Egyptians in the Grand Canyon

[Mattshark]

Egypt was founded by Pelasgia.

""You are welcome to hear about them, Solon, both for your own sake and for that of your city [Athens], and above all, for the sake of the goddess [Venus] who is the common patron and parent and educator of both our cities. She founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours, of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old. As touching your citizens of nine thousand years ago, I will briefly inform you of their laws and of their most famous action; the exact particulars of the whole we will hereafter go through at our leisure in the sacred registers themselves." -- Sonchis of Sais, priest ~594 B.C.

"Afterwards, when most of the inhabitants of Greece were destroyed by flood, and all records and ancient monuments perished with them, the Egyptians took this occasion to appropriate the study of astrology solely to themselves; and whereas the Grecians (through ignorance) as yet valued not learning, it became a general opinion that the Egyptians were the first that found out the knowledge of the stars." -- Diodoros, historian, ~1st century B.C.

"And so even to the Athenians themselves, though they built the city of Sais in Egypt, yet by reason of the flood, were led into the same error of forgetting what was before." -- Diodoros, historian, ~1st century B.C.

Why don't you believe in Antarctica?

Why do you think Antarctica is a fictitious place?

To the Egyptians Asia just meant the Middle East unless you thikn there were Egyptians exploring Kamchatka too.

Don't be facetious, you know I meant Atlantis.

You think they were exploring Antarctica. Yours is infinitely more ridiculous. And no I don't I was just presenting the size.

And importantly Egypt started about 3000ish BCE, Pelasgia is around in about 400-500 BCE. So how you figured that is beyond me. Don't let facts get in the way though.

[Guest]

If there was an old world source of Cocaine and nicotine which was valuable enough to preserve in an Egyptian burial, where only the most important and valuable items were sent with the dead, do you think that that technology would have been allowed to die out in the old world. These are highly prized and addictive substances which were obviously worth trading over great distances.

To my mind it seems unlikely that the Egyptians personally traded with the New World - the complete lack of evidence is compelling. It seems far more likely that they traded with an intermediary who traded with the New world. There is compelling evidence, in the form of the Olmec culture, that the west Africans had a colony in the New World and this was probably the source.

Br Cornelius

[Total Science]

Don't be facetious, you know I meant Atlantis.

You don't believe in Atlantis or Antarctica because they are identical.

You think they were exploring Antarctica.

I know Antarctica was explored because it's Atlantis.

Yours is infinitely more ridiculous.

Why do you think history is ridiculous?

And no I don't I was just presenting the size.

Mine's bigger...

And importantly Egypt started about 3000ish BCE

No.

"You are welcome to hear about them, Solon, both for your own sake and for that of your city [Athens], and above all, for the sake of the goddess [Venus] who is the common patron and parent and educator of both our cities. She founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours, of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old. As touching your citizens of nine thousand years ago, I will briefly inform you of their laws and of their most famous action; the exact particulars of the whole we will hereafter go through at our leisure in the sacred registers themselves." -- Sonchis of Sais, priest, ~594 B.C.

"Thus the whole period is eleven thousand three hundred and forty years; in all of which time (they said) they had had no king who was a god in human form, nor had there been any such either before or after those years among the rest of the kings of Egypt. Four times in this period (so they told me) the sun rose contrary to experience; twice he came up where he now goes down, and twice went down where he now comes up." -- Herodotos, historian, Book II, ~440-420 B.C.

Pelasgia is around in about 400-500 BCE. So how you figured that is beyond me. Don't let facts get in the way though.

LOL.

It was called Arcadia in 600 BC so how can it be Pelasgia in 400-500 B.C.?

"After this king the land was called Arcadia instead of Pelasgia and its inhabitants Arcadians instead of Pelasgians." -- Pausanias, geographer, Description of Greece: Arcadia, 2nd century

Did the Pelasgians use time machines to travel into the future?

