That document is an intro to the complete thesis which I have, so I will search through it tomorrow for a more lengthy passage.

Finland, and indeed to whole Baltic Sea area is dotted with place names relating to Greek myth and Mediterranean place names.

For a thousand years until the present it has been said that Homer was a great poet but a lousy geographer. This is only true if one supposes that the Iliad and the Odyssey took place in the Mediterranean area. When the geography of the tales is overlaid in the Baltic area, it fits perfectly.

Sadly, when the Achaean and other peoples migrated south from the growing Arctical conditions they named their new environs, and even located themselves in similar juxtapositions as their homeland. They were gradually replaced by the Hellenic civilization, the wonderful poetry survived but the memory of migration was lost.

The Georgeo's work of investigation explain, of satisfactory way, the evolution of the Phoenician name of Ybêria - by translation- from the Phoenician language, to the Egyptian name of Schuty or Schutet, and of this Egyptian name, to the Greekian name of Atlantis.

The Georgeo's philological study, propose that the original name of Atlantis was Ybêria or Ibêria, "the Island of the God of the Wind or the Air", who was translated by the Egyptians like Schuty or Schutet, "(the country) of the God Schu", that was the "God of the Wind and the Air", and that the Greeks later translated this name by Atlantis, "(the country) of the God Atlas", that was the equivalent one of the "Egyptian God Schu".

Rockessence, if we place the Illiad in the Baltic Sea, the geography might work better, but once again we are looking for Troy. Heinrich Schliemann certainly wouldn't like that if he were still alive. Where do you place Troy if it's in the Baltic?

quote:

---

Docy, what translation is Georgeous working from? I thought we already established here that none of the original manuscripts of Plato survive. Even if he is working from the oldest one, Timaeus, I hear, it's in Latin, and it's still is not an original, which once again leaves it open to all manner of errors in terms of the names both the Greeks and Egyptians had for places. The only way to truly be sure of what Plato said is to be working from the original, or, better yet, to find the original story at the Temple of Neith, which I think would be an even better idea.

---

If I recall correctly, Peter James is an English scholar that had a 1 hour show produced for Discovery Channel in which he detailed his research & theory. If this is indeed the same man, then his theory is that Atlantis was, in actuality, the lost city of Tantalus, which he locates in southwestern Anatolia, and which (according to legend) became submerged in a lake after an earthquake caused a flood of water to issue forth from a crack in a nearby mountain. Any similarities in our theories would therefore begin and end with us both locating Atlantis in Anatolia.

Additionally, if you'll recall, nearly a year ago I made mention of the geneology of Atlas and its relation to & with the Trojans. At that time, it didn't fit in with my Morocco theory, so I dismissed it. It wasn't until I began taking a more serious look at Anatolia and the Levant (in relation to my HJCP article submission regarding the two words hupoplous & gephuras) that this piece of information found its place in the puzzle.

And in regards to the Atlantis story actually having been the story of the Invasions of the Libyans & Sea Peoples, and in regards to the Sea Peoples having actually originated in Anatolia and the Levant, this piece of info not only makes perfect sense, but also jives with what is written in Plato's text.

If you'll kindly notice in the link that you provided to Carlos Parada's website, both the Trojans and the Greeks that attacked them in Homer's Trojan War were descended from the house of Atlas; the Trojans and the house of Troy (i.e. Priam) were descended from Electra - one of the daughters of Atlas; Agamemnon, one of the leaders of the Greeks that attacked Troy, was also descended from Atlas through another of Atlas' daughters - the Pleiad Dione (3). This info would seem to jive very well with the passage in Plato's Critias (114d), in which Plato states that there was "many of the house of Atlas elsewhere and they came to be held in honor." Additionally, Plato also mentioned in the Timaeus (22a) that Solon endeavored to tell the Egyptian priests (in song) about Niobe and Phoroneus and the others who were among the first counted; Niobe was another descendant of Atlas (through Dione [3]). In fact, in the metaphrastic translation of the text, there are a great many passages that match up well with the details of the Trojan War given to us by Homer. For instance:

Critias 109a - Moreover of indeed many barbarian tribes, and so far as Greeks there was a tribe at that time, concerning that it was by itself is the reason I raise such a detailed narrative therefore everywhere to light upon to explain; the latter was Athenian and of at that time and of the opposition, to have spent some time at war themselves, at first compelled to be the first to come across, and strength was in both sides and in this wise the condition of their states. Whereas thereupon there before of here to tell of to honor.

