The topic of orichalcum, and its exact nature and composition, has been discussed fairly in-depth in the thread entitled "Orichalcum". The following link will take you to the first page of that thread.

http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000454.html

Respectfully,

Erick

I really don't care to give out my personal e-mail address in the forum. In fact, I don't really care to give it to you at all, in this forum or otherwise. No offense is intended by this. You just don't seem to understand that you have not offered one single line of text in this thread that even had a 'hint' of being scientific or factual; what, then, do you think that you could show me that I might be even remotely interested in seeing? Pictures of Knossos? I've already seen enough of those to last me a lifetime. No thanks.

Akata, I do not say these things to be hurtful to you, but rather so that you might understand that if it does not originate in the physical world, then I do not have any interest in it; a point, I might add, that you do not seem to have gotten thus far.

Knossos, as Atlantis, is a theory I am all too familiar with, and one that I am in complete disagreement with. Therefore, photos of Knossos would be of no interest to me.

Respectfully,

Erick

The Atlanteans could have used some form of "legal tender" when making payments. (Barter was always a depressing form of exchange. The economy of Greece advanced magnifiently as soon as Greece started to use "coins".)

If orichalc was regarded as "legal tender", then that would explain Plato's comment that orichalc was more valuable than anything except gold.

2) A discussion of "surface depletion" for tumbaga was left incomplete at the end of your orichalc forum. There is reason to suspect that "ori-" should be translated as a prefix meaning "transparent", based on analogy to Greek "orao-/oreo-". Here is a link which raises the issue of "(orao-)transparent copper": www.geocities.com/acgyles/myth.html
However the above link does not mention either surface-depletion or tumbaga.

You're welcome. That thread has never really been 'closed', per se; there just has not been any activity in it for quite some time. Apparently, most of us that had contributed to it felt that there really wasn't a whole lot more to cover in regards to the metal called 'orichalcum'.

350-400 Years after Plato, copper and/or bronze (chalcos) were, indeed, used as forms of currency, as was silver (arguros). That the 'Atlanteans' used "chalcos" as a form of currency seems doubtful to me, although it certainly is in the realm of possibility. It is more likely, however, (in my opinion) that they used their "orichalcum" as barter in exchange for other goods or services.

In regards to the word "orichalcum", it should be remembered that this form (spelling) of the word is the Latin form. In English, in transliteration from the Greek, the word would be rendered as "oreichalcos". This compound word is formed from the two words "orei" (from "oreias", the plural-possessive form of "oros" - meaning "of or belonging to mountains") and "chalcos" (meaning "copper"). This would have the Greek word "oreichalcos" rendered, in English, as meaning "copper that is of or belonging to mountains". This has been quite extensively covered - by Georgeos, myself, and others - in the thread entitled "Orichalcum", the link for which I provided in my last post to you.

Your rendering of "ori" as based upon the analogy to the Greek word "orao/oreo" is erroneous for two reasons. First, it is based upon the incorrect root (orao/oreo rather than orei). Second, your interpretation of the word "orao/oreo" is also incorrect. The word "orao/oreo" actually means "to see" or "to appear". Therefore, if your rendering had been correct, it would have had "orichalcos" meaning "appearing as copper" or "looking like copper". But again, your root was incorrect.

Regarding "tumbaga", or "red gold", I believe that the topic was covered in the thread "Orichalcum", but just under a different name. I could be wrong, though, because it has been an awfully long time since I have visited that thread, so don't quote me on that.

Regarding the value of "orichalcum", it should be remembered that, in the Bronze Age, copper was used both by itself (for tools like chisels - such as in Egypt) and as a necessary ingredient of bronze (when mixed with tin), which was highly valued for its use in weapons production all over the Mediterranean. Its value would have, therefore, been "right up there" with gold and silver. Where rarity is what primarily drives the value of metals nowadays, necessity may well have determined the value during the Bronze Age.

Respectfully,

Erick

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

Assuming they participated in the attacks on Egypt by the Sea Peoples: King Meryey (who coordinated 9000 of his own men to invade Egypt unsuccessfully in the reign of Mernepthah) left behind the Mauritanians as his modern descendents.

Georgeos seems to think that 2 Atlantean tribes were in Spain, and one tribe was in Portugal.

No, I don't think I can honestly say that I know, with absolute certainty, who the ten tribes were. I have some good educated guesses as to who they might have been, but that is about all I can really, honestly, claim to have.

The term "Libyans" is rather a generic one, as it does not specifically identify any one tribe, or race (for that matter), of people. The Egyptian name "Libu" seems to have been their generic equivalent for our "Libyans" which they used to identify the Tehenu, Temehu, and certain other smaller subsidiary tribes. These tribes existed to the immediate west of Egypt over to the area of Cyrenaica, and possibly a little beyond. We know this because the ancient Egyptian records show that the 'Libyans' often worked as 'porters' for the Egyptians (when they weren't harassing and invading Egypt). Meryawy would have been from one of these tribes (Temehu or Tehenu).

When Meryawy attacked Egypt in 1209 BC, he did so with the aid of contingents of foreign mercenaries. The Karnak Inscription recorded five specific groups of these mercenaries. They were:

1. The Akauasha ('-k-w-s') - also referred to as the Ekwesh. They are generally linked to the Homeric Achaeans, however, I don't necessarily agree with that identification.

2. The Tuaruasha (Tw-rw-s'/Tw-ry-s') - also referred to as the Tursha. They are generally linked to the Trojans; again, I'm not sure that I really agree with that identification.

3. The Ruakua or Luakua (Rw-kw or Lw-kw) - also referred to as the Lukka. They are generally linked to the Lycians of southwest Anatolia.

4. The Shardana or Sherdenu or Shardina (S'-r'd-n) - also referred to as the Sherden. They are generally linked to settlers from Sardis in western Anatolia who moved to the area of Akko, north of Mount Carmel, and eventually to Sardinia, in Italy. There is mounting evidence, however, to overturn that belief and identify them, instead, as native Sardinians.

5. The Shara-ruasha (s'-r'-rw-s') - also referred to as the Sheklesh. They are generally thought to have later migrated to Sicily, but their exact origin is unknown.

Meryawy was, of course defeated by Merenptah in what can only be described as a 'slaughter', since the Egyptians recorded that about 9,400 of Meryawy's army was killed in only six hours of fighting.

The Tehenu and Temehu tried again in the fifth year of the reign of Ramesses III, and they were reinforced by kindred tribes from farther west; namely, the M'shauasha, also known today as the Meshwesh, and by the abbreviated name given to them by the Egyptians - the 'Ma'. How much farther west of Cyrenaica they came from is a matter of speculation. Although I would like to place them as far west as Morocco, near the Pillars of Hercules, I'm not really sure that is altogether realistic; modern day Libya, Algeria, or Tunisia is probably more accurate.

The Libyan tribes were, again, severely defeated, after which the M'shauasha fell upon their brethren, the Temehu and Tehenu, and utterly devastated them. The record of this event is found at Medinet Habu, and is supplemented by a poem of victory on the front of a pylon and by a passage in the Harris Papyrus. The record says:

quote:

---

As for the Meshwesh, not before known, he came together, his land with him, and fell upon the Tehenu, who were made ashes and their cities spoiled and desolated. Their seed is not, by the excellent commands of this god to slay the invader of Egypt. "We will settle in Egypt"--so spake they with one accord, and they continually entered the boundaries of Egypt.

