ATLANTIS FOUND (By Me) In The SAHARA

[Qoais]

...continuing

After that part of Atlantis sunk, the Western end of the world became Gibralter. I've always maintained that the time line is important, because to me, Plato goes back and forth in time - like a flash-back in a movie. So - if Atlantis was this super large country with the best part being around Malta, then Nikas would be right in saying that the Temple city is in the water there. It makes a lot of sense to me (other than that Siculus says the Amazons city was at the Atlas mountains) but I don't know exactly where the mountains end, and maybe there was a bit of confusion over that in ancient times as well. The Lady of Elks (or however it's spelled) was found I believe in the South eastern part of Spain. Makes sense if she was an Atlantean noble.

The way I read Plato - was that Eumelous was given the extremity of Atlantis - that point furthest away from Egypt - as the story is being told - but that HIS portion faced a country which was eventually named after him - Gades. Whether he took it over and annexed it, (must have, since the Atlanteans controlled all the way to Italy) and perhaps, he named it after himself or whether he was just a great guy and it was named after him, who knows? Perhaps the Lady of Elks was of his family line, and they ruled from the southern shores.

[Qoais]

Somewhere along the time line, the Atlanteans start turning to their dark side, and take control of Europe to Italy, and Libya to the borders of Egypt.

Trying to follow this bouncing time line then - at one time, the borders of the western world were Atlantis and Amazonland. Therefore the borders of the western world way back, was at modern Tunisia. Africa was joined to Sicily with a land bridge. When the city of the Amazons sunk, along with Hercules' pillars, this now left the Med open and the western extremity of the world became Gibralter. Since THAT time, whenever it was, the western extremity of the world was referred to as the Pillars of Hercules, that were recognizable to Plato as such.

Yes - in Plato's day, they called the Straits of Gibralter, the Pillars of Hercules - and even before his day. BUT - somewhere in time, the Pillars of Hercules - denoting the western extremity of the known world, were at Tunisia. Even the Egyptians didn't know their land was on a huge continent until they sent out an expedition to find out. As someone pointed out to me, lands were called "islands" or peninsulas, that hadn't been sailed all the way round, therefore, if one sees nothing but water for thousands of miles, they think they're on an island. So in VERY ancient times, perhaps even when the Egyptians FIRST got the story, they thought Atlantis was an island, when perhaps instead, it was a mainland with very large peninsulas sticking out from it.

I think - that being the story was old even to the Egyptians, that the western end of the Med., was considered at the time of the story - to be part of the ocean. It would seem so to anyone on the inside of the landbridge at Sicily. If nothing else, once you were in the western Med, you certainly could navigate the ocean. And it would seem that they DID navigate it before Atlantis sunk, causing that shoal of mud. Those on the eastern end of the Med, were cut off for a while.

So taking into consideration the bouncing time-line, the confusion about island and peninsula, the story of the Amazons vs. the Atlanteans, the goodies arriving in Atlantis from the surrounding countries and the grand finale being this supposed war started by the Atlanteans against the Athenians and Egyptians "at a blow", I contend that Atlantis WAS not an island, but a peninsula of the mainland of Africa, with it's temple city in the vicinity of Malta. In this theory, it was definitely bigger than Libya and Asia "together" not between the two. For the simple fact that Atlantis was probably the whole western "Nesos" of Africa.

PLEASE REMEMBER I AM NOT DOING THIS SCIENTIFICALLY AND HAVE NOT PROVEN ANYTHING WITH EVIDENCE OR OTHERWISE. I AM SIMPLY PUTTING TOGETHER ALL THE INFORMATION I'VE COME ACROSS.

In my version of Plato, it says that Eumelous was given the extremity of the territory "facing" what Plato in his day, knew as Gades. That Gades, was named after Eumelous. Or - as some would have it, "beside" Gades, or "across from". Means all the same thing to me. I would say that Eumelous annexed Gades as part of his territory when they started expanding their control. Therefore, yes, way back in the beginning, Eumelous being of the first genration and being an Atlantean, annexes Gades and makes it a part of Atlantis.

