ATLANTIS
Jiri Mruzek
Wayne B. Hewitt wrote:
>
> In article <6hqu62$3vh$1...@banani.complex.is>, fr...@complex.is (Fridrik
> Skulason) wrote:
>
> >In <3540E2...@e-mail.com> Bruno CABASSON
> <b.cabasso...@e-mail.com> writes:
> >
> >>After your 3 years study, what are the different possibilities for the
> >>location of Atlantis? I only know about 2:
> >
> >> . In the middle of the Altantic ocean
> >> . In the island of Santorin, greece.
> >
> >You forgot the third possibility:
> >
> > . Only in the mind of Plato.
> >
> >-frisk
>
> Plato himself claimed that this was a story handed down through his own
> family from his ancester Solon (the famous "lawgiver'.)
>
> Indeed, if we follow the trail of this story we see some thing like this:
>
> Plato's scribe <= Plato <= Plato's ancestors (including Critias the
> Younger) <= Critias thr Elder <= Dropides (a "very dear friend' and
> relative of Solon) <= Solon, 6th century BCE <= the priests of Säis in
> Lower Egypt <= Heiroglyphic Columns <= The source of the "Story" whatever
> it was on those columns.
>
Greeks were literate. Solon, especially, but also others
would be highly likely to have kept some written notes around,
too. You know, like diaries, etc.
> Each step of this transmission is subject to error and mistranslation,
> even assuming that the original story was correct before it was carved.
>
> There are many reasons to believe that Plato himself sincerely believed
> the story, as he claims it was a family tradition.
>
Yes, of course. As the founder of Idealism, Plato would not lie.
> There are few reasons to believe that the story was an outright fraud by
> Plato, but distant details and numbers have a way of becoming, well, a
> little "fuzzy." (9,000 years my royal Irish ass!)
>
But, sir, Plato like many other Greeks went to study at
the Sais temple in Egypt, where he became an initiate.
Was he not in an ideal position to verify Solon's story?
Furthermore, we have so much evidence today, indicating
the existence of Lost Science/civilisation, such as the Sphinx,
or my own discovery, or the recently discovered unwater
structures in Japan. Your boisterousness is unwarranted.
> There is of course a THIRD obvious possibility for Atlantis that may also
> explain why Plato stopped in mid-sentence:
>
Indeed. His mission was acomplished. The story had been told.
The search for Atlantis was on. This search would one day lead
to finding the secrets of the ancients.
Jiri Mruzek
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/5586/index.html
Doug Weller
On Fri, 01 May 1998 16:27:52 -0700, in sci.archaeology, Jiri Mruzek
wrote:
>Wayne B. Hewitt wrote:
>>
>> In article <6hqu62$3vh$1...@banani.complex.is>, fr...@complex.is (Fridrik
>> Skulason) wrote:
[SNIP]
>>
>> Plato himself claimed that this was a story handed down through his own
>> family from his ancester Solon (the famous "lawgiver'.)
Sorry? What was Plato's relationship to Critias? None so far as I know.
And Critias was telling a tale his great grandfather supposedly heard
from Solon. You sure Solon was Plato's ancestor? Source for this?
[SNIP]
>> There are many reasons to believe that Plato himself sincerely believed
>> the story, as he claims it was a family tradition.
>>
>Yes, of course. As the founder of Idealism, Plato would not lie.
Are you serious? You really think you can say with certainty what Plato
would do, and how he would define a lie and what he would call what we
call literary licence? How do you account for his dialogues which have
real people who are talking to each other -- but could never have taken
place as they didn't live at the same time?
Was Plato telling the truth then in the Georgias, when he tells a tale
about heaven and hell (first saying it's the truth).
Was he telling the truth about the afterlife in the Republic (he says he
is).
How about his 'true' stories of Antiquity in Laws?
etc.
>> There are few reasons to believe that the story was an outright fraud by
>> Plato, but distant details and numbers have a way of becoming, well, a
>> little "fuzzy." (9,000 years my royal Irish ass!)
Not a fraud. He was telling a story about Athens, and built in a nice
little piece about a made up place to help illustrate it. There's
another interesting alternative.
Peter James is convinced the Egyptians wouldn't have had such a story
(about another country). He thinks the story is about a city in Turkey.
See his summary of his book at
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/james/index.htm
He writes:
"The crux of the problem is the supposed Egyptian connection. The
ancient Egyptians took a dim view of foreigners and the idea that they
preserved a detailed tradition describing two remote civilizations -
Atlantis and its rival Athens - is highly improbable. Even more
far-fetched is the idea that the Egyptians, who took pride in being the
'oldest' civilization, could have recorded events which took place a
thousand years before their own beginnings.
Alternatively, is it possible that Plato was right that Solon
gathered the story on his travels, but mistaken in assuming that this
was during his famous visit to Egypt? Solon travelled elsewhere, notably
to the kingdom of Lydia in western Anatolia (Turkey). There, at the
court of king Croesus - proverbial for his riches, but historical
nonetheless - Solon is said to have swopped stories not only with the
king, but with the great fable-writer Aesop. "
I'm not sure how much I believe James, but it's a more likely
explanation than most of the others I've read!
Doug
Gisele
If Plato's information was incorrect about Atlantis, then why do I continue to
find information supporting it in Herodotus? In the following quote, Herodotus
wrote about a people who shaved their heads in the same manner as the Mohawk.
These people (the Macae), Herodotus wrote, lived next to the Garamantes whom
were next to those called the Atarantes and Atlantes.
"The neighboring seaboard to the west is the country of the Macae, who shave
their hair to a crest, leaving that on the top of their heads to grow and
shaving clean off what is on either side; in war they carry shields made of
ostrich skins. The Cinyps river empties into their sea through their country
from a hill called the Hill of the Graces. This hill is thickly wooded, while
the rest of Libya of which I have spoken is bare of trees; it is 25 miles from
the sea."
Herodotus also wrote that the area around the Cinyps River was the most fertile
in all of Libya.
"In my opinion, there is in no part of Libya any great excellence for which it
should be compared to Asia or Europe, except in the region which is called by
the same name as its river Cinyps. But this region is a match for the most
fertile farmland in the world, nor is it at all like to the rest of Libya. For
the soil is black and well-watered by springs, and has no fear of drought, nor
is it harmed by drinking excessive showers (there is rain in this part of
Libya). Its yield of grain is the same measure as in the land of Babylon. The
land inhabited by the Euhesperitae is also good; it yields at the most a
hundredfold; but the land of the Cinyps region yields three hundredfold."
I also notice that the names 'Euhesperitae' and 'Hesperides' seem similar,
phonetically (whatever that means).
I suggest that the people whom Herodotus called the Macae and the American
Mohawk had a common ancestor; each settling on either side of the Mediterranean
before the last 'flood' or time of Egyptian 4th dynasty.
Gisele
RL Mizsei
Atlantis did not exist full stop. Anyone that does believe in
Atlantis, as far as I am concerned has been reading pseudo-historic tripe,
probably written by people who are out to make a fast buck. Atlantis is in a
philosophic diologue - Plato is not and never was talking about a real place.
If you believe in Atlantis then I assume that you also believe in Moore's
Utopia. If he was talking about a real place and a real occurance then why is
there no other mentions of Atlantis by any other authors? If it was such a big
event then there would be memories of it in other works and in legend.
Neither of Plato's dialogues agree with each other anyway on the location of
Atlantis. One says that it is past the pillars of Heracles (the straights of
Gibralta) and the other says it was kind of near Greece (giving rise to
suggestions that it was the island of Thera which was destroyed by volcano
during the Bronze Age); please choose your location - it can't be both, can it?
There are also various clues that it is a philosophical argument
such as the prominance of circles (a perfect shape according to
philosophers) and perfect numbers such as nine and three. As a philosopher
why would Plato want to write a straight historical account anyway? He would
want to imbue it with philosophical meaning.
It is not a historical place, there is no evidence to support its existance
and it was written by a philosopher.
Meiz
A Ward
In soc.history.ancient Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
: If Plato's information was incorrect about Atlantis, then why do I continue to
: Gisele
Sorry, but can you reference these quotes please?
Off the top of my head I seem to recall that Heroditous makes it quite clear
that the Macae (the shaven headed ones) are the Egyptians. I think that
Herodious' next lines might have been on the lines of "how weird are the
Egyptians - or what" to paraphrase very heavily. Heroditous is very big on
how strage the Egyptians are (ie cleaning metal bowls and so on!). Its a
clear case of the shock of the "barbarian" being seen for the first time by a
"civilised" man.
It's also a huge stretch to suggest that the forefathers of the Mohawks and
the Egyptians are related due to a hair-style. It's on the order of suggesting
that an American and an Iraqi are the same because they happen to wear
similar miltary uniforms....
Adam Ward
Keele University
Staffordshire
Doug Weller
Repost as I think my memory may be bad about Plato's relationship with
Solon.
Doug Weller
On Sat, 02 May 1998 11:55:51 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
>If Plato's information was incorrect about Atlantis, then why do I continue to
>find information supporting it in Herodotus? In the following quote, Herodotus
>wrote about a people who shaved their heads in the same manner as the Mohawk.
Have I got this right? You think the Mohawk and whoever these people are
are related because they thousands of years after Herodotus's people
lived the Mohawks may have had a similar haircut? Are you really
claiming this hair style persisted for 12000 years, or however long ago
you think Atlantis existed?
Doug
Gisele
A Ward wrote:
> In soc.history.ancient Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
> : If Plato's information was incorrect about Atlantis, then why do I continue to
> : find information supporting it in Herodotus? In the following quote, Herodotus
> : wrote about a people who shaved their heads in the same manner as the Mohawk.
> : These people (the Macae), Herodotus wrote, lived next to the Garamantes whom
> : were next to those called the Atarantes and Atlantes.
>
> : "the neighboring seaboard to the west is the country of the Macae, who shave
> : their hair to a crest, leaving that on the top of their heads to grow and
> : shaving clean off what is on either side; in war they carry shields made of
> : ostrich skins. The Cinyps river empties into their sea through their country
> : from a hill called the Hill of the Graces. This hill is thickly wooded, while
> : the rest of Libya of which I have spoken is bare of trees; it is 25 miles from
> : the sea."
>
> : Herodotus also wrote that the area around the Cinyps River was the most fertile
> : in all of Libya.
>
> : "In my opinion, there is in no part of Libya any great excellence for which it
> : should be compared to Asia or Europe, except in the region which is called by
> : the same name as its river Cinyps. But this region is a match for the most
> : fertile farmland in the world, nor is it at all like to the rest of Libya. For
> : the soil is black and well-watered by springs, and has no fear of drought, nor
> : is it harmed by drinking excessive showers (there is rain in this part of
> : Libya). Its yield of grain is the same measure as in the land of Babylon. The
> : land inhabited by the Euhesperitae is also good; it yields at the most a
> : hundredfold; but the land of the Cinyps region yields three hundredfold."
>
> : I also notice that the names 'Euhesperitae' and 'Hesperides' seem similar,
> : phonetically (whatever that means).
>
> : I suggest that the people whom Herodotus called the Macae and the American
> : Mohawk had a common ancestor; each settling on either side of the Mediterranean
> : before the last 'flood' or time of Egyptian 4th dynasty.
>
> : Gisele
>
> Sorry, but can you reference these quotes please?
Sure. The first quote is from Herodotus 4.175 at the Perseus website:
http://hydra.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/text?lookup=hdt.+4.175.1&vers=english&browse=1
The second quote with regards to the fertility of the land near Cinyps and the
Eusperitae is at Herodotus 4.198 or:
http://hydra.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/text?lookup=Hdt.+4.198
> Off the top of my head I seem to recall that Heroditous makes it quite clear
> that the Macae (the shaven headed ones) are the Egyptians. I think that
> Herodious' next lines might have been on the lines of "how weird are the
> Egyptians - or what" to paraphrase very heavily. Heroditous is very big on
> how strage the Egyptians are (ie cleaning metal bowls and so on!). Its a
> clear case of the shock of the "barbarian" being seen for the first time by a
> "civilised" man.
>
> It's also a huge stretch to suggest that the forefathers of the Mohawks and
> the Egyptians are related due to a hair-style.
Perhaps ... but how many coincidences does a person require to take notice of the
fact that Plato really may have been relating a true story? If the continent of
Atlantis (when it was at it largest size) was between Spain and Florida, then finding
information with regards to it in the Iberian Peninsula and western Africa should be
expected. We find the Proto-Neanderthals in Spain and references to Atlantes,
Atarantes and Macae with 'Mohawks' in western Africa. Not only that - Herodotus also
added than it was the Libyans who were the first to have knowledge about Poseidon
which again, agrees with Poseidon's connections with Atlantis:
"...except the names of Poseidon and the Dioscuri, as I have already said, and Hera,
and Hestia, and Themis and the Graces and the Nereids, the names of all the gods have
always existed in Egypt. I only say what the Egyptians themselves say. The gods
whose names they say they do not know were, as I think, named by the Pelasgians,
except Poseidon, the knowledge of whom they learned from the Libyans. Alone of all
nations the Libyans have had among them the name of Poseidon from the beginning, and
they have always honored this god. The Egyptians, however, are not accustomed to pay
any honors to heroes."
http://hydra.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/text?lookup=hdt.+2.50.2&word=poseidon
So, according to Herodotus, Poseidon wasn't a Greek invention.
Further, the geneologies of most of the innovators described by the Greek writers
trace back to Poseidon. I could gather information supporting this if there was any
interest. My personal view is that when the Greeks wrote 'son of Poseidon', they
either meant 'follower' of Poseidon as one might say 'son of Light' or 'son of
Darkness' or that the name 'Poseidon' was used as an analogy for innovation as in
'son of Innovation'.
Gisele
Gisele
Doug Weller wrote:
> On Sat, 02 May 1998 11:55:51 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
>
> >If Plato's information was incorrect about Atlantis, then why do I continue to
> >find information supporting it in Herodotus? In the following quote, Herodotus
> >wrote about a people who shaved their heads in the same manner as the Mohawk.
>
> Have I got this right? You think the Mohawk and whoever these people are
> are related because they thousands of years after Herodotus's people
> lived the Mohawks may have had a similar haircut? Are you really
> claiming this hair style persisted for 12000 years, or however long ago
> you think Atlantis existed?
I'm sure that you do not require examples of cultures that remained static for
thousands of years. It's certainly not difficult to find parallel situations
elsewhere.
Gisele
Doug Weller
I'm afraid I do require not just examples, but some evidence that there
was a group with such a haircut even 1000 years ago in North America.
Doug
Brian M. Scott
On Sat, 02 May 1998 14:59:05 -0600, Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
>Perhaps ... but how many coincidences does a person require to take notice of the
>fact that Plato really may have been relating a true story?
We know that he wasn't. Your 'coincidences' - hair styles, forsooth!
- are of no significance beside the scientific impossibilities. You
might also search DejaNews for Mikael A. Thompson's fairly recent
comments on the subject; they show exactly why it's foolish to take
Plato seriously here.
> If the continent of
>Atlantis (when it was at it largest size) was between Spain and Florida,
You can stop right there: the geological evidence is perfectly clear
that no such continent existed.
Brian M. Scott
Gisele
Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 02 May 1998 14:59:05 -0600, Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps ... but how many coincidences does a person require to take notice of the
> >fact that Plato really may have been relating a true story?
>
> We know that he wasn't. Your 'coincidences' - hair styles, forsooth!
> - are of no significance beside the scientific impossibilities. You
> might also search DejaNews for Mikael A. Thompson's fairly recent
> comments on the subject; they show exactly why it's foolish to take
> Plato seriously here.
Obviously, I've read a great deal more on the subject of Atlantis than Mr. Thompson.
> > If the continent of
> >Atlantis (when it was at it largest size) was between Spain and Florida,
>
> You can stop right there: the geological evidence is perfectly clear
> that no such continent existed.
Yeah, yeah, I've heard it all before but I don't blindly believe everything I'm
told. Tell me something useful that I can check out. The ocean bottom 50,000 years
ago is not one of them.
Gisele
Doug Weller
On Sun, 03 May 1998 04:09:40 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
>
>
>Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 May 1998 14:59:05 -0600, Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Perhaps ... but how many coincidences does a person require to take notice of the
>> >fact that Plato really may have been relating a true story?
>>
>> We know that he wasn't. Your 'coincidences' - hair styles, forsooth!
>> - are of no significance beside the scientific impossibilities. You
>> might also search DejaNews for Mikael A. Thompson's fairly recent
>> comments on the subject; they show exactly why it's foolish to take
>> Plato seriously here.
>
>Obviously, I've read a great deal more on the subject of Atlantis than Mr. Thompson.
I see. If you've read more on a subject than someone else, your
knowledge must be better. So if you've read all of 'Doc' Smith's
novels, you know more about outer space than someone who's read one book
on astronomy. Sure.
>
>> > If the continent of
>> >Atlantis (when it was at it largest size) was between Spain and Florida,
>>
>> You can stop right there: the geological evidence is perfectly clear
>> that no such continent existed.
