Agadir & Gadira both derived their names from the Semitic word G-D-R, which means "a fortified place." Perhaps the position or emphasis of the vowel in the two names was different so that no confusion would arise regarding the two cities? I don't really know.

Respectfully,

Erick

I will attempt to respond to all of the points you brought forward in your post from 09-01-2003, all the while taking into account that some of the details of your arguments may have been lost in your translation into English.

quote:

---

1. All the opposite. The location that I defend is the unique one that it adjusts to Plato; the only one that fits with the descriptions of Plato.

---

Several people before you have attempted to associate Atlantis with Cadiz, Spain. Do you really believe that your arguments for Atlantis in Spain are unique and/or the only one that fits with Plato’s descriptions?

I have divided your second argument in half so that I might respond to both (what I consider to be) inaccuracies.

quote:

---

2. The same in the translations metaphrastics as in literary or grammar (the only ones accepted by international the academic community) the words of Plato they are the same ones when it affirms that the Nęsos Atlantis was located in "pelagos" or "FRETUM" that is, in the "Straits" of Hercules (Gibraltar),

---

In the Greek version of the text, Plato does use the word “pelagos” (Latin – pelagus) [ref. Tim. 24 & 25], however, in the Greek “pelagos” was used to refer to the open sea, or the high sea; more to the point, it was especially used to distinguish deep ocean waters from the more shallow coastal waters. For reference to this point you can consult the following authors and works:

Homerus Ilias 14.16
Homerus Odyssea 3.179 & 5.335
Herodotus Historicus 8.60
Thucydides Historicus 4.24 & 6.13
Apollonius Rhodius Epicus 2.608
Pindarus Olympian Odes 7.56
Pindarus Fragmenta 235
Euripides Hecuba 938 (lyricus [Lyric poetry])
Euripides Troades 88
Aeschylus Agamemnon 659
Herodotus Historicus 4.85
Menander Perikeiromena 379
Sophocles Ajax 702 (lyricus)
Lucianus Icaromenippus 3

I have not, however, found any references for the word “pelagos” having been used by the ancient authors to describe “a strait.”

The Latin “fretum” was most commonly used to describe a strait, sound, estuary, firth, or channel. Fretum was sometimes used to refer to “the sea” in general, however, it was usually used in the plural sense. It was also sometimes used figuratively to refer to some sort of disturbance or turmoil.

quote:

---

… and who an end or promontory (in Greek akras) was in the region of Gadeira and near the Columns of Hercules. Perhaps try You that we created that this promontory, end or "akras" extended from America or another remote place like Indonesia (where according to some was Atlantis) to arriving at Gadeiras and Gibraltar? We go man, a little common sense!

---

The Greek word “akras” was used to refer to “the highest or farthest point of something,” therefore in that context it was able to be used to refer to a headland, cape, or promontory (i.e. end, extremity). In the Timaeus Plato wrote that Gadeirus, the twin brother of Atlas, received for his portion “lęxin de akras tęs nęsou pros Hęrakleiôn stęlôn” (an allotment whereas the farthest of isles near Herakles Pillars). This would, of course, refer to the island of Gades (Gadeira, Gadira, Cadiz), the Isla de Leon (modern-day San Fernando, Spain), and the other small islands that once existed in the Bay of Cadiz. Plato goes on to say “eilęchoti epi to tęs Gadeirikęs” (by allotment upon of Gadeira too [also]). Plato then goes on to further describe how the island of Gadeira and the adjoining district of Gadeira received their name from the second-born twin – Gadeirus. It is clear, therefore, that the region or district of Gadeira (Gades, Gadir, Gadira, Cadiz) has its association (in this story, at least) with the second-born of the first set of twins born to Poseidon and Cleito – Gadeirus.

What is important to remember, however, is that Atlas was “him that was the eldest and king, the name after which the whole island was called (Atlantis) and the sea spoken of as the Atlantic…” (Critias 114A [translation by R.G. Bury]). And in the very same passage (Critias 114A) that it was Atlas ”who was allotted his mother’s dwelling and the allotment surrounding it, which was the largest and best; and him (Atlas) he (Poseidon) appointed to be king over the rest, and the others to be rulers, granting to each the rule over many men and a large tract of country.” Furthermore, Plato quite clearly stated that the royal palace, on the hilltop acropolis, was in the center of the capital city of Atlantis, and that it was in the center of the royal palace on the hilltop acropolis that the temple dedicated to Cleito and Poseidon stood. That temple was the very spot where, at the beginning, Cleito and Poseidon ”had generated and brought to birth the family of the ten royal lines” (Critias 116C). Due to the fact that the royal palace on the hilltop acropolis in the capital city contained the temple, which was the location of the birthplace of the ten sons, then it can safely and reasonably be assumed that this was the location of the mother’s domicile, as women (generally speaking) tended to give birth in their homes. This would therefore mean that this was the allotment that Atlas received. This is further evidenced by the fact that this is also the location of the abode of a king, which is to say the royal palace.

So, the mother’s domicile later became the temple that was dedicated to Poseidon & Cleito, which was located in the center of the royal palace, which, furthermore, was located on the hilltop acropolis in the center of the city of Atlantis. The mother’s domicile (and the country surrounding it) was part of the allotment given to Atlas, as was (of course) the royal palace (i.e. the abode of the king and ruler). Atlas granted large tracts of land to his 9 younger brothers, starting with Gadeirus, who received for his portion the farthest of the islands near Herakles Pillars, therefore by fate Gadeira also. If both the island and district of Gadeira were the allotment of Gadeirus, and Gadeirus had received an allotment different from that of Atlas, then neither the city nor the district of Gadeira could be the location of the capital city of Atlantis.

So, with a little logic, deductive reasoning, and the process of elimination, it can safely and reasonably be said that both the island of Gadeira (modern Cadiz) and the district of Gadeira (mainland area of Spain surrounding the city of Cadiz) are the first and most easily eliminated areas for the location of the capital city of Atlantis.

quote:

---

3. Plato say of very clear way that the sagrada Acropolis, where was the temple of Kleitos and Poseidôn was in the region that later was granted first king to him Atlas or Atlante. And that the name of the island and until of the "pelagos" or "fretum", according to Chalcidius and Ficino that is, the "Straits" obtained its name by the fame of this king, Atlas. Then the Nęsos Atlantis had to be in the region of the Atlas (Morocco). This I it acceptance. But You?

