Greetings to you and yours. I wanted to take this opportunity to announce that my life's work, now a book, is released today and ready to ship. Where better to start than this group?

The title is:

Discovery of Atlantis: The Startling Case for the Island of Cyprus.

The website is:
www.DiscoveryofAtlantis.com

I know Brig already gave an intro about this a while back but there will probably be some questions that I'm now prepared to answer. This is the only forum in which I will do this, just because I love the temperate spirit here, at least for a little while.

Hope you enjoy the site and are pleased with the book. It's a brand new theory that I hope will thrill your senses for years to come.

Please cite this proof. What has become of the theory of Mediterranean formation by closure of the Tethys Sea through Plate Tectonics?

http://www.leibniz.valtline.it/geologia/

"The Cenozoic (65 - 2 MYA)

As we move from the Paleozoic to the Cenozoic, we begin to see many of the species of organisms that are familiar to us today. By this time, the three major oceans as we know them -- the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the Indian -- were well established. In addition, the formation of the Mediterranean Sea and the separation of Australia from Antarctica was completed during this period."

The disaster I mention about the Mediterranean Sea is central to the Cyprus theory. It is not about the formation of the Mediterranean, which happened a very long time ago, but rather about certain isolated flood-related disasters that have rocked the Mediterranean in ancient times.

Every once in a while, as the European and African plates move apart, the Strait of Gibraltar breaks due to the massive seismic activity. There is also tremendous volcanic activity at the time of this phenemenon. The destruction of the Gibraltar, which used to be a landbridge connecting Africa to Europe, connects the Atlantic with the Mediterranean.

The Mediterranean itself when there is no inlet to the Atlantic has a high evaporation rate and actually turns into a desert spotted with lakes and lagoons in the space of 1000-4000 years. During these dry times, the Med. basin has many plateaus reaching thousands of feet into the air, some of them surrounded by inland lakes.

When the Gibraltar dam turns into a strait the resulting flood is of unimaginable proportions, flooding the entire Med. Basin (whose floor is thousands of feet below the level of the Atlantic to the west) with a massive flood that obliterates everything on its path. Think of the Med. Basin as a giant bathtub and the Gibraltar as the faucet.

The best book on the topic is by Kenneth Hsu, called "The Mediterranean Was a Desert," published by Princeton University Press. The info is relatively new and much more investigation needs to take place, but for now they estimate that this destruction of the Gibraltar took place roughly five million years ago. However, what they fail to realize is that we have records from ancient geogrophers stating that the Gibraltar did indeed break, giving way to the Atlantic. So the question is, if it happened so long ago, then how could we have records of the event by ancient peoples?

Hope this gave you a brief peek. Chapter 6 of the book is entirely dedicated to this topic.

Well, the "here it comes" effect is to be expected, and I'm fully prepared to defend the theory. As you know, however, the only thing that will put the matter to rest is the expedition.

Regarding Georgio's find, my intention is not to take away from anyone else's theories. I would only say that any worthy theory must present sufficient evidence relating to Plato's substantial list of clues.

Although the size and location of the island remain are rather hard to pinpoint with these clues, the actual description of the island itself, as well as the destruction that took it out of view, are quite straightforward. Using these clues it is possible to get a clear picture of what sort of landmass one should look for, its mineral composition, its flora and fauna, the relative depth of the rectangular plain etc... I've compiled four dozen of these clues from Timaeus and Critias and they depict a vivid image of what should be found. Merely matching one or two of these clues simply will not do. Out of the four dozen clues provided, Cyprus in its antediluvian form matches nearly all of them. That's hard to ignore. Either we've found it or else it's one of the most amazing coincidences of all time.

There should be a flat, rectangular plain lying at the foothills of a considerable landmass with towering peaks. The landmass should be surrounded by towering moutains on at least three sides, and shown to be surrounded by water prior to a massive flood. The plain should be at least several thousand feet below the current sea level. There should be a low mountain in the center of this plain. The plain, as well as the former island, should be elongated and stretch east/west. There should be mountains to the north of the plain, and coastal hills to the south. The whole landmass should rise sharply from the seafloor. There should be a scientifically sound basis for its submergence. The list is quite long...

These are only some of the markers which any worthy theory must be compared to, and judged against. Little hints here or there will simply not do if they do not correspond in at least some uniform measure to Plato's concrete layout.

I respect anyone trying to find Atlantis and doing his/her good work, but will exercise my right to keep a critical perspective on any theory, including my own.