---

So one thing is clear; namely, that the M'shauasha came from a territory that was sufficiently west of Egypt, that the Egyptians had never heard of them.

The five tribes of mercenaries, used by Meryawy in the first invasionary attempt, were not recorded in this second invasionary attempt; so whether they were part of it, or not, is not really known. I suspect that if they had been present, it probably would have been recorded by the Egyptians.

Afterwards the M'shauasha became the dominant tribe amongst the invaders and thereafter led all of the attempts to push into the Delta.

So, to respond to your post (which I got a bit off track of), I would have to say that the "Libyans", that is to say the Berber-speaking peoples of North Africa, were almost definitely one of the 10 tribes of 'Atlantis'. Whether they actually constituted 5 of the tribes, as Borchart suggests, is probably a matter of debate.

Regarding Georgeos' assertion that 2 of the 'Atlantean' tribes were from Spain and one was from Portugal - I'm not sure what he bases this upon so I can't really respond to that. It is known, however, that Berber-speaking peoples did live on both sides of the Pillars of Hercules, and there is sufficient evidence to show contact and trade between their populations. This is a quote from "The Berbers" (Blackwell Publishers, 2000), written by Michael Brett and Elizabeth Fentress, ISBN 0-631-20767-8:

quote:

---

"From the fourth millennium onwards one can begin to see contacts with the Mediterranean islands and with the Iberian peninsula: obsidian from Lipari appears in northern Tunisia, while shell-decorated pottery and, at the beginning of the bronze age, bell beakers similar to Iberian types are found in northern Morocco. In the high Atlas numerous engravings of Iberian daggers and halberds attest that contacts continued throughout the bronze age. There is no evidence for major migration from these areas, but again the continuous arrival of small groups is probable. Dolmens in northern Tunisia and eastern Algeria recall Maltese prototypes, while late bronze age chamber tombs on Cap Bon have clearly Sicilian origins."

---

Another quote of interest, would be this one from a paper entitled "The Sea Peoples in Sicily, Sardinia, and Etruria: A Reexamination of the Archaeological and Textual Evidence in Light of Recent Research". It states:

quote:

---

"The Shardana, Shekelesh, and Teresh, some of the tribes of "Sea Peoples" known from their raids on Egypt during the reigns of Merneptah (1212-1202 BC) and Ramesses III (1182-1151 BC), have been associated with the Tyrhennian regions of Sardinia, Sicily, and Etruria. Originally, these connections were based primarily on etymological and philological reasoning, but there is now significant archaeological evidence of links between the western and eastern Mediterranean beginning with the Late Bronze Age."
"In this paper I will show that not only is there significant archaeological evidence from the Late Bronze Age for eastern Mediterranean contact with several (underlined) centers in the west, but that communication continued even after the period of destruction that is so evident in mainland Greece, Anatolia and the Levant."

"I suggest that some of the Tyrhennian regions do in fact owe their names to the Sea Peoples, but only in the context of Phoenician prospection, mercantilism and ultimately colonization which maintained this contact between east and west."

---

If you really want to get a background into my assertions that the 'Atlantis' story is, in actuality, the story of the 'Invasions of the Libyans & Sea Peoples', then you should visit the thread entitled "Was Atlantis a Phoenician City?". I give a very detailed description of the events of that period, as well as a background into why Solon would have been in Egypt to have been told the story in the first place. I just brought it back up to the forefront for discussion last night. It has been inactive for about 6 months or so. I got up to the 3rd invasionary attempt and stopped for some reason; I think because I had a real long posting written and accidentally erased it and got 'peeved' over the whole thing. Anyway, your participation in that thread would be welcome, but I would suggest you read through the 75 or so posts that are already there, so you have a familiarity with what has already been discussed.

Hope to see you there, as well as here.

Respectfully,

Erick

1. Those tribal forces attacked Nile Delta and not Greece.

2. Egyptians seem to have kept good records of the names of those tribes, but with reference to Atlantis neither the Egyptian priest could anywhere reproduce those names or Solon/Plato could record it.

3. The names recorded by Plato are rather difficult to find any resemblance with the names of Bronze Age Libyan Tribes. Even if they are translations from Egyptian to Greek, at least Coptic/some similar sect or ancient continuous cultured people like Jews should be able to distinguish and distinctly correlate them.

Obviously, Plato may be describing an AnteJewish hazy part of the history that conventional science may be finding itself unable to probe and unconventional science may not be able to provide any concrete evidence right now. That may be the dilemma.

4. According to the scientific history, Alexander is the first European king who witnessed the trained elephants fighting in the battlefield. I think Hannibal repeated the feat. However the Libyan Tribal mercenary attack on Nile delta does not seem to invoke any memories of the invasion accompanied with trained Elephant Warriors. Plato said and meant about a consistent and not casual domestication of elephants in Atlantis. Obviously those domesticated elephants may not be only for the purposes of log lifting or pyramid stone shifting. War purposes may also need to be contemplated.

5. One more puzzle, if I am not forgetting it being already displayed on some thread, then what was the mode of Atlantean destruction in case the Libyan or the Sea People invasion is the proclaimed Atlantean invasion.

6. BTW if AmPheres means ‘Being present on both sides’, then there may be much more than the normal chances that “Ampheres” may really mean to be ‘RAmPharasu’. This because the Pharasu or Pharsi people were present on both eastern and western flanks of Atlantis. On the western Iranian flank, they were called Pharsi or SUMERU people and on the eastern Cambodian flank they were called KHMERU people.

The name "Meshwesh" is what I would refer to as the 'Anglocized' version of the actual name given to them by the Egyptians - the "M'shauasha". As I stated in the thread "Was Atlantis a Phoenician City?", the name "M'shauasha", when examined hieroglyphically, is found to be composed of the hieroglyphic symbols that, collectively, had the meaning of "from distant lands [came] an inundation of 10,000 men". This is because the name "M'shauasha", in the hieroglyphic record, is always found to have been recorded with the determinative "tcheba-sa" (10,000 men) accompanying it. In ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic, it would have always read as "M'shauasha tcheba-sa". The ancient Egyptians later on shortened the name to the "Ma", or "(M')", which means "of" or "from". Therefore, I don't know that the "Arabic word root m-sh-a" would have any philological association. It is something that I should probably check out, though.

Respectfully,

Erick

Translating Plato's "names" for the kings of Atlantis is indeed a complicated task. Borchardt did a pretty good job, from the standpoint of Berber root words; and Georgeos is doing a pretty good job, from the standpoint of classical Greek/Roman root words (= indo-European roots).

In my opinion, Atlantis extended both North and South of the straits of Gibralter. (And probably BOTH East and West of the straits.)

I will supply clickable links at the end of this post, which I regard as "good" explanations in their respective fields of expertise.

But first, I want to point out why I favor the "Berber" explanation somewhat.

Plato said that the region of Atlantis originally belonged to Evenor, before Poseidon arrived and took possession of the region. This type of argument implies that Evenor should be regarded as a "Berber", because Poseidon (i.e. the latecomer) was a Greek god. And Borchart did, indeed, locate a Berber-root name for Evenor (= "Uinor", the primal ancestor of all Berber people).

Tradition has claimed that the port of Menestheo (modern Porto Sancto Maria, in Spain) was settled around 1194 BC, by a man from Athens whom Ptolemy called Menestheo; and this took place either during, or shortly after the Trojan War. (Plato garbled this name only slightly, to form the Atlantean king-name Mneseus).

Plato's place name Gadeira is equivalent to the modern (and Roman) name Cadiz/(Gades).

