Your link to the ancient spheres is not working, but yes, they are written of in Cremo and Thompsons "Forbidden Archeology".

Also, for those that are interested, AR ran a story on them several years ago. Go the to Archives link, hit volume # 5, and then click on the link to "Top 10 Out Of Place Artifacts" to read about them.

The spheres mentioned have prooved to be alloy, therefore cannot be considered natural, and were found in a layer of rock 2-3 billion years old! This is truly the most incredible archaeological find I have ever read of.

[This message has been edited by KatieCat (edited 05-26-2003).]

"Please remember that "fantastic claims require fantastic proof".

Eric, I don't have time right now to go thru' my library and give you mountains of references. However, I think the most fantastic proof remains the Great Pyramid in Egypt, as well as the incredibly massive cut stones at Baalbek, weighing in at 12,000 tons of granite cut at a time when the experts claim only copper tools were in existance. Limestone, maybe...but granite cut by copper tools? I can't buy that.

Whoever built the Great Pyramid knew the precise circumfrance of the Earth, knew the distance of the moon from the Earth, and knew the distance of the Earth from the sun. They were capable of lifting stone blocks that our present technology still cannot fathom. Certainly the builders had access to a technological skill and knowledge that surpased anything known to the common man.

Most scholars and physicists who have pondered the Ark suggest that the descriptions imply an electrical component; at a time when electricity was supposedly unheard of, yet even modern-day physicists have not been able to duplicate it. The Israelites received their building instructions from a deity who was often seen “flying through the air” at a time when space flight was obviously unknown by the common man.

Why, on Earth, is it that nobody ever seems to have the time to cite their sources of information?

You are, of course, entitled to believe anything you wish, however, you should always bear in mind that people can claim anything they want on the internet and it is rarely, if ever, "policed". Just because "Forbidden Archaeology" claims that spheres made of some alloy were found in layers of rock 2-3 billion years old, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. After all, there's a reason their type of "archaeology" is forbidden! Who found these spheres? Where are the spheres? Who tested them? What process did they use? Where were the results published? (etcetera infinitum) This is all "need to know" type of information.

The Great Pyramid has been dated to around 2506 BC through carbon dating of mortar samples taken from its packing stones. Nobody argues anymore, not even Graham Hancock, about the age of this structure. I suggest you pick up a book and do a little reading about the development of the Egyptian Pyramid & Mortuary Complex. I think you'll find that the development of the pyramids followed in a very logical, regular, and linear fashion. I would suggest Ancient Egyptian Construction and Architecture, written by Somers Clarke and R. Engelbach (Dover Publications, Inc., 1990), ISBN 0-486-26485-8, or a book called Building in Egypt, written by someone with the last name of Arnold (suggested by Peter V. in the thread "Prolly been asked before..."). That thread is found in the topic "Egypt and the Pyramids". Its an old thread (hasn't seen activity in a while), so you'll need to go the aforementioned topic, ask it to "show topics from the last year", click on the 3rd page of those, click on "Prolly been asked before...", then go to page two of that and start reading. Quite a bit of information is covered there.

The cutting of granite with copper tools is outlined in several books written by stonemasons, such as the ones I mentioned earlier, that are available on the internet or in book stores. I suggest that you pick up a book and do some reading to familiarize yourself with those processes. To save you a little time, the process was this; the copper tool was heated to make it soft, then, rolled in an aggregate such as sand, and allowed to cool. This gave the copper tool a coating of abrasive material, just like modern stone cutting blades. Nothing 'mysterious' there.

There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that the builders of the Great Pyramid had any knowledge of the circumference of the Earth, or knew the distance of the Earth from the sun, or the moon. The manner by which they moved their stones has been left to us in hieroglyphic picures, and one of those quite clearly illustrates them moving a 60 ton stone by having 172 men pulling the weight. The statue (the weight being pulled) is sitting on a 'sled' and some sort of lubricant (either water or oil) is being poured on the ground just in front of the sled's runners. There's nothing mysterious there either - just a lot of back-breaking work.

Quit just accepting everything that you read or are told, KatieCat, do your research! The information is readily available if you just take the time and look for it.

Respectfully,

Erick

O.K., KatieCat, whatever. Like I said, you're free to believe whatever you want, that doesn't make it true, though.

Incidentally, what does any of this have to do with Plato's 'Atlantis', or the Phoenicians, for that matter?

