Plato's Atlantis My Theory

[Qoais]

Hi
I can see I have to do some spell checking as my fingers don't seem to go as fast as my brain!
I made a personal hypothesis for this business of Atlantis, and since this heading seems to suit I thought I would explain what I worked out, and perhaps get some discussion on it.  I'm quoting myself from another forum and in one sentence, this is the root of my theory:

The point is, the core of the story is correct. But it's a precis - a condensed version- of the whole history of the Atlanteans - not just about one specific city with rings - not just about a specific place- not about any specific TIME, until he mentions the time of the battle.

......and even that is being disputed.

Plato was a historian and telling this story, although it was intended as an entertainment for his peers, in honor of the goddess, and was also supposed to tell the story of heroism of the Hellenes, he spent more time talking about Atlantis than he did about the Greeks.  He also leaves out important factors that should have been included when telling a great war story.  He tells nothing of the direction the battle came from, he doesn't tell how long it lasted, and he gives no details of the battle itself.  Strange, since it was to glorify the Greek Army in the most important battle in their historical past. 

Now we see that the story came from Egypt, from an old priest who basically guarded precious knowledge.
We see from the Bock Saga, that since the beginning of time, the Aser people trained up a "rememberer" who every so often was sent out into the world to re-teach to the tribes of Atlandis what they had forgotten from their past, as the ice age sent them in all directions.

We know there were people of Atlantis in most of northern Europe, including England, Spain, France, Germany, Turkey, Russia, as well as Libya, Italy, etc.  The "oralist" sent out to up-date the people, apparently did just that, and then moved on to the next group.  He used what the Bock Saga called the "sound system" to communicate, (please read the Bock Saga if you haven't already, it's amazing) and somewhere in the Med. area, someone made an effort to write down the message the "oralist" had given.  Because our languages cannot do justice in expressing what the "oralist" could with the "sound system", we have a condensed version of the history of Atlandis, recorded by the Egyptians.  The priests might have deliberately  given the story about the battle to Solon, knowing he was famous for his intelligence and writings, and that he would record it, and thereby keep the history alive.  Perhaps the priest who told the story had some insight into the future and knew the Egyptian copies would be lost.  He was right, whatever the inspiration, the story comes to us from Solon afterall.  (Smart priest)!

If you read the Bock Saga, you will note that they used the ring (circle) always, as it is the root of their sound system and their undertanding of living in harmony with the earth - using electrical impulses from their bodies to join with the electrical impulses of the earth, creating a closed circuit - circle.  It was the manner used to train the oralist for his career of "up-dating" the tribes he visited.

So regarding Plato's story as we like to call it - I concluded that in essence - it is a history of Atlandis back into the mists of time.  Atlantis was not originally a city.  It was a land.  At-land-is - "the land is ice".   Later when the people were displaced, each tribe built a city, so there will lots of citys buried somewhere that have the circle theme.  Somewhere along the line, some of the tribes broke away from the original teachings and developed "ego".  Set themselves up as being better than others and became "gods".  (Plato mentions this) Each tribe devloped according to their environment, so we have some that were farmers, others developed mining, architecture, etc. 

In this light then, when we read Plato's story, we can see that whoever was the attacking the Greeks, had ORIGINATED on an island in the ocean, they HAD been spiritual in the beginning, lost their divine part, and became base.  Whoever the people were, they were powerful and we see that they had control of Europe to Tyrrenia already, and also of Libya as far as Egypt indicating that they were a wide spread people. "This power" did indeed come from outside the straits, as it originated in the North. The story covers the HISTORY of Atlantis, and does not indicate specifically WHEN anything happened.  We are given wonderful descriptions of these people and their original lands, (long since gone under the ice in the first ice age) and moving into the time of the battle, we are looking at a specific tribe that attacked Greece. 

For better understanding - let's take away the story of the battle for a moment.  We find then, nothing more than a wonderful history related about an incredible peoples.  How they spread out, how they evolved and developed, who their gods were, how intelligent they were, etc. etc.  Now having a picture in our mind of this incredible civilization, we put the battle back into the story and hear that for some reason (unprovoked) the Greeks were attacked by them.
The story doesn't say from where the attack commenced.  We assume it was from an island because our mind cannot get past the fact that Plato gave this description first, however, remember that it's an overview of their history, but like I said, he's not describing the place the attack came from.    Now although the Atlanteans were supposedly great sailors, at the time of the battle, the Greeks were not.  So we have to assume this battle was on land.  Also, Plato says "that afterward" as in after the battle, "all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth" and Atlantis suffered the same fate.  But at the same time?  No - because Plato is again taking the timelines out of context and is merely explaining the fate of both nations.  The fate of the Atlanteans original home sunk beneath the ocean yes - but long, long in the past.  Plato does not specifically say when.  All he says here, is that there was a battle that the Greeks won, and right after the battle, while the men were still in battle formation, the earthquake happened and they sank into the earth.  He fluffs out the story a bit by saying the Greeks had stopped the onslaught, but really, it would appear that the earthquake was quite effective in preventing the attack from reaching Egypt as was supposedly intended.
If you watch a movie that has flashbacks, you'll understand this better.  The story is given in today, but there's flashbacks to a previous time.

