Atlantis Online
March 28, 2024, 03:43:04 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Update About Cuba Underwater Megalithic Research
http://www.timstouse.com/EarthHistory/Atlantis/bimini.htm
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Was Atlantis a Phoenician city?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 31   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Was Atlantis a Phoenician city?  (Read 6744 times)
0 Members and 163 Guests are viewing this topic.
Goliath
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 469



« on: March 20, 2008, 03:12:10 pm »

Author  Topic: Was Atlantis a Phoenician city? 
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 09-15-2002 03:34 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O.K. As I stated in my last correspondence with Andre (found under the forum of Atlantis and the subject heading "Is Indonesis a possible site for Atlantis?"), the presence of the word "heta" (which means private citizens) within the text seems to cause the discussion of 9,000 years vs. 900 years to be a non-issue.
I will post more later today in regards to answering Andre's other questions. Until then I'll open the floor for discussion.

Fire away, guys!

Erick Wright


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



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   
 
http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=000002;p=1

http://forums.atlantisrising.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=28
Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Goliath
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 469



« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2008, 03:13:26 pm »

Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

Rate Member   posted 09-15-2002 05:51 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of these corrections to the original text are giving me a headache. After a couple thousand years, words change, sometimes even meaning the opposite of what they originally did. Take "awful" for example. It once mean't Awe-full, or filling you with awe.Now it means just the opposite. I guess the only way we're going to know what each word meant will be to find an ancient greek and have him explain it to us.Other than that I guess well have to speculate. And friends and neighbors, that is exactly what it is," speculation".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 9843 | From: Old Washington, Ohio , USA | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged |   
Report Spam   Logged
Goliath
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 469



« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2008, 03:13:45 pm »

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 09-15-2002 06:46 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brig,
Please bear in mind that these are not corrections to the original text, but rather quotes from the metaphrastic translations. It is rather like comparing apples to oranges. Please check in sometime tomorrow and perhaps I can help make it all a little clearer. Remember, I have compiled over four years of solid research. There is a massive amount of information to go through, of which you have only seen the proverbial "tip of the iceberg." In the end, it is all more simple than you would ever dare to believe.

And before anyone comments about how "if its that simple then why don't you just go uncover the city," let me first cut you off by saying "It is in the works already." Private and corporate sponsorship takes time, and the wheels of academia move even slower!

Respectfully,

Erick Wright


------------------
"Therefore whereas a rise in the earth and at some time a settling and to undergo a change which from of earth quakes and of all besides to contrast against, and I for my part so far as to reckon, right to propose near this very place; and therefore from this Plato thereupon good cause to place, to the extent that to be possible and not a counterfeit to be therefore all around of the isles of Atlantis, once all around the former's history they say Solon learned from the Egyptian priests, while at some time to fall to and to be destroyed utterly, therefore the mainland in might was not inferior; and of the same tribe of what precedes it is better to lie if for that reason from invention he destroyed the same, thus considering that a maker of Achaean walls." Strabo



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged |   
Report Spam   Logged
Goliath
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 469



« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2008, 03:14:10 pm »

Andre
Member
Member # 661

Member Rated:
   posted 09-16-2002 05:08 AM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, Erick, the perfect timing of the alledged 9000 years earthquakes and floods with major Pleistocene/Holocene events (i.e. End of Younger Dryas, possible CO2 concentration jump in the air) is just by sheer chance? An astonishing coincidence?
Another question; will the name Tarshish or Tartessus be used frequently in your Narrative?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 758 | From: Zoetermeer, the Netherlands | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged |   
Report Spam   Logged
Goliath
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 469



« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2008, 03:14:33 pm »

 
Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 09-16-2002 07:24 AM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andre,
Let me address your last posting first. In my opinion, any association of the natural catastrophes mentioned in the text with the end of Pleistocene/Holocene epochs is wishful thinking. It follows along with, or runs parallel to, the Graham Hancock religion which preaches that scholars and academics are wrong; that history needs to be rewritten. He wants to believe, and wants others to believe that civilization developed, to a level almost equal with our own, then due to some major catastrophe regressed and redeveloped. This would have the Atlantean civilization existing inside a vacuum in time and history. A Late Bronze Age city existing during the Stone Age?! It is a nice dream, however, all of the scientific evidence points to the contrary. The development of civilization really DOES run in a linear fashion.

