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?