Now we're left with the question still, which tribe had governance over Libya and Europe and where was their home base?

I have followed a trail that has been trod by many before me, and using other writings besides Plato, I can give a theory on that also.

[Qoais]

Oh dear - I don't know what happened.  I was trying to post under a different heading (Hypothesis) and I guess my time ran out and when I re-logged in, I created another heading altogether.  Hope nobody minds.  Perhaps this thread could be moved somehow to where I was trying to put it?

[Proteus]

Hi Qoais,

Looks fne to me here, where were you intending to move it to?

[Qoais]

Atlantis - Location Hypothesis - doesn't matter tho - can stay here if it's ok.

[Qoais]

If this is going to stay here, can the name be changed?  It was a mistake really and if I'd known it was going to open a new thread I'd have called it something else, as there is already a heading with this name.

[Morrison]

Hi Qoais, if you want to change the title, all you have to do is hit "Modify," and you can rename it anything you like.  Hope that helps!

[Qoais]

Since it's so much easier to cut and paste, than to retype everything, I've copied my posts from another forum:

One must also use their own common sense.  We don't have a time machine to go back and actually see it all, but I think we do have to realize that Plato was talking about two different time lines. The time when the gods first came, and then the period of time near the end, when the last cataclysm ocurred and the majority of Atlantis sunk. There is no indication of the length of time in between the beginning and the end. Therefore, we do not know when the land broke up, and became islands and peninsulas. Even the scientists are in disagreement as to when this happened.
There are layers of salt in the Med. Scientists specualte how they got there. If the Med. was connected at one time to what we call the Indian ocean, before the Arabian peninsula raised up, then the Med would naturally have a lot of salt in it, since it was joined to the ocean eons ago. When the earth was young, the land rose and fell, rose and fell. When it fell, the water covered it. Leaving salt.
The priest himself explained to Solon that the area had been flooded many times, whereas the Greeks only remembered one time.
Nor does Plato say that the city of Atlantis was destroyed in the last event. He says the ISLAND - meaning the part that was left after the other catclysms.

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

The city was probably destroyed earlier. After losing their city and so much land, it makes sense that they would then try to spread to the continents to subjugate the peoples there in order to gain more land for a growing population. The island probably could not grow enough food to support the population and they needed to expand

When Nikas proposed his theory in Robert Sarmast's forum, we had a bit of fun imagining an island in the shape of an elongated peanut, stretching from the shores of Spain, to Crete.
Now I don't know if Egypt's borders were always where they are now, so I don't know where exactly, the borders of Libya were. Anyway, IF Atlantas was this large island in the Med, it would explain it's close proximity to other lands that they had taken over, the easy accessability to others lands for trade, the "routine acess" to Athens, the space for such a huge population, and after the disaster, the isolation of Crete which maintained the high culture for another 2000 years. We see pottery from Crete showing the acrobats playing with the bulls. I THINK, but can't remember positively, that this was the only place we find this pottery. Or perhaps some is in areas close to Crete. Feel free to remind me! PERHAPS, we only see this pottery there because it is the location where the bulls were kept and cared for.

Not to argue with Georgeos scientific studies, I just thought we should maybe look at an overall view of the story itself, using common sense to connect the story with what all arms of science have discovered so far.

In Diodorus Siculus - it says that the Amazons first attacked the Atlanteans - so I'm assuming they must be fairly close by. The Atlanteans, after a pitched battle which the Amazons won, surrendered their cities on terms of capitulation. Queen Myrina of the Amazons, established friendship and founded a city to bear her name in place of the city she had razed. The Atlanteans apparently then asked Myrina to invade the land of the Gorgons, a folk which resided on their borders - and she did so.

Now I'm assuming The Amazons lived on one side of the Atlanteans, and that the Gorgons lived on a different side, otherwise the Amazons would have attacked THEM first.

From Wikipedia regarding the land of the Gorgons.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their home is on the farthest side of the western ocean; according to later authorities, in Libya. The Attic tradition, reproduced in Euripides (Ion), regarded the Gorgon as a monster, produced by Gaia to aid her sons the giants against the gods and slain by Athena.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To me, the farthest side of the western ocean would mean of course that it's the farthest piece of land right on the coast of Libya, which is now Morocco. So - if the Atlanteans were neighbors of the Gorgons, they too would be on the western shores. So you see - we can find logic for both locations - the western end of the Med, or the middle. The more comparisons we can make that work on a logical scale, the more solid becomes a theory. OR Plato included some reality and some imagination into his story.

I realize he said "which is NOW called".
I was just saying that the whole landmass had already been named, and whatever country was named after Eumelus, in the language of THAT country, his name was Gadeirus. Georgeos has assured us that in any of the histories, Gadeirus always was where it is now. Spain. Therefore, Atlantis faced/was near/beside/etc.etc./ Spain. Or more specifically, modern day Cadiz. But if in history, the whole Iberian peninsula was called Gadeirus, it leaves it open as to which Side of Spain, Atlantis was "facing". The "extremity" of the land Atlantis faced Gadeirus near the Pillars. The extremity is the area farthest from the middle. So, the southwestern extremity would mean that Atlantis was in the ocean, and the southeastern extremity would be in the Med. Both "extremities" would still be near the Pillars and "facing" Spain.

