posted 09-16-2003 19:48         

I read your post just fine, and you are correct about the size of Elephas (Palaeoloxodon) antiquus (larger than modern African & Asian elephants), but the majority of the articles that are devoted to the discussion of Elephas (Palaeoloxodon) antiquus on the internet refer to an endemic dwarf species found throughout Italy, Sicily, Malta, Cyprus, and the other islands of the Mediterranean. Please reference the following article:
http://tetide.geo.uniroma1.it/sciterra/pubdip/publicaz/07_vert.html

Regarding the age of the remains found at Ambrona & Torralba, please reference the following articles:
http://www.levork.org/torralba.pdf http://www.cq.rm.cnr.it/elephants2001/pdf/607_610.pdf http://www.cq.rm.cnr.it/elephants2001/pdf/587_591.pdf

Of particular interest in all of these articles, I believe, is the frequent use of words like Homo Erectus, Acheulian, Middle Pleistocene Age, and Middle Paleolithic Period. Also of particular interest, I believe, are the dates associated with these terms. For instance, 900,000-130,000 BC (Middle Pleistocene Age), 1.64 million-900,000 BC (Lower Pleistocene [i.e. Homo Erectus]), 1.5 million-200,000 BC (Acheulian), & 400,000-250,000 BC (Middle Paleolithic Period dates associated with Torralba and Ambrona, Spain).

Perhaps you’ll also find these quotes to be of interest, since they were written by A. Pérez-González from the Departamento de Geodinámica, Facultad Ciencias Geológicas, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, España - alfredog@eucmax.sim.ucm.es.

quote:

---

[b]The elephant, Elephas (Palaeoloxodon)
antiquus, is the predominant species among the
macromammals in all the levels of the “Lower
Member Complex” at the Ambrona Middle
Pleistocene site.

The association of Elephas
(Palaeoloxodon) antiquus, Stephanorhinus
hemitoechus, Equus caballus torralbae and
Bos primigenius, confirms the Middle Pleistocene
age for Ambrona.

---

For those of you that are not familiar with the names listed above, Elephas Palaeoloxodon antiquus was the now extinct European elephant (“straight-tusked elephant”), Stephanorhinus hemi-toechus was the narrow-nosed rhinocerus, Equus caballus torralbae was a domestic horse, and Bos Primigenius was an Auroch (bison).

Are your Martin Colliga & Gonzalez Morales published in any peer review journals, because absolutely nothing surfaces when a search is performed?

The only thing that surfaces when a search is run on “La Aldehuela” - is restaurants.

I cannot find anything on your supposed discovery of an ivory plate with an elephant motif in the cave of Es Mussol. I found something about the two wooden carvings that were found in the deepest recesses of the cave in 1996, but nothing about an ivory plate. Irregardless, a discovery of an ivory plate in the cave of Es Mussol, on Menorca, does not constitute the presence of elephants on the Balearic Islands during the Bronze Age! And aside from that, the Talayotic Civilization only existed from about 1,300-800 BC.

Nothing surfaces regarding the supposed 13 eyeteeth at Bajo de la Campana either.

So, it would appear that any claim of elephants in Spain can only be made for the time frame of 200,000 BC and earlier. Certainly, it has not been shown that elephants existed in Spain in 9,600 BC, and certainly not during the Bronze Age, nor in any association with Atlantis as a Bronze Age city.

Respectfully,

Erick

posted 09-16-2003 20:28         

On the question if there were or nonelephants in Spain, I have seen that still there are some deny it by ignorance or convenience. So is the case of the colleagues and atlantologists Erick Wright and Jonas Bergman, who denies fully that in Spain elephants existed. Both accept the antiquity of Atlantis in about 9,500 years before Solón, that is to say, for 11,500 years, and in the Iberian Peninsula unequivocal tests of the existence of elephants have been existing, of greater dimensions than the African, until end of Neolithic and the principles of the Age of Cobre, forming part of the feeding of the settlers of Iberia until in moved away places more of the Straits like the zone of Spanish Levante. In Iberia, in addition, it has been discovered rest of associated elephants to artistic elements like petroglyphs, trowels decorated and pins, from the Age of Cobre to the Age of the Bronze and principles of the Age of the Iron, and by the measures of the bones and the eyeteeth that have been found in deposits of the Age of the Bronze, these elephants continued being greater than the African. What could correspond with the correct translation of the fragment of the Kritias (Kritias 11ê) where it speaks of the elephants.

A comparative analysis between the main schools of classic translation of the Greek language. Beginning by the English language.