>
>Yeah, yeah, I've heard it all before but I don't blindly believe everything I'm
>told. Tell me something useful that I can check out. The ocean bottom 50,000 years
>ago is not one of them.
You only believe what you want to believe. And your dates keep running
around. 50 000 years now? In any case, it isn't the ocean bottom 50 000
years ago we are talking about, it's the ocean bottom today. But then
you think Cayce more authoritative than any geologist. It's as hard
discussing things with you as it is a Creationist. You've got the same
unshakeable faith.
Doug
Doug
Wayne B. Hewitt
>Obviously, I've read a great deal more on the subject of Atlantis than
Mr. Thompson.
>
Unfortunately, most of what has been written about 'Atlantis' is Crap. The
only source of any value at all is Plato himself, and even he admits he
got the story sixth-hand. Why this obsession with beliveing that Plato,
wittingly or unwittingly, willingly or unwillingly got the time and space
dimensions absolutely right? No wonder Aristotle thought he made the whole
thing up.
>>> If the continent of Atlantis (when it was at it largest size) was
between >>> Spain and Florida, ...
>>
>> You can stop right there: the geological evidence is perfectly clear
>> that no such continent existed.
>
>Yeah, yeah, I've heard it all before but I don't blindly believe
everything >I'm told. Tell me something useful that I can check out. The
ocean bottom >50,000 years ago is not one of them.
>
>Gisele
IF : you actually believe in an 'Atlantis' in the Atlantic,
THEN: the Ocean bottom would only be 11,000 years old.
THEN: there would be continental rock at the bottom of the Atlantic.
YOU may not have been able to check out the bottom of the Atlantic, but
hundreds of other reserchers have. There is simply no 'Lost Continent'
there.
I suggest that Plato slipped a Greek 'decimal point.' Allowing ONLY THAT,
Plato makes a little more sense:
Bronze Age Greeks fight a war with a city-state situated on an 'Insula' or
perhaps a 'Penninsula'. The city guards the narrow straits to a large,
dark or perhaps 'black' sea. Both the city and the Greek states are
destroyed by earthquakes and floods.
Plato said that his ancestor Solon picked up this story in Egypt, and they
told him the story was "9,000 years old". Sure they did, why not? The
point that Plato was trying to make was that if it happened 1,000 years
before the beginning of Egyptian records, then certainly the Greeks would
have no memory of the 'Event.' Making the city and state of Atlantis huge
is just a story teller's exageration. Strands of other histories, such as
that of Minoan Crete, and Thera have obviously been woven in, as the
ancient hero Ajax was woven into the Iliad.
--
_B_a_r_b_a_r_o_s_s_a_ ;^{>
Encinitas, California
X-Face by "Saving Face" <http://www.santafe.edu/~smfr/utils.html>
Brian M. Scott
On Sun, 03 May 1998 04:09:40 -0600, Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
>Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 May 1998 14:59:05 -0600, Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
>> >Perhaps ... but how many coincidences does a person require to take notice of the
>> >fact that Plato really may have been relating a true story?
>> We know that he wasn't. Your 'coincidences' - hair styles, forsooth!
>> - are of no significance beside the scientific impossibilities. You
>> might also search DejaNews for Mikael A. Thompson's fairly recent
>> comments on the subject; they show exactly why it's foolish to take
>> Plato seriously here.
>Obviously, I've read a great deal more on the subject of Atlantis than Mr. Thompson.
Irrelevant; it's his knowledge of Plato that's at issue.
>> > If the continent of
>> >Atlantis (when it was at it largest size) was between Spain and Florida,
>> You can stop right there: the geological evidence is perfectly clear
>> that no such continent existed.
>Yeah, yeah, I've heard it all before but I don't blindly believe everything I'm
>told.
This is true. You blindly believe anything that fits with your
established beliefs, and you blindly reject whatever doesn't. You
have shown absolutely no ability to evaluate evidence. You have
admitted that you would rather remain ignorant than risk having your
ideas contaminated by exposure to contrary evidence. Why you waste
your time here (sci.archaeology) is beyond me: your beliefs are
clearly a matter of faith, not reason.
Brian M. Scott
Gisele
Wayne B. Hewitt wrote:
> In article <354C4264...@oanet.com>, Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
>
> >Obviously, I've read a great deal more on the subject of Atlantis than
> Mr. Thompson.
> >
>
> Unfortunately, most of what has been written about 'Atlantis' is Crap. The
> only source of any value at all is Plato himself, and even he admits he
> got the story sixth-hand. Why this obsession with beliveing that Plato,
> wittingly or unwittingly, willingly or unwillingly got the time and space
> dimensions absolutely right?
This last statement betrays the fact that you are not even familiar with Plato's
actual words. Herodotus' dates are consistant with Plato's. Hesiod's 5 Races
of man are consistant with Plato's description of multiple deluges. Ancient
Greek scripts are consistant with Plato's description of the Greeks 'losing
their letters'. The populated America's are consistant with Plato's mention of
colonies on the other side of Atlantis. etc. etc.
> No wonder Aristotle thought he made the whole
> thing up.
>
> >>> If the continent of Atlantis (when it was at it largest size) was
> between >>> Spain and Florida, ...
> >>
> >> You can stop right there: the geological evidence is perfectly clear
> >> that no such continent existed.
> >
> >Yeah, yeah, I've heard it all before but I don't blindly believe
> everything >I'm told. Tell me something useful that I can check out. The
> ocean bottom >50,000 years ago is not one of them.
> >
> >Gisele
>
> IF : you actually believe in an 'Atlantis' in the Atlantic,
>
> THEN: the Ocean bottom would only be 11,000 years old.
> THEN: there would be continental rock at the bottom of the Atlantic.
You would have to know where to look....
> YOU may not have been able to check out the bottom of the Atlantic, but
> hundreds of other reserchers have. There is simply no 'Lost Continent'
> there.
I don't think it's a simple as you make it out to be.
> I suggest that Plato slipped a Greek 'decimal point.' Allowing ONLY THAT,
> Plato makes a little more sense:
Read Plato's own words and you will realize that this cannot be explained away
as an error in decimal points.
http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/Atlantis/timaeus_and_critias.html
Gisele
Gisele
Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Sun, 03 May 1998 04:09:40 -0600, Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
>
> >Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 02 May 1998 14:59:05 -0600, Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Perhaps ... but how many coincidences does a person require to take notice of the
> >> >fact that Plato really may have been relating a true story?
>
> >> We know that he wasn't. Your 'coincidences' - hair styles, forsooth!
> >> - are of no significance beside the scientific impossibilities. You
> >> might also search DejaNews for Mikael A. Thompson's fairly recent
> >> comments on the subject; they show exactly why it's foolish to take
> >> Plato seriously here.
>
> >Obviously, I've read a great deal more on the subject of Atlantis than Mr. Thompson.
>
> Irrelevant; it's his knowledge of Plato that's at issue.
It's not irrelevant to determine how Plato's information measured up with other
independent sources of information and anticipating the next statement I repeat -
independent. You can not make a judgement call on this without reviewing all the
information.
> >> > If the continent of
> >> >Atlantis (when it was at it largest size) was between Spain and Florida,
>
> >> You can stop right there: the geological evidence is perfectly clear
> >> that no such continent existed.
>
> >Yeah, yeah, I've heard it all before but I don't blindly believe everything I'm
> >told.
>
> This is true. You blindly believe anything that fits with your
> established beliefs, and you blindly reject whatever doesn't.
The key word here is 'fits'. If you're satisfied with millions of bits of information
about ancient history of which a great deal does not fit together then that's your
perogative. I, however, know that when the truth is known that these millions of bits of
information *will* fit together.
> You
> have shown absolutely no ability to evaluate evidence.
I can recognize a contradiction when I see one.
> You have
> admitted that you would rather remain ignorant than risk having your
> ideas contaminated by exposure to contrary evidence.
C14 journals are hardly evidence.
> Why you waste
> your time here (sci.archaeology) is beyond me: your beliefs are
> clearly a matter of faith, not reason.
My beliefs are neither etched in stone nor dependent upon any prominent archaeologist's
current views. Can you say the same?
Gisele
Gisele
Doug Weller wrote:
No eye-witness accounts available at this time. Therefore, I guess the information
will have to stand until we can find something to the contrary.
It is possible that earliest Mohawk haircuts were not made by shaving but by scalding
the scalp to prevent hair growth. This unusual pre-treatment of scalding children's
heads was mentioned by Herodotus albeit for a different reason:
[4.187.1] But west of Tritonian lake the Libyans are not nomads; they do not follow
the same customs, or treat their children as the nomads to. For the practice of many
Libyan nomads (I cannot say absolutely whether it is the practice of all) is to take
their children when four years old, and to burn the veins of their scalps or sometimes
of their temples with grease of sheep's wool, so that the children may never afterward
be afflicted by phlegm draining from the head."
Since the Macae were not nomads, then it stands to reason that they found a more
painless way of hair removal. The reason, for the hair-removal was for hygenic
reasons. (I found this reason mentioned by a person of Iroquian heritage and alluded
to by Herodotus).
Now, how about those horse-racing chariots depicted in rock art of the Sahara? Didn't
Plato write something about a horse-racing track on Atlantis?
From Brian Fagan, "The linear distribution across the central and western Sahara of
rock-paintings and engravings depicting horse-drawn chariots led some scholars to
propose chariot routes linking North and West Africa perhaps as early as the second
millenium BC" [near GP construction time again] Brian further added that the scholars
realized they were mistaken and that "The chariots, therefore, had nothing to do with
long distance trade". (Page 750)
I haven't read a great deal about North or West Africa, yet, but a picture of some
Platonian 'Atlantean' elements are beginning to develop. We have a people, here,
called 'Atlantes' living around the Atlas mountain, Herodotus believed this location to
be the source of 'information' about Poseidon, racing chariots ....
Gisele
RL Mizsei
In soc.history.ancient Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
: So, according to Herodotus, Poseidon wasn't a Greek invention.
: Gisele
Poseidon's name appears in some of the Linear B tablets found on the
Greek mainland. This suggests that a god called Poseidon was believed in at
around 1200 BC. This suggests that the god named poseiden (but not
neccessarily fulfiling the same function or with the same atributes as the
classical Greek Poseidon) existed before the time that various learned ancient
historians have suggested that influences from Anatolia altered Greek
religion. Herodotus may have thought that Posiedon was not a greek invention
- but it does not mean that he is correct and an authority on the history of
religion in the Aegean.
Meiz
RL Mizsei
In soc.history.ancient Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
: My beliefs are neither etched in stone nor dependent upon any prominent archaeologist's
: current views. Can you say the same?
: Gisele
Prominent archaeologists are more likely to be right than you are. You are
giving anyone who claims to be an ancient historian a bad name by believing
in a story. If you want to prove to me that the Atlantis story is true then
find a peice of evidence that is more solid than some sections from
Herodotus - something like a stone that says "Atlantis is here" and I might
beleive you. Frankly you sound like some of the archaeologists who excavated
Troy and tried to turn one body and one arrowhead on an appropriate layer
into the Trojan War. My beliefs on Ancient History are based on solid
evidence and I try to take anything that is a written source with a pinch of
salt. Writers can be biased and they can make things up.
Meiz
Doug Weller
On Sun, 03 May 1998 23:38:27 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
>
>This last statement betrays the fact that you are not even familiar with Plato's
>actual words. Herodotus' dates are consistant with Plato's.
Even if true, so what. Herodotus read Plato.
How about proving that Plato was right about Athens? Or is that bit
irrelevant to you?
Doug
Doug Weller
On Mon, 04 May 1998 01:39:38 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
>
>
>Doug Weller wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 May 1998 15:06:08 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
>>
[SNIP]
>>
>> I'm afraid I do require not just examples, but some evidence that there
>> was a group with such a haircut even 1000 years ago in North America.
>
>No eye-witness accounts available at this time. Therefore, I guess the information
>will have to stand until we can find something to the contrary.
What information? Where have you found information about Mohawks 1000
years ago?
[SNIP]
>Now, how about those horse-racing chariots depicted in rock art of the Sahara? Didn't
>Plato write something about a horse-racing track on Atlantis?
So? People raced horses, gambled, ate, etc. in lots of places.
[SNIP]
Doug
Doug Weller
On 4 May 1998 09:01:34 GMT, in sci.archaeology, RL Mizsei wrote:
[SNIP]
> Frankly you sound like some of the archaeologists who excavated
>Troy and tried to turn one body and one arrowhead on an appropriate layer
>into the Trojan War.
Finally a post on excavating Troy that isn't the equivalent of an urban
myth! Thanks.
Doug
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>On Sun, 03 May 1998 23:38:27 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
>
>>
>>This last statement betrays the fact that you are not even familiar with Plato's
>>actual words. Herodotus' dates are consistant with Plato's.
>
>Even if true, so what. Herodotus read Plato.
Or rather, Plato (b. 428 BC) read Herodotus (d. 430 BC).
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
m...@wxs.nl |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Gisele
Doug Weller wrote:
> On Sun, 03 May 1998 04:09:40 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Brian M. Scott wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 02 May 1998 14:59:05 -0600, Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Perhaps ... but how many coincidences does a person require to take notice of the
> >> >fact that Plato really may have been relating a true story?
> >>
> >> We know that he wasn't. Your 'coincidences' - hair styles, forsooth!
> >> - are of no significance beside the scientific impossibilities. You
> >> might also search DejaNews for Mikael A. Thompson's fairly recent
> >> comments on the subject; they show exactly why it's foolish to take
> >> Plato seriously here.
> >
> >Obviously, I've read a great deal more on the subject of Atlantis than Mr. Thompson.
>
> I see. If you've read more on a subject than someone else, your
> knowledge must be better. So if you've read all of 'Doc' Smith's
> novels, you know more about outer space than someone who's read one book
> on astronomy. Sure.
I'll ignore that comment because it is totally unfair and judgemental.
> >> > If the continent of
> >> >Atlantis (when it was at it largest size) was between Spain and Florida,
> >>
> >> You can stop right there: the geological evidence is perfectly clear
> >> that no such continent existed.
> >
> >Yeah, yeah, I've heard it all before but I don't blindly believe everything I'm
> >told. Tell me something useful that I can check out. The ocean bottom 50,000 years
> >ago is not one of them.
>
> You only believe what you want to believe. And your dates keep running
> around. 50 000 years now?
The continent of Atlantis is said to have broken up into islands 52,000 years ago, some
island were submerged 28,000 BC and the last and most technologically advanced island,
Poseidia, was submerged 10 or 11 thousand BC.
Converting the dates to those that may agree more with current C14 dates, these could be
17,000 BC, 11,000 BC and 2600 BC.
> In any case, it isn't the ocean bottom 50 000
> years ago we are talking about, it's the ocean bottom today. But then
> you think Cayce more authoritative than any geologist. It's as hard
> discussing things with you as it is a Creationist. You've got the same
> unshakeable faith.
If you haven't personally investigated the Atlantic Ocean bottom then, like it or not,
you have just as much unshakeable faith. It is the wealth of other information which is
available (archaeological, linguistical, etc.) which will determine who is right and who
is wrong.
Gisele
Chris Camfield
>On Sun, 03 May 1998 23:38:27 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
>
>>
>>This last statement betrays the fact that you are not even familiar with Plato's
>>actual words. Herodotus' dates are consistant with Plato's.
>
>Even if true, so what. Herodotus read Plato.
I presume you mean the other way around...
CJC
Doug Weller
On Mon, 04 May 1998 11:42:22 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Miguel Carrasquer
Vidal wrote:
>On Mon, 04 May 1998 11:35:39 GMT, dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug
>Weller) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 May 1998 23:38:27 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>This last statement betrays the fact that you are not even familiar with Plato's
>>>actual words. Herodotus' dates are consistant with Plato's.
>>
>>Even if true, so what. Herodotus read Plato.
>
>Or rather, Plato (b. 428 BC) read Herodotus (d. 430 BC).
Blush. Here's my faulty memory having put him in the 3rd century, ah
well. Herodotus doesn't mention Atlantis, in any case, nor does Plato
cite Herodotus as a source for it.
Doug
J.R. Pelmont
Oh dear ! Atlantis again !
Can someone summarize :
1) the scientific evidence (other than Plato) for its existence ? Is it
a matter of faith or what ?
2) where it is exactly supposed to have been ?
--
J. Pelmont, Biochimie
Univ. Grenoble I
J.R. Pelmont
A Ward <u6...@keele.ac.uk> wrote:
>.......
> It's also a huge stretch to suggest that the forefathers of the Mohawks and
> that an American and an Iraqi are the same because they happen to wear
> similar miltary uniforms....
Agreeing. How could some people use such childish hair-style arguments
in this ng ? We should keep an open mind, but sometimes the cup is full
! :-<<
--
J. Pelmont
Univ. Grenoble I
joshua geller
> : So, according to Herodotus, Poseidon wasn't a Greek invention.
