Print Page | Close Window

Atlantis

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Description: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=9499
Printed Date: 11-Dec-2019 at 11:16
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Atlantis
Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Subject: Atlantis
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2006 at 18:52
Almost every theory on Atlantis is absolutely ridiculous. Most serious researchers simply dismiss it, but have never actually studied it in depth. I have and have concluded that it is in Morocco. I am here posting my paper.

Atlantis in Morocco:

Where is Atlantis? The question has baffled us all, and many have theories about it. However, most theories are based more on the whims and fantasies of their authors -not on critical scholarly work. Most historians say, "Atlantis never existed", but people don't really understand what they mean by that. You see, due to the work of such charlatans as Ignatius Donnelly and Edgar Cayce, Atlantis has become the realm of the lunatic fringe, those who wish to fulfill their own fantastic version of history. There are, then, two Atlantises.

#1: A lost civilization of the Ice Age, with incredible, though rather occult, technology, that was on a continent sunken entirely by some cataclysm, and whose survivors spread across the world, spreading the story of Atlantis, and starting all civilizations.

#2: The Atlantis written about by Plato, a semi-advanced civilization destroyed by a flood, who told this myth to the Egyptians, who gave it to Plato.

The first Atlantis did not exist -this is what historians say did not. The other Atlantis may have existed -we have the word of Plato, and, moreover, the term "Atlantis" appears not only in the writings of Plato, but in those of other writers. It was part of a wider tradition. Viewed within that context, we may begin to find it.

We can locate Atlantis using only the text of Plato, who wrote about it in the dialogues Timaeus and Critias. He provided plenty of clues to its location, clues which may lead us to the location of the continent. Before, continuing, I adivse that the reader read the two dialogues on Atlantis, the Timaeus and the Critias, so as to know of the material at hand. According to most English translations, Atlantis had the following characteristics:

1. It was in front of the Pillars of Heracles (the Straits of Gibraltar).

2. It was an island in the Atlantic greater in size than Libya (North Africa) and Asia (Middle East).

3. It sank 9000 years before Solon, ie 9600 BC, and became an impassable shoal of mud.

Clearly, the location of Atlantis is in the Atlantic, where it was sunken -this is obvious at first glance. Many have concluded that the islands of the Atlantic are the mountaintops of Atlantis. But, when we research the matter, there are huge problems. For one thing, there was no civilization when Atlantis sunk -humans were in the grip of the Ice Age, mainly primitive hunter-gatherers. But more damning is that there is no sunken island-continent in the Atlantic. How do we know this? Besides sonar and sounding of the Atlantic, some would argue that we don't know what was there. However, we have a gander. Plate tectonics, the process of the moving of the Earth's crust, shows that there was at no time a sunken landmass in the Atlantic. Some argue that plate tectonics is not a valid theory -absolutely ridiculous, as the evidence for plate tectonics is overwhelming, while that against it entirely underwhelming. Disproving plate tectonics is like attempting to disprove gravity -entirely idiotic.

So, others argue that the Mid-Atlantic ridge is the remains of Atlantis, that it was once above water. The Mid-Atlantic ridge is an underwater mountain chain, and may seem like the logical location for Atlantis, until we take some factors into account. Besides the fact that the Ridge was never above water, in order for it to have been, it would have to be a convergent plate boundary -while it is divergent. The Ridge is made up of a series of mountains that create giant chasms -it would not be a single landmass unless the entire Atlantic Ocean was dry, something that has not happened in millions of years. These island, even if above water, would be entirely uninhabitable. Atlantis was, then, not a large sunken landmass in the Atlantic.

What about a small one? That is impractical. Plato describes a land with mountains, huge plains, rivers, and so on, a huge land -something that an island could not possess.

Was Plato lying then? That is what most have concluded. But let's look at the story again. This is the key passage that gives us the location of Atlantis:

For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end. This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together...

The phrase "in front of the straits" has been variously translated as "beyond the straits" "opposite the straits", and so on, giving Atlantis "researchers" creative license to place Atlantis wherever they damn please, including Indonesia, Antarctica, the Americas, and Finland. Others argue that when Plato said "Atlantic Ocean", he meant the "world ocean" that encompassed all the oceans -so Atlantis could be anywhere. Still more say that the Egyptian priests had no idea what they were talking about, and Atlantis may have been in the Mediterranean.

But without assuming that any parties involved in the translation were idiots or pathological liars, let us reexamine the text in the original Greek. In the original, it states that Atlantis was "before" Gibraltar -"before" being the ancient way of saying "near" or "at the foot of". If Atlantis was "near Gibraltar" than their are only a variety of places to look, including Spain, Morocco, and the Canary Islands. The rest of the places "near Gibraltar" are not in the Atlantic, or are nonexistent landmasses. This is vastly important, as Atlantis was near Gibraltar, and was thus in Spain, Morocco or the Canaries.

Still, none of these locations are "larger than Libya and Asia", so again, we face a problem. However, we have to realize how ancients measured size -they didn't have satellites or detailed information, so they figured that it was the distance in a sailing ship. While "Libya" (North Africa within the Straits) and "Asia" (the Middle East) had, to the ancients, a sailing distance of 150 days or so, Europe and Africa outside the Pillars had a distance vastly larger. This would have given rise to the term "a landmass greater than Libya and Asia". This shows that Atlantis could be in Spain or Morocco, but not in the Canaries -which were known as islands, and were definitely not larger than Libya and Asia.

So, which is it? Spain or Morocco? These are the only locations that actually fit Plato's description -the only two locations near the Straits of Gibraltar, in the Atlantic, and that could have been seen as larger than Libya and Asia.

But, wait! These are not islands! Hmmm....

What did the ancients think of as an island? In the time that the Egyptians gave the story to the Greeks, the Greeks used the word "nesos", which referred to a body of land near water, such as a peninsula, coast-land, river delta, or island. When Plato read the story, the meaning of the word "nesos" had changed to mean "island" only. Plato then assumed it was an island -but it originally might have not been. It might have been a "coastland". Did the coastland sink then? No... when Plato says the "island" of Atlantis sank, he must have meant only the inland island that contained the city, and not the whole land, as we know lands that large don't sink. The evidence for the "nesos" being used as to mean "land near water" is evident everywhere in texts that predate the sixth century BC. The most famous example is the Peloponessus, which is in Greek "Pelop Nesos" or "Pelop's Island". However, "Pelop's Island" is in fact a peninsula, not an island!

Spain or Morocco. Which is it then? Plato describes a lush land, and gives over 50 minor geographic details. At first look, lush does not seem to fit Morocco, which Hollywood has characterized as a barren desert.

But far from being a barren desert, Morocco has a climate similar to that of Southern California. Using ancient writings and scientific evidence, researchers have concluded that the entire Sahara Desert was lush before 2500 BC, and that Morocco, due to the isolation of the Atlas Mts., remained extremely lush until 800 AD, where it suffered a period of desertification.

So, we cannot exclude Morocco due to our percieved view of it, as it was a different place long ago. We cannot excuse Spain for so small a reason as "it had no elephants" either, even though Plato describes elephants. We must use the bigger geographic clues that Plato offers. The most prominent of these is that Plato states that the extremity of the land of Atlantis was facing Gades (modern Cadiz in S. Spain). This rules out the posssibility of Atlantis being in Spain, as how could its extremity be facing Gades if its extremity is Gades? Morocco, on the other hand, has its extremity near the modern city of Tangiers, facing Gades exactly like Plato describes. Therefore, Atlantis, according to Plato, was in Morocco.

But does Morocco match the numerous minor geographic clues Plato describes? In a word, perfectly. Here is a listing and examination of each clue.

OTHER ISLANDS

Plato writes that Atlantis was the way to other islands on the open sea from which you might pass to a continent that surrounds the ocean -presumably America. Morocco is very close to the Canaries, which Columbus used on his voyage to arrive in America, the Canaries having a current that takes you there.

PLAIN

Plato says that Atlantis had a plain 2000 by 3000 stadia, approximately 400 by 600 km, near its centre facing towards the sea. This is about the size of the central plain of Morocco which faces toward the sea, and is very fertile, having been even more so in ancient times.

ATLAS

Plato writes that Morocco had a King Atlas -not to be confused with the Titan Atlas, who resided in the Atlas Mts. of Morocco. Interestingly, Greek legend tells of a King Atlas in Mauretania (Morocco), a great astronomer and navigator, who was so wise that he was said to know everything there is to know about the stars. He was later deified as a Titan said to hold up the world on his shoulder, and gave his named to the Atlas Mts. Fascinating that we have a king in Morocco with the same name as the king of Atlantis!

WOOD

Plato writes that Atlantis had wood, and that the wood was transported from the mountains -a perfect description of the mountains of Morocco, especially the Pays Zaer Zaine.

ELEPHANTS

Plato writes Atlantis had a great number of elephants -elephants have been found in great number in Morocco in ancient times. Hannibal actually got his elephants from Morocco.

BIODIVERSITY

Plato writes of great biodiversity in Atlantis -Morocco being a very biologically diverse country, this can be seen to fit it.

RESOURCES

Atlantis according to Plato had great resources -an exact description is given by Plato as is given by Strabo in regards to Morocco, all evidencing that in ancient times, Morocco was an abundant land.

RED, BLACK, AND WHITE STONES

Like in Atlantis, Morocco had stones of red, white, and black, and has roofs that were, as Plato said, "carved out of the native rock".

IVORY

Like Atlantis, Morocco had ivory.

GOLD

Like Atlantis, Morocco had gold -the Spanish called it the "Gold Coast".

SILVER

Again, Morocco had silver like Atlantis.

TREES OF GREAT HEIGHT

Like Atlantis, Morocco has trees of great height.

LOFTY NEAR SEA

Atlantis was lofty near the sea, like Morocco -an interesting theory holds that Atlantis had sand dunes near its coast, much like those of Morocco.

MOUNTAINS

Plato speaks of mountains of great height surrounding the plain -the huge Atlas Mts. surround the main plain of Morocco.

CLIMATE

Atlantis had a rainy winter and dry summer -like Morocco.

BULLS

Atlantis had bulls, and a bull cult. In Morocco, evidence of a bull cult going back 5000 years has been uncovered, and there are many bulls.

METALS

Plato speaks of tin, brass, bronze, oricalchum (mountain copper), and copper for which the Atlanteans either had or traded -all of these are found in Morocco, and also in greater quantity in Spain.

All of the geographic clues to Plato's Atlantis fit Morocco. It is logically the site of Plato's Atlantis.

As per the timeframe of Atlantis, it is not during the Ice Age! This is what Plato writes about it:

Plato, Crit.: In the first place the Acropolis was not as now. For the fact is that a single night of excessive rain washed away the earth and laid bare the rock; at the same time there were earthquakes, and then occurred the extraordinary inundation, which was the third before the great destruction of Deucalion. But in primitive times the hill of the Acropolis extended to the Eridanus and Ilissus, and included the Pnyx on one side, and the Lycabettus as a boundary on the opposite side to the Pnyx, and was all well covered with soil, and level at the top, except in one or two places.

Plato, Tim.: On one occasion, wishing to draw them on to speak of antiquity, he began to tell about the most ancient things in our part of the world-about Phoroneus, who is called "the first man," and about Niobe; and after the Deluge, of the survival of Deucalion and Pyrrha; and he traced the genealogy of their descendants, and reckoning up the dates, tried to compute how many years ago the events of which he was speaking happened. Thereupon one of the priests, who was of a very great age, said: O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you. Solon in return asked him what he meant. I mean to say, he replied, that in mind you are all young; there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition, nor any science which is hoary with age.

On the first one:

1. When Atlantis invaded Athens, it is logical to conclude that the Athenian Acropolis was as Plato described it -and thus, Atlantis invaded Athens before the Acropolis was destroyed, and it was destroyed in the third flood before Deucalion.

2. Deucalion is dated to 1529 BCE -the only flood we have before Deucalion is that of Ogyges, c.1800 BCE. Whether that of Ogyges was the first, second, or third flood before Deucalion is irrelevant. Atlantis must have sunk prior to 1529 BCE.

On the second one:

1. The Egyptian priests say that they know of things that the Greeks did not record, for the Greeks only recorded things that paled in comparison of age. The earliest reliable date we have for Greek mythology is 1582 BCE, though some traditions go back to 2100 BCE. In any case, we should work only on what is certain.

2. It is illogical to me that the Egyptians would say that Solon was a fool for remembering events as recent as 1529 BCE, and then tell him a story of a time after that. I think it is before.

Plato, Laws II: ...and you will find that their [the Egyptians] works of art are painted or moulded in the same forms which they had ten thousand years ago;-this is literally true and no exaggeration-their ancient paintings and sculptures are not a whit better or worse than the work of to-day, but are made with just the same skill.

Clearly, Plato had his information wrong about the Egyptians. Everyone did -the Egyptians must've made an error in their time-keeping.

This is what happens according to Plato's account.

Quote:
She founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours, of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old. As touching your citizens of nine thousand years ago...

Let me begin by observing first of all, that nine thousand was the sum of years which had elapsed since the war which was said to have taken place between those who dwelt outside the Pillars of Heracles and all who dwelt within them; this war I am going to describe...

In the days of old the gods had the whole earth distributed among them by allotment... Hephaestus and Athene, who were brother and sister, and sprang from the same father, having a common nature, and being united also in the love of philosophy and art, both obtained as their common portion this land... And Poseidon, receiving for his lot the island of Atlantis, begat children by a mortal woman, and settled them in a part of the island, which I will describe.

And when the rest fell off from her, being compelled to stand alone, after having undergone the very extremity of danger, she defeated and triumphed over the invaders, and preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated, and generously liberated all the rest of us who dwell within the pillars. But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.


9600 BCE: Atlantis is founded; Athens is founded. Athens and Atlantis flourish and fight. Athens and Atlantis are destroyed.

All these things could not happen the same year. We should completely discount the "9000 years" and simply replace it with "at a date before 1529 BCE", because the Egyptians simply recorded things in a manner foreign to us. For example, they said that their first king ruled over them c.36,000 BC.

So, what happened at this date -were the cities founded, did they fight, or were they destroyed? Logically, the one that happened first would be that they were founded.

Atlantis was founded at a date "before 1529 BCE", and at "a later time", it fought and was flooded.

Quote:
This I infer because Solon said that the priests in their narrative of that war mentioned most of the names which are recorded prior to the time of Theseus, such as Cecrops, and Erechtheus, and Erichthonius, and Erysichthon, and the names of the women in like manner.


The earliest participant in the war with Atlantis was Cecrops (r. 1556-1506) and the last Erechtheus (r.1397-1347). Therefore, Atlantis sank after 1347, but before the time of Theseus (r.1234-1204), as Plato affirms.

Atlantis sank 1347-1234 BC.

Taking these things into account, Atlantis was a semi-advanced empire in Morocco 1347-1234 -it should not be sought in any under guise. If it existed it must have been in Morocco, and it must have invaded the Mediterranean 1580-1350 BC, being destroyed after 1350, but before 1230.

This theory is under strict copyright. If you intend to quote anything from this paper, acknowledge its writer.

Thanks,
Herr Johann Saltzman


-------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman



Replies:
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2006 at 19:00
Chck this topic if you want to know what I think:

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8257&PN=2 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8257& ;PN=2

Morocco, like Western Europe would have been part of the "hinterland" of Atalnatis but the only civilization that can actually account for most of what is described in Plato's writtings, is Western Portuguese VNSP or Zambujal culture.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2006 at 19:42
Plato describes elephants in Atlantis, which were not in Portugal. Moreover, he says that it had a King Atlas, and it is inconceivable why we ignore a legend of a King Atlas in Morocco, and then place it somewhere else. Three ancients writers who did not draw from Plato identify Atlantis as Morocco.