The translations of the English school ======================================

Of the two forms related to the word "elephas", that appear in the text of the Critias, one are "elephantôn", that is to say, the plural genitivo of elephant, whereas the other form is "elephantinên", "ivory" (fem acc sg). The fragment where it is mentioned the elephants is the following one:

"... kai dê kai elephantôn ên en autêi genos pleiston ..."

East passage were translated by Jowett Youngest child of the following way:

"... Moreover, there were a great number of elephants in the island ..."

This translation is not very correct, since the word "gênos", "race", "species", whereas "ên" and "autêi" are translated of quite liberal way like "in the island".

Another well-known translation are the "The Digital Perseus Library". [Based on the following book(s): Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 4 translated by Harold North Fowler. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1977. Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 7 translated by R.G. Bury. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1966. Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 8 translated by W.R.M. Lamb. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1955. Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 9 translated by W.R.M. Lamb. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1925.].

The translation of Perseus - of this same fragment corresponding to Kritias 114- she is so little precise or little exact like the one of Jowett, as we see next:

"...Moreover, it contained a very large stock of elephants ..."

The word "gênos", here is translated by Perseus by means of one of its meaning: "stock". However, another more correct meaning for the context exists. This meaning is the one of "race" or "specie". Whereas in the fragment translated by Perseus, any Greek word does not exist that allows to the translation "it contained".

The translations of the German school ======================================

The more popular German translations come near almost enough to the English translations of Jowett and Perseus and maintaining the same vagetions:

"...Sogar die Elefanten waren hier besonders zahlreich ..."

"... Even the elephants were here particularly numerous ..."

The translations of the French school =======================================

In this sense the French translation of Albert Ribaut (one of the most used by main platonists and specialists worldwide) propose another version in which yes it takes in account "the genos" words, "in" and "autêi". This way, the French translation adjusts more to the context:

"... L'espece même des éléphants y était très largement représentée ..."

That in English he would be something as well as:

"... The self species of the elephants was very largely represented there ... "

Another French translation, more recent, are a slight variant of the previous one:

"... l'espèce des éléphants y était en particulier largement représentée ..."

"... the species of the elephants was in particular largely represented there... "

The translations of the Italian school =======================================

The translations of the Italian school more or less maintain the same line that the French school:

"... In particolare era qui ben rappresentata la specie degli elefanti ..."

"... In particular here the species of the elephants was very represented ..."

Another Italian translation expose:

"...Per esempio, il numero degli elefanti era copiosísimo ..."

"... For example, the number of the elephants was most plentiful ..."

The translations of the Spanish school =======================================

In the conventional Spanish translations we will observe that these do not separate too much from the French and Italian school. Like these two European schools of classic translation, the Spaniards translate the word "genos" in the "race" sense and not like "stock", according to it is appraised in the version of Perseus. The Spanish translations, following French and Italian the line, much more adjust to the grammar reality and metaphrastic of the text of Kritias that we are analyzing. The explanation of which the translations of the French, Italian and Spanish schools come near more to the original sense of texts, being simultaneously more exact and correct than the anglian-Germans.

I think that it could explain of very simple way by the Romance origin and clásicoa that shares the French language, Italian and the Spanish. The three are languages that sink their roots in the Greek and the Latin. Whereas the anglian-Germanic languages belong to another separated trunk of Romance the greco-Latin languages and. In main lines, a Greek, an Italian, a French or a Spanish more is enabled - by his linguistic nature to understand and to translate with more exactitude any Greek or Latin old text written in that another colleague or specialist of anglian-Germanic origin.

Let us see some examples of the Spanish translations of the fragment of the Kritias 11ê that speaks of the elephants:

"... En especial, la raza de los elefantes era muy numerosa en ella ..."

"... In special, the race of the elephants was very numerous in her (the Atlantis Island) ..."

"... Incluso la especie misma de los elefantes se hallaba allí ampliamente representada ..."

"... Even the same species of the elephants was there widely represented ... "

My translation comes near more to the French, but with other necessary modifications. This is my translation:

"... Por otra parte, existía en la misma (Isla Atlantis) la raza más grande de elefantes... "

"... Moreover, it existed into self (Atlantis Island) the greatest race of the elephants ... "

Since we have verified, in the fragment translated by Perseus, any Greek word does not exist that allows to the translation "it contained". The Greek word "pleiston" was used for "most", "greatest", "largest" (in number, size, extent, etc.) But all the translators have always preferred to interpret it within the sense of the "amount" or "to number": "great to number", "very large stock", "largement représentée" (largely represented) or "zahlreich" (numerous); nevertheless, this word could also be translated like "greatest", in its sense of stature or "size".