If - to the Eastern Med. peoples, anything west of the landbridge at Sicily was called "ocean", then the only place that could become a shoal of mud blocking them off, was at Malta. Where the City of Atlas (Atlantis) was buried in the water and mud.

[Qoais]

...continuing

I've been trying to check up a bit on the Amazons, because I've still got that bouncing time-line in my head, and it may just be that if I go with the assumption that the peoples in the Eastern Med., considered the Amazons and Atlanteans as being at the western edge of the world at some point in time, it will help place things in their proper location. When you think about it, the Atlas mountains kind of kept people hemmed in on the eastern land side, and the desert kept them hemmed in to the south. People on the Morocco side either had to trek the mountains or go by boat.

Ok - so folks say that it is mentioned in history that the Amazons had something to do with Lake Tritonis (Tritonis marsh according to Diodorus)

Here's an article I found regarding this:

Chott Djerid - the legendary Lake Tritonis

Ancient geography:

The ancient knowledge of geography has been handed down to us by Claudios Ptolemaios (2nd century AD). According to him the lake Tritonis name Palus Tritonis is the third of a row of lakes (Palus Pallas, Palus Libya), which are connected with a river Triton. This river empties into the Mediterranean Sea some miles north of Tacapae. Tacapae is indentical with the today's city Gabes. Consequently, the lake Tritonis must be in this salt lake basin which stretches from the Mediterranean Sea at Gabes to the west. We know that still in antiquity the climate in this region was much moister, thus there was much more water, so we have to assume that they were real lakes. Today the salt lakes only fill with water after much rain mostly in winter. According to Ptolemaios the Tritonis was the third lake. Today we distinguish the salt lakes Chott Fedjadj, the large Chott Djerid and then the Chott el Rharsa (also: el Gharsa). Due to this the hott el Rharsa must be the lake Tritonis. Actually, there is an unambiguous hint. According to Ptolemaios next to the lake Tritonis there is a place named Thusuros, which is undoubtedly identical the the today's city Tozeru. This town is situated at the Chott Djerid. Thus it is clear, which was always certain in antiquity - that the Chott Djerid is identical with the legendary lake Tritonis. The detail that the Tritonis was the third lake can easily be explained that in the moister period the extended Chott Fedjadj was divided into two basins. Even today there is a special name for the western part of the Chott Fedjadj - Chott Faraoun.

Presumable position of the island Hespera respectively Phla:

Between the salt lake basins of Chott Djerid and Chott el Rharsa there protrudes an extensive elevation from the surrounding landscape. It stretches from Nefta in the west across Tozeur, the main place, to El Hamma du Djerid in the northeast and Degache in the southeast. At Degache there starts the wide basin of the Chott Djerid, at El Hamma the landscape drops into the hott el Rharsa basin. In fact, this special region is enclosed to the east by a mountain chain named Cherb, to the south and north by the salt lake basins, and in the west at Nefta it ends in the desert. The unity of the region gives the impression of an island. Actually, this landscape is the only inhabited area for many miles around. Therefore the identification of this secluded region with the island Herspera or Phla seems plausible.

[Qoais]

[Qoais]

Re: Plato's Atlantis My Theory

« Reply #116 on: May 18, 2007, 12:45:54 am » Quote Modify

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

Actually, I didn't realize the Atlas Mountains came so far East. In the ancient times, I can now see where they would think that the land bridge at Sicily was a demarcation line, for their world. Who would want to try to get farther west by hiking thousands of miles thru the mountains, or a blistering hot desert? Only the nomads I guess. So - if we place the Amazons at or near Gabes and they attacked their neighbors the Atlanteans, who were even more "western" than they were, the Atlaneans had to have been all along the north and west coasts of Africa and possibly in Spain as well. However, it is possible that the lay of the land was a bit different back then than now, tho I wouldn't have a clue as to HOW different. Diodours does say tho, that an earthquake caused the marsh Tritonis to disappear when those parts of it that toward the ocean were torn asunder.