Translation by E.W.Wright

This passage would seem to suggest that amongst the tribes that attacked Egypt, one of those tribes was Greek and that they felt compelled to be the first to cross over the sea to Egypt. This has a very great similarity to the story of Odysseus, who was said by Homer to feel compelled to be the first to cross over to Egypt after the Trojan War in order to raid and pillage it, in an attempt to increase both his wealth and status in Greek society.

Timaeus 25d - Afterwards in time extraordinary commotions and inundations took place, one day and night hardships came, during [which] all of your fighting men assembled to enter by land, and in like manner the isle of Atlantis entered by sea unseen.

Once again, this passage has very similar echoes in Homer's Odyssey, where Odysseus and his men sail up a branch of the Nile and attack some nearby villages. Some of the villagers escaped and ran to tell the pharoah what was occuring. The next morning Odysseus and his troops awake to find themselves surrounded by the Egyptian military.

Or it could possibly refer to the story of the Invasions of the Libyans & Sea Peoples, in which Ramesses III defended Egypt against an attack by both land and sea.

Or, perhaps both stories are actually one in the same?

Plato's mention in Timaeus (25c) as to how when the Greeks encountered the Atlanteans they prevailed through the use of courage & subterfuge, again, has its parallels with Homer's version of the Trojan War and the Greeks use of the Trojan horse.

When you also consider that at no other earlier period in time did any one particular enemy engage in battle with both the Egyptians and the Greeks, it then seems quite apparent (to me, at least) that what the priest was describing was the Invasions of the Libyans & Sea Peoples - which occured around the same period as the Trojan War. These two individual significant events appear to have been merged into one story by Plato and disguised in the form of the Atlantis story. There are just way too many parallels in the Atlantis story to Homer's Trojan War/Odyssey and to Merneptah's/Ramesses III's Invasions of the Libyans & Sea Peoples story for them to be merely coincidental.

So, does this mean that Troy was the infamous city of Atlantis? Not necessarily. The city may have actually belonged to another one of the invading tribes from Anatolia. The actual, precise, physical location of the city is yet to be determined, however, I do believe that I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that the city of Atlantis is most likely to have been located somewhere in Anatolia, and most likely somewhere in the southern coastal region.

I hope that this helps you to understand my research/theory a little better.

Warm Regards,

Erick

http://www.radiocom.net/Deluge/Deluge1-6.htm

Here is an excerpt from Homer in the Baltic which has references of Troy and lots of others as well:

"Ever since ancient times, Homeric geography has given rise to problems and uncertainty. The conformity of towns, countries and islands, which the poet often describes with a wealth of detail, with the traditional Mediterranean places is usually only partial or even non-existent.

We find various cases in Strabo (Greek geographer and historian, 63 B.C.-23 A.D.), who, for example, cannot understand why the island of Pharos, situated right in front of the port of Alexandria, in the Odyssey unexplainably appears to lie a day's sail from Egypt.

There is also the question of the location of Ithaca, which, according to very precise Odyssey's indications, is the westernmost in an archipelago which includes three main islands, Duli****m, Same and Zacynthus. This does not correspond to the geographical reality of the Greek Ithaca in the Ionian Sea, located north of Zacynthus, east of Cephalonia and south of Leucas. And then, what of Peloponnese which is described in both poems as being a plain?