Respectfully,

Erick

As for no mystery to the GP? Dear sir, please do your research. Experiments on Pyramids at Giza performed in the 60's and 70's by Stanford Research Institute in conjection with Nobel prize-winning physicists from Ein Shams University, certainly befuddled those with far greater minds than mine or yours. The outcome of those experiments has never been sufficiently addressed, and the result of those experiments were published in several highly respected Scientific journals; one of which was "Chefren-Pyramide, Fluch des Pharao." Der Spiegel. No. 33

I think Robert Drews, or perhaps someone else, wrote a book around 1994, claiming that the new (lightweight, manuverable)weapons of the 12th century BC formed a revolution for military tactics, and obsoleted the old chariot-style of warfare.

You asked why I tend to cite the Carlos Parada website - it has a great search engine for mythology; and it lets you see the data I am discussing.

I checked out your point that the mythical genealogy for Danaus seems to be an anachronism. You are right. BUT... do you really think Argos was settled 250 years before the lifetime of the "first man" Phoroneus?

Perhaps Carlos Parada should change this man's identification number to Danaus 3, or something along those lines.

I wrote:

quote:

---

Lynceus 2 and Hypermnestra 1 had a son Abas 2, who in time became king of Argos. Abas 2 is father of Acrisius, father of Danae, mother of Perseus 1, the founder of Mycenae.

This would place the events described in these myths at around 200 to 300 years further back in time - if they ever occured at all.

---

What I should have wrote was "This would place the events described in these myths at around 200 to 300 years further back in time than the Trojan War - if they ever occured at all." My apology for the lack of clarification. Additionally, the Danaus that took place in the Trojan War, and sought refuge at Argos, was Danaus2, not Danaus1.

I am indeed familiar with the Naua Type II sword, in fact, Ulf and I discussed this in another thread (I'll have to get back to you on which thread that was). The key word here, though, is sword. The Naua Type II was a long, double-edged sword - not a dagger, as you suggest. I did not see anything suggesting that Danaus1 gave such a sword to each of his 50 daughters. The technology for this sword probably hadn't even been developed during his lifetime. Can you please clarify as to where you read this?

Robert Drews did, indeed, write about advancements in chariot warfare during the end of the Bronze Age. I own a copy of his book.

Respectfully,

Erick

If you check, I think you'll find that King Solomon approached King Hiram about the acquisition of the materials for the Temple, and for assistance in building it, but I don't believe that Hiram was actually the 'architect' on the project. That is as far as the Phoenician involvement with the Ark of the Covenant went.

You are correct that the Ark of the Covenant was placed within the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem.

Any theory regarding Solomon's Temple having been built on a "sacred latitude" or lee line, that leads back to the Great Pyramid in Egypt, is pure speculation. Science doesn't even recognize "lee lines" or "lines of sacred latitude". Colin Wilson and Rand Flem-Ath are "new agers" and I would be more likely to line the bottom of a bird cage with their books, than I would be to read them. They fall into the same pseudo-science category as Graham Hancock.

If "The Hiram Key", by Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas has any mention of any sort of mysterious connections, conspiracies, or any other such nonsense, then it, too, would find itself at the bottom of a birdcage.

Thank you, however, for quoting your sources this time.

You seem to me to be the type of person that has the absolute lowest regard for science and scientists. You seem to be one of those people that despises the very Laws of Science and the people that use them, as you happily type away on the computer which those very Laws of Science (and scientists who use them) brought you. Why don't you try getting a subscription to "Archaeology" magazine? Or try reading a book written by someone that is qualified to speak about the topic, such as...oh, I don't know...maybe an expert on Near Eastern cultures? Or an Egyptologist? Or an Archaeologist?

Maybe the speculation and pseudo-science is just more interesting to you?

Respectfully,

Erick

Did a Google search, and an MSN search for "PreCambrian Metallic Spheres" and all that comes up are reviews of their book.

I am aware of certain so-called "tests" that were carried out in the Great Pyramid in the 60's and 70's, but perhaps you'd care to be a bit more specific as to those tests, their exact nature and results? No, I'm not going to go look them up. Providing evidence for your arguments is YOUR responsibility, not mine. If you can find anything of substance, feel free to post it here, however, information such as that would be more appropriate in a thread dedicated to the discussion of the pyramids - which this thread is not.

Incidentally, I wouldn't allow any pet's litter box to be lined with anything written by Erich Von Daniken! Pure rubbish through and through.