---

Georgeos, you need only to read my postings to realize that I have always espoused Morocco as the location of the city of Atlantis.

quote:

---

4. Therefore, I am in agreement with You in which you are possible that the rest that we are finding they are of the desaprecida Tartessos, i myself I have recognized it from the first moment, but I do not discard the possibility that either atlanteans of the region or kingdom of Gadeiros is rest, and if they are atlanteans, because the first discovered archaeological evidences of the Atlantis in the history of the atlantología would seran then. I also think that it is more probable that the sagrada Acropolis of Atlantis, the capital of the Atlantean empire, is more near the Atlas in Morocco and towards we will go there if the found evidences do not belong to the Acropolis.

---

Glad to hear that we are in agreement and that you have recognized the very real possibility that what you have uncovered might actually be the location of the city of Tartessos. As I said above, I have always thought that Morocco is the location of the city of Atlantis. According to Plato’s account the Gaditanians would have been Atlanteans, but it would not have been the location of the infamous city called Atlantis.

quote:

---

But at the moment I incline to think that the sagrada Acropolis of Atlantis, with its concentric ring was here in the coasts of Iberia, because Plato describes (through Kritias)que on the "pelagos", where the Nęsos Atlantis had sunk, still in its time it was very difficult to sail, by the amount of mud, low stumbling blocks and that made navigation by those places dangerous. This description only fits with the ample low region of dangerous and mud that still exists nowadays from the Atlantic mouth of the Strait, Tarifa and "Câbo Trafalgar", until Cadiz and Huelva. One is a strip of very low bottoms of hundreds of kilometers 2, it compares to the coast, and until more than 10 kilómteros in some points. In the antiquity several these authors speak of low dangerous with the same words used by Plato and still nowadays they continue being dangerous. More recent paleographers studies demonstrate that in the Age of the Bronze this "pelagos" had more than 30 islands and small barren islands of diverse sizes and the strips of low oscillated between half meter and a meter in most of the points, during hundreds of kilometers 2. A single point of the coasts of Morocco does not exist nor that has nothing similar. The coasts of Morocco as soon as they present/display few areas of low and too much near the coast. I think that originally the region where the sacred hill or the Acropolis settled down was in some coastal point of Iberia, near the Strait of Hercules and later by extension the kingdom from Atlas to present Morocco was transferred.

---

It is an inaccuracy to say that Morocco does not possess coastal lagoons, for it does and in fairly good numbers. In fact, it was to one of these coastal lagoons that I went to Morocco to investigate in the summer of 2000. Your information regarding the shallows off the coasts of Spain is pertinent only if you believe that Spain is the location of the lost city of Atlantis. I don’t, and I believe that I have provided sufficient documentary evidence, from within Plato’s own text, as to why the city of Atlantis will not be found there. Furthermore, I believe that I have given ample evidence as to why the Egyptians were probably not referring to an actual “island” – at least not in the way that we think of them today, but rather were referring to coastland, or land at the estuary of a river. Personally, I would ascribe the disappearance/sinking of the city to one of two things: 1.) Earthquake-induced subsidence, which might have caused a section of coastline to sink below the level of the ocean, thereby allowing the ocean waters to flood in and cover it. 2.) Earthquake or storm-induced liquefaction, which would have caused the city to either sink down into its own soil, or slide off into the ocean (i.e. catastrophic submersion), as with the city of Herakleion, which was discovered off the coast of Alexandria, Egypt, in the summer of 2000 (Cities in the Sand, cover story in U.S. News & World Report, July 10, 2000). One other possibility is that of human-induced subsidence, a possibility that I outlined in one of my postings sometime in the past year.

I prefer not to speculate as to why the Arabic-speaking peoples of Andalusia may or may not have thought that Atlantis was in Iberia. Either way, the arabs arrived in Andalusia way too long after the event to have been able to make an accurate assessment as to the city’s location. By the way, they never found the city either, did they?

quote:

---

5. Therefore, can that the Acropolis of Atlantis is in Morocco, but everything aims at that it had to be near the coasts of Andalusia and Gibraltar, where right now we are finding unquestionable rest of cities submerged with all probability of the Age of the Bronze. You say that you are sure that we have not found the Atlantis. He is a little prepotent his part, that without knowing not even the evidences says something thus. But clear to You you do not agree to him that it is the Atlantis, because simply is the confirmation of my theory, not of hers.

---

Is that really the best argument that you can come up with? That I’m jealous? Why don’t you try sticking to the points and argue those instead of trying to slander me into acquiescence and acceptance of your theories? Besides, from such a great distance away, and with no press release outlining the “discovery,” I can’t really be sure that you have found anything at all. I will always be skeptical of any person’s claim to have found Atlantis (or anything else for that matter), at least until independent confirmation is established, and I would expect that people would respond the same to me, as well. To be such is just in my nature. But let’s get back to point #5, shall we? To respond to your point, I can say – without having seen the evidence and with such certainty - that you have not found the lost city of Atlantis because I have found some of your arguments to not be convincing, some of your logic to be flawed, and some of your theories to not be well reasoned. The text itself contradicts your very own belief that the lost city of Atlantis existed in the region of Cadiz, Spain and most of your theory hinges upon this point!

Anyway, along with everyone else, I will patiently await your “evidences.”

quote:

---

6. The mountains that surrounded to the plain as it already demonstrated the own Adolf Schülten in 1924, are the mountains of the Bética (Sięrra Moręna, Sięrra de Grazâlema, and Sięrra Nevâda) that is exactly towards the north, the northeast and the east of the great plain of the river basin of the Guadalquivir. Part of the prolongation towards the sea of that great plain, is the one that is submerged today, and according to paleosismologist, due to strong occurred earthquakes and tsunamis it does several thousands of years, in the heat of Age of the Bronze. The rest that we are finding demonstrate a fast and catastrophic collapse.