> Poseidon's name appears in some of the Linear B tablets found on the
> Greek mainland. This suggests that a god called Poseidon was believed in at
> around 1200 BC.
'worshipped' or 'used'; not 'believed in'.
the paradigm of making a coherent picture of the universe which is
then accepted as the true picture of the universe is actually of
fairly recent origin, at least in this cycle.
my best,
josh
Doug Weller
On Mon, 04 May 1998 02:05:45 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
>
>
>Doug Weller wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 May 1998 04:09:40 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
>>
>> >
[SNIP]
>> >
>> >Obviously, I've read a great deal more on the subject of Atlantis than Mr. Thompson.
>>
>> I see. If you've read more on a subject than someone else, your
>> knowledge must be better. So if you've read all of 'Doc' Smith's
>> novels, you know more about outer space than someone who's read one book
>> on astronomy. Sure.
>
>I'll ignore that comment because it is totally unfair and judgemental.
The point is that it is not the amount you have read, it's the quality.
It's fair, certainly judgemental.
[SNIP]
>>
>> You only believe what you want to believe. And your dates keep running
>> around. 50 000 years now?
>
>The continent of Atlantis is said to have broken up into islands 52,000 years ago, some
>island were submerged 28,000 BC and the last and most technologically advanced island,
>Poseidia, was submerged 10 or 11 thousand BC.
And these dates were obtained by Cayce's channeling, right?
[SNIP]
>> In any case, it isn't the ocean bottom 50 000
>> years ago we are talking about, it's the ocean bottom today. But then
>> you think Cayce more authoritative than any geologist. It's as hard
>> discussing things with you as it is a Creationist. You've got the same
>> unshakeable faith.
>
>If you haven't personally investigated the Atlantic Ocean bottom then, like it or not,
>you have just as much unshakeable faith. It is the wealth of other information which is
>available (archaeological, linguistical, etc.) which will determine who is right and who
>is wrong.
So we can dismiss Cayce then. Fine. But I don't have to investigate the
ocean bottom myself. Having confidence in scientific work doesn't
require me to get a PhD in every subject and repeat the work myself.
Doug
Wayne B. Hewitt
In article <354D5452...@oanet.com>, Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
>Wayne B. Hewitt wrote:
>> ... Why this obsession with beliveing that Plato,
>> ... got the time and space dimensions absolutely right?
>
>This last statement betrays the fact that you are not
>even familiar with Plato's actual words.
One shouldn't make throw-away accusations like that. I have the text here
on my desk: Timaeus 23E
"And the duration of our civilization as set down in our sacred
writings is 8000 years. Of the citizens, then, who lived 9000 years ago, I
will declare to you briefly ..."
So, Plato says that his ancestor Critias says that his ancestor Solon says
that the Priest of Säis says that the Heiroglyphs say &c., &c.
And you believe this Dragoman tale is accurate?
>Herodotus' dates are consistant with Plato's. Hesiod's 5 Races
>of man are consistant with Plato's description of multiple deluges.
To which Plato himself replies, Timaeus 23B:
"Certainly the genealogies which you related just now, Solon, are
little better than childrens tales; ..."
>Ancient Greek scripts are consistant with Plato's description of the
>Greeks 'losing their letters'.
No one here has denied the fall of Troy, Knossos, and the Mycenean states,
along with their writings, scripts, and histories. Indeed, my whole point
is that Plato's tale ONLY makes sense if one discards the inflated dates.
>The populated America's are consistant with Plato's mention
>of colonies on the other side of Atlantis. etc. etc.
It might be consistant IF the date was correct, which is impossible, AND
IF the location in the Atlantic were correct, which is also impossible,
and if the native Americans were not related to Siberian Asians.
>> IF : you actually believe in an 'Atlantis' in the Atlantic,
>>
>> THEN: the Ocean bottom would only be 11,000 years old.
>> THEN: there would be continental rock at the bottom of the Atlantic.
>
>You would have to know where to look....
>
>> YOU may not have been able to check out the bottom of the
>> Atlantic, but hundreds of other reserchers have. There is
>> simply no 'Lost Continent' there.
>
>I don't think it's a simple as you make it out to be.
At least you are correct in that: it's not simple. Oceanographic research
over the last 150 years has compiled quite a stack of documented,
provable, reproducable data about the bottom of the Atlantic, not to
mention the intensive mapping done by the navies of both the U.S. and the
U.S.S.R during the Cold War. There is no 'Atlantis' in the Atlantic.
>> I suggest that Plato slipped a Greek 'decimal point.'
>> Allowing ONLY THAT, Plato makes a little more sense.
>
>Read Plato's own words and you will realize that this cannot
>be explained away as an error in decimal points.
Of course. And when Plato realized that:
1) He'd been taken in by the story, or,
2) No one was going to be taken in by HIS story,
he stopped the story in mid-sentence.
>
>http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/Atlantis/timaeus_and_critias.html
>
>Gisele
The question becomes, Gisele, why do you REALLY want to believe seven
impossible things before breakfast?
Brian M. Scott
Gisele wrote:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
> > On Sun, 03 May 1998 04:09:40 -0600, Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
> > >Brian M. Scott wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 02 May 1998 14:59:05 -0600, Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
> > >> >Perhaps ... but how many coincidences does a person require to take notice of the
> > >> >fact that Plato really may have been relating a true story?
> > >> We know that he wasn't. Your 'coincidences' - hair styles, forsooth!
> > >> - are of no significance beside the scientific impossibilities. You
> > >> might also search DejaNews for Mikael A. Thompson's fairly recent
> > >> comments on the subject; they show exactly why it's foolish to take
> > >> Plato seriously here.
> > >Obviously, I've read a great deal more on the subject of Atlantis than Mr. Thompson.
> > Irrelevant; it's his knowledge of Plato that's at issue.
> It's not irrelevant to determine how Plato's information measured up with other
> independent sources of information and anticipating the next statement I repeat -
> independent.
Indeed. The problem is that the only demonstrably INDEPENDENT sources
contradict Plato.
> > This is true. You blindly believe anything that fits with your
> > established beliefs, and you blindly reject whatever doesn't.
>
> The key word here is 'fits'. If you're satisfied with millions of bits of information
> about ancient history of which a great deal does not fit together then that's your
> perogative. I, however, know that when the truth is known that these millions of bits of
> information *will* fit together.
You're off to a lousy start, then: you insist on throwing out most of
the real information that's available.
> > You
> > have shown absolutely no ability to evaluate evidence.
> I can recognize a contradiction when I see one.
Yes; and then you choose to resolve it in the least probable fashion.
As I said, you've shown absolutely no ability to evaluate evidence.
> > You have
> > admitted that you would rather remain ignorant than risk having your
> > ideas contaminated by exposure to contrary evidence.
> C14 journals are hardly evidence.
Convicted out of your own keyboard. They are far more trustworthy than
fairy tales composed over 2000 years ago. At the very least they are
evidence - which, as you pointed out earlier, must be considered.
Again, HOW are you going to fit all of the pieces together when you
ignore the ones that you don't like? Remember, those who disagree with
you can explain clearly what's wrong with your evidence. In order to
turn the tables on them, you would have to understand theirs, which you
are unwilling to do.
> > Why you waste
> > your time here (sci.archaeology) is beyond me: your beliefs are
> > clearly a matter of faith, not reason.
>
> My beliefs are neither etched in stone nor dependent upon any prominent archaeologist's
> current views.
You appear to be completely ignorant of science. Your views may not be
etched in stone, but you appear to have no intention of modifying them
on the basis of scientific evidence. Thus, they are not subject to the
dictates of reason. Your whole approach is fundamentally irrational.
> Can you say the same?
Of course. Since I am not an archaeologist, however, I certainly rely
on the views of those who are. When they disagree, either I go with
what seems to me the preponderance of the evidence, or I simply reserve
judgement. What else would any sane person do?!
Brian M. Scott
Fridrik Skulason
>The continent of Atlantis is said to have broken up into islands 52,000 years ago, some
>island were submerged 28,000 BC and the last and most technologically advanced island,
>Poseidia, was submerged 10 or 11 thousand BC.
"said to have..." ? Those are the numbers Edgar Cayce gave, right ? Why
on earth should anyone take them seriously ? Considering how spectacularly
wrong he has been - in the sense that his predictions for events that were
supposed to take place the past few decades have utterly failed to come true -
why on earth should anyone have the slightest reason to belive that he was
any more correct in his fantasies regarding the past ?
>Converting the dates to those that may agree more with current C14 dates, these could be
>17,000 BC, 11,000 BC and 2600 BC.
And pardon me, but what is the justification for "converting" the dates
that way ?
--
Fridrik Skulason Frisk Software International phone: +354-5-617273
Author of F-PROT E-mail: fr...@complex.is fax: +354-5-617274
Gabriel
Gisele wrote:
>
> If Plato's information was incorrect about Atlantis, then why do I continue to
> find information supporting it in Herodotus? In the following quote, Herodotus
> wrote about a people who shaved their heads in the same manner as the Mohawk.
> were next to those called the Atarantes and Atlantes.
>
> "The neighboring seaboard to the west is the country of the Macae, who shave
> their hair to a crest, leaving that on the top of their heads to grow and
> shaving clean off what is on either side; in war they carry shields made of
> ostrich skins. The Cinyps river empties into their sea through their country
> from a hill called the Hill of the Graces. This hill is thickly wooded, while
> the rest of Libya of which I have spoken is bare of trees; it is 25 miles from
> the sea."
>
I shave my head in a mohawk. Oh, I must be a descendant of the indians
and therefore also the ATLANTEANS. I had a great laugh when I read that,
but come on , a hairstyle makes you related.
keep dreaming.
G
Gabriel
Gisele wrote:
>
> The continent of Atlantis is said to have broken up into islands 52,000 years ago, some
> island were submerged 28,000 BC and the last and most technologically advanced island,
> Poseidia, was submerged 10 or 11 thousand BC.
>
> 17,000 BC, 11,000 BC and 2600 BC.
>
Gisele,
where the hell are you pulling these dates from? your butt? The ONLY
place Atlantis is EVER mentioned is in Platos works. There are NO dates
like the ones you are pulling out.
G
Gabriel
Gisele wrote:
> > IF : you actually believe in an 'Atlantis' in the Atlantic,
> >
> > THEN: the Ocean bottom would only be 11,000 years old.
> > THEN: there would be continental rock at the bottom of the Atlantic.
>
> You would have to know where to look....
Bollocks, if a 'continent' sank there, then there will be ample evidence
of it all over the atlantic. As it is there is none.
>
> > YOU may not have been able to check out the bottom of the Atlantic, but
> > hundreds of other reserchers have. There is simply no 'Lost Continent'
> > there.
>
> I don't think it's a simple as you make it out to be.
>
What is so hard to understand , people have searched it and mapped it
out, check some of the national geographic maps of the ocean floor. oh
wait, you probably think there is some conspiracyu with them and that
they are keeping info for their own gain...
G
Steve Whittet
In article <354E9C...@spam.sucks.iprolink.co.nz>, you say...
>
>Gisele wrote:
>>
>> If Plato's information was incorrect about Atlantis,
>> then why do I continue to find information supporting
>> it in Herodotus? In the following quote, Herodotus
>> wrote about a people who shaved their heads in the same
>> manner as the Mohawk. These people (the Macae), Herodotus
>> wrote, lived next to the Garamantes whom were next to those
>> called the Atarantes and Atlantes.
>>
>> "The neighboring seaboard to the west
>> is the country of the Macae, who shave
>> their hair to a crest, leaving that on
>> the top of their heads to grow and shaving
>> clean off what is on either side; in war
>> they carry shields made of ostrich skins.
>> The Cinyps river empties into their sea through
>> their country from a hill called the Hill of the Graces.
>> This hill is thickly wooded, while the rest of Libya of
>> which I have spoken is bare of trees; it is 25 miles from the sea."
Hi Gisele, Gabriel,
The story of Atlantis is the story of two sea peoples. People
first begin making their livelyhoods in the 3rd millenium BC.
Any dates prior to that are most probably mistranslated or
confused. The sea people include peoples like the Mycenean
Greeks, and Minoans who were known to the Egyptians by tribal
names.
Among the better known are those recorded by the Egyptians who
observed them setting up bases at Cyrene in North Africa, Crete,
Palestine and the Coast of Anatolia as early as the Hyksos period.
These were the Shardanae, Weshesh, Tjeker, Peleset, Lukka, Kretanoi,
and Danoi.
The Peleset are recorded on the Phaistoes Disk dated c 1700 BC
as having the Mohawk haircuts you describe. These are similar to
the feathered crowns of the later Phillistines and Phoenicians.
C 1200 BC the Sea peoples begin to become noticed by the Egyptians
as a serious threat. They both fight against them and use them as
mercenaries. At the same time the Phoenicians are emerging in
Sideon, Byblos and Tyre, and the Hittites begin to have problems
with sea peoples in Anatolia.
In Biblical times the Israelites mention with envy the rich
trade of the Tyrians whose ships of Tarshish trade everywhere
and bring back exotic luxuries, purple cloth, gems, gold, pearls
ebony, ivory, frankincense and myhr. They have a monopoly on metals
Plato's Atlantis story uses an actual historical event, the
circumnavigation of Africa by a fleet of Phoenicians sailing
for the Egyptian Pharoah Neco 1 c 600 BC.
At this time the Punics controlled the seas. Because their ships of
Tarshish sailed in the Persian Gulf, The Gulf of Aden, The Indian Ocean,
the Red Sea,the Mediterranean and the rivers which emptied into them,
they were considered to be knowledgable about the ends of the earth.
This voyage has them leave the Red Sea sail around Africa and
renter the Mediterranean through the Pillars of Hercules.
Even as their rivals the Greeks by conquering Troy had gained
control of the Black Sea, along with the Aegean, the Tyrenian Sea
and the rivers which emptied into them the Phoenicians were building
an ocean empire larger than Libya and Asia combined by virtue of
the reason that the oceans surround the land.
Immediately after this voyage the Punics begin establishing bases
on the Atlantic expanding outward from around the Pillars of Hercules
and the Atlas mountains. At Gades in Iberia, on the Canary Islands,
the Cadmium islands in the English Channel, the Azores and throughout
Sicily, Sardinia and the Baeleric Isles.
C 500 BC the Punics established a colony at Carthage to go along
with their colony at Gades and begin exploring south along the
Atlantic coast of Africa.
Now compare the stories of Herodotus and Plato.
Keep in mind that a couple of centuries is more than adequate for
a truly heroic deed to become coated with myth and legend.
Plato places the tale in the time of Solon c 600 BC
Solon hears it in Egypt where it would have been the
hot news of the day.
In both stories there is an ocean empire larger than
Libya and Asia combined based on the control of islands
and parts of continents.
In both stories the entry into the Mediterranean is from
the Atlantic through the Pillars of Hercules.
In both stories the Atlanteans are considered wealthy and
possessed of advanced knowledge. Here it helps to know that
the Greeks had a love hate relationship with the Phoenicians
borrowing from them their designs for boats, their alphabet,
some of their gods (Hercules is a Phoenician God), but also
waging war against them for several centuries.
The part about the layout of Atlantis matches the layout of
the manmade island of Tyre
steve
Alan M Dunsmuir
In article <6in4f9$d...@fridge.shore.net>, Steve Whittet
<whi...@shore.net> writes
>
[snip]
>
> The sea people include peoples like the Mycenean
>Greeks, and Minoans who were known to the Egyptians by tribal
>names.
There is no evidence of the Myceneans being at home on the sea. They
invadd Greece from the north, by land.
There is no evidence that Minoans were known to the Egyptians 'by tribal
names'.
>
[snip]
>
>The Peleset are recorded on the Phaistoes Disk dated c 1700 BC
>as having the Mohawk haircuts you describe. These are similar to
>the feathered crowns of the later Phillistines and Phoenicians.
The Phaistos disk has not been decyphered. Nobody knows whether it
depicts the Peleset or not.
>
>C 1200 BC the Sea peoples begin to become noticed by the Egyptians
>as a serious threat.
By 1200BC the Minoans were long gone, and the Myceneans were on their
way out.
[big snip]
>
>Immediately after this voyage the Punics begin establishing bases
>on the Atlantic expanding outward from around the Pillars of Hercules
>and the Atlas mountains. At Gades in Iberia, on the Canary Islands,
>the Cadmium islands in the English Channel, the Azores and throughout
>Sicily, Sardinia and the Baeleric Isles.
There is no evidence of a Punic presence in either the Canaries or the
Azores. There is no evidence of 'Cadmium Islands' in the English
Channel.
>
[snip]
>In both stories the Atlanteans are considered wealthy and
>possessed of advanced knowledge. Here it helps to know that
>the Greeks had a love hate relationship with the Phoenicians
>borrowing from them their designs for boats, their alphabet,
>some of their gods (Hercules is a Phoenician God), but also
>waging war against them for several centuries.
At least (and at last) he has stopped claiming that the Greeks borrowed
their LANGUAGE from the Phoenicians. Has Steve finally worked out the
difference between a script and a language?