Therefore my translation

"... Moreover, it existed into self (the Atlantis Island) the greatest race of the elephants... ",

is also valid, and in addition, I think that it adjusts much more to the context, the grammar, the syntax and metaphrastic that all the translations made by the diverse schools.

The fragment at issue, if metaphrastically is analyzed literally or, does not leave place to doubts that it is commenting in the text that, "the race or species of elephants of Atlantis, was the one of greater size or greatest".

However, it is important to indicate that of all the possible translations, as a rule, the most trustworthy translations would have to be those of academic and expert the Greeks, since after all the modern Greek language is a evolution of the old Greek language or coiné and the modern literary language (kathareusa) presents/displays still enough similarities with Greek the classic one. Although differences marked by the passage of time exist, is not debatable that Greek the modern ones that is academic of old Greek language, would be enabled to better include/understand a Greek text of the old one.

I have put myself in contact with several of most prestigious so that they advise and they help to me in the translations of texts of the Timaios and the Kritias de Plato and I have been assuring that many to you my translations and rectifications made for years, are absolutely being confirmed by the Greek experts, who also have made see some errors me of translation that had committed and that is such that they appear in most of the translations of other nonGreek European languages.

In this sense, my advice is that to be able to study either the Atlantis we must go to the correct translations the more, to most exact and precise possible, and those only can be the made ones by Greek experts or another expert whose native language is descending closest of the Romance languages, the Latin and the Greek, but mainly that its translation can be reviewed and corrected by some recognized Greek expert. Until we do not work with a good translation of these characteristics we could continue digressing and speculating, basing on erroneous, deficient translations or imprecisas to us, without we get to discover the true keys that will make the final deciphering possible of the enigma of Atlantis.

To finish, we return to the subject of the elephants in the Iberian Peninsula. Since message has been demonstrated in this and in other envoys previously where data mentioned and tests specific, way can to affirm of scientific that in Ibería yes elephants existed (paleoxodontos), that were greater than those of Africa, being simultaneously the ancestros of the elephants (loxodontos) African.

In Iberia have been rest of elephants associated to the diet and artistic elements, from the Copper Age to the Bronze Age, and principles of the Iron Age, and since we have already aimed previously, by the measures of the found eyeteeth, these elephants continued being greater than the African.

I hope that the skeptics and nihilists, that continue denying that in Iberia or Spain did not exist elephants rectifies and accepts their error or ignorance.

Iberia also reunites to all the necessary conditions so that it is discovered in his coasts (since we are doing) nonsingle the rest of the kingdom atlantean of Gadeiros, the own Acropolis of Atlantis, by all the arguments that already I have exposed and defended in numerous occasions in this Forum of Atlantis Rising. Arguments that, peculiarly I am seeing retaken by one of my detractors in others websites, without it mentions nor a single time from where it has taken them, giving therefore the impression which they are arguments his, original, at which it arrived by itself, without the aid or the inspiration of anybody.

Iberia also reunites to all the necessary conditions so that it is discovered in his coasts (since we are doing) nonsingle the rest of the kingdom atlantean of Gadeiros, the own Acropolis of Atlantis, by all the arguments that already I have exposed and defended in numerous occasions in this Forum of Atlantis Rising.

Arguments that, peculiarly I am seeing retaken by one of my detractors in others websites, without it mentions nor a single time from where it has taken them, giving therefore the impression which they are arguments his, original, at which it arrived by itself, without the aid or the inspiration of anybody. I have made many publications in Internet as in press as much written where I can demonstrate perfectly that I have been first in the history of atlantology in making use of direct fragments in Greek and in Latin translating directly of such.

In addition I can also demonstrate that I have been first in defending in the translations the correct sense of the word "Pelagos", like "Straits", "Archipelago" instead of the Ocean, demonstrating that this does not appear written in the Timaios nor in the Kritias.

Also I have been first in defending that the Greek word Nêsos could also be translated like "peninsula" and "archipelago", in addition to "island", and nevertheless I finish verifying like one of my colleagues of this Forum that in addition is a detractor of my theory takes advantage of some of my ideas and my contributions and not even mentions to me nor a single time in his website.

Single I hope that it can demonstrate from where it removed these argumentations, since it does not say in his website to it. We can discuss and not agree as far as our theories, but in something yes we must agree absolutely all, it is in practicing the professional ethics and respecting the right of the intellectuality of the others, and the other people's intellectual effort.

