2241 replies to this topic

[Leonardo]

Abramelin, on 18 April 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

Thanks Leonardo.

But do you know what 'Pillars' Procopius is talking about? Does he mean the strait between Italy and Sicily or something?

I haven't read that particular passage before, and haven't checked any landmarks mentioned, but some of the names of places he mentions leads me to gather he is talking of the Bosphorus (modern day Istanbul Strait.)

But, that is only an educated guess.

Edited by Leonardo, 18 April 2012 - 01:54 PM.

[Abramelin]

Leonardo, on 18 April 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

I haven't read that particular passage before, and haven't checked any landmarks mentioned, but some of the names of places he mentions leads me to gather he is talking of the Bosphorus (modern day Istanbul Strait.)

But, that is only an educated guess.

If he had not mentioned the Ionian Gulf, that's what I would have thought too.

The eponym of the Ionian Sea (whose name was more often, particularly by Aeschylus, attributed to Io's voyage; previously the Ionian Gulf was thought to have been called the sea of Cronus and Rhea). Ionius was the son of King Adrias of Illyria who gave his name to the Adriatic.

http://www.mlahanas..../IonianSea.html
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Ionian_Sea

Now the distance from one of the Pillars of Heracles to the other, if one goes along the shore and does not pass around the Ionian Gulf and the sea called the Euxine but crosses from Chalcedon[6] to Byzantium and from Dryous[7] to the opposite mainland,[8] is a journey of two hundred and eighty-five days for an unencumbered traveller. For as to the land about the Euxine Sea, which extends from Byzantium to the Lake, it would be impossible to tell everything with precision, since the barbarians beyond the Ister River, which they also call the Danube, make the shore of that sea quite impossible for the Romans to traverse--except, indeed, that from Byzantium to the mouth of the Ister is a journey of twenty-two days, which should be added to the measure of Europe by one making the computation. And on the Asiatic side, that is from Chalcedon to the Phasis River, which, flowing from the country of the Colchians, descends into the Pontus, the journey is accomplished in forty days.

http://en.wikisource...e_Wars/Book_III


+++++++++++


EDIT:

From that same link, and just before the quoted text:

Now the earth is surrounded by a circle of ocean, either entirely or for the most part (for our knowledge is not as yet at all clear in this matter); and it is split into two continents by a sort of outflow from the ocean, a flow which enters at the western part and forms this Sea which we know, beginning at Gadira[1] (Cadiz) and extending all the way to the Maeotic Lake.[2](Sea of Azov) Of these two continents the one to the right, as one sails into the Sea, as far as the Lake, has received the name of Asia, beginning at Gadira and at the southern[3] of the two Pillars of Heracles. Septem[4] is the name given by the natives to the fort at that point, since seven hills appear there; for "septem" has the force of "seven" in the Latin tongue. And the whole continent opposite this was named Europe. And the strait at that point separates the two continents[5] by about eighty-four stades, but from there on they are kept apart by wide expanses of sea as far as the Hellespont. For at this point they again approach each other at Sestus and Abydus, and once more at Byzantium and Chalcedon as far as the rocks called in ancient times the "Dark Blue Rocks," where even now is the place called Hieron. For at these places the continents are separated from one another by a distance of only ten stades and even less than that.

Edited by Abramelin, 18 April 2012 - 02:30 PM.

[Leonardo]

Abramelin, on 18 April 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

If he had not mentioned the Ionian Gulf, that's what I would have thought too.

The eponym of the Ionian Sea (whose name was more often, particularly by Aeschylus, attributed to Io's voyage; previously the Ionian Gulf was thought to have been called the sea of Cronus and Rhea). Ionius was the son of King Adrias of Illyria who gave his name to the Adriatic.

http://www.mlahanas..../IonianSea.html
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Ionian_Sea

Now the distance from one of the Pillars of Heracles to the other, if one goes along the shore and does not pass around the Ionian Gulf and the sea called the Euxine but crosses from Chalcedon[6] to Byzantium and from Dryous[7] to the opposite mainland,[8] is a journey of two hundred and eighty-five days for an unencumbered traveller. For as to the land about the Euxine Sea, which extends from Byzantium to the Lake, it would be impossible to tell everything with precision, since the barbarians beyond the Ister River, which they also call the Danube, make the shore of that sea quite impossible for the Romans to traverse--except, indeed, that from Byzantium to the mouth of the Ister is a journey of twenty-two days, which should be added to the measure of Europe by one making the computation. And on the Asiatic side, that is from Chalcedon to the Phasis River, which, flowing from the country of the Colchians, descends into the Pontus, the journey is accomplished in forty days.

http://en.wikisource...e_Wars/Book_III

I must admit, that threw me as well. I rationalised it as this being Procopius giving the direction of travel (i.e. north along the shore, and not south). It could also be that Procopius did not himself know the region very well, or had never been there, and was working off second-hand )or worse) information and poorly drawn maps.