Well done, Steve, progress at last! (Even if very other word in the post
is the purest dross.)
--
Alan M Dunsmuir
Gisele
Steve Whittet wrote:
> ... Phaistoes Disk dated c 1700 BC
> as having the Mohawk haircuts you describe. These are similar to
> the feathered crowns of the later Phillistines and Phoenicians.
Excellent observation!
Gisele
Mike
Hi
Can anyone help me with a link to the full text from Platon
describing Atlantis.
Thanx in advance
Mike<kau...@post2.tele.dk>
Doug Weller
Even if true, so what? That almost 4000 years later a group of people
thousands of miles away had similar haircuts means nothing.
Anyway -- much more interesting stuff.
Lunchtime I was looking at a new book --Atlantis Destroyed by Rodney
Castleden. Gisele will be thrilled to learn that he has that there was
a Greek 'book' called Atlantis, dated about 100 years before Plato, of
which we have a scrap.
She will not be thrilled to learn that the book goes into great detail
firmly pointing to Crete and Thera as the sources of the story. He
pours cold water on Steiner (who says 80000 years ago for its
destruction), Donnelly, etc.
He explains the dating, gives a lot of archaeological comparisons
showing how Cretan culture is reflected in Plato's Atlantis story, etc.
Gisele, please try to get hold of this book!
Doug
Gisele
Doug Weller wrote:
> On Tue, 05 May 1998 14:17:58 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
>
> >
> >Steve Whittet wrote:
> >
> >> ... Phaistoes Disk dated c 1700 BC
> >> as having the Mohawk haircuts you describe. These are similar to
> >> the feathered crowns of the later Phillistines and Phoenicians.
> >
> >Excellent observation!
>
> Even if true, so what? That almost 4000 years later a group of people
> thousands of miles away had similar haircuts means nothing.
I wasn't really referring to the Mohawks here, but since you mention it,
perhaps the Phaistos Disk could be deciphered using American Indian symbols
perhaps one word per symbol.
> Anyway -- much more interesting stuff.
>
> Lunchtime I was looking at a new book --Atlantis Destroyed by Rodney
> Castleden. Gisele will be thrilled to learn that he has that there was
> a Greek 'book' called Atlantis, dated about 100 years before Plato, of
> which we have a scrap.
I don't really believe a word of this. Who is purported to have written
this scrap and where did they obtain their information? I'm sure I would
have heard about it by now.
> She will not be thrilled to learn that the book goes into great detail
> firmly pointing to Crete and Thera as the sources of the story. He
> pours cold water on Steiner (who says 80000 years ago for its
> destruction),
This is simply untrue. I have Steiner's 'Atlantis and Lemuria' and he
wrote "the last evidence of the continent having disappeared in the 10th
century before the Christian era" and also "The reader must, therefore go
back in thought to a period of time some ten thousand years behind us,
bearing in mind that what is about to be said extended over many thousands
of years." [introduction, page 11] But, it would be true to say that
Steiner was not usually comfortable providing dates. He also mentioned
Plato in his introduction and therefore, any dates mentioned would not, in
his case, be independent.
The best manner that I found to derive dates from Steiner was from his
rather lengthy discussion about the Manu initiates and how Minos was
contemporaneous with Menes. Both Minos and Menes, according to Steiner,
preceded the destruction of Atlantis. I've already written this a number
of times in this ng.
> Donnelly, etc.
I have Donnelly's book. It's quite remarkable how much information
(although not always accurate) he collected in his time as he died in 1901.
> He explains the dating, gives a lot of archaeological comparisons
> showing how Cretan culture is reflected in Plato's Atlantis story, etc.
>
> Gisele, please try to get hold of this book!
To debunk it? :-) Thera is definately wrong and so is Antarctica. A
person could make a better case for Atlantis being Western Africa or
Meso-America except for the fact that these are both above water.
Gisele
Gisele
RL Mizsei wrote:
> In soc.history.ancient Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
>
> : So, according to Herodotus, Poseidon wasn't a Greek invention.
>
> : Gisele
>
> Poseidon's name appears in some of the Linear B tablets found on the
> Greek mainland. This suggests that a god called Poseidon was believed in at
> around 1200 BC.
Linear A and B might be some of the scripts that Plato referred to when he said
that the Greeks continued to 'lose their letters'. The actual tablets were C14
dated to 1200 BC or the context in which they were found?
> This suggests that the god named poseiden (but not
> neccessarily fulfiling the same function or with the same atributes as the
> classical Greek Poseidon) existed before the time that various learned ancient
> historians have suggested that influences from Anatolia altered Greek
> religion.
Herodotus referred to Poseidon as a hero in the same breath as he mentioned the
Dioscuri (renown atheletes). I think that much information could be collected to
demonstrate that the Greeks worshipped heroes whose deeds were often greatly
exaggerated and mystified. Medusa, for instance, was described by Pausinas on two
separate occasions as being beautiful instead of ugly. Since she was said to be a
leader of the Libyan war expedition, is it possible that a male opponent might
have hesitated in killing her if he saw that her face was beautiful instead of
ugly?
The description of snakes on Medusa's head also bears some resemblance to the
Egyptian custom.
I might as well answer Doug's question here about the war between the Poseidians
and the Athenians. I think that this is event is preserved in none other than the
contest of Poseidon and Athene over Attica. The statues depicting this were said
to be at the Parthenon:
Pseudo Apollodorus
"... so Poseidon was the first that came to Attica, and with a blow of his trident
on the middle of the acropolis, he produced a sea which they now call Erechtheis.
After him came Athena, and having called on Cecrops to witness her act of taking
possession, she planted an olive tree, which is still shown in the Pandrosium.
But when the two strove for possession of the country, Zeus parted.
Pausinas
"On the rock is the outline of a trident. Legend says that these appeared as
evidence in support of Poseidon's claim to the land."
So, a new tree and a flood were also connected with this 'contest'.
> Herodotus may have thought that Poseidon was not a greek invention
> - but it does not mean that he is correct and an authority on the history of
> religion in the Aegean.
Gisele
Frank Dörnenburg
Hi!
>If Plato's information was incorrect about Atlantis, then why do I continue to
>find information supporting it in Herodotus? In the following quote, Herodotus
>wrote about a people who shaved their heads in the same manner as the Mohawk.
>These people (the Macae), Herodotus wrote, lived next to the Garamantes whom
>were next to those called the Atarantes and Atlantes.
Simply wrong. In Herodotus 4th book he tells about the Macae, the
Garamantes etc. But the Atarantes are nowhere near. These are
mentioned in 4/184, and they are living INLAND, far away in the desert
to the south.
Starting in 4/181 he tells about a travel time of 70 days through the
desert, starting from Thebes. And these Atarantes are living at the
foot of the mountains called Atlas and are cursing the sun because
living in the most arid regions of the whole desert.
Doesnt sound like Atlantis to me.
As A Ward argued: You got the connection between Herodotus and
Atlantis by leaving out main parts of Herodotus writings. Not a very
fine method to produce evidence.
Bye,
FD
Frank Dörnenburg
Hi!
>If Plato's information was incorrect about Atlantis, then why do I continue to
>find information supporting it in Herodotus? In the following quote, Herodotus
>wrote about a people who shaved their heads in the same manner as the Mohawk.
>These people (the Macae), Herodotus wrote, lived next to the Garamantes whom
>were next to those called the Atarantes and Atlantes.
Simply wrong. In Herodotus 4th book he tells about the Macae, the
Garamantes etc. But the Atarantes are nowhere near. These are
mentioned in 4/184, and they are living INLAND, far away in the desert
to the south.
Starting in 4/181 he tells about a travel time of 70 days through the
desert, starting from Thebes. And these Atarantes are living at the
foot of the mountains called Atlas and are cursing the sun because
living in the most arid regions of the whole desert. They live on no
island, but deep in the syrian desert.
Doug Weller
On Tue, 05 May 1998 19:27:03 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
>
>
>Doug Weller wrote:
[sNIP]
>>
>> Lunchtime I was looking at a new book --Atlantis Destroyed by Rodney
>> Castleden. Gisele will be thrilled to learn that he has that there was
>> a Greek 'book' called Atlantis, dated about 100 years before Plato, of
>> which we have a scrap.
>
>I don't really believe a word of this. Who is purported to have written
>this scrap and where did they obtain their information? I'm sure I would
>have heard about it by now.
You believe in Cayce and yet find this incredible? Although I'll admit
I'm surprised.
>> She will not be thrilled to learn that the book goes into great detail
>> firmly pointing to Crete and Thera as the sources of the story. He
>> pours cold water on Steiner (who says 80000 years ago for its
>> destruction),
[SNIP]
>
>> He explains the dating, gives a lot of archaeological comparisons
>> showing how Cretan culture is reflected in Plato's Atlantis story, etc.
>>
>> Gisele, please try to get hold of this book!
>
>To debunk it? :-) Thera is definately wrong and so is Antarctica.
I see. Cayce is ok, a book with archaeological arguments isn't worth
reading.
Doug
Gisele
Wayne B. Hewitt wrote:
> In article <354D5452...@oanet.com>, Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
>
> >Wayne B. Hewitt wrote:
> >> ... Why this obsession with beliveing that Plato,
> >> ... got the time and space dimensions absolutely right?
> >
> >This last statement betrays the fact that you are not
> >even familiar with Plato's actual words.
>
> One shouldn't make throw-away accusations like that. I have the text here
> on my desk:
I was referring to the suggestion of a decimal point error...
> Timaeus 23E
> "And the duration of our civilization as set down in our sacred
> writings is 8000 years. Of the citizens, then, who lived 9000 years ago, I
> will declare to you briefly ..."
>
> So, Plato says that his ancestor Critias says that his ancestor Solon says
> that the Priest of Säis says that the Heiroglyphs say &c., &c.
'Our civilization' refers to the city of Sais who, it reads, was built 1000 years
after Athens.
Pausinas wrote that the Egyptian 'Athene' was called 'Sais' (or so the translation
reads). Plutarch gave the names of the two priests which Solon studied with:
Psenophis of Heliopolis and Sonchis of Sais. Herodotus also wrote that he was
unable to find any information about the origin of the Nile except from the
priests of Sais after inquiring everywhere. This information seems to be
consistent.
Is the antiquity of the date the problem? If so, take a look at the date
Herodotus gave for Min (Menes) and do some of your own calculations.
> And you believe this Dragoman tale is accurate?
>
> >Herodotus' dates are consistant with Plato's. Hesiod's 5 Races
> >of man are consistant with Plato's description of multiple deluges.
>
> To which Plato himself replies, Timaeus 23B:
>
> "Certainly the genealogies which you related just now, Solon, are
> little better than childrens tales; ..."
....because they only remember one deluge. The situation is worse today because
most people will not even acknowledge one.
> >Ancient Greek scripts are consistant with Plato's description of the
> >Greeks 'losing their letters'.
>
> No one here has denied the fall of Troy, Knossos, and the Mycenean states,
> along with their writings, scripts, and histories. Indeed, my whole point
> is that Plato's tale ONLY makes sense if one discards the inflated dates.
I have already written much to this news group about the 'inflated dates' and so I
hesitate about going into it again. All I can say is that C14 2600 = 10 or 11
thousand BC (Plato, Herodotus, Cayce, etc.)
> >The populated America's are consistant with Plato's mention
> >of colonies on the other side of Atlantis. etc. etc.
>
> It might be consistant IF the date was correct, which is impossible, AND
> IF the location in the Atlantic were correct, which is also impossible,
> and if the native Americans were not related to Siberian Asians.
*Some* native Americans like the Inuit are related to Siberians.
> >> IF : you actually believe in an 'Atlantis' in the Atlantic,
> >>
> >> THEN: the Ocean bottom would only be 11,000 years old.
> >> THEN: there would be continental rock at the bottom of the Atlantic.
> >
> >You would have to know where to look....
> >
> >> YOU may not have been able to check out the bottom of the
> >> Atlantic, but hundreds of other reserchers have. There is
> >> simply no 'Lost Continent' there.
> >
> >I don't think it's a simple as you make it out to be.
>
> At least you are correct in that: it's not simple. Oceanographic research
> over the last 150 years has compiled quite a stack of documented,
> provable, reproducable data about the bottom of the Atlantic, not to
> mention the intensive mapping done by the navies of both the U.S. and the
> U.S.S.R during the Cold War. There is no 'Atlantis' in the Atlantic.
How many years experience does anyone have in finding 12,000 year old sunken
islands? These are not necessarily the highest points in the ocean; they could be
the lowest.
> >> I suggest that Plato slipped a Greek 'decimal point.'
> >> Allowing ONLY THAT, Plato makes a little more sense.
> >
> >Read Plato's own words and you will realize that this cannot
> >be explained away as an error in decimal points.
>
> Of course. And when Plato realized that:
> 1) He'd been taken in by the story, or,
> 2) No one was going to be taken in by HIS story,
> he stopped the story in mid-sentence.
>
> >
> >http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/Atlantis/timaeus_and_critias.html
> >
> >Gisele
>
> The question becomes, Gisele, why do you REALLY want to believe seven
> impossible things before breakfast?
I've been accused of this many times but rest assured that if my beliefs were
based on 'wishes', I would be hollering loudly about descendency from Homo-Erectus
and the like.
> _B_a_r_b_a_r_o_s_s_a_ ;^{>
> Encinitas, California
> X-Face by "Saving Face" <http://www.santafe.edu/~smfr/utils.html>
Gisele
Gisele
Doug Weller wrote:
Archaeological arguments? I have never seen so many biased books as on the
topic of Atlantis in my life! It is hard enough to sift through archaeology
books for actual facts.
There are underwater ruins around Meso-America, also, but it's difficult to
find out a lot of information about them. Not too long before Paul Pettenude
passed away, he had gone to investigate an underwater shrine in the area.
Regarding Meso-American lowlands (like Yucatan), Brian Fagan wrote, "Research
on the Archaic period has lagged in the Mesoamerican lowlands primarily
because of difficulties in locating early sites, which tend to be underwater
....."
Now, at what date were these early Meso-Americans flooded out?
Gisele
Jack Martin
OK,
Lets go 90 degrees. *preditory grin*
Recently been reading about some evidence that shows the black sea became salt about
8500 years ago, when the mediterranean broke through the Bosporus. The data indicated
the black sea rose about 140 feet; and this may account for the great flood story of
Gilgamesh.
Why couldn't it also account for Atlantis? Anybody have any data at all about possible
city's underneath the black sea?
Waiting in asbestos,
Jack Martin
J.R. Pelmont
Steve Whittet <whi...@shore.net> wrote (écrivait) :
> ..............................
>
> The Peleset are recorded on the Phaistoes Disk dated c 1700 BC
> as having the Mohawk haircuts you describe. These are similar to
> the feathered crowns of the later Phillistines and Phoenicians.
>
>
I remember having seen the small Phaestos disk in the Heraklion museum
(Kriti). The carvings at that time was reported as not yet translated.
Is the significance known now ? Thanks.
--
J. Pelmont,
jean.p...@ujf-grenoble.fr
Univ. Grenoble I
Pete Barrett
On Tue, 05 May 1998 22:57:21 +0000 (GMT), Mike <Kau...@post2.tele.dk> wrote:
>
>Hi
>Can anyone help me with a link to the full text from Platon
>describing Atlantis.
>
It's in the dialog Critias (or Kritias or other variant spellings). Also a short
mention in the Timaios. Search for that or variants.
Pete Barrett
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>I remember having seen the small Phaestos disk in the Heraklion museum
>(Kriti). The carvings at that time was reported as not yet translated.
>Is the significance known now ? Thanks.
No, the Phaistos disk remains undeciphered.
The most serious attempt to decipher it that I'm aware of (to which I
involuntarily made a small contribution), is that of the Massey
twins. Their partial decipherment is interesting, but not I think
beyond doubt.
See:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/phaistos/
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
m...@wxs.nl |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Alan M Dunsmuir
In article <1998050611...@iroko.ujf-grenoble.fr>, J.R. Pelmont
<Jean.P...@wanadoo.fr> writes
>I remember having seen the small Phaestos disk in the Heraklion museum
>(Kriti). The carvings at that time was reported as not yet translated.
>Is the significance known now ? Thanks.
No. Many kooks have claimed a wild variety of decypherments. None such
has stood up to scrutiny.
--
Alan M Dunsmuir
joshua geller
Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> writes:
> > >Herodotus' dates are consistant with Plato's. Hesiod's 5 Races
> > >of man are consistant with Plato's description of multiple deluges.
> > To which Plato himself replies, Timaeus 23B:
> > "Certainly the genealogies which you related just now, Solon, are
> > little better than childrens tales; ..."