-------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2006 at 20:51
Originally posted by St. Francis of Assisi St. Francis of Assisi wrote:

Plato describes elephants in Atlantis, which were not in Portugal. Moreover, he says that it had a King Atlas, and it is inconceivable why we ignore a legend of a King Atlas in Morocco, and then place it somewhere else. Three ancients writers who did not draw from Plato identify Atlantis as Morocco.


Does he mentions elephants in Atlantis?

If he mentions ivory, I have no problem with it, as lots of ivory and ambar and other exotic products have been found in the context of VNSP.

Elephants could be imported too but I believe that they didn't arrive to the west until the Achaemenid empire brought tem from India. African elephants were never domesticated that we know of.

Main problem with Morocco, apart of the lack of archaeological remains that could show a vibrant culture/civilization such as that of Iberia, is that it does not have peninsulas that could be taken as islands.

We know that Greeks called the mountains Atlas because of the Atlantean myth but we also know that Atlas (a guy that holds the sky) is depicted in Iberian iconography (and not in North African one). We know that Arabs called Iberia al-Andalus, meaning Atlantis. But all these atributions are diffuse: nothing contemporary.

The only contemporary account is the legend of Herakles: which talks of Erythia, not Atlantis - diferent names for the same "island" (pensinsula).

Africa, does never look so developed as Iberia. It rather seems part of the Iberian hinterland.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2006 at 23:38
Elephants were native to Morocco. Elephants were native to Atlantis. Have you even read Plato's account?

As for ruins, the problem is that in Morocco, cities have ruins of Muslim, Roman, Carthaginian, Phoenician, and then pre-Phoenician origin. The pro-Arab  Moroccoan government has virtually halted all archaeology in the country, while the Spanish government has embraced it. That is why it looks like a "hinterland" but in fact it was no such thing. One location that had a chance to be excavated before the country's archaeology was closed by the government was Lixos. As soon as they found that there was a pre-Phoenician settlement on the site, the government kicked them out.

As for the peninsula issue, read my paper. The Greek word "nesos" meant not island or peninsula, but "land close to water" so coastal land, peninsula, whatever.

What is important about Atlas in Morocco is not that the Titan Atlas is there, but that the King Atlas ruled there. King Atlas ruled Atlantis, not the Titan Atlas. King Atlas' empire was in Morocco.

As for African elephants, Plato never says that they were domesticated, but simply that they were native to Atlantis. Elephants are not native to Iberia, but they were to Morocco.




-------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2006 at 02:40
Originally posted by St. Francis of Assisi St. Francis of Assisi wrote:

Elephants were native to Morocco. Elephants were native to Atlantis. Have you even read Plato's account?


If you mean the Critias, yes. It's just a few pages...

I don't remember the detail of elephants being native to Atlantis - I don't even recall elephants or ivory being mentioned at all... but guess I was more interested in other details.

Anyhow, I've never believed that all that is told there must be taken literally. I read it flexibly and what fits best, as far as I know, seems to be VNSP culture.

Quote
As for ruins, the problem is that in Morocco, cities have ruins of Muslim, Roman, Carthaginian, Phoenician, and then pre-Phoenician origin. The pro-Arab  Moroccoan government has virtually halted all archaeology in the country, while the Spanish government has embraced it. That is why it looks like a "hinterland" but in fact it was no such thing. One location that had a chance to be excavated before the country's archaeology was closed by the government was Lixos. As soon as they found that there was a pre-Phoenician settlement on the site, the government kicked them out.


I am most interested in that archaeology of North Africa. It's a pity that the Moroccan government has no interest in their own history. From the European viewpoint, North African history is most interesting, in connection with Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age specially.

But still I don't see the place where such an island may be located. Also, a key point in my theory is the conflict between pro-Greek El Argar and Atlantis-VNSP for the control of the routes of tin, a mineral most aboundant in NW Iberia and SW Britain, whose routes were apparently under control of VNSP-Atlantis.

Quote

As for the peninsula issue, read my paper. The Greek word "nesos" meant not island or peninsula, but "land close to water" so coastal land, peninsula, whatever.



Fine to me. I've read diferent interpretations but it seems one of the earliest terms (maybe for Erythia) is not nesos but perirruthos, which means surounded by flow/water -what again can apply to island, peninsula or whatever...

Anyhow, the Estremaduran peninsula would be percieved as island by any sailor coming from the Med.

Quote
What is important about Atlas in Morocco is not that the Titan Atlas is there, but that the King Atlas ruled there. King Atlas ruled Atlantis, not the Titan Atlas. King Atlas' empire was in Morocco.


That's arbitrary. I think that titan Atlas and king Atlas are the same - but it's arbitrary as well. Anyhow, how do you know that Atlas ruled in Morocco? Never heard about that theory.

Quote

As for African elephants, Plato never says that they were domesticated, but simply that they were native to Atlantis. Elephants are not native to Iberia, but they were to Morocco.



It seems they were: ivory and ostrich products were imported by VNSP and other cultures of Chalcolithic Iberia. It is believed that these products were imported from North Africa - but that's just an assumption and the products coudl come from Western Sudan (Senegal, Mali) either directly by ship or via North Africa, which is obviously more influenced by the Megalithic (which was born in Portugal, btw).

The other reference for North African elephants is the Carthaginian army:

Another possible species (or subspecies) existed, but it has not been recognised yet as it by the scientific community: The North African Elephant (Loxodonta pharaonensis), also known as Carthaginian Elephant or Atlas Elephant. This species, extinct nowadays, lived between the Magreb and the Nile mouth, and had a smaller size than the Savanna Elephant, probably similar to the Forest Elephant. It is also possible that it was more docile that the Savanna Elephant, letting the Carthaginians tame it with an unknown method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savanna_Elephant - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savanna_Elephant

Yet we can't know for sure if these animals had been imported from Asia.

In any case, could you quote the relevant text? I don't think it's important, as I don't count either with all the details that Plato gives concerning the strange shape of the city of Atlantis or the huge size of the island ("larger than Asia and Lybia" - that size could only be North America, LOL!).

In any case I believe that VNSP is the best candidate.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2006 at 13:51
Well, the "larger than Libya and Asia" could account for the lands outside the Pillars, which the ancients believed were larger than Libya and Asia due to the distance of their coasts.

Plato says:

Moreover, there were a great number of elephants in the island; for as there was provision for all other sorts of animals, both for those which live in lakes and marshes and rivers, and also for those which live in mountains and on plains, so there was for the animal which is the largest and most voracious of all.

North African archaeology is fascinating -it is what led me to Atlantis. The problem is that the native Berbers are oppressed by the ruling pro-Arab governments, and so any traces of a Berber civilization are systematically covered up.

I think Morocco is the best candidate, but I had already considered the civilization of Los Milares as Atlantis before.

Here is what Strabo says about Morocco (Mauretania):

Writers in general are agreed that Mauretania is a fertile country, except a small part which is desert, and is supplied with water by rivers and lakes. It has forests of trees of vast size, and the soil produces everything. It is this country which furnishes the Romans with tables formed of one piece of wood, of the largest dimensions, and most beautifully variegated. The rivers are said to contain crocodiles and other kinds of animals similar to those in the Nile. Some suppose that even the sources of the Nile are near the extremities of Mauretania. In a certain river leeches are bred seven cubits in length, with gills, pierced through with holes, through which they respire. This country is also said to produce a vine, the girth of which two men can scarcely compass, and bearing bunches of grapes of about a cubit in size. All plants and pot-herbs are tall, as the arum and dracontium [snake-weed]; the stalks of the staphylinus [parsnip?], the hippomarathum [fennel], and the scolymus [artichoke] are twelve cubits in height, and four palms in thickness. The country is the fruitful nurse of large serpents, elephants, antelopes, buffaloes, and similar animals; of lions also and panthers. It produces weasels (jerboas?) equal in size and similar to cats, except that their noses are more prominent, and multitudes of apes, of which Poseidonius relates that when he was sailing from Gades to Italy, and approached the coast of Africa, he saw a forest low upon the sea-shore full of these animals, some on the trees, others on the ground, and some giving suck to their young. He was amused also with seeing some with large dugs, some bald, others with ruptures and exhibiting to view various effects of disease.

Some interpreters say that King Atlas gave rise to the Titan Atlas, because King Atlas was so good at astronomy that he was said to bear the burden of the world on his shoulders.

If you take the time to Google King Atlas, you will find the relevant information. I will also post information from Diodorus about him if you want.

All the best,
Herr Saltzman


-------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2006 at 15:20
While I'd like as much as you do to know more about the archaeology of North Africa, I have many reasons to doubt it was Atlantis:
  • No peninsula nor island that could account for the description of Atlantis and Erythia (Canary Is. aren't and Madeira and Açores were uninhabited before the 15th century)
  • Not the mineral riches that existed in Iberia, which caused the Phoenicians to stabilish their first colony of all right there (Gadir)
  • Not any located civilization that could account for Atlantis/Erythia (maybe the future will give us surprises but so far...)
I also don't think that Los Millares was Atlantis because:
  • It's not an island/peninsula
  • Its influence was much smaller than that of VNSP
  • It's inside the "pillars of Herakles"
I also found the reference to elephants but guess it's an error or, like the references to mineral riches of all sorts, an actual reference to the riches they exploited or had (some) control over: those of the Megalithic region from Scotland to Lybia.

In fact VNSP as such didn't have even copper mines. Yet they traded in everything, from Denmark to unspecific locations in Africa. And their might was only comparable to that of Los Millares first and El Argar later.

And VNSP has the exact number of located "royal tombs": 10. These are the number of artificial cave style megaliths.

And VNSP was not only inmersed in Megalithis but also into the Bell-Beaker pehnomenon, of which it became the center c. 2000 BCE.

And, well, finally we have that struggle with El Argar on the routes of tin. El Argar appearing as totally hellenized in its late period (1500-1300). I'm sure that's the moment when "Herakles" or "the Athenians" go west to settle the commercial issues and (apparently) they beat VNSP-Atlantis.

Though this is confuse.

Recent excavations have found that Zambujal (Atlantis capital) use to be reached by a "sea branch" and that the silting of that firth (canal!) may have been what caused the abandonement of VNSP cities, particulary that of Zambujal.

I suspect an earthquake like the Great Lisbon Earthquake destroying everything, even maybe part of the Greek expeditionary force.

This would have happened c. 1300 BCE.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2006 at 20:11
  • No peninsula nor island that could account for the description of Atlantis and Erythia (Canary Is. aren't and Madeira and Açores were uninhabited before the 15th century)
  • Not the mineral riches that existed in Iberia, which caused the Phoenicians to stabilish their first colony of all right there (Gadir
There were mineral riches in Morocco, though not as much as there were in Spain. Plato only says Atlantis has some mineral riches, but also says that it traded a lot, so any Morrocoan empire would have traded for the minerals. And again, the Greek word "nesos" didn't just mean island or peninsula, but also coastal land. In fact, the Egyptians, from whom the story came, actually considered all coastal land to be islands, thus in their account of the Sea Peoples, they call the coastal lands of the Sea Peoples "islands".

Your theory is interesting, but I feel that neither yours nor my theory can be discounted. It is a pity that most theories on Atlantis are not based on fact like ours, but are whims of fancy.

Congratulations on your hard work and research,
Herr


-------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman


Posted By: Voyager
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2006 at 20:22
Another nice story about Atlantis...
Check my refutation here:

http:// - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8257& ;PN=2&TPN=4



http:// -



Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2006 at 21:33
The imperfection of the story is proof of its existence. If Plato had made it up, it would be perfect, but it is not.

Moreover, Atlantis is mentioned by other writers who were not drawing from Plato -all place it in Morocco.


-------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman


Posted By: Voyager
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2006 at 22:07
Originally posted by St. Francis of Assisi St. Francis of Assisi wrote:

The imperfection of the story is proof of its existence. If Plato had made it up, it would be perfect, but it is not.

Err... This is a history forum, not a rhetoric forum.


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2006 at 22:13
Originally posted by Voyager Voyager wrote:

Another nice story about Atlantis...
Check my refutation here:

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8257&%20;PN=2&TPN=4 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8257& ; ;PN=2&TPN=4



And in the same page you can find my refutation of your refutation... which I finde much more convincing...

And it's just page 4 of 12...


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2006 at 22:19
Originally posted by St. Francis of Assisi St. Francis of Assisi wrote:

The imperfection of the story is proof of its existence. If Plato had made it up, it would be perfect, but it is not.

Moreover, Atlantis is mentioned by other writers who were not drawing from Plato -all place it in Morocco.


They do?

I truly believe more facts than words and all facts point to Atlantis-Erythia being in Portugal. I couldn't care less... for me it could be England or the Bimini but in Portugal we do have a reasonble existent civilization that fits pretty well - even in the insistent description of "island" that appears also in non-Egyptian sources.

Now, if you can find a better candidate, I'm willing to listen. But that somebody mentioned that Atlas I don't know what... seems most irrelevant, as Atlas was nobody but a mythic character on who to build a story: other narrations say that the first king of the Atlantes is Uranos, another that Mirina, queen of the Amazons, defeated the Atlantes... what do we take as valid. The essence and as much details as we can make fit: specially Greek presence, as this one is central in the narration of Atlantis and the narration of Erythia.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2006 at 23:26
Maju, I will quote from these authors:

Atlanteans are Atlanteans, no matter who writes about them! To my mind, Herodotus and Diodorus are more credible than Plato, because they were more trusted in Egypt and visited it themselves.

Here's what Herodotus says about the Atlanteans:

At the distance of ten days' journey from the Garamantians there is again another salt-hill and spring of water; around which dwell a people, called the Atarantians [originally Atalantians], who alone of all known nations are destitute of names. The title of Atarantians is borne by the whole race in common; but the men have no particular names of their own. The Atarantians, when the sun rises high in the heaven, curse him, and load him with reproaches, because (they say) he burns and wastes both their country and themselves. Once more at the distance of ten days' there is a salt-hill, a spring, and an inhabited tract. Near the salt is a mountain called Atlas, very taper and round; so lofty, moreover, that the top (it is said) cannot be seen, the clouds never quitting it either summer or winter. The natives call this mountain "the Pillar of Heaven"; and they themselves take their name from it, being called Atlantes. They are reported not to eat any living thing, and never to have any dreams.

Thus from Egypt as far as Lake Tritonis Libya is inhabited by wandering tribes, whose drink is milk and their food the flesh of animals. Cow's flesh, however, none of these tribes ever taste, but abstain from it for the same reason as the Egyptians, neither do they any of them breed swine. Even at Cyrene, the women think it wrong to eat the flesh of the cow, honoring in this Isis, the Egyptian goddess, whom they worship both with fasts and festivals. The Barcaean women abstain, not from cow's flesh only, but also from the flesh of swine. West of Lake Tritonis the Libyans are no longer wanderers, nor do they practice the same customs as the wandering people, or treat their children in the same way.