[Qoais]

 I always believed UNTIL I read Plato.(That Atlantis was an island in the Atlantic) Now I'm wondering, after reading in this forum for days on end, if Atlantis WAS in the North!!!!
Just for fun, when we were debating this on Sarmats's site, I cut and pasted Malaysia into the Atlantic west of Spain. I figured it was about the right size, but it wasn't exactly the shape I was trying to create. I'm not at all very good with this picture business, but it was all in fun.

When I said maybe Atlantis was in the north -I was referring to the fact that Felice Vinci has interpreted Homer differently, showing that his stories and poems could have been located in the North. Therefore, perhaps, Plato's Atlantis is in the north also. (especially if the Bock Saga is true, and Plato has woven the history of Atlantis into the tale)

Now let's pretend that Georgeos is right. 
To corroberate his theory, I'm trying to figure out logically, how the Amazons could attack the Atlanteans. Their home was on an"island" which, because it was in the west, was called Hespera, and it lay in the marsh Tritonis. This marsh was near the "ocean" which surrounds the earth, and near to the Atlas mountains. The island was of a great size and full of fruit bearing trees of every kind, but grain used not at all because it had not been discovered among them. Soooooo - this is waaaaay back.
From Wikipedia:
According to the Sicilian Greek poet Stesichorus, in his poem the "Song of Geryon", and the Greek geographer Strabo, in his book Geographika (volume III), the Hesperides are in Tartessos, a location placed in the south of Iberia (Spain). The Euboean Greek poet Hesiod said that the ancient name of Cádiz was Erytheia, another name for the Hesperides. Others[citation needed] situate the gardens of Hesperides in the region located between Tangier (formerly Tinjis) and Larache in Morocco.

Now I'm just going to type in a bit from Diodorus here to get a picture of the Amazons.

The Amazons, then, being a race superior in valour and eager for war, first of all subdued all the cities on the island except the one called Mene, which was considered to be sacred and was inhabited by Ethiopian Ichthyophagi, and was also subject to great eruptions of fire and possessed a multitude of the precious stones which the Greeks call anthrax, sardion, and smaragdos (there's a little footnote telling about these gems)and after this they subdued many of the neighbouring Libyans and nomad tribes, and founded within the marsh Tritonis a great city which they named Cherronesus after it's shape. (foot note beside Cherronesus - Peninsula; presumably the city lay on a ridge of land running out into the marsh.
Setting out from the city of Cherronesus, the Amazons embarked upon great ventures, a longing having come over them to invade many parts of the inhabited world. The first people against whom they advanced, was the Atlantians, the most civilized men among the inhabitants of those regions, who dwelt in a prosperous country and possessed great cities.

Just a bit more 
Now the queen of the Amazons, Myrina, collected an army of thirty thousand foot-soldiers and three thousand cavalry, since they favoured to an unusual degree the use of cavalry in their wars.

I don't know what shape a Cherronesus is, so don't know the shape of this "peninsula". But I do know (I think!)  that the Atlas mountains, and Libya are on the Southern side of the Straits, and that thirty thousand foot-soldiers and three thousand cavalry, are not going to swim the straits to attack the Atlanteans in Cadiz/Spain/Iberia/ or an extremity thereof. Are they?

Therefore, it is logical to me that whatever island the Amazons lived on,it seems to be similar to the island of Atlantis in it's riches and food stuffs, (although supposedly Atlantis had other foods as well), it was near to or possibly joined to the island of Atlantis somehow since they were attacked first, and also logical therefore, that Atlantis must be on the same side of the straits as Amazonland since the Atlas mountains are on that side.
So -to correlate with your theory - whatever time in history the Amazons attacked the Atlanteans,A) the Strait of Gibralter would have had to be closed, OR B)Atlantis was on the same side, OR C)the Amazon warriors were fabulous swimmers, and swam across the strait to where your tombolo was.
I vote for B

Eureka!!!!!!
Cherronesus - continent island - translating to peninsula. A perfect description. A piece of land that is an EXTREMITY of a mainland, that is almost completely surrounded by water, but technically still a part of the mainland because it has a little neck attaching it. NOT nesos that COULD BE an island or a river mouth or wetlands, or, or , or but an acutal word in Greek that means exactly what it's supposed to!!!! . So - one would think that if the Greeks actually had a word for this type of land - Plato would use that instead of nesos.


There's more than one culture of Atlantis? Georgeos - let's not use desperate measures here. We KNOW the Atlanteans spread out and took over lands, we already know where THOSE lands are - it's the Atlantean land we're trying to find.

The account does not accredit the Amazons with sailing as it stresses they preferred FOOT soldiers and horses. Try to use logic. An army, attacking another country in those days, could not just pull up to their docks, casually unload 33,000 warriors and 3000 horses, without SOMEONE noticing. As a ploy in war, this would be senseless. The dock sticks out in the water - they would be trapped before they could get off the ships. No, I don't think the Amazons went by ship.