> ....because they only remember one deluge. The situation is worse today because
> most people will not even acknowledge one.
it is important to keep firmly in mind, that a 'deluge' is a fall of
civilization, by flood or other means. that is, a destruction of the
old world, with a new world coming out of it.
many deluges have been ('have been caused by') invasions and
wars. others have been ('have been caused by) floods, meteor strikes,
forest fires (particularly devestating if you have a hunter/gatherer
economy) etc.
best,
josh
Doug Weller
On Tue, 05 May 1998 19:27:03 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
>
>
>Doug Weller wrote:
>
[SNIP]
>>
>> Lunchtime I was looking at a new book --Atlantis Destroyed by Rodney
>> Castleden. Gisele will be thrilled to learn that he has that there was
>> a Greek 'book' called Atlantis, dated about 100 years before Plato, of
>> which we have a scrap.
>
>I don't really believe a word of this. Who is purported to have written
>this scrap and where did they obtain their information? I'm sure I would
>have heard about it by now.
Interesting to find out whose minds are really closed.
Anyway, the author is Hellanicus, and the source for this is T Ganz,
Early Greek Myths, 1992. I can't find the book, but I presume this is
Hellanicus of Lesbos, who wrote a number of local histories. Anyone
have Ganz?
>> She will not be thrilled to learn that the book goes into great detail
>> firmly pointing to Crete and Thera as the sources of the story. He
>> pours cold water on Steiner (who says 80000 years ago for its
>> destruction),
>
>This is simply untrue. I have Steiner's 'Atlantis and Lemuria' and he
>wrote "the last evidence of the continent having disappeared in the 10th
>century before the Christian era"
Is this the same as Cosmic Memory, Atlantis and Lemuria, 1926? And when
does he date the beginning of the destruction of Atlantis?
[SNIP]
Doug
Gisele
Brian M. Scott wrote:
> Gisele wrote:
>
> > Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 03 May 1998 04:09:40 -0600, Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
>
> > > >Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
> > > >> On Sat, 02 May 1998 14:59:05 -0600, Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> >Perhaps ... but how many coincidences does a person require to take notice of the
> > > >> >fact that Plato really may have been relating a true story?
>
> > > >> We know that he wasn't. Your 'coincidences' - hair styles, forsooth!
> > > >> - are of no significance beside the scientific impossibilities. You
> > > >> might also search DejaNews for Mikael A. Thompson's fairly recent
> > > >> comments on the subject; they show exactly why it's foolish to take
> > > >> Plato seriously here.
>
> > > >Obviously, I've read a great deal more on the subject of Atlantis than Mr. Thompson.
>
> > > Irrelevant; it's his knowledge of Plato that's at issue.
>
> > It's not irrelevant to determine how Plato's information measured up with other
> > independent sources of information and anticipating the next statement I repeat -
> > independent.
>
> Indeed. The problem is that the only demonstrably INDEPENDENT sources
> contradict Plato.
Prove that there was an influx of individuals through the Bering Strait around 10,000 BC. I
think you'll find this virtually impossible although you could, perhaps, prove that the
surrounding area was occupied at the time.
You could easily prove that their was a major influx 8,000 years later (corresponding with
Plato's 11,000 BC) as the entire sub-arctic (West to East) was occupied in a very short time
corresponding with major population increase in the Eastern Woodlands and the beginning of the
Mayans, etc.
Considering that flooding, due to the melting of the icecaps, would have been an impetus for
various migrations and that there is a conflict between C14 dates and other dates, should not
some attention be given to major population increases? Particularly if these were associated
with new concepts such as class differentiation and long-distance travel? Recall that the
period of 'long-distance exchange' in the Eastern Woodlands area was TEMPORARY. I suspect that
a similar backwards step is also noted in Egypt at the same time (after 4th dynasty).
I'm not ignoring scientific data, it often supports my position. Not finding something on the
ocean bottom is not evidence. I am also convinced that the specific sciences that you are
continually referring to have much room for improvement and therefore should be regarded
accordingly.
The Pangea breakup, as I've previously stated, can be interpreted in two different ways. One
way is to have a gaping hole between Florida and the Trans-atlantic rift and the other way is
to suggest a series of continental shifts and additional dry land to take care of that
problem.
> > > This is true. You blindly believe anything that fits with your
> > > established beliefs, and you blindly reject whatever doesn't.
> >
> > The key word here is 'fits'. If you're satisfied with millions of bits of information
> > about ancient history of which a great deal does not fit together then that's your
> > perogative. I, however, know that when the truth is known that these millions of bits of
> > information *will* fit together.
>
> You're off to a lousy start, then: you insist on throwing out most of
> the real information that's available.
Even the manner in which much archaeological information is presented often supports my
position. Every time that a DISTINCT culture is said to have appeared out of nowhere like the
Mayans or Incas, sheds doubt on the current Bering Strait entrance theory.
The wheel was not absent from Meso-America, either; as it has been found on children's toys.
Why did the Meso-Americans not carry this concept further? Because, it has been said, the
chariot was not the common mode of transportation in the latter days of Atlantis. It was up to
the ingenuity of the later peoples to determine the manner in which the concept would be
carried further. In this case, the use of the wheel went in two dramatically different
directions on either side of the Atlantic.
I'm looking at a drawing of a toy animal on wheels that was found in Veracruz. The wheels are
solid and are each decorated with 4 groups of semi-circular rings, one group in each direction
which give the appearance of 4 spokes. This entire design is within an outer circle which
gives the appearance of an outer rim. This toy is not evidence but it's design suggests some
type of continuity with the past.
> > > You
> > > have shown absolutely no ability to evaluate evidence.
>
> > I can recognize a contradiction when I see one.
>
> Yes; and then you choose to resolve it in the least probable fashion.
> As I said, you've shown absolutely no ability to evaluate evidence.
Were the ancient people highly inventive or not? I suggest that if you gave each of these BC
'inventions' a numerical value based on their importance to humanity and plotted these on a
graph, you'd have something looking much like a semi-circle with its highest point around the
time of the construction of the GP.
> > > You have
> > > admitted that you would rather remain ignorant than risk having your
> > > ideas contaminated by exposure to contrary evidence.
>
> > C14 journals are hardly evidence.
>
> Convicted out of your own keyboard. They are far more trustworthy than
> fairy tales composed over 2000 years ago.
Everyone else was wrong but science can never err. Is this what you are telling me?
> At the very least they are
> evidence - which, as you pointed out earlier, must be considered.
> Again, HOW are you going to fit all of the pieces together when you
> ignore the ones that you don't like? Remember, those who disagree with
> you can explain clearly what's wrong with your evidence. In order to
> turn the tables on them, you would have to understand theirs, which you
> are unwilling to do.
I fully understand their position, but let me ask you this: should we not use other means that
are at our disposal to 'check out' science or is this blasphemous? At the very least one
science should be used to verify another.
> > > Why you waste
> > > your time here (sci.archaeology) is beyond me: your beliefs are
> > > clearly a matter of faith, not reason.
> >
> > My beliefs are neither etched in stone nor dependent upon any prominent archaeologist's
> > current views.
>
> You appear to be completely ignorant of science. Your views may not be
> etched in stone, but you appear to have no intention of modifying them
> on the basis of scientific evidence. Thus, they are not subject to the
> dictates of reason. Your whole approach is fundamentally irrational.
Brian, I'm trying to look at the big picture and this should not be criticized for it. A
person may be able to focus on one part and understand the whole or they may not.
> > Can you say the same?
>
> Of course. Since I am not an archaeologist, however, I certainly rely
> on the views of those who are. When they disagree, either I go with
> what seems to me the preponderance of the evidence, or I simply reserve
> judgement. What else would any sane person do?!
A sane person should always be wondering, why?
Gisele
Michael Apple
Doug Weller wrote:
>
> On Tue, 05 May 1998 14:17:58 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
>
> >
> >Steve Whittet wrote:
> >
> >> ... Phaistoes Disk dated c 1700 BC
> >> as having the Mohawk haircuts you describe. These are similar to
> >> the feathered crowns of the later Phillistines and Phoenicians.
> >
>
> Even if true, so what? That almost 4000 years later a group of people
> thousands of miles away had similar haircuts means nothing.
You think? Or are their actually people present on this ng that
think hair styles can only be invented once...
> Anyway -- much more interesting stuff.
>
> Lunchtime I was looking at a new book --Atlantis Destroyed by Rodney
> Castleden. Gisele will be thrilled to learn that he has that there was
> a Greek 'book' called Atlantis, dated about 100 years before Plato, of
> which we have a scrap.
Sounds very cool. Read Pelegrino's _Uncovering Atlantis_ several
years ago- not bad as these things go. Would have to agree with him that
Kalliste/Thera is the most parsimonius explaination for the Atlantis
story, assuming Plato didn't invent the thing himself. I know Peter
James has his own book/theory but haven't hit that one yet. Hopefully
Castleden's book with reach either Barnes & Noble soon or my history
bookclub.
> She will not be thrilled to learn that the book goes into great detail
> firmly pointing to Crete and Thera as the sources of the story. He
> pours cold water on Steiner (who says 80000 years ago for its
> destruction), Donnelly, etc.
>
> He explains the dating, gives a lot of archaeological comparisons
> showing how Cretan culture is reflected in Plato's Atlantis story, etc.
>
> Gisele, please try to get hold of this book!
>
> Doug
Oh, don't bother Mr Weller. Do you honestly think anything will
really make a dent?
M. Apple
Wayne B. Hewitt
In article <35502482...@ix.netcom.com>, Jack Martin
<r...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>OK,
>
>Lets go 90 degrees. *preditory grin*
>
>Recently been reading about some evidence that shows the Black Sea
>became salt about 8500 years ago, when the mediterranean broke through
>the Bosporus. The data indicated the black sea rose about 140 feet; and
>this may account for the great flood story of Gilgamesh.
>
>Why couldn't it also account for Atlantis? Anybody have any data at all
>about possible city's underneath the black sea?
>
>Waiting in asbestos,
>
>Jack Martin
Really Jack! Nomex jockeys are so much more comfortable...
No flames from me, certainly.
What do we actually KNOW today as indisputable?
1) Continents do not sink; they float.
2) Both the Black Sea and the Persian Gulf flooded at the end of the last
Ice Age, about 8,000 - 6,000 BCE (your dates may vary.)
3) Exhaustive surveys of the Atlantic show the bottom totally consistant
with the well known and proven laws of plate tectonics (AND I'll raise you
that humungus earthquake crack in my living room.)
4) Many cultures around the World have myths and legends of floods; many
cultures around the World do not. Some of these cultures are side by side.
5) Estimates of the number of books written about 'Atlantis' range from an
absurdly low 100 to an equally absurd 50,000. (The true number is probably
in the thousands.) The vast majority of them that try to "prove" the
Atlantis legend do not seem to ask the simple question: "What, if
anything, in Plato's accounts was accurate?"
--
Gisele
Doug Weller wrote:
> On Tue, 05 May 1998 19:27:03 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Doug Weller wrote:
> >
> [SNIP]
>
> >>
> >> Lunchtime I was looking at a new book --Atlantis Destroyed by Rodney
> >> Castleden. Gisele will be thrilled to learn that he has that there was
> >> a Greek 'book' called Atlantis, dated about 100 years before Plato, of
> >> which we have a scrap.
> >
> >I don't really believe a word of this. Who is purported to have written
> >this scrap and where did they obtain their information? I'm sure I would
> >have heard about it by now.
>
> Interesting to find out whose minds are really closed.
?? The founder of Thera (Kalliste, Santorini) is described as Cadmus, a
Phoenician. In that sense, it could have been a COLONY of Atlantis as many
other cylades may have been. If Hellanicus disputed this information, I'm
sure that at least one Greek authors would have included this contradiction.
Cadmus' lineage traces back to Poseidon:
Poseidon and Libya
I
Agenor, King of Phoenicia & Belus*, thought to be founder of Babylon
I
Cadmus, brother of Europa, mother of King Minos of Crete
*Belus was said to be the father of Aegyptus and Danaaus
This is what the Greek writers wrote (although there are some variations with
regards to Belus, especially). It is my suspicion that Mr. Castledon twisted
Hellanicus' words in some manner as to agree with the prevailing theory as has
often been done to Plato's.
> Anyway, the author is Hellanicus, and the source for this is T Ganz,
> Early Greek Myths, 1992. I can't find the book, but I presume this is
> Hellanicus of Lesbos, who wrote a number of local histories. Anyone
> have Ganz?
>
> >> She will not be thrilled to learn that the book goes into great detail
> >> firmly pointing to Crete and Thera as the sources of the story. He
> >> pours cold water on Steiner (who says 80000 years ago for its
> >> destruction),
> >
> >This is simply untrue. I have Steiner's 'Atlantis and Lemuria' and he
> >wrote "the last evidence of the continent having disappeared in the 10th
> >millenium before the Christian era"
>
> Is this the same as Cosmic Memory, Atlantis and Lemuria, 1926? And when
> does he date the beginning of the destruction of Atlantis?
'Cosmic Memory' contains the book 'Atlantis and Lemuria' within it and is a
newer version (copyright 1959). In both books, there are only two chapters
which deal directly with Atlantis. I reread these tonight and found
absolutely no reference to 80,000 years; in fact no dates are mentioned over
and above the ones in the introduction which I already provided.
Nor, quickly scanning the remainder of the book (which deals with the time
before Atlantis) did I notice any dates. The book is really about the
development of man in *general* through the ages. You recall how Herodotus
wrote that all the Atarantes were each called 'Atarante'? Something like this
would have been explained by Steiner as coming from a time when man did not
have there own sense of identity; only recognizing themselves as part of a
group.
Steiner did not really write about the actual destruction at all but stopped
at the part that dealt with preparing the initiates to lead the survivers
(Manu, Minos, Menes, etc., beginning of meteorology, astrology, mythology,
agricultural techniques, etc.)
If you still would like to pursue this, can you get a page number?
> [SNIP]
>
> Doug
Gisele
Steve Whittet
In article <3561558d...@news.wxs.nl>, m...@wxs.nlÔ says...
>>(Kriti). The carvings at that time was reported as not yet translated.
>>Is the significance known now ? Thanks.
>
>
>The most serious attempt to decipher it that I'm aware of (to which I
>involuntarily made a small contribution), is that of the Massey
>twins. Their partial decipherment is interesting, but not I think
>beyond doubt.
The Phaistos Disk may be undeciphered in the conventional sense
of finding it to be written in a language which uses a script but
that may be because it isn't written in a language which uses a script.
There are many useful observations we can make about these glyphs
before trying to read the disk
It is dated c 1700 BC
The boats portrayed on it are of a more Mesopotamian
than Egyptian rig with high stems and the mast and
steering oar raised on a high platform aft
It is essentially a sequence of rhthymically repeated pictographs
composed of repeated glyphs and repeated sets of glyphs.
The glyphs essentially are in the form of a chant
with the begining varying on a theme and the ending always the same
It is stamped with seals on both sides in a spiral which moves from
the center out to the edge. We know it moves from the center out
to the edge because like Egyptian glyphs the glyphs are directional.
We read in the direction the glyphs look and move.
It begins with a rosette or star which is the
symbol of royalty and then a shaved head.
This is a reference to what the Egyptians call the the heb sed
festival or succession of kingship and indeed a rosette in
association with a shaved head can be seen on the pallette
of narmer and many mesopotamian inscriptions in a context
which indicates the ascension of a new king.
The first glyph set begins with the rosette and shaved head and
ends with the shield/head
The second glyph set begins with ther rosette and shaved head and
ends with the shield/head
The third glyph set begins with a
shield/wavy line/bird and
ends with the shield/head
The fourth glyph set begins with a
wavy line/bird and
ends with the shield/head
The fifth glyph set begins with a man walking and
introduces a long sequence
chevron, hammer, stalk of grain, boat, skin, head
wavy line/bird and
ends with the shield/head
The sixth glyph set begins with a hammer and fish and
ends with the shield/head
The seventh glyph set begins with a wavy line/bird and
ends with the shield/head
The eighth glyph set begins with a man walking and
introduces a repetition of the long sequence
chevron, hammer, stalk of grain, boat, skin, head
followed by the sign for new moon festival
followed by a rosette and
ends with the shield/head
The ninth glyph set begins with a rounded triangle/hmhmi/man walking and
ends with the shield/head
The tenth glyph set begins with a stalk of grain/wavy line/bird and
ends with the shield/head
The eleventh glyph set begins with a fist and
ends with the shield/head
The 12th glyph set begins with a cluster of glyphs and
ends with the shield/head
which is the end of the glyphs on that side of the disk.
On the obverse side especially, the glyphs are the same
as those used, on many Kasite kuderu or boundary stelae
where they are taken as representations of the deities
sacred to ther towns whose borders are in adjacency.
The glyph sets end with a round shield followed by a Peleset head
(The Mohawk hairdo) There are 12 such sets on one side and one on
the other. We know they are Peleset heads and shields because we
can see them on the walls of Medinet Habu in essentially the same
very dramatic form.
The glyph sets from the side with one set ending in a shield/head
can be arranged in sequence running down the columns on a grid of
4 columns and 12 rows so that the glyph sets match from 1 to three
glyphs in each set down the columns and across the rows.