Robert

Hope all is well. When you think of Plato's account, keep its source in mind. The records which the Egyptian priests gave to Solon was handed down religously for nine thousand years (counting from 2,600 B.C.). That's 11,600 years ago.

The people who recorded the intricate details of the island must have been there to see it before it was taken out of view by the flood. That's obvious enough. This means that the original authors were living in prehistoric times by anyone's standard.

What should be kept in mind is that the original account never mentioned an "Atlantic Ocean" or a "Strait of Gibraltar," as you know. So, to say that the pillars of Hercules and the Sea of Atlas are synonymous with the Strait of Gibralar and the Atlantic Ocean is an assumption, not fact. These assumptions were made by Solon, Plato and numerous other parties ever since the original records were presented in Egypt, and later translated and heavily interpreted.

In short, to say that the pillar of Hercules is most definitely the Strait of Gibraltar is the same as saying that people living 11,600 years ago in the Near East not only were aware of the Gibraltar Strait but also had a name for it, and used it as a common point of reference! In other words, it would be like saying that prehistoric men knew what existed at the westernmost edge of the European continent, at a time when nothing remotely close to a civilization existed anywhere near the region.

We should bear in mind that the source of the Atlantis legend comes from the eastern Mediterranean, and that even in Solon's day travelling simply from Athens to Egypt was an adventure. We should also remember that if Atlantis was the source of all civilization, then its impact should be witnessed by surrounding lands that have the earliest signs of civilization. That's the Near and Middle East, not western Europe. Culture was imported to Europe in recent times, relatively speaking.

The Atlantic Ocean has been at the same level, relatively speaking, for over a million years. What kind of a flood could have taken a large island with towering mountains almost completely out of view? Certainly nothing that occured in the Atlantic. How could the Athenians have been "swallowed up by the earth" in the eastern Med. region, simultaneous with the submergence of Atlantis, if the island was thousands of miles away in the Atlantic?

There are many other clues that point to the Mediterranean disaster, experienced through the Gibraltar destruction and the ensuing flood that filled the basin. I've pointed out a few.

But ultimately, it's Cyprus's near perfect match with Plato's description that takes one's breath away. How can such a remarkable match be coincidental?

Time will tell.

"What should be kept in mind is that the original account never mentioned an "Atlantic Ocean" or a "Strait of Gibraltar," as you know. So, to say that the pillars of Hercules and the Sea of Atlas are synonymous with the Strait of Gibralar and the Atlantic Ocean is an assumption, not fact. These assumptions were made by Solon, Plato and numerous other parties ever since the original records were presented in Egypt, and later translated and heavily interpreted. "

Please explain this further, what do you mean by the original account? Are the 'Atlantic Ocean' and 'Pillars of Hercules' not mentioned in dialogues of Plato?

Do you have reference to any other account of Atlantis older than Plato's If you have then it will be very interesting to know about it.

Regards,

By the "original account," I mean the one that predates the Egyptian records, which the high priests of Egypt subsequently translated to their own tongue and relayed to Solon, who in turn translated to Greek and passed it on to his own people. Note Critias 113a-b:

"Solon intended to use the story in his own poem. And when, on inquiring about the significance of the names, he learned that the Egyptians had translated the originals into their own language, he went through the reverse process, and as he learned the meaning of a name wrote it down in Greek."

This tells us that the original account was in a language other than Egyptian. The Egyptian priests actually translated all the text to their own tongue, and as is always the case in translations (particularly the translation of geographical terms), name changes and errors were imported into the Atlantis legend. In other words, the original name for Atlantis was not even Keftiu, the Egyptian name for the island, since they had already changed things. Then Solon got a hold of it and changed things around even more. Keep in mind that even today we in the West call a nation Germany, while the natives themselves call it Deutchland. If most of our current records were destroyed, people living a few thousand years from now would be hardpressed to know that both names refer to the same place.

We don't even have the Egyptian records so it's hard to know their own already garbled terminology, but it's safe to say that people living 11,600 years ago in the Near East didn't have the remotest clue as to what or where "Atlantic Ocean" was. Neither would they have known anything at all about the Strait of Gibraltar. Furthermore, since a massive flood took the whole mountainous island of Atlantis out of view, then who knows where the original pillars of Hercules was? Isn't it possible, or even probable, that these pillars are also presently under water? In short, the "original" account certainly neither mentioned an "Atlantic Ocean" nor a "pillar of Hercules." These names are relatively modern, not prehistoric.