There is a country in Libya, and a nation, beyond the Pillars of Hercules, which they are wont to visit, where they no sooner arrive but forthwith they unlade their wares, and, having disposed them after an orderly fashion along the beach, leave them, and, returning aboard their ships, raise a great smoke. The natives, when they see the smoke, come down to the shore, and, laying out to view so much gold as they think the worth of the wares, withdraw to a distance

And Diodorus:

2. But now that we have examined these matters it will be fitting, in connection with the regions we have mentioned, to discuss the account which history records of the Amazons who were in Libya in ancient times. For the majority of mankind believe that the only Amazons were those who are reported to have dwelt in the neighborhood of the Thermodon river on the Pontus; but the truth is otherwise, since the Amazons of Libya were much earlier in point of time and accomplished notable deeds. Now we are not unaware that to many who read this account the history of this people will appear to be a thing unheard of and entirely strange; for since the race of these Amazons disappeared entirely many generations before the Trojan War, whereas the women about the Thermodon river were in their full vigor a little before that time, it is not without reason that the later people, who were also better known, should have inherited the fame of the earlier, who are entirely unknown to most men because of the lapse of time. For our part, however, since we find that many early poets and historians, and not a few of the later ones as well, have made mention of them, we shall endeavor to recount their deeds in summary, following the account of Dionysius [Skytobrachion], who composed a narrative about the Argonauts and Dionysus, and also about many other things which took place in the most ancient times.

Now there have been in Libya a number of races of women who were warlike and greatly admired for their manly vigor; for instance, tradition tells us of the race of the Gorgons, against whom, as the account is given, Perseus made war, a race distinguished for its valor; for the fact that it was the son of Zeus, the mightiest Greek of his day, who accomplished the campaign against these women, and that this was his greatest Labor may be taken by any man as proof of both the pre-eminence and the power of the women we have mentioned. Furthermore, the manly prowess of those of whom we are now about to write presupposes an amazing pre-eminence when compared with the nature of the women of our day.

three amazons preparing for battle 53. We are told, namely, that there was once in the western parts of Libya, on the bounds of the inhabited world, a race which was ruled by women and followed a manner of life unlike that which prevails among us. For it was the custom among them that the women should practice the arts of war and be required to serve in the army for a fixed period, during which time they maintained their virginity; then when the years of their service in the field had expired, they went in to the men for the procreation of children, but they kept in their hands the administration of the magistracies and of all the affairs of the state. The men, however, like our married women, spent their days about the house, carrying out the orders which were given them by their wives; and they took no part in military campaigns or in office or in the exercise of freedom of speech in the affairs of the community by virtue of which they might become presumptuous and rise up against the women. When their children were born the babies were turned over to the men, who brought them up on milk and such cooked foods as were appropriate to the age of the infants; and if it happened that a girl was born, its breasts were seared that they might not develop at the time of maturity; for they thought that the breasts, as they stood out from the body, were no small hindrance in warfare; and in fact it is because they have been deprived of their breasts that they are called by the Greeks Amazons.

As mythology relates, their home was on an island which, because it was in the west, was called Hespera, and it lay in the marsh Tritonis. This marsh was near the ocean which surrounds the earth and received its name from a certain river Triton which emptied into it; and this marsh was also near Ethiopia and that mountain by the shore of the ocean which is the highest of those in the vicinity and impinges upon the ocean and is called by the Greeks Atlas. The island mentioned above was of great size and full of fruit-bearing trees of every kind, from which the natives secured their food. It contained also a multitude of flocks and herds, namely, of goats and sheep, from which the possessors received milk and meat for their sustenance; but grain the nation used not at all because the use of this fruit of the earth had not yet been discovered among them.

The Amazons, then, the account continues, being a race superior in valor and eager for war, first of all subdued all the cities on the island except the one called Mene, which was considered to be sacred and was inhabited by Ethiopian Ichthyophagi, and was also subject to great eruptions of fire and possessed a multitude of the precious stones which the Greeks call anthrax, sardion, and smaragdos; and after this they subdued many of the neighboring Libyans and nomad tribes, and founded within the marsh Tritonis a great city which they named Cherronesus after its shape.

54. Setting out from the city of Cherronesus, the account continues, the Amazons embarked upon great ventures, a longing having come over them to invade many parts of the inhabited world. The first people against whom they advanced, according to the tale, was the Atlantians, the most civilized men among the inhabitants of those regions, who dwelt in a prosperous country and possessed great cities; it was among them, we are told, that mythology places the birth of the gods, in the regions which lie along the shore of the ocean, in this respect agreeing with those among the Greeks who relate legends, and about this we shall speak in detail a little later.

Now the queen of the Amazons, Myrina, collected, it is said, an army of thirty thousand foot-soldiers and three thousand cavalry, since they favored to an unusual degree the use of cavalry in their wars. For protective devices they used the skins of large snakes, since Libya contains such animals of incredible size, and for offensive weapons, swords and lances; they also used bows and arrows, with which they struck not only when facing the enemy but also when in flight, by shooting backwards at their pursuers with good effect. Upon entering the land of the Atlantians they defeated in a pitched battle the inhabitants of the city of Cerne, as it is called, and making their way inside the walls along with the fleeing enemy, they got the city into their hands; and desiring to strike terror into the neighboring peoples they treated the captives savagely, put to the sword the men from the youth upward, led into slavery the children and women, and razed the city.

But when the terrible fate of the inhabitants of Cerne became known among their fellow tribesmen, it is related that the Atlantians, struck with terror, surrendered their cities on terms of capitulation and announced that they would do whatever should be commanded them, and that the queen Myrina, bearing herself honorably towards the Atlantians, both established friendship with them and founded a city to bear her name in place of the city which had been razed; and in it she settled both the captives and any native who so desired. Whereupon the Atlantians presented her with magnificent presents and by public decree voted to her notable honors, and she in return accepted their courtesy and in addition promised that she would show kindness to their nation.

a gorgonAnd since the natives were often being warred upon by the Gorgons, as they were named, a folk which resided upon their borders, and in general had that people lying in wait to injure them, Myrina, they say, was asked by the Atlantians to invade the land of the afore-mentioned Gorgons. But when the Gorgons drew up their forces to resist them a mighty battle took place in which the Amazons, gaining the upper hand, slew great numbers of their opponents and took no fewer than three thousand prisoners; and since the rest had fled for refuge into a certain wooded region, Myrina undertook to set fire to the timber, being eager to destroy the race utterly, but when she found that she was unable to succeed in her attempt she retired to the borders of her country.

55. Now as the Amazons, they go on to say, relaxed their watch during the night because of their success, the captive women, falling upon them and drawing the swords of those who thought they were conquerors, slew many of them; in the end, however, the multitude poured in about them from every side and the prisoners fighting bravely were butchered one and all. Myrina accorded a funeral to her fallen comrades on three pyres and raised up three great heaps of earth as toms, which are called to this day "Amazon Mounds". But the Gorgons, grown strong again in later days, were subdued a second time by Perseus, the son of Zeus, when Medusa was queen over them; and in the end both they and the race of the Amazons were entirely destroyed by Heracles, when he visited the regions to the west and set up his pillars in Libya, since he felt that it would ill accord with his resolve to be the benefactor of the whole race of mankind if he should suffer any nations to be under the rule of women. The story is also told that the marsh Tritonis disappeared from sight in the course of an earthquake, when those parts of it which lay towards the ocean were torn asunder.

As for Myrina, the account continues, she visited the larger part of Libya, and passing over into Egypt she struck a treaty of friendship with Horus, the son of Isis, who was king of Egypt at that time, and then, after making war to the end upon the Arabians and slaying many of the, she subdued Syria; but when the Cilicians came out with presents to meet her and agreed to obey her commands, she left those free who yielded to her of their free will and for this reason there are called to this day the "Free Cilicians". She also conquered in war the races in the region of the Taurus, peoples of outstanding courage, and descended through Greater Phrygia to the sea; then she won over the land lying along the coast and fixed the bounds of her campaign at the Caicus River. And selecting in the territory which she had won by arms sites well suited for the founding of cities, she built a considerable number of them and founded one which bore her own name, but the others she named after the women who held the most important commands, such as Cyme, Pitana, and Priene.

These, then are the cities she settled along the sea, but others, and a larger number, she planted in the regions stretching towards the interior. She seized also some of the islands, and Lesbos in particular, on which she founded the city of Mitylene, which was named after her sister who took part in the campaign. After that, while subduing some of the rest of the islands, she was caught in a storm, and after she had offered up prayers for her safety to the Mother of the Gods, she was carried to one of the uninhabited islands; this island, in obedience to a vision which she beheld in her dreams, she made sacred to this goddess, and set up altars there and offered magnificent sacrifices. She also gave it the name of Samothrace, which means, when translated into Greek, "sacred island," although some historians say that it was formerly called Samos and was then given the name of Samothrace by Thracians who at one time dwelt on it. However, after the Amazons had returned to the continent, the myth relates, the Mother of the Gods, well pleased with the island, settled in it certain other people, and also her own sons, who are known by the name of Corybantes--who their father was is handed down in their rites as a matter not to be divulged; and she established the mysteries which are now celebrated on the island and ordained by law that the sacred area should enjoy the right of sanctuary.

In these times, they go on to say, Mopsus the Thracian, who had been exiled by Lycurgus, the king of the Thracians, invaded the land of the Amazons with an army composed of fellow-exiles, and with Mopsus on the campaign was also Sipylus the Scythian, who had likewise been exiled from that part of Scythia which borders upon Thrace. There was a pitched battle, Sipylus and Mopsus gained the upper hand, and Myrina, the queen of the Amazons, and the larger part of the rest of her army were slain. In the course of the years, as the Thracians continued to be victorious in their battles, the surviving Amazons finally withdrew again into Libya. And such was the end, as the myth relates, of the campaign which the Amazons of Libya made.

Now the Atlantians, dwelling as they do in the regions on the edge of the ocean and inhabiting a fertile territory, are reputed far to excel their neighbours in reverence towards the gods and the humanity they showed in their dealings with strangers, and the gods, they say, were born among them.

.And their account,they maintain, is in agreement with that of the most renowned of the Greek poets when he represent Hera as saying:For I go to see the ends of the bountiful earth,Oceanus source of the gods amd Tethys divine their mother.

This is the account given in their myth:
Their first king was Uranus,and he gathered the human beings,who dwelt in scattered habitations,within the shelter of a walled city and caused his subjects to cease from their lawless ways and their bestial manner of living,discovering for them the uses of cultivated fruits,how to store them up,and not a few other things which are of benefit to man;and he also subdued the larger part of the inhabited earth in particular the regions to the west and the north. And since he was a carefull observer of the stars he foretold many things which would take place troughout the world;and for the common people he introduced the year on the basis of the movement of the sun and the month on that of the moon,and instructed them in the seasons which recur year after year. Consequently the masses of the people, being ignorant of the eternal arrangement of the stars and marvelling at the events which were taking place as he had predicted ,conceived that the man
who taught such things partook of the nature of the gods,and after he had passed from among men they accorded to him immortal honours,both because of his benefactions and because of his knowledge of the stars;and then they transferred his name to the firmament of heaven,both because they thought that he had been so intimately acquainted with the risings and the settings of the stars and with whatever else took place in the fi rmament,and because they would surpass his benefactions by the magnitude of the honours which they would show him,in that for all subsequent time they
proclaimed him to be the king of the universe.

To Uranus,the myth continues,were born forty-five sons from a number of wives, and,of these,eighteen,it is said,were by Titaea,each of them bearing a distinct name,but all of them as a group were called,after their mother,Titans.

Titaea,because she was prudent and had brought about many good deeds for the peoples,was deifi ed after her death by those whom she had helped and her name was changed to Gaia.To Uranus were also born daughters,the two eldest of whom were by far the most renowned above the others and were called Basileia and Rhea,whom some also named Pandora.Of these daughters, Basileia ,who was the eldest and far excelled the others in both prudence and
understanding,reared all her brothers, showing them collectively a mother’s kindness;consequently she was given the appellation of “Great Mother;” and
after her father had been translated from among men into the circle of the gods, with the approval of the masses and her brothers she succeded to the royal dignity,though she was still a maiden and because of her exceedingly great chastity had been unwilling to unite in their marriage with any man.But later, because of her desire to leave sons who should succed to the throne,she united in marriage with Hyperion,one of her brothers,for whom she had the greatest affection.

After the death of Hyperion,the myth relates,the kingdom was divided among the sons of Uranus,the most renowned of whom were Atlas and Cronus. Of these sons Atlas received as his part the regions on the coast of the ocean,and he not only gave the name of Atlantians to his peoples but likewise called the greatest mountain in the land Atlas. They also say that he perfected the science of astrology and was the fi rst to publish to mankind the doctrine of the sphere; and it was for this reason that the idea was held that the entire heavens were supported upon the shoulders of Atlas, the myth darkly hinting in this way at his
discovery and description of the sphere.

Cronus,they say was lord of Sicily and Libya,and Italy as well,and,in a word, established his kingdom over the regions to the west;and everywhere he occupied with garrisons the commanding hills and the strongholds of the regions,this being the reason why both troughout Sicily and the parts which incline towards the west
many of the lofty places are called to this day after him "Cronia".

And, finally, Pliny:


There were formerly two towns, Lissa and Cotte5 , beyond the Pillars of Hercules ; but, at the present day, we only find that of Tingi 6 , which was for- [p. 1375] merly founded by Antæus , and afterwards received the name of Traducta Julia7 , from Claudius Cæsar, when he established a colony there. It is thirty miles distant from Belon8 , a town of Bætica, where the passage across is the shortest. At a distance of twenty-five miles from Tingi, upon the shores of the ocean9 , we come to Julia Constantia Zilis10 , a colony of Augustus. This place is exempt from all subjection to the kings of Mauritania, and is included in the legal jurisdiction of Bætica. Thirty-two miles distant from Julia Constantia is Lixos11 , which was made a Roman colony by Claudius Cæsar, and which has been the subject of such wondrous fables, related by the writers of antiquity. At this place, according to the story, was the palace of Antaeus; this was the scene of his combat with Hercules, and here were the gardens of the Hesperides12 . An arm of the sea flows into the land here, [p. 1376] with a serpentine channel, and, from the nature of the locality, this is interpreted at the present day as having been what was really represented by the story of the dragon keeping guard there. This tract of water surrounds an island, the only spot which is never overflowed by the tides of the sea, although not quite so elevated as the rest of the land in its vicinity. Upon this island, also, there is still in existence the altar of Hercules; but of the grove that bore the golden fruit, there are no traces left, beyond some wild olive-trees. People will certainly be the less surprised at the marvellous falsehoods of the Greeks, which have been related about this place and the river Lixos13 , when they reflect that some of our own14 countrymen as well, and that too very recently, have related stories in reference to them hardly less monstrous; how that this city is remarkable for its power and extensive influence, and how that it is even greater than Great Carthage ever was; how, too, that it is situate just opposite to Carthage, and at an almost immeasurable distance from Tingi, together with other details of a similar nature, all of which Cornelius Nepos has believed with the most insatiate credulity15 .




-------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2006 at 00:35
Thanks for the accounts, St. Francis.

I wonder why Chersonesus and Lybia are mixed in Herdotus account. The rest could make some sense, but that is messy.

Guess you are right in critizying the attitude of "Arabist" (anti-Berber) North African governments but guess we don't have yet a good fact to support your otherwise interesting theory.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2006 at 12:09
No, all I have is the ancient texts. But I'm sure I'm right, and that something will be found there. Even the rock art is in peril.

Here are some interesting ones though:



This ones suggests an earlier domestication of the horse.

Below is a view of a pre-Phoenician wall at Lixus.




-------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2006 at 19:48
The walls are beautifully finished. Guess they'd be Tartessian (of period, not necessarily of culture).

The horse was probably domesticated in the late Paleolithic - in my opinion. Some carved Magdalenian horse heads have a clear bite and related horse skulls show a characteristic deformation of the teeth of estabulated horses (they bite the wood out of boredom).