---

Considering the paleoseismic and geomorphologic information that currently exists for that region (the coast of Spain), I would not expect that you would find things otherwise. Unfortunately, however, none of these mountain ranges were ever referred to as the Atlas Mountains by the ancient authors. And, just across the Straits of Gibraltar there exists mountains that, since ancient times, have been referred to as the Pillars of Heaven, and the Atlas Mts. These mountains also form a ring, enclosing a series of plains that, overall, come very close to the dimensions given by Plato. Furthermore, these mountains also swoop down into the sea that is also named after Atlas. Lastly, the area within these mountains has always been inhabited by the native Berber populations, whose territory stretched all the way over to Egypt – a description that completely matches that given by Plato of the territory that, to his day, was still inhabited by Atlanteans.

quote:

---

7. I never have changed the meaning of the Nęsos word, "island", by the one of "peninsula", so that she fits with my theory, wath reason You lie? Whatever a little Greek knows, knows perfectly that, the Nęsos word was used the same for island that stops peninsula, or is that You did not know that? And if it knew it, wath then has said that lie on my. I have not changed the value of the Nęsos word, simply, ground to consider his two meaning: Island and Peninsula.

---

Please cite just a couple of examples of such usage by the Greeks, from which the Latin was derived? I have studied and pondered and poured over each and every word in the text for over 5 years now and I have never encountered any such usage of the word “nesos.” By the way, you still haven’t told me what the heck “island that stops peninsula” means?

Incidentally, even though I think you will find it extremely difficult (if not impossible) to locate any textual evidence to support your contention that the ancient Greeks used the same word to refer to both islands and peninsulas (peninsulas would have been referred to as “hepeiros” or mainland), I, however, CAN substantiate my claim that the Egyptians used the word for “island” to refer to coastland, low-lying land, or land at the estuary of a river (i.e. alluvial land). But it is unlikely that this piece of information, by itself, could be used to suggest that the Greeks were aware of the Egyptian usage of the word.

For examples of Egyptian usage of the word or hieroglyphic symbol for “island” as low-lying or alluvial land, please reference the following:

1.) Hibeh Papyri 1.90.7 (iii c. BC) - land flooded by the Nile

2.) Griechische Papyri im Museum des oberhessischen Geschichtsvereins zu Giessen 60
(ii A.D.) - as opposed to “hepeiros” (the mainland)

3.) Oxyrhynchus Papyri 1445.13 (ii A.D.) – ”nesoi potamophoretoi” = “islands
carried away by the river”

4.) Tabulae Heracleenses 1.38 – of alluvial land

quote:

---

As far as which You say that Cadiz was not a peninsula until the Roman times, are mistaken You completely. 10,000 years ago, to end of the Age of the Bronze, Gadeira or Cadiz it was a peninsula surrounded by other islands and smaller small barren islands. Many oceanographic studies exist that demonstrate it. Review his sources please, because I assure that story to him with the most updated. It would only have to look for a nautical cart a smaller scale and to see like a drawing up the line of the coast from the paleolithic to the aim of the Age of the Bronze and principles of the Age of the Iron, Gadeira was a peninsula. To the arrival of the Phoenician it was already an island, and the arrival of the Romans, it continued being a set of at least three islands. From where You have removed that information but I do not make sure to him that it is been mistaken. If it doubt, it pongase in contact with which know more of paleography of Cadiz, which they are the Spanish investigators.

---

First of all, let’s inject a little clarification in here, shall we? There are actually two Cadiz’ in Spain; the district or region of Cadiz and the city of Cadiz, the latter of which is situated on a peninsula jutting out into the Bay of Cadiz and connected to the mainland by a narrow, sandy, isthmus. So, when I say that the island of Cadiz did not become a peninsula until well into the Roman Period, I am referring to the long, narrow, peninsula jutting out into the Bay of Cadiz, on which the city of Cadiz is situated. Without a doubt the island of Cadiz was once a portion of the coast of Spain until the constant ebb and flow of the tide slowly wore away at the rock that connected it to the mainland. This process, however, took thousands of years to happen, and every ancient map that I have ever observed has always shown it to already have been an island – not a peninsula. The place was an island when the Phoenicians arrived (1106 B.C. according to tradition, but 8th century B.C. according to the scant archaeological evidence) and had been for quite some time before that (probably millennia). Claudius Ptolemy’s Geography (ca. 90-168 A.D.), pg. 52, quite clearly reads “There is an island adjacent to Hispanic Baetica in the Outer Sea, in which is the town Gadira, the location of which is in 5 degrees, 10 minutes west & 36 degrees, 10 minutes north.” In fact, Gadira remained an island for a long time afterwards, as well, and the isthmus that now connects it to the mainland did not form until well after the Roman Empire had come and gone. So, apparently you mistakenly believed that I was talking about the mainland district of Cadiz, when I was clearly referring to the island of Cadiz, on which the city of Cadiz is situated.

quote:

---

8. A last question: if You discover single a part of America, You have not discovered America? If You arrive at an end of the Antártida would discover the Antártida or no? understand You absurd it of your form to think?
If I discover archaeological evidences of the kingdom atlantean of Gadeiros, then I will have discovered the Atlantis, in the same way that Columbus or the vikingos discovered America, discovering single a part of the same one.

---

Now, Georgeos, you and I both know, as does everyone else in this forum, that if all you have done is merely to discover evidence of an Atlantean Empire, it is NOT the same as discovering the actual lost, capital city of Atlantis. The Atlantean Empire was supposed to have stretched across the whole northern portion of Africa. You discovering archaeological evidence of the Atlantean kingdom of Gadeirus in Spain and claiming to have discovered “Atlantis” would be paramount to me finding archaeological evidence of the Atlantean kingdom of, oh, let’s say, Autochthon, somewhere in North Africa, and claiming that I have discovered “Atlantis.” Neither of us would really have found “Atlantis,” now would we have? No, we wouldn’t have. Nobody will ever be satisfied until actual, physical, indisputable archaeological evidence of the Lost City of Atlantis surfaces, the site is excavated, and the capital city of Atlantis is revealed. Why would you want to settle for anything less? I know that I won’t!