The glyph sets from the side with 12 shield/heads
can be divided into sub sets. If the glyphs are
taken as representing a year divided into 12 months
each month has a set of glyphs appropriate to the
activities of that month starting with the crowning
of a new king at the heb-sed or new years festival
Two solstices are marked by glyphs showing columned temples
with standing stones. This glyph occurs only twice on the disk
two equinoxes are marked by the glyph of a woman which occurs
twice on the head side of the disk
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
Alan M Dunsmuir
In article <6iv7k1$n...@fridge.shore.net>, Steve Whittet
<whi...@shore.net> writes
[snip]
>
>It is stamped with seals on both sides in a spiral which moves from
>the center out to the edge. We know it moves from the center out
>to the edge because like Egyptian glyphs the glyphs are directional.
>We read in the direction the glyphs look and move.
>
Can you say "Assumption, Steve? Can you say "Implication"?
>It begins with a rosette or star which is the
>symbol of royalty and then a shaved head.
Can you say "Assumption, Steve? Can you say "Implication"?
[snip]
>
>The glyph sets end with a round shield followed by a Peleset head
>(The Mohawk hairdo) There are 12 such sets on one side and one on
>the other. We know they are Peleset heads and shields because we
>can see them on the walls of Medinet Habu in essentially the same
>very dramatic form.
Can you say "Assumption, Steve? Can you say "Implication"?
>The glyph sets from the side with 12 shield/heads
>can be divided into sub sets. If the glyphs are
>taken as representing a year divided into 12 months
>each month has a set of glyphs appropriate to the
>activities of that month starting with the crowning
>of a new king at the heb-sed or new years festival
Ah! You CAN say "Assumption. You CAN say "Implication"
[snip]
--
Alan M Dunsmuir
Doug Weller
On Mon, 04 May 1998 00:37:51 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
>
>C14 journals are hardly evidence.
This I presume refers to the time when Gisele was asking about C14, or
making statements about it, and suggested she read some of the current
stuff in the relevant journals. Her reply was more or less that she
didn't want to do that as it might affect her thinking.
She seems to be claiming that 2600 BCE by C14 dating is really 10500 or
whatever. She doesn't appear to understand that such dates are not
gained through just one (C14) method, but include dendrochronology work,
ice cores, etc.
Doug
Doug Weller
On Thu, 07 May 1998 01:35:01 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
>
>
>Doug Weller wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 05 May 1998 19:27:03 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Doug Weller wrote:
>> >
>> [SNIP]
>>
>> >>
>> >> Lunchtime I was looking at a new book --Atlantis Destroyed by Rodney
>> >> Castleden. Gisele will be thrilled to learn that he has that there was
>> >> a Greek 'book' called Atlantis, dated about 100 years before Plato, of
>> >> which we have a scrap.
>> >
>> >I don't really believe a word of this. Who is purported to have written
>> >this scrap and where did they obtain their information? I'm sure I would
>> >have heard about it by now.
>>
>> Interesting to find out whose minds are really closed.
>
>?? The founder of Thera (Kalliste, Santorini) is described as Cadmus, a
>Phoenician. In that sense, it could have been a COLONY of Atlantis as many
>other cylades may have been. If Hellanicus disputed this information, I'm
>sure that at least one Greek authors would have included this contradiction.
This is hardly the point. Besides the fact that indeed other Greek
authors may well have included this contradiction (and I don't think it
is one), the point is simply that Castleden's book makes the case that
the description in Plato's story matches the evidence for Crete and
Bronze Age Athens.
Doug
Gisele
Doug Weller wrote:
Radio-carbon dating was based on the premise that the C14 concentration in
each carbon reservoir has remained constant through time. Dendrochronology
has demonstrated that this premise was faulty.
> Doug
Gisele
Inger E Johansson
Wayne B. Hewitt <whe...@ucsd.edu> skrev i inlägg
<whewitt-0605...@whewitt.extern.ucsd.edu>...
> In article <35502482...@ix.netcom.com>, Jack Martin
> <r...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >OK,
> >
> >Lets go 90 degrees. *preditory grin*
> >
> >Recently been reading about some evidence that shows the > >Black Sea
became salt about 8500 years ago, when the
> >mediterranean broke through the Bosporus. The data indicated > >the
black sea rose about 140 feet; and this may account for the > >great flood
story of Gilgamesh.
Well, so what a wonder - around the same age the real big movement of
Scandinavia rising from the Sea after the last Ice Age occured. That ment
first of all that the Sea, level changed around 20 meters during a short
period and saltwater flooded in to the Mediterranean. It also changed
direction of some floods, in early ages going from south to the north
during a long period flooding from Yoldia sea in north to the Black Sea in
south.
> >Why couldn't it also account for Atlantis? Anybody have any > >data at
all about possible city's underneath the black sea?
Better to look in the North Sea Preferly near "Doggers Bank". Most of the
North Sea bottom had during the last Ice Age been land instead of Sea
bottom.
Inger E <mrs.inger....@swipnet.se>
Doug Weller
Starting a new thread, adding talk.origins.
Giesle, what is your point? Are you really claiming C14 dates are based
on the idea that carbon reservoirs are constant through time?
Doug
Gisele
Doug Weller wrote:
> Gisele, what is your point? Are you really claiming C14 dates are based
> on the idea that carbon reservoirs are constant through time?
Yes. Quoting Brian Fagan, "For a C14 age to be equivalent to its actual or
calendar age at a reasonable level of precision, a set of assumptions must hold
within relatively narrow limits. These assumptions include (1) the
concentration of C14 in each carbon reservoir has remained essentially constant
over the C14 time scale...." [Oxford Companion to Archaeology, p 586]
> Doug
Gisele
Wayne B. Hewitt
In article <355d04ec...@news.demon.co.uk>,
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
>Starting a new thread, adding talk.origins.
>
>On Fri, 08 May 1998 23:55:22 -0600, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
> ...
>>Radio-carbon dating was based on the premise that the C14 concentration in
>>each carbon reservoir has remained constant through time. Dendrochronology
>>has demonstrated that this premise was faulty.
>>
>Doug asked:
>
>Gisele, what is your point? Are you really claiming C14 dates are based
>on the idea that carbon reservoirs are constant through time?
>
The point is that Gisele is taking a minor point, blowing it all out of
proportion, and ignoring the fact that it has been fixed for a long time.
At one time it was assumed that the concentration of C14 in the atmosphere
was constant; we now know that this is not true. Carbon 14 is constantly
being formed IIRC by 'hard' radiation smashing into Nitrogen 14 in the
atmosphere. As the radiation flux increases or decreases over time, the
concentration of C14 in the atmosphere also increases and decreases.
Since the half-life of C14 is on the order of 5700(?) years, and since the
amount of C14 in any living (or formerly living) thing is small, ordinary
methods limit the use of C14 dating to about 10 half-lives or about 57,000
years BP. Advanced techniques that measure the C12/C14 ratio directly can
give earlier dates.
Luckily this rather short range of usefulness overlaps quite well with the
extremely accurate methods of dendrochronology, which cannot only give you
a year, but sometimes the season. When C14 dates were calibrated with
actual dated wood, it was found that the C14 production in the atmosphere
did vary and that C14 dates were a little young; the true dates were
actually older BUT NOT THAT MUCH. I do not have access to the tables, but
the dates were about 10% - 20% older than first thought: 2,400 years BP
became 2,900 years BP. Certainly not a factor of TWO or more.
This calibration was done many years ago. Since then it has been
constantly confirmed and made more accurate. No C14 date in the last 20 or
more years has been published without reference to what calibration was
used, and previously dated samples have been corrected.
Thus, Gisele, C14 dating methods ARE good evidence indeed, and all
published dates in legitimate, refereed science journals will show the
MATHEMATICAL degree of error and the degree of confidence of the data.
Perhaps someone has access to a quick calibration table, say every 500 years BP?
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
On 9 May 1998 15:07:14 -0400, whe...@ucsd.edu (Wayne B. Hewitt)
wrote:
>Perhaps someone has access to a quick calibration table, say every 500 years BP?
Based on the chronological tables in "Prehistoric Europe" (Champion
et al.), roughly:
BC bc bp BP
7000 6000 8000 9000
6000 5000 7000 8000
5000 4100 6100 7000
4000 3200 5200 6000
3500 2700 4700 5500
3000 2300 4300 5000
2500 1990 3990 4500
2000 1650 3650 4000
1500 1250 3250 3500
1000 1100 3100 3000
500 500 2500 2500
0 0 2000 2000
500 500 1500 1500
1000 1000 1000 1000
1500 1500 500 500
2000 2000 0 0
AD ad bp BP
A real calibration table would show more kinks.
Thomas Scharle
In article <whewitt-0905...@whewitt.extern.ucsd.edu>, whe...@ucsd.edu (Wayne B. Hewitt) writes:
[...snip...]
One important thing which, it seems to me, anti-evolutionists
don't understand is that you don't have to have *perfection* in
order to know something.
If carbon dating is off by 10%, 20%, even 50%, that doesn't
mean that it is completely useless. And it doesn't mean that we
can't further refine the answers over time.
There is a world of difference between mistakenly saying that
something dates from 2400 years ago when the real date is 2900
years ago; and saying "oh, we were wrong, so let's throw it all
out and agree that everything could be only 10,000 years old."
One of the prime features of science, it seems to me, is
recognition that we are very likely mistaken to some degree; and
that we are able to get better and better answers by building on
what we already know. Rather than, at every mistake, trying to
start all over again.
Just as, at one time, it was assumed that the earth was a
sphere. Well, it isn't, not precisely, mathematically. It would
be sheer foolishness, though, to say "the ancients got it wrong by
saying that the earth was a sphere".
We will never get 100% accuracy and precision to anything.
But we sure have a lot of confidence that we know somethings better
than if we relied on astrology, crystal balls and feverish over-
interpretation of ancient texts.
The real world happens to be complex, you could say messy at
times, our knowledge of it is not perfect, and indeed sometimes
there are things about reality that I don't like.
But aside from the fact that the dullards without imagination
who do science manage to come up with useful stuff, which even the
anti-science crowd seems to enjoy, the truth is that reality is
a lot more interesting than fantasy, and has the added benefit
of being real.
All in all, I'll take reality over perfection.
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Doug Weller
On 9 May 1998 13:06:20 -0400, in sci.archaeology, Gisele wrote:
>
>
>Doug Weller wrote:
>
>> Gisele, what is your point? Are you really claiming C14 dates are based
>> on the idea that carbon reservoirs are constant through time?
>
>Yes. Quoting Brian Fagan, "For a C14 age to be equivalent to its actual or
>calendar age at a reasonable level of precision, a set of assumptions must hold
>within relatively narrow limits. These assumptions include (1) the
>concentration of C14 in each carbon reservoir has remained essentially constant
>over the C14 time scale...." [Oxford Companion to Archaeology, p 586]
You must have stopped at that point, as the article goes on to explain
that archaeologists use calibrated C14 dates, and how these are
calibrated.
Doug
Le Stum
In article (Dans l'article) <01bd7b0c$8083fec0$25ea...@win95.swipnet.se>,
"Inger E Johansson" <mrs.inger....@swipnet.se> wrote (écrivait) :
> Better to look in the North Sea Preferly near "Doggers Bank". Most of the
> North Sea bottom had during the last Ice Age been land instead of Sea
> bottom.
>
> Inger E <mrs.inger....@swipnet.se>
That's an hypothesis made by Jean Deruelle in his book
"De la prehistoire a l'atlantide des mégalithe"
ISBN 2 7048 0639 X in 1990
Does anybody know about such hypothesis, or archaeological research made
in the North Sea. (Danish, Norvegian or English)
Some people said that Heligoland was a part of Atlantis ? What do you know
about this hypothesis ?
P.V.Heinrich
> On 9 May 1998 15:07:14 -0400, whe...@ucsd.edu (Wayne B. Hewitt)
> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps someone has access to a quick calibration table,
> >say every 500 years BP?
A figure which shows the relationship between calendar age and
radiocarbon age at
http://units.ox.ac.uk/departments/rlaha/calib.html
This is part of some web pages that explains the different
aspects of radiocarbon dating. The home page to them can be
found at:
http://www2.waikato.ac.nz/c14/webinfo/index.html
It is the "ONLINE AT THE RADIOCARBON LABS OF WAIKATO AND
OXFORD UNIVERSITIES." It states:
"Welcome to Radiocarbon WEB-info
Radiocarbon dating is the technique upon which
chronologies of the late Pleistocene and Holocene
have been built. This resource is a first attempt
to provide online information concerning the
radiocarbon dating method. We hope it will be
of occasional use to radiocarbon users and
interested students alike."
They have a web page that discusses calibration for
radiocarbon dates at:
http://units.ox.ac.uk/departments/rlaha/calib.html
Yours Truly,
Paul V. Heinrich
hein...@intersurf.com
Baton Rouge, LA
Standard Disclaimed Applies.
Gisele
Thomas Scharle wrote:
> One important thing which, it seems to me, anti-evolutionists
> don't understand is that you don't have to have *perfection* in
> order to know something.
If what has been written about the ancient past was largely consistant with C14 dates, then we could presume
that both the historical accounts and the C14 dates were correct. This, however, is often not the case and
each person reviewing such information is forced into a position where they must reject ancient writings OR
the C14 dates.
Yet the 'dates' are not 'dates' in the true sense of the word - more like attempts at forecasts into the
past...
> If carbon dating is off by 10%, 20%, even 50%, that doesn't
> mean that it is completely useless. And it doesn't mean that we
> can't further refine the answers over time.
About 60% according to my calculations.
The Piri Reis Map shows land where the Gulf of Mexico currently is. It's my understanding that this was one
of the flooded areas at the end of the last ice age and that the initial Mayan colonists were required to
move due to rising waters. Paul Heinrich feels that Admiral Piri erred in his compilation of various older
maps.
Supporting the proposal that Admiral Piri 'should not' have erred is the very good depictions of the coastal
areas of the Old World, upper half of South America and an accurate wideth of the Atlantic Ocean (I measured
it). Some of the smaller islands off the coast of South America are depicted but the larger islands in the
Caribbean are absent (the ones that Columbus found no animals except non-barking dogs on). Also, there's a
series of 4 grey markers or buildings depicted on the map in roughly about the location where Florida would
be today. If this area really was a peninsula then, how could the ancient mapmakers have missed this and the
larger islands and the entire Gulf of Mexico (if it was underwater then)? Actually, it would be an
interesting project to superimpose an outline of the Piri Reis Map on a current one and compare the
differences with geological knowledge.
I suggest that the maps that Admiral Piri's used depicted a time in North and Meso-America prior to 10,000
BC. But then, there's that 8,000 year conflict in dates again. The Mayans are not thought to have
'appeared' in Mam until 2,500 BC. Archeologists know that there are underwater sites that they are unable to
examine at the present time and I have already mentioned an underwater shrine that Paul Pettenude went to
check out in the area.... He also agreed that the Yucatan Peninsula used to be a much wider tract of
land. Geological conclusions, C14 dates, archaeological findings and historical accounts should all fit
together when the truth is found.
A large version of the map can be found at:
http://www.kent.net/paranormal/anomalies/piri_reis.html
Gisele
Thomas Scharle
In article <35556761...@oanet.com>, Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> writes:
[...snip...]
|> The Piri Reis Map shows land where the Gulf of Mexico currently is. It's my understanding that this was one
We get 'em all, here, don't we?
(talk.origins, that is. Sorry, sci.archaeology and soc.history.ancient,
I'm deleting those from the followups.)
Matt Silberstein
In sci.archaeology Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
>
>
>Thomas Scharle wrote:
>
>> One important thing which, it seems to me, anti-evolutionists
>> don't understand is that you don't have to have *perfection* in
>> order to know something.
>
>If what has been written about the ancient past was largely consistant with C14 dates, then we could presume
>that both the historical accounts and the C14 dates were correct. This, however, is often not the case and
>each person reviewing such information is forced into a position where they must reject ancient writings OR
>the C14 dates.
And since the C14 results are based on things we can observed now and
reproduce, and since dates of writings are based on known to be
unreliable source (humans) it makes sense to trust the C14.
>Yet the 'dates' are not 'dates' in the true sense of the word - more like attempts at forecasts into the
>past...
Which set or do you mean both?
>> If carbon dating is off by 10%, 20%, even 50%, that doesn't
>> mean that it is completely useless. And it doesn't mean that we
>> can't further refine the answers over time.
>
>About 60% according to my calculations.
Is this based on observations of what actually happens?
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
Outside of a dog, man's best friend is a book.
Inside of a dog it is too dark to read.
Julius Marx
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
> Thomas Scharle wrote:
>
> > One important thing which, it seems to me, anti-evolutionists
> > don't understand is that you don't have to have *perfection* in
> > order to know something.
>
> If what has been written about the ancient past was largely consistant
with C14 dates, then we could presume
> that both the historical accounts and the C14 dates were correct. This,
however, is often not the case and
> each person reviewing such information is forced into a position where
they must reject ancient writings OR
> the C14 dates.