Even if I'm wrong in that, I'm not sure when could the horse arrive to North Africa: it was used in the steppes since c. 4000 BCE and that drawing will be surely of two or three milennia later.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2006 at 21:06
There's actually a drawing of chariot usage in Morocco dating back 5000 years.

-------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 02:08
Originally posted by St. Francis of Assisi St. Francis of Assisi wrote:

There's actually a drawing of chariot usage in Morocco dating back 5000 years.


Is it? Allow me to be skeptic. Chariot is not believed to have been introduced but by the time of the Hicsos, what would be almost two milennia later.

So how do you know that such drawing is that old? Normally mural art and even megaliths are very difficult to date unless there's indirect evidence. Most of Iberic mural art, for instance is of disputed antiquity, ranging from the late Paleolithic (c. 8000 BCE) and the Iron Age (c. 500 BCE). There are some dominant consensus about which art belong to which period (mostly to Chalcolithic, actually) but not everything is 100% clear.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Maljkovic
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 11:27
Plato lied. The Atlantis he talks about is actually named Carthaga. He lived there for a while you know... 


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 22:40
No comments. 

-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2006 at 03:00
The following is my own theory of Atlantis being a re-writing of an article I 1st wrote around 1999.

Mythos Atlantis - Historia Pangaea

--Atlantis was a Continent not only an Island/City:

Plato said Atlantis was an ISland the size of/larger than Asia & Libya combined ("roughly same size as USA/Antarctica/[Australia/face of moon]", Flem-Ath.) Not a needle in haystack as Hancock put it. Theopompus said Meropis was larger than Europe, Asia and Libya. Herodotus said Europe was as long as Asia & Libya put together & its breadth (euros) is not even comparable with them (though in another place he also says Asia & Europe are the same size/shape). Atlantis totally disappeared without any trace (except "mud"). All of the details of the Atlantis account seem in general agree with Atlantis being a continent not an "island/city (+ empire)". Americas could qualify geopolitically (Haushofer/Mackinder). Ancient writer mentions tradition of 7 islands and a larger one that ruled over them in the Atlantic. Island in Bible, ancient Egypt, etc can mean either island, coastland/sealands, continent.

--Atlantis was in Ocean not Sea:

Plato says Atlantis was in real/true outer/open ocean not in inner sea. Was opposite/beyond Pillars of Hercules. (The S (& W) hemisphere has majority/emphasises unity of the oceans.) The biblical Great Sea and Egyptian Great Green may have been Atlantic incld Mediterranean ("Great Green poss suggests existence of another different coloured, smaller sea.")

--Atlantis must be one of modern Continents not Oceans:

Present oceanographic/geophysical evidence is that there are no sunken/submerged continents/land-masses in the Atlantic, Indian*, Arctic, Antarctic, and/or Pacific* oceans except for the true continental edges, shelves, islands and seas, and except for continental shift. (Seemingly no evidence that the continents ever wholly/permanently below sea level?) Maps that use true continental edges don't show significantly large enough gaps in the Atlantic between Eur/Afr and Amers when orig joint together to fit Atlantis into (excepting lakes, ridges, islands, sub-continents/plates). All evidence of lost continents is more readily explained by continental drift theory. According to Ockams razor there is no need to assume the existence of any more continents than the 7 we presently know of. (All the oceans are from one original Pan-Ocean/part of one Oceanus.) Old World traditions of Atlantis/etc in west and New World traditions of [Mu]/etc in east could be respectively/relatively refering to each other, or commonly to land in between (Armorica plate).

--Atlantis was America(s) or Armorica Plate not Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, Antarctica, "8th Continent/Atlantis":

Antarctica is 2 islands not continent (depend on sea level). Plato treated Atlantis as a separate land-mass from Eur & As/As & Lib/Lib & Eur. Atlantis can't have been too far/close distance/duration incl "up/down" from Greece/Egypt (Incendium). Atlantis was in western sea/opposite Pillars of Hercules. Atlanteans conquered upto Tyrrhennia & Libya from (N)W. Atlantis can not be dry land based theories. No mention in account of crossing equator. No archaelogical finds of humans/civilisation in Antarctica yet. No hints on Piri Reis map of civ/humans/Atlantis in Antarctica. "Atlantis has been identified/connected with every continent except Australia" except for by one writer. Some of "Atlantis" locations not too far from Old World to be lost/not to be found. N (&E) hemisphere has majority/emphasises unity of continents (re Atlantis). Bimini wall & pyramid in Caribean. Cp Mystery Hill complex with Stonehenge/Hyperborea. North Pole was once in Canada/Greenland re Hyperborea/Sea Peoples/Keftiou. Americas had all animals implied in Atlantis account incl elephants/mastodons, camels, horses, sabre tooth tigers, sloths. Alleghenies/Appalachians could have been Atlas/Nthern Pillar.  Scientists theorise Amerinds came via Berring but almost exclusively all Indians own oral memories say they came from east over sea. First Americans were like Cro-Magnons in Europe (Otamid/Folsom/Big Game Hunters/MacKenzie High Arctic high culture, cp Archaic Caucasoids, cp Kennewick man); and Cro-Magnons were (flat faced?) like Amerinds.  My theory explains Archaic Maritime culture in ancient America, ref Barry Fell.  (Egyptian pictures of some Sea Peoples look American to me?) Assyrian pictures of Tjekker sea peoples bearing South American fan palm, ref Fitzgerald-Lee. <Manoa>

--Atlantis was in Atlantic not in Indian, Pacific, Arctic, Antarctic, Oceanus:

Herodotus called Atlantic before Plato (though after Solon). Evidence is that there are no sunken/submerged continental island masses in Atlantic (Hancock), Indian (Jantsang)*, Arctic (submarines), Antarctic (geophysics) and/or Pacific (orthodox scientists)* oceans. Atlantis can't have been too far/close (incl "up/down" re Antarctica) from Greece/Egypt (Incendium). Lemuria unlike Atlantis/Mu was only a theory for oddities now better explained by Gondwanaland. S (&W) hemisphere has majority/emphasises unity of oceans re Atlantic/Poseidon/Oceanus.  *except for HS Lewis' vague Indian ocean claim.  *except for Gilroy's evidence of submerged shelf/bridge, and except for CSF/ICR/AIG's evidence of seamounts and of seafloor sediments which still has to be expalined.  <Cook, Jeans>

--Atlantis was in the west (and north) not east (and south):

Atlanteans conquered upto Tyrrhenia & Libya from (N)W. Atlantis is always said to be in western sea. Cp Hesperides. Spanuth gives evidence that Atlantis was in the north (Hyperborea, Sea Peoples). Despite the ancient records of reversal of compass points a couple of times in history, the Egyptians/Arabs were the only odd ones out in (sometimes) placing south as up/reverse west-east (Deyo/Flem-Ath/Massey)? Atlantis can't have been too far/close incl "up/down" from/to Greece/Egypt (Incendium). Hyperborea/Tartarus in NW or NE. Cp Thule. The Aryan Barbarians always came from the north (Greek, Indian, Iranian, Egyptian, Sumerian, Polynesian, Aztec, biblical.) W hemisphere majority of oceans (vs E hem.) N hem majority of continents. <Necho.> <Urani.> <west/south hemi underworld/heaven? steps.>

--Atlantis sinking/submergence can not have been (just) Great Flood, submerged by rising sea levels at end ice age, tidal wave/slosh, earth crust displacement, volcanic eruption or literally sunk, but rather Atlantis (continentally) shifted away:

Only Atlantis (and Athens) lost not whole world re flood/rising sea levels/crust displacement. Must have both quake(s) and flood(s) re flood*/ris sea levs. Would not have made distance/duration that much longer for ancients not to be able to find Atlantis any longer re ris sea levs. Atlantis totally disappeared (locally/regionally) without any trace (except "mud") re ris sea levs/tid wav/volc erupt/lit sunk/displac. The land would still be not absolutely lost but still possible to find down below underwater re ris sea levs/lit sunk. Account says sunk not sea level rise. Atlantis was already separate island mass but in bible continents didn't split til Peleg/Babel/Flood re flood. No rain/fountains great deep in Atlantis account. Evidence is that there are no sunken/submerged continental island masses in Atlantic (Hancock), Indian (Jantsang), Arctic (sumarines), Antarctic (geophysics), Pacific (orthodox scientists). Dates Atlantis and end last Ice Age only coincidence (see below). No large enough gaps between Americas and Old World when they were joint together to fit Atlantis into. Evidence for old sunken/submerged continents theories more readily explained by continental shift. Cp sink >11km or 1km submerged true cont shelf to shift ca 2000km. If sea levels were lower Gibraltar straits would be land. Mid-Atlantic is emerging up/out not down/in.

--Evidences of sudden continental shift(s)/sprint(s) not (just) drifting:

Sudden shift not so hard to imagine if you picture that as earth spins America(s) could have lagged/dragged behind. Charles Hapgood is/gives evidence of shifts. Mid-Atlantic ridge (or bank/rise) looks as if it could be phantom/ghostly remnant/vestige of where continental edge once was (cp beach sand & inland continental type seals mid-Atl ridge) (or interior of Armorica?) Near pass-by of celestial body could have exerted pull influence. Sudden continental shift would have caused sea/lakes to slosh over land as testified by Hopi myth, bible, sea salt petrified mastodon bones near Bogota, whale bones in USA, muddy sea, Tiahuanaco flood. Sudden shift could have triggered volcanic eruptions cp Thera, iridium, tachylite/cinder/ash mid-Atl ridge, tektites. Atlantis on same faultline as Athens (globally/regionally not locally/regionally). Kirchir's spurious/dubious map seems to show N or S America closer to Old World than S or N America. (Americas perhaps closer to Old World in Piri Reis map?) Old World traditions of Atlantis/etc in west and New World traditions of Tulan/[Mu]/etc in east could be respectively/relatively refering to each other being closer together, &/or commonly to same land in between (Armorica plate). Cp catastrophic turning inside out of Venus. Seeming ancient oral memories of Pangaea/continental shifts (Peleg/Thoth, Atlantis, etc)? Shift would cause earthquakes cp Atlantis/Athens, Easter I, Nazca, Stonehenge damaged from [sw], Minoan, collapsed/bent pyramid. Shift would have caused tidal waves cp Ur/Kish flood strata. Cont shift would have wrinckled/crested up mountain ranges cp Rockies/Cascade/Coast/Cordillera, Andes, Grt Div Rge, Himalayas, mid-Atlantic ridge. Evidence from Andes that shift happened contemp with humans/civ incls Tiahuanaco, nets/pottery/stone implements/cloth in strata/cross-bedding, staircase. Sudden shift would have caused warmer (or cooler re ice shift) oceans cp seafloor sediments. These catastrophies would have caused sudden mass extinctions of prehistoric megafauna cp mass graves in Siberia, Gobi, [Alaska], [Mexico/Texas]. Sudden continental shift would explain migration patterns of birds/lemmings/eels/butterflies, which are exactly the same as ancient ships going out to look for Atlantis where it once was in vain. (Scenarios: Amer(s) shifted west, Old World shifted east, Amer(s) & Old World both shifted outwards; Armorica (east Amer) shifted west, Armorica (West Eur) shifted east, Armorica shifted half west and half east.) Islands of Zeus/Silver Age, Poseidonis and Hades are divisions of Saturnia/Golden Age, both Posied & Saturnia (remnant/overlap/lag, cp Cronian sea) are seemingly used for Atlantis. Scientists theorise Amerinds came via Berring but almost exclusively all Indians own oral memories say they came from east over sea.  First Americans were like Cro-Magnons in Europe (Otamid/Folsom/Big Game Hunters/MacKenzie High Arctic high culture, cp Archaic Caucasoids, cp Kennewick man), and Cro-Magnons were (flat faced?) like Amerinds.  My theory explains Archaic Maritime culture in ancient America, ref Barry Fell.  (Egyptian pictures of some Sea Peoples look American to me?) Assyrian pictures of Tjekker sea peoples bearing South American fan palm, ref Fitzgerald-Lee. How animals got from ark to Americas (landbridges depends on climate naturally suiting animals of diff latitudes.) <isl of th gods tiamat/omoroka/>

--whole world/global not old world/known world/inhabited world/inner sea/Asia-Africa/local/flat :

Herodotus said his contempoaries were wrong that the world consisted of (only) Europe, Asia and Libya. Popul Vuh says first race of men "examined 4 pts of horizon & round surface/circles of the earth & the 4 pts of the firmament/heaven." Maps such as Piri Reis (Hapgood), Kirchir, Ptolemy (Sitchin). Finds of ancient ships &/or drawings of (cp Heyerdahl). Satan wandered to & fro, up & down in [all] the earth. Pyramidology geographical facts about Great Pyramid. Plato said Atlantis was larger than Libya & Asia combined, and treated it (& opposite continent) as separate landmass from Libya & Asia/Asia & Europe/Europe & Libya. Herodotus' statement that oceans/seas all parts of one Ocean and Plato's disting between real/true outer ocean and inner seas/indentations ("theory") parallels modern geopolitical worldview. Poseidonis was remnant (picture overlap/lag) of Saturnia/Golden Age (cp Cronian sea), both names are seemingly used for Atlantis. Proofs of links between ancient/prehistoric Americas and Old World (above, refs Heyerdahl, Honore, N Davies, B Fell, Scott-Elliot). <Seneca; nagus karshvars Erato, Hipparch, Homer, Hindu, Hebrew hemispheres deviceCeltcross latit/along>

--Atlantis was real not myth/theory/lie/unscientific:

Plato said was Atlantis was true history, Plato was the one who elsewhere 1st used mythology in sense of fictional and legend as true. Every year there are more discoveries that the Atlantis account, Bible, oral memories, ancient historians/poets, myths are historically/scientifically correct.

--Refs: J Spanuth, G Hancock, HS Bellamy, S de C(h)amp/R Ley, [Tantalis book], I Donnelly, E Sykes, E Zangger, C Berlitz, Mavor, D Fasold, Chadderton, C Cook/Pears, Scott-Elliot;  [Acknowls: S Deyo, Prof Santos, E Cayce, KR Bolton, AA Incendium, Flem-Ath, Plato.]

-------------
Life is about Love!


Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2006 at 07:45

Maju and Herr both of your theories are good

 I`m begining to think that Palto`s story all though true, were of many stories put together. Herodutus was the only writer before Plato. Plato  must have read Herodutus`s account of the atlantes,  however  qoutes Critias as a founder who in return qoutes Solon, his grandfather and the egyptain priest, and even Homer

There are just to many peas in the pot .

I think the story is a mixture of truth and fiction. Its in finding those truths.

 

 



Posted By: Maljkovic
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2006 at 08:39

Originally posted by Maju Maju wrote:

No comments. 

Why not?



Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2006 at 22:19
Because Carthage is Carthage and wasn't found before 1100 BCE (c. 800 according to archaeological data). To believe such admixtures, one has to ignore that many others, not just Plato, as has been mentioned above by St. Francis, believed the story to be true. One has also to ignore the hypothesis of Tartessos=Atlantis (Tartessos was older than Carthage and Gadir, which is older than Carthage, btw). One has to ignore that Carthage is "inside the columns!", ot "outside" (from the Greek/Egyptian viewpoint).  One has to ignore that Phoenicians were well known to both Greek and Egyptians. One has to ignore that Phoenicians didn't have kings but were organized in a republican manner, that they did not practice bullfights but instead had children sacrifice, that they were very practically and commercially oriented, unlike early Atlanteans, etc.