Edited June 14, 2009 by Total Science

[+DieChecker]

None of which points to the presence of Egyptians in the New World.

Even if there is no longer a native source of nicotine and a cocaine-type alkaloid available from any of the plants of those genera in the Old World (and it is debatable there isn't), the discovery of silk in Egypt at around 1000BCE indicates that trade was happening throughout Eastern North Africa/Europe and Asia. It is also known that various species of the Erythroxylaceae family are native to tropical Africa and Asia. Studies indicate that many of these plants contain the same sort of alkaloids (tropane alkaloids) that cocaine is and many have narcotic qualities which are similar.

The lack of any corroborating evidence of contact between the Old and New World (no trade items from one appearing in the other) would indicate the source of the nicotine and cocaine/alkaloid was sourced from somewhere the Egyptians already had trade links to, and the obvious answer(s) to this are Southern (sub-Saharan) Africa and East Asia.

100%

The man who denied the knowledge and closed is mind is more likely to close his door at every turn and be ultimately in the dark, the man who listened opened all doors and windows for consideration.

And, He who belives everything, because he wants, or has, to, is a fool.

This has been proven time and again to be what you, yourself, hinted at... eroded heiroglyphics written over older heiroglyphics.

So if the Atlantians were so great, why did they get beaten by a bunch of Proto-Greek shepards? The very idea is akin to a full battlalion of US Infantry with Bradly fighting vehicles being beaten by a family of ten Amozonian tribesmen.

[Leonardo]

Total Science,

Please source your quotes and information so we may look at the context from which you take them.

Also, are you the poster on this forum known as "Two Socks"? I find the use of innumerable (and completely irrelevant) quotes, the constant lack of any sourcing for material and the pernicious use of "Have you got any evidence to support your claim" as a defence when Two Socks provides none of his/her own (in hypocritical fashion) to be suspiciously similar to your posting style here.

That fact that Two Socks was banned as being a 'multi-poster' suggests I should ask you if you have created multiple accounts here on UM to torment us with?

[Total Science]

So if the Atlantians were so great, why did they get beaten by a bunch of Proto-Greek shepards?

Your description of the technologically advanced Pelasgian civilization that defeated the technologically advanced Atlantean civilization as "a bunch of Proto-Greek shepards" has no foundation in reality.

"You are welcome to hear about them, Solon, both for your own sake and for that of your city [Athens], and above all, for the sake of the goddess [Venus] who is the common patron and parent and educator of both our cities. She founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours, of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old. As touching your citizens of nine thousand years ago, I will briefly inform you of their laws and of their most famous action; the exact particulars of the whole we will hereafter go through at our leisure in the sacred registers themselves. If you compare these very laws with ours you will find that many of ours are the counterpart of yours as they were in the olden time. In the first place, there is the caste of priests, which is separated from all the others; next, there are the artificers, who ply their several crafts by themselves and do not intermix; and also there is the class of shepherds and of hunters, as well as that of husbandmen; and you will observe, too, that the warriors in Egypt are distinct from all the other classes, and are commanded by the law to devote themselves solely to military pursuits; moreover, the weapons which they carry are shields and spears, a style of equipment which the goddess taught of Asiatics first to us, as in your part of the world first to you. Then as to wisdom, do you observe how our law from the very first made a study of the whole order of things, extending even to prophecy and medicine which gives health, out of these divine elements deriving what was needful for human life, and adding every sort of knowledge which was akin to them. All this order and arrangement the goddess first imparted to you when establishing your city; and she chose the spot of earth in which you were born, because she saw that the happy temperament of the seasons in that land would produce the wisest of men. Wherefore the goddess, who was a lover both of war and of wisdom, selected and first of all settled that spot which was the most likely to produce men likest herself. And there you dwelt, having such laws as these and still better ones, and excelled all mankind in all virtue, as became the children and disciples of the gods. Many great and wonderful deeds are recorded of your state in our histories. But one of them exceeds all the rest in greatness and valour. For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end. This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia. This vast power, gathered into one, endeavoured to subdue at a blow our country and yours and the whole of the region within the straits; and then, Solon, your country shone forth, in the excellence of her virtue and strength, among all mankind. She was pre-eminent in courage and military skill, and was the leader of the Hellenes. And when the rest fell off from her, being compelled to stand alone, after having undergone the very extremity of danger, she defeated and triumphed over the invaders, and preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated, and generously liberated all the rest of us who dwell within the pillars. But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island." -- Sonchis of Sais, priest, ~594 B.C.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Total Science