As for any proposed 'jump' of CO2 concentrations in the air, I wouldn't be surprised if there was. Although I would place the time frame earlier - like around 11,000 B.C. The retreat of cyclical glaciation would have uncovered vast areas from their tombs of ice, releasing enormous tracts of land to fauna/vegetation growth and renewal. Part of this cycle, of course, is decomposition, of which CO2 is a by-product. Natural burn-outs, usually caused by lightning strikes, could also contribute to CO2 levels due to the fact that CO2 is a by-product of combustion. And since we're on the topic of combustion and CO2 levels, let's throw volcanic activity in there now as well, which would throw enormous amounts of CO2 in the air (as well as a variety of other gases).

And, as I have mentioned before, the word "heta" means "private citizens" and not "years." It is for this precise reason that I am sending my research paper to Oxford (as well as a couple of other 'blatant' errors). But it is something I'm sure we'll go back and forth on for quite some time.

Truly Andre, if you can get past the 9,000 years thing it becomes a mere matter of already known historical events.

Let me gather my research material together and I'll try to post another response with less argumentation and more information.

As to Tartessos or Tarshish? They are not likely to ever be mentioned in any of my narratives. They/it came along at a later time period. If anythinf they could be called 'Vassal' cities.

Respectfully,

Erick



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged |   
 
Report Spam   Logged
Goliath
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 469



« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2008, 03:14:50 pm »

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 09-16-2002 08:55 AM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello all,
I would like to add at this point that I do not understand Georgeos' assertion that the 9,000 vs. 900 issue stems from Solon's confusion due to the similarity between the Egyptian words.

In fact, 9,000 and 900 can both be expressed several different ways heiroglyphically and linguistically.

9,000 is composed of the symbols which are expressed phonetically as:

pestch (9) sep (to multiply) kha (1,000) OR
pestch (9) uah tchatch (to multiply) kha (1,000) OR
pestch (9) s-asha (to multiply) kha (1,000)

900 is composed of the symbols which are expressed phonetically as:

pestch (9) sep (to multiply) sha-t (100) OR
pestch (9) uah tchatch (to multiply) sha-t (100) OR
pestch (9) s-asha (to multiply) sha-t (100)

NOTE: pestch can also be replaced with pesd

SOURCE: "An Egyptian Heiroglyphic Dictionary" (in two volumes) by E.A. Wallis Budge

I'm sorry but I just don't see the similarity between "kha" and "sha-t", especially when the heiroglyphic symbol for "kha" is 'part of the papyrus plant' and the heiroglyphic symbol for "sha-t" is the 'measuring cord'. The two are not at all similar.

Georgeos, please explain your reasoning.

Respectfully,

Erick Wright



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged |   
Report Spam   Logged
Goliath
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 469



« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2008, 03:15:10 pm »

Andre
Member
Member # 661

Member Rated:
   posted 09-16-2002 09:12 AM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Erick, I' very happy with your answer, you're exactly the discussion partner, that I was looking for. We are certainly at different sides of the table. Great.
I have no problem whatsoever to disentangle Atlantis with the P/H boundary.
On the other hand, although Hancock hadn't the faintest idea what he was talking about, he may have been sniffing at some truth. But you go first with your story. Perhaps after that we can come back to that late Pleistocene stuff again. Perhaps you could visit my homepage sometimes. You'll find it in my profile.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 758 | From: Zoetermeer, the Netherlands | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged |   
Report Spam   Logged
Goliath
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 469



« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2008, 03:15:31 pm »

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 09-16-2002 12:12 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andre,
This may well be long, so I'll ask you to forgive me for the length in advance.

In order to understand the entire context of the story, we first need to understand why Solon was in Egypt to be in a position to be able to receive the story.

I realize that it probably does not need to be stated, however, I will do it anyway. This is material from my research and fully formed hypothesis which I have entitled The Saitic Circle, which will also be the name of my web page. Therefore, any material contained within this posting is copyright protected.

Solon was, of course, the statesman responsible for drawing up Athens' Constitution. While a very old man, Solon made the journey to Egypt where he picked up the story of Atlantis. Many have supposed that Solon made the journey to Egypt as a sort of holiday, but this couldn't be farther from the truth. Solon was there on official business for the Greek city-states. A clue to this fact is actually found in the text itself when it is said that the Egyptian priest would take Solon to review the records in detail "kata scholeen" in his leisure time. This, of course, is versus the time in which he is conducting official business for Athens and Greece.