Plato also names one of the "5 pairs" of kings of Atlantis to match Roman "Olisspo", which is the modern city of Lisbon, Portugal.

Now I want to highlight some "Berber" associations (near Gibralter) within Plato's listing of Atlantean kings and personages.

Plato's name Evenor matches the Berber name "Uinor", who was the primal ancestor of all Berbers.

Plato's "Euaimon" matches the Berber word "imanen" which is a plural noun meaning "kings, rulers".

The Greek name of (Euaimon's twin) Ampheres appears to represent a Berber tribe which was mentioned by Ptolemy. The berber word "am" means in English "people"; and Ptolemy mentioned a Berber tribe named Pharusioi. Supposedly, there is a modern Berber tribe named Iphores.

Here are my clickable links.

First I will list a discussion by Georgeos: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/epigraphy/message/11020

And for a discussion involving Berbers (i.e. Borchart) here is a link: www.metrum.org/mapping/atlantis.htm

Its possible to get some background info about those Tuaruasha by investigating the sons of Heracles 1. "Tyrsenus", son of Heracles 1, was born in Lydia (Asia Minor) and migrated to Tyrrhenia Italy, thus giving that region its name.

It seems clear enough that both "Tuaruasha" and "Tyrsenus" migrated to the same region and stayed there.

referring to the great flood which may or may not have led to the demise of atlantis,
where did all this water come from? if from
the glaciers, where did it go? assume some type of calamity like asteriod to cause huge
tidal wave(S), but 40 days to recede?
and a comment to add:
i assume that in your thorough investigation
you have not ruled out the possible existence of evidence not yet found in the area of deep-sea exploration - i just keep thinking "as above, so below".
i look forward to your response(s), jameske,
oscar, others included.

------------------
osmosis amoeba means goodbye

You asked about the source of water which may have inundated Atlantis. One of the better candidates is the fault system which runs between the tectonic plates of Europe and Africa. When these faults slip, they tend to cause earthquakes in North Africa, consequently they send tsunami waves crashing into the shores of sourthern Europe.

It seems that moderate size tsunami's are generated from this fault system about once every 20 years. But occasionally there should be a really big one.

Deep sea exploration may soon reveal one site of Atlantis off Cuba (See following). However, many other undeveloped sites reamin on land in costa Rica and Belize (see my book Atlantis In America)...

In Cuban Depths, Atlantis or Anomaly?
Images of Massive Stones 2,000 Feet Below Surface Fuel Scientific Speculation

Kevin Sullivan Washington Post Foreign Service

October 10, 2002; Page A25 HAVANA -- The images appear slowly on the video screen, like ghosts from the ocean floor. The videotape, made by an unmanned submarine, shows massive stones in oddly symmetrical square and pyramid shapes in the deep-sea darkness. Sonar images taken from a research ship 2,000 feet above are even more puzzling. They show that the smooth, white stones are laid out in a geometric pattern. The images look like fragments of a city, in a place where nothing man-made should exist, spanning nearly eight square miles of a deep-ocean plain off Cuba's western tip.

"What we have here is a mystery," said Paul Weinzweig, of Advanced Digital Communications (ADC), a Canadian company that is mapping the ocean bottom of Cuba's territorial waters under contract with the government of President Fidel Castro.

"Nature couldn't have built anything so symmetrical," Weinzweig said, running his finger over sonar printouts aboard his ship, tied up at a wharf in Havana harbor. "This isn't natural, but we don't know what it is."

The company's main mission is to hunt for shipwrecks filled with gold and jewels, and to locate potentially lucrative oil and natural gas reserves in deep water that Cuba does not have the means to explore.

Treasure hunting has become a growth industry in recent years as technology has improved, allowing more precise exploration and easier recovery from deeper ocean sites. Advanced Digital operates from the Ulises, a 260-foot trawler that was converted to a research vessel for Castro's government by the late French oceanographer Jacques Cousteau.

Since they began exploration three years ago with sophisticated side-scan sonar and computerized global-positioning equipment, Weinzweig said they have mapped several large oil and gas deposits and about 20 shipwrecks sitting beneath ancient shipping lanes where hundreds of old wrecks are believed to be resting. The most historically important so far has been the USS Maine, which exploded and sank in Havana harbor in 1898, an event that ignited the Spanish-American War.

In 1912, the ship was raised from the harbor floor by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and towed out into deeper water four miles from the Cuban shore, where it was scuttled. Strong currents carried the Maine away from the site, and its precise location remained unknown until Ulises's sonar spotted it two years ago.

Then, by sheer serendipity, on a summer day in 2000, as the Ulises was towing its sonar back and forth across the ocean like someone mowing a lawn, the unexpected rock formations appeared on the sonar readouts. That startled Weinzweig and his partner and wife, Paulina Zelitsky, a Russian-born engineer who has designed submarine bases for the Soviet military.

"We have looked at enormous amounts of ocean bottom, and we have never seen anything like this," Weinzweig said.

The discovery immediately sparked speculation about Atlantis, the fabled lost city first described by Plato in 360 B.C.. Weinzweig and Zelitsky were careful not to use the A word and said that much more study was needed before such a conclusion could be reached.

But that has not stopped a boomlet of speculation, most of it on the Internet. Atlantis-hunters have long argued their competing theories that the lost city was off Cuba, off the Greek island of Crete, off Gibraltar or elsewhere. Several Web sites have touted the ADC images as a possible first sighting.

Among those who suspect the site may be Atlantis is George Erikson, a California anthropologist who co-authored a book in which he predicted that the lost city would be found offshore in the tropical Americas.

"I have always disagreed with all the archaeologists who dismiss myth," said Erikson, who said he had been shunned by many scientists since publishing his book about Atlantis. He said the story has too many historical roots to be dismissed as sheer fantasy and that if the Cuban site proves to be Atlantis, he hopes "to be the first to say, 'I told you so.' "

Manuel Iturralde, one of Cuba's leading geologists, said it was too soon to know what the images prove. He has examined the evidence and concluded that, "It's strange, it's weird; we've never seen something like this before, and we don't have an explanation for it."

Iturralde said volcanic rocks recovered at the site strongly suggest that the undersea plain was once above water, despite its extreme depth. He said the existence of those rocks was difficult to explain, especially because there are no volcanoes in Cuba.

He also said that if the symmetrical stones are determined to be the ruins of buildings, it could have taken 50,000 years or more for tectonic shifting to carry them so deep into the ocean. The ancient Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt is only about 5,000 years old, which means the Cuba site "wouldn't fit with what we know about human architectural evolution," he said.

"It's an amazing question that we would like to solve," he said.

But Iturralde stressed that the evidence is inconclusive. He said that no first-hand exploration in a mini-submarine had been conducted, which would provide a much more comprehensive assessment. He said a remote-operated video camera provides only a limited perspective, like someone looking at a close-up image of an elephant's toe and trying to describe the whole animal.

The National Geographic Society has expressed interest and is considering an expedition in manned submarines next summer, according to Sylvia Earl, a famed American oceanographer and explorer-in-residence at the society.

"It's intriguing," Earl said in an interview from her Oakland, Calif., home. "It is so compelling that I think we need to go check it out."

Earl said a planned expedition this past summer was canceled because of funding problems. But she said National Geographic hopes to explore the site next summer as part of its Sustainable Seas research program.

Earl has visited Cuba and described the preliminary evidence as "fantastic" and "extraordinary." But she stressed that as a "skeptical scientist," she would assume that the unusual stones were formed naturally until scientific evidence proved otherwise.

