Thread: minoa as atlantis

this has been bandied about for some years now and i am inclined to agree with the theory.

the points emphasized by plato certainly line up with the evidence for the destruction of the minoan society and thera as does the extravagent lifestyle enjoyed by the minoans in comparison to what plato described for the atlantians.

what do you think? i am merely putting this out there for discussion and it woul dbe nice to see credible links placed to enhance the discussion

I'd say that's a pretty fair idea. Crete could very well be the lost city, it would make quite a bit of sense. They did Disappear VERY suddenly in history. I'd give that theory a pretty good likely hood of being right on mark

The trouble is Plato's description of its location. He says 2 things that don't seem to align with it.

1) - Atlantis is supposed to be outside the pillars of Heracles

2) - Atlantis is supposed to be in an sea that can truly be called a sea, whilst the sea near the Egyptians is just a harbor.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

For it is related in our records how once upon a time your State stayed the course of a mighty host, which, starting from a distant point in the Atlantic ocean, was insolently advancing to attack the whole of Europe, and Asia to boot. For the ocean there was at that time navigable; for in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say, 'the pillars of Heracles,' there lay an island which was larger than Libya and Asia together; and it was possible for the travelers of that time to cross from it to the other islands, and from the islands to the whole of the continent over against them which encompasses that veritable ocean. For all that we have here, lying within the mouth of which we speak, is evidently a haven having a narrow entrance; but that yonder is a real ocean, and the land surrounding it may most rightly be called, in the fullest and truest sense, a continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there existed a confederation of kings, of great and marvelous power, which held sway over all the island, and over many other islands also and parts of the continent

"larger than Libya and Asia together"

---Wouldn't be Minoa

"For all that we have here, lying within the mouth of which we speak, is evidently a haven having a narrow entrance; but that yonder is a real ocean"

----This seems to describing how the Mediteranean isn't a "real ocean".

It's possible that Plato simply confused the histories, or that Atlantis was genuinely meant to be a fictional city and he used Minoa as his inspiration for it, but it's highly unlikely that Plato meant to refer to Minoa, unless he was just plain mis-informed about its location.

Besides.... doesn't the story of the Minotaur come from Minos/Minoa? Or is Minos a different place from Minoa? It seems to me like Plato would have known where Minoa was.

The trouble is Plato's description of its location. He says 2 things that don't seem to align with it.

1) - Atlantis is supposed to be outside the pillars of Heracles

yes but is he or you being too literal? this is a novel and maybe plato was like the modern historical novelist, taking a true event and makingit more dramatic. who knows?

2) - Atlantis is supposed to be in an sea that can truly be called a sea, whilst the sea near the Egyptians is just a harbor

location can be changed to fit the thrust of the novel.

"larger than Libya and Asia together"

---Wouldn't be Minoa

true, buthe wouldn't have been the first author nor the last to embellish to fit his purpose.

For all that we have here, lying within the mouth of which we speak, is evidently a haven having a narrow entrance; but that yonder is a real ocean"

----This seems to describing how the Mediteranean isn't a "real ocean".

not disagreeing with you but the ancient world was not known for telling the complete truth either...herodotus comes to mind.

It's possible that Plato simply confused the histories, or that Atlantis was genuinely meant to be a fictional city and he used Minoa as his inspiration for it, but it's highly unlikely that Plato meant to refer to Minoa, unless he was just plain mis-informed about its location

he probably just practiced literary license.

Besides.... doesn't the story of the Minotaur come from Minos/Minoa? Or is Minos a different place from Minoa? It seems to me like Plato would have known where Minoa was.

it comes froom the nation of minoa but took place on the island of crete, the palace at knossis i believe

It seems to me like Plato would have known where Minoa was.

minoa wasn't just the island of thera, it was comprised of several islands in the area including crete.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

The trouble is Plato's description of its location. He says 2 things that don't seem to align with it.

1) - Atlantis is supposed to be outside the pillars of Heracles

yes but is he or you being too literal? this is a novel and maybe plato was like the modern historical novelist, taking a true event and makingit more dramatic. who knows?

2) - Atlantis is supposed to be in an sea that can truly be called a sea, whilst the sea near the Egyptians is just a harbor

location can be changed to fit the thrust of the novel.

Yeah. That's kind of what I was getting at. If Plato was using Minoa to build his story of Atlantis, then it's unlikely that he intended it to be anything but a work of pure fiction. And.... the story was fictional, right? So maybe he wasn't trying to give a historically accurate account of the place itself.