As for swimming across, they would die of hypothermia before they got there, and if they lived, they'd be so cold as to be almost catatonic.

But if you notice, the account says that Amazons did attack some Nomadic tribes in LIBYA, THEN built their city of Cherronesus. Therefore, they are on the Libyan side of the straits. THEN next, they attacked the Atlanteans. Their city also sunk into the water, just like Atlantis. So if we say as Georgeos says, that the Amazons attacked "other" Atlanteans, those other Atlanteans would still have had to be on the Libyan side.
Now if we could figure out where this city called Mene was which was inhabited by Ethiopian Ichthyophagi we'd be getting warmer.

A friend sent me this info:

"The Greeks did believe apparently that there was an Ethiopia in the location we usually place it , but also Ethiopia in the far west of Africa ,Mauretania ,that way . It was so called because of the black inhabitants .Ethiopia basically means 'Land of the burnt-faced people'.
As for the Ethiopian Ichthyo***i mentioned by Diodorus , they r black fish-eaters. I think i recall that a legend about Perseus or some other Greek hero who saved Andromeda ,had him go to the far west of Libya ,to Ethiopia to save the princess"

So now we have another little clue that mentions Libya again. So if the Amazons were on the same island as the Ethiopian Ichthyophagi, and THEY were on the side of Libya, and the Atlanteas were neighbors of the Amazons, then they were ALL on the side of Libya. UNLESS THE LAND BRIDGE WAS CLOSED AND THE AMAZONS CROSSED OVER. However, the Amazons continued their journey along the south side of the Med not the north side, which makes sense if you're starting out from the south side already.

[Qoais]

And what would "blessed" mean to people in those days? A place that had an abundance of food, water and the beauties and abundance of nature. Also perhaps, a "god" may or may not have lived there. In everything I've read so far, all the lands in the west lying on the shore of the ocean were "blessed". Nice beaches you know!

Georgeos, if you know Plato so well, and understand all the meanings of his writing, tell us why he did not use the word Cheronneus? This would be the word a writer would use to describe a certain type of piece of land,a tombolo, because he is being SO descriptive. The point is not whether he used it - it's why didn't he use it? The point is - the word is there for him to use. He COULD have used it, for a much better description. BUT HE DIDN'T. Because that's not what he meant.

Plato did not mention the Amazons, because that was not the story he was telling. That does not mean to say he didn't know about them. Just because he did not mention them, does not mean they didn't exist.

Diodorus says they lived in the NORTH of Libya next to the Atlas mountains, right where the mountains reach down to the sea.

You know what Georgeos? I think you're worried that if we put all the pieces of the puzzle into perspective, it might turn out you're wrong. You discount all the other great famous writers, you discount all the other professional interpreters, you use feeble excuses to explain the stories of other writers - and you look on Plato like he's the only one in history to ever write anything. He WAS human you know, and could himself have made mistakes. To say nothing of the fact that Solon could have made mistakes as well. So - to PROVE Plato was correct - is of course - the whole point of the search for Atlantis - like in an investigation by the police, they do not use just one witness to solve the crime. We must find all the information possible, and fit the pieces together so we can prove the existance of Atlantis at all.

You were not there when Plato wrote the story, nor when the priest told Solon the story. So how do you KNOW what Plato's intent was? How do you know for a fact that it wasn't just a story? Just because someone said it was true, doesn't mean it was. People tell fibs all the time.

Another aspect that to me is up for controversy, is that it is generally accepted that the Pillars of Heracles are pillars, or something that resembles pillars.

First of all was it Pillar (singular) or was it Pillars - plural? We usually accept plural.

So - quoting from Diodorus again, - this little blurb about the end of the Amazons.

"But the Gorgons, grown strong again in later days, were subdued a second time by Perseus, the son of Zeus, when Medusa was queen over them; and in the end both they and the race of Amazons were entirely destroyed by Heracles, when he visited the REGIONS TO THE WEST AND SET UP HIS PILLARS IN LIBYA"

These Pillars of course commemmorating his great deed of wiping out the Gorgons and Amazons. Now we understand it that the Amazons headquarters/homeland was on the NW tip of Libya, (that would be the SOUTH side of the strait), and we read that the Amazons travelled through Libya, Egypt, Arabia, etc. - all of these being on the SOUTH side of the Med. So - if Heracles wiped these people out - and put up pillars to tell the tale, LARGE pillars no doubt as they are supposed to be a marker, THE PILLARS ARE IN LIBYA.

If you read the MYTHS of Heracles, you will find that the deeds may be beyond belief and exaggerated. The story that tells of how the Pillars came into existance was that Heracles was going to steal something from somebody on an island in the ocean, but due to the fact that there were mountains in the way, he struck the mountains to open a passage, but he died and turned to stone and the myth states that the parts of the mountain left standing are his legs - pillars - which held him up.

Now we know from the statues and stuff, that Heracles was no where such a giant, but WAS very strong.In fact Heracles no not a giant at all, but was extremely well built and muscled. So the myth of the mountains being his legs, gets mixed up with reality, in that there were actual pillars put in place by Heracles.