Quote

55. Now as the Amazons, they go on to say, relaxed their watch during the night because of their success, the captive women, falling upon them and drawing the swords of those who thought they were conquerors, slew many of them; in the end, however, the multitude poured in about them from every side and the prisoners fighting bravely were butchered one and all. Myrina accorded a funeral to her fallen comrades on three pyres and raised up three great heaps of earth as toms, which are called to this day "Amazon Mounds". 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 the Amazons were entirely destroyed by Heracles, when he visited the regions to the west and set up his pillars in Libya, since he felt that it would ill accord with his resolve to be the benefactor of the whole race of mankind if he should suffer any nations to be under the rule of women. The story is also told that the marsh Tritonis disappeared from sight in the course of an earthquake, when those parts of it which lay towards the ocean were torn asunder.

As for Myrina, the account continues, she visited the larger part of Libya, and passing over into Egypt she struck a treaty of friendship with Horus, the son of Isis, who was king of Egypt at that time, and then, after making war to the end upon the Arabians and slaying many of the, she subdued Syria; but when the Cilicians came out with presents to meet her and agreed to obey her commands, she left those free who yielded to her of their free will and for this reason there are called to this day the "Free Cilicians". She also conquered in war the races in the region of the Taurus, peoples of outstanding courage, and descended through Greater Phrygia to the sea; then she won over the land lying along the coast and fixed the bounds of her campaign at the Caicus River. And selecting in the territory which she had won by arms sites well suited for the founding of cities, she built a considerable number of them and founded one which bore her own name, but the others she named after the women who held the most important commands, such as Cyme, Pitana, and Priene.

Depending on the time line, or the different time lines we should look at - one being the time-line of Atlantis itself, as apparently it was an "original" area, as in being there when the Gods divided up the land. So - if we are going THAT far back, then the Med, wasn't the way it is now. Apparently at one time, the western end of the Med. was actually a lush plain. Also at one time, the Sahara desert was a lake. When the Straits of Gibralter opened, the same seismic activity caused a split in the floor of the lake, and the water drained away. So if you can imagine that the western end of the Med was like a plain - in other words dry land, bordered on the South by the Atlas mountains, but that there was water where the Sahara now is, then in very ancient times The area from Morocco east to Tunisia, then NE to Tyrrenia, then North to France and Germany, and then west again to Spain, would have been the "island" of Atlantis.

Edited May 7, 2008 by Qoais

[Qoais]

According to the Urantia Book the Straits of Gibralter opened 34,000 years ago. Since Atlantis was a God's kingdom, from day one, I have to assume the Atlaneans were established at that time. So I played with a map, and changed the look of the area so the western Med is dry, and the Sahara is a lake. (I don't know how big that "lake" would have been) So maybe, the first break-up of Alantis was when the Straits opened:

IF the land was something like that, then we can see that Georgeos would be correct regarding the "exremity" (the northwestern most corner) belonging to Eumelous, would be what is now the Iberian Peninsula. We could also see, that it would be possible for Nikas to be correct in his location of the "Royal" city at Malta. When the straits opened, according to the Urantia Book, the was THE most severe catastrophe the earth had experienced and the loss of life was immense. The whole landscape was altered.

We can also see that if the land did lay something like this, and if the Richat Structure was Atlantis, then when the cataclysm happened, the western end of the Med. as it was then, closed, and all that was left of the original was Lake Tritonis.

As I said when I started out, I know nothing of time lines, nor do I have the energy to try to put it all together to fit a specific time line.

Edited May 7, 2008 by Qoais

[The_Spartan]

i wonder whats the credibility to the Book of Urantia, which was written in the 20th century itself??

[Essan]

i wonder whats the credibility to the Book of Urantia, which was written in the 20th century itself??

None.

And the Straits of Gibraltar were as open as they are today 34,000 years ago - though subsequent sea level falls during the Last Glacial Maximum means they may have been a little narrower around 25,000 years ago.

[Harte]

Let's start with the time line - which I know nothing about! Diodorus Sicilus says he was copying older works when he wrote his books. In his works, he talks about the Amazons and how they attacked their neighbors, the Atlantians. I'm going to make the next line in caps because I think it's important. WHEN THE AMAZONS ATTACKED THE ATLANTIANS, IT WAS WAAAY BACK WHEN THE ATLANTIANS WERE STILL A PEACEFUL SPIRITUAL PEOPLE. So far back, that perhaps, whoever Diodorus is copying - in THEIR day, the edge of the Western world was today's Tunisia, and the western end of the Med. was considered part of the Oceanous.