What was the official business? To quote from The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, in the section entitled "The Late Period - written by Alan B. Lloyd:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About 571 BC we find the Libyans asking for Egyptian assistance in dealing with the expansionist policy of Cyrene, a Greek colony that had been founded in their territory about 630 BC. At the end of the reign of Apries this city embarked on a program of expansion that brought them into collision with Egyptian interests, and in the ensuing war Egypt was catastrophically defeated. Ahmose II adopted a totally different approach to the Cyrene problem. As early as 567 BC we find him forming an alliance with them against the Chaldaeans, and this diplomatic link was cemented by marriage to a Cyrenean woman who was alleged by some of Herodotus' sources, with considerable plausibility, to have been a princess. This alliance stood the test of time surprisingly well and was still in place at the time of the Persian invasion in 525 BC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is my belief that, since Cyrene was a Greek colony, that Solon (a diplomat) was in Egypt to 'broker' the alliance between Cyrene and Egypt against the Chaldaeans.

Interestingly enough, the place that Solon was said to have visited next was Lydia, where he met with Croesus of Sardis. This is interesting because in 559 BC, the year of Solon's death, Ahmose II was faced with a much more dangerous enemy than the Chaldaeans, namely the rise of Persia under the leadership of Cyrus the Great. To quote Alan B. Lloyd again:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To deal with this menace a grand alliance of threatened nations was created, which consisted of Egypt, Croesus of Lydia, Sparta and the Chaldaeans. With consummate strategic skill Cyrus knocked out the link between the scattered allies by destroying Lydia in 546 BC. He then turned on the Chaldaeans and took their capital Babylon in 538 BC, leaving Ahmose with no major near eastern allies. Ahmose reacted by developing a policy of cultivating close relations with Greek states to strengthen his hand against the impending onslaught, and again he was lucky. He died in 526 BC before the storm broke, leaving his son Psamtek III (526-525 BC) to face the Achaemenid assault.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems highly coincidental that after leaving Egypt Solon goes directly to meet with King Croesus of Lydia, who, in turn, later becomes an ally of the Pharoah from whose court Solon had just left (i.e. Ahmose II). It is my belief that there is some sort of connection there. Solon, however, died in that same year (559 BC) and was already in Athens at the time that Pisisastrus seized the strongholds of Athens and became tyrant in 561 BC. So he probably did not broker the deal between Egypt and her allies against Cyrus the Great.

So, clearly, Solon would have had sufficient reason to have been in Egypt to pick up the story. And Solon was in Egypt during the reign of Ahmose II, an Egyptian Pharoah of Libyan descent, who was extremely active in Sais - the home of his dynasty. There he erected a pylon for the Temple of Neith, set up colossal statues, and manufactured human-headed sphinxes for a processional way. And the Temple of Neith is where Plato has Solon speaking to the aged priest. So why is it so important for the priest to tell Solon the "Atlantis" story?

Going back to the time of 1200 BC we find that the Libyans and Sea Peoples that were defeated by Egypt, were settled in the Delta region in small districts or 'demes'. In fact, the Greek word "heta" is closely associated with the word "damos" or "demos", in that a "heta" is a resident of a "demos" (or deme). And Solon specifically commented about the people and great works he observed in the Delta region. To quote from the literal translations:

"Moreover all around of 9,000 private citizens to be produced - freemen you to declare by small districts and also of that which is wrought and all that beautifully accomplished; therefore then in minute detail all around all in succession hereafter in leisure time, the same inscriptions to undertake, to go through in detail."
Translation by E. W. Wright

Throughout the centuries following the invasions, the Libyans who were settled in the Delta region integrated into Egyptian society, until they finally reached positions of prestige in the Pharoah's court. From there it was a short step into the throne.

So, the priest wanted Solon to understand that, even though the Libyans were defeated in 1200 BC in their attempt to rule Egypt by force, the Libyans still accomplished insidiously, from the inside, what they were unable to accomplish by force from without - to place a Libyan on the throne of Egypt.

This is a lot to absorb, so I'll stop here for right now. In my next posting I'll talk about the true genius of Solon and how he got the story back home to Greece.