If, on the other hand, we think he was talking about genuine historical events, or at least events he genuinely believed to have occurred, then he probably wasn't talking about Minoa at all.

Historical views that make a modern group of people proud of themselves, or increase tourism to an area that actually has a vested interest in having tourists visit it........ these are generally preferred over accounts of history that don't carry any of those effects.

Yeah. That's kind of what I was getting at. If Plato was using Minoa to build his story of Atlantis, then it's unlikely that he intended it to be anything but a work of pure fiction. And.... the story was fictional, right? So maybe he wasn't trying to give a historically accurate account of the place itself

can agree

If, on the other hand, we think he was talking about genuine historical events, or at least events he genuinely believed to have occurred, then he probably wasn't talking about Minoa at all.

unless he embellished the location and country to make a better story. you said it yourself that thera failed in only 2 points and opth were geographical. isn't that what historical novelists do, make changes to real events?

Historical views that make a modern group of people proud of themselves, or increase tourism to an area that actually has a vested interest in having tourists visit it........ these are generally preferred over accounts of history that don't carry any of those effects.

are you saying we shouldn't believe the american historical sites and their information? or europe's? simply because they changed history to attract tourists? so world war 2 never really happened nor the american revolution?


i think you stretched things a bit there.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

Historical views that make a modern group of people proud of themselves, or increase tourism to an area that actually has a vested interest in having tourists visit it........ these are generally preferred over accounts of history that don't carry any of those effects.

are you saying we shouldn't believe the american historical sites and their information? or europe's? simply because they changed history to attract tourists? so world war 2 never really happened nor the american revolution?


i think you stretched things a bit there.

I mean that, whenever there are two or more competing theories about a historical event, and none of them has enough evidence to absolutely rule out the others, the one most likely to benefit people who are still alive today tends to win.

For most American historical sites there are not two or more competing theories. Most post-printing press history is well kept to the point where all we can reasonably debate is the nitty gritty specifics. When you go back to Plato, on the other hand, all we have is glimpses. We're totally guessing, and the guess that helps tourism usually wins.

i see your point though i wouldn't agree with the conclusion that it is all about dollars or euros.

Well, it's smart to avoid offending the people who fund archaeology. You wouldn't want to offend them unless you had totally iron clad proof, but saying something that makes them happy with you generally requires a lower threshold of certainty.


On the other hand..... the Azores Islands might benefit just as much from the tourism if archaeologists were to place them as the remains of the original site. Probably another reason Minoa wins is that it's actually possible to dig for stuff there, and find artifacts.

If you place Atlantis out in the middle of the Atlantic, and say the whole island sunk (or that the Azores represent the mountain tops of the original island), well then you've just taken this big chunk of history and put it somewhere where you can't really study it.

If you place Atlantis out in the middle of the Atlantic, and say the whole island sunk (or that the Azores represent the mountain tops of the original island), well then you've just taken this big chunk of history and put it somewhere where you can't really study it.

i see your point whichis why i probably would piss off archaeologists so the truth would be told not the fable.

Atlantis only exists in the pages of Timaeus and Critias where Plato used it as a metaphor for Athens. It makes for a good fantasy and for good story telling, but there's no good reason to believe such a place ever actually existed in reality.

Please. Read your philosophy. Don't just read the two dialogs above, read the rest of Plato's work as well as his contemporaries and influences. Once you've done that, and you still regard Atlantis as a genuine, you'll then have to consider that there was really also a cave to which Plato was raised and knew nothing of the outside world until Socrates found him.

Please. Read your philosophy. Don't just read the two dialogs above, read the rest of Plato's work as well as his contemporaries and influences. Once you've done that, and you still regard Atlantis as a genuine, you'll then have to consider that there was really also a cave to which Plato was raised and knew nothing of the outside world until Socrates found him

you assume way too much, didn't your mother tell you that assumption is wrong?

Assumption is precisely what I'm avoiding. Didn't your teachers bother to educate you?

The assumption that Plato was genuinely referring to an place that existed in reality and not metaphor introduces many new assumptions that are without evidence. Occam's Razor. That Plato was using these two dialogs as a way of critiquing Athens and Athenian politics is not only consistent with his other dialogs, but the more parsimonious explanation as well.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

, but the more parsimonious explanation as well.

I fear archaeologist will be unfamiliar with this word. He has a proven distaste for using dictionaries, so his best guess will be parsonmoanious means moaning preacher.

