"It is known from Egyptian records that the attacks on the Egyptians by the Sea Peoples"

http://www.phoenixdatasystems.com/goliath/c3/c3c.htm

It was nice to hear from you in your latest reply to Georgios. I was wondering what happened to you.

This is from Tribes 16:16.

quote:

---

So it seems rather interesting to notice that modern man migrated initially towards Indonesia,Australia where he developed microlithic tools and learned the art of seacraft. Then he migrated back towards west Asia.The Phoenicians would be a link older than 3000 bC of this seacraft?? It could be possible that the seacrafters sailed the oceans to Antarctica and up to Atlantis as well as S.America around 25,000-15,000 bC?? Possibly ancient Phoenicians?

As we know the sea craft was learned by the Greeks and the Egyptians probably from these cultures who developed in East Asia and the Pacific.

This could shed some light on Erick's Atlantis as a Phoenician city theory.

---

Also,do you think that the Fakhurian culture could be ancient Phoenicians?

quote:

---

do you think that the Fakhurian culture could be ancient Phoenicians?

---

Not very probable in my opinion. Please reference the following:

quote:

---

Another group that did rather well during this time (17,000 - 15,000 BC) was the Fakhurian, an industry based entirely on microlithic tools. Indeed, they are the only industry discovered so far that is solely microlithic. Some Fakhurian blades are less than 3 cm long! At the same time, the two Idfuan industries were retaining a culture based on nomadic hunting, trapping, and snaring. During this time, at least in Upper Egypt, there is a trend for industries, as they become more advanced, to become more localized. No doubt this is due to the fact that the people were ceasing to be nomadic, settling in various areas, and then developing separately from everyone else depending on the environment in which they made their home, whether it was on the banks of the Nile, on the savannas, or in one of the outlying oases not yet claimed by the desert. Perhaps it should be mentioned that the Nile of the Paleolithic was much different than the Nile of today. Although dry, the desert areas were not completely hostile, as the annual flooding of the Nile was much higher than today, which resulted in a greater groundwater table and in turn, oases, floodpools, and waterholes.

---

Additionally, the migration towards Indonesia has been shown to have happened via the land bridge that existed at that time which corresponded with the last glacial period. All of these events happened sometime between 12,000-22,000 years prior to the emergence of the Canaanite (i.e. Phoenician) culture.

During my absence this thread seems to have degraded again into a discussion of "cultural diffusion." If certain individuals are interested in discussing that topic, would they please start their own thread for it?

I would really like to get back on track again with the discussion of "Was Atlantis a Phoenician City?"

Respectfully,

Erick

The reason I related the Phoenicians with the Fakhurians is because they were solely microlithic,as stated.

The Phoenicians,being seafarers should be microlithic as well,I would imagine in neolithic times. I feel the Phoenicians are older than 3,000 bC?

According to Archaeology,it seems to make sense that the migration to Indonesia and Australia around 60-30k bC,resulted in the first seafaring cultures??

Then migrating back to west Asia,which I feel could be the confusion with the Cannanites as you mention.

You can see an archaeological article in Tribes 16:16 that may shed some light on this.

You had asked if I had uncovered anything new in regards to the Phoenician connection; I have.

Lately I have been reading several back-issues of Classical Philology, a quarterly peer-review journal published by the University of Chicago Press. In the October 1977 issue (Volume 72, Number 4, pages 287-304) there was an article written by Christopher Gill (University College of Wales, Aberystwyth) entitled The Genre of the Atlantis Story. In this treatise Gill elaborates on the two or three possible ways in which the Atlantis story can be read. The ways that he lists are:

1. As a factual account (most obvious but least popular reading amongst Platonic scholars)

2. As a politico-philosophical myth

3. A combination of the two (i.e. a politico-philosophical myth partially constructed from factual accounts

I will, of course, be discussing the reading of the story as a factual account. Gill makes several excellent points that every Atlantis enthusiast/investigator should be aware of should they happen to enter into a debate of the topic with a member of the 2nd “school of thought” – they (such as Peter V.) that read the story as a politico-philosophical myth.

In this section (pages 292-293), Gill makes the following points for Atlantis as a factual account:

1. “The great merit of this reading is that it follows the explicit assertions of the characters in the dialogue, Critias, and Socrates (when he accepts Critias’ description of his story).”

2. ”Holders of this view can point out that Plato introduces no other illustrative narrative into his dialogues with such affirmations of its actual truth; that nowhere else is there so detailed an account of the transmission of the story, and so strong a claim made for the authenticity of the originating source.”

3. ”They can point to the indications that Plato is genuinely interested in recovering factual information about the distant past, to his perceptive use of traditional stories and physical phenomena (even of comparative sociological material), and to the clear evidence of reflection on his part on the discontinuities of civilizations and their impediment to the transmission of accurate information.”

4. “…they can reply that Plato has written his true history in the style of (and with conscious allusion to) other true histories; or that he has embellished the true core of history with materials drawn from Herodotus and elsewhere.” (Note: This would be said in response in regards to ”the embarrassment by the clear echoes of other historians, especially Herodotus, and, even more, by the apparent use of Herodotean material as, at least, a source of inspiration, since all this seems to point to a pastiche of history rather than the real thing.”)

5. ”…they can reply that in this respect Plato has simply adapted a historical account to suit its literary context—that is, following the Timaeus creation account—and that we can generally see how the use of gods continues Timaeus’ narrative.” (Note: This would be said in response in regards to the challenge that ”they must admit that the story is in one respect quite unhistorical: it uses gods to set up the situation for the subsequent human action.”)

6. ”In any case, Critias’ final description of his story in the Timaeus (27 A-B) gave some indication that it would take account of Timaeus’ speech. He said that he would talk ‘as one having received from [Timaeus] men brought to birth by his account, some of them distinctively educated by [Socrates]’ and would describe their actions ‘according to the story of Solon.’ This statement is not unambiguous in its characterization of Critias’ story; but it could be read as meaning either that Critias’ factual narrative would incidentally continue Timaeus’ creation story and represent the guardian system of government in action (with its unique system of education, Ti. 18A 9-10, described by Socrates); or, alternatively, that Critias would actually adapt Solon’s story and Socrates’ description of the ideal state. These two readings carry widely different implications; but neither of them denies that the story is at least based on the transmission of a factual narrative.”

In addition to the above-listed quotes, is this quote from Gill’s footnotes:

quote:

---

Weil (i.e. R. Weil, author of L’ “Archéologie” de Platon (Paris, 1959), L’ “Archéologie”, enumerates the features characteristic of historical method in the narrative (pp. 18-26) and the elements which indicate that it is a myth (pp. 28-32), but does not give any real explanation why a myth should be so carefully presented as a history; he notes Plato’s increasing interest in history as he grows older (pp. 32-33), but does not analyze the “itinéraire intellectuel” (pp. 16-l7) that explains this interest.

---

It is my opinion that any person who believes that they might possibly get into an intellectual discussion/argument regarding Atlantis with an academic scholar (or otherwise), should learn these arguments/responses inside out.