I remember you once again, mainly to that "she forgets to them", or prefer to forget it, by mere convenience that my theory always has been "Atlantis between Iberia and Africa", means this, that I have always bet by the location of the empire atlantean between the coasts of Iberia and the coasts of Morocco and near islands. With the particularitity of which always I have thought that the Acropolis of Atlantis was certainly in an island or a peninsula or end, near the sea and close also of the Straits of Gibraltar. The same that in the coasts of Morocco could be in the coasts of Iberia (that is towards where I incline more), and thus always I have come it reflected in my messages, in the topics of the forums, for already but of three years.

Nevertheless, now somebody comes and it says to me: [/i]"Georgeos you are mistaken in your theory, my theory is that Atlantis were in Morocco"[/i], when I have always admitted and proposed that Atlantis only could be located in front of Gibraltar, between Iberia and Africa.

It means this, that if the Acropolis of Atlantis definitively appears in the coasts of Iberia, then I will not have been mistaken, and if it appears in some point of the coasts of Morocco or western Africa, I will not have been mistaken either, for the simple reason that always I have considered the two possibilities, although I incline towards which I call the possibility first, that is to say, the one to find the Acropolis of Atlantis more near the coasts of Iberia that of Morocco.

Until the points considered in a comparative table where they expose themselves the main theories of Atlantis have been taken almost exactly from mine, adding single a few points more than I indeed excluded to be in several places of the world and not to be very determining. Peculiar he is that in the comparative table that is an evident copy of mine that I have published in this Forum does more than two years already, is placed in the same order the compared theories and in the same order the points that I compare in my table. And where he would have to be the statement of my theory "Atlantis between Iberia and Morocco", he is written single "Atlantis in Morocco", eliminating Iberia.

I hope that the person whom this table has done and who atlantology is taking advantage of some from my contributions to the study of scientific offers some explanation of how it went that it arrived at the same argumentations and ideas and to develop the same order of comparisons in the table by mere chance. I would like much power verified that explanation would offer to us.

A last reflection: The main base of that they defend that the Acropolis of Atlantis was in Morocco is the identification of topónimo Atlas or Atlante with the mounts that today take their name. It is a this really solid argument? In my next message we will see if it is or it is not a solid argument. If the theory of the Acropolis of Atlantis in Morocco is sustained fundamentally in the Atlas name, can that then the theory comes down. Whereas the theory of Atlantis in a "island", "peninsula" or "coastland", in front of Gibraltar and near the region of Gadeira is much more solid as we will see in the next message.

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 09-16-2003 20:46         

Him shipment the reference of the work of the Spanish archaeologist Martín Colliga, who demonstrates that in the neolithic one in Spain elephants existed and they were fed on them.

Peculiarly You did not find anything on Martin Colliga in Internet, when putting the name only appears with facility your work. That strange!

This are the reference:

Martín, Colliga, A. (1992).- “La economía de producción a lo largo del Neolítico en Cataluña”. Elefantes, ciervos y ovicápridos. Universidad de Cantabria. 203-229.

posted 09-16-2003 21:26         

Him shipment the reference of the Moral work of the Spanish archaeologist González, M. R.

Peculiarly You either did not find anything on him in Internet?

This are the reference:

Elefantes, ciervos y ovicaprinos. Economía y aprovechamiento del medio en la Prehistoria de España y Portugal. Universidad de Cantabria, Santander

posted 09-17-2003 12:33         

Sorry, I didn't meant that elephants never existed in Spain. What I meant was that you couldn't find numerous of wild elephants in Spain, in 1200 B.C. Morocco was at this time known as a country with numerous of wild elephants.

About the same time, the Carthaginians ( after 900 B.C ) were also training elephants. These animals came from Morocco where they were so numerous that the tusks were used as fencing.

As Erick wrote:
In terms of the classic Asian or African elephant, however, Spain did not have any.

Quote Georgeos
3. The translation of the translation of Jowett Youngest child is one of the translations more erroneous than they exist. You would have to be based on most recent, made by modern experts with more knowledge of Greek the old one that the translation of Jowett Youngest child or better still, directly works with texts in Greek and in Latin like the one of Chalcidius, same You will verify the easy thing that she turns out to discover some serious errors of translation colain by the translation of Jowett Youngest child.

Believe me, I dont base everything on the translations of Benjawin Jowett, I used them now because I had them in front of me. ( online )

Other translations I quoted and used above is for example: translation in Perseus · Tufts Digital Library.

I have studied the original Greek text a lot and checked every possible meaning of each word used in Plato's descriptions.

Regards,

Jonas Bergman

posted 09-17-2003 20:44         

quote:

---

On the question if there were or nonelephants in Spain, I have seen that still there are some deny it by ignorance or convenience.