So when it comes to the Strait of Gibralter, do we have two pillars - or one? (Tall skinny mountains) because we need two to hold Heracles up. I don't think he was hopping all over the known world with one leg, and no matter how gigantic he MAY have been, he was not such a giant that one leg would be 8 or nine miles from the other leg when he turned to stone. (The distance across the Strait). Even if the strait was only say half that, how big would he have had to be to spread his legs that far? Giants in those days, were considered from say 7 to 10 feet tall.

Another question would be - where did the priest get the story to start with? 9000 years before Plato, someone had contact with the Egyptians and related this history. I'm not going to say that people did not have boats back then, (because I don't know that for a fact), but I would say that if they did, they were not exactly sea going vessels. In my own humble opinion, if one was traveling in those days, one was likely walking. (and the only person I've ever heard of that walked on water was - you know who)
If we take a hike from Egypt to Morocco, and followed the coast line, we would end up in what is now I think the Province of Tangier. This too, is a "nesos" really, because it is a piece of land sticking out into the water from the mainland and surrounded by water on 3 sides.
So if we were walking up the center of this piece of land towards the Strait of Gibralter, what would we be facing? Spain. Now I said before, that if you were looking at the Straits from the North or the South, and if the "Pillars" were on the East or West, then the Pillars would appear to be on the side of the two necks of land that reach out towards each other. Therefore, if Plato did say that the pillars were "on the side of" or "beside", then whoever was telling the story was telling it from the perspective of North or South. Because either way, the pillars would still be in "front" of the Strait, whether you were going in or out. If you're coming in, the pillars are in front of you, and if you're going out, the pillars are in front of you.

So if this whole story took the perspective from land, I am trying to show that the LAND was on the southern side of the Strait. All the stories so far agree with that as regarding the Amazons, and the Gorgons being neighbors to Atlantis.

Georgeos, I think one thing you cannot say has been displaced, is that the sun always sinks in the west, not the north. The land of night was beyond wherever the sun went down.

1)Was Gadiera always Gadiera? I had searched this out and found that no matter what language, Gadiera had never been displaced.

2)Where are the Pillars of Heracles? Right where they always were - in the mouth of the strait. The straight does not have a mouth on the west side. In the myth, Heracles did not get past the strait to the island he was seeking, therefore, the pillars (his legs) have to be somewhere on the inside. If you do a close-up of the strait on Nasa Worldwind, you will see (at least I believe this) that the strait was narrower in times past. As a matter of fact, it almost looks like walls were built for a narrow passage.

3)Island. Since I always thought Atlantis was an island, and had never heard this theory of a tombolo before or knew that nesos could mean all those things Georgeos said, I had already accepted that Atlantis was an island.

This is the only dispute left - was Atlantis an island or was it Spain?

In all my "ramblings" I am trying to use logic to determine which. I have no idea if the Atlanteans had a "circle" cult or not. Plato didn't say that. He said the princes all got together every 5 or 6 years to sacrifice a bull. He didn't say the commoners did this. This ritual was reserved for the princes of Atlantis and their ruling king.

One of the problems that may not be super important, but then yet again it could be - to determine the time frame - is when the strait of Gibralter opened. Plato's story talks about the mists of time when Atlantis first existed, and then aeons later, when it sunk.

I do believe Atlantis was west of the straits and attached to the mainland.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was "where else in the world do we have bull fighting"?
In Spain. That does not prove anything. If Atlantis and the mainland were once joined, and then separated, the acropolis with the temple on it was cut off from the mainland. Now over hundreds of years, the people would remember that a bull was sacrificed and gradually, the custom changed from what it was originally, to something altogether different. This has been proven to happen all over the world. All it does, is further substantiate any theory that claims Atlantis was in the west.

Since Georgeos is being so specific and following Plato word for word, where does he say that the Atlanteans practiced bull fighting? Those bulls were highly prized and to throw spears into them and torture and taunt them would be sacriligious. They were being offered to the Gods for blessings for the people. Do you think the Gods would shower blessings on a people who brought them a mutilated sacrifice?

The "gods" were actually on earth in those days. A super-being that was part divine. Where did the divine part come from? From creatures sent here by God, or creatures from another galaxy? At this point, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that they had the power to either help the humans who were worshipping them if they were satisfied with the sacrifice, or to destroy them if they weren't.

The last known god that I know of, to have supposedly communicated with, and interacted with humans, was the "god" who led Moses. NOT such a long time ago considering the age of the world.

[Qoais]

Member
Member # 3091

Member Rated:
   posted 03-01-2007 10:11 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the issue regarding the actual pillars is not so important as to what they represent. Now from the quotes below, I take this to mean that the reference in both cases, is to the strait itself - but so that the reader (or listener) could identify WHICH strait, it is denoted as being the one called by the Greeks, The Pillars of Heracles. "the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles" In other words it's very specifically calling the straits by name. The same way we today say the Stratis of Gibralter - they said - The straits of the Pillars of Heracles.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He clarifies this by repeating the description in this way:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the sea inside the straits =Heracles-Gibralter - is the Med. which is only the size of a harbour compared to the sea outside the straits which is the ocean.