In regards to the Phoenician aspect and how it relates to Gill’s treatise, this all pertains to comments that Gill makes in regards to how “In the Laws the Athenian Stranger…recounts how the conversion of Athens from an army to a naval power undermined her previous valuation of arête (i.e. goodness or virtue),” and to how “it is the underlying presence of the Athenian model which helps to imply the ‘indictment of navigation’ which Momigliano, rightly, does not find explicit in the Critias, even though he sees in the story ‘the victory of the ideal state over sea imperialism’ (“Sea Power,” pp. 4-5).”

It is this emphasis on “the victory of the ideal state over sea imperialism” that really caught my attention in regards to the Phoenicians, due to the political climate that existed with Carthage during Solon & Plato’s time. The Greeks had been barred from the regions beyond the Pillars of Hercules since the time of the Trojan War and this action had caused a great deal of animosity between Greek & Phoenican merchants. Additionally, the Greeks had been at war with the Punic Carthaginians since around 600 B.C., when the Greeks defeated the Carthaginians at sea due to the Carthaginian interference in the founding (by the Greeks) of Marseilles. In Sicily, at around 550 B.C., the Carthaginian general Malchus (meaning “king”) defeated the Greeks and subjugated the western part of the island where the Phoenician colonies of Motya, Panormus (Palermo), and Soluntum had already been founded. The Greeks fought Malchus again between 545 & 535 B.C., in Sardinia, but not even the presence of other Phoenician colonies (e.g. Caralis, modern Cagliari, Nora, Bithia, Sulcis, & Tharros) saved him from defeat. In 535 B.C., however, the Carthaginians & Etruscans (of Tyrrhenia), as allies, defeated the Greeks at Alalia (Aleria) on the west coast of Corsica. As Sabatino Moscati wrote, in the section of Phoenicians (Rizzoli, 1997) entitled “The Carthaginian Empire;”

quote:

---

It was the sign that a new dimension in Mediterranean politics, an anti-Greek alliance that gave rise to a division of spheres of influence: Italy, barring Magna Graecia, went to the Etruscans, and the great islands of the western Mediterranean went to the Carthaginians. The clearest evidence of the Etruscan-Carthaginian alliance comes from Pyrgi (Santa Severa) on the Tyrrhenian coast just north of Rome, where a king of Cerveteri had three gold plates inscribed—two in Etruscan and one in Phoenician—dedicating them to the Phoenician goddess Astarte (the Etruscan Uni).

---

In 510 B.C. the Greeks attempted an invasion in Africa and were repulsed; the Greeks then made an attempt in Sicily where, once again, they were defeated by the Carthaginians. At that point the Carthaginians signed a treaty with Rome in order to “beef-up” its anti-Greek alliance; the Carthaginians (and their allies) retained part of Sicily and Africa, while the Romans (and their allies) received the Latin territory; Polybius recorded the details of the treaty. In 480 B.C., the Greeks defeated the Carthaginians army at Himera, on the northern coast of Sicily. In that same year the Greeks defeated the Persians in the battle of Salamis, which gave rise to the suggestion—by certain ancient historians—that there was an anti-Greek alliance between the Carthaginians and the Persians; modern historians ascribe this idea to Greek propaganda. In 409 and 406 B.C. the Carthaginians conquered Himera in the north of Sicily, and Selinus, Agrigentum, and Gela in the south of Sicily. In 397 B.C. Dionysius of Syracuse reached Motya and conquered it; soon after, the Carthaginians drew up a second treaty with Rome in which they controlled all of Sardinia. Sometime between 342 and 339 B.C., Timolean of Corinth was defeated in the battle of the river Crimisus, and sometime between 318 and 305 B.C. Agathocles of Syracuse was defeated and besieged inside his own city. These events keep going on and on until, in 276 B.C., the Greeks—led by Pyrrhus, king of Epirus—had to abandon Sicily. Later on, in 265 B.C., the Carthaginians moved in on Messana (Messina) and the Mamertines who were occupying it sought help from the Romans; this gave rise to the first of the Punic Wars.

So, as you can see, the Greeks and the Phoenician Carthaginians had a long and troubled history that stretched all the way through both Solon (640-556 B.C.)and Plato’s (427-347 B.C.) time periods. These events—in conjunction with the story of the Invasions of the Sea Peoples that Solon brought back from Egypt—may have been Plato’s inspiration for the Atlantean navy and her war against the Athenians. Plato’s placement of the capital city of Atlantis in the mysterious & unknown territory of the regions beyond the Pillars of Hercules, and of the story in an impossibly distant past, may have been nothing more than an attempt to avoid punishment for what appears to be a criticism of how the Athenian conversion from an army to a naval power (like Carthage) had changed her previous valuation as “virtuous.” In essence, Plato may have been condemning Athens as “heading down the same road as the Atlanteans,” with the Atlanteans representing the once virtuous, but now (Plato’s time) greed motivated & warlike Phoenician Carthaginians. Who knows?

That last paragraph is really nothing more than musings; but the alliance between the north-African Carthaginians and the Tyrrhenian Etruscans—with the result being the control of Libya, Iberia, and the major islands of the western Mediterranean (Sicily, Sardinia, and the Balearic Isles) by the Carthaginians and the control of all of Italy by the Etruscans, and a record of such contained in three golden plates—seems highly coincidental to some of the details found in Plato’s Atlantis story. Wouldn’t you agree? I mean, after all, aren’t these the very same regions that Plato described as being Atlantean inside the Pillars of Hercules? And when you add to that the fact that the sunken “island of Atlantis” was described as being a barrier that prevented ”those who are sailing out from here (Greece) to the ocean beyond (Atlantic) from proceeding further,” then it seems highly suggestive that the “shoal of the remains of Atlantis” was meant to represent the hindrance that the Phoenician Carthaginian’s presented to the Greek’s expansionist policy in the regions beyond the Pillars of Hercules.

Remarks anyone?

Respectfully,

Erick

------------------
"None of the secrets of success will work unless YOU do."

I guess,I have to ask,but are you pushing the age nearer Carthage or just comparing,I imagine?

quote:

---

1. “The great merit of this reading is that it follows the explicit assertions of the characters in the dialogue, Critias, and Socrates (when he accepts Critias’ description of his story).”

---

Critias did claim "TRUTH" as we know,which withstood the criticism for 2400 years. Lucky for him the Greeks shone forth. I guess that's why the Egyptians didn't talk about it much.

Not like Bernard Suzanne's Plato theory
which is Politico-Philosophy.

I would imagine that the Phoenicians introduced this art of SeaCraft into this Syrian region,as I proposed earlier.

Yes,the similiarities are striking,especially the mediterranean colonization. So we do have reference of the Phoenicians against the Greeks,which is a plus to your theory.