Regarding reference to other accounts of Atlantis, well, where does one start. Remember that Atlantis was a Greek name. It's not that we have no mention of the paradiasical island before Solon's time, it's just that we don't hear of it with the name Atlantis. The memory of this "garden of the gods" is found in even the oldest recorded texts ever recovered. It was known by many other names, including Eden. Many other names can be found in the Near East and Middle East, particuarly among the Sumerians, Persians etc... Ignatius Donnelly has the best book on the subject to date.

The story of Atlantis is the oldest legend in all of the world. It was already old news at the time we presently call the "dawn of history," some seven thousand years ago. Almost all the garbled legends of the "gods" who came to earth from the heavens and gave mankind the gift of civilization stem from a common source, and this source originated in some remote time in the prehistoric past, long before the current "age of darkness." It is commonly referred to as the "Golden Age."

peace,

Robert

How do you respond to this?

quote:

---

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

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

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

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

4.) Tabulae Heracleenses 1.38 – of alluvial land

---

Respectfully,

Erick

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

The catastrophic flood idea is, in your words, crucial.

Hence I am googling mediterranean hsu and similar.

One idea is that, if so, the 'Mediterranean desert' would have been inimical to life. What do you think?

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199707/0204.html

Was the Mediterranean dry?

"The first solid evidence
came in the summer of 1970, when geologists aboard the deep
sea research and drilling ship _Glomar Challenger_ brought
up drill cores containing gypsum, rock salt, and various
other minerals that could only have been formed by drying up
of seawater. What was remarkable was that these minerals
were found on the ocean floor, one to three kilometers deep,
buried under as much as 200 meters of deep-sea oozes, which
are the shelly remains of microscopic plankton that rain
down on the ocean bottom. These oozes accumulate at a rate
of about two centimeters per thousand years. [Therefore,
the Sea dried up Ten million years ago and was re-filled]"

Another source gives 5 million years.

Looks to me like the Mediterranean has been sea for a long long time.

I would appreciate any evidence to the contrary.

Ed:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/desertme.htm

------------------
We think ourselves unhappy when a comet appears, but the misfortune is the comet's
Bernard de Fontenelle
The Plurality of Worlds (Paris 1686)

Please correct me if I am in error, but this above information indicates to me that the Med may have been a dry area of salt deposits 5-10 million years ago, may have been quickly submerged and remained covered by water for millions of years during which the ooze was deposited.

I cannot see any niche for human life in that scenario.

------------------
We think ourselves unhappy when a comet appears, but the misfortune is the comet's
Bernard de Fontenelle
The Plurality of Worlds (Paris 1686)

First off, I would recommend reading Hsu’s book(s) on the topic rather than doing an online search. The online articles are usually written by people with an ax to grind and are unreliable as an objective source of information. This is particularly true when the article is written by a fundamentalist religionist.

Generally speaking, there are a few things to consider regarding the desiccation of the Mediterranean Sea and the salinity crisis:

1)The information is still very new and any scientist that gives definitive answers, especially regarding the age of the flood(s) should be questioned again. Here’s a quote from my book on this subject:

“At the moment, we do not have the technological capability to definitively date all of the highly complex geological activities of a seismically active area, especially an area as active as the Mediterranean. While we can date the period in which the Mediterranean completely dried up, leaving behind its telltale deposits, we cannot be sure of the number of times the Gibraltar dam has opened and closed its gates. It is quite likely that shorter cycles of partial evaporation and filling have taken place, leaving behind no detectable evidence of deposits. So, if the Mediterranean Sea had begun the process of evaporation but had not yet left salt deposits on the seafloor when the dam turned into a strait, then what signs can we look for to date the subsequent flood? It has already been shown that the Mediterranean has gone through incessant climatic and geological changes. More importantly, examination of the seabed indicates that there have been numerous periods of dry, desert-like ages followed by torrential floods that had raised the coastline by as much as a mile.
No one can claim to know exactly how many times the Mediterranean basin has been flooded, when each of these floods occurred, or the circumstances surrounding every multi-faceted cataclysm. When it comes to summarizing the details of these newly discovered facts about the Mediterranean, even the summary of this subject in the Encyclopaedia Britannica leaves ample room for doubt: “Considerable uncertainty has remained regarding the chronology and character of sea-bottom salt formation, and evidence from subsequent seismic studies and core sampling has been subject to intense scientific debate.” Considering the fact that the discovery of the Mediterranean desiccation came only a few decades ago and that further expeditions have been rare, we are still at a guessing stage in our assessment of the chronology of many Mediterranean “events.”