Respectfully,

Erick

I thought that this post was so appropriate that I decided to bring it here for you.

quote:

---

Thank you for acknowledging that your reference to "survivors" is your own hypothesis, and has nothing to do with what Plato wrote about 'Atlantis'. There are those of us here, in this forum, that are searching for the actual, physical, remains of the city referred to as 'Atlantis', and a few of us, myself specifically, tend to get a little irritated when that search is "muddied", if you will, by the injection of information relating to the story through assumption. What that assumption allows for is the creation of another whole chapter of the 'Atlantis' story that, as you have acknowledged, does not have anything to do with Plato's story; it is mere speculation, and therefore has nothing to do with any search for the "real" 'Atlantis' - that is to say, the one Plato wrote about, an actual physical city.

I do not believe that you would ever make any attempt to purposefully alter Plato's story, however, nonetheless, I believe that it is the unintended consequence of any speculation regarding any survivors, intermingling of survivors with other cultures, and any dissemination of knowledge, or saving of knowledge through some sort of hidden "Hall of Records". This sort of speculation takes us where Plato never went, thereby writing a new, additional, chapter to the 'Atlantis' story. And, unfortunately, here is where many of the so-called "lunatic fringe" individuals jump aboard, and it is partly because of these people, and the fear of any sort of association with them, that scholars refuse to examine the story with any real voracity. As a result, individuals like myself, that are making a very real effort to locate or identify the city through the examination and scrutinization of historical and archaeological records, are shut out by Academia. It is now to the point where any papers or theories that are submitted to members of Academia cannot have any mention of the word 'Atlantis' in it or you are summarily dismissed, due to their fear of association with the subject and the potential ostracism of their colleagues. Is this right or fair? Probably not, nevertheless, it is a sad fact that any serious 'Atlantis' investigator must face. This tends to create a little bitterness and emnity between the more science-minded individuals and those who prefer to merely 'speculate' as to the possible fate of some 'potential' survivors.

When it comes to discussions or arguments between the science-minded individuals and the individuals that believe in "crystal power" and other such "new age fantasies", the chasm is widened even further and science-minded individuals find themselves having a hard time refraining from ridiculing their opponents. There is such a thing as being too open-minded, and there are many individuals that can easily be considered to be "suggestable". These are usually individuals that hate science, and scientists, because of the scientists' refusal to join in on their "flights of fantasy", where rules of evidence and the Laws of Scientific Methodology are thrown out. They despise the Laws of Scientific Methodology because either their hypothesis are, ultimately, never able to withstand the scrutiny of logic and reason, or because of the scientists' refusals to examine their theories due to the fact that they don't fall within the realm of things that can, or cannot be proven. These topic are considered to be "taboo" for scientists, and understandably so.

So, should people be condemned for wanting to take these "flights of fantasy" and for allowing their imagination to soar? Absolutely not; the imagination is a singularly human trait, and an absolutely wonderful tool and asset of the human species, but, like everything else in our lives, there is an appropriate place and time for it to be used - and the laboratory and the Halls of Academia are not necessarily that place and/or time. Certain exceptions to that statement do exist, of course, but generally speaking, I think the statement still holds true.

I think that it can also be said that the more "lunatic fringe" of the Atlantologists, despise science and scientists because science stands in the way of their 'theories' and their believing whatever they want to believe. They seem to have the mistaken impression that something can be true just because they want it to be true, and refuse to consider and/or assign any weight to the evidence to the contrary. These individuals are hopeless, in my opinion, and will forever remain in their world of "fantasy". It is their safe place, a place where things can be as they want them to be, rather than as they really are. Those people will never accept anything other than their own beliefs, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary. I feel for them, I really do.

You have stated:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By being IGNORANT we don't accept change or the truth to understand better so therefore we gain no STRENGTH in our knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would disagree with that statement. Ignorance, by its own definition, is the "state or condition of not knowing"; it is the lack of information and education. It is through education and the acquisition of knowledge that we are able to overcome our ignorance and reach a state of intellectual 'enlightenment'. That 'enlightenment' IS, or at least CAN BE, a source of strength. I think that it can safely be said that, in our society, and, in fact, in almost every society, it is the 'educated' - the intellectually enlightened, if you will - that have the money, power, and control.