Phoenicians and Atlanteans don't look the same howeveryou look at them. Still, I may admit that some details such as the elephants were additions taken from a Carthaginian context. After all Phoenicians were connected to the west (their first colony was Gadir) and exploited the same resources that had made famous Atlantis (and later Tartessos).

Atlantis was VNSP culture: the leading Bell-Beaker civilization c. 2000 BCE and still a very influential nation in the 1500-1300 period when the wars against the Greeks and their allies of El Argar took place (ending possibly in a massive earthquake with tsunami that silted the canal of Zambujal). VNSP did have some "control" via Megalithic religion over Europe up to the Tyrrhenian sea and over Africa upt to Egypt, as described by Plato.

The details of such Western social, cultural, economical and political network are now lost but its existence is evident in Megalithism (c. 4800-1300, from Africa to Scandinavia), in International style Bell-Beaker (made in VNSP) and extended from Britain to Africa again and, even after the destruction of VNSP-Atlantis, in the Atlantic Bronze complex (from Britain to Iberia with extensions to Scnadinavia and Italy/Cyprus).


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Maljkovic
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2006 at 06:07

Plato lied about three things: The position, the age and the geographic nature of Atlantis. So, it was NOT an island, NOT outside the Pillars and NOT 9000 years old.

The reason Plato wrote the Dialogues was to influence Carthagans to stop engaging in acts of agression against others and follow the example of their Phoenician ancestor who were peacefull traders. Remeber, the destruction of Atlantis came about after they incited a war with the rest of the world. The description of the city itself and it's farming cultures is a dead match to Carthaga. And the territory suposedly contolled by Atlantis inside the Pillars perfectly coincides with the teritory of Carthaga.



Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2006 at 21:21
It was a peninsula that would be percieved as an island by any Mediterranean sailor, it was beyod the pillars and the Egyptians had given a wrong date (probably it was 9,000 months, not years). 

Finally to say that he lied, you must be sure that he did it intentionately.

The description of the city does not resemble Carthage (with "e" at the end, at last in English), which wasn't in an island, wasn't atop of a mountan, wasn't united to the sea by a canal of more than 10 kms, wasn't ruled by a council of 10 hereditary kings, didn't practice bullfights, etc. There's not the slightest resemblance to Carthage.

The actual Atlanteans probably misvaluated their mineral riches but, due to the increased trade with Central Europe (Bell-Beaker) and the Med (Cypriot and Aegean influences) possibly became more wary of just giving it away. The Greeks wanted all for themselves and at a cheap price and the Atlanteans became conscious of the value of their merchandise and as ked for a just retrbution.

I doubt they ever attacked deep in the Med, though the advance of Megalithism in the Western Med in the period after 1500 BCE (very late for Megalithism in general) may be understood as a cultural expansion of the Atlanteans of VNSP, which probably held a relative monopoly on religious matters, due to the very fact that Megalithism itself is original of SW Iberia and relative hegemony in commercial issues, due to their strategic position.
What happened is that the Greeks wanted all that tin, silver and gold for themselves at a cheap price and they had an ally in El Argar (SE Iberia). At some moment, they attacked the Atlanteans/VNSP, as narrated in the legend of Herakles against Geriones... but it seems that a natural catastrphe just sealed the situation.

Not long after that, the Greeks started pirating all the Eastern Med from Troy to Egypt, from Gaza to Cyprus, from Ugarit to Hattusil. Then they are known as the Sea Peoples (by the Egyptians) and as the Philisteans (by the Hebrews).

Eventually they invaded themselves and, benefitting from the lack of competition, the Canaanites (aka Phoenicians) sailed all the way to where once was Atlantis and founded Gadir, so they could secure for themselves all that tin, silver and gold.

Then they founded one intermediate base and named it Quart Hadashat, Carthage.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2006 at 23:56
Um hello I don't mean to waste space but did anyone have any comments on my theories, or is it because I did not directly comment on specific points of your own ones

-------------
Life is about Love!


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 01:13
Originally posted by Arthur-Robin Arthur-Robin wrote:

Um hello I don't mean to waste space but did anyone have any comments on my theories, or is it because I did not directly comment on specific points of your own ones


I don't like the idea of finding Atlantis based only in words: give me some archaeology and we will discuss if it fits or not in the overall scheme of the Platonian narration and other related ones.

So far I'm stuck with VNSP unless I'm given a better candidate.

I don't like the idea of Atlantis being in America just because there was no sort of civilization there before 1200 BCE. Too late in my opinion.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 01:25
I with you  maju there is no solid evidence that there was a civilization in the Americas before 12,000 bc


Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 03:35
What? Where did I (Arthur-Robin) do it thru word connections? In fact it is others/you here and elsewhere who are using word connections like Ataalantes/Atarantes/Atlas. Atalntis was only Greek translation of Egyptian translation of Atlantean name.

No civilisation before then? What about Caribean (Bimini) wall & pyramid, what about MacKenzie High Arctic Cro-Magnid culture, what about archaic martime culture, what about Tiahuanaco, drogue stones found near Ca.?
It does not have to be before that date anyway since Atlantis date can't be absolutely literal because Atlantis can't have been to far (or near) to Athens, Egypt etc in time (or place). Greek culture in Atl acct corresponds well to Minoan-Mykenaean there.

I did give some archaeology like Tiahuanaco, High Arctic, Bimini, prehistoric megafauna matching Atl acct, Archaic Maritime, etc....

Proof of contacts betw OW & NW (B Fell, Heyerdahl, P Honore, Scott-Elliot, N  Daves:
Olmecs with Africans, Olmec heads with Sphinx, Terra del Fuegans with Africans, similar alloys found in Americas and Africa, pyramids Egypt & Mexico, similar weaving, language connections (Aztec, Mandan, Sioux with Aryan; Hokan/Austronesina; Eskimo, Inca with Turanian; Na-Dene/Sinitic), Assyrian pictures Tjekker sea peoples with sth Amer fan palm, almost all Amerinds say they came from east over sea, Iswanids like Mediterraneans, Otamids/Big Game Hunters/MacKenzie High Arctic culture like Cro-Magnons, Clovis like Solutrean, Kennewick like Ainu, Chancelade like Eskimos, reed boats Peru/Egypt, "Eskimos in West Africa", Tachin/Tajin?, Tenbuch (Timbuktu) - Tenochtitlan/Tiahuanaco?, [I once "published" similar Navaho/Norse drawings side by side].


-------------
Life is about Love!


Posted By: Maljkovic
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 05:59

Originally posted by Maju Maju wrote:

It was a peninsula that would be percieved as an island by any Mediterranean sailor, it was beyod the pillars and the Egyptians had given a wrong date (probably it was 9,000 months, not years). 

Finally to say that he lied, you must be sure that he did it intentionately.

The description of the city does not resemble Carthage (with "e" at the end, at last in English), which wasn't in an island, wasn't atop of a mountan, wasn't united to the sea by a canal of more than 10 kms, wasn't ruled by a council of 10 hereditary kings, didn't practice bullfights, etc. There's not the slightest resemblance to Carthage.

The actual Atlanteans probably misvaluated their mineral riches but, due to the increased trade with Central Europe (Bell-Beaker) and the Med (Cypriot and Aegean influences) possibly became more wary of just giving it away. The Greeks wanted all for themselves and at a cheap price and the Atlanteans became conscious of the value of their merchandise and as ked for a just retrbution.

I doubt they ever attacked deep in the Med, though the advance of Megalithism in the Western Med in the period after 1500 BCE (very late for Megalithism in general) may be understood as a cultural expansion of the Atlanteans of VNSP, which probably held a relative monopoly on religious matters, due to the very fact that Megalithism itself is original of SW Iberia and relative hegemony in commercial issues, due to their strategic position.
What happened is that the Greeks wanted all that tin, silver and gold for themselves at a cheap price and they had an ally in El Argar (SE Iberia). At some moment, they attacked the Atlanteans/VNSP, as narrated in the legend of Herakles against Geriones... but it seems that a natural catastrphe just sealed the situation.

Not long after that, the Greeks started pirating all the Eastern Med from Troy to Egypt, from Gaza to Cyprus, from Ugarit to Hattusil. Then they are known as the Sea Peoples (by the Egyptians) and as the Philisteans (by the Hebrews).

Eventually they invaded themselves and, benefitting from the lack of competition, the Canaanites (aka Phoenicians) sailed all the way to where once was Atlantis and founded Gadir, so they could secure for themselves all that tin, silver and gold.

Then they founded one intermediate base and named it Quart Hadashat, Carthage.

Plato never said the city was on a mountain, but in the plain. As for the canal, todays Medjerda river could do. And the most important thing, the mountain behind the city of Carthage was mount Atlas. And where do you get the bullfighting thing from?

Plato lied because he had to, he was a foreigner in Carthaga and couldn't directly criticise the policies he thought were wrong.



Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 09:49
Mountain:

Quote
Towards the sea and in
the centre of the island there was a very fair and fertile plain, and near
the centre, about fifty stadia from the plain, there was a low mountain in
which dwelt a man named Evenor and his wife Leucippe, and their daughter
Cleito, of whom Poseidon became enamoured. He to secure his love enclosed
the mountain with rings or zones varying in size, two of land and three of
sea, which his divine power readily enabled him to excavate and fashion,
and, as there was no shipping in those days, no man could get into the
place.


http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=38156&pageno=7 - Project Guttemberg - Critias

The mountain was low and was in the centre of the main island, as it happens with the mountain on which Zambujal is (with the diference that it's actually a peninsula not a true island).

Plato didn't wrote his Critias in Carthage, he did that in Athens.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 10:03
Originally posted by Arthur-Robin Arthur-Robin wrote:

What? Where did I (Arthur-Robin) do it thru word connections? In fact it is others/you here and elsewhere who are using word connections like Ataalantes/Atarantes/Atlas. Atalntis was only Greek translation of Egyptian translation of Atlantean name.


Discuss that with others that build castles on words only. I can't fall in that empty speculation...

Quote No civilisation before then? What about Caribean (Bimini) wall & pyramid, what about MacKenzie High Arctic Cro-Magnid culture, what about archaic martime culture, what about Tiahuanaco, drogue stones found near Ca.?


Tiahuanaco was founded c. 200 BCE (as a village). Bimini is very disputed and many sustain that the "way" is just a natural formation. No idea about McKenzie Cromagnoid culture...

Quote

It does not have to be before that date anyway since Atlantis date can't be absolutely literal because Atlantis can't have been to far (or near) to Athens, Egypt etc in time (or place). Greek culture in Atl acct corresponds well to Minoan-Mykenaean there.


Exactly: it must be contemporary of Greeks (most likely Mycenean Greeks). That gives a limted time frame: c. 1600-1100. It must have not been too far away from Greece or Egypt but still be beyond the Pillars and be relatively powerfl and influent.

We just have one and only candidate: VNSP civilization.

I'm an abolute enthusiast of VNSP, as you can see. But it fits incredibly well:
  • Island -> peninsula that looks island to Med sailors
  • City on the central low mountain -> city on the central low mountain
  • Influence extending to the Tyrrhenian and Africa -> Megalithic "religion" extending to Tyrrhenian and Africaç
  • 10 kings -> 10 "royal tombs"
  • Canal to the sea -> recent discovery of a "sea branch" reaching Zambujal, whose silting probably was related with the abandonement of the city
  • Knowldege of astronomy -> yes and very clear
  • Bullfighting rituals -> unknown but very probable considering today customs
  • Control of rich mineral resources -> yes (though not in Atlantis proper)
  • Struggle with Greeks (Athenians) -> very likely, cosnidering the clear Greek influence in El Argar and the rather clear rivalry between both cultures
  • ...
Quote

I did give some archaeology like Tiahuanaco, High Arctic, Bimini, prehistoric megafauna matching Atl acct, Archaic Maritime, etc....

Proof of contacts betw OW & NW (B Fell, Heyerdahl, P Honore, Scott-Elliot, N  Daves:
Olmecs with Africans, Olmec heads with Sphinx, Terra del Fuegans with Africans, similar alloys found in Americas and Africa, pyramids Egypt & Mexico, similar weaving, language connections (Aztec, Mandan, Sioux with Aryan; Hokan/Austronesina; Eskimo, Inca with Turanian; Na-Dene/Sinitic), Assyrian pictures Tjekker sea peoples with sth Amer fan palm, almost all Amerinds say they came from east over sea, Iswanids like Mediterraneans, Otamids/Big Game Hunters/MacKenzie High Arctic culture like Cro-Magnons, Clovis like Solutrean, Kennewick like Ainu, Chancelade like Eskimos, reed boats Peru/Egypt, "Eskimos in West Africa", Tachin/Tajin?, Tenbuch (Timbuktu) - Tenochtitlan/Tiahuanaco?, [I once "published" similar Navaho/Norse drawings side by side].


Eskimos in West Africa?

I was teached the following: Don't believe all you read.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Maljkovic
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 11:38

Actually, there is speculation that part of, or maybe the entire Greek pantheon may have been taken from pre-Greek nations. So could have been with the Atlantis myth.



Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 20:39
Maju:

I've changed my theory. The problem with my former theory and your current theory is the limit of Egyptian geographic knowledge. Before 1100 BC, possibly before 600 BC, the Egyptians had no idea of any lands beyond the E. Med. except for Italy/Sardinia, Nubia, and Ethiopia. They had no idea where the Pillars of Herakles were. As such, the location of their "Pillars of Herakles" was the pillars at the head of the Nile Delta -everything not in Egypt, but that the Egyptians knew about was located beyond the Pillars of Herakles, and only Crete and Cyprus were islands located "in front of them".


-------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman


Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 21:46
There are 2 different Tiahuanaco periods the late one you mentioned and the so many thousand yrs one (don't have sources at hand right now).

For High Arctic culture see Rene Nordbergen and/or Stephen Bernard Cox.

Re 10 kings/tombs:
10:- "bks Herodotus"?, kings Atlantis, pre/post flood patriarchs, antediluvuan kings Sumer, months yr, horns beast, planet X, digits/toes, commandments, pranas, lost tribes, Apeiron, talents, righteous men (Abraham), avataras Visnu, world div 10 parts (Esdras), directions of space, days couvade, Caesars, sons Haman, countries Mu, Prajapatis?, 100, god-kings dyn, tithes, sephiroth?, lepers, gens Perez to David, bows/arcs, worlds/trees Edda, 'ennead', dekans, yrs war Titans/Troy, children Job, plagues, orig labours Herakles, asses/denarius, monks/dean, EEC, strings harp, dimensions, kings Mahabharata, kings [Azores/Canaries], curiae, decade, tribes Onogur, tetraktys (1+2+3+4), sybils.
Take your pick....

There are so many sites that have been said to match royal island/city of the Atl acct eg Troy, recent Cyprus find that it makes any one (like VNSP) less likely. Consider similar descriptions of Atlantis, Tartessos, Schera /Phaeacia (Skara Brae?, Basques?) and Tantalis.

You would have to include Mystery Hill complex in Megalithic boundaries map.

S F of A:
There were 12 pillars of Hercules/Melkarth matching 120 poles of Gilgamesh.
There is plenty of evidence that known world of ancients before Atl catastrophe was not limited to Old World I gave some in my Mythos Atlantis - Historia Pangaea article posted above. Consider 9/10 bows/arcs Egyptian world, karshvars of Iranian world, nagus of Mesopotamian world, etc. (Foundation dates of Gades, Tartessos, Atlantis etc before 600bc/.)


-------------
Life is about Love!