"There is so much speculation about ancient civilizations," she said. "I'm in tune with the reality and the science, not the myths or stories or fantasies."

As they search for answers, Weinzweig and Zelitsky have suddenly become involved in a new mystery -- the discovery of a potential blockbuster shipwreck. They said that on Aug. 15, their remotely operated vehicle came across what appears to be a 500-year-old Spanish galleon that they had been searching for.

They declined to name the ship, fearful of other treasure hunters, but they said it carried a priceless cargo of emeralds, diamonds and ancient artifacts. By contract, they said they can keep 40 percent of the value of whatever they recover. They said the value of findings at the newly discovered wreck could far exceed the nearly $4 million that their private backers have so far invested in their operations.

Weinzweig said a closer examination is needed to prove the ship's identity. He said that in treasure hunting, as in the search for Atlantis, there is no substitute for science.

"One thing is legend," he said, sitting on Ulises's bridge. "Another is the hard evidence you find on the ocean floor."

Contact: George Erikson, coauthor of Atlantis In America: Navigataors of the Ancient World
760 251-9342
Eriksongd@aol.com
www.AtlantisInAmerica.com

------------------
osmosis amoeba means goodbye

Herodotus was the first Greek writer who mentioned Atlantis, and he placed it in northwest Africa. Herodotus also declared (incorrectly) that Sardinia is the largest ISLAND in the world.

Here is a website which lists 26 issues where Sardinia matches various claims which Plato made about Atlantis: www.atlantisdiscovered.org/thesis.htm

Atlantis is only hard to find (in a general way) if you don't begin from the writings of Herodotus (who lived about 75 years earlier than Plato).

Herodotus stated that he knew how to reach the land of the Atlantes: the Egyptians had told Herodotus to travel westward from the Nile River, through the Sahara desert, past a series of four salt-mines. The fourth salt mine would be very close to the "Mountain of Atlas" which has sheer vertical sides and its top is covered by clouds. That mountain was reputedly sacred among the "Atlantes" people.

The Egyptians had also given this information to the Persians, who had conquored Egypt about 50 years before Herodotus visited Egypt. The Persians said that they wanted to see this sacred mountain, where the sun sets in the west. But the Persians only wanted to conquor the iron-Age Nok culture which, at 500 BC, was fluorishing in Africa, southeast of this mountain of Atlas. So neither the Persians, nor Herodotus, cared about the west coast of Africa. Herodotus admits, in his writings, that he does not have any information about the names of the tribes of the Atlantes.

Almost at the same time as Herodotus, the Carthaginian leader Hanno was commisioned (ca. 480 BC) to visit the iron-age Nok culture of Nigeria-- but to do so by sailing around the western coastland of Africa, rather than by hiking through the Sahara desert.

Plato had 3 items to work from: a) Herodotus's discussion of the Atlantes; b) Hanno's voyage for Carthage; and c) the story from Solon, dating around 580 BC.

These three data sources fit together pretty well, EXCEPT for chronology of "founding Athens" vs "founding Egypt".

Critias gets to be the scapegoat about this chronology, because he was very old when he relayed Solon's tale to Plato. Critias had changed "900 years ago" to "9000 years ago".

He probably felt obligated to make this redaction; because Herodotus's "Book 2, Installment 13" declares that Egypt had continuous records for the previous 11,340 years, involving 341 consecutive priests and kings.

So after the writings of Herodotus were circulating, it would have sounded silly to educated Athenians if Plato radically contested the notion that Egypt was roughly 10,000 years old.

Eric is probably right about the "9000 kinsmen" vs "9000 years". Solon probably said 900 years. But Plato resorted to obscure terminology, as a way to blend his 3 sets of source materials about Atlantis.

But to come to the topic question.
....Yes and No.

Also I want to say something about the "story of Atlanis". There is no such story!!
Instead it is the story of the story of the story of Atlantis: Plato tells that Critias said (to Socrates) that Critias (his grandfather) said to Critias that Solon said that the egyptian priest said to him(Solon) the mith of Atlantis.
Now if Plato ever wanted to make a historical document about Atlantis why didn't he simply write it? Or why he didn't even say that dialoques Timaeus and Critias are based on facts. Even conversation between Critias and Socrates is probably fictional not to mention meeting of Solon and Dropides. The fact is that maybe Critias and Socrates were friends and maybe they realy were talking about Solon's trip to Egypt and just maybe they mentioned story of Atlantis, but Plato wasn't standing there with them taking notes. Instead he wrote his dialoques with characters who just have the same names as the real persons.

And only small portions of these Plato's non-historic, non-documentary but PHILOSOPHICAL texts are the base for the search for the lost continent???

I think that you people should read The Republic for better understanding of his other work (including dialoques).

1. Where were they found ?
2. When were they found ?
3. Who found them ? (or have they been around since Plato's age?)
4. About those scripts that were found - were they original Plato's scripts or copies from later authors ?
5. If they were written/copied by later author what was his/her source (original Plato's script or even earlier copy)?
6. What language were they written in (if the oldest copy dates for example from age of Rome)? And how accurate is translation ?
7. Where are the scripts today ? (or copies of them)?
8. How about different versions (how many different copies) ?

This topic was discussed last year. Here is a link to the thread.

http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000428.html

As you can see, the trail back to Plato is rather convoluted and there are many pitfalls and blind alleys. This leaves plenty of room for speculation, which is probably why we have so many theories about this lost continent buried beneath the sands of time.

To the information contained in the link provided in Tom Hebert's post, I would also add the following quote from the thread entitled "Atlantis In A River Delta":

quote:

---

Ulf,
I'm not sure where Georgeos gets the impression that what survives to us today is only a "Middle Ages re-translation from the Latin translation of Plato's original Greek text", but I believe that to be inaccurate. Most of the manuscripts that have survived to us today have come from the Byzantine Period (330-1191 AD). When Justinian closed the Academy of Athens in 529 AD many of the scholars went to Alexandria and Constantinople, where Neo-Platonistic philosophy was allowed to flourish well into the eighth century AD - almost two centuries AFTER the invasion of the Arab Islamists. The Arab Ismlamists embraced Plato and the other ancient Greek philosophers and, so far as I know, kept those manuscripts safe. By the time that the Ottoman Turks invaded Constantinople (and renamed it Istanbul) in 1463 AD, Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499), a famous Renaissance philosopher, had already received the only known complete codex of Plato's works from his mentor, and father's employer, Cosimo de' Medici. This codex is believed to have been almost certainly the very copy that the Greek Emporer had brought to the Council of Florence in 1438. Marsilio Ficino was trained from an early age to read Greek, and it is from this complete Greek codex that his Latin translations were performed. I have not yet investigated the eventual fate of that complete codex that he came into possession of, but I may, someday, do just that. If Georgeos believes that he knows of some surviving, earlier, authentic, original manuscript, then I would be curious to know what he claims it is and where it originated (i.e. the author) (?). As to the accuracy of the Greek form that is printed in say, for instance, the Loeb Classical Series, I cannot say with any certainty. For my purposes, however, I believe it will suffice well enough to withstand academic scrutiny.

It should be noted, however, that Plato himself would not have bothered with issues that cannot be known, such as whether or not his texts have come down to us 'unadulterated'. His very own personal philosophy would have dictated to him that he should, instead, ask several pertinent questions - questions that require no immediate spoken response (i.e. open-ended or rhetorical) - and leave the matter open for individuals to think upon and decide for themselves. That, in my opinion, was the beauty of Platonic thought, specifically that the individual should be required to think and decide for one's self - no doubt the sum and total of his life experiences.