2)Scientists have an unfortunate tendency to say more than they know. Truth is, we’re still in an infantile level of scientific knowledge when it comes to such complex geological activities, especially when the guessing-game conducted by the “experts” is based on such limited research. They’re not in agreement about anything relating to the Med. flood.

3)The story of the ancient flood was perpetuated by the Mediterranean peoples – with supporting documentation by nearly every nation surrounding the sea.

4)In The Atlantis Myth (1948), H.S. Bellamy noted (p.78) how ancient geographers “testified that originally the Straits of the Pillars (Straits of Gibraltar) did not exist, but the rock was eventually broken through in a cataclysm.” Now how in the world did these ancient geographers know about this Gibraltar disaster if it happened millions of years ago?

5)We have a nearly perfect match with Plato’s description in the vicinity of Cyprus. Coincidence?

When all is said and done, the combined weight of several factors formulates a valid, testable hypothesis. That is, the fact that our geophysical knowledge is still so limited, combined with the fact that the ancients knew about the Gibraltar disaster, in conjunction with the fact that we have scientific maps/models showing an uncanny match between Plato’s Atlantis and the southeastern coast of Cyprus, leads one to say… hmmm. It’s not just one fact or another, it’s the potential scenario depicted when all these factors are combined.

Consider the possibilities.

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say with the references, please clarify.

I'm familiar with the site. I believe that the story of the great flood, much like the story of the gods who descended to earth from the heavens, emanated from a central location and eventually covered the globe in various diluted shapes and forms. Similar studies can be applied to the symbols and architectural designs that had their origins in what we consider "prehistoric."

Atlantis was, after all, the source of a great majority of the culture which eventually pervaded our world. Think of the various diluted forms of the legend around the globe as the smoke, and the original location as the fire. Follow your senses and feel the heat of the original fire. It emanates from the cradle of civilization, the "old world," being the Near and Middle East. Cyprus is right in the middle of it all in the very heart of the ancient world, right between Athens and Egypt, the two lands that brought us the legend of Atlantis. This is the area that the purer stories of the flood are mostly concentrated and branched out to the "new world."

Solving the Atlantis mystery is like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. Many different pieces must come together from diverse fields including mythology, history, archaeology, geology, oceanography and Atlantology. Failure to take any one of these fields into account will surely lead the search astray.

For me it was like all the different colored rays of the sun, which I filtered though a magnifying glass and focused on the earth. The rays merged and focused directly on Cyprus.

peace, Robert

I do not believe you have answered this point:

"Please correct me if I am in error, but this above information indicates to me that the Med may have been a dry area of salt deposits 5-10 million years ago, may have been quickly submerged and remained covered by water for millions of years during which the ooze was deposited.

I cannot see any niche for human life in that scenario."

------------------
We think ourselves unhappy when a comet appears, but the misfortune is the comet's
Bernard de Fontenelle
The Plurality of Worlds (Paris 1686)

"I believe that the story of the great flood, much like the story of the gods who descended to earth from the heavens, emanated from a central location and eventually covered the globe in various diluted shapes and forms."

There are flood legends throughout the world and no need to emanate from a central point. There are probably floods right now due to the hurricane. What about Ur? That is not on the Med. Neither was Noah. BTW there is not enough water to "cover" the globe.

"Atlantis was, after all, the source of a great majority of the culture which eventually pervaded our world."

Is that an assumption or irrational belief, or can you PROVE it? If not, why make such statements which can only lessen your credibility?

Does this mean you don't want us to consider counter arguments? If you check Velikovsky you will find a considerable amount of valid criticism. At one time I thought Velikovsky incredible (wonderful). Then I found the smudged 'evidence' and partial quotes on line -WHICH COULD BE CHECKED.

Hey doesn't anyone use regular names here? Quirky crowd! I'll have to come up with a handle.

Regarding the desiccation theory, I think the material I provided did answer the question. The scenario you outlined is but a fleeting guess, as unreliable as a hundred others currently floating out there; nobody really knows. We do know, however, that there have been numerous floodings/desiccation periods in the Med., not just a single occurence. The chronology of these events are up for debate, and no scientific crowd is in agreement.