Having looked a bit further into the landmarks mentioned, it would seem I may have been wrong. This particular passage...

"crosses from Chalcedon[6] to Byzantium and from Dryous[7] to the opposite mainland"

...suggests Procopius is talking about crossing the Bosphoros - but that it is not itself the Pillars of Hercules. Perhaps he is referring to the Hellespont (Dardanelles)?

This would make better sense as he speaks of not going around the Euxine Sea (Black Sea) and so the shore he is speaking of must be the shoreline of the Sea of Marmara.

[Abramelin]

Leonardo, on 18 April 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

I must admit, that threw me as well. I rationalised it as this being Procopius giving the direction of travel (i.e. north along the shore, and not south). It could also be that Procopius did not himself know the region very well, or had never been there, and was working off second-hand )or worse) information and poorly drawn maps.

Having looked a bit further into the landmarks mentioned, it would seem I may have been wrong. This particular passage...

"crosses from Chalcedon[6] to Byzantium and from Dryous[7] to the opposite mainland"

...suggests Procopius is talking about crossing the Bosphoros - but that it is not itself the Pillars of Hercules. Perhaps he is referring to the Hellespont (Dardanelles)?

This would make better sense as he speaks of not going around the Euxine Sea (Black Sea) and so the shore he is speaking of must be the shoreline of the Sea of Marmara.

Check my edit, please: he mentions both the Hellespont and the Bosphorus (Chalcedon/Byzantium).

EDIT:

"And on the Asiatic side, that is from Chalcedon to the Phasis River, which, flowing from the country of the Colchians, descends into the Pontus, the journey is accomplished in forty days."

As fas as I know Pontus is the south-east coast of the Black Sea...


.

Edited by Abramelin, 18 April 2012 - 02:39 PM.

[Leonardo]

Abramelin, on 18 April 2012 - 02:35 PM, said:

Check my edit, please: he mentions both the Hellespont and the Bosphorus (Chalcedon/Byzantium).

EDIT:

"And on the Asiatic side, that is from Chalcedon to the Phasis River, which, flowing from the country of the Colchians, descends into the Pontus, the journey is accomplished in forty days."

As fas as I know Pontus is the south-east coast of the Black Sea...


.

Yes, but he mentions Pontus in the context of a different journey, so I disregard that.

I disagree with the association of the "Dryous" that Procopius mentions, with modern-day Otranto in the 'heel' of Italy's 'boot'. The journey as described - if that association is correct - makes no sense at all.

Edit: As a caveat to the above - it makes no sense if we consider it was known one could walk south from Byzantium to the tip of the Greek side of the Hellespont. If that was not known, then the journey might make a little sense - but not much!

Edited by Leonardo, 18 April 2012 - 03:05 PM.

[Abramelin]

Leonardo, on 18 April 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

Yes, but he mentions Pontus in the context of a different journey, so I disregard that.

I disagree with the association of the "Dryous" that Procopius mentions, with modern-day Otranto in the 'heel' of Italy's 'boot'. The journey as described - if that association is correct - makes no sense at all.

Edit: As a caveat to the above - it makes no sense if we consider it was known one could walk south from Byzantium to the tip of the Greek side of the Hellespont. If that was not known, then the journey might make a little sense - but not much!

Procopius writes about the Vandalic Wars. Here's a map:

 Vandalic_War_campaign_map.jpg   125.86K   8 downloads
http://1.bp.blogspot...ampaign_map.png

http://byzantinemilitary.blogspot.com/


And maybe then it makes more sense.

[Leonardo]

Abramelin, on 18 April 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

Procopius writes about the Vandalic Wars. Here's a map:

Vandalic_War_campaign_map.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot...ampaign_map.png

http://byzantinemilitary.blogspot.com/


And maybe then it makes more sense.

Not really. When he writes "the unencumbered traveller", do you envisage a sea voyage, or a voyage on foot?

And, if the "Dryous" he refers to really is Otranto, then he is talking of crossing the Adriatic from mainland Italy back to mainland Greece. This after walking to Italy via the Adriatic shore from Greece (starting in Byzantium and crossing northern Greece to it's Adriatic shore). I'm not sure his speaking of the separation of the Pillars of Hercules (by foot travel) has anything to do with any of the campaigns of the Vandalic Wars, but is just an unassociated commentary.

[Abramelin]

Leonardo, on 18 April 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

Not really. When he writes "the unencumbered traveller", do you envisage a sea voyage, or a voyage on foot?