[Mattshark]

You don't believe in Atlantis or Antarctica because they are identical.

I know Antarctica was explored because it's Atlantis.

Why do you think history is ridiculous?

Mine's bigger...

No.

"You are welcome to hear about them, Solon, both for your own sake and for that of your city [Athens], and above all, for the sake of the goddess [Venus] who is the common patron and parent and educator of both our cities. She founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours, of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old. As touching your citizens of nine thousand years ago, I will briefly inform you of their laws and of their most famous action; the exact particulars of the whole we will hereafter go through at our leisure in the sacred registers themselves." -- Sonchis of Sais, priest, ~594 B.C.

LOL.

It was called Arcadia in 600 BC so ow can it be Pelasgia in 400-500 B.C.?

"After this king the land was called Arcadia instead of Pelasgia and its inhabitants Arcadians instead of Pelasgians." -- Pausanias, geographer, Description of Greece: Arcadia, 2nd century

Did the Pelasgians use time machines to travel into the future?

No one is a frozen continent which has no human settlement (which are just research stations) till the 20th century and the other is fiction. And you don't know, you believe and that belief is contrary to evidence and calling it history when is just dishonest.

Sorry but there is abundant evidence of the Egyptian civilisation being over 5 millenia old. You not knowing this is just simply you being ignorant.

Sorry it should be about 900 BC, I apologise, same thing however. It is still much, much younger than Egypt.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Mattshark

[Total Science]

Total Science,

Please source your quotes and information so we may look at the context from which you take them.

All of my quotes are sourced.

At least I actually provide quotes and sources to support my argument.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Total Science

[Total Science]

Sorry but there is abundant evidence of the Egyptian civilisation being over 5 millenia old. You not knowing this is just simply you being ignorant.

I never said otherwise. You are being dishonest and ignorant again.

Sorry it should be about 900 BC, I apologise, same thing however.

900 B.C. is not the same thing as 400 B.C. There is a huge difference.

It is still much, much younger than Egypt.

And no, 9,600 B.C. is not much younger than 8,600 B.C.

[Leonardo]

Total Science,

Please source your quotes and information so we may look at the context from which you take them.

Also, are you the poster on this forum known as "Two Socks"? I find the use of innumerable (and completely irrelevant) quotes, the constant lack of any sourcing for material and the pernicious use of "Have you got any evidence to support your claim" as a defence when Two Socks provides none of his/her own (in hypocritical fashion) to be suspiciously similar to your posting style here.

That fact that Two Socks was banned as being a 'multi-poster' suggests I should ask you if you have created multiple accounts here on UM to torment us with?

All of my quotes are sourced.

At least I actually provide quotes and sources to support my argument.

No, they are not. You have not stated where you have sourced your quotes from, only attributed who they are of. You can use the hyperlink button to link your source in your post.

You also have not answered the rest of my post (duplicated above for your convenience) about whether you were this "Two Socks" character who trolled a science forum with inane posts and neither listened to any replies which had relevant information in them, nor offered any proposal about what was being discussed. This "Two Socks " person, like yourself on UM, simply disagreed with informed opinion by posting quotes and sullenly asking "Where's YOUR evidence?" without posting any of his/her own.