I would still recommend a more thorough read by the people who were there and published books on the topic, rather than a cursory online review. Some of these researchers are among the best-known and internationally recognized scientists in their field. Bill Ryan was aboard the Glomar Challenger along with Dr. Hsu, and later published his own book you may have heard of called "Noah's flood," co-authored by Walter Pitman. Robert Ballard investigated the Black Sea due to this same continuing research.

Many of the things we think we know about geophysics and earth "events" will create hysterical laughter among scientists living a hundred years from now, much less a thousand years. Count on it, for it has always been so. For now, the quote I provided from the Encyclopedia Britannica should be sufficient to show that no one has a grasp of the chronology of the events. The fact that ancient geographers knew about the Gibraltar disaster should be enough to show that it happened in human history, not five million years ago. The Cyprus theory is new to you and any preconceptions about other locations may cloud one's judgment. It wouldn't be the first time in Atlantology. It's no use arguing really, I believe the vestiges will be showing up in my lifetime.

Regarding the flood, after studying and writing about world mythology for fifteen years, one comes to certain conclusions. I'm more objective in the book, but I reserve the right to express my personal opinions on a forum such as this. BTW, I wasn't speaking of the flood covering the globe, just its story.

And I do believe that Atlantis/Eden gave birth to the majority of what we consider culture on earth. But that's a different story.

It is irrelevant when the Med dried out. The point is how long it took to deposit the ooze. The ooze came from the water after (as you have it) the dam burst.

Please note that I am concentrating on this for starters. I am not happy about the Pillars of Heracles (and many other points) but ... one thing at a time.

In The Outline of History (1921), H.G. Wells wrote a chilling account of a Mediterranean flooding:

"Now, this may seem all the wildest speculation, but it is not entirely so, for if we examine a submarine contour map of the Straits of Gibraltar, we find there is an enormous valley running up from the Mediterranean deep, right through the Straits, and trenching some distance out on to the Atlantic shelf. … This refilling of the Mediterranean, which by the rough chronology we are employing in this book may have happened somewhere between 30,000 and 10,000 B.C., must have been one of the greatest single events in the pre-history of our race. … Suddenly the ocean waters began to break through over the westward hills and to pour in upon these primitive peoples—the lake that had been their home and friend became their enemy; its waters rose and never abated; their settlements were submerged; the waters pursued them in their flight. Day by day and year by year the waters spread up the valleys and drove mankind before them. Many must have been surrounded and caught by the continually rising salt flood. It knew no check; it came faster and faster; it rose over the tree-tops, over the hills, until it had filled the whole basin of the present Mediterranean and until it lapped the mountain cliffs of Arabia and Africa. Far away, long before the dawn of history, this catastrophe occurred."

Again, Catastrophe, how did ancient geographers know about the Gibraltar disaster if it happened five million years ago?

If you can answer that, we'll continue.

Writing for myself, I use a handle because I am well known in my area and want to preserve my identity. I have written books, including a scientific 'tome' for Marcel Dekker.

I use Catastrophe because I specialise in catastrophes, like Heinrich Events which could be tied into your hypothesis.

"Now, this may seem all the wildest speculation, but it is not ENTIRELY so"

Wells was a writer. There is no proof there. Did he get the story first hand from these 'primitive people'?

I did not ask you to answer any of my questions as a CONDITION of continuing. That is not a 'technique' I would use.

"The year 1866 was signalised by a remarkable incident, a mysterious and puzzling phenomenon, which doubtless no one has yet forgotten. Not to mention rumours which agitated the maritime population and excited the public mind, even in the interior of continents, seafaring men were particularly excited."

"This refilling of the Mediterranean, which by the rough chronology we are employing in this book may have happened somewhere between 30,000 and 10,000 B.C."

I understand your reason for wanting to stay anonymous, and I'm sure you know more about catastrophes than I.

The quote about the ancient geographers knowledge of the Gibraltar disaster is from H.S. Bellamy in his "The Atlantis Myth," not from Wells.

The Glomar Challenger is practically the only serious and extensive survey of the Med. salinity crisis, and if I remember correctly it never took core samples from the area between Cyprus and Syria. Let's just say that we have very limited knowledge and it would be best if no definitive conclusions were reached either way. Who knows how many floods there have been, how many affected the eastern vs. the western Med. basin, whether Sicily once served as a landbridge to Africa and cut the Med. in two parts, how far the seafloor(s) sank due to volcanic/seismic activity, what havoc this massive flood wreaked on the basin, or how many times there was high salinity in shallow lakes but no complete desiccation? There are certainly too many factors and too little scientific knowledge to make accurate statements.