I think what makes people wonder is the discovery that Troy was a real city. Homer was always believed to have been writing some fanciful tale about a fictional city, and then..... we found Troy.

Of course, Plato isn't Homer.

It just presents the possibility that maybe Greeks preferred for their authors to use real places instead of fictional places. If the Island of Minoa were used as the setting of Atlantis, it wouldn't really ruin the story that much, so why not keep things a little more credible with his readers, and name the correct geographical location for the events he's trying to describe?

Another thing: When you consider his direct mention of Poseidon as basically being the city's founder, he's crossing into religious legends here.

Do writers typically prefer to invent new religious legends, or invoke old ones their audience is likely already familiar with? Such a crucial episode in Poseidon's life, and you think he's just going inventing this city out of thin air? You.... um.... don't think he might risk getting burnt at the stake for that?

Not at all, there are SO many myths and legends from ancient Greece that the introduction of one more won't be that dramatic of an impact on the legends that already exist. He was a brilliant writer, but he wrote fiction, not fact. The places he related Atlantis to could very well be Athens, and it could be Crete. I agree with the metaphor approach that Skin uses, being that Atlantis was just a metaphor for the politics and social lives of the Athenians.

Assumption is precisely what I'm avoiding. Didn't your teachers bother to educate you?

The assumption that Plato was genuinely referring to an place that existed in reality and not metaphor introduces many new assumptions that are without evidence. Occam's Razor. That Plato was using these two dialogs as a way of critiquing Athens and Athenian politics is not only consistent with his other dialogs, but the more parsimonious explanation as well.

when i originally posted i was throwing out a theory, don't take it to far and make insults ot innuendos.

i am not disagreeing withyou but discussing apoint of view that is not mine. i would lean towards the idea that thera or the minoans was the historical foundation for the story but the details were left up to literary license.

you see i also agree with what kojax is saying and he makes very legitimate points. i could careless about what plato did or did not do, we can't confirm either. i am suggesting that he based his stories upon real life events which were distorted like historical novels are distorted in the modern age.

if you want proof, i do not have any legitimate link to post as such is my own LEARNED opinion.

I fear archaeologist will be unfamiliar with this word. He has a proven distaste for using dictionaries, so his best guess will be parsonmoanious means moaning preacher.

taking potshots at someone does not help the atmosphere. i am under enough pressure as it is from the bias and prejudice of the owner of this website and have to endure a lot of false accusations to remain here.

i am having to work under a handicap merely because the majority of you reject my main source of information without merit or credible reason. feel free to join my website where the playing field is level and we can have a discussion without fear of banning or threats.

Originally Posted by kojax

I think what makes people wonder is the discovery that Troy was a real city. Homer was always believed to have been writing some fanciful tale about a fictional city, and then..... we found Troy.

Actually Calvert found "Troy" and Schliemann excavated it. But tell me, have you ever seen an artifact that identifies the tell as "Troy?" Its in the right spot (generally) and of the right period, but did anyone ever really refer to it as "Troy?" I'll be honest, my knowledge of the tell generally accepted to be the site of Troy is minimal, though I'm familiar with it and Schliemann (and Frank Calvert). Personally, I like to think its Troy.

Of course, Plato isn't Homer.

And this isn't to be taken lightly. Homer was a story teller and there is literary evidence that the Iliad and the Odyssey were oral traditions that were finally written down by Homer. Regardless, Homer was a story teller with an intention to entertain. Plato, on the other hand, was a philosopher and his intent was to educate and inspire critical thought. His "stories" were widely accepted as metaphorical and it was a common philosophical device to create a dialog between two people who may have been real people but were usually philosophical or public figures from the past. Through these dialogs, Plato sought to engage critical thought and guide the reader/listener through a series of premises, arguments and exposed fallacies to a desire conclusion.

This is what the dialogs of Plato which mention Atlantis do. Atlantis is Athens.

Do writers typically prefer to invent new religious legends, or invoke old ones their audience is likely already familiar with?

Plato was invoking the gods that his audience was familiar with. If the nature of religious thought were the goal of the dialog, then he would likely have made up a god along with a society (much like modern philosphers have done with the Flying Spaghetti Monster), but in this case he wanted to criticize Athens without incurring the wrath of Athenian officials.

so you are saying then, that plato was basically using allegory to make his point and that atlantis hunters are wasting their time?

Yes. Have you read these dialogs and compared/contrasted them with others of Plato? To anyone read well enough in philosophy, the question of whether or not Atlantis was a place in reality is rarely considered.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Originally Posted by kojax

I think what makes people wonder is the discovery that Troy was a real city. Homer was always believed to have been writing some fanciful tale about a fictional city, and then..... we found Troy.