---

So, apparently, if a person doesn’t agree with Georgeos on the aforementioned topic then Georgeos will feel that the person is either A.) ignorant of the facts, or that B the person finds it easier to disagree with Georgeos rather than to agree with Georgeos.

Uh, believe me Georgeos, there is nothing easy about disagreeing with you! And incidentally, Georgeos, I don’t agree with you because you haven’t presented a solid argument.

quote:

---

So is the case of the colleagues and atlantologists Erick Wright and Jonas Bergman, who denies fully that in Spain elephants existed.

---

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth, Georgeos. I have never, at any time, ever said that elephants NEVER existed in Spain. What I said was that elephants did not exist in Spain during the Bronze Age, and that the ‘classic’ African and Asian elephants never existed in Spain. You seem to disagree with me on this point, and yet you have not provided any SUBSTANTIVE argument to the contrary. You have not provided a single shred of verifiable evidence that proves, conclusively, that elephants did exist in Spain during the Bronze Age. Instead, what you have done is to take some evidence that proves that elephants existed in Spain during the Middle Pleistocene (400,000-250,000 BC) and try to argue that the dating of the remains at the site is incorrect – and yet you have nothing of substance to support that argument either! ALL of the evidence points to a Middle Pleistocene date, and you can’t accept that because, without it, you will not have ANYTHING to show that Spain had elephants during a time that more closely matches the dates given by Plato. You also know that without any evidence for elephants in Spain close to 9,600 BC (or later) you will be unable to completely match Plato’s description! An ivory plate in a cave on Menorca does not constitute an argument for elephants in Spain; what it constitutes is a reasonable possibility that the inhabitants (the Talayotic) traded with foreign merchants who sold them the ivory and then they (the Talayotic) carved the elephant motif into the ivory and fashioned it into a plate. Even more likely is the possibility that the ivory was purchased from foreign merchants and, at the time of the purchase, the ivory was already fashioned into a plate and the elephant motif was already carved into it. Who made the determination that the carvings were of indigenous origin? From everything that I’ve read, there is very little archaeological data available regarding the Talayotic civilization. After all, they only existed there for about 500 years.

13 Eyeteeth were found; so? What about it? You don’t suppose for a second that they could have been transported there by someone from another country? You said they had Phoenician inscriptions on them; what do the inscriptions say? Why won’t you, a person who claims to be a student of the school of logic, accept that it is more reasonable to believe that the eyeteeth are associated with the boat wreck (since that is where they were found) and that the boat sank during its voyage to Spain, where it was being transported by the Phoenicians, whose inscriptions were already on them?

quote:

---

Both accept the antiquity of Atlantis in about 9,500 years before Solón, that is to say, for 11,500 years,

---

First, Solon lived ca. 600 BC. Second, Plato said that the antiquity of Atlantis was 9,000 years before Solon, according to the traditionally accepted translations. Unless my math is rusty, that would add up to 9,600 BC, or about 11,600 years ago – NOT 11,500 BC! Third, and most important, I have NEVER said that I accept the antiquity of Atlantis as being from 9,600 BC! I have ALWAYS maintained that the verse that academic scholars say refers to time is, in actuality, a reference to the number of Berber kinsmen that inhabited the Delta region near Sais (i.e. the descendants of the Berbers that invaded Egypt at around 1,200 BC).

quote:

---

and in the Iberian Peninsula unequivocal tests of the existence of elephants have been existing, of greater dimensions than the African, until end of Neolithic and the principles of the Age of Cobre, forming part of the feeding of the settlers of Iberia until in moved away places more of the Straits like the zone of Spanish Levante.

---

What are these “unequivocal tests”? Where are these “unequivocal tests”? We sure haven’t seen them in this forum!

quote:

---

In Iberia, in addition, it has been discovered rest of associated elephants to artistic elements like petroglyphs, trowels decorated and pins, from the Age of Cobre to the Age of the Bronze and principles of the Age of the Iron, and by the measures of the bones and the eyeteeth that have been found in deposits of the Age of the Bronze, these elephants continued being greater than the African.

---

Where are these petroglyphs and decorated trowels and pins? Where were they found? Who discovered them? Where might we all read about this incredible (more like unbelievable) discovery? Where were the discoveries of elephants in Bronze Age deposits made? Who discovered them? Where can we find this unbelievable discovery further elaborated upon? What peer review journal was this amazing discovery published in? Quit being so vague and obtuse, Georgeos! Why don’t you try actually providing the details, facts, and evidence you keep boasting about!?!

quote:

---

The explanation of which the translations of the French, Italian and Spanish schools come near more to the original sense of texts, being simultaneously more exact and correct than the anglian-Germans.
I think that it could explain of very simple way by the Romance origin and clásicoa that shares the French language, Italian and the Spanish. The three are languages that sink their roots in the Greek and the Latin. Whereas the anglian-Germanic languages belong to another separated trunk of Romance the greco-Latin languages and. In main lines, a Greek, an Italian, a French or a Spanish more is enabled - by his linguistic nature to understand and to translate with more exactitude any Greek or Latin old text written in that another colleague or specialist of anglian-Germanic origin.