If you wish to become a part of the UM community, you will be expected to contribute, rather than troll. I would ask you to make a point of what you post - using your own words and not simply quoting others - and make what you post relevant to the topic at hand. In this thread, as an example, provide sourced evidence that shows Atlantis existed and was 'connected' with Egypt and the Americas to make your post relevant to "Egyptians in the Grand Canyon".

Otherwise, if you cannot contribute anything other than mined quotes and snide "Where's your evidence?" remarks, I would ask you to retire from the discussion.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Leonardo

[Total Science]

No, they are not. You have not stated where you have sourced your quotes from, only attributed who they are of.

In every case I have given a name and date, i.e. citation to support my argument. You haven't done that in any of our discussions that I can recall.

You also have not answered the rest of my post (duplicated above for your convenience) about whether you were this "Two Socks" character who trolled a science forum with inane posts and neither listened to any replies which had relevant information in them, nor offered any proposal about what was being discussed. This "Two Socks " person, like yourself on UM, simply disagreed with informed opinion by posting quotes and sullenly asking "Where's YOUR evidence?" without posting any of his/her own.

If you wish to become a part of the UM community, you will be expected to contribute, rather than troll. I would ask you to make a point of what you post - using your own words and not simply quoting others - and make what you post relevant to the topic at hand. In this thread, as an example, provide sourced evidence that shows Atlantis existed and was 'connected' with Egypt and the Americas to make your post relevant to "Egyptians in the Grand Canyon".

Otherwise, if you cannot contribute anything other than mined quotes and snide "Where's your evidence?" remarks, I would ask you to retire from the discussion.

I don't respond to ad hominem attacks because ad hominem attacks are against forum rules. If you have something to say about cocaine mummies please provide citation and we can discuss it.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Total Science

[Mattshark]

I never said otherwise. You are being dishonest and ignorant again.

900 B.C. is not the same thing as 400 B.C. There is a huge difference.

And no, 9,600 B.C. is not much younger than 8,600 B.C.

Actually you did, I say 3000ish BCE and you response was no. Which it is.

And here is the British Museum site backing up.

British Meusum Egyptology.

I never said 400 and 900 where the same, it was reference to the people even if the name changed.

[Leonardo]

In every case I have given a name and date, i.e. citation to support my argument. You haven't done that in any of our discussions that I can recall.

I rarely quote others and when I cut and paste something from another site onto a post in UM I include the link to the source. That is in the rules, if you'd care to read them again.

I don't respond to ad hominem attacks because ad hominem attacks are against forum rules. If you have something to say about cocaine mummies please provide citation and we can discuss it.

In this case, the accusation is relevant, T.S. because you are providing nothing of value to the discussion, but simply badgering people with irrelevant cut-and-pastes. If you intend to continue to do this then you will (eventually) be banned from this forum as you were from The Science Forum.

I provided information (sourced) about tropane alkaloids in support of my argument a couple of pages back. If you didn't bother to read that information then that's your problem, not mine.

[Oniomancer]

oh no...not the summit of all quackisms again: the Egyptian helicopter.... pleeezzee!

And using the retouched version too I see, the one that conviniently leaves out the front of the "nose" and "rotor" being cut off abruptly by a big chunk of missing plaster.

[+DieChecker]

Your description of the technologically advanced Pelasgian civilization that defeated the technologically advanced Atlantean civilization as "a bunch of Proto-Greek shepards" has no foundation in reality.