The Atlantis myth is so old; it has gone through too many revisions, translations, assumptions and interpretations for it to be studied under a microscope. It needs a sort of detective with intuitive powers and a broad knowledge of diverse fields. The theory in my book is based on an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence that all come together to make a strong case.

If you put each piece of the puzzle under a microscope, and weigh them isolated from the whole picture, you will find faults. That can't be helped in Atlantology because there are inherent faults and contradictions in Critias.

In the search for Atlantis, possibilities can only be presented through accumulated probabilities. Other than physical discovery, that's all anyone will ever have.

"Now, this may seem all the wildest speculation, but it is not entirely so, for if we examine a submarine contour map of the Straits of Gibraltar, we find there is an enormous valley running up from the Mediterranean deep, right through the Straits, and trenching some distance out on to the Atlantic shelf. …"

New Concise Atlas of the Earth shows submarine contours indicating relatively shallow waters out about as far as Madeira.
I'll look for more refs.

I enjoy the dialogue too, thanks. I do quote some of Jules Verne's work in the book.

Now, given the fact that ancient peoples had knowledge of the Gibraltar dam, do you think it's at all possible that the "five million years" thing may be incorrect?

Here is better information on the SofG:
http://www.uca.es/otros/anasim_gibraltar/english.html

Is this quote correct? I do not have the source.

I have at great length been reading its messages.

How can You be so safe that the Egyptians did not mention to Solón the name of the Atlantic nor the name to him of the Pillars of Hercules?

Certainly, i myself I have aimed in this Forum, does or more of a year, the fact that Kritias warns that some "names of men", that is to say, of the kings atlanteans, were translations, by meaning, of the translations that the Egyptians had as well done of the names of the personages atlanteans, but at no moment he affirms that the geographic names or of places like Atlantis or the "Columns of Hercules", were also translations of Egyptian names or names atlanteans. Kritias only makes the warning, before beginning to speak of the "names of men", that is to say, of the personages of the narration. The fragment is the following one:

"... to d' eti brachu pro tou logou dei dêlôsai, mê pollakis akouontes Hellênika barbarôn andrôn onomata thaumazête ..."

"... Before the narration, it is necessary to call the attention on a detail, lest you should not be surprised frequently, to hearing Greek names given to barbarians mens ..." (Transalation: Georgeos Díaz-Montexano. 1994-2003)

On the other hand, him memory that Kritias mentions a name atlantean, and that name is Gadeiros, which gave origin to the name of the region that was well-known, from long before Solón, like Gadeira or Gadira (Gadira=Gades=Cádiz), Therefore, still supposing that the names of the Atlantic and the Columns of Hercules were not atlanteans, we have the only name that - according to it affirms was atlantean, he is the one of Gadeira, and the region of Gadeira always has been next to the "Columns of Hercules", Chance. The region of Gadeira, always has been as opposed to the region of the Atlas, Another chance.

Please, we use the common sense. As it is possible that, knowing Solón, Kritias, and Plato, which the Atlantic one was the sea that was opened in front of to the Columns of Hercules (Gibraltar), and that this sea was next to Gadeira and to the Atlas, they could trasmitir a false history that in fact it spoke of another Sea, of another island or country, and other Columns or Straits? The Atlantic and the "Columns of Hercules" already were known in the Greek, Phoenician and Egyptian world, from hundreds of years before the times of Solón. Because Solón reason would have to also change the names that the Egyptian priests mentioned to him of the sea, of the first king, of the Columns or Straits, and all the country, island or civilization? It does not seem logical. But what if it seems logical it is that Solón left to names atlanteans only both that well were known: Atlas=Atlantis and Gadeiro=Gadeira.

As much the region of the Atlas like the Atlantic sea, and the region of Gadeira, was places very known within the cultural scope of the Mediterranean world. Therefore, to Solón atlanteans (ibero-tatessians, ibero-mauretanians or ibero-berberians) Atlas=Atlantis and Gadeiro=Gadeira was enough to him with not translating names both. With these two names, presumably atlanteans, and adapting the name atlantean of the "Columns of Hercules", by the Greek form, Solón already could then write up one more a more comprehensible history for their interlocutors athenians. Another indication: the Greeks knew perfectly that Poseidôn and Kleitô were not the Atlas parents, but the titan Japhet and Clymené or Asia. This demonstrates that the names of Poseidôn and Kleitô, would be the translations, by meaning and similarity, of the God the seas and the earthquakes atlantean of, and of the name of the young person, "the illustrious", "the Famous", daughter of a native man, who had originated of the same Earth of Atlantis, Euenor, "the man-exalting, glorious" and of a "white mare", that is what means the name of Leukipe. So that Kleitos would be a centaura or woman, human half, half horse. In any case, it is being spoken of cult to the horses and targets, like the horse pegasus. The cult to the white horse always was associate to the God Poseidôn, which does not stop being another peculiar coincidence.