So if, whenever we come across the words Pillars of Heracles - instead - we say the Straits of Heracles, perhaps this would avoid confusion.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And he named them all; the eldest, who was the first king, he named Atlas, and after him the whole island and the ocean were called Atlantic. To his twin brother, who was born after him, and obtained as his lot the extremity of the island towards the Pillars of Heracles, facing the country which is now called the region of Gades in that part of the world, he gave the name which in the Hellenic language is Eumelus, in the language of the country which is named after him, Gadeirus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now lets do this again. In the Timeaus, the Pillars of Heracles are REFERENCING the Strait of Heracles today Gibralter - (just to make things easier) - so then we get:
- who received as his lot the extremity of the island towards the Straight of Gibralter - FACING Iberia.
An extremity of a piece of land is called an extremity of that piece of land. It is NOT described as FACING ITSELF- it is not facing it's own body. An extremity is stretching out, reaching AWAY from the main body TOWARDS whatever the body is FACING. The extremity of the land of Atlantis was reaching AWAY from Atlantis TOWARDS whatever country Atlantis was facing - Spain. The country that was named after him. Gadierus.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Where are the Pillars of Heracles? Right where they always were - in the mouth of the strait. The straight does not have a mouth on the west side. In the myth, Heracles did not get past the strait to the island he was seeking, therefore, the pillars (his legs) have to be somewhere on the inside. If you do a close-up of the strait on Nasa Worldwind, you will see (at least I believe this) that the strait was narrower in times past. As a matter of fact, it almost looks like walls were built for a narrow passage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's return now to Heracles and how he wiped out the Amazons and set up his pillars.
WHY were the Straits of Gibralter called the Pillars of Heracles?

Repeating myself - quoting Diodorus - "and the race of Amazons were entirely destroyed by Heracles, when he visited the regions to the WEST and set up his pillars in Libya" To destroy a nation the attack is usually make on it's nerve centre, the pulse of power, which for the Amazons was their city of Cherronesus - the city they had built on a finger of land sticking out in the water. So - Heracles destroys the centre of power, puts up pillars to commemmorate his deeds and carrys on. The pillars are obviously at a spot close to the Straits of Gibralter since the Straits are named after him. He did NOT get past the Straits,to the island he was seeking, therefore, if he was attacking the Amazons and putting up pillars in their land, he was doing in on the shores of Libya, near the Straits. Cherronesus, sank into the water, along with his pillars. Cherronesus was placed where the Atlas mountains came down to the sea, on a piece of land sticking into the sea. If you look on Nasa WorldWind again, and follow the mountains as they curve around and go back to the sea, there is a spit of land that continues on underwater.

Ok - we have people beyond Tyrhenia in the west.
It is my contention that there WERE Pillars at one time, marking the spot of Heracles deeds. Because these pillars were erected next to the Straight of (Gibralter) in those days, the Greeks called it the Strait of The Pillars of Heracles - or the Strait of Heracles to depict which strait they were referring to. The actual pillars have sunk into the sea with the city he razed - Cherronesus.
So - Atlantis was in front of the Strait of the Pillars of Heracles - next to/beside Iberia. The extremity of land stretching out from Atlantis cloest to Iberia was ruled by Atlas' brother Eumelous. In the language of the country next to/beside this extremity was named after Eumelous - in the language of THAT country - Gadiera.

If the Bock Saga is true, then whoever in this forum said "we are all Atlanteans" would be correct. But I suppose it brings us back to which branch of the Atlanteans Plato was talking about that was attacking the Greeks. I've said before that I figured Plato's story consisted of different time lines. When he says that the Atlanteans were - "in the beginning more divine and cared not for riches" I do believe he was talking about way way back when the Atlanteans were still living in harmony with the earth. Then the story moves to a different time of when they started building cities and bridges and temples. I think part of the mistake that's been made (for me anyway) is that the timeline is farther back for the beginning than what we first thought. Plato had the story correct, but it covers millions of years, not thousands.
The Bock Saga tells about the chosen ones who were to go out in the world every 1000 years or so to update the peoples of the world or -re-inform them - of what they knew in the beginnings. They travelled to the inhabited areas, gave their lecture and moved on. The Egyptian priests may have first heard the story from one of these travelling oralists.(is that a word?) But the Bock Saga also explains that there are not enough words in any language that could be as expressive as the original language called "the sound system". WE all know how many times the story was handed down and we don't have to go into all that again. The point is, the core of the story is correct. But it's a precis - a condensed version- of the whole history of the Atlanteans - not just about one specific city with rings - not just about a specific place- not about any specific TIME, until he mentions the time of the battle.