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2006 at 23:51
Originally posted by St. Francis of Assisi St. Francis of Assisi wrote:

Maju:

I've changed my theory. The problem with my former theory and your current theory is the limit of Egyptian geographic knowledge. Before 1100 BC, possibly before 600 BC, the Egyptians had no idea of any lands beyond the E. Med. except for Italy/Sardinia, Nubia, and Ethiopia. They had no idea where the Pillars of Herakles were. As such, the location of their "Pillars of Herakles" was the pillars at the head of the Nile Delta -everything not in Egypt, but that the Egyptians knew about was located beyond the Pillars of Herakles, and only Crete and Cyprus were islands located "in front of them".


The term "pillars of Herakles is obviously Greek". The Pillars were originally  two votive columns in Gadir or elsewhere in Baetica (some votive columns have been found in Tartessian context). But for the Greeks that meant Gibraltar and Ceuta: the rocky promontories that mark the end of the Mediterranean Sea and the start of the open Ocean.

Plato, whose knowledge of Mediterranean geography should have been sufficient to know all that, knew what was he talking about and his description of how the Med is a "gulf" clearly distinct of the "true ocean" makes all very clear.

Also, I think that Egyptians, who, as you say well, were no brave sailors did have knowledge of distant geography via Cretans, Greeks and Phoenicians. Maybe their knowledge was diffuse but it existed. Werent't the Egyptians the ones to fund the expedition that circunnavigated Africa? Weren't they making deals with Hittites, Minoans and Puntians?

Finally, I must mention that a Egyptian statue of a pharaoh (must check which one) has been found in Balearic is. in a late Megalithic context (after 1300).

I sustain that the story of Atlantis was narrated by Greeks to the Egyptians, maybe by Sea Peoples' prisioners of war or by Lybians (who were also involved). They kept careful record of it and centuries later they told it to Solon.

Solon recognized the careful Egyptian description of the inner sea and its mouth and limit and described it with Greek terms: the columns of Herakles.

Btw, why are these "columns" called of Herakles? Simple: becaues Herakles was the only Greek hero to have been there according to their own mythology. See legends of Erythia and the Hesperides, which are 100% relevant to our story.

Also don't forget that we do have one archaological culture (El Argar B) which displays a clear Greek influence from 1500 to 1300 BCE.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2006 at 12:45
You will be interested to know that the Egyptians, prior to 1100 BC, did not know where the Pillars of Herakles were, so could not record them. Actually, the Greeks of that time believed the Pillars to be in the Straits of Messina. Erythria was identified with Sardinia and Corsica, and the Garden of the Hesperides was known as Italy.

In Greek mythology, there was a King Asterius, who later came to be associated with Atlas, whose sons ruled over Crete, Italy, Sardinia, Corsica, Sicily, parts of mainland Greece, and parts of Anatolia. Interestingly, the Neo-Minoan empire, the Nuraghic Civilization, and the Ahhiyyawa, seem to be connected. The Egyptians called these people the "Keftiu" or "People of the Pillar". The literal Greek translation of "Keftiu" is "Atlantean" -i.e. "Sons of Atlas" -Atlas being the Greek personification of a pillar.

These "Keftiu" were probably the Sea Peoples. The "Keftiu" in fact had three centers of civilization -Crete, Sardinia, and Lycia. Though most scholars have focussed on the Cretan center as being Atlantis, I propose it was the Sardinian, because Plato said Atlantis was in front of the Pillars of Herakles, formerly identified with the Straits of Messina.




-------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman


Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2006 at 18:57

 Maju and Herr the only problem with  both your theories is the land is  still  there, where as Plato said this land  sank into the soil and the sea .Tartesso and Mainke are yet to found.

Herr did the egyptain know where the pillers were in 600bc when the story was recorded?

600bc

 The Egyptian Pharaoh Necho commissioned Semitic-Phoenician mariners to voyage round Africa.  Three years later they returned to report that the continent is surrounded by sea except at the point in Egypt where it joins Asia.

The Egyptians in 600 B.C. recorded the existence of Atlantis.  This alleged myth was passed down through Solon to Plato who recorded it in 400 B.C.  An epochal flood is believed to have swallowed up Atlantis

 

 



Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2006 at 20:48
Docya,

The Egyptians did not record the existence of Atlantis in 600 BC. They gave it to Solon 600 BC, saying that this story had been in the records of their city for a very long time.

Where are you getting your bizarre information? Atlantis was a story that was said to be the oldest the Egyptians had of the Greeks. Atlantis fought Athens, not El Argar or Mainake.

Moreover, Plato merely says that Atlantis was flooded and that in his day there was an impassable shoal of mud near it. In the Tyrrhenian sea, there are submerged volcanic islands that form shoals of mud in the way.

Tartessos was destroyed by a Carthaginian army.  Both Tartessos and Mainake were colonies of another nation, subservient semi-autonomous countries. Not independent empires like Atlantis.



-------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2006 at 22:18
I agree with St. Francis that Plato is not explicit about the island sinking as such.

Nevertheless, Tartessos was probably an indigenous city: it wasn't (as for any record) any colony of any foreign power. It's believed it was destroyed by Carthage. It should be somewhere in the marshes of the Guadalquivir, nowadays mostly a National Park.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 00:00

Its seems to me this was a story of a civilization that was told in parts that excisted and broke up in a very long time frame.

Critius

1.There were no boats and was isolated.
2. There were merhants from all over the world and the harbors were full of hussle and bussle all night and day.

Critius
I will now describe the plain, as it was fashioned by nature and by the labours of many generations of kings through long ages.

 

 When the  Semitic-Phoenician mariners voyaged round Africa in the 6th century  Three years later they returned and reported to the egyptains of this ancient city of tartesso that was destoryed, is why the priest told Solon you knew nothing of this ancient civilization. Even Herodutus only writes of the legends of tartesso in the 5th century

It is odd the the egyptian priest said it sank into the sea,  where as in Critius Palto writes the atlandians were only chastened to improve.

 



Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 00:06

And why would you say the tartesso was not a empire when Herdoutus writes .

King Arganthonios ruled Tartessia for 80 years, His empire consisted of all of Andalucía and extended to the Cabo de la Nao (a cape east of the Costa Blanca, south of the Gulf of Valencia). His empire was what may possibly have attracted Greek colonists to the Spanish coast. One of those colonies was Mainake, present-day Málaga. Though the capital of Tartessia sank in the mouth of the swampy Guadalquivir River (and now is famously thought to have been Atlantis),



Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 02:06
(It hurts being ignored or getting only negative responses )

S Fof A:
Hesperides has also been identified with Spain as well as Italy. (Spain/Hispania - Hesperides - ha-Saponi). Keftiou might be Hebrew Kittim?

Maju: That is very interesting about connection of Pharaoh with Baleric megalithic can you find refence for me I would greatly apprechiate it.

Pillars of Herakles: There were 12 Ps of H. There were also P of H at Dardanelles, etc but the Gibraltar ones are in best harmony with the Atlantis account overall.

docyabut: Tartessos may have been found I saw on a forum somewhere I think site was Donana? Atlantis description is not just similar to Tartessos but also Schera/Phaeacia and Tantalis (and I think to Urem/Ad and Manoa/Eldorado). With so many sites like Troy, Heligoland, Cyprus find, VNSP, etc being said to match royal island/city of Atlantis it obviously means ancient cities were layed out in a common plan/pattern so they could all be right and wrong "Atlantis" claims in a way (colonies).

I had not heard of Main(a)ke before what is it?

There is plenty of evidence known world of ancient( Egyptian)s was not limited to Mediterranean. Remember Thor Heyerdahl? The high sea boats found in pyramid pits. The pyramidological geopolitcal facts about Grt Pyr. Atlantis account implies knowledge was lost/contracted after catastrophe.

The mare tenebrosium could be [sand banks/bars] etc in Atlantic remember St Brendan's "whale"/island? Ptolemy's map also possibly shows muddy seas in someplaces, and there was mare [congeal/coagulate] (Thule?) perhaps connected.


-------------
Life is about Love!


Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 02:26
Docya:

Tartessos was a colony of Phoenicia. It was destroyed by Carthaginians, not a flood, and as such could not be Atlantis. Moreover, it is far too late to be Atlantis.




-------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman


Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 07:46

Herr I believe tartesso was independant empire that traded with the phoenenians, (Carthage ), however Mainke was a phoceans greek colony. that protected tartesso.

 King  arganthonios empire was what may possibly have attracted Greek colonists to the Spanish coast. One of those colonies was Mainake.

When the capital fell the city and the empire sank into the Guadalquivir river. Mainake, the Greek colony which protected Tartessia from Carthage, also sank.

Both tartesso and mainke disapeared and are consider lost civilizations.

timaeus

But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea

 



Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 07:55

I think this is where people get confuse, the Phoenicans were from Cannon .Where as the Phocaeans were Greeks from Turkey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phocaeans - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phocaeans .

 

 

 



Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 08:13
 Biblical reference to Tarshish( Tarrtesso) is from Isaiah 23:1.

      "The burden of Tyre. Howl, ye ships of Tarshish: for it is laid waste, so that there is no house, no entering in: from the land of Chittim it is revealed to them."

 



Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 08:39

opps sorry, I guess this isn`t Turkey, but Greece.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phocaeans - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phocaeans



Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 09:31

auther, qoute- It hurts being ignored,  sorry

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arganthonios - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arganthonios



Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 11:39
Originally posted by Arthur-Robin Arthur-Robin wrote:

(It hurts being ignored or getting only negative responses )

S Fof A:
Hesperides has also been identified with Spain as well as Italy. (Spain/Hispania - Hesperides - ha-Saponi). Keftiou might be Hebrew Kittim?


Hesperides is Hispania and nearby areas (SE France, NW Africa). It's a difuse area of the ancient "far west" of semi-mythical dimension.

Quote

Maju: That is very interesting about connection of Pharaoh with Baleric megalithic can you find refence for me I would greatly apprechiate it.



Can't find it right now. Just that an isolated protable statue of certain pharaoh was found in a Balearic context of the late Bronze Age. I'm sure that I've read it in a serious source but I can't find it right now. It's not very
relevant, as probably arrived in a Phoenician trade context.

Quote
Pillars of Herakles: There were 12 Ps of H. There were also P of H at Dardanelles, etc but the Gibraltar ones are in best harmony with the Atlantis account overall.


Source? I've never heard of the other 10 pillars.

Quote

I had not heard of Main(a)ke before what is it?



Mainake is claimed to be an early Greek colony in southern Spain, normally associated with modern Marbella. It was destroyed by the Phoenicians and probably never was but a settlement.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 11:41
Docya, let me break it down for you:

I will tell an old-world story... About the greatest action which the Athenians ever did, and which ought to have been the most famous, but, through the lapse of time and the destruction of the actors, it has not come down to us.

The Athenians did not remember the destruction of Atlantis because of the great many years that had passed since it had been destroyed. Therefore, it was NOT destroyed three years before Solon goes to Egypt.

...you do not
know that there formerly dwelt in your land the fairest and noblest race of men which ever lived, and that you and your whole city are descended from a small seed or remnant of them which survived. And this was unknown to you, because, for many generations, the survivors of that destruction died, leaving no written word.

The Athenians of Solon's time were descended from the Athenians that fought the Atlanteans. Are you suggesting that the Athenians of Solon's time were descended from the people of Mainake? Moreover, the Egyptians say that the destruction was unknown to the Athenians, but they already knew that Tartessos was destroyed. Everyone did.

This I infer because Solon said that the priests in their
narrative of that war mentioned most of the names which are recorded prior to the time of Theseus, such as Cecrops, and Erechtheus, and Erichthonius, and Erysichthon, and the names of the women in like manner.

These are all Bronze Age kings. You think that the war referred to by the Egyptians is that of Alalia. How did Cecrops, Erechtheus, and Erichthonius figure into the battle of Alalia?

"Now the country [of Athens] was inhabited in those days by various classes
of citizens..."

Plato says that the country was inhabited, meaning that it no longer is inhabited by these people. However, if it were Tartessos, the country would still be inhabited by these people.

The consequence is, that in comparison of what then was, there
are remaining only the bones of the wasted body, as they may be called, as in the case of small islands, all the richer and softer parts of the soil having fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the land being left.

I know of no destruction that would make Athens pre-600 BC much better than Athens post-600 BC.

Just this completely disproves your theory.


-------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman


Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 20:36

These are all Bronze Age kings. You think that the war referred to by the Egyptians is that of Alalia. How did Cecrops, Erechtheus, and Erichthonius figure into the battle of Alalia?

This I infer because Solon said that the priests in their narrative of that war mentioned most of the names which are recorded prior to the time of Theseus, such as Cecrops, and Erechtheus, and Erichthonius, and Erysichthon, and the names of the women in like manner.

 Simple, the names of Tartesso`s kings were  recorded before the kings of Athens.  Plato`s twins. All these kings and their desendants for many generations ruled over the diver islands.

 



Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 20:58
And Critius said let make these ancesters the priest spoke of the citizens of Athens, not that they were . the priest called them noblemen ( phocaeans)?  In the writings athens was added though the whole story and  a description of its history. 


Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 21:18

you do not know that there formerly dwelt in your land the fairest and noblest race of men which ever lived, and that you and your whole city are descended from a small seed or remnant of them which survived. And this was unknown to you, because, for many generations, the survivors of that destruction died, leaving no written word.

 The dark ages.

The early history of Phocis remains quite obscure.How come there is no mention of the phocis in the  600 bc war of  Alalia,  only by Herodutus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phocaeans - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phocaeans .

 

http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/history3.html - http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/history3.html


 



Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 21:37
And the biggest clue is they stood alone when the rest fell from her.The phoceans were they only greeks fighting this second largest navel battle in history, for the trade in the west.


Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 21:54

The Phocian League is last heard of under Trajan.  Remember that mysterious painting of a city found in the baths of trajan

 

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9805/27/italy.mystery.map/ - http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9805/27/italy.mystery.map/



Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 22:21
And you got to really remenber that even Herodutus said the dates were not  the actual dates of these events, just guess work, so this all could have happen before Solon vist to Egypt.


Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 00:05
1. There is no reason to think that Plato was describing Phocis not ancient Athens.

2. The battle of Alalia took place 30 years after Solon died.

3. Tartessos had no role in that battle. In fact, it was probably destroyed before the battle.

4. The Etruscans and Carthaginians were not a single empire with Tartessos, as you suggest, nor was Tartessos the center of civilization of this empire.

5. Tartessos was destroyed by an army, not flooded.

6. Tartessos was a trade empire, and did not at any time threaten the entire Mediterranean.

7. The Egyptians repeadetdly tell Solon they are telling him an Old World story -not a story of something that has yet to occur. All the events you are describing took place AFTER Solon's death.

8. The fact that we have only one obscure mention of Alalia shows that it was not important.

9. If you were to equate Tartessos with Tarshish, than Tartessos was destroyed after Pharoah Necho's expedition.

10. There is no way Solon could know about the Battle of Alalia, as it had not happened yet.


-------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 01:26
There, there. St. Francis!


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 07:12
Sorry I could not reply earlier but I have been having login problems, it would say successful login but did not login.

Yes S F of A is right about late date of Tartessos (supposedly Tarshish tho not definate?) (Tho some (not me) would counter arguement by saying it was after Solon but Plato wrote the account.)

Maju: Hesperides may not even be Spain because Greek myths place it, Ladon etc near Atlas. (I think there were [4?] or [7?] Hesperides islands ref Whos who in Classical Mythology.)

Unfortunately I had a crisis 2 yrs ago and lost 15 yrs worth of notes/resources so I don't have name of thin book that mentioned 12 pillars of Hercules it had something to do with "Dragons" and had stuff about Vader/Emperor Palpatine in it (could not find it at library and local libraries got rid of all old books.) But you can do a google search and find some other mentions of "12 P of H" as I found when I did that.

