Talk:Atlantis/Archive 2

Edits to make Article More Encyclopedic

I excised a number of sentences that were mostly superfluous personal commentary. In addition, I removed a handful of personal pronouns. It is pretty clear this article in its current form is more or less someone's personal essay. I am also of the opinion that the article should be reorganized to have Plato's account first, since that is probably the most pertinent information about Atlantis. The history timeline, while interesting, doesn't talk much about Atlantis, and it could be cut up a bit, but I will leave that to someone else as I am not Atlantis scholar. Shawn M. O'Hare 13:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Well, I just saw that this article was written again, and honestly, I'm impressed ( I was chocked with the previous article). I think the article is now fine. It is not a personal essay, I watched and read about this issue, and this follows the usual and same pattern.Maybe your suggestions should be added. But I think it is a good article and now it can be translated to other languages. -Pedro 02:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

---

hey, the article is definitely taking shape. well done. dab (ᛏ) 18:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I appreciate your concern Shawn. Actually, the article was a mess. True. However, and after an initiative by Reflex Reaction [1], the article's started to take shape.

Now, we have Location hypotheses of Atlantis as well as Atlantis in fiction. Those two articles have been originated from the main Atlantis. The good news is that we are being consistent now in terms of what goes where [2] and [3]. As for my part, and as a consequence, I created Category:Atlantis, as an expectation that the main article would generate many other generic ones. Also, because that the main article would only treat the origins of the story, myth, fact (call it whatever you like) and the generalities. As of today, we have 14 articles under that category.

On the other hand, I don't believe there exsit any original research. In fact, the articles lack sources. True. Let's work on that too. If you are knowledgeable about the topic (at a minimum, not necesserly an expert), you'd agree that Atlantis is a controversial topic. However, all theories related to Atlantis that are presented in wikipedia articles are encyclopaedic. It doesn't matter if they are right or not but they exist as theories. True again. In other words, the article(s) are neither a mess nor are original research. -- Cheers -- Svest 19:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Ireland???

I read in some online news article that Ireland fits the physical statistics of Atlantis, and that the story is a mythical version of some city of 15000 people in ancient northern Ireland that was destroyed by a flood. I'll try and find a resource for this, but it's gotta go in the article somewhere eventually.--ikiroid | (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I found the site: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5623857/ --ikiroid | (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There are many theories about the location Atlantis, please put it Location hypotheses of Atlantis. The small section on the location theories is intended to be just that. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The Panathenaea

I've removed the stuff about the Panathenaea, as this festival had nothing to do with Atlantis or Poseidon. The idea that Poseidon founded Atlantis and that the Athenians had a war with the Atlanteans isn't part of mainstream Greek myth at all--it's a bizarrre fiction of Plato's. There is a myth that Athena and Poseidon had a competition to become the patron god(dess) of Athens, which Athena won, but this myth isn't very closely connected to the Panathenaea.

There is something relevant in this URL [4] (scroll down to The Parthenon, Plato and Atlantis), According to this URL "the Frieze of the Parthenon contains all the elements of Plato's Atlantis" and the Frieze of the Parthenon did not represent Panathenaea, but the victory of Athena against the Atlanteans.

There was however another ceremony called "Χύτρινοι αγώνες" (Khytrinoi agones), [5] described by Pauasanias to celebrate the survival from the cataclysm. It was performed near the Temple of Olympian Zeus. --Odysses 18:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Just skimming over the section, I see lots of original claims that appear not to be widely held. The Parthenon represents many things to many people, just as the American flag does. To claim relation with Atlantis is I think a tremendous stretch given the well known and studied victory of the Greeks over the Persians, not a mysterious Sea Peoples. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This URL does not of course reflect my POV. I posted it since I thought it was relevant to Panathenaea and Atlantis. --Odysses 19:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if I gave the impression that it was your POV that I was disagreeing with. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Odysses, do you have a citation for where Pausanias describes the Χύτρινοι αγώνες? As far as I can tell, the LSJ only gives Apollodorus and Philochoros in that entry. Akhilleus 06:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I found something about χύτροι (not Χύτρινοι αγώνες as I thought) in Anthesteria:

E. Rohde and M. P. Nilsson, however, take the χύτροι to mean "water vessels," and connect the ceremony with the Hydrophoria, a libation festival to propitiate the dead who had perished in the flood of Deucalion.

And another description:

Close to the temple of the Olympian Zeus a fissure in the soil was shown, in length but one cubit, through which it was said the waters of the Deluge had been swallowed tip. [6]

Pausanias, Description of Greece [7]:

Within the precincts are antiquities: a bronze Zeus, a temple of Cronus and Rhea and an enclosure of Earth surnamed Olympian. Here the floor opens to the width of a cubit, and they say that along this bed flowed off the water after the deluge that occurred in the time of Deucalion, and into it they cast every year wheat meal mixed with honey (Pausanias 1.18.7).--Odysses 12:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Other Greek accounts

The "other Greek accounts" section is a mess. We need more precise citations of ancient authors. It would also be good to avoid equating every mythical island in the west with Atlantis. The island of the Hesperides, for instance, is definitely not the same as Atlantis. The material about Ammianus Marcellinus appears to be inaccurate, but it's hard to confirm without knowing what passages are being cited...

I'm tempted to just delete the whole section, but perhaps someone else can suggest a less drastic course of action. Akhilleus 22:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on both points (improve, and don't delete), but I specifically don't know enough about those topics to do much editing on them in particular. I will try to do so sometime this week though. Your help would be appreciated. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the authors don't talk about Atlantis, as far as I can tell right now, and so should be removed. Any authors that talk about Atlantis, of course, should be retained! But since the section doesn't give precise references, it's hard to check whether the authors say anything about Atlantis or not--reading through all the fragments of Theophrastus without some kind of specific reference would take forever. And Atlantis is the kind of thing where enthusiasts seize on anything that seems to prove their point, so it's quite possible the original passage will have absolutely nothing to do with Atlantis. Again, I'm not going to just start deleting things wholesale, but if someone has a secondary source that talks about these authors, and can point us to a specific work or passage, that would really help. Akhilleus 06:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Plato intended to write a third book for the trilogy on Atlantis, Hermocrates.

He then puts the reader's own judgment to a test by suddenly interrupting Critias' myth of Atlantis when he is about to have Zeus talk and come to the rescue of messed up human affairs (Critias' name comes from the Greek word krisis, which means "judgment"). Furthermore, he replaces the announced dialogue, the Hermocrates, (Critias, 108a-b) that would have staged a Syracusan general who defeated the Athenian expedition to Sicily, and whose name means "endowed with the power of Hermes, messenger of the gods," with the Laws. [8]

If this is any help.--Odysses 20:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if this is the same version of Proclus as in the article?

A scholia quoted from Proclus by Humboldt and Boeckh says: 'The historians who speak of the islands of the exterior sea tell us that in their time there were seven islands consecrated, to Proserpine, and three others of immense extent, of which the first was consecrated to Pluto, the second to Ammon, and the third to Neptune. The inhabitants of the latter had preserved a recollection (transmitted to them by their ancestors) of the island of Atlantis, which was extremely large, and for a long time held sway over all the islands of the Atlantic Ocean. [9]

The account by Plutarch can be found in Ogygia.

Most of these quotes seem to be bogus: forex, the name Antillia is a medieval invention so how could Greeks write about it? This whole section should be rewritten or junked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.218.17.149 (talk • contribs) .

Jules Vernes accoubt on Atlantis

Someone removed the account by Jules Verne on Atlantis. I wonder why? --Odysses 10:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate place for that information was in the spin-off article Atlantis in fiction were there was already info about it. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 13:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Reflex Reaction,

Ooops, I didn't see that.

Although Jules Vernes wrote science-fiction novels, (I 've read many of his novels some years ago) most of what he has prophesised has came true. --Odysses (☜) 15:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nationalist and Socialist ideas of Atlantis

I think this should be changed to "Nationalist, Socialist and National Socialist ideas of [...]", since the original heading is not properly describing.

I think it's fine as it is, because National Socialism (Nazism in this case) is a Nationalist viewpoint. -kotra 16:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The "root races" template

At the bottom of the article appears the {{Epochs}} template, which stems from some Theosophic theory of human evolution/history. The template has NPOV problems, in my opinion: it's not at all clear, until you follow a link, that the idea of "root races or epochs in human evolution" is an esoteric theory. Someone might mistake it for something that's scientifically valid.

Furthermore, 19th/20th century views of Atlantis are only one part of what's covered here, Theosophic views an even smaller part, so putting the {{Epochs}} template here misrepresents the content of the article. I think it should be removed. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Templates at the bottom of the article like that are usually reserved for widely held concepts, not one person's theory. There have been many esoteric theories about human evolution that include Atlantis, and if we were to be NPOV, we would have to include them all as similar templates, or none at all. Since including them all as templates isn't practical, I'm removing the Epochs template accordingly. I sympathize with whoever made it, it must have involved a fair amount of effort to make, but it's POV to include it here. -kotra 00:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

indonesia?

check this out, you think it's true? --Crazy boy 555 05:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I really doubt it. Even if it could have possibly been Atlantis (which is doubtful because out of sheer distance the ancient Greeks wouldn't have been able to have continued contact with Indonesia, and vice versa), the other claims (the Garden of Eden, the Island of Avalon, the Garden of the Hesperides, the true location of Troy, etc) kind of make it ludicrous. The Garden of Eden, if it was an actual place, would exist somewhere in Africa if it were to be the origin of the human race, the island of Avalon is a legend only in the British isles (which is on the opposite side of the globe), and Troy's ruins are well established in northwestern Turkey. The Garden of the Hesperides is slightly more realistic because it was said to be to the far west across the water, but that would be west, not east: if you were sailing west from Greece you'd run into the Americas before you ever got to the Pacific, much less Indonesia.

It's just another guy trying to sell a book. -kotra 23:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Mythical?

Why is Atlantis described to be a "mythical" island? If it was real, it was not mythical. If it was an invention, it was not mythical either, since an invention is no real myth. I only agree that Atlantis "became" a myth during the centuries, but originally it was no myth. Do you agree? --Athenaios 21:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's typical to speak of Plato's myths, like the Myth of Er. He (through Socrates) speaks about the purpose of these invented myths in the Timaeus. Scholars talk about the Atlantis story as one of these myths (e.g., Vidal-Naquet, "Athenes et l'Atlantide: Structure et signification d'un mythe platonicien," Revue des Etudes grecques 77 (1964): 420-444.) So I don't think calling the island "mythical" is wrong either for Plato's invention or for the the later history of Atlantis. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not valid to call a "platonic myth" just a "myth". A "platonic myth" is a "platonic myth", and not a "myth". There is a vast difference between an invented story, whose inventor is known, whose intention is known, and - on the other hand - a traditional story deriving from ancient times. So if we would accept, that it is an invention by Plato, we should not just call it a "myth". - Secondly, we cannot be sure, that it is a platonic myth, i.e. a platonic invention. What, if there is a historical kernel in the story? Let's take an example: Is the war of Troy a myth? What Homerus made of it - surely. But if a war of Troy really happend, is it a myth? No, it is reality. Is Troy itself a myth? No, it is reality. So it is wrong to call Atlantis just a "myth", independently of whether you think it is an invention or reality. Terribly wrong. --Athenaios 22:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how you feel about this, it is fairly normal to speak of Plato's inventions as myths. See, for instance, this collection of Plato's Myths published by Oxford University Press. Or do a Google search for "Myth of Er".

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure Plato refers to his inventions as muthoi (near the beginning of the Timaeus, I think). So it's true both to Plato and to modern scholarship to call Atlantis "mythical". --Akhilleus (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. First: In Plato's dialogues Atlantis is called to be not "mythos" but "logos". Of course it still could be an invention by Plato, but we have to take into account, that it is called clearly to be a "logos". Secondly: I described already the difference between a "myth in general" and a "platonic myth". I emphasize this: A "myth in general" is a story, derived from ancient times, with a long history of tradition, of which the author usually is not known. A "platonic" myth is a fully artificial story, the author ist known, the purpose is known etc. etc. - these are totally different things, and it is the duty of Wikipedia to make it clear to the readers, that Atlantis has nothing to do with a "myth in general meaning". --Athenaios 10:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If the word "mythical" really meant just "a traditional story deriving from ancient times", then I'd agree. But that's simply not the case. Alternative meanings include:

• From [10]: "2. Imaginary; fictitious."
• From WordNet 2.0: "lacking factual basis or historical validity;"
• From [11]: "2. imaginary: not true or real, but existing only in somebody's imagination"

Atlantis is "mythical" in these senses. Phiwum 13:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not at all happy with these definitions. Then every uncertain thing and every imagination is a myth. This is not a wise definition of "myth" one can clearly see. What do you think of at first if you hear "myth"? You do not think at all of an artificial story, but of something old with uncertain roots. Let us search compromises: What about using "artificial myth" or "platonic myth" to point out, that it is not a myth in general meaning? --Athenaios 16:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, whether you're happy with the definitions or not, they reflect common usage. Your claims about what one thinks when they read the term "mythical" are really just your own intuitions and frankly have nothing to do with my own reaction. I know what is meant by calling Atlantis "mythical" and dictionaries suggest that I'm not alone in my interpretation. On the other hand, I don't know what "artificial myth" means and "platonic myth" is more likely to confuse than to clarify.

I don't see any particular reason to object to the word "mythical", aside from personal preference.Phiwum 18:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

regardless of your personal objections, Atlantis is a myth, by the ordinary definition of the word and by the usage of Platonic scholars.

Might I suggest that we're spending a lot of effort discussing the use of one word in the article, and that we might better spend this effort on improving the body of the article? For instance, Athenaios, you think that the article needs to have Vidal-Naquet's viewpoint included. Why don't we work on that instead--seems like a better thing to be doing rather than arguing over whether we should use "mythical" in one sentence. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I really wonder about your perception of the word "mythical". Maybe it is a difference between German and English language. In German you would never define "mythical"/"mythisch" as you do it. Calling Atlantis "mythical" makes it equal to biblical creation stories or something like that, but indeed, the Atlantis story is clearly something very different to that. I hope we can agree on the level of the definition, if not on the level of words. --Athenaios 19:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia definition of myth

Why not taking the Wikipedia definition? I like it much more than that stuff you presented so far, which seems to be very simplistic and strange to me. Wikipedia: Myth. There are several offers: Some imply that the story is not true at all. We can dismiss these definitions, since we cannot answer the question of thruth in the Atlantis story already in the disambiguation. Left is the first one: A creation story, with gods and heroes etc. etc. - exactly what I said. Really guys, I cannot understand you. The Atlantis story is clearly no myth. --Athenaios 19:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Athenaios, please stop reverting "mythical" out of the article. You've got two editors here who think the term "mythical" is fine, and the term was in the article for a long time before you initially removed it, so you're acting against the consensus of past and current editors.

And I'll say it again: this is a trivial matter, and not worth starting an edit war over. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please offer your arguments on the basis of the Wikipedia definition of Myth. And please stop reverting a necessary improvement of the article. Thank you. --Athenaios 19:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care about the definition of myth. All that matters here is that scholars usually refer to Atlantis as a myth; Wikipedia's role is to report the views of authoritative sources, not to establish the absolute truth. Here's an excerpt from a reliable source:

"There are then three rules for the historian who wishes to understand the myth of Atlantis. He must not sunder the two cities that Plato has linked so closely together. He must constantly refer himself to the physics of the Timaeus. And consequently, he must relate the historical myth whose structure he is trying to explain to Plato's "idealism." The success of a properly historical interpretation depends entirely upon the extent to which this preliminary task is performed.

"Although for Plato it is proto-Athens that is the paradigm, Atlantis has attracted enormously greater attention thanks to the simultaneously circumstantial and imaginative character of the myth." (emphasis mine. This quote is from Pierre Vidal-Naquet, "Athens and Atlantis: Structure and Meaning of a Platonic Myth," in The Black Hunter, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986, p. 264. Translation by Andrew Szegedy-Maszak.)

--Akhilleus (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Your citation stems from Vidal-Naquet, "Athens and Atlantis: Structure and Meaning of a Platonic Myth" - the title already shows, that it is not a "myth in general" but a "platonic myth". The context makes it clear, that V-N is NOT just talking about a myth, but about a platonic myth. So your source supports my point of view. --Athenaios 20:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No. V-N consistently writes "myth" in the article, not "Platonic myth" (or, in the French, "mythe" vs. "mythe platonicien"). Your argument is that the phrase should always appear as "Platonic myth", "artificial myth" vel sim. V-N does not support your suggestion.

Yes, this is my argument and Vidal-Naquet supports it, why shouldn't he, I cannot see it? --Athenaios 16:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Because his text never contains the phrase "Platonic myth", that's why. He simply writes "myth". --Akhilleus (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Besides the title, and besides other phrases, that show, in which sense V-N talks of a "myth", but that could be too complicated for you to understand ... :-))) - Let me say another thing frankly: In a certain sense you are right. V-N uses words not very precisly. I don't like his works very much, also because of this. --Athenaios 12:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, here's another source (P. Y. Forsyth, review of Zangger, The Flood from Heaven, in American Historical Review 98.5 (1993), p. 1565):

"...thus Eberhard Zangger concludes his novel attempt to decipher the Atlantis myth of Plato's Timaeus and Critias...

"To reach this conclusion, Zangger first accepts Plato's word that the tale is true without attempting any analysis of his use of myth...

"More interesting is how Zangger came to consider Troy as the possible origin of the Atlantis myth..."

The phrase "Platonic myth" does not occur anywhere in Forsyth's review. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I cite your citation of Forsyth: "... his use of myth" - Yes his use of myth. Plato's myths are vastly different from "usual" myths. And this we have to make clear. Besides the question, whether Atlantis is a platonic myth, I am heavy in doubt about this. This Forsyth seems to be one of those, who haven't read Zangger carefully (or didn't want it?), since it is simply wrong that Zangger has no idea of the "platonic myth". But that is another thing. --Athenaios 16:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Athenaios, if you want the article to speak about the nature of Plato's myths, I don't think that's a bad idea at all. But that discussion would be a section of the main text. This dispute over whether we can use the word "mythical" is something different. And the quotes I've given show that writers call Atlantis a "myth" without any qualification. We can do the same. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Your quotes show confusion even in the mainstream of science. We can do the same, but should we? Anyway, I stop my resistance here. --Athenaios 12:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Another point to make: most of this article is not about Plato's Atlantis, but what later writers did with it. To say that "This article is about Plato's island" is therefore inaccurate. Also, many people who come to this page will have no idea who Plato was, so it is not very helpful for many Wikipedia users to describe Atlantis as "Plato's island" in the disambiguation line. On the other hand, "mythical island" means something most users will understand. And at any rate, Plato is mentioned in the second sentence of the article; do you really think people are unable to read that far? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Atlantis is an island first mentioned by Plato. He gave the name to the baby, and - maybe - he even invented the story. It is Plato's Atlantis. But in this case, we can omit it in the disambiguation, if you want. --Athenaios 20:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The agenda behind ...

One last time: The English word "mythical" does not always mean "comes from a myth". Wikipedia's definition of "myth" is not particularly relevant here, since "mythical" has well-established meanings including "fanciful" or "imaginary". These meanings are perfectly standard and acceptable. Let us leave the article as it is, since acknowledging the fictional character of Atlantis is perfectly appropriate (and substituting "fictional" for "mythical" would not convey the same meaning). Phiwum 21:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now you show what you really think, we come to the nitty gritty: The real reason, why you want to keep the word "myth" is not, that you consider Atlantis to be a myth in the sense of "comes from a myth", but you simply consider it to be not true! This means, you want to imply from the beginning by using the word "myth", that Atlantis is an invention made by Plato. You reject a priori the possibility, that the Atlantis story is based on history. Again I have to disagree: This question is an open question. A good article about Atlantis should not be written from the view of certain scholars excluding other scholars' opinions. --Athenaios 16:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not my opinion that NPOV requires we pretend the existence of a historical Atlantis is just as plausible as its non-existence. Sorry. Phiwum 18:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

See the last edit comment of Phiwum: "This is really a bit ridiculous. Because there is no island of Atlantis, it is misleading to say that this is about "the" island of Atlantis!"

This is not the same as the introductory sentences of the article: "Atlantis is an island whose existence and location have never been confirmed ... the vast majority of scientists concludes that Atlantis never existed, ...".

The introductory sentences are ok, the Phiwum comment not at all.

Phiwum, if you are so sure about your opinion, why do you not try to equalize the introduction to your opinion, that Atlantis has been an invention of Plato without any doubt?

--Athenaios 16:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The view that Plato's Atlantis is an invention (though one that perhaps draws upon historical events) is the standard one in classical scholarship. It's a pretty good "agenda" to represent mainstream scholarly opinion.

And note, Athenaios, calling Atlantis a myth does not eliminate the possibility that it's based upon historical events. This is the difference that Phiwum sees between "fictional" and "mythical"--"fictional" means that it's an invention like Islandia or Erewhon, "mythical" means that there may be a core of history in Plato's depiction of Atlantis.

If you think Zangger's work is so important, why don't you work on including his views in the article? I think that would be more profitable for us all, rather than continuing this discussion. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Phiwum and Akhilleus, that you made clear your opinion, that the article should be based on the mainstream in classical scholarship, which means considering Atlantis an invention of Plato. This is your agenda. --Athenaios 18:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. Golly, you found us out. Anyway, you still seem to think that if Atlantis didn't exist, then Plato must have invented it. That's a false dichotomy. Plato may well have been reporting what he believed to be true. Hence use of the term "mythical".Phiwum 07:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No no, also in this case, it is not valid to talk of a myth. But let's stop the discussion, I simply surrender, since the case seems to be not suitable to find consensus, ok? --Athenaios 12:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Atlanteans

Atlanteans have a power source of some kind that keeps them alive. Each Atlantean has a crystal that keeps him or her alive for thousands of years. Each time there is a disaster the power source will choose a person of royal blood to protect it. The Atlanteans also have a religon with many gods and a language. They combine different languages from England to Afracia. Sort of like the tower of bable. The Atlanteans have a writing that they can't read because the knolage was lost when the sea swalowed the City of Atlantis. Alot of this information was writen in a book called the shepords journal. It is one of the only books that have not been copied. This book is found in Iceland. The Atlanteans were so greedy that thier gods punished them by swalowing them in the ocean over 11,000 years ago. Fact, or Fony? We night not ever know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.27.164.163 (talk • contribs) .

Cool, thanks for the information. -kotra 07:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, "cool". Thanks for the Synopsis of the DISNEY movie...

VigilancePrime 01:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)