Actually Calvert found "Troy" and Schliemann excavated it. But tell me, have you ever seen an artifact that identifies the tell as "Troy?" Its in the right spot (generally) and of the right period, but did anyone ever really refer to it as "Troy?" I'll be honest, my knowledge of the tell generally accepted to be the site of Troy is minimal, though I'm familiar with it and Schliemann (and Frank Calvert). Personally, I like to think its Troy.

Of course, Plato isn't Homer.

And this isn't to be taken lightly. Homer was a story teller and there is literary evidence that the Iliad and the Odyssey were oral traditions that were finally written down by Homer. Regardless, Homer was a story teller with an intention to entertain. Plato, on the other hand, was a philosopher and his intent was to educate and inspire critical thought. His "stories" were widely accepted as metaphorical and it was a common philosophical device to create a dialog between two people who may have been real people but were usually philosophical or public figures from the past. Through these dialogs, Plato sought to engage critical thought and guide the reader/listener through a series of premises, arguments and exposed fallacies to a desire conclusion.

This is what the dialogs of Plato which mention Atlantis do. Atlantis is Athens.

Do writers typically prefer to invent new religious legends, or invoke old ones their audience is likely already familiar with?

Plato was invoking the gods that his audience was familiar with. If the nature of religious thought were the goal of the dialog, then he would likely have made up a god along with a society (much like modern philosphers have done with the Flying Spaghetti Monster), but in this case he wanted to criticize Athens without incurring the wrath of Athenian officials.

I'm just looking at what I think an author would do if their goal is to connect with an audience. You don't invent a new legend, if you don't have to. If you can, you take a legend that your audience is already familiar with, and articulate it in a new way.

Purposefully changing something's geographical location would only be done if there were a good reason to, one that helps your position or enhances your point. I don't see any such reason to move Minoa. If the people commonly believe in one geographical location for something, you don't help yourself by contradicting them.


My perspective is this: Atlantis was probably a legend, and legendarily held to be located in the Atlantic. The mere fact that Poseidon is associated with it (as well as Atlas) implies a likelihood that a legend already existed in the form of religious lore prior to Plato. It seems more likely that he was co-opting it and then using it for his own philosophical purposes than that he was inventing it.

However: That legend might have been corrupted over time, and mutated, and things people knew of Minoa might have crept into the story. Over time, it's possible that the story of Atlantis became the story of Minoa.

You have to keep in mind: Plato wasn't an author. He was a philosopher. He followed closely the philosophical style of Socrates and frequently made use of dialogs and allegory with the sole purpose of making a philosophical point.

But, even if Plato were an author (that's not to say he wasn't prolific writer -its just that philosophy was first, writing was means to that end), inventing a totally new legend is extremely consistent with what one would expect from a good story teller. The epic of Beowulf was like none other; the epic of Gilgamesh -the first of its kind; Canterbury Tales -a saga like none other. Each of these stories had an author who invented new places, situations and motifs.

The difference with regard to Plato is that his intention was to critique the current zeitgeist of Athens and he needed to do it in a way that both caused his audience to think and evaluate their positions and afford him a plausibly deniable situation should he be confronted. After all, it wasn't too many years before that his mentor, Socrates, was executed by poison for his atheism.

You have to keep in mind: Plato wasn't an author. He was a philosopher

hold it.. this comment needs better explanation for philosophers write all the time and would consider themselves authors.

i have to agree with kojax because plato could not create a 'new ' legend, it would have ot be accepted by the general public first and passed down for generations. also, legends are usually based in fact not fiction.

we can see that you obvious elevate plato to higher levels than other philosophers, is this viewpoont affecting your judgement of his work?

The epic of Beowulf was like none other; the epic of Gilgamesh -the first of its kind; Canterbury Tales -a saga like none other. Each of these stories had an author who invented new places, situations and motifs.

but were based upon previous stories or fact. sure authors invent new locations but they must have some previous encounter with something similar to give them th eidea. the writer of OZ comes to mind. the story i heard years ago was that he was telling a children's story and could not think of aname for it so he looked over at the bookshelf and saw the encyclopedia volume O-Z and aplace was born.

you can't have beowulf without previous heros and you can't have gilgamesh without Noah. just wouldn't work.