Kritias say that the Egyptian priests said to him that the Atlantis island was in the "pelagos" or "arm of sea" (in Latin FRETUM), in front of the mouth of the Straits that the Greeks knew like "Columns or Pillars Hercules". He is specifying himself with these words that were the same place that the Greeks knew with that name. I

n the times of Solón the only place that the Greeks knew with that name was the Straits of Gibraltar, as they demonstrate the references to it of other authors previous to the times of Solón. Any Greek cult, of those times, had to know very well that the "Pillars of Hercules" were in the mouth of the Atlantic. Any good reason does not exist to think that Solón also changed to the names and the geographic locations.

Solón only translated to Greek the some names of the personages of the Atlantis. That is what the passage says exactly. And if Solón explains clearly a name atlantean, Gadeiro, which translates like Eumelo, "rich in ewes" or "the cattle dealer", because nothing prevents that the name of Atlantis is also the same one that the Egyptians mentioned to him originally.

What You say that more ago than 11,000 years the Egyptians could not know of the existence of the Atlantic and the Columns of Hercules, are quite correct. Certainly, it is very difficult to accept that the Atlantic and Gibraltar could know in that time. We agree in that point. But the question is that many authors have defended that perhaps the antiquity is not correct. Serving dish seems to describe a civilization of the Bronze or the Age of the Copper, although it begins describing to a culture paleolithic, when it says that in the principle atlanteans did not know to sail nor had boats. When the Atlantis sank, that were, probably, much after their origins, perhaps at the end of the Age of the Bronze, the Egyptians had to already know the Atlantic and the Columns Hercules (Gibraltar), through the Phoenicians.

For the Egyptians, the Columns of Hercules were the Atlas Columns or of Melkhart (the Heraklês tirio), the Phoenicians had cultural contacts with all the great civilizations of the Mediterranean and the Greeks knew perfectly that what the Phoenicians called "Pillars of Melkhart", he was what they knew like "Pillars of Heraklês" (Hêrakleous Stêlas).

With all probability, history would arrive to him at the Egyptians through the Phoenicians, who would listen to of own the Gadiritanos or tartésicos, descendants of atlanteans of the region of Gadeira. Therefore, the Egyptians would count to Solón a history written in their annals and that kept from several hundreds of years before, since the Phoenicians arrived at Gadeira, approximately on the 1,200 or 1,100 B.C., archaeologically proven from the XIX-VIII century to C., that is to say, about two hundred years before the visit of Solón. He is as well as I see the line of the trasmisión of history, until arriving at Solón. The most logical and coherent solution with the data is this that at the moment we have.

Solón translated only the names of the personages. All the personages, from Posediôn to the last son, Diaprepes, are Greek names, therefore, this clear one that nor the name of same Poseidôn is the original one. In that we will agree. Nevertheless, in case of Atlas and of Atlantis, yes must to be name atlantean original like Gadeiro, because Atlas agrees with name of God Greek which it dwelled such in bordering of the Atlantic sea, next to the Columns of Hercules and the region of Gadeira, that according to Kritias, was an indigenous name that is, of the country of Atlantis. It cannot be no chance that the sea that bathes the coasts of the region of Gadeira was the same one that the Greeks did not know before Solón with the name of Atlantic, like can either be chance that, Gadeira was exactly in front of the region of the Atlas (Morocco).

I mind that, in fact, two names only exist atlanteans in the story of Plato: Atlas=Atlantis and Gadeiros=Gadeira; this last one confirmed in the own text by Kritias, and first, I deduce it by geographic association with the region of the brother that is, Gadeira.

Continuaremos with the debate, because it is very interesting.

Warm Greetings of Georgeos.

In the nicest possible way (Robert will understand what I mean) I am "attacking" this point:

"Crucial here is the recent scientific proof of a catastrophic flood of the entire Mediterranean basin due to the destruction of the Gibraltar dam."

because Robert says it is crucial. That is to avoid lengthy restatements of all the old arguments.