Let's go to Plato - and HIS times. In his times, the western world has now stretched to the ends of the continents and he knows Spain is Spain etc. Plato says Atlantis is larger than Libya and Asia. Well, if you consider that the whole Western side of Africa was Atlantis, then yeah - it would be bigger. In my copy of Plato, it says that Eumelous' portion "faced" what was in Plato's time Gades.

That would be the "extremity" of Atlantis of course, since Atlantis was at the end of the Western world. The western extremity of the western extremity, was Morocco.

Yeah, except Diodorus Siculus came three hundred years after Plato.

Plato is part of the "older works" he is copying, IOW.

Harte

[Qoais]

I don't quote the UB verbatim, I just use it once in a while for a guideline for the time line. I don't know the time lines, which I think are really important, but I get all wierd and blurry eyed when I try to figure it out! It's the sequence of events I was trying to figure out, to see if it all correlated to Plato's story. It's not absolutely necessary to use the UB timeline for the opening of Gibralter. Ignore it if you want to. If you have scientific information of when Gibralter DID open, that would be appreciated.

Since there are only so many ancient works that have been saved, it's what we have to go on. Doesn't matter exactly WHO wrote them, but whether it's correct or not. Diodorus explained that he was copying older works, so we know that what he says, is older than his own timeframe. I submit that everything about Atlantis was older than we accept. Right back to the time of the Pangea.

I have no idea of course, how the land looked after the Pangea broke up, altho there are a lot of different animated gifs out there, showing what other people think it might have looked like. For instance - let's pretend that Atlantis WAS placed in the "navel" of the world before the Pangea broke up. Then the great upheaval comes, and the continents split apart. Africa is now on her way East, Antarctica south, etc. BUT, each bit that touched on the original centre, would have had civilization on it, so when the land broke up, the people went with. Now supposedly it took millions of years for the land masses to settle to where they are now, but I'm not sure scientists have THAT timeline correct either. Doesn't really matter I guess because if there was civilization at the time of Pangea, there would be civilization afterward.

Ok - so now we have Africa moving east, but for a time, she would be out there in the middle of the ocean: (maybe this is the timeline Plato is referring to - when there was a big island out in the ocean) He does go backward and forward in time.

The land mass could have looked like this, or it could have a few different details. So - it travels along, and bumps into Asia when it gets to it's final resting place. The Atlas mountains haven't been thrown up yet, so the Med is not really the Med. yet, but part of the ocean still. On the Northwest bit, we have (maybe) the city of Atlantis, hanging on for dear life to the edge of the continent, and it ends up say, where the Richat Structure is now. Basically still on the shore, but not right on the water. Remember that canals were dug. So, then the Atlas mountains are heaved up, in a series of 3 events, and the western end of Africa is now closed, as is the Med. The next cataclysm comes along, opens Gibralter, sinks (drains) Lake Tritonis, and Atlantis (Richat) is landlocked. But before that final episode, there are thousands of years where the climate is temperate. Somewhere along the line, the Med. was a large plain, so perhaps the waterways were quite different than what I've depicted, and Atlantis/Richat was on the EASTERN edge of the water at that time.

I keep repeating, that Plato is talking in flashbacks. If we put the words "at one time" in front of a lot of his statements, it makes more sense, because everything he talks about cannot be put into one place or one time. It's a story of tens of thousands of years, maybe millions, but to people of his day, (and ours) it's unfathomable to think there were humans on earth back at the time of the pangea. BUT why not? Just because science says it wasn't so, isn't proof. They are dating skeletons farther and farther back all the time, and yet it was not that long ago that they thought man was only 6000 years old. Information comes to light, things change.

Edited May 7, 2008 by Qoais

[Qoais]

The point I was trying to make, was that the Richat Structure COULD HAVE been part of Atlantis, altho I wouldn't go so far as to say it was the circular city. THAT was probably long since destroyed, but people have a habit of repeating themselves, and the pattern for a city could have been repeated everywhere people ended up. If we accept that civilization commenced as far back as the Pangea, then this explanation is feasible.