Sorry. I have spent so much time away from here attempting to inject a little reality into that whole Georgeos thing that I've neglected this post and my own peer-review journal submissions. It just seems that a great many members of this forum are willing to just accept everything they hear or read at face value - probably because they aren't aware of how things actually work in the real world. Take the whole "NG" thing, for instance; I had already been down that road once before, so I was familiar with the process and knew that NG doesn't employ video production companies; what they do is accept submissions from independent video production companies and individuals to fund the production of documentaries and the such - or they buy the rights to already-filmed videos. Maria's wording was poor and it led to the mistaken belief by several forum members that Georgeos had a contract with NG, which he did not. In the process of trying to clear up the confusion, however, I was accused of "trying to discredit Georgeos" and of being "petty to the nth degree" due to people's pre-conceived notions that I am somehow anti-Georgeos and/or anti-Maria. See what a person gets for his efforts?

Oh, well. I am now allowing myself to degrade this thread into a Maria discussion, so I'll stop now.

quote:

---

guess,I have to ask,but are you pushing the age nearer Carthage or just comparing,I imagine?

---

Just comparing. I don't know if you have ever read anything about the description of Carthage, but in the book Phoenicians, in the section entitled "The Carthaginian Empire" written by Sabatino Moscati, it says:

quote:

---

One very important passage from Diodorus describes how the Greeks saw the region around Carthage, revealing the great prosperity of a land that had thus far been safeguarded by waging war abroad: [i]"The intermediate territory, which had to be crossed, was scattered with gardens and orchards of every kind, because many streams had been channeled in to irrigate every part. There seemed no end to the country houses, built luxuriously and whitewashed, which attested to the wealth of their owners. The villas were full of everything that contributes to the pleasures of life, since the inhabitants, during a long period of peace, had put aside large quantities of goods. The land was cultivated partly as vineyards and partly as olive groves, and also abounded in other fruit trees. In the remaining areas, herds of cattle and flocks of sheep grazed, and the neighboring pastures were full of grazing horses. In a word, there was much wealth in that region, because the more noble Carthaginians had their possessions there and, thanks to their resources, they could devote themselves to enjoying the pleasures of life."[i]

---

So, as you can see, the descriptions of both Atlantis and Carthage are very similar indeed. When you add to it that both cities were laid out in the hippodamic style, both cities had powerful navies, both cities had been at war with the Greeks, and both cities were said to have controlled (through alliances) the western half of the Mediterranean from Libya over to & including Tyrrhenia, then you begin to see why I favor the Phoenicians over every other culture.

Lastly, add to that my own research regarding the city's semitic-style construction (i.e. trenches and embankments), and the Phoenician's reknown for skill in trench-digging, it rather 'clinches' the deal for me. The package is then tied into the story of the Invasions of the Libyans & Sea Peoples through the obvious motive that the Phoenicians would have had for instigating the destruction of the Hittite empire and attempted destruction of the Egyptian empire.

My theory is that the Canaanite/Phoenicians had set up a military settlement/city somewhere in North Africa for the express purpose of gathering together allies for those invasions. Among the allies were the various tribes of Libyans, the Etruscans (who perhaps only contributed necessary resources), Sardinian mercenaries, and mercenaries from the various peoples of southern Anatolia. I'm still not sure how and where the Philistines played into the whole scenario; its possible that they were an unexpected and unplanned for situation that developed. I'm still investigating that part.

My theory regarding Morocco as the region in which the city was located is based upon the descriptions found in my metaphrastic translation of Plato's text; that is why I am looking there. Additionally, the Canaanite/Phoenician people were said (by an ancient scholar - name escapes me at the moment) to have built over 300 colonies in Morocco before being kicked out by the Libyan inhabitants. It is therefore possible, if the story has some truth to it, that Atlantis was the first colony built there (as a military camp for preparing for their invasions into Egypt), which then became the "mother city" as later colonies were built, and that it was later destroyed by the Libyans. It is my belief that many more small Phoenician/Canaanite/Syro-Palestinian 'style' settlements have yet to be found in Morocco.

I guess I'll be able to test that theory around this time next year, won't I?

quote:

---

Not like Bernard Suzanne's Plato theory
which is Politico-Philosophy.

---

Ah,so you're familiar with Bernard Suzanne as well, eh? Yeah, I wrote to him a while back. He doesn't deny the possibility that it could be a real story, but he is more inclined to believe that it is a politico-philosophical myth.

quote:

---

Good work Erick.

---

Thanks, Riven. Now, let's just see if I can get the journal HSCP (Harvard Studies in Classical Philology) to 'bite' on my research regarding the word "gephuras" (i.e. embankment vs. bridge).

Respectfully,

Erick

quote:

---

Erick if Atlantis was a Phoenician city, why didn`they say we were Phoenician. I`m sure`they would have known their heritage.

---

Because a Phoenician didn't write the story, a Greek man did. And that Greek man got it from another Greek man who, in turn, got it from another Greek man, who visited Egypt and was told the story by an Egyptian priest, who read it to him off of the walls of their temples and monuments. In other words, the story went through a list of people before it reached Plato, each of whom might have altered the story a little before or during the course of recounting it to the next individual.

I'm fairly certain that what we're looking at here is the story of the Invasions of the Libyans & Sea Peoples, ca. 1200 BC, albeit slightly altered by Greek syncretism. It is possible that Plato might have had some knowledge that the Canaanite/Syro-Palestinian people (Phoenicians) were either the cause of, or had taken part in, those events. It is my theory that the Canaanite/Syro-Palestinian people (Phoenicians) instigated the events of ca. 1200 BC, because nobody had more to gain from those events - indeed, nobody DID profit more from those events - than did the Canaanite/Syro-Palestinian peoples (Phoenicians). The Hittite & Egyptian empires had been fighting for control of the Levant & Via Maris (i.e. "Way of the Sea") for hundreds of years and, as a result, the Canaanite/Syro-Palestinian people (Phoenicians) had been under the domination of one of the two battling empires at some point or another. This prevented them from growing and emerging as a "power" in the region. Their disdainful attitude towards, and treatment of, the Egyptian pharoah only 100 years after the Sea Peoples occurence speaks volumes. So, too, does the fact that they were able to intervene with the Tjekker ships, on behalf of the pharoah's emissary, and save his bacon from almost certain death.

My theory regarding Atlantis having been a Phoenician city is derived from my metaphrastic translations and the descriptions contained therein, which match the descriptions of various semitic cities of ca. 1200 BC.

quote:

---

Is there anything in Palto dialogues that would suggest that?

---

This is a question that would take substantially more time to answer, as I would have to post sections of my translations in my answer in order for you to understand how I reached my conclusions. Give me until tomorrow afternoon and I will try to have a response typed up for you.

Respectfully,

Erick

Some linguistic scholars claim that the Basque word beste, meaning "other", is the root word behind two tribal names of Andalusia which Pliny called Bastuli and Bastetani (among whom the Phoenicians established coastal trading colonies.
reference: http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?invocationType=topsearchbox.%2Faol%2Fjsp%2Fsearch.jsp&query=beste+basque+bastuli&x=18&y=11

This region of Southeast Spain is also the place where Plato says the Atlantean invasion took place. And it lies near Almeria, where the Argar culture (copper miners) flourished during 1800 BC to 1200 BC.

quote:

---

This region of Southeast Spain is also the place where Plato says the Atlantean invasion took place.