"You are welcome to hear about them, Solon, both for your own sake and for that of your city [Athens], and above all, for the sake of the goddess [Venus] who is the common patron and parent and educator of both our cities. She founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours, of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old. As touching your citizens of nine thousand years ago, I will briefly inform you of their laws and of their most famous action; the exact particulars of the whole we will hereafter go through at our leisure in the sacred registers themselves. If you compare these very laws with ours you will find that many of ours are the counterpart of yours as they were in the olden time. In the first place, there is the caste of priests, which is separated from all the others; next, there are the artificers, who ply their several crafts by themselves and do not intermix; and also there is the class of shepherds and of hunters, as well as that of husbandmen; and you will observe, too, that the warriors in Egypt are distinct from all the other classes, and are commanded by the law to devote themselves solely to military pursuits; moreover, the weapons which they carry are shields and spears, a style of equipment which the goddess taught of Asiatics first to us, as in your part of the world first to you. Then as to wisdom, do you observe how our law from the very first made a study of the whole order of things, extending even to prophecy and medicine which gives health, out of these divine elements deriving what was needful for human life, and adding every sort of knowledge which was akin to them. All this order and arrangement the goddess first imparted to you when establishing your city; and she chose the spot of earth in which you were born, because she saw that the happy temperament of the seasons in that land would produce the wisest of men. Wherefore the goddess, who was a lover both of war and of wisdom, selected and first of all settled that spot which was the most likely to produce men likest herself. And there you dwelt, having such laws as these and still better ones, and excelled all mankind in all virtue, as became the children and disciples of the gods. Many great and wonderful deeds are recorded of your state in our histories. But one of them exceeds all the rest in greatness and valour. For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end. This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia. This vast power, gathered into one, endeavoured to subdue at a blow our country and yours and the whole of the region within the straits; and then, Solon, your country shone forth, in the excellence of her virtue and strength, among all mankind. She was pre-eminent in courage and military skill, and was the leader of the Hellenes. And when the rest fell off from her, being compelled to stand alone, after having undergone the very extremity of danger, she defeated and triumphed over the invaders, and preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated, and generously liberated all the rest of us who dwell within the pillars. But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island." -- Sonchis of Sais, priest, ~594 B.C.

Yes. I am familiar with this quote, but no where in it does it say the Greeks, the Hellenes, were technologically superior to anyone else. It only says they won by fact of their virtue and strength. Anything else is conjecture. The only technology actual mentioned are spears and shields.

[Total Science]

I provided information (sourced) about tropane alkaloids in support of my argument a couple of pages back. If you didn't bother to read that information then that's your problem, not mine.

You have provided exactly zero evidence that the ancient Egyptians had advanced chemistry sufficient to isolate tropane alkaloids from native plant species. None.

Please show me the evidence.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Total Science

[Mattshark]

I rarely quote others and when I cut and paste something from another site onto a post in UM I include the link to the source. That is in the rules, if you'd care to read them again.

Also he is attributing Plato to Sonchis of Sais (who is only known from some second hand reports).

"You are welcome to hear about them, Solon, both for your own sake and for that of your city [Athens], and above all, for the sake of the goddess [Venus] who is the common patron and parent and educator of both our cities. She founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours, of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old. As touching your citizens of nine thousand years ago, I will briefly inform you of their laws and of their most famous action; the exact particulars of the whole we will hereafter go through at our leisure in the sacred registers themselves"

This is from Timaeus by Plato

Edited June 14, 2009 by Mattshark

[Leonardo]

You have provided exactly zero evidence that the Egyptians had advanced chemistry sufficient to isolate tropane alkaloids from native plant species. None.

Please show me the evidence.

Unfortunately for your accusation, the Amazonian peoples also had no 'advanced chemistry to isolate tropane alkaloids from native plant species" either, yet they managed to find their way to be intoxicated by the alkaloids in the species Erythroxylum coca native to their region of the world.

Once again, Two Socks, you ask for evidence where all the evidence is plain to see, yet you are blind to it. The Egyptians did not need advanced chemistry as these alkaloids are naturally occurring in the bark, wood and leaf of the plants. They have been found to be naturally occurring - a fact you would have recognised if you'd read what has been posted and done some brief and simple research of your own - and that fact has thrown the 'New World Cocaine' origin of the alkaloids in these mummies into considerable doubt.