Respectfully,

Erick Wright



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged |   
 
Andre
Member
Member # 661

Member Rated:
   posted 09-16-2002 02:23 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Erick, Long but understandable. My knowledge of the Egyptian history is fairly limited. I seem to remember that Ahmose II or Amasis II was the 5th ruler of Egypt in the 26th Saith dynasty when he defeated Apries around 570BC apparently in an alliance with the Greeks; hence Solons appearance? BTW I thought that this dynasty had its roots in Assyria.
Moreover, your translations of the words around the 9000 are so totally different from the familiar Timaeus and Critias translations. What may be your original sources and what else was wrong? I do hope that Georgeos will show up to feed the discussion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 758 | From: Zoetermeer, the Netherlands | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged |   
 
Report Spam   Logged
Goliath
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 469



« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2008, 03:15:54 pm »

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 09-16-2002 05:15 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andre,
You are correct to a certain extent. Ahmose usurped the throne from Apries in 570 BC, but not in an alliance with the Greeks.

Apries (589-570 BC), the 6th ruler of the 26th dynasty, showed considerable favortism to his foreign mercenaries, who were mostly Greek and Carian, but probably also included some Jews, Phoenicians, and possibly some Shasu Bedouin. These troops had two functions;
1.) to guarantee Egypt's security from external attack and
2.) to provide a counterweight within the country to the power of the machimoi.

The machimoi were the native Egyptian warrior class who were Libyan in origin, and who posed a significant potential internal threat to royal authority.

The favortism shown to the Greeks and Carians, observed by their priveleged positions in the military establishment, blew up in Apries face in 570 BC. After a force of machimoi sustained a disastrous defeat to the Greeks of Cyrene, Ahmose saw his opportunity to use their ill feelings against the Greeks to his advantage. So he used the machimoi to defeat Apries' Greek and Carian mercenaries at Momemphis and usurp the throne of Egypt.

The few years following these events is, most likely, the time period when Solon made his appearance to broker an alliance between Egypt and the Cyreneans against the Chaldaeans.

As for the dynasty having had its roots in Assyria, again, this is true but only to a certain extent.

Nekau I (672-664 BC) had ruled at Sais under Assyrian protection until he was killed by the Nubian King Tanutamani (664-656 BC). Nekau's son, Psamtek I (664-610 BC), succeeded to his father's position with Assyrian support and initially controlled about half the Delta from Sais. Psamtek realized that the Assyrians couldn't maintain their control indefinately so far west, and exploited that situation to his advantage. In about 658 BC he received support from Gyges of Lydia in emancipating himself from Assyrian control, which is probably why he employed Greek and Ionian mercenaries - in an effort to strengthen and extend his authority. By 660 BC he had complete control of the entire Delta, and by 656 BC he had gained mastery over the entire rest of Egypt.

After him Nekau II ruled from 610-595 BC, and he was then followed by Psamtek II who ruled from 595-589 BC. At this point you enter the reign of Apries (589-570 BC), which brings us full circle.

Andre, please bear in mind that these are literal, or metaphrastic, translations, so they will differ from the prose translations considerably in some spots and not at all in other spots.

The research material that I used was:

1. Plato in twelve volumes - volume IX - Timaeus, Critias, Cleitophon, Menexenus Epistles with an English translation by R.G.Bury - published by Harvard University Press.

This book is part of the Loeb Classical Library, and the Greek text contained within is based upon that of the Zurich edition - the main deviations from which are indicated in the footnotes. It's ISBN is 0-674-99257-1, if that helps.

2. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon - founded upon the 7th edition of Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon - published by Oxford University Press
It's ISBN is not listed inside the cover of the book anywhere. Sorry.

The first edition of this book was first published in 1889 and it was made from the last Edition (1883) of the Large Lexicon. It was an abridgement of that Large Lexicon, This is the 1997 impression of that book. It includes all of the changes from that time until now. It gives fuller explanations of the words by inserting the irregular forms of Moods and Tenses more fully, by citing the leading Authorities for the different usages, and by adding characteristic phrases. It is an invaluable tool for interpreting the Atlantis story correctly, and I would encourage everyone to go buy one. I will warn you, however, that they are not cheap! Mine ran $80 (U.S.) and the newest one, the 1999 version, runs about $120 (U.S.) - but it contains an addendum at the back.

I hope this is of some help.