---

Where do you get that from? Plato did not say where the Atlantean "invasion" took place or that there even was an "invasion"; he merely stated that the Atlanteans "insolently traveled upon all of Europe & Asia" and that they "attempted to settle from out of the ocean that the Greeks called Atlantic."

quote:

---

it lies near Almeria, where the Argar culture (copper miners) flourished during 1800 BC to 1200 BC.

---

The Phoenicians - according to tradition - first made contact with the Iberian Peninsula around 1100 BC; that would place their presence in Spain at a time that antecedes the Argar culture. Aside from which, there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever that places a Phoenician presence beyond the Pillars of Hercules prior to 800 BC. This is one of the MAJOR obstacles that my "Phoenician Theory" has yet to overcome.

As I'm sure you're already aware, I do not give any favor to an Iberian Peninsula location. That is Georgeos' bag.

Respectfully,

Erick

Heracles stopped there (Argar region) during his 10th labor. The mythographers say he stopped at Abderia, which is likely to be a "Phoenician" name (abd=servant), and the place was clearly a Phoenician colony in later times.

So it seems the mythographers were saying one of three things: either a) Hercules did stop at a Phoenician Abdera colony; or b) Hercules stopped at a potentially Atlantian colony; or c) Hercules stopped in Abderia at an aborigine arsenic-bronze-age colony which predated the Atlanteans.

It seems to me your theory will eventually accomodate one of those three alternatives.

In Tribes I proposed a theory that coincides with your thoughts of Morocco.

The Grand Erg Occidental of the Sahara was flooded at one time resulting in the lush vegetation around 7k bC. The Atlas Mountains from Morocco to Tunisia would have formed an island. Lake Tritonis and it's central island Phla, could have served as the site of Atlantis. This would then be facing the interior of Gades(ancient Libya)and the Gulf of Gades in Tunisia.

The Chort Melrhir and Chort Djerid salt oasis' would have been the sight of Lake Tritonis on the Algeria,Tunisia border.

Here's a link to my website which I mention this in "Where Was Atlantis" link.
http://www.mts.net/~perasa/

I like their project on the Phoenicican Melcart ship and how they plan to cross the Atlantic via Spain/Canaries/Cape Verde.

Were the Ancient Phoenicians the first to cross the Atlantic and discover America?

Sure seems likely! (Of course,not including the Atlanteans!!)

So lets look at how this applies to the Hittite army around 1400 BC.

King Tudhaliya began his career by attacking a small number of lands around Arzawa (including the Apkuisa/Ekwesh) and capturing "10,000" troops plus 600 chariots. When the Hittites tried to return to their capital city, the entire southwest coast of Turkey rose up against them. This seems to have marked the first co-ordinated activity of a mutual defence society called the Assuwa league, which included more than 20 nations. Among the Assuwa league we find such peoples as the Kirkisa/biblical Girgashites; and the Parista/biblical Perrizites; and Taruisa/Trojan/Tursha; and Wilusija/Ilios.

That Assuwa league had been organized perhaps 10-50 years earlier, in the aftermath of Egypt's Pharoah Thothmes III (ca.1500-1450 BC), who conquored, and imposed heavy tribute upon, the region of upper Retenu, and its holy city Kadesh. Retenu was the interior portion of the ancient Phoenician kingdom of Ugarit.

The king of the Hittites then conquored all of the Assuwa league, and deported 10,000 soldiers plus 600 chariots to the capital city of the Hittites. It seems wise to regard the "10,000" deported soldiers as mercenary forces, ready to fight for whoever employed them.

But when the Gasga people attacked the Hittites, then the "10,000" deported troops ran away from their new Hittite employers. Eventually the Hittites stabilized the region, and seized control of Kadesh and its surrounding region. The Hittites forced Ugarit to place its own army under Hittite control, and then deported Ugarit's soldiers and navy to other parts of the Hittite empire, leaving Ugarit nearly defenseless.

The Hittite strategy worked well during Egypt's Amarna era, when experiments such as Ankhenaten's new religious vision kept Egypt out of foreign affairs. But the Hittites were depending too heavily on "mercenary" soldiers, who had been forcefully deported from their homelands.

At the end of the Hittite empire, those mercenary units (called 10,000's) no longer received supplies through official channels. So it seems the mercenaries ran wild, forcefully seizing whatever supplies they needed, and causing chaos through the whole Hittite empire. And that chaos could be what the Harris Papyrus was crediting to the Sea Peoples.

Here is a link to the relevant annals of Hittite King Tudhaliya. http://www.geocities.com/farfarer2001/hittite_letters/cth_142.htm
In principle, mercenary forces often choose to defect, rather than than to die. For example, the Roman empire became unstable after it adopted excessive use of mercenary troops. Similar behavior problems would apply to all periods of the past.

Obviously some Hittite mercenaries may have defected around 1290-1200 BC, when strong warrior-Pharoahs like Ramses II and Merneptah placed Egypt back on the warpath, with goals of reconquering (from the Hittites) the holy city of Kadesh and its surrounding Upper Retenu(=Canaanite) region.

Potential defecting mercenary organizations would need new employers. And one good alternative was available.

Piracy of the tin-route, as ships passed through the Sicilian straights, could generate enough revenue to support some mercenary troops.

At least three tribes of western North Africa may have pursued that strategy in the era of the Sea Peoples, hiring both land pirates and sea pirates: The Temehu, Tenehu, and Atalantes tribes.

Certainly, that would match what Herodotus reported. He said that a tribe called the Maxyas [=arabic "m-sh-a" (infantry)= Berber "Amazigh" = Egyptian "Meshwesh"?], who lived near Carthage, claimed they were descended from Troy. And immediately next to that tribe, Herodotus placed a similarly named Maxylas tribe. Herodotus says they were affiliated a third tribe, named the Auseans (Weshesh?), which had warrior women and worshipped Athena (Neith?).

The rock pictographs at Tassili-n-ajjer depict horse-drawn chariots around 1600-1200 BC. And at least one facility is known in that region which could have watered a very large number of horses. It is a huge Adrar caravansarai of the "Touat Oasis Group", near the land of the Atlantes tribe. Herodotus seems to have called it the "[banquet]table of the sun". Modern researchers say that this Adrar place has 800 miles of underground water channels, tunneled into linestone and sandstone. And scientists speculate that the first part of the tunnels was in place 10,000 years ago because the fish in those underground tunnels have evolved into blind fish. http://www.wetlands.org/RDB/Ramsar_Dir/Algeria/DZ013D02.htm

The above comments should demonstrate that a major portion of the Sea Peoples phenomenon of 1230-1170 BC may have been caused by organized mercenary units defecting from the Hittite army in substantial numbers, and transferring to places like the Sicily channel, to raid the tin-route which had recently been discovered as Crete's source of Tin (and hence Crete's bronze industry).