Respectfully,

Erick

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

Obviously this was not Atlantis. But it suggests way people can start a major organization, beginning from scratch. So in that sense it resembles the original homestead which Plato said Poseidon and Cleito had organized, virtually in the middle of nowhere.

Plato's use of (and translation of) the word Gadeira has given us a BIG CLUE about who (or where) the Atlantean "natives" are or were.

Atalante: But if we chose to take away the the terminating "a" from Gadeira, so that it was no longer feminine: then there would be NO CONNOTATION involving sheep.

Very interesting, but Plato wrote Gadeiron ( the person ) and Gadeirikęs ( the region ).

The information below is also very interesting.

If we translate Eumęlos as rich in flocks/herds/cattle ( which would also be correct ) instead of sheeps , then
we probably have the origin of Gadeiron and Gadeirikęs. The word "Gad" in different languages and Greek Eumęlon below.

---------------------------------------------------
Portugese:

gado
1. livestock [n]
2. flock [n], herd [n]

rico
1. rich
--------------------------------------------------
Greek:

eubotrus
1. rich in grapes

eumęlos ( the word translated to English )
1. rich in sheep

męlon
1. cattle
2. herds

eumęlon ( the word Plato used )
1. rich in cattle
2. rich in herds
3. rich in sheeps

eiros(Gadeiros)
1. wool

iron(heiron/heiros)
1. super-human, mighty, divine, wonderful, sacred
--------------------------------------------------
Hebrew:

Gad
1. fortune( i.e rich )
2. troop, flock,
3. things: herd, flock, group of animals
4. (in the sense of distributing)

Gadi
1. fortunate, fortune
2. troop, flock, herd
--------------------------------------------------
Phoenician:

It was at first called Gadir, 'Gdr' in Phoenician means
'wall', enclosed place' or 'fortified citidel', the greeks seem to have helenized the name to Gadeira.

--------------------------------------------------
Gad as known persons/gods:
1. Bible: The seventh son of Jacob 2. The tribe of Israel descended from him.
2. Baal Gad (Phoenician) God of the moon and director of fate. He played a role in astrology.
3. Gadir is a common name in Lebanon and the Middle-East ( regions and persons ).
5. GADIRTHA recalls the place name Gadir. This place-name occurs several times within
the Land of Israel and may also be associated with GAD.

Quote from the Bible:
Now the sons of Reuben and the sons of
Gad had an exceedingly large number of
livestock. So when they saw the land of
Jazer and the land of Gilead, that it was
indeed a place suitable for livestock,
( i.e flocks / herds / cattle )

--------------------------------------------------
-------- Gado-rico = flocks/herds + rich ( Portugese )
-------- Gad/Gadi = rich + flocks/herds ( Hebrew )
-------- Eumęlon = rich in flocks/herds/cattle/sheeps ( Greek )

Did Solon see that the word Gad/Gadi meant fortune(i.e rich ) and flocks/herds, and therefore translated it as Eumęlon?
This is indeed a SEMITIC word.

Regards, Jonas Bergman

Have you researched the names of the other "kings" of Atlantis? In my opinion those other names can also help to understand the Atlantean society.

Here are some comments I made a couple months ago on the Tribes of Atlantis topic.

quote:
atalante
Member posted 01-27-2004 08:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The names of the "kings" of Atlantis seem to be naming classes of "labor specialization".
The religious priestly class seems to be Diaprepes.

I will suggest the other categories, after I quote from Georgeos, regarding the Greek meanings of the names Plato and Solon used for the leaders of Atlantis.

Here is a quote from Georgeos (1/21/04):

"In effect, Plato by mouth of Kritias, notice that Solón translated the names of the atlantes kings to the Greek - according to its meaning because the Egyptians also had done it previously. All the names have their meaning through the Greek: Atlas "the one that It supports", Amfęręs "the one that Occupies Both Sides", Euaimon "the Connoisseur or the Expert", Mneseo "the Memorable one, the Remembered one", Autochthon "the Native one, Sprung from the Land Itself", Elasippon "the Rider, the Conductor of Horses", Męstor "the Prudent Advisor", Azaes "the Dry one, Barren and Hot" and the Diáprepes "the Distinguished one, the Magnificent one".
endquote

I estimate the labor specialties might be: Eumelus (shepherds), Autochthon (hunter/gathers, farmers, fishermen), Elassipon (horsemen/cowboys), Euaimon (craftsmen, artisans), Mneseo (writers), Mestor (architects,engineers, geologists, teachers), Azaes (metalurgists), Atlas (nobles, those who are "supported" without working), Ampheres (merchants, middlemen-between-buyers-and-sellers), Diaprepes (priests).
endquote

Based on these suggestions, most of the so-called "kings" could have lived close together. In my opinion, this makes the size of Atlantis more believable. Most of the heads of these labor specialties could have lived in the basic Plain which Plato described for Atlantis.

Some corelations to Plato;
According to the Finnish Bocksaga there was in a period of ice-time that an ancient population survived in the Baltic area. As all the land around them was covered in the large ice-cap dwelling over the northern hemisphere they called the period "Alt-land-is". This can still be understood in all Scandinavian tongues as "All-land-ice". Pronounced by a the Greeks, and later written down the written name become "Atlantis".

The Finnish myth and saga goes into length in describing this culture. And there are indeed many corelations with all the facts and associations mentioned in the Greek material so many of you know so well. Since I havent been especially into the Atlantis-myth tmost of this is quite new to me. But the Saga-version I know quite well.

Thus I have to draw you attention to the similarity explained in your qutes from Plato, given above. The descriptions you quote above is actually matching quite exactly to the descriptions given in the Finnish saga. As you may know from my thread it is said that this Kingdom resided inside the ice-cap, isolated from the rest of the world. Located inside the Finnish Gulf - or "The Gulf of Vinland" as it used to be called, refering to the "Vine" of the arctic Royals; as in "Vin-ö-möinen", the Fenno-Ugric word for "Atlas".