The reason everyone is looking for Atlantis is because Plato did not say where it was. Right? Because it wasn't anywhere by that time. It was everywhere.(gathered into one for the battle) The Atlanteans had spread out, diversified. So Georgeos would also be correct in saying that there were "different" Atlanteans in Spain - there were some in Libya, some in Crete, some in Egypt, a number in the northern areas of Russia, etc. etc. BUT ORIGINALLY - they came from outside the straits. No wonder all the facts didn't fit the story of the moment in time the attack took place. All the facts can't fit in that one time frame. Plato does not say either, how the Atlanteans attacked the Greeks. I asked everybody I talked to, did they march, did they come by sea, did they fly in Vimanas? Why didn't Plato state specifically how the attack was made? Why hide this important detail when he was telling about a great and wonderous deed accomplished by the Greeks?
All he said was - that the Atlanteans had control of lands without and within the straits and were powerful. He said that at the time of the attack, the Greeks held the Atlanteans off.
He said, that AFTER that - both the Greek army and the island of Atlantis were lost in earthquakes. We have been saying this did not necessarily mean at the same time. However, if it isn't at the same time - why would he mention the two items together? Why would all the warlike men be lost at once unless they were all together? If they're all together, they would be in a war. So - we're back to - WHERE did this battle take place?

We know there were Greeks all over the Med. areas, and we know there were Atlanteans all over the Med. areas, as well as Russia and lands north of Greece. We're told that the Atlanteans attacked Greece. We're told both were destroyed in an earthquake. Plato doesn't bother to tell us if this battle was on land or sea. Did the Greeks have warships 11,000 some odd years ago that were so maneuverable they could reign supreme over a mighty power? I don't think so. Please inform me if I'm wrong on that.
Please excuse me for using Wikipedia for reference!
"The Mediterranean was the source of the earliest historically verified seaworthy vessel, the galley, developed before 1000BC, and development of nautical technology supported the expansion of Mediterranean culture."

So we have to go with a theory that says this battle was waged on land. If we DO take it that Atlantis was sunk in the same cataclysm that took the Greeks, then the particular island that the Atlanteans occupied, had to be in the same general area as Greece. Somewhere where the seismic activity was so great, it swallowed an island of Atlantean inhabitants. NOT NECESSARILY THE ORIGINAL ISLAND FROM THE MISTS OF TIME - but one that at that time had Atlanteans living on it. Plato did NOT say from which direction the attack came. All he said was, the power grew originally from outside the straits. And so it did. BUT we're now talking about a specific spot in time.
Now if you look at Atlantis in the Black Sea, they have a theory that the Greeks were marching out to meet the Atlanteans, along a dry sea bed,(Or was it the other way around?) when the earthquake took place. This wouldn't be quite right, if as Plato says, AFTERWARD (after the battle). It seems that Greece and that area of the Black sea lie on a shared fault line. Was the attack coming from the North end of the black sea?

[Qoais]

So if we lift out the one level of the story JUST as a description of Atlantis and their people out of the story about the battle, we are actually seeing the history of Atlantis being handed down just as intended to those who were supposed to understand that part of the story.  They were told that at the beginnings, they had everything they needed to live in harmony with the earth.  They built their cities to specific measurements and these measurements were also in the story.  The story is telling the current generation, how to divide their land up the way it was in the beginning, for harmony.  They are advised how to rule themselves and how they SHOULD be conducting themselves.  It is warning the future generations what will happen if they continue in setting themselves up against each other.  They will be eventually destroyed - as in the battle with the Greeks. 

THEN we have the battle showing this came to pass.  Although the story is being told from the angle of heroism for the Greeks, that is just "mode of presentation" you might say, for the purpose of the festival and entertainment and glorifying the Greeks.  Does it matter where the the battle was?    There's no great description of the battle as there usually is in war stories, nor who the Greek hero would have been in this battle, etc.

I think this sentence causes the most of confusion and this is the most complicated part:

"But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island."

To me - he is not referencing the ORIGINAL land the the Atlanteans from the mists of time, he is referencing one they had taken over in the spread of their culture.  The point has been made that they have control as far as Tyrrenia - this would include Sicily and malta, since they also had control of the continent to Egypt.  If the sea was lower, the opposing armies could have met just on the shores of Eastern Italy. 
THE SEA IN THOSE PARTS, would be the part of the sea surrounding the base from where there was a city on an island, somewhere close enough to Greece, that when the earthquake hit, both lands suffered.  He IS at this point I believe talking about the same incident.  The subsidence of the island caused passage to the sea to be blocked.  The SEA in those parts, not the OCEAN in those parts.  If the particular island referenced in this disaster was in front of the strait of Gibralter on the ocean side, he  likely would have SAID ocean.  He IS bouncing back and forth in the story sometimes relating to the beginning times, and sometimes to the end times. It is the end times we are trying to locate.

So to have a city on an island, within the Med, wherefrom either an army or a navy could attack it's neighbors, (Egypt and Greece at a blow) and when it sank, it could block passage to the ocean, and that Greece would lose it's army as a whole at the time of the cataclysm, then the Atlantean city being described at the end of times, would have had to be Sicily or Malta.  So basically, it doesn't matter to the battle story where the Atlanteans originated.  It matters where they ended.  We can see they had lands on the western coast of Libya, neighboring the Amazons and Gorgons.  We're told this power, which CAME from outside the Pillars -in other words orginated outside there - possibly one of the "Kings" of the land next to the Amazons - grew until it had subdued the western end of the Med.  Since they had contact with the people in the Eastern end of the Med., and did trading with them etc, is it not reasonable to assume they had a city at the outmost contact point of the Med? Sicily/Malta.  They could have had a city there for a long time, as when the landbridge between Libya and Sicily sunk, (according to the Urantia Book ), it wiped out more civilization in that area than any other catastrophe. 