Some of the oldest and most literary Greek, Phoenician and Egyptian myths substantiate this concept.

When the following examples are reviewed as a group, it becomes obvious that Sicily (Shekelesh?) was the most common destination point, or banishment point, for travellers going west -- beginning around 5000-3500 BC (which may be a reasonable date for the mythical War of the Giants). At that time Triton was already established in Libya, and acted as a noisy blockade to "scare" the Giants from going beyond Sicily.

But during 1450-1200 BC, Greek mythical tales begin mentiong that people were passing both east and west (and even being blockaded) from Sicily in regard to commercial missions (such as locating wild horses in the western Mediterranean, presumably for use with chariots to attack Egypt).

For Examples:
1)Aeolus, Greek god of the four winds and atmosphere (= Egyptian god Shu), went to Sicily, organized the locals, and then graciously offered to be their king. The main goddess of Sicily was Aphrodite (="sea-foam goddess") and she had a large temple at the town of Eryx, Sicily. Aphrodite is equivalent to Egyptian Goddess Tefnut (="moisture), who was the wife of Egyptian god Shu ("dry air").

2)The War of the Giants was a cover story for an ancient migration of a chalcolithic society, moving from the North Balkans to a land between two giant volcanos in Southern Italy. The name Balkan comes from an Indo-European root, meaning "bulky, great, big". And "Volcanos" (=Vulcan) is known to have been the prime god of protohistoric Italy. Archaeologists name the early Balkan chalcolithic culture as the Vinca culture (of Bulgaria), and date it ca. 6000-3500 BC. The city of Vinca is the largest known neolithic city in Europe; it formed a league with 4 other cities, and developed craft specialization to promote trade. Its people were among the first to go underground, looking for minerals. Vinca's cinabar mine at Suplja Stena yielded a rare red mineral, which was highly valued around 5000 BC, plus several metal ores. http://www.danievropskebastine.org.yu/Engavala.htm
Vinca eventually became the world's largest market city for minerals (especially 4500-3800 BC when Vinca was at its peak). This Balkan culture left remnant words echoing in much of Europe (Volkhvi priest-sorcerors among the Slavs; Valkyrie angel-women among the Norse; Vlach traders in Greece; fylgja (anthropomorthic souls) among the Scandinavians and Teutons; vulcan fertility deities in Italy; Freyja the Vanir "golden age" goddess of the sun and moon, who lived in a celestial palace called Volkvang (=Valhalla); Walachian/(valachia) people in southern Romania; Bulgarian people in Bulgaria; Balkan people in Northern Greece.

3) Approximately 5000-3500 BC, during the War of the Giants (and thus long before neo-Athena migrated from Troy to Attica), the archaic-Athena sided with Poseidon and Apollo to oppose the Giants. Athena's chariot (perhaps one of Triton's crayfish chariot-boats) defeated Enceladus 2, and he fled as far as Sicily. But then Athena tossed the island of Sicily on top of Enceladus2. http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Gigantomachy.html
The metaphor here seems to be that Enceladus2 was beginning to obtain obsidian from Palmarola, a tiny satellite island slightly east of Sicily. This matches recent chemical analysis of the distribution patterns for obsidian from Palmarola island. (The Vinca culture had obtained its obsidian previously from the Tisa River valley in modern Hungary.)

All the other Giants who survived that war were chased to the heel of southern Italy (Leuca, Lucania) by Hercules. Meanwhile Triton was making noises from Libya, to "scare" the Giants, and thus keep them from travelling beyond Sicily and/or the heel of Italy. This region, with its two smoking volcanos (Vesuvius and Etna) forms the Egyptian heiroglyph for Amentet, the land of the west. The deities of Amentet are: Roman "Volcanus", and Egyptian "Geb". And of course, this archaic-Hercules (which Herodotus mentions) became associated with the two giant pillars (Vesuvius and Etna) in this Land of the West. The trident symbol of Greek Triton matches the Egyptian heiroglyph for the name of the god Set. At first Set was a "good guy". But at some early date the Egyptian god Thoth, from the Touat Oasis Group, had to suppress Set, as a benefit to Egypt.

4) ca 2300 BC the "bronze age" Peloponnese port city of Helike sank 10-20 feet under sea level, due to liquifaction. Plato's interpretation of the 2300 BC sinking is that "only the people in the mountains survived the flood". But more specifically, other Greek myths imply that those survivors were the so-called "evil" people ruled by Lycaon2 (a descendent of "king" Atlas), who lived in the Arcadian highlands of the Peloponnese. (note: helice vs Lycaon2) Eventually Zeus decided to hurl thunderbolts at all-except-one of the sons of Lycaon2.

The sunken "Early Bronze-age" Helike (previously one mile inland) has been excavated, showing with its cobblestone streets. The "Bronze-Age" phase of sunken-Helike correlates to the "underwater" capital of the Greek deity Nereus, and conjures up a mythical theme of water-chariots to drive on its underwater streets

5)2000-1900 BC, the Phoenician city of Ugarit was backed by Egypt's 12th Dynasty Pharaoh Sesotris, who encouraged the Phoenician Baal Saphon to conquer 90 Greek Nereid cities around the Aegean sea. This conquest is explained in the Baal cycle of myths which have been excavated at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit).

6) During Egypt's 13th dynasty, Ugarit expanded Phoenician power, by absorbing Egypt's spice trade for preparing mummies, down the Red Sea to the land of Punt. This is reflected in the Phoenician myths by having Baal brag that he will no longer acknowledge the power of Death (=Maut).

7) During Egypt's 14th Dynasty, the Phoenician lands were cut in half by "Terah". This Terah, expanded from a powerbase near the Khabur river basin, and seems to have marched all the way to the Nile delta, where he established Egypt's 14th Dynasty at a city named Xois. In the Bible, the patriarch Terah comes from the same Semitic culture, same point of origin, and his descendents go to the destination (Nile Delta) as that Phoenician Terah. Egypt called those newly arrived invaders by the name Hyksos. Note: the Bible says that the Israelites were delayed enroute; the Israelites arrived in Egypt after the main body of Terah's people because God spoke to Abraham in a vision, promising that the region around Bit Sharukin should belong to Abraham's descendents, and should NOT belong to the 16th Dynasty Hyksos.

8) Egypt's 15th dynasty (which moved its capital to the city of Avaris) marks the arrival in Egypt of a mythical Greek personage named Io, who had originated her migration in-or-near the ancient Vinca culture (i.e. north-central Greece). This whole 15th Dynasty of Egypt is what the Bible calls the "Pharaoh" of the oppression, who did not respect the people of Terah/Abraham/Israel. The migration of Io was retaliation for the earlier era when Ugarit's Baal had conquored 90 Greek Nereid cities. Io's people seem to have claimed that Set was originally their god, although Set was also one of founding gods of Egyptian culture.