Respectfully,

Erick



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged |   
Report Spam   Logged
Goliath
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 469



« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2008, 03:16:20 pm »

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 09-16-2002 09:32 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a quick 'self' correction.
Apries was the 5th ruler of the 26th dynasty and Ahmose II was the 6th ruler of the 26th dynasty.

Erick



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged |   
 
Andre
Member
Member # 661

Member Rated:
   posted 09-17-2002 02:29 AM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick, Unfortunately Georgeos is not here yet, but it may be interesting to compare the sources. Hence my question earlier. As I hope to be interpreting correctly from Georgeos posts he seems to state the following:
The Timeaus has been translated from the original version into Latin by Chalcidio in the fourth century BC. This version still seems to be available

Marsilio Ficini (1433-1499) translated all Plato´s work into Latin, the "Divini Platonis Operates Omnia", printed in Florence (Convent of Santiago of Ripoli) between 1482 and 1484

Aldus Manutius repeated that (Venice, 1513), and may have been using Ficini´s work

Gregorio García (1607) apparently may have used the same original for a Spanish translation.

Georgeos seems to be basing his work on these seemingly sound sources, apparently mainly by comparing Chalcidio and Ficini. However he may have found those sources in similar works you are referring to.

There seems to be no more original Greek version available of Plato´s work. It is unclear to me whether or not possible Greek versions have been translated back from available Latin versions or have been copied in the medieval monasteries. Later translations introduced errors caused by faulty dictionaries or subjective translators, changing sea-straits into oceans, superior to into bigger than and so on. Hence, it caused millions of Atlantis seekers to go astray all over the World, with Indonesia and Antarctica as exorbitant excesses (sorry, sometimes I tend toying with alliterations)

Anyway, Erick, as you seem to be heading for the Nile delta being Atlantis, you probably have a very different explanation for the "pillars of Hercules".



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 758 | From: Zoetermeer, the Netherlands | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged |   
 
Report Spam   Logged
Goliath
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 469



« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2008, 03:17:43 pm »

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 09-17-2002 10:42 AM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andre,
As I have stated before, there is an enormous amount of research material compiled aside from the metaphrastic translations. The translations were merely the experiment I performed. Allow me to explain.

Prior to beginning the investigation I was a huge Graham Hancock fan. I watched all the specials on TV, I own all his videos, I own all his books, except Underworld, which I have ordered from overseas (more out of curiosity to find out if my name is mentioned in the acknowledgements than anything else). I used to visit his site quite frequently and one day I contacted him with some of my work. To my surprise, he responded. I was delighted! He and I kept up rather regular correspondence for over two years during the time he was writing Underworld, and he even hired an underwater photographer and sent him to a specific site off the Mediterranean coast of Morocco based upon research material that I had sent him. But most importantly, he referred me to his literary agent in London, to whom I was able to send in a book proposal. It was rejected, but that's not really the point. This all goes to show just how much of a relationship Graham and I had developed. I once told him that I wanted he and Santha to be there with me when I discovered the site of the actual City of Atlantis. I still do; I think he has earned it.

But at some point our paths started diverging, Graham following his anti-academia, anti-scholarly dogma path, and myself leaning more towards hard science, scholarly dogma and academia. In fact, my goal now is to have my research accepted by academia and to take my place in history beside Heinrich Schleimann, as the 'outsider to academia' who discovered Atlantis. And I might point out just now that ol' Heinrich accomplished the discovery of Troy in the exact same manner that I am accomplishing the discovery of Atlantis.

The problem with most of the theories surrounding Atlantis is that they do not coalesce into complete, viable hypotheses that fit within the confines of already known history.

Part of the reason that scholars laugh at any mention of an Atlantis 9,000 years before the time of Solon, is that they know that the people of the Nile River Valley did not even begin their domestication of livestock and production of agriculture until around 7,000 BC. It would be another 3 to 4,000 years before they started keeping written records (i.e. the Narmer palette). This alone points to a problem with the figure of 9,000 years.

Undoubtedly, a high priest, of advanced years, in the Temple of Neith would have known just exactly how far back their own records went in time. They were immaculate record keepers of all of the events, not just within Egypt, but of the whole of the eastern Mediterranean.

I ,therefore, decided to employ Scientific Methodology to every aspect of my investigation. Here is my process outlined.

Data Collection Process: To examine as many investigations as possible into the Atlantis mystery to find out if there was a 'common thread' which contributed and or caused them to end in failure.