You are probably referring to spiritual enlightenment, and this really falls outside of the purvue of science, and more within the realm of religion and philosophy. I am unconcerned with those topics right now, as I have been forced to deal with those aspects of my life a great deal already. I have passed beyond them - or, perhaps, stepped to the side of them - for the time being, until I have achieved a position in my life that will allow for further reflection. Once in that position of comfort, there should be time enough for philosophy. Remember, the ancient Greeks dedicated so much time to philosophy because they could; they had slaves/serfs to run the day-to-day operations, thereby freeing them up for their pursuit of philosophy. Once I have achieved that same level of comfort (not by owning slaves, mind you but, rather, by becoming financially independent), I, too, will probably pursue more philosophical discussions. Until that time, however...

---

Respectfully,

Erick

To understand how the Phonecians absolutely DO relate to Baalbek, please go to your nearest Google based search engine and type in the words, “Ashtoreth and Baal.” I am reasonably certain you will find all the evidence you need to figure it out for yourself.

Respectfully,

I currently own two books on the Phoenicians.

1. "The Phoenicians" edited by Sabatino Moscati (Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., 1997), ISBN 0-8478-2194-3, paperback - 670 pages.

2. "The Phoenicians: Peoples of the Past" by Glenn Markoe (University of California Press, 2000), ISBN 0-520-22614-3, paperback - 224 pages.

I am currently corresponding with Glenn Markoe regarding my research.

No offense is intended by this, and I mean this in the nicest and most sincere of ways, but I highly doubt that there is anything that you can tell me that hasn't been covered by these highly trained professionals in these two books.

Respectfully,

Erick

I saw how consciensious you were in a previous post, trying to justify a discrepancy of merely 2 years for the reign of Ramses III.

But when we look at myths transculturally, the myths are just not that precise. One of the classic examples of messy chronology is Aeneas. He fought in the Trojan War. Then he spent 400 years with a young attractive chick named Dido at Carthage (a city which did not even exist anytime remotely close to the Trojan War). And then Aeneas founded Rome (in the 8th century BC), which went on to become the most powerful nation in the world.

Now let me try to get back on topic by saying that(by any practical standard) the Greeks LOST the wars of the Sea Peoples, and subsequently the Greek myths went to great lengths TO AVOID SAYING ANYTHING NEGATIVE about the wars of the "sea peoples".

Let me demonstrate one Phoenician instance where this (avoidance of negativity) has happened: i.e. the Tjekker, who were named as a Sea People; and many (or most) scholars consider them identical to the Greek Teucrians who participated in the Trojan War. The Tjekker accidentally chose to re-settle on the southern outskirts of Phoenicia. Ramses III claimed to have wiped out the Tjekker (but he was exaggerating). Then the Jewish people showed up and formed a kingdom slightly south of the Tjekker. The Bible implies that Joshua could not drive them out completely. Then roughly two centuries after Trojan War, Solomon finished the job of subduing all non-Israelite people in the region where the Tjekker had settled. Next, Solomon formed a commercial alliance with the Phoenicians, and donated some Canaanite cites, in the region of Cabul, to the Phoenicians. Much later, in the 8th or 9th century BC, the Phoenicians established a colony on Cyprus.

That's not a very glamorous end for the Tjekker, if we consider only the "raw data" of history.

But the Greek myths tell this story a different way. Teucer (i.e. the Teucrians, or the Tjekker) was/were fleeing from Troy when they stopped in Phoenica. And the Phoenician city of Sidon helped Teucer 1 settle on Cyprus, in the town of Salamis. This info about Teucer 1 is given in the GML webpage for "Dido". (Obviously several centuries of Teucer's activity were blended and compressed together.)

In regard to Danaus 2, I think you are mistaken. The "Dictionary" on the Carlos Parada website says Danaus 2 had nothing to do with either the Danaids or a migration from Egypt to Argos.

Here is a bit of DROUGHT information which leads me to think that the migration of Danaus 1 and his 50 daughters took place in the 12th century BC. When Danaus arrived in Argos, the city was suffering from a severe drought which Poseidon was causing. So Danaus sent his 50 daughters to look for new water sources. Poseidon liked Danaus and his daughters, so he guided those daughters to new water supplies. (i.e. Before the arrival of Danaus, Poseidon had been mad at the the residents of Argos, because they worshiped Hera, and because Argos had abandoned the worship of the sea god Poseidon.)