In my own personal opinion, the accuracy of every work that has survived to us today is in question due to the countless individuals involved and translations performed, but what can one do about it? The answer, of course, is nothing, so I don't dwell upon it.

As to the differing interpretations of Plato's material, I believe that they are exactly that - different interpretations.

Is Georgeos' Latin closer to Plato's original than the Greek that I have worked from? Possibly. To be honest, I don't really know for sure, nor do I think that claim can really be made by Georgeos (or anyone else for that matter). Is the difference between his Latin form and my Greek form SO great as to really make a difference?

You'll have to decide that for yourself.

---

Respectfully,

Quote from rajesh:
"Plato said and meant about a consistent and not casual domestication of elephants in Atlantis. Obviously those domesticated elephants may not be only for the purposes of log lifting or pyramid stone shifting."

This is speculation. Elephants are mentioned in only one place in Critias:
"Moreover, there were a great number of elephants in the island; for as there was provision for all other sorts of animals, both for those which live in lakes and marshes and rivers, and also for those which live in mountains and on plains, so there was for the animal which is the largest and most voracious of all."

There is no mention of domestication, or concrete examples of utilization of elephants.

Quote from rajesh:
"On the western Iranian flank, they were called Pharsi or SUMERU people..."

Can you back up this statement - that Persians and Sumerians are the same people - by any archeological evidence and/or scientific study.

Quote from oscar:
"So, how on Earth can we turn the blind eye on regarding the fact that name already existed in the form of ATL or ANTIS in America, just to say an example?"

There was a “mere speculation” that some planet outer than Saturn may exist, as Saturn may be having an additional unexplained gravitational pull on its rotational path. This speculation culminated into Uranus and such “mere speculations” continued till Neptune and Pluto were found and brought within the regime of conventional sciences. However I still do not believe that Speculation is the mother of inventions... In fact, what some people consider as "Speculation" may look like to be a "Paradox" to others.

Not so much of a fairy tale, but backed up with “Ancient Records”...

QUOTE>> Yet, before proceeding further in the narrative, I ought to warn you, that you must not be surprised if you should perhaps hear Hellenic names given to foreigners. I will tell you the reason of this: Solon, who was intending to use the tale for his poem, enquired into the meaning of the names, and found that the early Egyptians in writing them down had translated them into their own language, and he recovered the meaning of the several names and when copying them out again translated them into our language. (“) My great-grandfather, Dropides, had the original writing, which is still in my possession, and was carefully studied by me when I was a child (”). Therefore if you hear names such as are used in this country, you must not be surprised, for I have told how they came to be introduced. The tale, which was of great length, began as follows: << UNQUOTE

If some future Plato will be able to draw a few ethical or moral stories from the episodes of WW-2, will that act elevate the existence of WW-2 to a pure hypothetical level?

Elephants are forever...

QUOTE>> There was an abundance of wood for carpenter's work, and sufficient maintenance for tame and wild animals. Moreover, there were a great number of elephants in the island; for as there was provision for all other sorts of animals, both for those which live in lakes and marshes and rivers, and also for those which live in mountains and on plains, so there was for the animal which is the largest and most voracious of all. <<UNQUOTE

Plato mentions the presence of both Tame and Wild animals. Here he does not mentions the dogs, cats, oxen or parrots. He mentions horses too, albeit not here but at some other reference. Here he mentions only and only the abundant Elephants. Hence Platonian logic may pinpoint the Elephants to be the best possible candidate for being the wild as well as tamed animal. Otherwise also Elephants were trained and regimented, since antiquity to participate in human warfare in thousands of numbers. This had been a longtime tradition, ritual, culture and practice. This practice is still in vogue for non-martial reasons, generally being followed by saints and not by circus owners alone. Alexander himself had been an avid eyewitness to the spectacle of hundreds of T-90 type of Elephants fighting against him. I mean fighting a war in tandem with the human beings required a very high level of skilled training for any animal. So in Atlantis, the level of taming and training for both Elephants and Horses may be of the same highest order. Or where else shall we consider the Elephants were tamed first? In fact, I feel that Elephant is the Elephantine key to Atlantis.

As far as I remember, I did not say that Sumeru and Pharsi are one and the same peoples. Although they lived in the same Iraq-Iran-Kurdish region, the Sumeru were mostly Iraq centered, while Pharsi were mostly Iran centered. Also they lived in different but may be somewhat overlapping time periods.

I meant to say that both these peoples lived on the western flank of India_Indonesian Atlantis. On the eastern flank of the same Atlantis, the Khmeru peoples lived in Cambodia.

This was in response to the understanding of Respected Erick, that in Greek “Ampheres” means “To be present on both sides”. I supported this and said that the SuMeru and phonetically same KhMeru peoples were present on both Western and Eastern sides of Atlantis. So ancient Sumeru and Khmeru can be the Atlantean Kingdom of “AmPheres” i.e. present on both sides.

The additional impetus to this understanding has been brought by my earlier contention that “AmPheres” would have been named after “RAmPheres” or exactly “RamPharsu”, who has been the sixth incarnation of God Vishnu. The followers of PharsuRam i.e. the Pharsi peoples were concentrated more in the Iranian and Sumeru regions. Hence this adds up together the linkage of Pharsi peoples with Sumeru, Khmeru and Ampheres.

Here Pharsi peoples are important, Sumeru and Khmeru regions are important, as they all combined form the Kingdom of Ampheres. I feel that any difference among Sumeru and Pharsi peoples here is not much relevant. I agree that they may not be exactly the same group of peoples, but I feel that they have to be similar.

As a life-long speaker/reader of the English language, as well as a person that has translated that particular passage from the Greek into English and, having done so, derived a translation that reads almost exactly the same, I would respectfully submit that your "interpretation" of that passage is erroneous. The key to understanding your error lies in the word MOREOVER. The phrase "sufficient maintenance for tame and wild animals" precedes any discussion of elephants, and any discussion of elephants is itself preceded by the word MOREOVER. This should indicate to the reader that the writer has moved on to another topic - in this case, elephants. In his discussion of elephants, Plato merely states that the elephant is the largest animal of all and therefore the animal with the most voracious appetite. Additionally, he states that "for as there was (i.e. BECAUSE there was) provision enough for all other sorts of animals", enough for those that live in lakes, marshes and rivers, and enough for those that live in the mountains and on the plains (i.e. both MARINE animals and LAND animals), then there was also enough for the animal which is the largest and has the most voracious appetite - the elephant. This passage says absolutely nothing about the domestication nor use of elephants for any purpose, but rather merely states that food sources for animals of every type and size were abundant. Nothing more.

Just for the purpose of comparison, the following is my translation of the very same passage.

quote:

---

...and so far as timber by means of the carpenter’s hard labor it was supplied, in every way to bear in abundance, and again of all around of living creatures tame and wild sufficiently to team with.
115
A And moreover elephants were in together with the greatest tribe; for they grazed amongst them and the other animals, so far as concerns the desert and marshes and rivers, and again so far as concerns the hills and so far as in amongst the plains to feed, as a whole enough was at hand, and this even so thereupon to live, natural greatness and voraciousness personified.

---

As you can see, even though my translation (which is a more literal interpretation of the material) has the elephants living and grazing amongst the largest tribe of Atlanteans, as well as all of the other animals, IT DOES NOT have that tribe using them (elephants) in any way nor for any purpose. The passage merely states that the region "teamed with living creatures - both tame and wild".