As the massive ice-cap broke up it started overrunning this coastal area. Which means that it was "overrun by water (as ice)". To survive the small population had to flee by boats, taking all their domestic animals with them, - to the island of Gotland, where they made Noatun - "The yard of Noa. This place still exist on Gotland, as dothe cavesystems that provided a warm shelter as the ice-bergs passed around them.

Finally the glaciers slided and melted away and the population started reproducing themselves again, sending expeditions both west, south and eastwards. (Today we know that Gotland indeed was the only place in N-Europe that never have been covered, or overrun, by ice. Besides the south of England and Ireland.)

One can always ask wheter Atlas and Poseidon were Greek name for Vinömöinen and Lemminkainen, or vice verca. According to the Finnish mythology his temple was placed on the centre hilltop of "The Seven Islands of the Sun", that spread in a fan before the city of Hel-stad ("Whole-sted"still stuch). Helstad itself laid on the "Seven Mountains of The Sun" that surronded the bay and overlooked the seven islands, where the royals had their duties.
One of them was procreation, as Lemminkainen became the father of ten "rabis" (princes) that went to create 10 similar kingdoms, in 10 regions covering the globe. The result was ten different populations or "rays of the Sun Father", i.e. "races". This will also explain why we have some 12 different races still today. So becometh the Ten Tropical Kings, while the Father himself - and his direct airs - stayed inside the Baltics. Later two more kinglines where created, to populate Scandinavia and Europe after icetime, becomming Swedes and Danes. The later being the etnic basis for all NW Europeans.
Europes most famous scolars of his time, the Swede Olof Rudbeck was apointed head of the Royal Swedish Academy and responsible for the recreation of the Swedish national History. His main work, of incredible proportions was entitled: "Atlantea", claiming that the original Swedes came straigth out of the "Atlantean Civilisation". Nobody deared to believe in it though, but today we know that Rudbeck was rigth...

Answer here

By then the old procreator had completed his mission and could retire, happily being the father of the King and the entire first family - and the heads of the different branches going out to the surrounding districts.

The procreator was a direct heir from the very first family of man - and only by inherital rigth could one have the rigth to fill this function. It could only be the 12th son of the old procreator.

Since all people on the planet are offspirngs from this family-line, the pensioned procreator was called "All-Father".

Today we find that word in both myths and religous textbooks as Allfather, Allah or The Lord.

As ice-time appeared there was a split between the different groups of the human family. As the royal court and garden was isolated from the rest of the world - by the incomming ice-time - the districts had to be reorganized. To keep the society and the culture best possible the globe was divided in ten different regions, - and given to each of the 10 midle brothers of Allfather.

As the Alt-land-is-time started we got 10 different kings, who started ten different "Allfather-systems" (dynasties) that evidently evolved into 10 different races, or rays of the original "Sunfather".

These kings also become procreators, and their first son inherrited the rigth, the duty and the task. Thus we got TEN different kings, ruling over ten different regions, evidently creating ten different races (from "rays of the original father, our sun").

Consequently we got ten different cultures that developed different characteristics, such as language, traditions and apearance. But they all copied the pyramidical system of the original culture. So also with their original Allfather and his further descendants, itself being the eleventh race, isolated in the arctic north.

When the articals manage to survive and get out of the eonic isolation of ice-time -inside the Baltic Ocean - they where able to reconnect with all their "old family-members", recreating a lost unity of mankind. In this process they hade to make themselves understood to each other again, linguistically.

In this process, starting some 9.900 years ago, the articals presented themselves in a language that still exist - in Scandinavia.
They used to call the long period of ice-time for "Alt-land-is"-time. Still today that means ALL-LAND-ICE-time.

Today we can see the area where these articals spread - since all artical ground is called LAND. Thus we find these "lands" all north of the climatic line you may follow - from the Pyrenees/Alps/Caucasus to The Himalayas. The same line appears also in North America, where the old Norse seltements, - way back before Leif Erikson,
was called Green-land, Skrellinga-land, Mark-land, Hel-u-land, Vin-land, Goda-land, - the last two being todays Virginia, Carolina and Georgia. Which fits pretty well with modern geology`s recent repports on the maximum extension of the ice-cap once covering all of the northern hemisphere.

Reaching the Mediterranean societies the arctic boat-people presented themselves as "Aser" comming from the "ice-land" of the north, calling it plainly "Alt-land-is", as this was their language. The "A(l)tlanteans" still had their own royal line intact, - as a straigth off-spring from the first "Allfather".

The king of the arctical Aser was then called A(l)tl-As, and the procreator was named PoSiDon/Neptune, wearing a trisul. Their messenger to the different kingdoms was known as "Budd-As" - meaning "Messenger of Aser". Later, as the religious power gained control of the European minds, the old cultures foremost keepers, the Aser, was out-rooted, to be explained as "false, headon Gods". (Much like Lenin did with the tzar-family, to erase anyone with a legal rigth to the rule)

The clerical Rome was incredibly succesful. Even today modern scientists still describe the old norse "Aser and Vaner" as "Primitive, pagan Gods of the superstitious old Vikings."

No one may always question the metaphysical entity of the Churches how they explain their own abstractions - as anything ELSE than superstition?

Even more funny is the fact that modern historians have not been able to see beyond the millenia-old view of the imperial church, - and try to see the similar pantheons of the Greek, Roman and Norse antiquety, - to be their key nobilities - at the top of the social (pyramidical...) structure. Thus we find Zeus, Jupiter and Oden all to be "pagan Gods" - when in fact they where Kings, proceators and head-figures of their respective cultures. Today we even know that there was a communication between all these royal houses, - to reconnect, interact and work for a cultural progression in the world at large.

Thus the old allfather in Oden, situated in Finland - would have the priviledge of receiving information from all corners of the world. Moreover they could communicate this knowledge and understanding throughout the old world. That`s why we ended up with names like "AS-TEK" and their AnAs/AnAnAs, but also "Ma-ja", "IN-KA", "Ho-pi", - just as "Ju-pi-ter" and "Ze-us" is bearing witness of a reunited world.

We may understand that even the shrudest linguistc would have to deduct and interpetuate the words of Platons stories whith the knowledge from newly discovered reference, the sagas of the Finnish Penninsula.

