Jump to content

User:BrerRabbit101/Atlantis Pseudohistory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Hoopes (talk | contribs) at 22:09, 6 December 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Modern

[edit]

Aside from Plato’s original account, modern interpretations regarding Atlantis are an amalgamation of diverse, speculative movements that began in the 16th century.[1] Contemporary perceptions of Atlantis share roots with Mayanism, which can be traced to the beginning of the Modern Age, when European imaginations were fueled by their initial encounters with the indigenous peoples of the New World.[2] From this era sprang apocalyptic and utopian visions that would inspire many subsequent generations of theorists.[3]

These interpretations are considered pseudohistory, pseudoscience, or pseudoarchaeology, as they have presented their works as academic or scientific, but lack the standards and/or criteria.

Atlantis Pseudohistory

[edit]
Early Influential Literature
[edit]

The term “utopia” (from "no place") was coined by Sir Thomas More in Utopia, his 16th Century work of fiction.[4] Inspired by Plato’s Atlantis and travelers’ accounts of the Americas, More described an imaginary land set in the New World.[5] His idealistic vision established a connection between the Americas and Utopian societies, a theme which was further solidified by Sir Francis Bacon in The New Atlantis (c. 1623).[6] Bacon describes a utopian society that he called "Bensalem," located off the western coast of America. A character in the narrative gives a history of Atlantis that is similar to Plato's and places Atlantis in America. People had begun believing that the Mayan and Aztec ruins could possibly be the remnants of Atlantis.[7]

Impact of Mayanism
[edit]

Much speculation began as to the origins of the Mayans, which lead to a variety of narratives and publications which tried to rationalize the discoveries within the context of the Bible and which had undertones of racism in their connections between the Old and New World. The Europeans believed the indigenous people to be inferior and incapable of building that which was now in ruins and by sharing a common history they insinuate that another race must have been responsible.

In the middle and late 19th century, several renowned Mesoamerican scholars, starting with Charles Etienne Brasseur de Bourbourg, and including Edward Herbert Thompson and Augustus Le Plongeon, formally proposed that Atlantis was somehow related to Mayan and Aztec culture.

French scholar Brasseur de Bourbourg traveled extensively through Mesoamerica in the mid- 1800’s, and was renowned for his translations of Mayan texts, most notably the sacred book Popol Vuh, as well as a comprehensive history of the region. However, soon after these publications, Brasseur de Bourbourg lost his academic credibility, due to his claim that the Maya had descended from the Toltecs, who he believed were the surviving population of the racially superior civilization of Atlantis.[8] His work combined with the skillful, romantic illustrations of Jean Frederic Waldeck, which visually alluded to Egypt and other aspects of the Old World, creating an authoritative fantasy and exciting much interest in the connections between worlds.

Inspired by Brasseur de Bourbourg’s diffusion theories, pseudoarchaeologist Augustus Le Plongeon traveled to Mesoamerica and performed some of the first excavations of many famous Mayan ruins. Le Plongeon invented narratives, such as the kingdom of Moo saga, which romantically drew connections between himself, his wife Alice, and Egyptian deities Osiris and Isis, as well as with Heinrich Schliemann, who had just discovered the ancient city of Troy from Homer’s epics.[9] He also believed that he had found connections between the Greek and Mayan languages, which produced a narrative of the destruction of Atlantis.[10]

Ignatius Donnelly
[edit]

The 1882 publication of Atlantis: the Antediluvian World by Ignatius L. Donnelly stimulated much popular interest in Atlantis. He was greatly inspired by early works in Mayanism, and like them attempted to establish that all known ancient civilizations were descended from Atlantis, which he saw as a technologically sophisticated, more advanced culture. Donnelly drew parallels between creation stories in the Old and New Worlds, attributing the connections to Atlantis, where he believed existed the Biblical Garden of Eden.[11] As implied by the title of his book, he also believed that Atlantis was destroyed by the Great Flood mentioned in the Bible.