I rather like that my metaphrastic translation has Plato referring to elephants as the "personification of natural greatness and voraciousness." I can't think of more succinct description of an elephant. Can you?

Respectfully,

Erick

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

I am in no position to contradict the greatness of Plato and so of yours, as I consider you to be a rare type of metaphrastic translator. Had I been in your position, I too would have opted for the same metaphrastics to cross check the facts emerging out of Plato. I had never been a professional translator, but whenever there was the need, I used to first metaphratically translate English into Hindi and then suitably mould the sentences without changing the essence, so that they can be understood by the Hindi readers. I adopted the same method for Hindi to English translations and I felt it was always satisfactory and really conveyed the meanings.

You were right and I knew that they are two different paragraphs. But they are in so much stark proximity that any one can not omit taking the notice of the combined meanings therein. Anyhow if those paragraphs had been far apart, even then they would have essentially conveyed the same meanings, firstly because they belong to the same great writer within the same episode and secondly they do not contain any impossibly inherent contradiction.

Fortunately with reference to these paragraphs under question, I am not finding much of difference between your metaphratic translations and other conventional translations. Regarding wild and tamed animals and the Elephants, they basically present the same set of information.

You are again right that the word MOREOVER is the key between the two said paragraphs. It helps to create a continued link of agreement between the two said paragraphs. Also it asserts that the second paragraph is an extension and “not an alternate” to the first paragraph.

I think that if Plato had instead used the word HOWEVER, then he would have created an intentional contradiction between those paragraphs and then Elephants would have got somewhat separated both from the wild and tamed (domesticated) category of animals. I hope this to be true, if Plato was not trying to be sarcastic and obviously this is not the case.

So I feel that the Elephants still remain standing in Atlantis, wild as well as domesticated, in the sense of training with comparison to other animals. As regarding the training levels and methods of various animals, the cat is required only to mew at odd hours. The dogs are required to guard the premises or sniff, point, chase and retrieve during the hunt. It may be quite natural to them as they being originally the wolves. The horses are to act as engines for driving vehicles or carry the man for rapid maneuverability.

However Elephants had to fight as direct frontline assault weapons of the war. They had to be the mobile platforms for defense as well as for shattering enemy positions and formations by mounting direct head on attacks on them. Following the commands of the driver, Elephants themselves participated in the wars and crushed the enemy lines. This is entirely different from the use of Horses and other tamed animals, which played only supportive roles in the ancient wars.

Hence Elephants and their taming had to be special and important so as to be mentioned specifically by Plato twice. Even Plato did not forget to mean that most voracious land animal was getting all the good food support in Atlantis, obviously whether in wild or under domestication. Hope this vindicates the natural greatness attributed to Elephants by Plato.

I have translated the story of Atlantis metaphrastically and derived a more literal interpretation of the text. Most people don't realize that for several years now a debate has raged amongst scholars of classical antiquity regarding whether or not to examine the cosmological treatises that are discussed in Plato's Timaeus & Critias in a more literal light. And while many scholars are willing to examine his cosmological treatises in this manner, they seem unwilling to go the final step and apply this examination to the Atlantis story itself. Having already done so, I am merely waiting for scholars to 'brave' that final step and learn what I have already learned.

For example:

quote:

---

23
A whereas so far as either from you or this or also down upon other places to hear knowledge, anywhere whenever either some beauty or great thing to happen and something differs to keep besides, written down on every side this is in amongst our temples and preserved.

D “I begrudge you not, O’ Solon, but for your sake and also that of your city I will tell, but for the grace (favor) of the goddess most of all, in so much as it is in you and that small and fostered and taught, furthermore it has been in you for a thousand years,
E having taken your origin from Gê and also Hephaestus, but that will come later. Whereas for now I will set it in order from in amongst the 8,000 sacred writings (i.e. hieroglyphs) the extent written for no reason. Moreover, all around to result in the 9,000 kinsmen you have indicated as being citizens because of their small nomes (i.e. districts, provinces) and also because of that which they have wrought and all of that to have brought about beautifully; so therefore all around, in minute detail, all in succession, hereafter, in your leisure time, of those same records to comprehend, by examining them in detail.”

Translation by E. W. Wright

---

During the reign of Ramesses III and the Invasions of the Libyans and Sea Peoples, ca. 1200 BC, it was the M'shauasha (otherwise known as the Meshwesh or Ma) that was the principal aggressor. Their army was merely supplemented by mercenary warriors from the other various groups that are listed in the hieroglyphic record. The problem, however, is that most of the literature that is written about these events focuses more on the Asiatic tribes than it does the Libyans and further, they do not seem to see fit to include a list of the more obscure tribal names and, therefore, they omit a great deal of important, pertinent information. For instance, if you read the ENTIRE story written at Medinet Habu, you discover that there was only two tribes that entered Egypt by both land and sea - the Pualasati and Tjekkara. All of the rest of the tribes are listed for the land battle – even the Sha’ardana and the Uashesh, who are said to have been “of the sea”. Register 44, of the Great Inscription in the second court at Medinet Habu, states:

quote:

---

"The northern countries are unquiet in their limbs, even the Pualasati (Pw-r-s-ty), the Tjekkara (T-k-k-r-), who devastate their land. Their soul came, in the last extremity. They were warriors upon land, also in the sea. Those who came on land (three words missing) Amon -Re was behind them, destroying them; those who entered into the river-mouths were like wild fowl, creeping into the net, made (five or more words missing) their arms. Their hearts fluttered, so transported that they were no longer in their bodies. Their leaders were carried off, slain, thrown prostrate. They were made captives (four words missing)."

Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. 4, Breasted

---

The Harris Papyrus seems to suggest that Ramesses III traveled north at some point and attacked the people of those lands as retribution for their invasions of Egypt’s borders. Paragraphs 403 and 404 describe these events and their participants.

quote:

---

403 ”I extended all the boundaries of Egypt; I overthrew those who invaded them from [or in] their lands. I slew the Dainiuana (D-yn-yw-n-) in their isles, the Tjekkara (T-k-k-r-) and the Pualasati (Pw-r-s-ty) were made ashes. The Sha’ardana (S-r-d-n-) and the Uashesh (W-s-s) of the sea, they were made as those that exist not, taken captive at one time, brought as captives to Egypt, like the sand of the shore. I settled them in strongholds, bound in my name. Numerous were their classes like hundred-thousands. I taxed them all, in clothing and grain from the storehouses and granaries each year.”

404 ”I destroyed the people of Sa’ar (S- -r), of the tribes of the Shasu (S –sw); I plundered their tents of their people, their possessions, their cattle likewise, without number. They were pinioned and brought as captive, as tribute of Egypt. I gave them to the gods, as slaves into their houses.”

Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. 4, Breasted

---

These passages seem to suggest that Ramesses II went northward into the Levant and did battle against those Asiatic aggressors that had invaded his borders. It should be remembered that the territory of Egypt extended all the way north to nearly Kadesh, so the Levant was, in effect, within the borders of Egypt, or at the very least they were vassal states. Furthermore, Ramesses attacked a tribe of Shasu Bedouins, for what reason I do not know. Perhaps they had settled within the borders of Egypt without having paid tribute to the king. Who knows? It is an interesting point, however, that is usually omitted during most people’s recounting of the story.

Both the Great Inscriptions at Medinet Habu and the Harris Papyrus list the M’shauasha, Temehu, Tehenu, and their allies as the greatest threat to Egypt’s borders. Paragraph 405 of the Harris Papyrus outlines this point and lists several of the invading tribes that are not listed in the Ramesseum.

quote:

---

405 ”Behold, I will inform you of other things, done in Egypt since my reign. The Libyans [i.e. the Tehenu and Temehu (T-h-nw & T-m-hw)] and the M’shauasha (M-s-w-s-) were dwelling in Egypt, having plundered the cities of the western shore, from Memphis to Ka’arbana (K-r-b-n-). They had reached the Great River on its every side. They it was who plundered the cities of G’uat-uat (G-wt-wt) during very many years, while they were in Egypt. Behold, I destroyed them, slain at one time. I laid low the M’shauasha (M-s-w-s-), the Libyans (Lybw), the Asabata or Esebeta (-s-b-t-), the Kaikesha (K-y-k-s-), the Shai (S- -y), the Hesa (H-s-), and the Bekhen (B-k-n); they were overthrown in their blood and made heaps. I turned them back from trampling the border of Egypt. I carried away those whom my sword spared, as numerous captives, pinioned like birds before my horses, their wives and their children by the ten-thousand, their cattle in number like hundred-thousands. I settled their leaders in strongholds in my name. I gave to them captains of archers, and chief men of the tribes, branded and made into slaves, impressed with my name; their wives and their children were made likewise. I led their cattle into the house of Amon; they were made for him into herds forever.”

Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. 4, Breasted

---

The Great Inscription in the Ramesseum at Medinet Habu clearly states that, of those M’shauasha that were captured and settled in the eleventh year of Ramesses III’s reign, nearly 1,000 of the M’shauasha were made herdsmen in charge of a herd of Amon, which was named after this victory. Section 224 of the Harris Papyrus confirms this fact and tells us not only the name of the herd, but where the battle occurred as well.

quote:

---

Herd (called): “Usermare - Meriamon, -L.-P.-H.,-is-the-Conqueror-of-the-M’shauasha-at-the-Water-of-Re,” under charge of the steward Pi-ai (Py-y); M’shauasha: 971 heads

Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. 4, Breasted

---

In his book, James Henry Breasted writes that the M’shauasha and all of their allies that have been listed above “pushed eastward as far as the canal of Heliopolis, called the ’Water of Re’, doubtless at some point near its departure from the Nile. Here, at a place called Hatsho (h-ts-t), in the early part of the twelfth month of his eleventh year, Ramesses III defeated them in a disastrous battle, in which Keper was captured and his son Meshesher killed.” In the subtext to the description of the herd of Amon, on page 125, Breasted states:

quote:

---

This canal on which Ramesses III defeated the Meshwesh in the year 11, can only have been in the western Delta. That it was so located is shown by its occurrence in a list of Delta localities just after Busiris, ”the western river, the great river (Canopic branch), the ‘Water of Re’” (Golenischeff Papyrus, Zeitchrift fur agyptische Sprache, 40, 105). It is called the ”western canal” in paragraph 340 (see also paragraph 370). It was the canal passing out of the Fayum northward as the continuation of the Bahr Yusuf. It is mentioned in Saitic times on a stela in Berlin (No. 15393), recording the gift of a building by Apries (seventeenth year), located “on the west of the canal named ‘North,’ which is between the highlands and Memphis.” In Ptolemaic times it connected Heracleopolis with Alexandria (see paragraph 831, note).

---

So, I believe that it has been clearly established, both by this post and by all of my previous posts taken together, that the attacks on Egypt, in years 5, 8, and 11 of the reign of Ramesses III, were led primarily by the Libyan tribes, and that those tribes constituted the biggest threat to Egypt’s borders. Nearly every record of this period refers to the defeat of the “Asiatics” and “the Nine Bows.” The Nine Bows were the M’shauasha and the people of the lands of Temeh, Libya, Seped and Kehek, The Asiatics and the Nine Bows are mentioned time and time again in the hieroglyphic record, but it is the M’shauahsa that receive mention the greatest number of times. The survivors of the defeated Libyan tribes, specifically the M’shauasha, were settled in the western Delta region, near the place of their defeat, and made to tend the herd of Amon for Ramesses III.

Solon came to Egypt and met with the priests at the temple of Sais, in the Delta, on the Canopic branch of the Nile, at the apex of the Delta, during the reign of pharaoh Ahmose II, who was not just an Egyptian of Libyan descent, but was actually descended from a chief of the M’shauasha tribe and raised in the Delta. During his conversation with the priests he remarked to them that the people living thereabouts must surely be citizens because of their small nomes (districts) and because of all that they had wrought. Shortly after having made this remark, he was told the so-called story of Atlantis.

The story of the Invasions of the Libyans and Sea Peoples would have had particular interest to Solon for several reasons. First, a tribe of Greeks, the Dainiuana, otherwise known as the Homeric Danaans, are specifically listed as one of the member tribes of the Sea Peoples. In Plato’s Atlantis story the Athenians did battle against the ”people of the northern countries”, the so-called Sea Peoples, and in Homer’s Iliad we find the Achaean Greeks – some of which are from Athens - engaged in battle at Troy with the Danaan Greeks of northern Anatolia. Due to the fact that no location for the battle between the Athenians and the Sea Peoples is ever given in Plato’s story, it should not be assumed that the battle occurred at Athens. In the book The End of the Bronze Age:Changes In Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 BC, written by Robert Drews, Richard Hope Simpson and Oliver Dickinson state that “By the end of LH IIIB almost all the great mainland centers had been destroyed by fire, several being deserted thereafter. The destructions seem to concentrate at sites where there were palaces or comparable large buildings, or fortifications.” The palace at Thebes was apparently one of the first to have been sacked. At Mycenae, archaeologist George Mylonas was able to show that the citadel had been sacked very early in the 12th century BC.; according to author Robert Drews, “At that time masonry structures within the fortification walls melted in a fire of great intensity.” At Tiryns, the citadel and everything outside of it was burned at the end of the LH IIIB Period. Midea, a mere two-hour walk from Tiryns, was also destroyed by fire at the end of LH IIIB. In Messenia, the palace at Pylos, and two towns to the northeast – Mouriatadha and Malthi – were destroyed by fire, as well as Nichoria on the Messenian Gulf. Other sites in Greece that also exhibit destruction levels in the archaeological record are Teichos Dymaion, the Menelaion, Lefkandi, and Iolkos. Although the archaeological record can tell us that the cities were destroyed by fire, they cannot tell us who set the fires. It would not, however, be unreasonable to speculate that some of these destruction layers might have been the result of the activities of the Sea Peoples. Destruction layers being present at so many LH IIIB sites would seem to suggest that some sort of invasion of the Greek mainland had indeed taken place; but did a confrontation between the soldiers of Athens and an unknown foe, such as the ‘Atlanteans’, actually take place?
In the book A Guide to the Ancient World: A Dictionary of Classical Name Places, written by Michael Grant (ISBN 0-7607-0425-2), it states that “Archaeological evidence confirms that the Acropolis was a center of Mycenaean power.” It also states that “It seems to have been at about that time (8th century BC), and in the epoch that followed, that the various communities of Attica gradually amalgamated (synoecized) to form the city of Athens, a process attributed by legend to a single act of King Theseus, son of Aegeus, (or of Poseidon).” This would seem to suggest that, if a confrontation did actually occur between ‘Atlanteans’ and Greeks, then it would be more accurate to say that a confrontation had taken place between the ‘Atlanteans’ and the inhabitants of Attica. No concrete evidence has yet surfaced, however, that would lend credence to any theory regarding a war between the Atlanteans and the inhabitants of Attica. In regards to Athens and the period of ca. 1200 BC, Robert Drews also wrote:

quote:

---

For Athens, the only conclusion now possible is a non liquet. Since there are no remains of an LH IIIB palace, we cannot know what may have happened to it in the early twelfth century. It is likely, however, that the IIIC settlement at Athens was much smaller than the preceding settlement, since the IIIB houses on the north slope of the Acropolis were unoccupied in the later period, and very few IIIC burials have been found in the Agora. Perhaps the largest community in Attica during the IIIC period was on Attica’s east coast. At Perati, on the north side of the Porto Rafti bay, a cemetery of more than two hundred chamber tombs from the IIIC period has been excavated. The town was undoubtedly near the cemetery but has not yet been found. The Perati tombs furnish much of what is known about IIIC Attica.

The End of the Bronze Age:Changes In Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 BC

---

Second, the history surrounding the rise of Ahmose II to power should also be given consideration. When Apries (589-570 BC) was in power he gave a great many privelages to the Greek and Carian mercenaries that were in his employ. This created a great deal of resentment within the ranks of the machimoi – the lower classes of the Egyptian military which consisted mostly of Libyans. At around 571 BC, the Libyans in the region of Cyrenaica approached Apries for help in dealing with the expansionist policies of the Greek colony of Cyrene. Apries sent the machimoi to deal with the problem. Their disastrous defeat against the Greeks of Cyrene caused an anti-Greek backlash in the ranks of the machimoi. Ahmose II took advantage of that resentment and used the machimoi to dethrone Apries. For three years after being dethroned, Apries and his force of Greek and Carian mercenaries terrorized the northern part of Egypt, attacking towns and villages and sustaining their selves in the usual Greek way – by pillaging. Ahmose II and his machimoi finally defeated the Greeks in the third year of his reign, at Bubastis, near Sais in the Delta, during which Apries was killed.

Third, at around 567 BC, in the fourth year of his reign, Ahmose II found himself looking at a possible invasion by the Chaldaeans. He therefore took a very unique approach to dealing with both the discord between Egypt and Cyrene, as well as the impending Chaldaean invasion; he was said by Herodotus to have taken a Greek princess from Cyrene as a wife in order to cement a treaty between Egypt and Cyrene and form an alliance against the impending Chaldaean invasion. The alliance worked and apparently withstood the test of time, because it was still in effect in 525 BC when Cyrus the Great of Persia attacked.

All of these points don’t even begin to touch upon the position of importance that the M’shauasha tribe held in Egyptian society, and in the history that precedes Solon’s visit. For instance, the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt states that:

quote:

---

Although major incursions of Meshwesh and Libu had been repulsed by Merenptah and Ramesses III, the settlement of immigrants, war captives, and garrison troops continued, particularly in the Delta and in the area between Memphis and Herakleopolis; it has been suggested that by the end of the New Kingdom the Egyptian army was almost entirely made up of Libyan mercenaries. The incipient decentralization of government during the 21st Dynasty facilitated the growth of provincial power-bases, and local dynasties of Libyan chieftains, descended from the settlers of the late New Kingdom, were able to increase their autonomy; the ruling families in both north and south during the 21st Dynasty included individuals who bore patently Libyan names – and since some form of acculturation was doubtless practiced, many more are probably disguised in the record under Egyptian names. It was, therefore, only the culmination of an established trend when, at the beginning of the 22nd Dynasty, the throne in Tanis passed to the chief of the Meshwesh – Sheshonq (King Sheshonq I (945-924 BC)). He belonged to a family settled at Bubastis, whose members had, through judicious marriages with the royal family and links with the high priests at Memphis, become highly influencial in the Delta. The transfer of power from Psusennes II appears to have been accomplished with a minimum of opposition—it was undoubtedly eased by the fact that Sheshonq was the nephew of the earlier Tanite king Osorkon the Elder, while his own son, the future Osorkon I (924-889 BC), was married to Psusennes II’s daughter Maatkara.

---

The Libyan rulers held power until the Kushite monarchs wrested power from them. Kushite interference in Palestine led to conflict with Assyria due to their support of Hezekiah of Judah, and the ensuing clash of the Egyptian and Nubian forces with the forces of Sennacherib at Eltekeh in 701 BC. The Egyptian army was defeated but the provincial rulers in Egypt continued to support other foreign princes in their resistance to Assyria. This support finally provoked Esarhaddon to attack Egypt in 670 BC, and the Egyptian forces were again defeated. Memphis was captured and the Kushite monarch, Taharqo, fled to Nubia. The Assyrians then withdrew because they did not wish to govern Egypt themselves, so they appointed a ruler of a Delta principality, Nekau (Necho) of Sais, as a vassal ruler. His son Psamtek I was conducted to Ninevah to learn Assyrian customs and then returned to act as ruler of Athribis. Taharqo quickly regained control of Egypt after the Assyrians withdrew and in 667 BC Ashurbanipal, son of Esarhaddon, invaded Egypt. Taharqo fled to Nubia, where he later died, and the Egyptian vassals submitted to the Assyrians once again. Because Nekau had not supported the Kushites in an attempt to reinstate Taharqo, he was made governor of Memphis. Taharqo’s successor, Tanutamani, promptly invaded Egypt and defeated the Delta vassals that had supported Assyria, during which time Tanutamani killed Nekau; this brought very strong retaliation from Ninevah and in 664 BC they dispatched a large army to Egypt, subdued the whole northern half of Egypt, advanced as far as Thebes, expelled Tanutamani back to Nubia, and appointed Psamtek I to succeed in his father’s place. At that point in time, Psamtek I controlled about half of the Delta with his main centers of power being at Sais, Memphis, and Athribis. Pressing commitments elsewhere caused the Assyrians to lose control of Egypt, a situation which Psamtek I took complete advantage of and by 660 BC he controlled the whole Delta; by 656 BC he had gained mastery over the whole of Egypt. Psamtek I receives the credit for reunifying Egypt and it is from him that Ahmose II was directly descended, or at the very least related. Nekau II was the son of Psamtek I, Psamtek II was the son of Nekau II, Apries was the son of Psamtek II, and Ahmose was the son of Teperet, a sister of Apries (i.e. nephew). This would mean that Herodotus’ claim that Ahmose II was of lowly birth is completely without merit. The evidence that all of these rulers (except Ahmose II) were direct descendants is found in the inscriptions commemorating them, which always list them as “hereditary prince”. It was Ahmose II’s grandfather, Psamtek II, that built the Temple of Neith in Sais, and Ahmose continued his grandfather’s legacy by commemorating a pylon to the temple during his reign.

When you begin looking at the details of the story of Atlantis and compare them against the details of the story of the Invasions of the Libyans & Sea Peoples, certain similarities arise. When this is then further investigated, it is found that there was a great deal going on at the time of Solon’s visit that involved Greeks. By examining the interconnected relationship of Egypt/Egyptians/Cyrene/Greeks/Ahmose II/Sais/M’shauasha/Sea Peoples, you can begin to see how the story of Atlantis probably came about. As to the actual location of the city of Atlantis…well, I still believe it to have been located somewhere on the northwest coast of Africa.

I hope that this gives you some insight as to why I believe that the story of Atlantis is actually the story of the Invasions of the Libyans and Sea Peoples.

Respectfully,

Erick

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