9) The retreating Hyksos of Egypt's 16th Dynasty can be understood as the royal descendents of Io. Greek Epaphus matches Hyksos king Apepi I (who concentrated 240,000 Hyksos soldiers at Avaris, but surrendered the rest of Egypt). Greek Libya is Hyksos king Apepi II (who surrendered Avaris, and retreated to Sile on the east edge of the Nile Delta). Greek Belus (perhaps the Perizites of the Bible) ran a Hyksos government-in-exile at Bit Sharuken, during the first 5 Pharoahs of Egypt's 18th Dynasty. The final defeat, according to Greek myths, occurs when the 50 sons of Aegyptus were killed, presumably in the period when pharaoh Thothmes III was conquering all of Syro-Palestine (ca 1500- 1450 BC). At that time, the 50 daughters of Danaus migrated to Argos and intermarried with the descendents of Phoroneus, whom Zeus treated as a "noble race", thus becoming ancestors of Mycenae's empire.

10) Another son of the (pseudo-Greek;psedo-Hyksos) Belus took refuge among the Phoenicians (ca 1500-1450 BC) while 49 of his nephews were being killed (the 49 sons of Aegyptus). This refugee was Agenor 1. His descendents scattered in all directions, aided by the Phoenicians. Among his sons: Phoenix went to Libya, Thassus went to the Thracian island of Thasos, Cadmus went to Greek Thebes in Thessaly (and temporarily deposited some colonists on the island of Thera before it exploded), Cilix went to Cilicia. A daughter of Agenor named Europa was taken from Phoenicia by the Crete's god Zeus. The metaphor of seizing a daughter implies that Crete was getting stronger, and Phoenicia was getting weaker at that time. After the 1450 BC explosion of Thera, Cadmus led replacement colonists back to Thera.

11) ca 1628 BC, might be considered the start of Zeus's War of the Titans. Tegea was an ancient capital city in Arcadia (Peloponnese). A dynasty of "Pelasgians" (Sea Peoples?) previously ruled from Tegea. Atlas was one of their early kings. Several townships in Crete were named after Tegea. So evidently Tegea had been an empire in its early days. http://64.1911encyclopedia.org/T/TE/TEGEA.htm

But when Minoan Crete (and Zeus) ascended to power, Zeus started his "War of the Titans" by decreeing that Lycaon2 (and the Tegean people) were "evil", whereas the descendents of Phoroneus were a "noble race" because they had built a temple for Hera. So Zeus hurled thunderbolts at all-but-one of Lycaon2's sons.

12) ca. 1628 BC, 17 generations before the Trojan War, marked the birth of Oenotrius, son of Lycaon2 (from the city of Tegea in Arcadia). Oenotrius grew up among a people who worshipped the archaic-Athena. He decided that his Tegean people were not behaving properly, so he moved west to colonize the southern end of Italy (="Oenotria" to the Greeks, although Romans called it Greater Greece). This was the same region of Italy (Lucania) to which Heracles had chased the remaining Giants at the end of the War of the Giants. http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Lycaon2.html
Here is a map of Italy which shows the location of Lucania/Oenotria. http://www.roangelo.net/valente/samnium.html
13) ca 1450 BC, Zeus recalled the Giants to help him in the eastern Mediterranean, against the Titans. Those Giants had been living in Southern Italy and Sicily. So they can be considered an early wave of the Sea Peoples.

14) Approximately 1425 BC was the date when Pan and Cadmus went to the Phoenician town of Ugarit, and disabled the Typhon monster on Mount Saphon. At that time the Hyksos had been repulsed by Egypt, and Thothmes III had previously conquored all of Palestine, so Baal Saphon (and Phoenicia in general) was particularly vulnerable. Subsequently Zeus banished Typhon to Sicily.
Archaeologists claim that Ugarit was destroyed by an earthquake (and possibly also a tidalwave) at approximately that time But Ugarit was soon rebuilt more luxuriously than before. Since Cadmus is said to have sailed from either Tyre or Sidon (and that Cadmus puts Typhon/Ugarit to sleep) should indicate that Tyre and Sidon became more powerful around that time (ca 1425 BC), probably equalling the status of Ugarit, and obviously supporting Zeus's Greeks.

15) At 1400 BC, the Hittites conquored Kadesh and permanently ended Egyptian influence in Syria. The Hittites also defeated the Assuwa League during 1425-1400 BC, and some of them became roving Sea Peoples. The myths imply that Zeus began banishing the Titans to "deepest Tartarus" at this time, meaning that various (Sea)peoples were going west beyond Sicily. Philo provided an alternate way to explain this. Philo said that the Cronus of Greek myths was a direct reference to Phoenicia. Presumably this would be interpreted to mean that Mycenae (=Zeus) inherited Ugarit's trade connections to the "tin route" in the Western Mediterranean Sea during the 20 years or so that Ugarit spent recovering from its 1425 BC earthquake disaster.

16) In the 13th century BC, the Argonauts (of mainland Greece) sailed 30 oared "Iolcus triremes" from the region of Thessaly (i.e. the city of Iolcus to Sicily. Then the Argonauts camped out among the "Atalantes" peoples (i.e. Africa's Adrar "highland plateau" region). After returning to the Mediterranean Sea, the Argonauts drained the "liquid tin route" out of Crete's bronze robot named Talos. Triton (=Set= the Hyksos) helped the Argonauts from his home base at Lake Tritonis, Africa.

17) Roman legends about Evander (=greek Oenotrius) become relevant during ca. 1300-1200 BC. Evander, so says Latin mythology, arrived in Italy from Arcadia (matching his origin arrording to Greek mythology). Then Evander (or more likely, his descendents) expanded northwards, along the west coast of Italy, to the island of Cumae; finally he/they moved inland to a cave on Rome's Pallatine hill, and eventually founded the town of Pallantium. An identical 13th century BC Greek expansion is implied in the Greek myth of Icarus (son of Daedalus), who is said to have fled to Cumae around 1210 BC, and died there.

18) Evander's mother, Carmenta, came with him to Italy from Greek Arcadia. She brought 15 letters of the alphabet with her, and changed them from Greek letters into Latin letters. note: The Romans said that "commerce" (=Mercury) was the husband of Carmenta, and father of Evander.

19) Around 1210 BC the Greek myths reveal a significant synchronism (around the time of Pharoah Mernephtah's Libyan invasions); the Greek setting is one generation before the Greek Trojan War, when Theseus of Athens was a young man, and Minos2 of Crete was an old king, and Daedalus of Athens/Crete/Sicily was a young man. Daedalus married Naucrate (=western Nile delta), and fled to Sicily, leaving Crete with an inferior bronze industry. (Herodotus wrote that king Minos2 of Crete pursued Daedalus to Sicily, but died a horrible death on that trip-- presumably a replica of the death of Crete's mythical robot Talos).

20) Another significant mythical event also takes place around 1210 BC, one generation before the Trojan War (because Heracles was said to have defeated Troy one generation before the Trojan War). Hercules 10th labor was blockaded at Sicily, while he was leading frisky "cattle"/chattel from Spain. Ultimately Heracles reached the west coast of Turkey (i.e. the old Assuwa League), where it was miraculously noticed that they were wild horses rather than cattle. Hercules left his "wild horses" in Turkey (among the members of the Assuwa League), because they were not what the king of Mycenae had ordered Heracles to bring to Mycenae.