[Harte]

I don't quote the UB verbatim, I just use it once in a while for a guideline for the time line. I don't know the time lines, which I think are really important, but I get all wierd and blurry eyed when I try to figure it out! It's the sequence of events I was trying to figure out, to see if it all correlated to Plato's story. It's not absolutely necessary to use the UB timeline for the opening of Gibralter. Ignore it if you want to. If you have scientific information of when Gibralter DID open, that would be appreciated.

Since there are only so many ancient works that have been saved, it's what we have to go on. Doesn't matter exactly WHO wrote them, but whether it's correct or not. Diodorus explained that he was copying older works, so we know that what he says, is older than his own timeframe. I submit that everything about Atlantis was older than we accept. Right back to the time of the Pangea.

I have no idea of course, how the land looked after the Pangea broke up, altho there are a lot of different animated gifs out there, showing what other people think it might have looked like. For instance - let's pretend that Atlantis WAS placed in the "navel" of the world before the Pangea broke up. Then the great upheaval comes, and the continents split apart. Africa is now on her way East, Antarctica south, etc. BUT, each bit that touched on the original centre, would have had civilization on it, so when the land broke up, the people went with. Now supposedly it took millions of years for the land masses to settle to where they are now, but I'm not sure scientists have THAT timeline correct either. Doesn't really matter I guess because if there was civilization at the time of Pangea, there would be civilization afterward.

Ok - so now we have Africa moving east, but for a time, she would be out there in the middle of the ocean: (maybe this is the timeline Plato is referring to - when there was a big island out in the ocean) He does go backward and forward in time.

The land mass could have looked like this, or it could have a few different details. So - it travels along, and bumps into Asia when it gets to it's final resting place. The Atlas mountains haven't been thrown up yet, so the Med is not really the Med. yet, but part of the ocean still. On the Northwest bit, we have (maybe) the city of Atlantis, hanging on for dear life to the edge of the continent, and it ends up say, where the Richat Structure is now. Basically still on the shore, but not right on the water. Remember that canals were dug. So, then the Atlas mountains are heaved up, in a series of 3 events, and the western end of Africa is now closed, as is the Med. The next cataclysm comes along, opens Gibralter, sinks (drains) Lake Tritonis, and Atlantis (Richat) is landlocked. But before that final episode, there are thousands of years where the climate is temperate. Somewhere along the line, the Med. was a large plain, so perhaps the waterways were quite different than what I've depicted, and Atlantis/Richat was on the EASTERN edge of the water at that time.

I keep repeating, that Plato is talking in flashbacks. If we put the words "at one time" in front of a lot of his statements, it makes more sense, because everything he talks about cannot be put into one place or one time. It's a story of tens of thousands of years, maybe millions, but to people of his day, (and ours) it's unfathomable to think there were humans on earth back at the time of the pangea. BUT why not? Just because science says it wasn't so, isn't proof. They are dating skeletons farther and farther back all the time, and yet it was not that long ago that they thought man was only 6000 years old. Information comes to light, things change.

Yeah, and Daffy Duck once got his mouth blown off by Elmer Fudd.

In the future, maybe you should put fiction in the fiction section.

Your Richat Structure didn't exist when Pangea was together.

Of course no humans existed then.

Hence, of course there was no human civilization when Pangea was together.

Yes, we do know how long ago it was, the continents are still moving today, visibly, measurably moving, at about the pace your fingernails grow at.

You have Africa moving in the wrong direction here as well.

How is that that Diodorus Siculus writes authoritatively about something yet Plato, who precedes him by 300 years, knows less about it?

Diodorus Siculus gives no background or context to how he knows these things, Plato gives a lengthy explanation of where the story came from.

Yet you want to lend Diodorus Siculus' account more veracity than Plato's?

You need to do some more homework on this one.

For instance - let's pretend that Atlantis WAS placed in the "navel" of the world before the Pangea broke up.

I have a better idea.

"Let's pretend" that I didn't just waste my time reading this drivel.