Actually, I find many other philosophers more to my liking. I admit to being entertained and to having my thoughts provoked by Plato's Allegory of the Cave, but I find Kant, Mill, Locke, Descartes and Dennett to be more engaging and relevant.

As to Plato being an "author," I concede that this is the case. I draw only the distinction between what I inferred Kojax to mean -which was that he was a story teller- and Plato's primary intent, which was to philosophize.

With regard to Gilgamesh, the Noachian flood myth follows the Gilgamesh story. Any literary scholar and academic whose every compared the two has concluded so. Moreover, a simple, side-by-side comparison of the two stories reveals the evolution of the motif from the much earlier Sumerian roots to the later Hebrew account along with the various points of embellishment.

Therefore, it would be more accurate to state, there can be no Noah without Gilgamesh.

philosophize... thats a funny word to see spelled, and to say. I like it though

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Actually, I find many other philosophers more to my liking. I admit to being entertained and to having my thoughts provoked by Plato's Allegory of the Cave, but I find Kant, Mill, Locke, Descartes and Dennett to be more engaging and relevant.

As to Plato being an "author," I concede that this is the case. I draw only the distinction between what I inferred Kojax to mean -which was that he was a story teller- and Plato's primary intent, which was to philosophize.

With regard to Gilgamesh, the Noachian flood myth follows the Gilgamesh story. Any literary scholar and academic whose every compared the two has concluded so. Moreover, a simple, side-by-side comparison of the two stories reveals the evolution of the motif from the much earlier Sumerian roots to the later Hebrew account along with the various points of embellishment.

Therefore, it would be more accurate to state, there can be no Noah without Gilgamesh.

The thing about legends is they mutate over time. They're not necessarily true, though they usually contain a few elements of truth.

I'll admit that Plato placing Atlantis 10,000 years plus into the past might have been done in order to give him a free reign to write the story as fancifully as he liked, especially since Solon is learning all this from Egyptian priests instead of getting the story from a prominent Athenian.

On the other hand, it seems somehow reasonable that the Greeks might have commonly believed in Atlantis as one of their basic legends. Philosophers are fond of using things that are familiar to their audience as a means of acquainting them with new ideas. You don't want to overload your audience with too much new stuff and have them end up missing the point. Don't give them a story that's so new to them that they end up remembering the story itself instead of what the story was supposed to teach them.

So... I mean it's possible he just totally made it up.... I'm just not convinced. And if he didn't, that doesn't mean Atlantis exists. It just means the Greeks had a legend about it.

With regard to Gilgamesh, the Noachian flood myth follows the Gilgamesh story. Any literary scholar and academic whose every compared the two has concluded so. Moreover, a simple, side-by-side comparison of the two stories reveals the evolution of the motif from the much earlier Sumerian roots to the later Hebrew account along with the various points of embellishment

that is so far off that i am not even going to address it though i have all the evidence on my side.

As to Plato being an "author," I concede that this is the case. I draw only the distinction between what I inferred Kojax to mean -which was that he was a story teller- and Plato's primary intent, which was to philosophize

i am sure he was and did but i am failing to see how that would have a bearing upon atlantis. what evidenceis there that he did not write a historical fiction based upon a lesser true event?

Originally Posted by archaeologist

that is so far off that i am not even going to address it though i have all the evidence on my side.

So we should believe it just because you say so? Arrogance.
I'm pretty comfortable that SkinWalker could produce the references to back up his statements. Let's see this evidence you claim is on your side. Otherwise STFU.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

so you are saying then, that plato was basically using allegory to make his point and that atlantis hunters are wasting their time?

That's what we're saying. I always saw Atlantis as the Nineteen Eighty-Four of its day. A sort of fantasy/sci-fi story written to make a point that would be less engaging and less broadly appealing if it were based on something historical. A similar convention is used in Moore's Utopia. The fantasy is understood by the reader who suspends disbelief and is drawn in.

Admittedly, I'd like Atlantis to turn out to be a place in reality -at least with the probability and acceptance of, say, Troy. But there simply is no good reason to expect such a thing. If Greeks already had a legend of Atlantis, where are the other writings on it? Greek society for the period of Plato and before, as we know, was a prolific one when it came to writing. The Egyptians didn't mention Atlantis. Nor did the various other literate cultures of the same period as Plato.

They wrote heavily on the Hyksos and the Sea Peoples, etc., but they didn't write of Atlantis.

And yet, it's named after Atlas. It co-opts the Hebrew theory of the Nephalim by making Poseidon the one who made children with mortals. (Not that the other gods weren't known to do such things), and it seems to end in a cataclysm that could be seen as parallel to the flood myth of other cultures.

