not morocco
They weren't brown yet so yes
I'm pretty sure even Randall Carlson says this is a volcanic formation.
>I'm pretty sure Hawaii was a volcanic formation, so no one can live on top of it
It doesn't matter what it was.
If a crackpot like Randall Carlson says something is fake, it means it's probably true.
atlantis was in sardinia. The pillars of hercules were the strait of sicily
>Akthually Atlantis was in the dicksuking archipelago and phased between shitfrick peninsula and penis island
Atlantis was a literary device in an allegory you dweebs.
Midwit take
>Atlantis was a literary device in an allegory you dweebs.
He word-for-word say it is not a literary device and a recounting of actual history in Timaeus.
Atlantis was located in the Azores. Randall Carlson explains why in this ten video playlist.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGPYUyAU4oUdIcHLOxwqt50X6ELtGRcGC
It may had been a colony made by disgrunted rebels. Atlantis never built colonies that far from the coasts they controlled
Anon here is correct
You're right. Atlantis was composed of various cities. The capital was probably the Richat structure, and the other cities can be found but are most probably lost to time.
They werent Black folk you moronic homosexual
They are Black folk and so are you
VGH...
Most have never even bothered to read the two Atlantis dialogues and only know of it as some sunken continent in the Atlantic. But there is quite a bit of detail given.
The story is told in the context of catastrophes by fire and water. The Phaeton myth is used as an example of something based on an observed real catastrophe. Learned people and knowledge were lost in these catastrophes and mostly the ignorant survived so they’re not aware of what came before. Athens and Attica are described as being the skeletal remains of something much larger now covered by water. Athens also plays a prominent role in a war with Atlantis.
Atlantis is described as having good virtuous origins and founded by gods but the later inhabitants breed away their god seed by mixing and becoming degenerate. Atlantis is a cruel empire extending from its capital island across Europe as far as Italy and North Africa as far as Egypt. The pillars of Hercules are not necessarily the straits of Gibraltar. But Atlantis has a ballpark location of being near northwest Africa. Athens wins the war and frees those surrounding the Mediterranean. Cecrops is a general of the war. The catastrophe that destroys Atlantis also destroys Athens, but part of Athens survives and also in Sais, Egypt where they have colonists of their stock. Atlantis “sinks” but the ocean isn’t navigable because of mud shoals.
Plato learned this account from Solon who learned it from 26th dynasty priests in Sais. Athena and Neith are this supposed to be the same. Neith is a very important and predynastic goddess. Supposedly the Greeks anciently called Egypt Aeritae or Aeria and people have claimed these both are corruptions of the same root for Atlas and Atlantis. The Aeritae are predynastics demigods and spirits of the dead who migrated into Egypt. Or something like that. And the lineage given by Plato is supposed to be matched with them given my Manetho.
Anyways, there are specific details in those dialogues that “coincidentally” match the Richat Structure. Not to mention North Africa was full of shallow seas (Lake Tritonis for example) during the era of ancient Greeks. Including surrounding the structure. Academia wants to ignore this because they insist Atlantis is a bullshit story but those coincidental specific details are a bit much. This is why some are certain that Atlantis was real and Richat was Atlantis
Academia ignores this shit because plato says they existed 9000 years before his own time and they were at war with Athens. Athens goes back to 4500 bc max so we know he's making it up to make a point.
And the story was transferred through oral tradition for 9000 years? You know how long that is?
And there is no material evidence whatsoever for muhhh advanced civilization. So the flood managed to target Atlantis and annihilate it, but still kept other archaeological evidence around the world intact
And this fricking seafaring nation of supermen who were sailing from America to Egypt and Europe all the time never brought over a tomato or a potato?
Frick off with that victim "muh scholars are mean to me" that only works on Joe Rogan's show
There’s also accounts of an Athens “before” Athens? The first king was supposedly Draco, is that a symbol for something?
>And the story was transferred through oral tradition for 9000 years? You know how long that is?
In Sumerian King List, the mythical Kish dynasty after the Flood reigned for over 23k years and collapsed around 9700 BC mark, so I have a feeling that the fricking 9000 years in Plato's dialogues was not a coincidence
Dismissing it wholesale because he claims it was 9000 years ago is moronic. When we look at other Greek accounts of history, like Herodotus, we often find that his quantitative claims are ridiculous, but his qualitative claims are strangely truthful.
I'm convinced.
honestly based on what I've read from it and if it's not a made up rhetorical tale then it really feels like a highly embelished version of some kind of history involving bell beaker folks and we know that they actually settled in Morocco (there are also accounts of blonde haired folks called tehenu attacking egypt ) :
>"During the Old Empire, the Libyans are depicted as brunets; but in New Empire representations we see a change in the appearance of some of them. One branch, the Tehennu, known to the Egyptians from earlier times, still consists of brunet white men, but another group, the Mashausha, coming from farther west, is definitely blond.80 These two, the new people and the old, joined forces and attacked Egypt from the west. In dress and in other respects, there is nothing to indicate that the Mashausha were not Libyans."