IN Platons world and writing the arctic expression "Alt-land-is" became "Atlantis". As is "AtlAs" short for "Allfather of Aser". The one who had an heir that became the next Allfather, but also 10 sons who all became Kings - and new Allfathers, in their respective system.

That happened only once in our history. At the end of the tranquil period called Pa-ra-dis-et. Because a cataclysm, starting Alt-land-is-time, did happen...

They may have called it Allt Land Is ( all
the land covered with ice ), but this is not
connected to Plato's Atlantis at all.

Important facts:

1. Plato used words such as Atlantida, Atlantika, Atlantidos etc.
This is different forms of the word Atlas. "Atlantis" is a translation.

2. Plato said that Solon looked into the
meaning of each word and translated every
original ( native ) word into Greek.
Atlas means "to bear, to lift up".
The original(native) word used must then
have the meaning of: "to bear, to lift up".

3. Plato didn´t mention any ice at all.
It was a hot climate, particularly in the summer.

4. It was near the straits of Gibraltar.

Regards, Jonas Bergman

First; If Hel-io-pol-is is native egyptian, why couldn`t At-lant-is be?

Second;
Plato`s conseption(s) of Atlantis are collected in his consept as we get it.
We may think that every part and detail of his concept is genuinly rigth and true. But we can*t rule out that even Plato did not have the whole, complete and exact picture of the place and its culture. Which he also stress quite clearly in his prologue.

Obvious since he was resiting the story from Solon, who in turn had learned about it in Egypt, at a time when the Egyptian culture actually was in decline and historical issues subject to political reviews. But, the important thing is that Solon did the work nessecary to save the basic outlines of a historical fact, best he could. Thanks to Platos works the story survived the further decline who was about to change the Mediterranee and later Europe, as brutality and violence grew to occupy entire populations and generations...

Third;
The description "Outside the migthy pillars of Hercules" tells any Egyptian it is far off, by sea-travel, outside their conventional world. But to take this as a clear-cut travel-description, or even a precise location is at least a misconception. Almost all agree that the quote implies that the capital city of the "Atlanteans" exist per se, somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean. Obviously.

The climate of the Baltics where ofcourse harsh during ice-time. But in the period between 8.000-3.000 B.P. North Europe experienced a "climatical optimum", with midle temperature 2,8 Celsius higher than today! During this period Northern Sweden enjoyed a temperature as of todays France, and the Norwegian sailors ate dried grapes with their dried fish. And Southern Finland, where the capitol was, had a even better climate.

Last but not least;
When another genuin legend appear, ALSO telling about the culture/epoch called Atlantis, we may better sharpen our ears instead of closing them.

Only a small part of the mentioned, Finnish mythology is dealing with Alt-lant-is. Still it contains a material far more exstensive than Platon about this matter.
And most importantly does it deal with this mythological time with historical terms.

If one follow the historical source-material, such as the Dutch Oera Linda Boek and the collected work of Olof Rudbeck (one of Swedens biggest scientists ever), we find obvious verifications of the outline given in the Finnish Saga. Rudbeck included all collected works of the Norse mythology, as well as evrything exisitng at that time from the Greek-Roman mythologies, before he completed his "Atlantika".

It is obviously a bit "odd" or "out there" to claim that the legendary Atlantis actually happened? Even worse if one start talking about Scandinavia, of course. We already have heard the conventional historian laugh about it. In arrogance. At the back side of ignorance.

Thats why we have to take the Bocksaga seriously, since it is so extra-orinary in its nature; as an oral tradition that have been exisitng - in both Finish and Swedish languages - for many thousands of years. Containing genuine information about both Eurasian as World history. To disaprove it would be like joining the "professionals" disaproving the whole concpt of Atantis, argueing that Platon is not a reliable, authentic source of information.

One of Swedens biggest jokes ever.
What he did concerning Atlantis ( Atlantika )was not even near "science".

Btw, I´m from Sweden.

And from where is the impression esteeming that he was a "joker", - if not from the mere fact that he took the legend of Atlantis to be historically, and not only a fairy-tale or a flip-out from Greece.

And what about Plato himself, - do YOU consider him to bear any adequacy at all?!

Please don`t include the wello known stigmatization of the old "alternative thinkers" in our "modern" acceptance of "alternative" theories and concepts.
If we cant see the threes, we cant understand the forests. If you cant see nothing but threes you will never see the forrest either...

Believe me, it wasn´t for Atlantika.

He did som great discoveries, but what he did concerning Atlantis wasn´t very scientific at all.

He wanted to create a great and ancient history for Sweden at a time when Sweden was a great power. Most other great powers at that time had a very ancient history, but Sweden didn´t. This was before Scandinavia became known as the land of the Vikings.

Olof Rudbeck didn´t follow Plato's descriptions.

Boreas: And what about Plato himself, - do YOU consider him to bear any adequacy at all?!

I don´t think Plato's story of Atlantis is fiction, because the location and the descriptions given corresponds to reality extremely well.

Critias: Critias: Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is certainly true, having been attested by Solon, who was the wisest of the seven sages.

Socrates: Very good. And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?

Socrates: And what other, Critias, can we find that will be better than this, which is natural and suitable to the festival of the goddess, and has the very great advantage of being a fact and not a fiction?

Regards, Jonas

This is simply the old, main-line argument that 20th century scholars have been using to describe, explain AND deprive Rudbecks works on Atlantis. Remember that the basis for this explanation was the "obvious" assumption - among conventional historians of the 19th and 20th century; that the "mysterious Atlantis" was a mere fiction.

It is not. You need to follow Plato's descriptions if you want to find any truth in Plato's Atlantis. Rudbeck didn´t follow the most important descriptions ( warm climate, location etc ). It is impossible to place Plato's Atlantis in Scandinavia, because the descriptions given do not correspond to this area at all. Not now, and not 10 000 years ago.

quote:

---

First; If Hel-io-pol-is is native egyptian, why couldn`t At-lant-is be?