I respect your position also, but we could re-write Atlantis all over.

Do you have any information please on this:

"Crucial here is the recent scientific proof of a catastrophic flood of the entire Mediterranean basin due to the destruction of the Gibraltar dam."

Best wishes

Catastrophe

I think Erick may be referring to different representations of island. (Erick please correct me).

An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary (Budge)
(Yes - I know it is very dated)
gives 6 hieroglyphs for "island"
The one page 6 col a gives (island?),land
16a island
269a close to a river or the sea, low-lying land, island
270a region, island
273b island
375a island
There is also e.g., Islands of the Mediterranean = 16b which also mentions islands of the eastern Mediterranean and island of Sneferu.

So maybe Erick was suggesting that the AE did not have a clearly defined 'island' concept.

I hope Erick will explain.

I'm glad you're sticking to the Med. desiccation point because it's something that needs to be thoroughly analyzed. I think maybe I should have clarified more:

My point isn't that the complete desiccation of the Med. did not occur five million years ago, nor am I denying the depth of the ooze layer and what that means. Those facts are all scientifically sound and provable. The point is somewhere else completely.

We KNOW that the Mediterranean has been REPEATEDLY flooded, not just once. The Med. is one of the most geologically active areas of the world and being an island in it must be like being a sock in a washing machine. One day you're a tropical island, next day your in a desert etc... Now, this means that the African and European plates merge and diverge at the Gibraltar quite often (by "often" I'm speaking in geological terms which could mean tens of thousands of years). Nobody can date these events.

Now here's where it gets interesting. While science can measure and "prove" the date of the complete drying of up of the Mediterranean, by analyzing the salt deposits etc., there's really no way of knowing when else it could have happened if it did NOT leave salt deposits. In other words, let's just assume that ten thousand years ago, the Gibraltar was a dam and not a strait. The Med. had begun its evaporation process but it was not a desert yet, there were pockets of inland seas, lakes and lagoons surrounding high plateaus which then existed as mountainous islands. The water had evaporated to a rate where the remaining lakes and seas were high in salt content, but it had not evaporated completely, meaning there were not salt deposits to speak of. All this is occuring ON TOP of the ooze and salt layer left behind from five million years ago. At this point, the Med. is still a sea, maybe in separate parts, but is maybe a mile below its current level, no more. The Gibraltar dam now breaks and the Atlantic comes rushing in. In one hundred years the water level comes up by a mile. The people who were living around the inland seas in the Med. basin (which was not an arid desert at this time) are completely wiped out in what would be the greatest loss of human life by flood in history.

I hope the scenario is getting clearer. What I'm saying is that we just do not know the date of EVERY occurence, because without the salt deposits you have no way of judging. The Med. could have been flooded dozens of times since the Miocene epoch but we would never know it unless the entire Med. had evaporated completely. The most recent occurence, I'm suggesting, took our Atlantis island out of view.

It should be noted that the deluge scenario described by Plato can ONLY be explained by a BASIN-FILLING FLOOD. There is simply no other way that a large island with mountains reaching thousand of feet into the air can be almost completely submerged by water. Not in the Atlantic, that's for sure.

These facts, along with reports from ancient geographers showing that they KNEW about the Gibraltar disaster forms the case for the POSSIBILITY that Cyprus was our Atlantis. This in itself doesn't mean much, except that we have a landmass that, when the current sea level is lowered by -1650 meters, matches Plato's description of Atlantis almost perfectly! We have a 96% rate of accuracy matching 48 clues he provided. That includes the layout of the island, the distance of the Acropolis hill to the southern sea, the description of the mountains to the north and the surrounding mountains all around the island, the flora and fauna, the metals, the weather patterns, the rivers originating from highlands, the rectangular flat plain at the foothills, and dozens of other matches that obviously are outlined thoroughly in my book.

Certainly, logic dictates that the possibility of the Med. disaster in more recent times, combined with this uncanny match in the eastern Med., the general proximity of Cyprus to the source of the legend, the fact that it's in the heart of the ancient world and cradle of civilization, as well as the fact that Cypriots to this day point to the southern coast of their island as the place where the Olympian gods once lived, makes a case, no?

What are the odds that we have a landscape that matches 46 out of the 48 clues Plato provided as pure coincidence?

I'm not looking to prove this, yet. The proof is coming later. I'm just trying to open up your minds to the possibility. For now.

Robert