And, if the "Dryous" he refers to really is Otranto, then he is talking of crossing the Adriatic from mainland Italy back to mainland Greece. This after walking to Italy via the Adriatic shore from Greece (starting in Byzantium and crossing northern Greece to it's Adriatic shore). I'm not sure his speaking of the separation of the Pillars of Hercules (by foot travel) has anything to do with any of the campaigns of the Vandalic Wars, but is just an unassociated commentary.

His way of describing the route is very puzzling to me.

I wouldn't ask this guy for directions when I was a tourist in a foreign country, lol.

[Mario Dantas]

Leonardo, on 11 April 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

I think you are seriously underestimating the amount of energy an impact would have to impart to effect the crustal movement you are envisaging. If an impact in the Indian Ocean could impart enough energy to melt (or partially melt) the sub-oceanic crust of the Atlantic, then consider the effect it would have closer to the point of impact!

You are essentially suggesting an impact that melts the crust of half (or over half) the planet. This is a monumental impact, larger than any we know of other than the postulated impact which caused the formation of our Moon. It would sterilise the planet, which would even now not be out of the global winter caused by that impact. On top of this, we have no evidence from geological records, nor from climatological records, to indicate this impact ever occurred.

Notwithstanding all this, you would have to show the motion caused by this impact was slowly abating. Yet there is no data that I know of that indicates of any slowing of the movement of the crustal plates over time.

Leonardo,

Sorry if it took me so long to decide wether to answer or not!!

I also propose in my experiment, that the earth might have expanded as a consequence of the impact. A fellow named Neil Adams conceived an expansionning earth (rough) model that can elucidate how this might have taken place (although i do not entirely agree with his theorization):



Continental plates might have been "lubricated" by the supposedly expansion, too. I believe that there is no geological impeachment for continents to move fast if oceanic floor suddenly becomes "buoyant". I did a new album with some printscreen images of the video shown above. Notice the gap in front of Gibraltar even when South America is attached to Africa:

https://picasaweb.go...fTwinsNealAdams

Regarding evidence from the geological records:

http://jgs.geoscienc.../2/331.abstract

Also, one should have in mind that such (sudden) shattering of the huge Pleistocenic ice would invariably provoke long lasting rains and tsunamies that would erode the crust and reshape the planet's figure to an unrecognizable degree.

Regards,
Mario Dantas

Edited by Mario Dantas, 23 April 2012 - 11:58 PM.

[cormac mac airt]

Mario Dantas, on 23 April 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

~SNIP~

Regarding evidence from the geological records:

http://jgs.geoscienc.../2/331.abstract

Also, one should have in mind that such (sudden) shattering of the huge Pleistocenic ice would invariably provoke long lasting rains and tsunamies that would erode the crust and reshape the planet's figure to an unrecognizable degree.

The timeframe, c. 2130–1848 Ma (2.1 - 1.8 BILLION years BP) per your link, is irrelevant to a discussion of anything concerning Homo sapiens which dates to c.200,000 BP.

As to the latter, that would be incorrect as much of the glacial melt happened within the last 10,000 years when continental landmasses were much as they are now. No "eroding the crust and reshaping the planet's figure to an unrecognizable degree" as you speculate is in evidence.

cormac

[Mario Dantas]

http://www.nature.co...ature03137.html

[cormac mac airt]

Mario Dantas, on 24 April 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

http://www.nature.co...ature03137.html

Congratulations, you CAN be less relevant to the discussion already at hand. And here I thought it wasn't possible.

cormac

[Leonardo]

Mario Dantas, on 24 April 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

http://www.nature.co...ature03137.html

cormac mac airt, on 24 April 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

Congratulations, you CAN be less relevant to the discussion already at hand. And here I thought it wasn't possible.

cormac

It's not particularly relevant to the hypothesis of a significant impact within the last couple of tens of thousands of years, however.

That article linked to suggests a bombardment of small meteorites ablating in the upper atmosphere (i.e. a 'meteor shower'), and the subsequent fallout of recondensed particulate matter from those meteorites fell to Earth in a constant 'rain'. The presence of iridium etc, found in the Greenland core does not suggest a large impactor, so does not provide any evidence for your theory I'm afraid, Mario.

As for your previous post, the 'expanding Earth hypothesis' has no scientific basis of credibility. If you are going to pin your impact hypothesis to this, then I'm afraid you simply reduce your own credibility in doing so.

Edited by Leonardo, 24 April 2012 - 07:58 PM.

[socrates.junior]

Oh God. Geology has been just vomited on all over the last many pages. I want to cry.

[kmt_sesh]

How is any of this Greenland business the least bit relevant to the subject of Atlantis?