"Atlantis" found in Spain

Discuss

20 Responses to “"Atlantis" found in Spain”

  1. JR says:

    I saw the documentary in Nat Geo, and I agree with Anon, research costs money and it makes a lot of sense that they would publish the results with the institution footing the bill. In this case a TV producer.

    In response to the comment ‘failure to mention Tartessos’, I didn’t read the press release, but the documentary makes reference to it and, in fact, uses that as further proof that the find could be related to Atlantis.

    Whether it is myth or not, it’s really inconsequential. Many archeological discoveries have resulted from the search for Atlantis. Look at the Minoan empire, for example. For a time it was thought to be Atlantis and the search to prove/disprove this point brought archaeologist to learn more about that civilization. So, in the end, all is good.

  2. Avram / Moderator says:

    “This is the power of tsunamis,” head researcher Richard Freund told Reuters.

    Someone didn’t waste any time harnessing Japan’s tragedy for the advancement of his own career.

  3. Arcanafex says:

    Just watched this and I was actually so unimpressed by the “archaeologist” who seems to be portrayed as the lead investigator, Richard Freund, that I decided to do some research of my own into him. First, I can’t seem to find anywhere what discipline his PhD is in, and second from what I could find it sounds like he’s first and foremost a historian and biblical scholar who likes to make rather controversial assertions relating to biblical archaeology.

    From what I gather, the National Geographical Society didn’t have anything to do with the documentary at all, aside from buying it from the Canadian film production company Associated Producers.

    Apparently, Freund approached the Spanish scholars of the CSIC who had been doing research in the Doñana Park area since 2005. Freund claimed to be working on a documentary with Associated Producers allegedly in relation to his own controversial research. Although the doc seems to portray Freund as the leader of the research project, Freund was there for only 2 weeks for shooting and has no other connection other than offering to foot the bill for doing some ground-penetrating probing for them to let him shoot (and apparently completely hijack their research for his own glory).

    Here’s a great summary:
    http://blogs.courant.com/roger_catlin_tv_eye/2011/03/muddying-up-atlantis.html

    “Richard Freund was a newcomer to our project and appeared to be involved in his own very controversial issue concerning King Solomon’s search for ivory and gold in Tartessos, the settlement in the Donaña area established in the first millennium BC.”

    “Early in 2009, four years after it started, UofH Professor Richard Freund became interested in our project (coded name, “The Hinojos Project”), came to visit us and offered his collaboration with a number of geophysical tests that we had planned but could not afford at the time. Such tests, relatively fast to do but very expensive, were to be carried out by a major engineering consulting firm in Canada, Worley Parsons. Funding was to be provided by an internationally renown filming company for scientific documentaries, Associated Producers, in return for the production of a documentary on the controversial subject of Atlantis to be purchased and broadcast by the U. S. National Geographic Society.”

  4. Cola says:

    For the last damn time, Plato said EXPLICITLY that Atlantis was a hypothetical city, not a real place. Why do so many people take it for granted that such a city must have existed? Being a hypothetical city used to make a point about real cities, I’m sure Plato based it on a lot of other cities, both real and equally fictitious.

    It wasn’t even an idealized city. Not even close. Seriously, Boing Boing. I expect better from you than credulous “ZOMGISITATLANTIS?!!?!?!” posts. Are we going to gawk at gritty photos of UFOs tomorrow and speculate on the veracity of Bigfoot sitings with an equal lack of context or critical thinking?

  5. Anonymous says:

    uh, atlantis located in inland spain sounds about as reassuring as locally caught fresh lobster in montana.

  6. osmo says:

    So its not some other strange, unheard of city without any historical evidence exept that it was used as an example by a philosofer? I heard they found Noah’s arc awhile back, it also has historical evidence in the form of written text…

    I also heard that in Leonardo Da Vincis paintings theres this secret message, yeah? See I found evidence of its existence in this written text… so it may very well be true. Also check out for the great snake circling the world, appearently its a bit south of what we naive idiots call the equator according to some written text. Also, most world leaders are actually lizardpeople.

  7. nanuq says:

    The fact that they seem to be making these announcements in press conferences as opposed to refereed journals doesn’t exactly reassure me.

  8. VICTOR JIMENEZ says:

    That anouncement is somewhat sloopy. It fails to mention Tartessos in any way (the civilization that habited andalucia at that time). It also fails to set a clear distance and orientation as 60 milles north of Cadiz is Seville, central Spain has nothing to do with muddy swamps, tsunamis or tartessos culture in any way. The lisbon tsunami tide was not 10 stories tall, but 10 meters tall. The national park name is Doñana (It was called park od Doña Ana 80 years ago) And the first archeologist to propose Doñana as atlantis was Adolf Schulten in 1922.

    Nuff said it´s pure crap.

    • emmdeeaych says:

      sloopy say you?

      • osmo says:

        Hey buddy, you try your hand at Spanish, Swedish, French, Cantonese and any other language many of us here speak as our native language. For us English is something we had to learn at school along with (some times) other languages… just relax and if all else fails, google-translate :)

      • DrPretto says:

        Well, his native language is spanish (because of his name), same as me, probably he’s from Spain, I’m from Latin America. His written english is very good in my opinion.

        • emmdeeaych says:

          I understand that, but it was one darned ironic typo. That’s not any sort of -ism other than lol-ism.

          • Chaoskitten says:

            I don’t know why, sloopy is a perfectly cromulent word. Also, Country of the Houyhnhnms > Atlantis.

  9. holtt says:

    Academic weak sauce.

  10. funkyderek says:

    Why do they have to hope it’s Atlantis? What does that even mean? Unless they discover a big sign saying “Welcome to Atlantis” they’ll just have discovered another ancient city. Which is great, and is news, but what the hell is the point of pretending that its identical with a mythical city? Does everything have to appeal to the woo crowd now?

  11. Anonymous says:

    No mention yet to the lost City/Civilization of Tartessos.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartessos

    Under the modern city of Jaen there is a circular old city plenty of channels around it. And the southern region of Spain called Andalusia may come from: Atlantida -> Atlanticus (latin) -> Al-Andalus (Arab) – Andalusia.

    Too much sensationalism in the way the have presented it.

    And yes, I am spanish, my english has limitations, sorry if I made some mistakes.

  12. Anonymous says:

    People [in comments above] are conflating preliminary announcements of theories / areas of research interest and reporting of actual results from field research that has already been conducted.

    One of the dirty little secrets of archeological research is that it costs money. The reason research teams make initial announcements like this through “sensationalized” TV shows is in order to foster interest for their theories in an attempt to find people / organizations who will underwrite the costs of further research & digs. You can have the best theory in the world, but if you can’t find people / organizations to fund the digs needed to test it, your theory is all for naught. In the grand scheme of things, this theory has a lot more merit that most of the Atlantis crap you see on History / Discovery / Nat Geo.

  13. Anonymous says:

    I saw the documentary in Nat Geo, and I agree with Anon, research costs money and it makes a lot of sense that they would publish the results with the institution footing the bill. In this case a TV producer.

    In response to the comment ‘failure to mention Tartessos’, I didn’t read the press release, but the documentary makes reference to it and, in fact, uses that as further proof that the find could be related to Atlantis.

    Whether it is myth or not, it’s really inconsequential. Many archeological discoveries have resulted from the search for Atlantis. Look at the Minoan empire, for example. For a time it was thought to be Atlantis and the search to prove/disprove this point brought archaeologist to learn more about that civilization. So, in the end, all is good.

Leave a Reply