---

So, if I understand you correctly, then you are saying that because Spanish (one of the three Romance languages) is your native language, that you are better able to translate and interpret Plato’s text than would…ah…um…oh, let’s say myself and Ulf, because our native languages are of Anglian-Germanic origin? You don’t really believe this line of crap you’re spewing, do you? You cannot eliminate others as competitors, nor as contenders, simply by attacking their native languages, Georgeos!

quote:

---

I have put myself in contact with several of most prestigious so that they advise and they help to me in the translations of texts of the Timaios and the Kritias de Plato and I have been assuring that many to you my translations and rectifications made for years, are absolutely being confirmed by the Greek experts, who also have made see some errors me of translation that had committed and that is such that they appear in most of the translations of other nonGreek European languages.

---

Really, Georgeos? Who are these “several of most prestigious”? What are their names? Who are these “Greek experts” that you assert are confirming and correcting your translations over those of so many highly respected scholars of Greek & Latin Studies? You’re being vague and obtuse again, Georgeos!

quote:

---

Iberia also reunites to all the necessary conditions so that it is discovered in his coasts (since we are doing) nonsingle the rest of the kingdom atlantean of Gadeiros, the own Acropolis of Atlantis, by all the arguments that already I have exposed and defended in numerous occasions in this Forum of Atlantis Rising. Arguments that, peculiarly I am seeing retaken by one of my detractors in others websites, without it mentions nor a single time from where it has taken them, giving therefore the impression which they are arguments his, original, at which it arrived by itself, without the aid or the inspiration of anybody.

Iberia also reunites to all the necessary conditions so that it is discovered in his coasts (since we are doing) nonsingle the rest of the kingdom atlantean of Gadeiros, the own Acropolis of Atlantis, by all the arguments that already I have exposed and defended in numerous occasions in this Forum of Atlantis Rising.

Arguments that, peculiarly I am seeing retaken by one of my detractors in others websites, without it mentions nor a single time from where it has taken them, giving therefore the impression which they are arguments his, original, at which it arrived by itself, without the aid or the inspiration of anybody.

---

Who is this nameless “detractor,” Georgeos? Who is stealing all of your arguments and using them for their own selfish means? “Out” this person, Georgeos, so that we might all share your indignation!

quote:

---

I have made many publications in Internet as in press as much written where I can demonstrate perfectly that I have been first in the history of atlantology in making use of direct fragments in Greek and in Latin translating directly of such.

---

You really actually believe that you are the first person to translate directly from the Greek and/or Latin versions?

quote:

---

In addition I can also demonstrate that I have been first in defending in the translations the correct sense of the word "Pelagos", like "Straits", "Archipelago" instead of the Ocean, demonstrating that this does not appear written in the Timaios nor in the Kritias.

---

Did you ever consider that, out of the tens of thousands of people that have translated Plato’s text over the last 2,400 years, there’s a REASON that nobody else translated it the way that you did? Anyway, I think I covered these very same arguments elsewhere.

quote:

---

Also I have been first in defending that the Greek word Nêsos could also be translated like "peninsula" and "archipelago", in addition to "island", and nevertheless I finish verifying like one of my colleagues of this Forum that in addition is a detractor of my theory takes advantage of some of my ideas and my contributions and not even mentions to me nor a single time in his website.

---

Again, Georgeos, who is this nameless “detractor”?

quote:

---

I remember you once again, mainly to that "she forgets to them", or prefer to forget it, by mere convenience that my theory always has been "Atlantis between Iberia and Africa", means this, that I have always bet by the location of the empire atlantean between the coasts of Iberia and the coasts of Morocco and near islands. With the particularitity of which always I have thought that the Acropolis of Atlantis was certainly in an island or a peninsula or end, near the sea and close also of the Straits of Gibraltar. The same that in the coasts of Morocco could be in the coasts of Iberia (that is towards where I incline more), and thus always I have come it reflected in my messages, in the topics of the forums, for already but of three years.

Nevertheless, now somebody comes and it says to me: [/i]"Georgeos you are mistaken in your theory, my theory is that Atlantis were in Morocco"[/i], when I have always admitted and proposed that Atlantis only could be located in front of Gibraltar, between Iberia and Africa.