I liked you better before you wrote it.

Atlantis never, ever existed.

Harte

[Qoais]

Your Richat Structure didn't exist when Pangea was together.

How do you know? Were you there? Supposedly the Richat Structure has been buried for quite some time. Just because it wasn't seen, doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Of course no humans existed then.

Prove It.

Yes, we do know how long ago it was, the continents are still moving today, visibly, measurably moving, at about the pace your fingernails grow at.

That may be the case, but there's no proof that they didn't move faster or slower at one time.

You have Africa moving in the wrong direction here as well.

Do I? That's funny Mr. Know It All, because I took this map from a scientific web site. It's not MY rendering.

http://www.scotese.com/cretaceo.htm

How is that that Diodorus Siculus writes authoritatively about something yet Plato, who precedes him by 300 years, knows less about it?

Diodorus Siculus gives no background or context to how he knows these things, Plato gives a lengthy explanation of where the story came from.

Yet you want to lend Diodorus Siculus' account more veracity than Plato's?

I didn't say that at all. I said there are only so many works that have been handed down, and that's where we get our information. To make all the information fit the pictures painted of the past by these writers, one has to move the time line farther back.

I liked you better before you wrote it.

I really don't care if you like me or not nor do I care if you believe Atlantis existed or not. You yourself just said that Plato was more authorative than Siculus, but you obviously don't believe Plato either, so why pass comment? Are you paid to be the in-house critic or synic in this forum? If not, why stick your nose into a subject you don't believe in?

Edited May 7, 2008 by Qoais

[jaylemurph]

i wonder whats the credibility to the Book of Urantia, which was written in the 20th century itself??

I'd put it up there with comic books, some of the better-written porn and Doctor Who and an Exciting Adventure with the Daleks. (I'd've listed some legitimate literature up there, but you stand a chance of legitimately learning something about humanity from it. No danger of that in the Urantia Papers...)

--Jaylemurph

[Harte]

Do I? That's funny Mr. Know It All, because I took this map from a scientific web site. It's not MY rendering.

http://www.scotese.com/cretaceo.htm

It's not that funny, Mr. I have no idea what I'm talking about.

You pic shows Earth during the Cretaceous, without showing the drifting of the continents at all. It is only a map of the opening of the various oceans and does not depict any plate tectonics whatsoever, other than the static indication of subduction zones.

If you CLICK HERE, you'll clearly see Africa moving north, not east (of course, where did you think the Alps and the Atlas Mountains came from?)

Africa is impacting Europe, not Asia. Not Asia proper anyway.

I didn't say that at all. I said there are only so many works that have been handed down, and that's where we get our information. To make all the information fit the pictures painted of the past by these writers, one has to move the time line farther back.

IOW, to make everything fit into what we know now, versus what they knew then, when it fit perfectly with what they knew, we have to make up even more crap that is pure bunk stapled onto the ends of a tale that is already pure bunk otherwise we'd have to admit that the original tale was pure bunk.

Bunky enough yet?

I really don't care if you like me or not nor do I care if you believe Atlantis existed or not. You yourself just said that Plato was more authorative than Siculus, but you obviously don't believe Plato either, so why pass comment?

Plato gives references, fictionalized they may be, but at least he gives them. Siculus states he copied ancient texts. Which would you say was more authoritative? Oh, wait, I already know the answer. To you, the more authoritative is the one you can "pretend" with more easily and thus force into your fantasy scenario more easily.

If you read both, you will see that these "ancient texts" Siculus has copied are Plato's Critias and Plato's Timaeus.

Why pass comment? Why do you pass these posts of yours off as "comment?"

Don't post if you can't stand someone else having an opinion that doesn't mesh perfectly with yours. And you certainly shouldn't post a made-up line of hooey then get mad when someone calls a spade a spade.

Are you paid to be the in-house critic or synic in this forum? If not, why stick your nose into a subject you don't believe in?

I do it for you, believe it or not.

If you don't believe it, try the search function. I've stated ten or twenty times here my reasons for posting in this section of this forum.

Why do you post drivel which you've obviously made up as if it had some validity? I mean, for God's sake, you started one line of thinking with "Let's pretend..."!!!