 

[Qoais]

So - now that I've picked the story apart - and said "if" this and "if" that - I would like to put it back together again for the benefit of our purpose - to locate the city from which the Atlanteans attacked the Greeks.

- The people of a northern land were forced south by the ice age - Atlandis
- These people had knowledge of how to live in harmony with the planet (as well as knowledge of other things)
- These people of the Land of Ice - called by us Atlanteans - spread out over a vast area
- The Atlaneans built their cities to an original plan laid out in circles (rings) for specific reasons.
- Over millennia, they lost their "divine" side and became base and egotistic
- Some of their eventual lands included - The western coast of Libya, Libya, Spain, and Tyrrenia, parts of Europe and Asia
- They became a powerful force in this particular area and planned on taking over more of their neighbors
- The neighbors in particular were Greece and Egypt and Asia
- The leader of this power came from his "domain" outside the Straits(perhaps at one time part of Libya on the west or and island neighbor of the Amazons) and became the ruler of the Atlanteans
- This leader intended to subjugate the rest of the peoples of the Med. (being conceited enough to think he could do it all at once)Must have had a magnificent army! (or advanced weapons )
- To launch the attack on the eastern end of the Med all at once, I assume he has prepared his army (and possibly navy) for the attack from a point closest to the area he was attacking.  He's not going to leave a back door open for a rear assault.
- After the battle with the Greeks, and before the Greeks could return to barracks, the earth opened up and swallowed the army and the city.
- The sinking of the city caused the passage to the ocean and the western end of the Med. Sea. to be filled with mud.  (The ocean was navigable - meaning if you could get to it to navigate it but this was no longer an option for Eastern Meds. peoples therefore they couldn't navigate it)
- Therefore - the city in question had to be at Malta or Sicily.
- Since there are most unusual ruins in Malta, and they seem to stretch out where the Libyan land bridge used to be, it is reasonable to assume that Malta was the location of the particular city refered to in the Criteas.

THAT'S MY THEORY

HAVE AT IT!

[Stacy Dohm]

Hi Qoais,

How do you figure Malta as the central city?  Sure, it's close by, but too small and none of the geographic features match Plato. Maybe it was a port.

[Qoais]

Hi Stacey
Not the central city.  But the city where the attack was launched from. They were going to take over Greece, Asia and Egypt "at a blow".  This does not mean they were going to gradually take over these countries, it means all at once.  Since they already had power up to Italy and Libya, they wouldn't go back outside the straits and re-start all over again. 

I'm not saying my theory is correct because I myself can punch holes in it.  I was just trying to use logic.  If we pretend that Malta is the main base, (remember there was a landbridge to Africa way back) and the Atlanteans came from the North - came across that land bridge, and started taking over the areas WEST of Malta, the scenario still works.  The water seems to have been shallower in the Western Med, and perhaps they Started from the land bridge, and moved west.  That would also explain how the Amazons, who lived on the west coast, could attack them first.  Therefore, Plato could have meant that ORIGINALLY they came from an island in the Ocean (described by the Bock Saga).  He may have been jumping back and forth in the story like flash-backs in a movie.  I believe the story was more intended as a History of Atlantis than a tale of derring do by the Greeks.  There's just not enough information about the battle - names, places, numbers of warriors, that sort of thing. Atlantis supposedly broke up several times, and by the time the priest got the story, it may have been an island, if it originally had been a peninsula.
In light of scientific discoveries, I'd say Malta fits better.  Regarding the building of ships, that is.  Plato says "the Power" that came from outside the straits - perhaps again, meaning the ORIGIN of the power, but he doesn't say the battle was by ship, and we have no scientific findings of ships so far back in the past. 

So to attack Greece and Egypt - two different directions, - at the same time - they had to have armies on both sides of the Med.  Now the Med was probably lower then, but even so, they're not going to swim all that distance.  Now Plato does say that the Atlanteans had ships in their harbors, and mentions triremes.  (Another discordant note in Plato if we try to put all the facts in one place). Whether science is right on the time line or not - triremes weren't developed until about 1000 BC.  Therefore, if Atlantis sunk with triremes in her ports, she didn't sink 9,000 years before Solons time.

[Qoais]

If you go to Georgeos Diaz-Montexanos's website, you'll see some pictures he's posted there.  All are interesting, but the one with the pyramid and the rings underwater are rather facinating.  I typed in the address of the picture here but it didn't work. 
http://picasaweb.google.es/GeorgeosDiazMontexanosSAlbum

As some of you know, Georgeos's theory is that Atlantis is Spain, and that the city of Atlantis was on a "tombolo" = spit of land - stretching out from Spain, across the front of the Striat of Gibralter.  Supposedly, this picture is from somewhere around Spain.  The address above is not really a link, it's just to say where I got to when looking for the picture.  If you go into the forum of Atlantis Rising, Heading Atlantis, sub-heading Possible Pyramid next to a Circular Construction before the Gibralter - first post - click on the photo