I was interested in finding more about Pharaoh because it may tie in with my discoveries relating to megalithic and old kingdom, so it may not be isolated/contamination.


-------------
Life is about Love!


Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 11:05
Tarshish was Tarsus, not Tartessos.

I don't think you understand something:

The Greeks placed the toponyms of "Hesperides" and "Atlas" and "Pillars of Herakles" to the ends of the world as they knew it.

So, during the time of Homer, the "Pillars of Herakles" were the Sraits of Sicily or Messina (I'm not sure), the "Garden of the Hesperides" was Italy, and "Atlas" was in Italy. Similarly "Erythria" was in Sardinia".

Later, probably during the time of Herodotus, the Greeks moved all these toponyms farther away as the world "expanded" with new geographic knowledge.

During the time of Solon, the Pillars of Herakles were not Gibraltar. There was certainly a lot of discussion to move them there, but they were not moved until Herodotus (though some say Hecataeus may have).


-------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman


Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 13:00
St F of A:
I dis-agree, the ancient world did not expand it contracted (after catastrophe).
The pillars of Hercules are same as poles of Gilgamesh. Herodotus was after Solon but before Plato.
There are parallel eastern and western ends of ancient world: pillars at Gibraltar and Dardanelles, Hesperides and Colchis, Tartessos and Salmydessus (matching Iranian Tur and Salm), [El Khadir] and (Alexander the Great), Gadeira (Agadir not Ceuta) and Agade, Erythia (Strabo tho Moscati agrees with you re Erythrians in Sardinia) and Eridu.
Maybe names relate to Iberian province [Tarraconensis]? (I think there were pillars in Temple of Herakles at Tartessos? trad fndtn date before Solon) Do you have a reference for pillars at Sicily/Messina and debate to shift them to Gibraltar (by Herod/Hecat)?

Italy is king Italus not Atlas. Kronos/Saturn went to Italy.


-------------
Life is about Love!


Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 20:46
I dis-agree, the ancient world did not expand it contracted (after catastrophe).

But you have no evidence, while I do. So disagree ahead.


-------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman


Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 01:14
No evidence? there is tons of evidence, I already gave on page 2 or 3. (I'm just trying to interact (gave and take) not challenge/offend.)

-------------
Life is about Love!


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 02:47
Originally posted by Arthur-Robin Arthur-Robin wrote:



Maju: Hesperides may not even be Spain because Greek myths place it, Ladon etc near Atlas. (I think there were [4?] or [7?] Hesperides islands ref Whos who in Classical Mythology.)


The concept of "Hesperides" is diffuse and varies depending of the author. But it always means the lands of the far west of the Mediterranean (arguably including Italy or not). The name Hesperia/Hesperides comes from Hesperos (Vesperus in Latin) - the evening star. The very name of Spain is derivated from Hesperia.

Quote

Unfortunately I had a crisis 2 yrs ago and lost 15 yrs worth of notes/resources so I don't have name of thin book that mentioned 12 pillars of Hercules it had something to do with "Dragons" and had stuff about Vader/Emperor Palpatine in it (could not find it at library and local libraries got rid of all old books.) But you can do a google search and find some other mentions of "12 P of H" as I found when I did that.

I was interested in finding more about Pharaoh because it may tie in with my discoveries relating to megalithic and old kingdom, so it may not be isolated/contamination.


It seems to me that your source on the Pillars isnt a very serious one (dragons? ) - whichever it is. One thing is clear there's more "info" than actual data.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 02:57
Originally posted by St. Francis of Assisi St. Francis of Assisi wrote:

Tarshish was Tarsus, not Tartessos.


This is very arguable. Most think that Tarshish was Tartessoss, even if only as general geographical denomination of equivalent value of "Hesperides".

Quote

So, during the time of Homer, the "Pillars of Herakles" were the Sraits of Sicily or Messina (I'm not sure), the "Garden of the Hesperides" was Italy, and "Atlas" was in Italy. Similarly "Erythria" was in Sardinia".



That's probably just a futile speculation. Notice that in the very Labours of Herakles, the Romans must invent stories to make Herakles go by Italy. Mycenean Greeks, while may have got some colonies in southern Italy, ignored Italy for the most part.

The Hesperides were always in the far west, not in Italy. The pillars were never Scilla and Caribdis. The Pillars may have been initially some physical votive pillars dedicated to Melqart in Gadir, Tartessos or whatever... and later transfered by the the Greek sailors to Gibraltar and Ceuta. But the pillars always refered to the Strait of Gibraltar, specially because sailors most probably went via Africa, not via Italy: the route of Italy, crossing the dangerous (and otherwise out of route) Strait of Messina was probably only used primarily after the foundation of Carthage.

Later, probably during the time of Herodotus, the Greeks moved all these toponyms farther away as the world "expanded" with new geographic knowledge.

Quote
During the time of Solon, the Pillars of Herakles were not Gibraltar. There was certainly a lot of discussion to move them there, but they were not moved until Herodotus (though some say Hecataeus may have).


I think you are totally wrong about this, Saint.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 03:00
Originally posted by Arthur-Robin Arthur-Robin wrote:

Italy is king Italus not Atlas. Kronos/Saturn went to Italy.


Italy was known as Ausonia and later the tribal name Vituli evolved into Vitulia->Italia. Or so it seems.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 03:50
Thanks.
Hesperides is only one suggested not definate derivation for Hispania, another is ha-Saponi "northerners".
Italy/Rome is also called Saturnia/Janicul[a/um].

Did you not find 12 pillars of H like I did on google search?


-------------
Life is about Love!


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 08:32
I didn't google. As we all know (Paul specially), Google has more answers than God. 

...but not all are right.

I don't make sense for your hasaponi word - in what language is that? It sounds to hail japanese!, not to Hispania.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: St. Francis of Assisi
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 21:18
Most scholars believe Tarshish was Tarsus not Tartessos.

Maju, the Pillars of Herakles were in the Straits of Sicily prior to Herodotus. There is a lot of evidence pointing to this, see the book Colonne D'Ercole by Sergio Frau. I can't post the evidence because I can't translate Italian. But trust me, its not idle speculation.

The Pillars were not always in Gibraltar because the Egyptians and Greeks didn't always know there was anything beyond Gibraltar. Homer and Hecataus thought it was the end of the world. As such, no location could be "beyond" them. For this reason the Pillars were at the Straits of Sicily.

Arthur Robin:

You did not post any evidence. As for googling the twelve Pillars of Hercules, nothing shows up.



-------------
Cheers, and Good Mental Health,
Herr Saltzman


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 01:30
Saint:

The concept Pillars of Herakles is a Greek concept. Greeks knew of Gibraltar straits and beyond since "always". It's difficult to pinpoint when the Greek nation properly started existing but their predecessors of the Aegean (Minoan Crete, Cycladean civilization, etc.) must have known anyhow. At least since you see tholoi as tombs in Greece, you can say that they had been in Spain. And if they had been in Spain they must have known about the Strait.

Besides, the description of Critias is very precise: inside there's a bay, outside you meet the true sea. That can't be the description of Messina, as that strait makes no diference. It must be the description of Gibraltar: there's no other such radical naval frontier in the whole planet.

Some people claim that Tharsis is Tarsus but this is very unlikely because the "ships of Tharsis" used by Phoenicians and occaionally by Jews too are long distance ships that cold go to either Spain or India. Knowing the relation that Phoenicians seem to have got with the very destrution of Tartessos, most authors show no doubt that Tharsis was the Semitic name of Tartessos.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 05:28
Sorry, login problems on firefox still and viewing problems on internet explorer.

Maju: ha-Saponi "the northerners" is biblical. Like Mount Saphon. Why are people so puritanistical about some sources (Dragons bk, google, Sitchin etc)? Just because some theories/conclusions in them are wrong doesn't mean there are not also true facts/info in them too.
Pillars of Melkarth so not just Greek. Poles of Gilgamesh. (Siriadic columns (Surid)?)

St F of A: Evidence is in my posts on page/s 2/3 starting with Mythos Atlantis - Historia Pangaea article. In my replies/responces I mentioned things like 9/10 bows/arcs Egyptian worldview, Sumerian nagus around their map, Iranian karshvars around their world, Great Pyramid geographical codes, high sea ships pyramid pits, etc.

Advanced google search results "12 Pillars of Hercules" English allintext include:

usnisa.org/chronicles/04.html
www.reach.net/~wbarton/usnisa/chronicles/04.html
www.reach.net/~star1/skylad.htm

www.quality-system-books.com/cgi-bin/ ae.pl?authorsearch=PAUL%20THEROUX&mode=books

There may have been some more I can't remember all different combinations I tried.


-------------
Life is about Love!


Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 07:23

 Tartessos had no role in that battle. In fact, it was probably destroyed before the battle?

Herodotus records the king`s death after a naval battle won by the Greeks over a united fleet of Carthaginians and Etruscans.

His empire consisted of all of Andalucía and extended to the Cabo de la Nao (a cape east of the Costa Blanca, south of the Gulf of Valencia). His empire was what may possibly have attracted Greek colonists to the Spanish coast. One of those colonies was Mainake

 

 

Motto: Dominator Hercules Fundator

Andalucía por sí, para España y la humanidad
(Andalusia for herself, for Spain, and for humanity)

Image:Locator map of Andalusia.png

His empire was not in this war ?



Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 07:27

There are many cases where Herodotus, uncertain of the accuracy or truth of a particular event or region, would report the most prominent historical accounts .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus



Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 07:38

Location of Cap de la Nau.



Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 07:40
the rest of his empire and it was not in the war ?


Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 16:22
Found an interesting article today that revealed that yet another bunch of "historical researchers" joined the hunt for the mythical Atlantis. Don't think any further comment is needed:

Heather Pringle's engrossing book, The Master Plan, explores a little-known corner of Nazi history: the story of the Ahnenerbe, an institute founded by Heinrich Himmler to investigate "the science of ancient intellectual history". With funding from the SS, it sent German scholars on eight foreign expeditions to discover the roots of the Aryan race and Nordic culture.
All of the trips were designed to promote Nazi racial ideas; in all cases, the scientists and explorers allowed their ideological commitments to overrule their intellectual integrity. They examined Bronze Age carvings in Sweden and forgotten folk customs in Finland; they crossed the Himalayas into Tibet and endured the sweltering heat of a Mesopotamian summer.....
Both Hitler and Himmler believed, entirely erroneously, that true Germans were descended from an Aryan ideal and that Nordic culture, from language to folk music, had proved itself superior over the course of history. Aryan man, Hitler said, was "the Prometheus of mankind from whose bright forehead the divine spark of genius has sprung at all times". ...
The institute's first president, the peculiar Herman Wirth, believed that the Nordic race had evolved in an Arctic homeland before founding a civilisation on the lost continent of Atlantis, somewhere in the North Atlantic. ...


From http://www.arts.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/03/05/bopri05.xml - The Telegraph/UK 05/03/06

-------------


Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 20:03

Here is my guess, the priest was simpley telling Solon of a empire in the west, its history, its capital( tartesso) and its end from a earthquake and a flood .

 However Plato turned the story into a work of athens and it Gods.  Why because Socates was put to death soon after for not believing in the greek myths and their gods. 

 I believe the story is true, only given all the glory to athens and in its myths , like the flood story that were most likey borrowed from another culture.



Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 02:58





-------------
Life is about Love!


Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 05:41
Originally posted by Arthur-Robin Arthur-Robin wrote:


People need to put aside their puritanistical/PC anti-Nazi prejudices and consider Aryan theory on its own merits.

Well, I would put aside "Aryan" theories with all the other rubbish, ludicrous phantasies like the real Atlantis, Extra-terrestrial invasions and all that stuff, if it hadn't been for the circumstance that this theory was attempted to be put into practise, with all the consequences we know so well.
In this context, one can never have enough prejudices against race theories and especially against the Nazi "Aryan" one, and discussing it "on its own merits" is a contradiction in terms. It hasn't got any.

Quote Why do they have to be devious and pretend that they dis-agree with it in order to publish the ideas which they evidently don't dis-agree totally with secretly/in the end any way.


???



-------------


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 06:34
Obviously Nazi theories are all wrong... starting by the very fact that the "Aryan race" doesn't exist and (in any case) Aryans have nothing to do with Nordics but rather with "untermenschen" as Russians and Kazaks...

Nordics never conquered anything before the German expansion of the Iron Age.

...

Yet Atlantis (unless you see it with Cayce's or Blavatski's eyes) has nothing to do with Nazi schizophrenia.

Assuming it existed, it was a civilization of the Copper-Bronze Age in Iberia or somewhere nearby, with black haired people, some of them maybe of clear Mediterranean genetics...

While there are megaliths (the Atlantean fossil) in Scandinavia they belong to a pre-IE period, when Danes were still culturally Western and not yet IE.

What Atlantis is about is not about some Nordic fairy tale... but about how Western Europe (and probably North Africa) was before the Greeks, the Celts and Romans... before the Indo-Europeans.

I think it's Pliny who laments that Lusitania being so rich naturally finds itself in such a barbaric state. This decription may surely apply well to all Atlantic Europe in classical times. What I suggest is that it was not always that way, but that there was a time when it used to have a native civilization and that this civilization was destroyed maybe in a was as that described in the Critias.

My idea is also that some cultural traits, such as a relatively good position of women in society and family or a an attitude of open curiosity towards  the natural world have painfully survived from those times, allowing the Western renaissance that otherwise would have been impossible.

While its marginality allowed Western Europe to fall into underdevelopement and fall victim of "Eastern" peoples such as Greeks and  Celts or later Romans and Germans, it also alowed it to survive to the most destructive monsters created by the knot of civilizations (the Near East), particularly the most evolved forms of Patriarchy, which can't but hinder freedom and therefore creativity and success.

...

Well, I'm ranting. I wish you hadn't mixed Blavatski and Himmler in all this, Komnenos. Why did you do that?


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: docyabut
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 08:49
Plato places Atlantis close to Gades , it could`nt be any where else


Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 10:23



-------------
Life is about Love!


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 10:36
Originally posted by docyabut docyabut wrote:

Plato places Atlantis close to Gades , it could`nt be any where else


Plato does not mention Gades - does he?


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 11:08
Originally posted by Arthur-Robin Arthur-Robin wrote:


If you forget about the Aryan=Nordic and Aryan=Indo-European then what we would have is "Aryan" = either or both Eur-African and/or Eur-Asiatic which does have merits.


So far the only "Aryans" we know about are Iranians and Indo-Aryans, bot Eastern IE peoples that (most likely) came from Russia and/or Central Asia.

Western IE peoples can't be defined as "Aryans" unless you want to pose of Nazi like that English prince... what's his name?

Quote
Atlantis was real please read my article on page 2.
ETs fantasy? All ancient cultures had memories of the gods/angels coming down from the sky/heaven.


You are brainwashed or just have a very imaginative mind... what are you talking about? What angels? My culture had not even fairies... every single mythological criature lived in or on the ground, though some could travel through the skies.

Maybe we were the one that travelled to the minds of other cultures using the sky as passage. Did those anges wear a beret?

Quote
Maju: No offense but "nothing before Germanics/Iron Age"?
1 - Sumerians (classified part I-E by Waddell, Hrozny, Myatt etc), Hittites, Hurrians, Indians, Iranians, Celts, Greeks, Tocharians, Romans ....
2 - The sophisticated upper palaeolithic cultures (tailor made clothes etc). Megalithic. Etc.