This mythical drought is explained in "notes" for Apollodorus 2.1.5, in roughly the middle of this webpage:

Archaeologists have demonstrated that the water systems of Tiryns and Athens dried up, and had to be replaced, in the 12th century BC. The old water systems were then filled with broken pottery. My archaeological reference is the same one which I cited in my last post, but this time look in the section headed "Architecture":

[URL=http://projects.dartmouth.edu/history/bronze_age/lessons/les/29.html]http://projects.dartmouth.edu/history/bronze_age/lessons/les/29.html

[This message has been edited by atalante (edited 05-27-2003).]

[This message has been edited by atalante (edited 05-28-2003).]

Need I point out that this is “the Holy Land” and it’s the most researched place on the planet?

Now most of us well-seasoned ancient history buffs are very aware of the fact that Plato, and all Greek dudes who hung out with him, absolutely knew how to get to Egypt. All one would have to do is travel by boat to the island of Crete for a pit stop, and then head due south, again by boat, for just a couple of days.

If you read the title of this thread you'll see that it asks "Was Atlantis a Phoenician City?"...NOT, was Atlantis in Phoenicia. My research has always pointed to Atlantis having been a Phoenician city - actually, it would be more correct to say a Libyo-Phoenician city - in North Africa. I have never even suggested that Atlantis was on the Levantine coast, or anywhere in the Levant, for that matter.

Part of what I base this on is a comparison of what the priests said to Solon. They said (paraphrasing) that Atlantis existed inside the straits of Gibraltar still, to that day (c. 567 BC), in North Africa (Libya) from Egypt over to the straits of Gibraltar (Pillars of Hercules), and from the straits over to Tyrrhenia (west coast of Italy). If you examine a map of Phoenician domination/control of the Mediterranean, in the 5th & 6th centuries BC, you'll find that it is precisely those areas that were under the control of the Phoenicians (Punic). Additionally, the defensive fortifications of the city, follow the typical Phoenician 3-tiered system of defense.

Respectfully,

Erick

You raise some really good points, and I do want to respond to them, but I just don't have the time tonight. Please be patient with me and I will get back to you regarding your post from last night ASAP.

Respectfully,

Erick

Please allow me to back up to the 2nd invasion of the Sea Peoples, (thus avoiding biblical overtones of the 3rd invasion).

The Meshwesh are an interesting people. Your previous posts mention that they were a new concept to Egypt, as of the 5th year of Ramses III. They came from west of the Tehenu and Temehu. And they were very militant. (They turned on the Tehenu, and anihilated them, after being rebuffed by Ramses III.)

Arabic language has an interesting word root, which I suspect lies behind the name Meshwesh. That Arabic word root is M-sh-u (or M-sh-i); and it is used to convey either the concept of an "organized infantry" or the following range of meanings: to go on foot, to walk, to run, to march, to be an infantryman, to be a member of an organized group, to adapt.

I'm not going to even respond to your posts regarding the pyramid because, as I've pointed out to Kate already, this thread is dedicated to the discussion of "Was Atlantis A Phoenician City?"

Respectfully,

Erick

I'll do my best to respond to each of your points here.

Regarding Aeneas, in the commentary to the "Epistles of Ovid" it is stated that the story of Aeneas having been cast upon the shores of Libya and meeting Queen Dido at Carthage is based upon the fiction of P. Vergilius Maro (Vergil), found in the Aeneid 1.335 through 1.371. A link to the Perseus-Tufts website in regards to Aeneas is given below.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0085%3Ahead%3D%237

Furthermore, I checked my book The Phoenicians (Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., 1997), and on page 42, in the section entitled "The Course of History", written by Sandro Filippo Bondi, it states:

quote:

---

The story of the founding of Carthage -- the most extensive version is related by Justin and the essential outlines are confirmed on the Eastern side by Josephus -- is too well-known to dwell on here. We need only recall that the story revolves around the figure of a Tyrian princess, Elissa-Dido, who was forced to flee from her homeland to escape the persecution of her brother, King Pygmalion, and in the end threw herself on a funeral pyre in order not to be forced into an unwanted marriage to the petty African monarch Iarbus. The modified version made famous by Virgil and centered on the love of Dido for Aeneas is simply a later poetic elaboration.

---

The following link is given in regards to Aeneas having been an ally of the Trojans.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Paus%2e+10%2e17%2e6

Regarding Teucer and the Teucrians as the Tjekker, I have never heard anyone bold enough to state that association in all of my research, however, the description of events does seem to match closely enough to make it very plausible. Good job!