It means this, that if the Acropolis of Atlantis definitively appears in the coasts of Iberia, then I will not have been mistaken, and if it appears in some point of the coasts of Morocco or western Africa, I will not have been mistaken either, for the simple reason that always I have considered the two possibilities, although I incline towards which I call the possibility first, that is to say, the one to find the Acropolis of Atlantis more near the coasts of Iberia that of Morocco.

---

Here is where you went off the deep end, Georgeos. You cannot have it both ways; the capital city of Atlantis was either in Spain or in Morocco. You cannot claim the entire western half of the continents of Europe and Africa and then claim that the theory of its location was yours first! You have chosen your location and you have defended that location VIGOROUSLY as the location of the capital city of Atlantis, and that location was the coast of Spain, south of Gadeira! You have said repeatedly that it is the location “that is towards where [you] incline more.” If someone else has said that they think it is in Morocco, then that is THEIR THEORY – NOT YOURS! Do you really believe that you are the first person to determine that Atlantis was somewhere near the Straits of Gibraltar? For goodness sakes, Plato says that right in his text! Strabo elaborated upon Morocco as the location of Atlantis in his Geography! Just because people arrive at the same destination, does not necessarily mean that they traveled the same path!

quote:

---

A last reflection: The main base of that they defend that the Acropolis of Atlantis was in Morocco is the identification of topónimo Atlas or Atlante with the mounts that today take their name.

---

This is not the only, nor is it the strongest, argument for Atlantis in Morocco.

quote:

---

Peculiarly You did not find anything on Martin Colliga in Internet, when putting the name only appears with facility your work. That strange!

Peculiarly You either did not find anything on him in Internet?

---

Well, Georgeos, peculiar as you may find it, searches for both of these men returned 0 (zero) results. I searched for them both individually and even together; I searched for them both with and without the accompaniment of the word elephant. Nothing. I searched for them both by entering their names. Nothing. I searched for them on three different search engines (Lycos, Yahoo, and Momma). Nothing. I even copied and pasted the titles you gave me in the search bar – still nothing.

Respectfully,

Erick

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

posted 09-18-2003 07:11         

I agree with you that five pairs of twins are hardly historical. But it is a nice myth. I wonder whether this myth might help in identifying Atlantis. Does a similar myth exist anywhere, where a god and a woman has several (preferentially 5) pairs of twins?

posted 09-20-2003 05:24         

Although this is an excellent discussion with many good points, we are really very curious to learn more about your discoveries.

I'm trying to find the tectonic details of the area to see if any unexpected tectonic subsidence was reported in the later period.

posted 09-21-2003 10:55         

But Western Africa and Western Europe had suffered another tragedy around 80,000 BC, when the eastern side of Cape Verde Island fell apart, crashed into the Atlantic Ocean, and caused a megatsunami. This rinsed clean the coastlands of Western Africa and Western Europe. (Unfortunately for humanity, at that time most humans lived near the coastlands.)

As a result of Cape Verde collapse (80K BC) and Toba supervolcano (74K BC), the primary habitat of modern man was reduced to only the region that was:

1) near the Equator, to escape from the extreme cold (74K BC);

and 2) on the EAST side of Africa, to escape from the megatsunami of 80K BC.

posted 09-21-2003 18:46         

But the TV documentary named The Real Eve says that, based on Mitocondrial DNA, it seems only one pool of human genes survived; and they lived on the EAST side of Africa around 75,000 BC.

I am not an expert on MtDNA, but I think the Cro Magnon people initially went northeast out of Africa, reaching roughly the modern Uzbekestan, before they chose to go west into Europe.

posted 09-22-2003 13:29         

For women, the mtDNA types H and V were secluded in Iberia during severe glaciation about 25K BC. These H & V women seem to represent the Cro Magnons. (But portions of the H group also survived that glaciation by going east to the Black Sea.)

This is shown nicely in the following link. You can move backward and forward in time by clicking on arrows of this link: http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/genetics/mtDNAworld/eight.html

Today, about 60% of the women of northwest Europe belong to those H and V types of mtDNA.