---

Heliopolis is not native Egyptian, its Greek. Heliopolis is a compound word derived from its two constituent root words Helios (sun) & polis (city). The native Egyptian name for the city was An (pronounced On).

Atlantis is also a Greek word, not native Egyptian. There never was a city named Atlantis; it is the metaphorical name that Solon created for the real name of the city. Atlantis is comprised of the root word "tlao" (to endure, to bear, or to bear up) and the ancient suffix "tis" (of).

In order for you to show relevance between "Alt-land-is" & Atlantis, you would first have to establish that the meanings of their names transcends the language barrier. In other words "Alt-land-is" would have to mean the same thing in the Scandinavian languages that Atlantis meant to the Greeks. Both yourself & Rudbeck have failed to prove that connection.
Therefore, if "Alt-land-is" is to have any further relevance to Atlantis, then it must be through the Scandinavians having heard the story from the Greeks, either directly or indirectly, due to the fact that the word Atlantis is a word that was created entirely by a Greek (Solon).

Warm Regards,

Erick

FENNO-EGYPTIAN
Passing his academical zenit he felt to give the issue a proper investigation, which he realy did. Over and over again he ducked into all the different connotations of the two older egyptian languages that is known - comparing word by word, intent by expression, expression by intent, singularity by connotation, etc.etc.

In the end he came out with a clear and unavoidable conclusion; the paralells and similarities between Old Egyptian and Classic Fenno-Ugrian are so close that there is no doubt that the have a common source.

Interpretating the results his conclusion became clear and firm; "The Finnish language originated in Egypt"!

Sensational! Nobody have been finding that connection before.
And naturally was the direction of the culturla impact given. At that time nobody knew that the Finnish population, language and culture have roots more than 40.000 years old. With anchestors about 450.000 years old...

SOURCES...
In 1950-ties nobody would suspect anymore that the cultural sign and traces Rubeck pieced together realy had some validity.
At that time nobody had any clue to the existence of the hidden mythology of Väinömöinen, and the secrets of the old noble-family of Bockström of Strömsö, in Southern Finland.

At that time nobody could even start to think that, yes - Finnish and Egyptian have the same root. So of course nobody ewen asked if it could be the other way around, tht Egyptian derived from Finnish. but they are both branches from the same language, and Finnish arose first time in the Finish Guld during ice-time...

So actually we may agree with the professor, up to 99,9 %. With the small difference that it was the Finns that migrated, not vice verca.

AGE
According to the genetic studies of the European genome the oldest population is to be found in Scandinavia, where the "hunter-gatherers" from 40.000 years back still roam the deep woodlands, fjords and valleys.

But what about their language?
Is there any logic reason to believe that both Fenno-Ugric, Fenno-Swedish and Scandinavian are any younger? To create the magnitudes of subtleties that we find in the most poetic on the planet takes more than a handful generations.

Thanks to the remote localisation in the cold north the Finns have been able to keep their language, outside the larger events of the marching armies, migrations and catastrophes that uproted and changed the Egyptian cultures more than once.

HEL
in its root does mean "Whole".
Hel-i-o means "universal oneness"
Pol-Is means Pole-Ice, or Pole`s, like in flag-pole. Thus polis get to be a "stad"
or "city" - and Helio to be associated with the Sun, to become a word for the Sun. In a society of "sun-wor-shipers" - rigth?!

I just try to pass the message that the mere word; Alt-land-is actually have a clear, specific and completly semantic MEANING. In Fenno-Swedish as in ALL other Scandinavian tongues. Alt-lanT-is being the exact same word. Now, miss the l, like many an arab or even a greek may tend to, and you have the magic word.

PLACE IN TIME
The WHOLE Finnish story ABOUT Alt-land-is refers to a period of time, not one place.
Only during the last decades have modern geology been able to describe a picture and a time-frame of ice-time in Eurasia. As you know the ice-cap where enormous, actually covering "ALL LAND" with "ICE". Ergo do we have a logical, semantical explanation, explained and verified by modern geology.

So may it not be - at all possible - that the people arrriving to Crete/Egypt/etc. actually spoke of themselves, - in an other tongue than Greek or Egyptian? What does Greek or Egyptian grammar and semantics have to do with proving or disproving the basic meaning of the NAME? Is the egyptian root of tlao + tis (meaning up-lifted?) more adequatly explaining the ORIGIN of the word Atlantis, than does All-land-ice?!

May it be that the cities of Hel-i-o-pol-is bear a deeper reference in its different basic parts (here refered)? May it happen that words ending with pol-is are given a meaning before they arrive in Egypt, where it gets a certain association and meaning according to it appearance, namely as "city" or "stad". And Agro-polis? Per-Se-Pol-Is? Also Egyptian?!

SEMANTICS
All these names can be understood much more clearly, - if one are able to cross-check with a different source of mythological information, dealing with the exact same time, issue and incidents. Thus I may truly recomend a look at the ancient sound-system of the pre-borelian culture, found at www.bocksaga.com or .de under the paragraph; "Alphabeth".

Now you may tell me you know all about it, that it orininates in Greece, gthat its name consist of two syllables meaning the first and last,etc.,etc. But it is simply not that simple. The Greeks did NOT originate the alphabeth. Nor did the Minoans. Or the Ugarit-Semitic, Kaldean or Assyrian, Hettites or Schytian. It all came about because of the boat-people you refer to as the "Atlanteans".

Landing on Crete 9.500+ years ago, where they established the reunified culture of the Mediterranean Ocean and the Baltic Ocean, from where the ASER in HEL (today called Hel-sing-ki) found the Me-Ri-Di-An crossing the North Pole, The Seven "Sun-Islands", Crete and Hawahi. So from As-Hel to Hel-As did the meridian work as a connection - via the Sea of As-hov - between the artic center and its tropical encounter.

Remember that THEY told the Egyptian and the Greek about their past and from where they came. To explain their explanation by using todays understanding of that time`s Egyptian and Greek semantics - is quite far out on a limb. (What language did the "Atlanteans" speak?)

Up until now those kind of limbs have been neccesary to go out on. But not anymore.
Please check how the old saga goes into detail on chronology, explaining how ALL the "lands" in the world once where under the ice-cap, whereas all the other countries do not have the expression "land" at the end of their name.