21) At 1200 BC, Iolaus-1 led a large group from Boeotia; they went west and colonized Sardinia. Previously Iolaus-1 had sailed with the Argonauts, and had been a charioteer for Heracles during the famous Labors. So from a mythical standpoint, Iolaus was familiar with the west Mediterranean region before he led his colonists to live among the Sherden
(Sardinian) Sea People.

22) Athenians believed that the acropolis of Athens was built on top of ancient fortifications, which had been built (and abandonned) by Sicilians. And Pseudo-Scylax says that 1000 colonists had lost a civil war around Corinth and Athens, so they subsequently moved to Acarnania. Presumably this correlates to the Greek myth that, in the days of king Cecrops, Poseidon had contested with Athena for possession of Attica. Poseidon was seducing an African goddess (Medusa from Lake Tritonis) in the temple of Athena. So king Cecrops awarded Attica to Athena. The legend about the civil war seems to have been celebrated in the Mysteries of Eleusis, which lies between Corinth and Athens.

23) This conflict against a group of Sea Peoples at Corinth and Athens quickly escalated to cosmic status. The Dorian god Poseidon, out of spite for losing Athens, flooded Attica. Furthermore Poseidon wanted more (sea)land so he stuck his trident into Thessaly, causing it to sink to sea-level. Zeus responded by sending the Flood of Deucalion, to clean out the population Poseidon's people (=Phthiotis) from Thessaly, in preparation for re-settlement by the Hellenes (descendents of Deucalion). Then Zeus moved his home to Mount Olympus, and shared sovereignty over mainland Greece between himself and Poseidon.

24) The cosmic war of the Titans seems have been a competition for control of the sea-lanes, after Syria and Phoenicia went into temporary eclipse around 1250 BC. The city of Iolcus, in Thessaly, was making a bid to control the Sicily channel, as demonstrated by the Argonaut myth. But Zeus flooded Thessaly. (Later, residents of the Thessalian city of Chalcidice/Euboea (="bronze-workers") would be able to place a "historical" Greek colony at Cumae, i.e. beyond the Sicilian Channel). The Arcadian descendents of Atlas were also competitors of Zeus, so Zeus hit them with thunderbolts.

May the treasures of the Sea Peoples fall in your lap for Christmas and may the Phoenician ships bring you and your family happiness for the New Year and prosperity for your trip to Morocco in finding the missing Scepter.

Anyone seen Erick?

Do you have references for Greeks sailing at 7500 bC? The Greeks only knew Phoroneus as the first man around 1750 bC who was an Argo and Mycenaean. Aegialus 2 from Sicyon predates Phoroneus to around 1900 bC. Athens comes in around 1500 bc with Actaeus.
Linear A and B have resemblences to Proto-Sinaitic languages.(Canaan)

Considering the "Out of Africa" theory,wouldn't it be fair to say that the art of SeaCraft came from South Asia?,where we have migrations to Australia and the Polynesian islands around 40-60,000 bC. Then on their way back to the western Asia coast (Phoenicia,Egypt)they brought this art with them?

Egyptians were sailing around 3200 bC;
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/culture1.htm

Let's also consider that the Greeks knew nothing of their older history were it not for Solon and the story of Atlantis.

What I see from research is two main migrations;

1 from Phoenicia to Caria to Ionia and to the Cyclades.
2 from Egypt and Libya to Crete,to Peleponnesia.

Troy in that respect would have been an ancestor of Greeks who retaliated against them.

Today the Mycenaeans are complaining the Greeks are stealing their history, which history itself is unfolding as what seems to be true.

[URL=http://www.georama.gr/eng/history/04_2.html]http://www.georama.gr/eng/history/04_2.html

As I said many times before we have many names in Greece which speak for geological events thousand years before ,for example:
Meditteranean Sea =Ìåóïãåéïò =Middle Earth ,thousand years ago Meditterranean was land and not sea .
Vosporos =Âïóðïñïò=Cattle trail
Thessaly = Èåóóáëéá = Place of sea ,this region of Greece was a sea now it isn’t but the name still survives.

The inhabitants of Argos called themselves "proselinoi" that means before the moon.
Believe it or not the ancestors of Greeks ,Pelasgoi traveled all over the world ,don't try to find Aegyptians or Chaananites or Maya ,only Greeks had the power and the knowledge to do it ,and probably they did it but we have no proves -except myths.

And Riven, Cleopatra was Greek you know and Ptolemy too ...

[This message has been edited by Perseus (edited 01-09-2004).]

Perseus is making a good point about the D2 phase of Mesolithic culture. Here is working link to the Dartmouth lectures, dealing with Francthi. http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/history/bronze_age/lessons/les/1.html

It is noteworthy that peas were adopted in the diet of Francthi around 7300 BC. This correlates with Plato's comment that Atlanteans ate pulses, but not wheat.

The Greek mythical Phorcys (Homer's "old man of the waves") seems to represent the mesolitic era (8300-6000 BC) in that region. Phorcys married his sister Ceto (=big fish) and then fathered two categories of beings: a) the Graeae (=gray ones, Greeks) and also b) sea monsters such as Ladon (=Leviathon) and the GORGONS. Poseidon married Thoosa, a daughter of Phorcys.

In regard to the El Argar culture of Southeast Spain, this website claims the El Argar people were different from local spanish crania, and were instead related to middle east crania (perhaps proto-Phoenicians).

So, Perseus: You have made quite a few claims that not even nationalistic greek scholars would dare support. Keep in mind that "greek" history is highly accessible worldwide, and there is no need to be citizen of Hellada or Kypros in order to form a qualified opinion.
Don't bet your money on the belief that the linear A could ever be classified as a "greek language".

However, the greeks have good reason to be proud of their heritage!
- Although I must add - the events concerning the Sea Peoples is not one for the greeks to be proud of. These events marked the beginning of the 400-year-night of hellenistic culture.

I would like comments on this:
We know that there is reason for egyptians to take the merit for defeating the "coalition forces" of this true WW1.

Why did Solon say the contrary? Or did he?

Is it unlikely that someone had alterior motives, and changed the story, so as to make it more suitable for Athenian public recitations?
The powerful oligarch Critias show off with this story, at the panathenaic recitation-festival - now company of the confident and critical examinator he had in Socrates. Did he know the story was changed?
Did Solon misunderstand the priest of the goddess Neith? Did he see Sais as a sister-city, as they were both "city of Athena".

Any comments from the forum's esteemed researchers?

Happy new year
Trond

------------------
[This message has been edited by Trond Dyre Bobron (edited 01-16-2004).]

Welcome to the forum. Thank you for your recent posting. You were indeed correct when you wrote:

quote:

---

...if we were to focus on the time between 1700-1200 years BCE, we must keep in mind that terms like Phonicians, Greeks are inadequate, or at best inaccurate and misleading.