My Hypothesis: The text was the only 'common thread' that ran through every investigation, therefore the text must be mis-translated/mis-interpreted, and that is the reason that every investigation has failed.

The Experiment: To translate the text in a metaphrastic, or 'literal' sense (as opposed to Prose), to determine if it would make a difference in the investigation into the topic of Atlantis.

The Results: The metaphrastic translations support the already proposed hypothesis, by members of academia, that the Atlantis story is the story of the 'Invasions of the Sea People', found on the Ramesseum in Medinet Habu (albeit slightly altered by Greek syncretism).

I hope this helps you to understand the process I have used and my reasoning, Andre.

Incidentally, I have NOT placed Atlantis in the Nile Delta.

Also, any translation by any other culture would have to examine the syncretism which pervades that culture. Any translation is therefore suspect.

Respectfully,

Erick



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged |   
Report Spam   Logged
Goliath
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 469



« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2008, 03:18:04 pm »

Andre
Member
Member # 661

Member Rated:
   posted 09-17-2002 11:46 AM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Erick, thanks very much for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate your approach. When this is over I do hope we can do some philosophising about that pure scientific method and some hypotheses that are not scholarly accepted, more in Hancock’s line of thoughts, be it not specifically about Atlantis.
I do apologize for my too fast conclusion. In one of your previous posts you mentioned an excessive flooding of the Nile delta. Hence the association.

As for the “Sea people”, there seem to be two separate references several sources mention.

Merenptah, (reigned 1213-1203 BC or 1212-1202 BC depending on the source), defeated the Sea Peoples, invaders from the Aegean

Ramses III (reigned 1182-1151 BC) defeated an attack by the Libyans from the west in the fifth year of his reign, and two years later he defeated invaders known as the Sea Peoples

Hence, in the first case those “sea people” seem to originate from the Aegean sea area between Greece and Turkey. In the second event, the “sea people” are mentioned separately from the Libyans, which could easily lead to the conclusion that they were not supposed to be Libyans. But they may not necessarily be the same Sea People.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 758 | From: Zoetermeer, the Netherlands | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged |   
Report Spam   Logged
Goliath
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 469



« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2008, 03:18:24 pm »

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 09-17-2002 12:24 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andre,
No problem. Don't worry about it. There is a lot that you don't yet know about my research. If you knew it all I think you would understand completely. Over time I will probably share everything in this forum for the purposes of argumentation.

My mention of excessive Nile inundation (following the severe drought of the period ca.1200 BC) was in consideration of the "great inundations" mentioned by the Egyptian priest. My logic is this:

Egyptian priest & Egyptian history = Egyptian inundation (i.e. excessive Nile inundation).

Everyone always assumes that it was Atlantis that suffered the inundations. I've already sent an e-mail to Mark Lehner to find out if there are any reference sources in which I can look up that information. I'm waiting to hear back.

As for the Sea People, I have a mountain of information regarding them. In actuality, quite a bit is already know about them. I will share a lot of that in my next posting. Just be ready for a long one.

Incidentally, I have e-mailed Georgeos at Archaeo.com and invited him to participate in our forum. I think he's a little frustrated by all of the, uh, shall we just say "less scientific" theories being discussed. We'll see what happens.

Respectfully,

Erick



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged |   
Report Spam   Logged
Goliath
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 469



« Reply #13 on: March 20, 2008, 03:18:44 pm »

Brig

Administrator
Member # 802

Rate Member   posted 09-17-2002 07:08 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick: I guess I'm confused. In what area are you maintaining that Atlantis existed? And when?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 9843 | From: Old Washington, Ohio , USA | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged |   
Report Spam   Logged
Goliath
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 469



« Reply #14 on: March 20, 2008, 03:19:01 pm »

NileQueen
Member
Member # 675

Member Rated:
   posted 09-17-2002 11:40 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Erick,
Thanks for sharing some of your research views with us.  They are quite interesting.
I'm impressed with your rational approach, and naturally going back to the original text for translation, and seeing through the eyes of the Athenians, Egyptians and others of that time, is key to finding the truth.

I see a new word, syncretism: 2. in philology [the study of written records, particularly literary texts], the merging into one of two or more differently inflected grammatical categories.(Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary, Unabridged, 2nd Edition)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 706 | From: Indiana | Registered: Dec 2001  |
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 31   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy