posted 09-10-2003 20:32         

quote:

---

many of us who have been on this site for a long time, tended to accept Platos timeline primarily because it seemed ludicrus that man, with his present mental capacity, has existed for well over 100,000 years and has only in the last 8000 advanced to the level of civilization. 92,000 plus years is a long time to be simply a hunter-gatherer.

---

The reason for this is actually known, and has been for a couple of decades now. In-depth studies of hundreds of thousands of ice-core samples illuminated the reason for the lack of development of civilization of early man. What the ice-cores revealed was that GLOBAL climatic conditions were so volatile from 150,000 B.C. to 13,000 B.C. that humanity was struggling just to survive. Its a little difficult to find the time and energy to create an advanced civilization when all of your time is taken merely trying to stay alive!

Furthermore, recent DNA analysis has revealed that at some point during that time period,the human population underwent what's known as "the bottle-neck effect." What this basically means is that, prior to the bottle-neck, human genetic sequences had a wide range of diversity; when the bottle-neck occured, only a small portion of genetic material was able to survive and make it through that period of time (the bottle-neck period). The "bottle-neck" itself was some sort of catastrophic event, whether it be disease, climatic conditions, etc.; scientists aren't really able to determine the cause, but rather, only to observe the result. The small amount of human genetic material that did survive then went on to re-populate the earth again; this is why there is such a limited range of diversity in the overall genetic material of all humans alive today - because we are all descendants of the same small population that made it through the "bottle-neck" period. I have seen the chart of climatic conditions during the past 200,000 years, and believe me, it is pretty scary! I'm amazed, quite frankly, that humans have even survived.

quote:

---

No archeologist knows for sure when Egypt was founded.

...we do not know when the first stirrings of civilization began in Egypt.

---

Again, this is actually NOT true; Egyptologists actually have a very good grasp on Egypt's pre-history as far back as 700,000 B.C.! Civilization began to emerge, which is to say, the inhabitants of the Nile Valley began to display the hallmark signs of civilization (domestication of livestock & production of agriculture), at right around 7,000 B.C.. The 1st Dynastic state began to emerge around 3,000 B.C.. You have to remember that Egypt is ONE OF the greatest archaeologically-studied regions in the world.

Respectfully,

Erick

posted 09-10-2003 20:55         

To see this is link:
http://club.telepolis.com/gadeiros/atlantologia/atlantis9000english.htm

------------------
Warm and Respectful greetings of Georgeos Diaz-Montexano

Georgeos@ArchaeoTour.com

--------------------------------------------------

"a list of the excessive declarations on the Atlantis would be an absolutely good document for the study of the human stupidity" (Franz Susemihl, 1856)

--------------------------------------------------

"Society the International of Scientific Atlantology"
--------------------------------------------------
The first one and only List upon the scientific study of the Atlantis in Hispanic tongue dedicated exclusively to the study and to the scientific discussion upon the historic existence of the Civilization of Atlantis and its possible location in the only point in which situates it Platon that is to say, "next to the Columns of Hércules (Gibraltar) and the region of Gades (Cádiz)". All the information upon the Atlantida: the complete dialogues of Plato in its original versions Greek-latins; and other old texts in other tongues as the Egyptian, where reference is done to the Atlantis facing Gibraltar among Iberia and Africa. The scientific but recent investigations and rigorous in matter of geology and archaelogy that permit to show that if the Atlantis existed really alone could be in algun point among Gibraltar and the Island Madeira.

The Theories and Contents of this place Have Been Rewarded for the Prestigious Entries of E-Listas.Net, Monografías.Com and Recognized by the MSN of Microsoft.

The Investigations of Georgeos Díaz-Montexano Sánchez recognized by the Agency of Press and the Department of Education of Microsoft.

Georgeos@ArchaeoTour.com

posted 09-10-2003 21:01         

I agree. It is possible that one talked about when copper with arsenic, which was very abundant in the mines of Iberia. Most of the objects of bronze and copper of Iberia they are of copper with arsenic. As far as the pieces that have appeared under the sea, still I do not have all the results, but already we know that they are 97% of copper and they also have arsenic. When we have the complete study. I will publish it.

I send a photo to You of a striker pin of copper 97% and arsenic (oreichalkós) It was cleaned in laboratory. This striker pin was found in a factory of smelting and goldsmiths, by dabajo of -12 meters and near the opening of the Guadalquivir.
http://club.telepolis.com/gadeiros/fotos/HPIM6copia.jpg

Warm Greetings of Georgeos.

------------------
Warm and Respectful greetings of Georgeos Diaz-Montexano

Georgeos@ArchaeoTour.com

--------------------------------------------------

"a list of the excessive declarations on the Atlantis would be an absolutely good document for the study of the human stupidity" (Franz Susemihl, 1856)

--------------------------------------------------

"Society the International of Scientific Atlantology"
--------------------------------------------------
The first one and only List upon the scientific study of the Atlantis in Hispanic tongue dedicated exclusively to the study and to the scientific discussion upon the historic existence of the Civilization of Atlantis and its possible location in the only point in which situates it Platon that is to say, "next to the Columns of Hércules (Gibraltar) and the region of Gades (Cádiz)". All the information upon the Atlantida: the complete dialogues of Plato in its original versions Greek-latins; and other old texts in other tongues as the Egyptian, where reference is done to the Atlantis facing Gibraltar among Iberia and Africa. The scientific but recent investigations and rigorous in matter of geology and archaelogy that permit to show that if the Atlantis existed really alone could be in algun point among Gibraltar and the Island Madeira.

The Theories and Contents of this place Have Been Rewarded for the Prestigious Entries of E-Listas.Net, Monografías.Com and Recognized by the MSN of Microsoft.

The Investigations of Georgeos Díaz-Montexano Sánchez recognized by the Agency of Press and the Department of Education of Microsoft.

Georgeos@ArchaeoTour.com

posted 09-10-2003 21:10         

you were discussing the time of the destruction of Atlantis according to Plato´s texts.
I will try to explain my doubts about the "9000 years" for the war (not for the foundation!) of Atlantis:
Reading thoroughfully the whole Timaios and Critias of Plato in the different translations, I found a
serious logical discrepancy concerning the frequently cited „ 9000 years before Solon“:

1) In Tim23E is written: that the institutions in Egypt (religion, tempels, priests, state) were founded 8000 years before Solon, and those of Athens still 1000 years earlier:
„She (the goddess Neith = Athene) founded your city (Athens) a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours (Sais/Egypt), of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old. As touching your citizens of 9000 years ago, I will briefly inform you of their laws and of their most famous action; " (transl. Jowett) . In the following chapters is described, that a war between the peoples inside and outside of the pillars of Hercules took place, but not necessarily 9000 years before Solon (where the state of Athens
was just founded and could not have been able to withstand an Atlantis power of 1200 battle ships), but "once upon a time " (Tim.24E, transl. R.G.Bury, like in the german translations; unfortunately in the translation of B. Jowett this sentence is left off).

2) After this first mentioning , by Critias, of the first state of Athens and its enemy, the state of Atlantis, the discourse went on with a long speech of Timaios about quite a different topic. During the next night Critias read through the records Solon had made during his visit in Sais, which Critias inherited from his grandfather, Critias the Elder, a relative of Solon. From this recapitulation he could tell about all the institutions and buildings in Atlantis with the astonishing details in numbers and dimensions. But obviously he did not find a date for the war between Athens and Atlantis in Solon´s records, and remembered from the last day only the number of 9000 years, which was however given there for the date of the foundation of Athens. He mixed this number up with the number of years for the war, which he would report on this morning, and said: “Now first of all we must recall the fact that 9000 was the sum of years since the war occurred, as is recorded, between the dwellers beyond the Pillars of Heracles and all those that dwelt within them; which war we have now to relate in detail . . .” (transl. Bury)

In this sentence Critias made two logical errors: first he connected the 9000 years not with the inauguration of Athens by the goddess Athene, but with the war between Athens and Atlantis, and secondly he forgot, that half of the population inside the Pillars of Heracles, namely the Libyans and the Europeans between the Pillars and Tuscany, were not on the side of the Athenians, but on the side of the Atlanteans.

It is obvious that this sentence was a rhetorical ornament at the beginning of a new narration, and that Critias (or Plato) mixed up two of the yesterday narrated events. On the day before, the date of the war was never mentioned, and so it was not possible to “recall” it. And it is completely illogical, that in the year of its foundation a state could defeat an enemy as mighty as Atlantis with 1200 ships and 1.2 millions of warriors.
If the war would have taken place 9000 years before Solon, how could the Athenians save the Egyptian or Saitic people, which had its foundation according to Platon´s text 1000 years later? How could the Egyptian priests write down this story, when Egypt and a priestly class didn´t exist for further 1000 years?
But a great part of the "Atlantologists" take from this obviously illogical sentence the proof, that Atlantis was destroyed 9000 years before Solon.

3) The third mentioning of the 9000 years is in Crit 111B : „Many great deluges have taken place during the nine thousand years, for that is the number of years which have elapsed since the time of which I am speaking“, namely, between the time when the land around Athens was the best and fruitful in the world and the time of Solon, when due to the deluges all soil was washed into the sea and only „the mere skeleton of the land being left“ (transl. Jowett).
This third citation of the 9000 years has nothing to do with the war or with the destruction of Atlantis!

The three different citations of the "9000 years" in Plato´s texts are meaning three different events! The second citation ("9000 is the sum of years since the war occurred . .") must be an obvious error of Critias (or Plato).
No date for the destruction and sinking of Atlantis is found in the texts. (only: "at a later time . .")

From the above mentioned it is obvious, that from Plato´s texts an exact date for the war between Athens and Atlantis and the later destruction of both cannot be taken.
The war took place “once upon a time” (Tim. 24E), and the destruction still "at a later time" (Tim.25C) And this “once upon a time” could well be in the Bronze Age, as the narrated weapons of the Atlanteans suggest.

Greetings from Ulf

posted 09-10-2003 22:03         

I agree again. In addition you will remember that I defend that they are 900 years before the times of Solón (between the 1,500 and the 1,350) or before of the times of Kritias (between the 1,300 and the 1,200) Period that correspond in Iberia and the northwest of Africa with end of the average Age of the Bronze.

That as far as if the transmission became through the Egyptian language. Now, if the transmission became by means of documents written in hieratic, I have discovered that the similarities between 9.000 and 6.000, are very great in the hieratic writing!; whereas 900 and 300, are written of almost identical way, also in the hieratic writing of the time. Therefore, the probabilities that the numbers between if were confused, were very high, as much if the spoken language were used, as if the used route of transmission was through papyruses taken by Solón to Greece.

posted 09-11-2003 03:24         

thank you very much for the photo of the recently found golden looking tool. If it has really 97 % copper and the rest arsenic, it could not be brass, which the Romans in the times of Augustus called "orichalcum".
According to the theory I have mentioned, it would be not be necessary that the whole subject has the same composition with 3 % Arsenic, but only the surface of the tool is enriched by Arsenic. This could be done after the casting of the relict by a special heat treatment and cooling process, which is up to now unknown. But the result is a special cristalline structure in the surface, which gives rise to a surface corrosion or tarnishing layer with a golden colour instead of the normal grey or brown or green colour of copper and its alloys.

In your post 09-10-2003 14:04 you wrote:
"Of all ways, here in Spain, we have discovered a city that was elevated from end of the neolithic one and existed the chalcolithic throughout, and during the Age of the Bronze, until arriving at the beginnings of the Age from the Iron, identical to the Acropolis of Atlantis. This city consisted of the same scheme that the Acropolis of Atlantis with five ring or pits surrounding to a central island; with many channels in all direciones that brought waters of the mountains that it has close, on the northern part; it had bridges on pits and was surrounded by salt marshes and marshes and the waterway. This city has appeared in Andalusia, but as it is left more lejo of the coast, according to the measures that give Plato, because for that reason I have still not used it in my theory."

I have never before heard about this city.Where is it situated and who detected it?

Warm and respectful greetings from Ulf

posted 09-11-2003 05:55         

"No archeologist knows for sure when Egypt was founded."

You might be surprised at how much is actually known. There has been "growing interest in early Egypt ... marked in 1993 by the opening of a new gallery at the British Museum in London especially dedicated to the formative period of Egyptian civilisation, and by the holding of an international conference there on the same theme."

An excelent book from Badarian period onwards is "Early Dynastic Egypt" by Toby Wilkinson (1999). His "Genesis of the Pharaohs" (2003) is also very interesting.

Different ideas are put forward by Michael Rice in "Egypt's Making" (1990).

The best book (according to someone who knows) is Midant-Reynes, B. (2000). The prehistory of Egypt: From the first Egyptians to the first pharaohs. Oxford, Blackwell.
(Back cover)
This book covers the prehistory of the Nile Valley from Nubia to the Mediterranean, during the period from the earliest hominid settlement, around 700,000 BC, to the beginnings of dynastic Egypt at the end of the fourth millennium BC. The author explores the prehistoric foundations of many of the cultural traditions of Pharaonic Egypt.
The book focuses primarily on the fifteen millennia from 18,000 to 3,000 BC, when different cultures can be identified and the earliest forms of agriculture traced with some detail. Textile and ceramic production began at the end of the seventh millennium and were deployed with great skill and considerable sophistication by the beginning of the Predynastic Period at around 4,500 BC. By the Early Dynastic Period, much that is considered characteristic of Ancient Egypt, such as cosmology and burial rites, was already established tradition.

posted 09-11-2003 14:04         

Here is a link to a map of Roman Baetica. If you scroll to the bottom of that webpage, you will find the map of Baetica, and its location for Erythia Insula. http://www.ku.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Gazetteer/Maps/Periods/Roman/Places/Europe/Iberia/Baetica/1.html

It is clear from the map that there was an "inland" island a few miles upstream from the mouth of the Baetis River; and the Romans named it Erythia Insula.

Two arms of the Baetis river flowed parallel to each other, and the land between those arms was called Erythia Insula. (A similar phenomenon, but located in Iraq, created a region which Arabs call the Jezira ("island"), but which is better known as Mesopotamia ("between 2 rivers")

Legend has it that Heracles came to Erythia Insula to steal the cattle of Geryon.

posted 09-11-2003 20:35         

I don't think that you really heard what I was saying. When I said "GLOBAL climatic conditions" I was basically saying "the prevailing or average weather conditions of the PLANET as determined by the temperature and meteorological changes over a period of years." The weather back then fluctuated wildly - GLOBALLY!

Climate doesn't exist in isolation. if the climate changes in some part of the planet, then you can bet that the effects of those changes will be felt elsewhere on the planet, as well. So, if the climate was fluctuating wildly all over the planet, that would mean that there wasn't a "stable" environment anywhere on the planet. Think about how that would have affected the societal evolution/development of early modern man.

quote:

---

Egypt has several ancient leaders (whether pharoahic or not) which are to this day mythic.

---

"Mythic" - I think you made my case for me with this one word.

Respectfully,

Erick

posted 09-11-2003 21:39         

In light of this I would tend to relate the Phoenicians with Atlantis at an older date than accepted by the Sea People Theologists.

I agree strongly with Phoenicians having an Atlantean connection as an ally.

I don't agree with the battle of the Sea Peoples as the Atlantean war.

The Sea Peoples fought the Egyptians and not the Atheneans. Remember the Greeks never fought Egypt other than Cyrenean Greeks unknowingly to the Egyptian Pharoah.

The Priest in Timaeus said the Atlanteans were poised to attack BOTH Egypt and Greece,this is undisputed proof that an Atlantean war would have to include attacking both Egypt and Athens.

The Sea Peoples are not from PAST the pillars of Hercules other than possibly the Mesh'wesh,(Libyans). The Libyans are not Atlanteans except for possibly the Atalantes culture in Algeria.

Nor can the Atlantean war be the Battle of Troy.

As well there are also sources claiming pre-Platonic texts referring to Atlantis,which in all probability as Atlantis is stated as factual, this should relate to other cultures having testimonies of such matters. http://www.atlantisquest.com/Writings.html

Considering that Myths can become Facts as witnessed by Evans and Schliemann in uncovering Troy and Crete,we should consider awaiting more positive proof of Atlantis as was told by Critias.

There is no mistake on the Priest's part in claiming that the Atheneans came onto the scene before the Egyptian dynasty of which we have(Egyptian) proof predating 3000 bC.

My strongest notion is that had Atlantis sank around 1200 bC there should be an abundance of proof for researchers bearing this Atlantean logo as well as writings.

As well there is no mistake on the size of Atlantis regardless of Stadia,royal cubits,miles or acres. It was a large Continental Island,period. Iberia nor Morocco is larger than Libya and Asia minor especially if you consider libya in ancient times.

The only way bits of Atlantis would be in front of the straites would be remnants caught in the clockwise direction of the Ocean current. Other than this any findings there would relate to Phoenician,Mycenaean or Cretean colonies(500bC-2000bC)unless they were actual Atlantean settlements predating 2850 bC.

There is possibility in my personal view that this Atlantis battle could turn up being the one with King Narmer and his Palette.

Consider the 10 headless men and the twin Cheops(lion headed long necked beasts)as well the strong reference to Bulls,a boat and the city logo with 3 islands in the bottom left corner.

Or even the earlier Bull pallette. http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/sitemap.htm

posted 09-12-2003 06:43         

I will try to answer to the many replies.

Dear Georgeos,
I asked Mr. Wickboldt (he is a teacher, not a Dr.) whether he plans to publish something about his findings. Until now, he has not replied.Thank you for explaining your findings.

Dear Ulf,
this is a very good idea. I long thought that oreichalcos is a certain kind of bronze which occurs naturally. It would be quite strange if Plato described a bronze age Atlantis, mentioned is richness, mentioned gold, silver, tin, ivory, copper but no bronze. I thought that oreichalcos could be some "dirty copper" which would be similar to bronze. But I think that your idea is much better.

Dear Brig,
as far as I know, archaeologists have evidence that Egyptians were present in Egypt already in the 6th century BC. I think that it is unknown whether Egyptians lived there before or whether they migrated from somewhere. At least people should have settled in Egypt for tens of thousands of years. Maybe some myths report about a very early period. But recall, people cannot remember temples, ships and other high culture when after a long period of time they have degenerated to a primitive culture. They would not have words for it. In such myths actual ships may be reported as whales (cf. prophet Jonas), planes as large birds (cf. the Cargo cults of the 19th and 20th century). Atlantis cannot have been destroyed 10 000 years ago without a following culture which was as high.

Dear Erick,
thanks for the explanation. However, I feel that this cannot completely explain why there was no high human culture 10 000 to 40 000 years ago. In Israel, for example, the climate was good enough to allow the formation and existence of culture. Moreover I don't think that during the entire 100 000 years before present the climate was changing more rapidly then during the last 4000 years.

Dear Ulf,
I think that the 8000 years refer to the state of Sais but not to the state of Egypt. The "logical error" disappears when one thinks that Egypt was older than Sais. Indeed, Herodotus wrote that Egypt was reigned by Gods 15 000 years ago. I do not know why the Plato and the Egyptians used these high dates, but I feel that the dates are exaggerations by the Egyptians. The "logical error" of the simultanity of the formation of Athens and the war disappears if one assumes that the 9000 years are a rough date. Also Herodotus gave only rough dates, e. g. "800 years, 900 years, 1000 years according to Greek recordings and 15 000 years according to Egyptian recordings". So "9000 years" does not mean "exactly 9000 years" but "sometime between 8500 and 9500 years". Today, we do the same by saying that Aristotle and Augustus lived 2000 years ago or that the distance between Hamburg and Munich is 800 kilometers.

Dear Catastrophe,
thank you for the explanation and the reference to the books. I will try to look them up.

Dear atalante,
thank you for the reference to the ancient map. I do not know exactly where Wickboldt found the structures. He sent me a drawing which includes the structures, Plato's description of the capital and present rivers. I could not identify the exact location by using this drawing/map. But maybe someone else with a better knowledge of the Guadalquivir plain can. Wickboldt sent me his drawing as a JPG-file. I can send it to anyone who is interested. Please let me know your e-mail so that I can send it to you. My address is: kuehne70@gmx.de .

Dear Riven,
most of the western researchers think that the Rigveda describes the arrival of the Indogermans in the Indus valley around 1500 BC. Many Indian researchers prefer earlier dates. However, the Rigveda mentioned chariots pulled by horses. This invention (and the possibility to remember the word and its meaning) supports the date 1500 BC. -- According to Plato, the Atlanteans attacked both Athens and all countries within the mouth, so most probably also ancient Egypt. But this does not necessarily contradict the identification of the Atlanteans with the Sea Peoples. Simultaneously with the wars of the Sea Peoples, Mykenean Greece was attacked from Northeners (possibly Urnfield culture orNorth Greek tribes, legendary known as "coming back of the Heraklides"). -- I cannot exclude the possibility that the ancient Indian writings include knowledge of Atlantis. It would be very helpful if someone would compare Atlantis with, say, Atala. Exact references to Greek and Indian texts should be made.

posted 09-12-2003 07:21         

In the following I will describe how I got the idea that Atlantis could have been in southern Spain:

The first step was my opinion, which I already have expressed in the "Cooperative Research" thread, that the reported distances in Plato´s "Critias" seem to be too great, when we take the normally used calculation factor 1 stade = 185 meters = 607 feet .

In this case would:

a) the plain of Atlantis be so large (370 x 555 km or 230 x 345 miles), that it would not be possible to recognize from its centre that it is encircled by mountain chains.

b) the total diameter of the royal city of Atlantis (23,5 km or 15 miles) be so great that it would have exceeded that of the today London with 3,2 millions of inhabitants.

c) the racecourse for horses be 185 meters (607 feet) wide and 10,5 kilometers (6,5 miles) long; a little big compared to our courses for horse races with lengths between 1 and 3,2 kilometers (0,6 to 2 miles).

d) the length of the canals round the plain with 1850 kilometers (1150 miles) reach nearly 23 times the length of the Panama canal, and the depth 30,8 meters (101 feet) more than double the actual depth of the Panama canal, which was increased from 12.8 m to 14,3 m (47 feet) not earlier than in 1955 for the big container vessels.

I think it would not be possible today with our modern machines to build such an enormeous canal as Plato described it in his Critias, when we believe his reported measures in stades. Only in the last years it was possible to make the Panama canal 5 feet deeper! Each foot more depth increases tremendeously the difficulties for the engineers, especially if the soil is alluvial land, as we must assume it in the case of the plain described by Plato. And the most important question is: for what purpose should the Atlanteans make their canals so deep? Their ships - triremes or comparable ships with 200 seamen - could very well navigate on canals of 10 or 15 feet depth!

In my opinion it is absolutely incredible, even if the Atlanteans had our technology instead of the technology of their age (the time of horse-driven war chariots, of stone-shooters and slingers!), that they could have built such deep a canal! Plato was right when he doubted these informations (Crit.118c), but he knew nothing about the construction of canals and therefore did not know, that they were not only incredible, but impossible from the technical point of view, and moreover absolutely unnecessary for the flow of water and for the draught of the ships.

To overcome these incredible figures, some Atlantologists have made different proposals. The Thera believers divided all measures by 10, and Duanne McCullough divided them by 2. http://ourworld.cs.com/duanekmccullough/v3c8.htm .

But we have, indeed, an example, that a famous Greek author gave wrong informations by calculating Egyptian length units into Greek "stades". This was Herodotus, the "father of history" , who gave all distances in Egypt (in stades) two times as long as they are in reality, while he reported all the distances in Greece correctly. The usual explanation for this error is that he has mixed up the Egyptian units of measurement, obviously taken from an Egyptian itinerary, before he transformed them into stades.

A similar error could have taken place while the Egyptian priest narrated the Atlantis story to Solon. It is self-evident, that the priest gave all the distances in Egyptian units of measurement, as they were written in the ancient texts, and Solon wrote them down as he heard them for later transformation into Greek stades. When he returned to Greece he had no opportunity for this calculation or forgot it. His heirs (Dropides, Critias the Elder and Critias the Younger) found in Solon´s notes only the figures without the units of measurement and obviously thought it must be stades (the more since in their time, due to the busy trade with the Greeks, also the Egyptian people were using Greek stades beside their own units), and Critias passed this (erroneous) information on to Plato.
I feel that this is a very probable error in the long chain of tradition between the Saitic priest and Plato.

Which unit of measurement was commonly used by the ancient Egyptians? It was the "Royal Cubit" or "meh" (0,254 m), and for longer distances the "khet" = 100 "Royal Cubits" (1 khet = 52,4 meters = 172 feet) http://members.aol.com/jackproot/met/antbible.html

When we take this "khet" for what Plato called "stade", we get much more probable dimensions for Atlantis than those mentioned before:

a) the level plain is 105 x 157 km (65 x 98 miles)

b) diameter of the central city of Atlantis : 6,7 kilometer (4,1 mile). The city of Rome in the late times of the Roman empire (Aurelian wall) had a diameter of 6 km and about one million inhabitants.

c) racecourse for horses 52 m (172 ft) wide and 3 kilometers (1.8 miles) long, as a today racecourse.

d) canal round the plain 524 km (325 miles) long, 52 m (172 ft) wide, 8,7 m (28 ft) deep. The forerunner of the Suez canal, built by pharaoh Necho and king Dareios of Persia about 500 BC, was 180 km long, 45 m wide and had a depth of 5.5 m (18 feet).

e) temple of Poseidon 26 x 52 m, a reasonable size compared with the famous Poseidon temple in Paestum 24 x 60 m.

Also the dimensions of the central island with the kings palace (diameter 263 m), the circular canals ( width 52 m, 105 m and 157 m), the widths of the bridges (8.7 m) are in the order of magnitude which we find in buildings and fortifications of antique times.

I think it would be worthwile to take these newfound dimensions into serious consideration in the discussion about Atlantis.

When seeking on the maps for a flat and even plain of the above given dimensions (157 km along the sea coast and at its mid-point 105 km in breath from the coast, encircled by mountains which stretched as far as to the sea, faced towards the south and sheltered from the northern blasts), the only such plain outside the pillars of Hercules around the Atlantic ocean is the plain near the mouth of the Guadalquivier river in southern Spain. All submerged plains in the vicinity of the Canaries, the Azores, Cuba, Haiti, Bermudas, the coast of Yucatan, Guatemala, Costa Rica etc. do not meet the above mentioned conditions, given by Plato in his Critias.
(The dimensions 550 x 370 km, according to the usual translation of the 3000 x 2000 stades, for the flat and even plain sheltered by mountains from the northern blasts, could only be found in the plain of Bengal/Bangla Desh south of the Himalaya mountains, but not in vicinity of the Atlantic ocean. A completely submerged even plain of those dimensions in the Atlantic ocean does not exist).

After this first approach to the plain in the bay of Cadiz, I have collected a lot of other indications for the location of Atlantis in this region, but this could be discussed later.

posted 09-12-2003 09:11         

Ulf Richter pointed out to me a satellite photo. Its URL is:
http://legacy.eos.ncsu.edu/eos/info/mea/mea101_info/NASA_by_landform/STS028-074-078.JPG
http://legacy.eos.ncsu.edu/eos/info/mea/mea101_info/NASA_by_landform/landforms/e3_rugged_coasts_nonPacific/06_Spain_Cadiz.html

Recall the photo in the Braunschweiger Zeitung where Wickboldt shows where the Atlantis structures should be:
http://www.paranormal.de/hexen/bilder/atlantis.JPG
http://www.paranormal.de/hexen/zeitung/atlantis.htm

Can anyone identify the site of Atlantis???

Best regards,
Rainer

posted 09-12-2003 10:41         

Thank you.

------------------
Happiness brings love, peace & light; Sadness brings hatred, chaos, & darkness. Which way have you chosen?

If you need to contact me, please place "AR" & your user name in the subject line. If it is not in the subject line, it will be deleted. Thank you.

Smiley4554@hotmail.com

posted 09-12-2003 10:55         

I translated my artcle into English. The URL of the English translation is:
http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000688.html

The two newspaper articles do not include much additional information.

posted 09-12-2003 11:53         

Are very difficult to be able to appreciate in that photo which professor Wickboldt identifies with the concentric ring of Atlantis and the temple of Poseidôn. Despite I observe something that seems a circular structure.

Shipment a photo worked in photoshop where I indicate what to my it seems to me circular formation or structures.
http://club.telepolis.com/gadeiros/fotos/circulosatlanteas.jpg

Warm Greetings of Georgeos.

------------------
Warm and Respectful greetings of Georgeos Diaz-Montexano

Georgeos@ArchaeoTour.com

--------------------------------------------------

"a list of the excessive declarations on the Atlantis would be an absolutely good document for the study of the human stupidity" (Franz Susemihl, 1856)

--------------------------------------------------

"Society the International of Scientific Atlantology"
--------------------------------------------------
The first one and only List upon the scientific study of the Atlantis in Hispanic tongue dedicated exclusively to the study and to the scientific discussion upon the historic existence of the Civilization of Atlantis and its possible location in the only point in which situates it Platon that is to say, "next to the Columns of Hércules (Gibraltar) and the region of Gades (Cádiz)". All the information upon the Atlantida: the complete dialogues of Plato in its original versions Greek-latins; and other old texts in other tongues as the Egyptian, where reference is done to the Atlantis facing Gibraltar among Iberia and Africa. The scientific but recent investigations and rigorous in matter of geology and archaelogy that permit to show that if the Atlantis existed really alone could be in algun point among Gibraltar and the Island Madeira.

The Theories and Contents of this place Have Been Rewarded for the Prestigious Entries of E-Listas.Net, Monografías.Com and Recognized by the MSN of Microsoft.

The Investigations of Georgeos Díaz-Montexano Sánchez recognized by the Agency of Press and the Department of Education of Microsoft.

Georgeos@ArchaeoTour.com

posted 09-12-2003 14:21         

Comparing the drawing or scheme of professor Wickboldt´s with a photo satellite of the zone that conserved, seem to me that something can be recognized. But he is very confused. The ideal would be to obtain aerial photos with next views.

There am outstanding the area reinforcing the resistances with photoshop so that a little can be appreciated better. The photo is in the following direction:
http://club.telepolis.com/gadeiros/fotos/mapasevilla.jpg

posted 09-12-2003 15:26         

A lot of discussion here. I have a question.

How do you resolve Plato's mention of the "counter continent" in his story about Atlantis? I think that is the most astonishing part about the story!

I recall that the Mediterreanian Sea was but an inlet of the World Ocean.

Seems to me that the Spanish location was a colony of Atlantis (my opinion).

posted 09-12-2003 15:29         

Your satellite photo is excellent! But the area where Wickboldt is pointing on his map is in the middle between your circular structure and the sea coast.
Obviously is all now covered with swamp and mud. If this should be the place of Atlantis city, that would mean that the hill on which the royal palace was situated has completely sunken under the today level of the sea. When you have found remnants of the Bronze age near the coast 40 meters under the today sea level, that means that the hill of Atlantis must have sunken at least this 40 meters, because the sea level did not rise very much since the Bronze Age.

posted 09-12-2003 15:57         

Apparently it have have badlyunderstood or I have not known myself to explain well when translating to the English language. Meters have appeared some evidences until the -40, but the majority has appeared between -10 and -20 meters.

posted 09-13-2003 12:24         

But time is limited and the chasm deepens.

All scientists should read "A Little Book of Coincidence," by John Martineau, acclaimed geometer.

Sincerely,

The Atlanteans were warriors... yes, but the warrior is inescapably in man everywhere.

posted 09-13-2003 12:24         

But time is limited and the chasm deepens.

All scientists should read "A Little Book of Coincidence," by John Martineau, acclaimed geometer.

Sincerely,

The Atlanteans were warriors... yes, but the warrior is inescapably in man everywhere.

posted 09-13-2003 12:24         

But time is limited and the chasm deepens.

All scientists should read "A Little Book of Coincidence," by John Martineau, acclaimed geometer.

Sincerely,

The Atlanteans were warriors... yes, but the warrior is inescapably in man everywhere.

posted 09-13-2003 01:37         

I compared this location with two satellite photos of this region:

1)
http://209.15.138.224/inmonacional/images/s_guadalquivir1.jpg

2)
http://legacy.eos.ncsu.edu/eos/info/mea/mea101_info/NASA_by_landform/STS028-074-078.JPG

I compared these three satellite photos and identified the position of the "temple of Poseidon".

When 1) is printed out, the size of the photo is:
top: (I rotated the photo, so that north is at top)
height: 199 mm
width: 200 mm
position from top: 110 mm
position from left: 105 mm

When 2) is printed out, the size of the photo is:
top: southwest
height: 200 mm
width: 203 mm
from top: 89 mm
from left: 147 mm

By comparing with a map I can give the coordinates of the "temple of Poseidon":

6.42 degrees west
36.96 degrees north

This is where we have to look for Atlantis. Has anyone photos of this place? It is in the middle of the Donana National Park.

Best regards,
Rainer

posted 09-13-2003 02:03         

I wrote my preceding post before I read your last posts. In my opinion Wickboldt (he is a schoolteacher, he is neither a professor nor a doctor) points somewhat left of the middle arrow of Georgeos' (but at the same height), the "temple" is slightly left from Georgeos' left arrow (at the same height of the middle arrow).

Best regards,
Rainer

posted 09-13-2003 05:14         

You must excuse to me, but I follow without seeing nothing clear. In the photos that You now send he sees less than in those than I have obtained. He is needed to have much imagination or Vista of x-rayses to be able to see where You say the plant of a temple. Very I am confused and I disturbed.

posted 09-13-2003 08:08         

I have obtained more aerial photos and with greater zoon and in the area that schoolteacher Wickboldt indicates, the temples nor the ring are not appraised so and as they appear reflected in the scheme that he did and who sent Rainer to me. Nevertheless, just a little to the right are observed clear structures circualares that they seem pits or walls, but that also could be channels. It is very interesting these structures.

From my point of view I believe that Mr. Wickboldt has had a species of revelation or intuition, but its scheme is not confirmed with the aerial photos of greater satellite and to zoon, although yes it is possible that circular structures possibly exist and atlanteans, reason why I have been able to discover until the moment.

photos:
http://club.telepolis.com/gadeiros/fotos/atlantisdonana/aerea1.jpg
http://club.telepolis.com/gadeiros/fotos/atlantisdonana/aerea2.jpg
http://club.telepolis.com/gadeiros/fotos/atlantisdonana/aerea3.jpg
http://club.telepolis.com/gadeiros/fotos/atlantisdonana/aerea4.jpg
http://club.telepolis.com/gadeiros/fotos/atlantisdonana/aerea5.jpg
http://club.telepolis.com/gadeiros/fotos/atlantisdonana/aerea6.jpg
http://club.telepolis.com/gadeiros/fotos/atlantisdonana/aerea7.jpg
http://club.telepolis.com/gadeiros/fotos/atlantisdonana/aerea8.jpg

posted 09-13-2003 08:44         

"thank you for the explanation and the reference to the books. I will try to look them up."

They can all be found on amazon.co.uk

There is also "After the Ice" by Steven Mithen.
"A Global Human History 20,000-5000 BC"
"Drawing on the latest cutting-edge research in archaeology, human genetics and the environmental sciences, Steven Mithen takes the reader on a sweeping global tour, bringing this world vividly back to life. Part history, part science and part time travel 'After the Ice' is breathtaking in its scope - an evocative, original, gripping yet intimate picture of minds, diverse cultures, lives and landscapes through 15,000 years that laid the foundations of the modern world."

Same author also wrote:
"The Prehistory of the Mind".

posted 09-13-2003 10:00         

You have shown marvellous satallite photos of the Donana region. You are right, in the Region to which Werner Wickboldt points in the newspaper photo, only one trace of a circular structure can be detected. But maybe he had other satellite photos from another time in the year, where the water level was higher or lower.
Rainer may ask him.
The structure you have suggested is also situated within the Parque Nacional de Donana, so it would not be easy to get a permission for excavations or drilling. But perhaps it would be possible to make magnetometric measurements as in Troy, or investigations with sonic waves, as they were performed by Richard Jones (university of Glasgow) and Ben Isserlin (University of Leeds) with the result of detecting the canal of Xerxes across the promontory of Athos, built in 480BC (Herodotus book 7; 22 ff), 15 meters under the today surface level. According to their findings, the canal was 2 km long, 35 meters wide and 11 m deep. http://www.geocities.com/derafsh/english/khashayar.html http://www.gein.noa.gr/xerxes_canal/ENG_XERX/ENGWEB.htm

The circular wall structure has a diameter of ca. 2 km (1,2 miles), the small structure which you called "Acropolis Center" has a diameter of about 250 m. This would fit into my theory of using Egyptian "Khet" instead of "stades". But this structure is not exactly in the centre of the greater circular "wall" structure. The exact centre would be in the middle of the today lake "Lucio Redondo", while the 250 m diameter circular structure is on a peninsula which protrudes from south west into this lake. On the official map 1:50000 from 1987 this peninsula and the area nearby is characterized as swamp (marismas).

Before we have more information, nobody can be sure that the place of Plato`s Atlantis has been actually found.

posted 09-13-2003 12:47         

quote:

---

Dear Erick,
thanks for the explanation. However, I feel that this cannot completely explain why there was no high human culture 10 000 to 40 000 years ago. In Israel, for example, the climate was good enough to allow the formation and existence of culture. Moreover I don't think that during the entire 100 000 years before present the climate was changing more rapidly then during the last 4000 years.

---

Studies in climatology do, in fact, reveal that weather patterns were not as stable and constant as they are today – even in the Middle East. Global climate did not begin to stabilize until about 13,000 B.C., at the end of the last Ice Age. Climate was dramatically affected even as far south as sub-Saharan Africa. I think we all know what the situation was in Europe!

quote:

---

Climatic changes by the end of the last Ice Age resulted in unusually high Nile water discharges around 13,000-12,000 B.P., creating exceptionally high floods. This ‘Wild Nile’ stage was caused by climatic conditions in sub-Saharan Africa, but in Egypt itself there was no local rainfall.

---

Source: The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, edited by Ian Shaw (Oxford University Press, 2000) ISBN 0-19-815034-2.

From the Late Paleolithic Period to the Neolithic Period the Sahara itself was dramatically different. At about 9,300 B.C., during the Early Neolithic Period, areas such as Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt in the northern half of Africa underwent what’s known as the “Holocene Wet Phase”. This was a time when the northern portion of the modern-day Sahara was covered with grasslands and experienced rainfall, although the amount of rainfall was not continuous and the Holocene was punctuated with arid intervals. The rainfall was the result of the northward shift of the monsoon belt.

Additionally, it is important to remember that ‘water,’ in all its myriad forms, was not the only element that man had to contend with. Global climate/environment must also take into account earth tremors, volcanic eruptions, shifts in the position of the jet stream, hyper-aridity, etc., and all of the ‘effects’ that accompany these changes or events.

All of the aforementioned climatic changes occurred either at the end of, or following, the last Ice Age, from 13,000 B.C onwards. This is the period of time that is reflected on the graph as resembling a ‘plateau,’ in which climatic conditions actually leveled off and became stable. The fluctuations on the graph that correspond to the period of 150,000 BC to 13,000 BC are very extreme, and are reflected on the graph as resembling the peaks and valleys of a mountain range. So, if weather/climate conditions following the end of the last Ice Age are what we would consider to be adverse, then it literally “boggles the mind” to try and imagine the climate/environment that man was surviving through in the period preceding that!

Please consult the following for more in-depth information.

quote:

---

Over the past decade or so, there has been a shift—inevitably labelled a "paradigm shift"—in the way scientists regard the Earth's climate. The new view goes under the catchphrase "abrupt climate change," although it might more evocatively be called neo-catastrophism, after the old, Biblically inspired theories of flood and disaster. Behind it lies no particular theoretical insight—scientists have, in fact, been hard-pressed to come up with a theory to make sense of it—but it is supported by overwhelming empirical evidence, much of it gathered in Greenland. The Greenland ice cores have shown that it is a mistake to regard our own, relatively benign experience of the climate as the norm. By now, the adherents of neo-catastrophism include virtually every climatologist of any standing.
Abrupt climate changes occurred long before there was human technology, and therefore have nothing directly to do with what we refer to as global warming. Yet the discovery that for most of the past hundred thousand years the Earth's climate has been in flux, changing not gradually, or even incrementally, but violently and without warning, can't help but cast the global-warming debate in new terms. It is still possible to imagine that the Earth will slowly heat up, and that the landscape and the weather will gradually evolve in response. But it is also possible that the change will come, as it has in the past, in the form of something much worse.
About twenty thousand years ago, the Earth was still in the grip of the last ice age. During this period, called the Wisconsin by American scientists, ice sheets covered nearly a third of the world's landmass, reaching as far south as New York City.
The transition out of the Wisconsin is preserved in great detail in the Greenland ice. What the record shows is that it was a period of intense instability. The temperature did not rise slowly, or even steadily; instead, the climate flipped several times from temperate conditions back into those of an ice age, and then back again. Around fifteen thousand years ago, Greenland abruptly warmed by sixteen degrees in fifty years or less. In one particularly traumatic episode some twelve thousand years ago, the mean temperature in Greenland shot up by fifteen degrees in a single decade.
If we go back farther still, the picture is no more comforting. Even as much of Europe and North America lay buried under glaciers, the temperature in Greenland was oscillating wildly, sometimes in spikes of ten degrees, sometimes in spikes of twenty. In an effort to convey the erratic nature of these changes, Richard Alley, a geophysicist who is leading a National Academy of Sciences panel on abrupt climate change, has compared the climate to a light switch being toyed with by an impish three-year-old. (The panel recently issued a report warning of the possibility of "large, abrupt, and unwelcome" climate changes.) He has also likened it to a freakish carnival ride. "Dozens of rapid changes litter the record of the last hundred thousand years," he observed. "If you can possibly imagine the spectacle of some really stupid person (or, better, a mannequin) bungee jumping off the side of a moving roller-coaster car, you can begin to picture the climate."

---

Source: [URL=http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020107fa_FACT]http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020107fa_FACT

Incidentally, Dr. Kühne, if I haven’t mentioned it before now, you should probably be made aware that I never write something in this forum unless I have a large amount of substantiating evidence or research to back it up. It is, I suppose, a by-product of my years in college (where I majored I Engineering) and years of arguing with academic scholars. It has been my experience that you don’t necessarily always have to possess all of the information, but rather, you just have to know how to acquire it, and that seems to be my particular talent. Irregardless, I am extremely well and widely read, and I have studied just about all of the particulars that might, in any way, relate to the Atlantis story in an extremely in-depth manner. Anyway, moving on…

Many studies, both recent and otherwise, have shown that early modern man did develop their own cultures, but they were just not what we would consider to be ‘high’ culture. To be considered a ‘civilization’ a people’s culture (ideas, customs, skills, arts, etc.) must have reached a high level of advancement or refinement. Cultures during the Ice Age were only able to reach a certain level of refinement for the simple reason that they were forced to remain limited to the primitive ‘tribal’ social organization system. During the Ice Age, communities grew to no larger than 35-40 people because they found that the community was unable to sustain itself when it grew larger than that. It was also found that when a community became too small it was unable to sustain itself. So, communities during that period were forced to remain at certain numbers in order for the community to survive. Furthermore, in northern Europe, during the Ice Age, men often chose to hunt very large game like mammoth and bison, because large game offered a better opportunity to feed the community as a whole. The ‘downside,’ however, was that it also involved a much higher opportunity for injury or death, and during that period, too high of a mortality rate amongst the men of a particular community could result in the demise of that community. At that time, any loss of a member could be catastrophic to the community.

Man, however, did not cease using the tribal system of social organization at the end of the Ice Age; in fact, the tribal system continued to be used well into the Neolithic Period and, in some places in the world, is still in use today.

Lastly, it should also be remembered that changes in the development of early modern man always seem to have accompanied, or run parallel with, a leap forward in stone tool and weapon technology. Advancements in technology, however, require one very important thing – leisure time! The fact that there was so very few advancements of technology in early modern man, serves to suggest that early modern man had very little (or none at all) leisure time - probably because he was too busy trying to just survive.

So, in summation, I would have to say that there is a great deal of evidence, in Africa alone, to show that (what we would consider to be) adverse weather, climate, or environmental changes were occurring as recently as 6,000 years BP. When you consider that the earliest, human, semi-permanent to permanent settlements (found in the Middle East and Mesopotamia) were dated to 13,000-11,000 BC, and this coincides with the end of the last Ice Age, as well as the end of the time period of the extreme climatic fluctuations reflected on the graph and prior to 13,000 BC, one must come to the conclusion that those climatic and environmental fluctuations were, at the very least, partially responsible for the ‘stunted’ development of civilization in early modern man.

Finally, I am (quite frankly) more than a little confounded and amazed that so many intelligent people seem determined to ignore the emphasis heaped on Atlas by Plato and, instead, see fit to place their attentions on the second-born twin Gadeirus, whom Plato mentioned only twice in his entire narrative; once to list his name and once more to elaborate upon how the city & district of Gadeira received its name. This is very perplexing, and causes me to wonder greatly what thought process could lead a person there. Certainly, as one of the first-born set of twins, Gadeirus in inextricably and inexorably linked to Atlas, but, again, Plato did not see fit to place any real amount of emphasis upon Gadeirus, so why do so many people in this forum? Atlas was the one to whom so much attention and descriptive detail was afforded, and yet, this is seemingly ignored by individuals trained in the school of logic. If you haven’t already, perhaps you could read my response to Georgeos’ post on page of the thread “Does anyone actually want to discuss Atlantis?” (posted 09/06/2003 19:51) in which I elaborate upon this point in greater detail. My advice to others in this forum would be to not allow themselves to be sidetracked by Gadeirus; he is a “red herring” that distracts you from the real goal. Gadeira has always been, and still is today, well known; it is Atlantis that we are all looking for!

Respectfully,

Erick

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

posted 09-13-2003 12:50         

quote:

---

Which unit of measurement was commonly used by the ancient Egyptians? It was the "Royal Cubit" or "meh" (0,254 m), and for longer distances the "khet" = 100 "Royal Cubits" (1 khet = 52,4 meters = 172 feet)

---

There was a mistake in your quote above, which is most likely attributable to a ‘typo,’ and an error in assumption, as well. First, a “meĥ,” or Egyptian Royal Cubit, consisted of either 7 handbreadths or 28 fingerbreadths (Note: a handbreadth consisted of 4 fingerbreadths) and was equal 20.65 inches or 0.525 meters (Note: a meter is equal to 39.37 inches). You wrote that a “meh” was 0.254 meters; this was the ‘typo’ that I referred to. The error in assumption that I referred to was the assumption that “meĥ” was only used to indicate “one cubit.” In fact, “meĥ” was also used to indicate 100 Royal cubits (c.f. Herusatef Stele 60, 132 ”10 Royal cubits multiplied by 10” & Palermo Stele ”a ship 100 cubits long”). This would mean that “meĥ” and “khet might sometimes have been used interchangeably. Additionally, there was the “meĥ netches” (i.e. “the little cubit”), which consisted of 6 palmbreadths or 24 fingerbreadths.

A “khet” was a land measure of 40 and also 100 cubits (Note: 40 cubits = 68.83 ft. or 21.31 m. & 100 cubits = 172 ft. or 52.45 m.). But here, again, the “khet” was also a measure of land for representing the square cubit. Additionally, the Egyptians also had the “khet en nuĥ” (in Coptic “shenneĥ”), which represented 40 cubits (68.83 ft. or 21.31 m.) and also the Greek ”schoinîon” of 400 cubits (688.30 ft. or 213.10 m.) In ancient Greece the ”schoinîon” was a piece of rope or cord, braided or twisted from rushes (i.e. reeds), that was used to measure out an allotment of land, which they called a “schoinos.” You will please remember that a “stadion” (stade) was 600 Greek, 606¾ English feet (184.94 m.), or about ⅛ of a Roman mile. I find it interesting that the ancient Greeks had these two units of measurement that were so close in length (only an 82 ft. difference), but more importantly, that the Greeks and the Egyptians had units of measurement that coincided with each other. This would seem to suggest that there might have been units of measurement that were specifically employed for determining land allotments and that were universal to the whole of the Mediterranean. Maybe to eliminate petty squabbles that could arise from land allotments given to foreign nobles settling in another country? It should probably be looked into.

Source: An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary (in two volumes), E. A. Wallis Budge (Dover Publishing Inc., 1978), ISBN 0-486-23616-1.

Respectfully,

Erick

posted 09-13-2003 12:53         

quote:

---

There is no mistake on the Priest's part in claiming that the Atheneans came onto the scene before the Egyptian dynasty of which we have(Egyptian) proof predating 3000 bC.

---

The following is a quote from The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt:

quote:

---

After the Late Palaeolithic, there was a hiatus in the occupation of the Nile Valley. No human presence has been attested in Egypt between 11,000 and 8,000 BP, apart from a group of very small Arkinian sites (around 9,400 BP) in the region of the second cataract. It has been suggested that the attested down-cutting of the Nile during this period, with a reduced floodplain as a consequence, had a detrimental effect on the environmental conditions. Although this environmental change undoubtedly took place, it seems highly unlikely that the Nile Valley was entirely deserted at this date. It is more likely that the sites are simply covered by modern alluvial deposits, considering a narrowing of the floodplain and the normal location of sites on the fringe of the low desert.

---

So, right smack in the middle of the period of reduced (to no) occupation in the Nile Valley was right when Plato said that Egypt was founded by Neith. I’m sure that the books Catastrophe listed for you substantiate this material as well, possibly even elaborating upon it further.

Respectfully,

Erick

posted 09-13-2003 13:25         

You are SO sure???