NAMES FROM ICE-TIME
//According to the names of the countries in todays world we should be able to define which ones that HAVE BEEN covered with ice. As you know; ice-time ceased to exist 10.000 years ago. Thus it should be simple, only to check on the maximum extension of the global ice-sheet. That may have occured even some 200.000 years ago or more.
Question is; do you find a country named "land" that was NOT under the ice? (Exept from the colonists name on old Siam).
And, do you find any country on the globe that have a classical name WITHOUT the expression "land" ("mark") - that where actually under ice?!

One may start in Leif Erikssons Vinland, today called Virginia after the english colonists. After a while you may figure that even the roman name of Belgium actually consists of Veland, Valland and Zeeland as France still is Bretland and Frankland, and further it is Saxland, Polland, Rosland,etc. As you enter the ice-free zone you find the old meeting-points of arctic and tropic culture, called cities (place of a) or "Stan" in the Fe-Sw root-language. Now you may find this cities as a name of their districts, such as Kosakk-stan, Kar-gi-si-stan, Us-bekk-i-stan Turk-menn-i-stan, not to mention I-stan-bull. //

If Platos story is the ONLY three in the woods, there is not much of a forrest left, rigth? Thus I am trying to point to other remains and sources telling about the richness and growth created by the ones Plato tell about. Calling them "Atlanteans" or "Altlandeans" doesnt change any thing. We are still talking about the cultural impact created by the sailing boatmen that appeared in the Mediterranean after the cataclysms that ended ice-time, 10.020 years ago. What we all look for is the REALITY of the legend - so we better be wiiling to learn as few new things form time to time.

Ora et Labora,

Regards, Jonas"

Question;
Couldn`t the Bay of Biscay - or even Bretagne - be aplicable to the CLIMATE Platon describes?
The significance of this unanswered question should be quite obvious today.
About ten years ago Danish climatologists
conclusivly described how the Nordic countries once enjoyed a much warmer climate, 8.000 - 2.500 years ago. During this period the days of the year where about 2,8 Celsius WARMER than today, which means that the Nordic contries during this "climatical optimum" enjoyed a climate as we today find in Biscay and southern France.

Modern DNA analysis of goats shows that there was one "mother goat" which was domesticated around 8000 BC.

The origin of this neolithic movement is portrayed in Greek myth in the form of the Prometheus and his Titans who lived in Eastern Turkey. (Prometheus was eventually chained to a mountain in the Caucassus region of Turkey.)

Scientists have found some primitive boating artifacts near France, dating around 5000 BC. But there is no evidence that boating people spread over Europe around 9000-6500 BC.

As you may know the northern part of Europe, Asia and America was basicly covered with ice until 40-20.000 years ago, when the ice-cap started to melt and move in a substantial quantities, resulting in the opening of the southern part of Northern Eurasia. 12-10.000 years ago we had the final "deluge" as the massive ice-sheets of Scandinavia and Northern America slided into the oceans, causing a significant and quick rise of the Ocan-level world-wide.

During this melting process we had small groups of from tropical populations comming north of the Alps and the Pyrenees where they met a tundra-like landscape as they reaced todays France, Germany, Hungary and Transylvania. Thus we find groups from the 700.000 years old iberian people, the Cro-Magnons, in France - as of 40.000 years ago. Paralell we find an eastern branch - called NeAnderTal arriving via the Balkans to Germany and Transylvania.

When it comes to the earliest emigrants/discoverers of these two branches we sure find them in caves. - as they encountered the steps of the pre-boreal (arctical) Eurasia. But that does NOT include that the cores of these civilisations - living in the southern areas - did not lead "civilized" lives. Or do you still think that a 700.000 years old civilisation - of linguistical, cultured people - never found out how to make a hut?!

Nor do it explain the background of the Arctic (Caucasian) lineage, that later came out of the ice, as the Baltic waters got ice-free also TO THE SOUTH. From what we DO know, this branch of people existed inside the Baltics 450.000 years ago - and ALL the way until the end of ice-time.

We also know that the arctical population, during this time, used both boats/canos as well as skis and dog-sledges. The population inhabitting the White Sea 40.000 years ago could never have reached Pechora without boats. And how did they populate The Orkney Islands and The Feroe Island already 7.000 + years ago?!

In Carelia they have found a brilliantly shaped ski from a dog-sledge, more than 10.000 year old. This and many,many other discoveries - both artical and tropical - are pointing towards a much higher culture of our pastthan normally conceived. Just ask the highly scientifical Michael Cremo.

The Vainamoinen legends were collected between 1828-1835, according to the Larouse Encyclopedia of Mythology.

The Bok Saga seems to be tracing an ancestry of Homo Erectus during the period 700,000-40,000 BC. (But DNA analysis should tie all modern Finno-Ugric people to the mainstream of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.)

Thus we may talk about that mythology - and its presently disclosed saga - as nothing less than "The Mother of All Mythologies". This far it certainly looks like that. Please do not get stuck with the age of its litteralisation - since that significance is merely academical.

Concerning the stages of human evolution - as we know it from the natural sciences - we still do not have anything like a clear and complete picture. Don`t forget that Evolutionary Bilogy is a VERY young science, with a relatively scarce material of skulls and bones to act on. Luckily we have seen a gat improvement in this field over the last 30 years - but it is obviously still a long way to go - before the basic questions is answered.

So we can not exclude that todays Homo S. Sapiens is the cross-breeded result of the meeting between arctical and tropical populations - after ice-age. We do know that the "Caucasian" etnisity derived from the arctical hemisphere. All other etnic groups existing today may be the result of regional diversities from a pre-ice-age-man, possibly with a sligth in-mix with the articals occuring after ice-age.

But then there is some pivotal questions concerning the length of ice-time. Was it 2 millions years - or 65 million years? Or inbetween?

Meanwhile we may keep investigating the cultural traces that keep occuring. Here is another one - highly significant to evryone that still realy want to discuss ATLANTIS;
http://home.earthlink.net/~zenrad/FGKedition1.htm