History since then has proved that there may be countless populations and even "peoples" taking the language - or language elements only - from close or distant language groups.
Likewise, there are numerous examples of cultural and/or genetic change resulting from migration, diffusion and other influences.

---

I normally strive to abstain from using the more 'familiar' terms like "Phoenicians" and "Greeks", except (of course) for when it is appropriate. I have tended, however, to use those terms more frequently in this forum due to the fact that when I use terms like "Canaanite" or "Levantite" - not all - but quite a few forum members seem to be unclear as to who I am actually referring to, which causes the thread to wander off course a bit. In fact, "Canaanite" and "Levantite" are in & of themselves rather 'generic' terms and so perhaps that is where their confusion stems from. Although, as I'm sure you are already aware, it is sometimes necessary to use the vague place/peoples names in order to be more concise. Therefore, for the purpose of clarity, I will henceforth strive to use the appropriate terms, names, & phrases in this thread, just as I do in my peer-review journal article submissions.

I would also have to agree with your comment to Perseus regarding his claims. I believe that at the present time, due to the "Information Age," it could reasonably be said that there are probably more non-Greeks than actual Greeks that are experts in Greek history.

I don't necessarily agree with your comment regarding the Greeks and any shame regarding the Sea Peoples events. My research (which is based squarely on the back of the research already carried out by countless scholars before me) has shown that there were so many political, climatic, and economic factors occuring at that time that the blame could never really be laid squarely on the back of any single group of people - even the Sea Peoples. No event ever occurs within a vacuum, therefore, just as the weakening of America's economy negatively impacted other economies around the world in our time (and vice versa), the weakening of the Hittite economy negatively impacted the Mycenaean economy, which was based mainly upon trade. Throw in a terrible drought and a lot of frustrations, and mass migration & war are fairly certain to follow. Additionally, someone is ALWAYS bound to take advantage of the "weakening of power" of another and bound to make an attempt to shake off what they view as "oppressive control", just as the Arzawa League did with the Hittites during the close of the 13th century BC.

To Everyone in the Forum,

If anyone has not yet read it, I would definitely recommend the book The Hittites and their Contemporaries in Asia Minor by J. G. Macqueen (Thames & Hudson, 1986), ISBN #0-500-27887-3. It gives a great deal of information regarding the events in Anatolia and the Levant during the Sea Peoples era, as well as information concerning several of the groups believed to have been involved in the attack upon Egypt.

I would like to apologize to everyone for my prolonged absence in this forum and for the absence of any desired responses. My absence will, unfortunately, only continue for awhile, as I am currently building my website. I am building it writing in HTML code, which is not terribly difficult, but IS teribly time consuming. I will, of course, inform you all when it is up and running.

Furthermore, I have re-doubled my efforts on my peer-review journal article submission and work is progressing nicely on that. At the current rate, I can reasonably foresee being done with it by the end of the month. I accomplished a fantastic amount of work on it yesterday, with stupendous results, and I am delighted with what was written. I think that I can honestly state that it was my best work to date. I will publish "portions" of the paper her in this thread, however, I am unable to publish it in its entirety due to the agreement with the journal that I will be bound to. When my article is accepted for publication, I will (of course) inform everyone as to the details and as to where & how to purchase a copy of that quarter's issue (its a quarterly publication), cost, etc.

Additionally, I am in the process of reviewing & contacting media production companies in an attempt to raise interest on my return trip to Morocco later this year. I am hopeful that I can find a producer that will submit a proposal to Discovery/TLC/History Channel Network on my behalf, in order to have a 1 hour special filmed that would air on TV. This would allow me to accomplish the long desired goal/dream of getting an expert in the use of Ground Penetrating Radar to accompany me to Morocco in order to conduct a non-invasive exploration of my proposed site(s), because the cost of his services would already be included in the proposed budget submitted by the producer. It is really the only way that I could afford to retain their services right now - without taking out a loan (which I am not really inclined towards doing). I will keep everyone posted on any developments in this arena, as well.

Lastly, with the close of the holiday season work has resumed with my full-time job, which requires me to travel (at least for the first 4-6 months of the year) and stay in a hotel for 4 nights a week. This greatly diminishes my ability to conduct my research affairs and to remain in contact with you all.

So, everyone please do be patient with me, as I do have a lot on my plate right now, and please do not be hurt or offended if I don't respond to your posts right away. I don't imagine I will be posting very frequently this year, and certainly not at the rate at which I have posted in the past couple of years.

I hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas and New Year's, and it is my earnest desire that you all have a wonderful and productive 2004!

Warm Regards,

Erick

Trond;

quote:

---

Why did Solon say the contrary? Or did he?

---

Good Question considering we know how clever the Egyptian Priests are.

Did Solon say the contrary or did the Egyptian Priest. Seems like the Priest was a little "arrogant" in calling the Atheneans "children" rather than a compassionate response.

This leads us to the Question of Atlantean control, which seems evident from Timaeus when the Priest also includes themselves as having been liberated.

Just like the other queue of why other Egyptian priests didn't mention this story before Sais other than Punt.(Socatra,Yemen in my view).

So, could it be that the Egyptians are covering up the existence of Atlantean control by claiming the Greeks destroyed them other than possibly the Egyptians?

Which leads us to "Did the Atlanteans build the Sphinx and the first Pyramids?"

Almost sounds like the Subjugation of Libya?

And can you tell us please your claims?

You reacted to this:
>>"So, Perseus: You have made quite a few claims that not even nationalistic greek scholars would dare support. Keep in mind that "greek" history is highly accessible worldwide, and there is no need to be citizen of Hellada or Kypros in order to form a qualified opinion.
Don't bet your money on the belief that the linear A could ever be classified as a "greek language".

>Can you name these claims?
As I read in my previous message I said:
a.That Linear B is Greek language old and difficult but GREEK.True or False?

---Claim a.: - True.
Did you say that? As you read in your previous message? - False.
You said this:
>¡§Linear B as Ventris proved is Greek that means that Minoans and Mycenaean's (mainland Greece ) spoke Greek that era (1700 bc ) be sure that when we will decode Linear A it will speak Greek too.¡¨
---Although Linear B is a form of Greek, it does neither prove, nor even indicate ¡§that Minoans and Mycenaean's (mainland Greece ) spoke Greek that era (1700 bc )¡¨!
- Mycenaeans: - Yes, (by 1700bc), but Minoans: - No.
It is commonly accepted - in Greece and elsewhere - that ¡§Minoans¡¨ or Aegean culture, at least the Cretan and Cycladic culture ¡V which is identified as non-Greek, flourished a second time after the eruption of Thera in ca.1628 BC.
The Achaean cultural influence in Crete is dated to after 1500 BC. And most scholars view this culture as Minoan as before, but with introduction of a Greek language as administrative language, along with certain other cultural elements believed to originate from the mainland. The language documented prior to this, (Linear A) is not yet interpreted, although it was written with nearly the same letters.
The vast majority of scholars agree on only one