>
> Yet the 'dates' are not 'dates' in the true sense of the word - more
like attempts at forecasts into the
> past...
>
> > If carbon dating is off by 10%, 20%, even 50%, that doesn't
> > mean that it is completely useless. And it doesn't mean that we
> > can't further refine the answers over time.
>
> About 60% according to my calculations.
>
> The Piri Reis Map shows land where the Gulf of Mexico currently is.
It's my understanding that this was one
Oh No!!!! The dreaded Piri Reis Map again :-(. This is just an ordinary
portolan map likemany others. It has been discussed at lenght here and
elsewhere. There are a series of excellent pages at
http://www.intersurf.com/~heinrich.
--
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Wayne State University
Wayne B. Hewitt
In article <3555dc43....@news.iconnet.com>, mat...@ix.netcom.com
(Matt Silberstein) wrote concerning Carbon 14 dating:
>> ...
>>> If carbon dating is off by 10%, 20%, even 50%, that doesn't
>>> mean that it is completely useless. And it doesn't mean that we
>>> can't further refine the answers over time.
Thomas Scharle responded:
>>About 60% according to my calculations.
>
>Is this based on observations of what actually happens?
>
>Matt Silberstein
Thomas is trying to confuse the issue by not defining variation and
deviation. I have a watch that runs fast, gaining about one-half second
per day. This by no means makes the watch useless, because I may always
CALIBRATE the watch by subtracting the proper factor from the indicated
time. One does the same thing with a magnetic compass.
The point of this is that when the DEVIATION IS KNOWN one can calculate
the true date regardless of whether it is 10%, 200%, or 1478% from the
reading. Carbon 14 dates have been calibrated year by year through
dendrochronology for decades, and the actual VARIATION due to systematic
and experimental error is very small.
Gisele
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano wrote:
> Oh No!!!! The dreaded Piri Reis Map again :-(. This is just an ordinary
> portolan map likemany others. It has been discussed at lenght here and
> elsewhere. There are a series of excellent pages at
> http://www.intersurf.com/~heinrich.
>
Looks like an interesting website.
I wasn't talking about Antarctica, though, which seems to be the primary topic
associated with this map, I was referring to the Caribbean region and eastern
coast of US. Although Paul Heinrich calls the map 'grossly innacurate' in
certain parts, I notice that the Cassanara River in Columbia is shown as
turning in the correct direction (to the right), islands in the mouth of the
Orinocco River are depicted, etc. In other words, I wouldn't be so quick to
call the other differences 'innacuracies' amidst the other accuracies.
Will I find discussions about these types of things in Deja News or are all the
postings about Antartica?
Gisele
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Heinrich has written extensively about the Piri Reis Map in general. the
Antartica gets some major play because of the publicity of the *Mysterious
Origins of Man* which played up this continent. It is grossly inaccurate--
Heirnrich points out that:
1. About halfway up an large island is shown off
the coast of modern Brazil. The GEOSAT and EROS-1
data show that this large island is completely fictional.
In fact, it is a misplaced part of South America. A very
large error if any sort of advanced cartography was
involved.
2. Also Piri Reis has mislabeled Cuba as Espaniloa, now called
Hispaniola, which is today's Haiti/Dominican Republic.
3. Only half of Cuba is shown.
4. Left out about 900 miles of South American coastline,
according to the interpretations of Dr. Hapgood.
5. Shows two Amazon Rivers
6. Shows the Andes Mountains very close to the east
coast. Thus, most of the Amazon Basin is missing!!
For 1513 it is a pretty good map but nothing extraordinary or mysterious,
certainly not proof that it was generated from space or 10,000 years ago.
Two important sources to read on this are:
Lunde, Paul, 1980, Piri Reis and the Columbian Theory.
Aramco World Magazine. (Jan-Feb 1980).
Soucek, Svat, 1996, Piri Reis and Turkish Mapmaking After
Columbus. Oxford University Press. 175 pp.
Gisele
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano wrote:
> Heinrich has written extensively about the Piri Reis Map in general. the
> Antartica gets some major play because of the publicity of the *Mysterious
> Origins of Man* which played up this continent. It is grossly inaccurate--
> Heirnrich points out that:
I think it is unfair to reject the map for the sole reason that many geological
features on it are different than today. Things change, even geologically.
Historical geological data or even archaeological findings should be the tools used
to validate or invalidate the information on the Piri Reis map in my opinion. I
have not researched the differences and therefore do not really have an opinion,
however, I would have a tendency to give Admiral Piri the benefit of the doubt until
proven otherwise.
> 1. About halfway up an large island is shown off
> the coast of modern Brazil. The GEOSAT and EROS-1
> data show that this large island is completely fictional.
> In fact, it is a misplaced part of South America. A very
> large error if any sort of advanced cartography was
> involved.
It is shown as being right in the Trans-Atlantic Rift, isn't it? A Volcanic island?
> 2. Also Piri Reis has mislabeled Cuba as Espaniloa, now called
> Hispaniola, which is today's Haiti/Dominican Republic.
Is there some place where I could read these labels? My best guess is that Cuba was
depicted as just a peninsula on the mainland (under the grey markers).
> 3. Only half of Cuba is shown.
? I don't know which one you are referring to.
> 4. Left out about 900 miles of South American coastline,
> according to the interpretations of Dr. Hapgood.
In the south?
> 5. Shows two Amazon Rivers
The upper one looks like the Orinocco to me. Compare the delta portion to the
Orinocco.
> 6. Shows the Andes Mountains very close to the east
> coast.
I didn't see any mountains.... :-) Are the Atlas Mountains are marked, in your
opinion?
> Thus, most of the Amazon Basin is missing!!
Geological features never change?
> For 1513 it is a pretty good map but nothing extraordinary or mysterious,
> certainly not proof that it was generated from space or 10,000 years ago.
I'm trying to look at it from the point of view of changes in water level in the
western Hemisphere. If the map was correct, then there would have been salt water
west of North Carolina (?) (upper red island) at one time. I would also assume that
water would have poured in on either side of the small peninsula below the grey
markers (Florida) to form or fill the Gulf of Mexico. What is known about the water
levels in the everglades?
Regarding Pangea, South America seems to fit with Africa better on the Piri Reis map
(than current maps) and the lower coast of Africa may have received its shape from
the unusual land projection shown east of southern South America.
There's a larger semi-circular island above the mouth of the Orinocco which, when I
placed Africa and South America together, seemed to be a piece of land broken off
from Africa (fits exactly between two African rivers). Is this possible? Today
there appears to be smaller islands in the same location. Also, when the two maps
are joined, the Amazon Basin looks like a lake with the Amazon River in allignment
with a river in Africa.
> Two important sources to read on this are:
>
> Lunde, Paul, 1980, Piri Reis and the Columbian Theory.
> Aramco World Magazine. (Jan-Feb 1980).
>
> Soucek, Svat, 1996, Piri Reis and Turkish Mapmaking After
> Columbus. Oxford University Press. 175 pp.
Thank-you. My apologies for going over old material but I spent the entire evening
comparing maps and I was anxious to bring up a few things.
Gisele
Horned...@rocketmail.com
In article <lestum-0905...@lestum.syrhano.net>,
les...@crihan.fr (Le Stum) wrote:
>
> In article (Dans l'article) <01bd7b0c$8083fec0$25ea...@win95.swipnet.se>,
> "Inger E Johansson" <mrs.inger....@swipnet.se> wrote (écrivait) :
>
> > Better to look in the North Sea Preferly near "Doggers Bank". Most of the
> > North Sea bottom had during the last Ice Age been land instead of Sea
> > bottom.
> >
> > Inger E <mrs.inger....@swipnet.se>
>
> That's an hypothesis made by Jean Deruelle in his book
> "De la prehistoire a l'atlantide des mégalithe"
> ISBN 2 7048 0639 X in 1990
>
> Does anybody know about such hypothesis, or archaeological research made
> in the North Sea. (Danish, Norvegian or English)
There have been much archaeological research done of the North Sea's floor,
mainly in relation to more modern history however specifically from
600 ad and on.
Several Viking Ships & and 16th & 17th cen. ships have been raised out
of the North Sea.
> Some people said that Heligoland was a part of Atlantis ? What do you know
> about this hypothesis ?
There is evidence of the Monolith culture on Heligoland & copper tools
have been found there. But other then the large odd Monoliths, the culture
was far from the advanced type of Culture Plato descriped.
However some historians have linked the Monolith culture to the Atlantis
story, saying it was ebelished over the years. That the monolith culture
wasn't that highly advanced & exisisted in France, Western Germany, Northern
Spain and the British Isles and not some island that sank
puts that theory into question.
--Oscar Schlaf--
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Thomas Scharle
In article <whewitt-1005...@whewitt.extern.ucsd.edu>, whe...@ucsd.edu (Wayne B. Hewitt) writes:
|> In article <3555dc43....@news.iconnet.com>, mat...@ix.netcom.com
|> (Matt Silberstein) wrote concerning Carbon 14 dating:
|> >> ...
|> >>> If carbon dating is off by 10%, 20%, even 50%, that doesn't
|> >>> mean that it is completely useless. And it doesn't mean that we
|> >>> can't further refine the answers over time.
|>
|> Thomas Scharle responded:
|>
|> >>About 60% according to my calculations.
|> >
|> >Is this based on observations of what actually happens?
|> >
|> >Matt Silberstein
|>
|> Thomas is trying to confuse the issue by not defining variation and
|> deviation. I have a watch that runs fast, gaining about one-half second
Please correct the attributions given.
joshua geller
Horned...@rocketmail.com writes:
> There is evidence of the Monolith culture on Heligoland & copper tools
> have been found there. But other then the large odd Monoliths, the culture
> was far from the advanced type of Culture Plato descriped.
I am assuming that by 'the Monolith culture' you mean the megalith
builders of northern and western europe, north africa, northeastern
north america, etc etc?
> However some historians have linked the Monolith culture to the Atlantis
> story, saying it was ebelished over the years. That the monolith culture
> wasn't that highly advanced & exisisted in France, Western Germany, Northern
> Spain and the British Isles and not some island that sank
> puts that theory into question.
let's see:
'highly advanced' is a relative thing. I'd say that people who could
draw very large scale geometric patterns on the ground and travel
around the world in boats are relatively highly advanced.
there wasn't one 'island' that 'sank'. during the last ice age, the
ocean levels were generally lower; more of the continental shelf was
exposed. many islands that are now very small were larger; many places
that are now shallow seas were islands. then, as now, civilization
clustered around ports.
'atlantis' is a misleading term; this is why I tend not to use it. I
prefer to talk about 'the ancient civilization of the earth'.
best,
josh
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
> Bernard Ortiz de Montellano wrote:
>
> > Heinrich has written extensively about the Piri Reis Map in general. the
> > Antartica gets some major play because of the publicity of the *Mysterious
> > Origins of Man* which played up this continent. It is grossly inaccurate--
> > Heirnrich points out that:
>
> I think it is unfair to reject the map for the sole reason that many
geological
> features on it are different than today. Things change, even geologically.
> Historical geological data or even archaeological findings should be the
tools used
> to validate or invalidate the information on the Piri Reis map in my
opinion. I
> have not researched the differences and therefore do not really have an
opinion,
> however, I would have a tendency to give Admiral Piri the benefit of the
doubt until
> proven otherwise.
Without going on and on in this thread-- You must keep in mind the time
frame we are dealing with. Geological changes take a very very long time
so that geological data is not really relevant here (the map is 1513 that
is less than 500 years ago too short a time on a geologic scale for the
sort of large discrepancies involved. Archaeological evidence cannot tell
you about the sort of geographical changes involved-- remember after 1513
we have written historical records for the New World not just archaeology.
Maps done in the 16th century improved rapidly and were much better than
the Piri Reis and corrected the errors noted-- this could not have changed
so fast.
SNIP
Horned...@rocketmail.com
In article <ypv4syw...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
joshua geller <dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
>
> Horned...@rocketmail.com writes:
>
> > There is evidence of the Monolith culture on Heligoland & copper tools
> > have been found there. But other then the large odd Monoliths, the
culture
> > was far from the advanced type of Culture Plato descriped.
>
> I am assuming that by 'the Monolith culture' you mean the megalith
> builders of northern and western europe, north africa, northeastern
> north america, etc etc?
North Africa & North America? Sorry but the Megalith culture was
confined to Western & Northern Europe.
> > However some historians have linked the Monolith culture to the Atlantis
> > story, saying it was ebelished over the years. That the monolith culture
> > wasn't that highly advanced & exisisted in France, Western Germany,
Northern
> > Spain and the British Isles and not some island that sank
> > puts that theory into question.
>
> let's see:
>
> 'highly advanced' is a relative thing. I'd say that people who could
> draw very large scale geometric patterns on the ground and travel
> around the world in boats are relatively highly advanced.
Except that there is no solid evidence of traveling around the world and
many of the geometiric patterns original attributed to the Megalith
people are of Celtic origin, seperated by more then 1,000 years from
the Megalith culture.
> there wasn't one 'island' that 'sank'. during the last ice age, the
> ocean levels were generally lower; more of the continental shelf was
> exposed. many islands that are now very small were larger; many places
> that are now shallow seas were islands. then, as now, civilization
> clustered around ports.
The Megalith Culture arose after the last Ice Age, not before. The last
major Ice Age ended around 10,000 bc, the first Megaliths didn't appear until
around 8,000 bc.
> 'atlantis' is a misleading term; this is why I tend not to use it. I
> prefer to talk about 'the ancient civilization of the earth'.
"The ancient Civilization of the earth" isn't a good descriptive term
either considering there were other civilizations. And in the strictest
sense the Megalith culture isn't a civilization, being semi-nomadic
hunter-gatherers.
---Oscar Schlaf---
joshua geller
Horned...@rocketmail.com writes:
> In article <ypv4syw...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
> joshua geller <dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> > I am assuming that by 'the Monolith culture' you mean the megalith
> > builders of northern and western europe, north africa, northeastern
> > north america, etc etc?
> North Africa & North America? Sorry but the Megalith culture was
> confined to Western & Northern Europe.
really? I know that the inclusion of the new england stuff is
controversial (I think it is correct). I thought that the north
african stuff was well accepted, though.
but you are perfectly free to incorporate whatever picture of ancient
history that you like into your picture of the world.
> > 'highly advanced' is a relative thing. I'd say that people who could
> > draw very large scale geometric patterns on the ground and travel
> > around the world in boats are relatively highly advanced.
> Except that there is no solid evidence of traveling around the world and
> many of the geometiric patterns original attributed to the Megalith
> people are of Celtic origin, seperated by more then 1,000 years from
> the Megalith culture.
fascinating idea. so you think that the irish added them to the
megaliths later? or have you been reading too many apologia for the
currently fashionable set of theories?
> > there wasn't one 'island' that 'sank'. during the last ice age, the
> > ocean levels were generally lower; more of the continental shelf was
> > exposed. many islands that are now very small were larger; many places
> > that are now shallow seas were islands. then, as now, civilization
> > clustered around ports.
> The Megalith Culture arose after the last Ice Age, not before. The last
> major Ice Age ended around 10,000 bc, the first Megaliths didn't appear until
> around 8,000 bc.
well, that's really convenient for you, I must say.
> > 'atlantis' is a misleading term; this is why I tend not to use it. I
> > prefer to talk about 'the ancient civilization of the earth'.
> "The ancient Civilization of the earth" isn't a good descriptive term
> either considering there were other civilizations. And in the strictest
> sense the Megalith culture isn't a civilization, being semi-nomadic
> hunter-gatherers.
I see.
best,
josh
Doug Weller
On 12 May 1998 04:21:32 -0700, in sci.archaeology, joshua geller wrote:
[SNIP]
>really? I know that the inclusion of the new england stuff is
>controversial (I think it is correct). I thought that the north
>african stuff was well accepted, though.
I wouldn't call it controversiall, that's too strong a word. The
evidence shows that there are no pre-historic megaliths in New England.
Some people will disagree, but some people argue for Christian Celtic
empires in North America. Their non-existence isn't controversial
either.
North Africa's a different story.
Doug
joshua geller
really? what's the dates on mystery hill and all that? they look
pretty megalithic.
I don't know about empires, but I would certainly not discount
occasional voyages across the ocean during the irish christian period.
> North Africa's a different story.
right. the north african stuff is very obviously related to the
western european stuff.
best,
josh
Doug Weller
On 12 May 1998 11:48:52 -0700, in sci.archaeology, joshua geller wrote:
>dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) writes:
>> On 12 May 1998 04:21:32 -0700, in sci.archaeology, joshua geller wrote:
>
>> >really? I know that the inclusion of the new england stuff is
>> >controversial (I think it is correct). I thought that the north
>> >african stuff was well accepted, though.
>
>> I wouldn't call it controversiall, that's too strong a word. The
>> evidence shows that there are no pre-historic megaliths in New England.