Harte

[Qoais]

I mean, for God's sake, you started one line of thinking with "Let's pretend..."!!!

Of course I did - because so far, there's no PROOF that Atlantis existed. I said before that when I come upon a theory, I try to check it out to see if it fits with what the ancients have said already.

Africa had to move NE to end up where she did, if she split from S. America.

I am not giving more or less credit to any ancient writer. I said I would take them all equally in that there is some truth in all the writings.

I have no theory. I just have a lot of fun working things out to see if other theories can fit the bill. Do you have fun Harte? Or is being a cynic your type of fun?

[bee]

I enjoyed reading your posts on this thread, Qoais.....thanks.....

What you had to say was all interesting.....but I've high-lighted the following....because I think that

the patriarchal take over is of particular interest.

Quote

55. Now as the Amazons, they go on to say, relaxed their watch during the night because of their success, the captive women, falling upon them and drawing the swords of those who thought they were conquerors, slew many of them; in the end, however, the multitude poured in about them from every side and the prisoners fighting bravely were butchered one and all. Myrina accorded a funeral to her fallen comrades on three pyres and raised up three great heaps of earth as toms, which are called to this day "Amazon Mounds". 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 the Amazons were entirely destroyed by Heracles, when he visited the regions to the west and set up his pillars in Libya, since he felt that it would ill accord with his resolve to be the benefactor of the whole race of mankind if he should suffer any nations to be under the rule of women. The story is also told that the marsh Tritonis disappeared from sight in the course of an earthquake, when those parts of it which lay towards the ocean were torn asunder.

These stories of Amazons and female leaders.....ie when the human race was broadly matriarchal??.....must be from

way, way back. It's a puzzle why/how the sons of the matriarchs should rebel in this way....unless perhaps

the patriarchs came from....somewhere else....

As for Myrina, the account continues, she visited the larger part of Libya, and passing over into Egypt she struck a treaty of friendship with Horus, the son of Isis, who was king of Egypt at that time, and then, after making war to the end upon the Arabians and slaying many of the, she subdued Syria; but when the Cilicians came out with presents to meet her and agreed to obey her commands, she left those free who yielded to her of their free will and for this reason there are called to this day the "Free Cilicians". She also conquered in war the races in the region of the Taurus, peoples of outstanding courage, and descended through Greater Phrygia to the sea; then she won over the land lying along the coast and fixed the bounds of her campaign at the Caicus River. And selecting in the territory which she had won by arms sites well suited for the founding of cities, she built a considerable number of them and founded one which bore her own name, but the others she named after the women who held the most important commands, such as Cyme, Pitana, and Priene.

Myrina was a very active and assertive women, eh?

Depending on the time line, or the different time lines we should look at - one being the time-line of Atlantis itself, as apparently it was an "original" area, as in being there when the Gods divided up the land.

Perhaps that should be when the men divided up the land......perhaps a huge natural disaster

many thousands of years ago.....destroyed the 'Atlantian' era of matriarchal lineage....??

Anyway....thanks for sharing all your thoughts and ponderings on this thread......

[jaylemurph]

These stories of Amazons and female leaders.....ie when the human race was broadly matriarchal??.....must be from

way, way back. It's a puzzle why/how the sons of the matriarchs should rebel in this way....unless perhaps

the patriarchs came from....somewhere else....

*coughs*

You're right. No man ever thought he could do something better than a woman. Clearly such thinking would have to come from aliens/Atlanteans/monkey-raping gods from impossible planets.

--Jaylemurph

[bee]

You're right. No man ever thought he could do something better than a woman. Clearly such thinking would have to come from aliens/Atlanteans/monkey-raping gods from impossible planets.

I do believe you are on to something there.......

[jaylemurph]

Just sayin', bee, when you hear hoof-beats, look for horses, not zebras. Or, more appositely, unicorns.

--Jaylemurph

[bee]

Just sayin', bee, when you hear hoof-beats, look for horses, not zebras. Or, more appositely, unicorns.

Or..............

[Qoais]

It's not that funny, Mr. I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Well that's quite obvious and I'm sure you know yourself best.