Donnelly is credited as the "father of 19th century Atlantis revival" and is the reason the myth endures today.[12] He unintentionally promoted an alternative method of inquiry to history and science and the idea that myths contain hidden information that opens them to "ingenious" interpretation by people who believe they have new or special insight. [13]

Madame Blavatsky and the Theosophists
[edit]

Russian mystic Helena Petrovna Blavatsky and her partner Henry Steel Olcott founded their Theosophical Society in the 1870’s with philosophy that combines western romanticism and eastern religious concepts. Blavatsky and her followers in this group are often cited as the founders of New Age and other spiritual movements.[14]

Blavatsky took up Donnelly’s interpretations when she wrote The Secret Doctrine (1888), which she claimed was originally dictated in Atlantis itself. She maintained that the Atlanteans were cultural heroes (contrary to Plato, who describes them mainly as a military threat). She believed in racial evolution (as opposed to primate evolution)in which the Atlanteans were the fourth "Root Race," succeeded by the fifth and most superior "Aryan race" (her own race).[15] The Theosophists believed the civilization of Atlantis reached its peak between 1,000,000 and 900,000 years ago but destroyed itself through internal warfare brought about by the inhabitants' dangerous use of psychic and supernatural powers.

Rudolf Steiner, the founder of Anthroposophy and Waldorf Schools, and other well know Theosophists, such as Annie Besant, also wrote of the cultural evolution in much the same vein.

Nazism and occultism
[edit]

Blavatsky had also been inspired by the work of 18th century astronomer Jean-Sylvain Bailly, who had "Orientalized" the Atlantis myth in his mythical continent of Hyperborea, a reference to Greek myths by the same name which feature a giant, godlike race from Northern Europe.[16] Her retooling of this theory in The Secret Doctrine provided the Nazis with the mythological precedent and pretense for their ideological platform, and subsequent genocide.[17]

Julius Evola’s writing in 1934 also suggested that the Atlanteans were Hyperborean, Nordic supermen who originated on the North pole (see Thule).[45] Similarly, Alfred Rosenberg (in The Myth of the Twentieth Century, 1930) spoke of a "Nordic-Atlantean" or "Aryan-Nordic" master race.

(see Nazism and occultism)

Edgar Cayce
[edit]

Edgar Cayce was a man from humble upbringings in Kentucky who allegedly possessed psychic abilities, which were performed from a trance-like state. In addition to healing the sick from this state, he also spoke frequently on the topic of Atlantis. In his "life readings," he purportedly revealed that many of his subjects were reincarnations of people that had lived on Atlantis, and by tapping into their collective consciousness, the "Akashic Records” (a term borrowed from Theosophy), he was able to give detailed descriptions of the lost continent.[18] He also asserted that Atlantis would "rise" again in the 1960’s (sparking much popularity of the myth in that decade), as well as that there is a "Hall of Records" beneath the Egyptian Sphinx that holds the historical texts of Atlantis. Although Cayce claimed to be an uneducated man, terminating his schooling after eighth grade, his supernatural techniques for obtaining alternative knowledge bear a striking resemblance to the teachings of Theosophy.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Feder 1999
  2. ^ Hoopes 2011
  3. ^ Hoopes 2011
  4. ^ Callahan, Friedhoffer, and Linse 2001
  5. ^ Hoopes 2011: 46
  6. ^ Hoopes 2011
  7. ^ Callahan, Friedhoffer, and Linse 2001
  8. ^ Evans 2004: 113
  9. ^ Evans 2004: 141-6
  10. ^ Brunhouse 1973: 153
  11. ^ Donnelly 1941: 192-203
  12. ^ Williams 1991: 137-8
  13. ^ Jordan 2006: 124
  14. ^ Callahan, Friedhoffer, and Linse 2001
  15. ^ Callahan, Friedhoffer, and Linse 2001
  16. ^ Edelstein 2006: 268
  17. ^ Edelstein 2006:268
  18. ^ Cayce 1968: 27-8