>> Some people will disagree, but some people argue for Christian Celtic
>> empires in North America. Their non-existence isn't controversial
>> either.
>
>really? what's the dates on mystery hill and all that? they look
>pretty megalithic.
All post-colonial. Mainly 19th, late 18th century. Root cellars, etc in
the main (with contemporary magazines available on how to build them,
etc).
Mystery Hill early 19th century. It, by the way, was very heavily
'reconstructed' in the early 20th..
Some reposts, authors at the moment unknown:
Speaking of such structures:
"You will find one in Petersham, Massachusetts, locally called the
"Indian Cave." It is much like its more famous cousins. Oh, by the
way, it was built as a root cellar by the Davis family in the late
1700's. "
"Archaeological excavations at Mystery Hill, North Salem, New Hampshire
have demonstrated that no artifacts associated with Celtic peoples occur
there. In fact, only 18th and 19th century farming occupation seems to
be indicated. In fact, these are Celtic structures, but of the kind
built by Irish immigrants practicing a type of venacular architecture
(see Gradie 1981; Vescelius 1956). So-called altars are really items
used for making soap from lye and ash and have been documented in
farming museums throughout New England.
References Cited
Gradie R.F. 1981. Irish immigration to the 18th century New England and
the stone chamber controversy. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of
Connecticut 44:30-39.
Ross, A. and P. Reynolds 1978. 'Ancient Vermont'. Antiquity 52:100-107.
Vescelius, G. 1956. Excavations at Pattee's Caves. Bulletin of the
Eastern States Archaeological Federation 15:13-14."
joshua geller
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) writes:
> On 12 May 1998 11:48:52 -0700, in sci.archaeology, joshua geller wrote:
> >dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) writes:
> >> On 12 May 1998 04:21:32 -0700, in sci.archaeology, joshua geller wrote:
> >> >really? I know that the inclusion of the new england stuff is
> >> >controversial (I think it is correct). I thought that the north
> >> >african stuff was well accepted, though.
> >> I wouldn't call it controversiall, that's too strong a word. The
> >> evidence shows that there are no pre-historic megaliths in New England.
> >> Some people will disagree, but some people argue for Christian Celtic
> >> empires in North America. Their non-existence isn't controversial
> >> either.
> >really? what's the dates on mystery hill and all that? they look
> >pretty megalithic.
> All post-colonial. Mainly 19th, late 18th century. Root cellars, etc in
> the main (with contemporary magazines available on how to build them,
> etc).
this is interesting, and widely at variance with other reports.
I don't guess I know enough about the site to be qualified to form an
opinion about it.
best,
josh
Horned...@rocketmail.com
In article <ypvyaw7...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
joshua geller <dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
>
> Horned...@rocketmail.com writes:
> > In article <ypv4syw...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
> > joshua geller <dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
>
> > > I am assuming that by 'the Monolith culture' you mean the megalith
> > > builders of northern and western europe, north africa, northeastern
> > > north america, etc etc?
>
> > North Africa & North America? Sorry but the Megalith culture was
> > confined to Western & Northern Europe.
>
> controversial (I think it is correct). I thought that the north
> african stuff was well accepted, though.
There were extensive trade contacts between North Africa & the Megalithic
culture, but North Africa isn't deemed part of the Megalithic Culture.
> but you are perfectly free to incorporate whatever picture of ancient
> history that you like into your picture of the world.
You are perfectly free to read more on the subject before automatically
listing such places as New England as part of the Megalithic culture.
> > > 'highly advanced' is a relative thing. I'd say that people who could
> > > draw very large scale geometric patterns on the ground and travel
> > > around the world in boats are relatively highly advanced.
>
> > Except that there is no solid evidence of traveling around the world and
> > many of the geometiric patterns original attributed to the Megalith
> > people are of Celtic origin, seperated by more then 1,000 years from
> > the Megalith culture.
>
> fascinating idea. so you think that the irish added them to the
> megaliths later?
No, but many of the astronomical/astrogological sites that were identified
as Megalithic sites dating close to 8,000 BC are actually the product of
the Celtic La Tene period.
> > > there wasn't one 'island' that 'sank'. during the last ice age, the
> > > ocean levels were generally lower; more of the continental shelf was
> > > exposed. many islands that are now very small were larger; many places
> > > that are now shallow seas were islands. then, as now, civilization
> > > clustered around ports.
>
> > The Megalith Culture arose after the last Ice Age, not before. The last
> > major Ice Age ended around 10,000 bc, the first Megaliths didn't appear
until
> > around 8,000 bc.
>
> well, that's really convenient for you, I must say.
It's generally accepted history, go read up on it.....
---Oscar Schlaf--
joshua geller
Horned...@rocketmail.com writes:
> In article <ypvyaw7...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
> joshua geller <dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> > Horned...@rocketmail.com writes:
> > > In article <ypv4syw...@shell5.ba.best.com>,
> > > joshua geller <dcl...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> > > > I am assuming that by 'the Monolith culture' you mean the megalith
> > > > builders of northern and western europe, north africa, northeastern
> > > > north america, etc etc?
> > > North Africa & North America? Sorry but the Megalith culture was
> > > confined to Western & Northern Europe.
> > really? I know that the inclusion of the new england stuff is
> > controversial (I think it is correct). I thought that the north
> > african stuff was well accepted, though.
> There were extensive trade contacts between North Africa & the Megalithic
> culture, but North Africa isn't deemed part of the Megalithic Culture.
so how do you explain astronomical monuments in north africa? the
traders built them so they could celebrate the high holy days away
from home?
> > but you are perfectly free to incorporate whatever picture of ancient
> > history that you like into your picture of the world.
> You are perfectly free to read more on the subject before automatically
> listing such places as New England as part of the Megalithic culture.
ahem. well, I have been looking at some of the mystery hill stuff on
the web. I'm less convinced that it is megalithic than I was before I
looked at it. I'll withdraw the 'new england' for now.
> > > > 'highly advanced' is a relative thing. I'd say that people who could
> > > > draw very large scale geometric patterns on the ground and travel
> > > > around the world in boats are relatively highly advanced.
> > > Except that there is no solid evidence of traveling around the world and
> > > many of the geometiric patterns original attributed to the Megalith
> > > people are of Celtic origin, seperated by more then 1,000 years from
> > > the Megalith culture.
> > fascinating idea. so you think that the irish added them to the
> > megaliths later?
> No, but many of the astronomical/astrogological sites that were identified
> as Megalithic sites dating close to 8,000 BC are actually the product of
> the Celtic La Tene period.
so you do see a cultural continuity between the megalithic culture and
the early keltoi? this is quite interesting.
> > > > there wasn't one 'island' that 'sank'. during the last ice age, the
> > > > ocean levels were generally lower; more of the continental shelf was
> > > > exposed. many islands that are now very small were larger; many places
> > > > that are now shallow seas were islands. then, as now, civilization
> > > > clustered around ports.
> > > The Megalith Culture arose after the last Ice Age, not before. The last
> > > major Ice Age ended around 10,000 bc, the first Megaliths didn't appear
> > > until around 8,000 bc.
what's 2000 years between friends?
more seriously, I'd expect that the centers of civilization during the
ice age were closer to the sea: that is, underwater right now. I
wouldn't be at all surprised if investigation of the more shallow
waters around northwest europe yielded some interesting
stuff. not very good conditions for underwater archaeology in that
area, so we might be waiting some.
> > well, that's really convenient for you, I must say.
> It's generally accepted history, go read up on it.....
lots of things are generally accepted. that doesn't mean I go around
believing (or disbelieving) them. belief is error, and so is
disbelief, generally.
best,
josh
Marx c/o PAF
Answers from Chris Marx c/o PAF <pa...@1.lol.li>
--
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano wrote in...
>In article <3556ABB7...@oanet.com>, Gisele <horv...@oanet.com>
wrote:
>
>> Bernard Ortiz de Montellano wrote:
>>
>> > Heinrich has written extensively about the Piri Reis Map in general.
the Antartica gets some major play because of the publicity of the
*Mysterious Origins of Man* which played up this continent. It is grossly
inaccurate-- Heirnrich points out that:
>>
>> I think it is unfair to reject the map for the sole reason that many
geological features on it are different than today. Things change, even
geologically. Historical geological data or even archaeological findings
should be the tools used to validate or invalidate the information on the
Piri Reis map in my opinion. I have not researched the differences and
therefore do not really have an opinion, however, I would have a tendency
to give Admiral Piri the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
This is not a question of solely the Piri Reis map, but of ALL the
maps analysed by Hapgood (& recontructed by him according to the different
methods of projection he detected). Gisele quite properly gives those
sources the benefit of the doubt & could even go further to reflect that
seafaring people draw maps enabling them to arrive at their destinations
as safely as possible without wrecking their ships & loosing their lives
because of fancy landmarks added to or omitted from their maps.
>
>Without going on and on in this thread-- You must keep in mind the time
frame we are dealing with.
The time frame according to the RHNH is about a thousand years ago.
>Geological changes take a very very long time
Certainly not! They happen INSTANTLY. In our case you have to keep in
mind the cataclysms we know about from the sources around 800 to 600 years
ago & which are corroborated by the cause of the GCR. Here's the
non-refutable inherent logic evidence for the repositioning of the earth
toward the middle of the Trecento:--
A. -573 UC (1372 XC): First document describing March 21 not agreeing
with the spring equinox & the length of the year not measuring 365.25 days
anymore
B. -370 UC (1575 XC): Start of astronomical observations regarding the
March 21 tradition & the length of the year with the results that (i) 10
days have to be removed from the "Julian" calendar to re-introduce the
equinox tradition again & (ii) a new leap-year rule for fixing the
tradition in future in a year which had now been observed to have 365.2425
days only has to be introduced.
C. -363 UC (1582 XC) GCR introduced.
D. Because TWO to the science of the day INDEPENDENT phenomena (March
21 equinox tradition & changed year length) were discovered TOGETHER by
OBSERVATION only 200 years before the reform of the calendar they caused,
the earth MUST have been re-positioned some very few years before their
discovery, obviously at the time of the last exoterrestrically caused
catastrophe (Black Dath) -597 UC (1348 XC).
Naturally, the earth could only behave like this because of the
effects of exoterrestric forces, & also naturally this behaviour had to be
accompanied by cataclysms all over the world; & thus our maps clearly
testify to their geological effects.
>so that geological data is not really relevant here (the map is 1513 that
is less than 500 years ago too short a time on a geologic scale for the
sort of large discrepancies involved. Archaeological evidence cannot tell
you about the sort of geographical changes involved-- remember after 1513
we have written historical records for the New World not just archaeology.
O but it can! From Greenland, which began to receive its ice shield
with the beginning of the "Little Ice Age" from the middle of the
Trecento, throughout the Americas with the remnants of the peoples lost
during the cataclysms of Schizo Time (a hundred or two hundred years
ending with the "Last Jolt" in the middle of the Trecento), & in the other
parts of the Old Time world.
>
>Maps done in the 16th century improved rapidly and were much better than
the Piri Reis and corrected the errors noted-- this could not have changed
so fast.
Yes. But they had to pick up on sources left to them from before the
cataclysms had ended the antiquity civilisations.
--
XC = Christian Calendar
UC = Universal Calendar (its epoch the spring equinox of 1945 XC)
GCR = Gregorian Calendar Reform -370/-363 UC (1577/1582 AD)
(s)RHNH = (statistical) Reconstruction of Human & Natural History
A free overview of the RHNH: _Collective Amnesia and the Compulsive
Repetition of Human Sacrifice_ (1984, English & German) is available from
pa...@1.lol.li (please give snailmail address).
"The resolution of contradictions in relevant data renders unnecessary 99%
of all theories" [AI & common sense]
Doug Weller
On 12 May 1998 17:38:09 -0700, in sci.archaeology, joshua geller wrote:
>dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) writes:
>> On 12 May 1998 11:48:52 -0700, in sci.archaeology, joshua geller wrote:
>> >dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) writes:
>> >> On 12 May 1998 04:21:32 -0700, in sci.archaeology, joshua geller wrote:
>
[SNIP]
>> >really? what's the dates on mystery hill and all that? they look
>> >pretty megalithic.
>
>> All post-colonial. Mainly 19th, late 18th century. Root cellars, etc in
>> the main (with contemporary magazines available on how to build them,
>> etc).
>
>this is interesting, and widely at variance with other reports.
>
It's not really at variance with any of the archaeological reports. And
as I said, you can look in various archives and find old contemporary
magazines, etc., with instructions for building these!
Doug
FKoe
On 10 May 1998 07:59:06 -0400, Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
>The Piri Reis Map shows land where the Gulf of Mexico currently is. It's my understanding that this was one
>of the flooded areas at the end of the last ice age and that the initial Mayan colonists were required to
>move due to rising waters. Paul Heinrich feels that Admiral Piri erred in his compilation of various older
>maps.
So, Giselle, you trust a 16th century map to the point of taking it
literally, but you reject the careful error evaluation done today in
C14? Back then they guessed wildly, they did not know about the
magnetic aberration so typical for North America yet, and if they were
looking for an ocean or land they could not find, they sketched it
into the map "just behind the horizon". Many trips were made to find a
passage past the Americas, and wishful thinking caused the Pacific to
reach right to Baltimore in a map I own.
>Supporting the proposal that Admiral Piri 'should not' have erred is the very good depictions of the coastal
>areas of the Old World, upper half of South America and an accurate wideth of the Atlantic Ocean (I measured
>it). Some of the smaller islands off the coast of South America are depicted but the larger islands in the
>Caribbean are absent (the ones that Columbus found no animals except non-barking dogs on). Also, there's a
>series of 4 grey markers or buildings depicted on the map in roughly about the location where Florida would
>be today. If this area really was a peninsula then, how could the ancient mapmakers have missed this and the
>larger islands and the entire Gulf of Mexico (if it was underwater then)? Actually, it would be an
>interesting project to superimpose an outline of the Piri Reis Map on a current one and compare the
>differences with geological knowledge.
If geologic uplift were that fast we could watch it.
>
>I suggest that the maps that Admiral Piri's used
I suggest that you take a fee for reading your contributions because
they are so funny.
FKoe
pere...@T-Online.de --> correct @@@ to @
Aachen, Germany
________________________________________________
Daddy, what does it mean, "Formatting C"?
FKoe
In case someone is interested, I could post the entire calibration
list from 1950 CE to the end of the ice age 8000 BCE.
Falk Koenemann
Gisele
FKoe wrote:
> On 10 May 1998 07:59:06 -0400, Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote:
>
> >The Piri Reis Map shows land where the Gulf of Mexico currently is. It's my understanding that this was one of
> the flooded areas at the end of the last ice age and that the initial Mayan colonists were required to move due
> to rising waters. Paul Heinrich feels that Admiral Piri erred in his compilation of various older maps.
>
> So, Giselle, you trust a 16th century map to the point of taking it
> literally, but you reject the careful error evaluation done today in
> C14? Back then they guessed wildly, they did not know about the
> magnetic aberration so typical for North America yet, and if they were
> looking for an ocean or land they could not find, they sketched it
> into the map "just behind the horizon". Many trips were made to find a
> passage past the Americas, and wishful thinking caused the Pacific to
> reach right to Baltimore in a map I own.
I don't think you've even looked at the Piri Reis map. Here's a better url:
http://www.ee.bilkent.edu.tr/%7Ehistory/Images/Topkapi/OtherImages2/piri.jpg
Now check out the maps that came after the Piri Reis (Early Maps of the New World):
http://scarlett.libs.uga.edu/darchive/hargrett/maps/maps.html
and then tell me who was doing the fudging; Admiral Piri Reis or the cartographers after him?
> >Supporting the proposal that Admiral Piri 'should not' have erred is the very good depictions of the coastal
> areas of the Old World, upper half of South America and an accurate wideth of the Atlantic Ocean (I measured
> it). Some of the smaller islands off the coast of South America are depicted but the larger islands in the
> Caribbean are absent (the ones that Columbus found no animals except non-barking dogs on). Also, there's a
> series of 4 grey markers or buildings depicted on the map in roughly about the location where Florida would be
> today. If this area really was a peninsula then, how could the ancient mapmakers have missed this and the
> larger islands and the entire Gulf of Mexico (if it was underwater then)? Actually, it would be an interesting
> project to superimpose an outline of the Piri Reis Map on a current one and compare the differences with
> geological knowledge.
>
> If geologic uplift were that fast we could watch it.
I was speaking more of ancient geological features. The center portion of the larger red island in the upper left
hand corner is at about 36 degrees N as it is in line with the Strait of Gibraltar. This would place it in about
the same position as Virginia and North Carolina are today. Compare the coastlines of each.
Gisele
Richard Harter
Pere...@t-online.de (FKoe) wrote:
>In case someone is interested, I could post the entire calibration
>list from 1950 CE to the end of the ice age 8000 BCE.
I would be interested. I have a short article on C-14 on the web for which I
want it.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us.
Pigs treat us as equals. -- Winston Churchill