As to the patriarchal takeover, I guess Heracles was a chauvanist and determined to make the rest of the known world the same way!

The reason I mentioned the Amazons, was to try to show where THEY were in comparison to the ATLANEANS they attacked, and then the direction they went AFTER attacking the Atlanteans. They went EAST, so Atlantis had to be in the WEST.

Don't post if you can't stand someone else having an opinion that doesn't mesh perfectly with yours.

I don't mind in the least, if someone else has an opinion that doesn't mesh perfectly with mine and re-reading my posts, I don't see where I gave that impression. Is that just a standard line of yours that you throw out when you don't have anything to contribute? That's where I get a lot of ideas and information to check out. Actually, that's where MOST of the information comes from that I try to check out - is from theories people put forward. I, unlike some others in this forum, don't just automatically think I'm always right.

[jaylemurph]

I think - that being the story was old even to the Egyptians, that the western end of the Med., was considered at the time of the story - to be part of the ocean. It would seem so to anyone on the inside of the landbridge at Sicily. If nothing else, once you were in the western Med, you certainly could navigate the ocean. And it would seem that they DID navigate it before Atlantis sunk, causing that shoal of mud. Those on the eastern end of the Med, were cut off for a while.

Ay-yi-yi. It's a good thing you prefaced some of your comments with "I don't know what I'm talking about" because you seem to be oh-so-willing to trust third- and fourth-hand tellings of what the Greeks thought about the world around them rather than getting too familiar with what they themselves were saying. For instance, you can look at this map of Hecataeus of Miletus, writing a century before Plato, and see that the knew (more or less) the extent of the Mediterranean Sea (and the Euxine Sea) and how it was non-contiguous with Oceanus.

Go Here.

Furthermore, most Greek sources are aligned in saying that the Amazons come not from Africa or Asia Minor, but from further west, like Pontus and Thrace.

I mean, I don't expect historical fact to in any way alter what you're putting out, but I would like to demonstrate that relying on www.OMGrealzhistoryisbunk.net without being aware of primary or secondary historic sources can lead to untenable positions, or least things that sound silly when you try to sell them to people who know what they're talking about.

--Jaylemurph

[Qoais]

I cannot "go here" - Microsoft cannot open the file.

What Greek sources are aligned that say the Amazons came from further west?

Jaylemurph, whether the story is third hand or first hand, how do we know either version is true and correct? I SAID that the story bounced back and forth in time. Plato never did himself give actual dates for anything, or names of heroes who fought the war, or who was king or ruler at the time, etc. etc., so it's all open ended as to the details.

Ok - got it from Wikipedia:

I am not saying at all, that they didn't know the territory around the Med in their own time. I'm saying that the story of Atlantis goes back and forth in time. When The Atlanteans are being described as peaceful and spiritual, that was waaay back in the mysts of time. There is no exact order as to when Plato refers to the present or the past. Sometimes we know when he's doing it, like when he says at first there were no ships, other times we have to guess what time frame he's referring to. Like when he says "this power came from the Atlantic" - he does not state WHEN this power was a "power", as it seems that was a long way in the past as well. The priest tells Solon that this war was 9000 years before Solon's time, and that is also supposedly the timeline when Atlantis sunk, but she was a "power" long before that time. So how long?

Edited May 8, 2008 by Qoais

[jaylemurph]

Well, if you want to project events back in time, then this wouldn't help you. It reminds me of Bierce's crack about the Masons and their history.

However, the Greeks (generally) didn't go around spewing out things they knew weren't true. Well, except for the poets, and Plato called them on it. Plato wouldn't have passed down stories with wonky geography that he knew wasn't true, but by assuming (for some reason) a clearly fictitious allegory is literally true, you have to bend facts into increasingly amusing shapes. You get yourself into a position where you have to say "People didn't know what they were talking about" when they clearly did or "That's what they said... but here's what they really meant". I think your reaction to the map shows that.

If nothing else, you still haven't learned that you can't prove a negative, so your "Nyah, nyah! Prove it wasn't so!" responses to Harte do yourself no favours.

--Jaylemurph