No offense. You'll find that it is very dificult to offend me.

Now, what the heck are you talking about? The Upper Paleolitihic was of course relatively sophisticated but it wasn't Germanic but Basque.

The same we can say about the Megalithic age. At that time IEs were just arriving to Europe and it is impossible to take apart Germanics from the other linguistic groups.

Have you read what I wrote? Megalithic Scandinavia was pre-IE (pre-Germanic). It is precisely the arrival of IEs (possibly proto-Germanics) what finishes the Megalithic period there, being the first region to lose the Ancient Religion and the Atlantean culture.

Next came the peoples of Germany proper. But for the next 1100 years, there was a status quo at the Rhin between the Indo-Europeans (Celts?) and the Western Europeans (Basques in a wide sense of the term, or Atlanteans, if you prefer). In this period (2400-1300 BCE), we see the flourishing of Bell-Beaker commercial phenomenon and the expansion of Megalithism to the Western Mediterranean, while slowly losing strength in the Atlantic, specially among Aquitanians/Basques of Artenac culture (SW/West France).

It ends with the disappearence of VNSP (Atlantis), the fragmentation of El Argar (Greek neo-colony), the irruption of Celts west of the Rhin for the first time and whatever happened that caused Greeks and others to become the fearful Sea Peoples that attacked Asia and Egypt, destroying the Hittite Empire, Troy, Ugarit...

But there's not the slightest sign of Germanic activity, unless you consider Italics or Celts to be those. Proto-Germans were pretty quiet in Scandinavia, Lower Germany and the Netherlands until c. 800 BCE or rather later (their true expansion started c. 200 BCE at the expense of Celts mostly).


Germanic peoples before 600 BCE (left) and before 100 BCE (right)


Expansion of Germanic peoples after 100 BCE (not the best map maybe but a good approximation).

Learn something that is not mere empty speculation, Mr. Robin.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 15:23



-------------
Life is about Love!


Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 15:59
Originally posted by Arthur-Robin Arthur-Robin wrote:

Well Komnenos, I neither want to offend anyone, lose any chance of interacting with people, get expelled nor go off the topic of Atlantis so I will just say that "we all know so well" is half if not mostly false Allied propaganda. Fact is this system is no better (and in my opinion is worse) than they claim N-S Germany was.


You're right to be careful turning up as an apologist for the Nazis, in fact this statement of yours is already more than I can stomach (and I mean this quite literally). Can I recommend "Stormfront forum" to you as an ideal platform for spreading Aryan race theories and finding excuses for the Nazis, that is in case you shouldn't know it already.

-------------


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 16:58
Originally posted by Arthur-Robin Arthur-Robin wrote:

Maju: Thanks for your response. Yes Plato mentions Gadeirus/Gadeira (Necho) which people usually identify with Gades and/or Ceuta, but I prefer equating it with Agadir.


Gadeirus is a name of one of Atlas' brothers. Not a city - though most likely Plato or whoever took the idea from Gadir

Quote
I can't comment on your claim about your culture not having sky tradition because I don't know what culture you are from (is that your avatar picture?) But even if that is so there are still many cultures that have this tradition so there must be some truth to it.


I am Basque, as most people in this forum know. My avatar has nothing to do with who I am personally but about a struggle against intolerance and fascism. Would you be European and not Polinesian, you'd probably know that that lady is a Dutch MP.

Quote

I was not limiting "Aryan" to Indo-European/Germanic when I said about before Germans/iron age. But even so the  #1  list of before then evidence was I-E (hence "proto-Germanic") but outside/before Europe. The I-Es may be Eur-african ("Nordic") and/or Eur-asiatic.


IEs do not exist: IE is a linguistic family. There are IE speakers and these change a lot physically. Examples of:

a/ IE native speakers:

66s/EXP=1141940655/**http%3a//www.sloughlin.addr.com/mfinger .jpg">

b/ non-IE native speakers:

 



Quote The #2 list you claim are unrelated racially to the I-Es/Germanics but that is not necessarily definately the case. Since "Aryan" in sense of  masters/chosen rather than I-E  is either/both Eur-african and/or Eur-asiatic it could mean the "pre-I-E" culture races as well as or instead of I-Es/Germanics.


You are ranting Nazi nonsense about master races and those stupidities. Aryan is just a term that exists in Indian and Iranian cultures. Its totally alien to European culture - sorry but you must improve your knowledge.

First there are no human races.

Second, if they would exist, none of them would be "Aryan" that Hitler one day had a weird idea to claim that Germans were the cream of the cake with no grounds at all... doen't mean that he was right.

A person with such a silly moustache and such megalomaniac tendencies can hardly be right.

Anyhow, he was wrong: flatly wrong.

Quote

So we have 3 scenarios: "Aryan" is I-E, and Europe before them was not; or "Aryan" was "pre-I-E", and I-Es were barbarian invaders; or "Aryan" is both "pre-I-E" and IE.


We have only one scenario: there is no Aryan in Europe. Aryans were people of India and Iran. It's an Asian concept, totally out of place in Europe.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 18:26





-------------
Life is about Love!


Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 18:53
Originally posted by Arthur-Robin Arthur-Robin wrote:

Sorry, obviously I will have to steer clear of any "Aryan/master/race/Nazi" subjects since people are so intolerant/puritan.


Seems like a pretty good plan to me.
As you probably know, we Germans can be rather intolerant.

-------------


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2006 at 05:25
Originally posted by Arthur-Robin Arthur-Robin wrote:

Sorry, obviously I will have to steer clear of any "Aryan/master/race/Nazi" subjects since people are so intolerant/puritan. But there is one thing I have to clear up: Maju, if there are no masters and no (pure) races what is your picture of history and cultural emergence/development?



It just happened.

Notice that most of the major developements (agriculture, bronze and iron techs) in Eurasia happened in the Near East (SW Asia), where people is mostly considered Mediterranean (and they haven't changed much in all these years).

The main reason is that SW Asia is a crossroads, where diferent influences coverged. It also worked as difussor of more peripheral develeopements. SW Asia is "the center of the world" but that is mostly due to geographical reasons.

Also other groups have developed their own advances independently: Mexicas developed agriculture and civilization on their own, Chinese may have imported some concepts like the basics of Agriculture but most of their civilization (and part of ours) is their own independent developement...

Instead Europeans have been almost always dependent on Asian influences. Atlantis or the Iberian civilizations may well be an exception but they are not the rule and they still had a lot of contact with the Eastern Med.

It's also clear that Nordic people were mere barbarians before the High Middle Ages, when a modest civilization started to appear there thanks to the introdution of a Chinese invention: modern plow. I can hardly believe in a theory that suggests that a people that has just jumped into civilization yesterday is any "master race".

But you can aybe toy with this alternative concept (note what follows is not expected to be considered seriously, it's just a satire): the master Medish Race: http://medish.shorturl.com/ - http://medish.shorturl.com/

Here you can see how the Nordish contamination of the pure Medish race, inventor of everything of value, from Agriculture to Relativity, has perverted civilization:

Ikea "chair"          Napoleon's throne
Left: "chair" sold by popular furniture chain IkeaRight: legendary Emperor Napoleon's throne

Above you can see how even furniture yells the superiority of the Medish race over the Nordish wannabees.

...

Of course races don't exist, because races demand artificial breeding: it is a cattle-breeding concept hardly appliable to wild creatures as us humans.

Also many things seem to point to interbreeding as a way to stimulate the best of each group. As we have seen in the case of SW Asia, the corssroads of humankind, admixture brings creativity and improvement. As we can see in places like Australia, isolation, normally brings stagnation.

It's in the basics of life: clones die, hybrids survive and thrive.

...

Finally to mention that I agree with whatever disciplinary measures Kom may have taken (probably just an informal warning): I personaly think that the good Nazi is the dead Nazi - and the most I'm going to condescend if the situation allows is to put them in a Maoist reeducation center.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2006 at 07:27



-------------
Life is about Love!


Posted By: Halevi
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2006 at 07:37
Originally posted by Komnenos Komnenos wrote:

Originally posted by Arthur-Robin Arthur-Robin wrote:

Sorry, obviously I will have to steer clear of any "Aryan/master/race/Nazi" subjects since people are so intolerant/puritan.


Seems like a pretty good plan to me.
As you probably know, we Germans can be rather intolerant.


Hahahahah. Tell me about it. Seriously, though, its nice to see Germans be ablt to joke about this.   

Speaking of which, I'm going back to my German-Jewish grandmother's hometown this summer. Her family's house has been converted into a strip mall. Hope to take some good pics. ; )




-------------
"Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2006 at 08:54
Originally posted by Arthur-Robin Arthur-Robin wrote:

I'm not allowed to comment. All I can say is you originally said there were no races and no masters and now you say (Indo-)Eurpoeans are inferior to Asian/Medes/Mediterraneans/easterners/mixed/Chinese/Medes/hy brids/Maoists.  (Nazism is "dead" yet the world is still a mess regardless.)




I said that it should not be taken seriously...

Now seriously, don't confuse:
  • Indo-European (a linguistic family)
  • European (a geographic denomination)
  • Caucasoid, aka "white" (an arguable "racial" denomination, including from Dravidians to Irish, from Yemenis to Lapps in any case)
  • Aryans - a diffuse ethnicity of the Indo-Iranian protohistory, of Indo-European language(s), located around Afghanistan or Central Asia
Maoists are not any "race" - no matter how you look at it

Nazism is not dead, sadly. It seems to have some appeal to (Caucasoid) people with an inferiority complex and problems of identity. These people seem to find some strange sucedaneous satisfaction in identify themselves with some "superior race". Obviously you would not be holding such views if you would think yourself as mixed or belonging to one of the ethnicities called by Nazis "inferior races". You only hold such views because you think you are a member of the so called "superior race". This is an obvious by-product of an inferirority complex. A complex just like the one Hitler himself had.

But don't worry: you can overcome it. But you must look at yourself as you are... without pretensions of any sort. Just a hairless monkey with oversize head like the rest of us. Only slightly different than any other human in the world... no matter their skin shade or other rather irrelevant small variations.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2006 at 12:33
I asked for and got a clarification of what this forums "rules" are so I have decided to delete my posts from the time Komnenos posted the post which started this all off, including this previous post.
There is nothing I can do about such overly harsh and ridiculous rules except to say that judgement day is coming (in the Christian sense, as I am supposed to be one.)


-------------
Life is about Love!


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2006 at 17:50
I never said we are all "equal" - I said that the meaningful differences are not skin deep (racial). As you may know there are people with all sort of problems indepedently of their skin tonality.

X can have a complex of inferiority independently of being white, black or blue... if he/she is white, specially pale white (blond), X may find consolation in such far-fetched racist theories as Nordicism. If he/she is Chinese, X may find consolation in sino-centric theories (of which I know little but I'm sure they exist). Of course X may find consolation in other things: not all X with a self-esteem problem must necessarily find their "solution" (a false solution always) in joining a racist or xenophobic band of hooligans with that sort of ideas. They may find other solutions - hopefully better ones, like developing his/her self-esteem without walking sticks...

You don't need those sticks: you can walk on your own...

Now to your points:

1/ The main reason that the typical Nazi fussion of Aryan (Indo-Europeans) and Nordics is in decay is because archaeology and other branches of investigation seem to prove clearly that they are not particularly related. In other words: original IEs, who lived in Kazakstan and SE Russia, were whatever but of Nordic type. They probably resembled modern Southern Russians or Kazaks, with some uncertainty implicit (for some time I thought they were Mongoloid or partially Mongoloid but now I'm not so sure).

Also because IEs (aka Aryans) have tended not to be very constructive but rather destructive. True that some Indoeuropeized peoples such as Greeks, Hittites or Iranians developed some advances of this or that kind. But it's also true that they were strongly influenced by non-IE peoples that were there before them and who also had made major developements. We don't know for sure what Minoan Cretans spoke but it wasn't Greek. And we know that where the Hittite Empire was created they used to speak Caucasic languages (Hatti and Hurrian). We know that Iranians fed of what Elamites and other less known pre-IE peoples had made before them, etc.

Also we know that Hittites, Greeks, Iranians, etc, were mostly descendant of the pre-IEs that were there before them and not of the elite of invaders that brought the language. There's more "racial" (biological, genetic) continuity than cultural or linguistic one. That a people starts speaking IE doesn't make them "racially Aryans".

Apart that we don't know for sure how were the prototypical IEs before they started expanding and getting mixed with their willing or (more probably) unwilling hosts.

But we know for sure that all IE-speaking peoples of today are mostly non-IEs in their genetic constitution.

Also we know that they were creating culture before IEs arrived. Notice that the first IE civilizations is not older than 2000 BCE in any case. While other linguistic groups were creating civilization since much earlier:
  • Sumerians since c. 5500
  • Pre-IE Aegean and Balcanic peoples since c. 3500 BCE (Troy, Varna civ.)
  • Afroasians and Dravidic speakers since c. 3300 BCE (Akkad, Egypt, Indus civ.)
  • Iberians/Atlanteans (Basque speakers?) since c. 2600 BCE (Los Millares, VNSP)
In comparison the first Western IE relevant city (Rome) can be considered civilization maybe c. 500 BCE - and thanks to Etruscan very intense apportation. Etruscans again are not IEs.

The first civilized stage of Germans can only be detected over the spoils of the Roman Empire in the 5th century and out of formerly Roman territory only much later.

True that Germanic peoples have been very active in the cultural, economic and political fields latey but only since Renaissance or so. The first clearly Germanic major power has been Britain and that hasn't happened before the 17th or rather 18th century.

So there are many reasons against both Aryanism and Nordicism and about the ilegitimate admixture of both racisms.

2/ Historical revisionism has been treated in other topics...

3/ I don't know what you mean by Eurafrican and Eurasiatic. There are just Euro people with no Asian or African significative connection since 30,000 BCE. In fact that is appliable to most Europeans.

But, of course, Europeans or Caucasoids are not the only creators of culture. All peoples are and, as discussed in other topics, China is one of the major global creators of culture ever (from paper to gunpowder, from compass to print...). Other centers of global culture have been India, the Near East (Egypt included) and Southern Europe.

Northern Europe, due to their isolation and other difficult to measure factors has remained relatively backwards all the time before the renaissance. But don't worry: it's not due to any racial defect of Nordics - it's just luck.

4/ We haven't had time to diverge but slightly and admixture has been active all the time. Famed geneticist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza suggested in 1996 that Caucasoids are an old hybrid of the two major human branches: Asians and Africans, in a 2-1 proportion. I suspect he's right.

...

Anyhow we are totally off topic. I hope Kom locks this, so we can move over to more productive matters. Sadly this is not a pedagogic reeductaion center for confused racist people.


-------------

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2006 at 06:18
Half-Truths which you are free to spread but sadly I'm not free to answer (judgement day is coming.) Komnenos does not need to lock it because I tried to end it above and here I give only moving-way answers, in fact I was one that said I did not want to diverge from Atlantis topic.
-Minoan has possibly been deciphered by Barry Fell, and Linus Brunner shows etymology to be close to I-E Hittite.
-Sumerian has been classified as part I-E by Myatt, Waddell, Hrozny, (Childe?)
-I think I have seen at least one source that connects Etruscan with Indo-European though most connect it with Ural-Altaic.
Eur-african is long-headed Caucasoids so includes your Basques, Mediterraneans, Nordics, Israelis.
Eur-asiatic is round-headed Caucasoids so includes Turanians, Alpines, Dinars, Baltics, Armenoids, Israelis.
End of this divergent discussion!


-------------
Life is about Love!



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net