There is no 'undoubted link' between the New World and the Old World in the timeframe indicated (some 1000 or so BCE) and no evidence that the ancient Egyptians ever were in, or traded with (even via intermediaries), the New World.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Leonardo

[Oniomancer]

If there was an old world source of Cocaine and nicotine which was valuable enough to preserve in an Egyptian burial, where only the most important and valuable items were sent with the dead, do you think that that technology would have been allowed to die out in the old world. These are highly prized and addictive substances which were obviously worth trading over great distances.

Retaining the technology means little if the source disappears. Darned if I can remember where I saw it, but I vaguely recall reading a quote somewhere about some herb valued by the ancient greeks or romans growing in africa IIRC, running along the lines of "So heavily harvested was it that there was none to be had by later generations."

Something similar happened with wild ginseng populations in North America nearly being wiped out by overcollecting.

I also remember reading an article once speculating on the land of the lotus eaters being in africa, and what plant the lotus may have been. (may have been the same article even, Any of this ringing any bells with anybody?)

[Total Science]

Two Socks,

Once again you present no evidence and no citations to support your argument. Shock and awe.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Total Science

[Leonardo]

Also he is attributing Plato to Sonchis of Sais (who is only known from some second hand reports).

This is from Timaeus by Plato

Sonchis of Sais is only known from Plato's Timaeus.

Other references to this mythical personage are made by Plutarch (a middle Platonist who mentioned Sonchis in relation to what Plato said in his dialogue and, no doubt, only knew Sonchis from Plato as a literary figure) and Plutarch himself states he is not concerned with 'writing histories' but of writing of the influences of good and bad character, thus his Lives cannot be considered as historically factual in all respects.

Clement of Alexandria also writes of Sonchis of Sais, but again this is in reference to Plato's Timaeus and we cannot consider Clement is writing of a historical figure, but one he knows only from that work.

That Two Socks attributes Plato's words to a literary figure indicates a certain lack of integrity.

[Leonardo]

Two Socks,

Once again you present no evidence and no citations to support your argument. Shock and awe.

Are you denying the Amazonian peoples had no advanced chemistry but obtained the hit from the naturally occurring alkaloids in E. coca from the simple act of chewing the leaves?

Do I need to produce evidence that these Amazonian peoples really did chew the leaves?

Edited June 14, 2009 by Leonardo

[KRS-One]

Are you denying the Amazonian peoples had no advanced chemistry but obtained the hit from the naturally occurring alkaloids in E. coca from the simple act of chewing the leaves?

Do I need to produce evidence that these Amazonian peoples really did chew the leaves?

It won't matter. He told me in another thread that since I wasn't personally there to witness an ancient event then I could not possibly make statements about it, so unless you've got video evidence of them that you took yourself and he's in the picture with them, it's a moot point.

It's kind of entertaining what flabbergasting question he's going to come up with next, actually. Good catch on calling him out from his other threads on other sites.

Edited June 14, 2009 by KRS-One

[Total Science]

Sonchis of Sais is only known from Plato's Timaeus.

Nonsense. He is also known from the poems of Solon, Dropides, Critias, and also the writings of Plutarch, Cuvier, others, etc.

Other references to this mythical personage are made by Plutarch

Thus contradicting your previous statement. Why do you think history is mythological?

(a middle Platonist who mentioned Sonchis in relation to what Plato said in his dialogue and, no doubt, only knew Sonchis from Plato as a literary figure) and Plutarch himself states he is not concerned with 'writing histories' but of writing of the influences of good and bad character, thus his Lives cannot be considered as historically factual in all respects.

You have no evidence of that.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Total Science

[Mattshark]

Nonsense. He is also known from the poems of Solon, Dropides, Critias, and also the writings of Plutarch, Cuvier, others, etc.

Thus contradicting your previous statement. Why do you think hisotry is mythological?

You have no evidence of that.

You are still incorrect attributing the work of Plato no matter what as there is no evidence for him accept for second hand reports.