But European men, as traced by Y chromosomes, all have traces of Asian ancestry. Here is a map which includes the history of Y chromosomes, for men: http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050200sci-genetics-evolution.1.GIF.html

posted 09-28-2003 14:29         

maybe a look like a human but i not
what i look from outside,only my human
skin remains,inside 100 % atlantien
reborn,in the past i was a human
but killed my the shadow leather
a dark race from space,thanks
atlantien cyberetic techonlogy
i survived the attack at first
i bean more maSChine ,the natites
dryed to kill me,error in program
that to my nolage in last hope
restared the program and that saved
me,lator become half mascihne half human
50% 50&,ad last the prosess of heling of the body was done cybertetic inplants were
converted to atlantien flesh and bone,then
the program shut downed him self and chages to the material the body dont neats no more
and flushed away,no joke

atlantien tehnology is very advance
that saved my life for sure

now back to the serius part that one
please forgive what tipe but this
is the true about my own past
shas are one race betheven the many race of galaxy like the grey and reptilaens but thereare pure evil,
shas leader try to kill me,only
the tehnology of atlantis saved
my life,a dangerus race indead
no body more look like spirits
bad thinks are out there

posted 12-11-2003 08:04         

By the way, in the German http://www.tolos.de homepage of Juergen Hepke are now three chapters translated into English language. In http://www.tolos.de/atlantis1.E.htm he
proposes, that the capital of Atlantis was situated in the estuary of the Guadalete river not far from Cadiz.
In my opinion, Wickbold´s location would meet Plato´s description better: in the center of a great plain. But also Georgeos might be right when he is seeking in the now submerged coast regions.

But Hepke´s other ideas about a first Atlantis in the West Indian sea, after its destruction a second Atlantis in South Iberia which were in detail described in Plato´s "Critias", and influences of the Atlantean culture into the old cultures of South and Middle America, Anatolia,Sumer, Egypt, the Minoan and the Bronze Age Culture in North Europe http://tolos.de/Atlantis2E.html
htpp://www.tolos.de/atlantisE.htm http://www.tolos.de/bermuda.E.htm
are quite interesting
and could lead to a combination of many different Atlantis theories.

Greetings from Ulf

posted 12-11-2003 08:08         

But Hepke´s other ideas about a first Atlantis in the West Indian sea, after its destruction a second Atlantis in South Iberia which were in detail described in Plato´s "Critias", and influences of the Atlantean culture into the old cultures of South and Middle America, Anatolia,Sumer, Egypt, the Minoan and the Bronze Age Culture in North Europe http://tolos.de/Atlantis2E.html http://www.tolos.de/atlantisE.htm http://www.tolos.de/bermuda.E.htm
are quite interesting
and could lead to a combination of many different Atlantis theories.

Greetings from Ulf

posted 12-11-2003 08:52         

I sent three e-mails to Werner Wickboldt several months ago. He has not replied. I am curious whether he has already published something on Atlantis.

I will send him an e-mail again and ask whether he has already published something on Atlantis and the structures.

It is good to see that others, too, think
that Atlantis was in Andalusia.
Karl Juergen Hepke will publish his book "DIE GESCHICHTE VON ATLANTIS, der vergessene Ursprung unserer Kultur" next year in the Triga-Verlag. http://www.tolos.de/tartessos.htm (bottom of page).

I think that someone should try to verify whether Atlantis was really at the location where Wickboldt suggested. Tourists can approach the "temple of Atlantis" only until 1.4 kilometers via a footpath. Therefore a permission to leave the footpath and examine the structures by the officials of the National Park is required.

The best is perhaps to interest archaeologists in these possible findings. They will probably get the permissions easily.

Best regards,

Rainer

posted 12-12-2003 09:11         

Here is a link which tries to tabulate all of the known ancient European artifacts related to boats, beginning 7000 BC. http://www.abc.se/~m10354/uwa/wreckeur.htm#logboats%20of%20French%20inland

Included in that link is a discussion of bronze artifacts found found in Huelva in 1923, and dated to 700 BC, when the Phoenicians had colonies in the region. Reference: Kenneth Hudson, The Book of Shipwrecks (Macmillan, 1979)

That 700 BC artifact is the oldest bronze boating-artifact listed for Europe.

Prior to 700 BC, there is a gap of several thousand years, before any other (pine) boating artifacts are known in Europe.

Is the table in this weblink correct? Or does anyone know of older bronze boating artifacts in Europe or in Andalusia?

posted 12-12-2003 17:02         

a)near Cape Gelidonya, 10 meters long, from ca. 1200BC http://ina.tamu.edu/capegelidonya.htm
b) near Kas / Uluburun, from 1300BC
the most interesting cargo were "oxe hide" shaped copper ingots in both ships. http://ina.tamu.edu/ub_main.htm

Robert Ballard claimed to have found a ship wreck from the Bronze Age in the Black Sea during his 2003 expedition.

In the western Mediterranean or along the Iberian coast nothing was found , as far as I know, from the Bronze Age time or earlier. It seems we must wait for the expeditions of Collina-Girard and Georgeos Diaz next year.

Greetings from Ulf