Plato was surely working off of something, and it had to go further than just Minoa, because Minoa only matches the very exterior parts of that story. It was destroyed in a cataclysm, it was advanced, and it probably tried to exert military control over the region.

This leads me to suspect that maybe Minoa was mixed with other things to create a composite kingdom. Kind of like how Mark Twain's "Tom Sawyer" really existed..... but only in the sense that he was a conglomeration of about 4 or 5 people. I've heard the same could be said of Ian Fleming's "James Bond", though perhaps to a lesser degree.

Atlantis might have existed, but not in the state described, or it might have ended in another, slightly less impressive way. Or, it might have been a dim legend with few details, and Minoa gave it an embodiment.

That's what we're saying. I always saw Atlantis as the Nineteen Eighty-Four of its day. A sort of fantasy/sci-fi story written to make a point that would be less engaging and less broadly appealing if it were based on something historical. A similar convention is used in Moore's Utopia. The fantasy is understood by the reader who suspends disbelief and is drawn in.

i can accept that with one caveat, plato based the theme upon a real tragedy and embellished the details to fit his point.

Admittedly, I'd like Atlantis to turn out to be a place in reality -at least with the probability and acceptance of, say, Troy. But there simply is no good reason to expect such a thing. If Greeks already had a legend of Atlantis, where are the other writings on it? Greek society for the period of Plato and before, as we know, was a prolific one when it came to writing. The Egyptians didn't mention Atlantis. Nor did the various other literate cultures of the same period as Plato

interesting

Originally Posted by archaeologist

That's what we're saying. I always saw Atlantis as the Nineteen Eighty-Four of its day. A sort of fantasy/sci-fi story written to make a point that would be less engaging and less broadly appealing if it were based on something historical. A similar convention is used in Moore's Utopia. The fantasy is understood by the reader who suspends disbelief and is drawn in.

i can accept that with one caveat, plato based the theme upon a real tragedy and embellished the details to fit his point.

Perhaps, but that then means that all you're looking for is a coastal or island city in the some ocean close enough to Greece for the story to travel which got hit by a tsunami or subsided into the sea. Hardly a unique tragedy.

I don't like when people turn to the "random caprices of the writer" as the source for an important detail. We should either be trying to account for the origin of ALL the important details, or NONE of them.

If other important details came from real life examples, then the location seems more likely to follow suite than it is to deviate from it. So, allowing that many other details might have come from Minoa, I see 2 possibilities:

1) - The Greeks had a legend of a continent/big island in the Atlantic, which disappeared around the time of the "flood" or some big cataclysm (possibly associated with the end of the last ice age).

2) - The Egyptians might have hypothesized a continent out in the Atlantic as a potential origin for the "sea peoples" who invaded much of the Eastern Mediteranean, but who's origins are still mysterious to historians today.

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

Minoa might have been where he got the nature of his civilization, but the geography would have to come from somewhere else.

who says the location of atlantis was not exaggerated? why would the egyptians have it right?

why couldn't the legend change over the years, originally it was thera and crete then it gradually was moved and enlarged to make a better story.

My main problem is the time frame: The eruption on Minoa is 1627 BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_eruption#Date

Plato was between 247 and 327 BC

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

The history of Greece page at Wiki seems to imply that the Greeks were literate at the time of the fall of Minoa, so it's hard to understand how they'd need a legend in order to remember the way things went down, but this part is interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_history

Originally Posted by Wiki

Although the causes of their demise are uncertain, they were eventually invaded by the Mycenaeans from mainland Greece. This invasion took place around 1400 BC, and in conjunction with the Thera eruption, it presents a likely scenario for the final end of the Minoan civilization. According to this theory, the Minoan fleet and ports were irrevocably destroyed by colossal seismic and tidal waves. Possible climatic changes affected crops for many years, which in turn could have led to famine and social breakdown. The Mycenaean invaders wrote the final chapter of a civilization that flourished for some 1600 years.

...Which does very closely parallel Plato's account of Atlantis. I wonder why he wants to go back 10,000 years, when a real story exists only 1200 or so years back? Is it because he wanted to tell the same story, but remove it far enough from recorded history that people would look at the ideas instead of the details? Maybe it was done with the expectation that people would realize he was making a parody of the genuine historical events?

I'm still convinced there might have been an older legend as well, though, just because of the placement of Gods in the story, which would not otherwise seem like a sensible way to create a parody.