The following link takes you to the Perseus-Tufts website in regards to Teucer having been the founder of Salamis, in Cyprus, after his father Telamon ousted him.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Paus%2e+8%2e15%2e6

Regarding your theory about the Phoenicians, again, the book The Phoenicians states:

quote:

---

If the Canaanites of the Syro-Palestinian coast of the Late Bronze Age are to be considered "Proto-Phoenicians," then relations between these people and Cyprus already began in the second half of the 2nd millenium BC. These relations were both commercial and cultural.

---

quote:

---

There is literary evidence that at the start of his reign Hiram I, king of Tyre, had to suppress a revolt of the people of Kiti(on) on the island of Cyprus. If this information is correct then we have to accept that Kition was under Tyrian rule at the beginning of the 10th century BC, during the reign of Hiram's father Abibaal.

---

Additionally, in the book The Phoenicians it states:

quote:

---

All the 11th century BC (Early Iron Age) towns of Cyprus have foundation legends which link them with great heroes "who came to Cyprus and built cities after the end of the Trojan War", except for Kition, the Phoenician colony par excellence in Cyprus. Instead of a foundation legend there is a myth that Kition was founded by King Belos (Belus) of the Sidonians, who helped the Achaean Teukros take possession of Salamis.

---

Regarding Danaus, the Perseus-Tufts website does not break the name out into Danaus 1 & 2; it just lists Danaus once. In that listing, they do have the Danaids descended from him and they also have him migrating to Argos. The following link takes you to the Perseus-Tufts website in regards to the aforementioned topics.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0062%3Aid%3Ddanaus

Also, regarding Danaus, the following link takes you to the Perseus-Tufts website regarding the explanation for the reason of the myth (i.e. the cause, in Greek myth, for the names of so many ancient countries having their origin in Greek princes & gods).

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0062%3Aid%3Depaphus

Respectfully,

Erick

The passage which you quoted from a book about the Phoenicians may have missed a highly relevant issue. Iron-Age Cyprus was settled by "Arcadian" speaking Greeks from the Pelloponesian peninsula. Today, Arcadia is merely the central region of that peninsula. But long ago, the Dorians (and/or the returning "Heraclides") seized control of all the port cities around the Pelloponessus. And the displaced peoples fled to Cyprus, one by one, around 1150-800 BC. By 750 BC, (as Perseus Tufts states in its "Argolid" article) Argos had unified its (Dorian) control over the whole Pelloponesion peninsula.

And that unified control was an opportunity for Argos "rewrite" or edit the old myths, creating a "dark age" when nothing seems to happen in Greece for 250-500 years, but yet also pretending that Argos had been the legitimate (ancient) ruling power in the Peloponessus, while Mycenae and Tyrns had been evil usurpers.

Here is a link which explains the Arcadian Cypriot cities. www.cypnet.co.uk/ncyprus/history/08.htm

I have to admit that I have not researched much about Cyprus other than the Phoenician aspects. I ordered a book from Amazon back on January 7th, and I just received the delivery confirmation today (the release date was pushed back for some reason), so I'm a little excited about going home this weekend to get it. You'll have to give me a little time to read through it before you start querying me about it. The name of the book is Early Cyprus: Crossroads of the Mediterranean (Getty Trust Pubn; May 2003) by Vassos Karageorghis, ISBN 0892366796.

Respectfully,

Erick

Egyptians had colonized Gebal (in Phoenicia)by 2500 BC. Ramses II fought the battle of Kadesh (ca 1283 BC) to keep the general region of Phoenicia as an Egyptian territory.

I am not sure at what point the "region" of Phoenicia became truly independent of Egypt. (Probably around 1000 BC.) But before independence, we could probably expect that vassal kings under Egypt were ruling in Phoenicia.

So it seems to me that King Belus of Sidon who helped Teucer aroung 1100 BC, may have been the SAME personage as mythical Egyptian King Belus, who Perseus Tufts says assigned Libya to Danaus and also assigned "Aegypt" to his other son Aegyptus.

This would suggest that Sidonian king Belos (Belus) assigned land to 3 of the Sea Peoples: Tjakkar, Denyen, and the Purestim.

In response to your last post, I would have to repeat a portion of an earlier post.

quote:

---

Also, regarding Danaus, the following link takes you to the Perseus-Tufts website regarding the explanation for the reason of the myth (i.e. the cause, in Greek myth, for the names of so many ancient countries having their origin in Greek princes & gods).

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0062%3Aid%3Depaphus

---

Respectfully,

Erick