In other words, Homeric geography refers to a context with a toponymy with which we are quite familiar, but which, if compared with the actual physical layout of the Greek world, reveals glaring anomalies, which are hard to explain, also considering their consistency throughout the two poems. For example, that "strange" Peloponnese appears to be a plain not sporadically but regularly, and Duli****m, the "Long Island" (in Greek "dolichòs" means "long"), which is located by the Odyssey in the vicinity of Ithaca, is repeatedly mentioned also in the Iliad, but cannot be found in the Mediterranean. Thus we are confronted with a world which appears actually closed and inaccessible, apart from some occasional convergence, although the names are familiar (which, however, tend to be more misleading than helpful in solving the problem).

A possible key to finally penetrating this puzzling world is provided by Plutarch (Greek author, 46-120 A.D.). In his work De facie quae in orbe lunae apparet ("The face that appears in the moon circle"), chap. 26, he makes a surprising statement: the island of Ogygia, (where Calypso held Ulysses back for a long time before allowing him to return to Ithaca) is located in the North Atlantic Ocean, "five days by ship from Britain".

Plutarch's indications allow us to identify Ogygia with one of the Faroe Islands (where we also come across an island with a curiously Greek-sounding name: Mykines) and, starting from here, the route eastwards, which Ulysses follows (Book V of the Odyssey) in his voyage from Ogygia to Scheria allows us to locate the latter, i.e. the land of the Phaeacians, on the southern coast of Norway, in an area perfectly fitting the account of his arrival, where archaeological traces of the Bronze Age are plentiful. In addition, on the one hand in Old Norse "sker" means a "sea rock", on the other in the narrative of Ulysses's landing Homer introduces the reversal of the river current, which is unknown in the Mediterranean world but is typical of the Atlantic estuaries during flood tide.

From here the Phaeacians took Ulysses to Ithaca, located on the far side of an archipelago, which Homer talks about in great detail. At this point, a series of precise parallels makes it possible to identify a group of Danish islands, in the south of the Baltic Sea, which correspond exactly to all Homer's indications. Actually, the South-Fyn Archipelago includes three main islands: Langeland (the "Long Island"; which finally unveils the puzzle of the mysterious island of Duli****m), Aerø (which corresponds perfectly to Homeric Same) and Tåsinge (ancient Zacynthus). The last island in the archipelago, located westwards, "facing the night", is Ulysses's Ithaca, now known as Lyø. It is astonishing how greatly it coincides with the indications of the poet, not only as far as its position is concerned, but also its topographical and morphological characteristics: for example, one can identify the ancient "Phorcys's Harbour" and the "Crow's Rock" (which corresponds to a Neolithic dolmen standing in the west of the island). And here, amongst this group of islands, we can even identify the little island "in the strait between Ithaca and Same", where the Penelope's suitors tried to waylay Telemachus.

Moreover, the Elis, i.e. one of the regions of Peloponnese, is described as lying to the east of Ithaca and in front of Duli****m. It is easily identifiable with a part of the large Danish island of Zealand. Therefore, the latter is the original "Peloponnese", i.e. "Pelops's Island", in the real meaning of the word "island" ("nêsos" in Greek)! On the other hand, the Greek Peloponnese (which is located in a similar position in the Aegean Sea, i.e. in its southwestern side) is not an island despite its denomination. This contradiction, which is inexplicable unless we suppose a transposition of the name, is very significant. Furthermore, the details reported in the Odyssey regarding both Telemachus's quick journey by chariot from Pylos to Lacedaemon, along "a wheat-producing plain", and the development of the war between Pylians and Epeans, as narrated by Nestor in Book XI of the Iliad, have always been considered inconsistent with Greece's uneven orography. They fit in perfectly, however, with the reality of the flat Danish island.

Now let us turn to the region of Troy. In the Iliad it is located along Hellespont which is systematically described as being a "wide" or even "boundless" sea.

We can, therefore, exclude the fact that it refers to the Dardanelles, where the city found by Schliemann lies. The identification of this city with Homer's Troy continues to raise strong doubts: we only have to think of Finley's criticism in The World of Odysseus.

On the other hand, the Danish Medieval historian Saxo Grammaticus in his Gesta Danorum often mentions a population known as "Hellespontians" and a region called Hellespont, which, strangely enough, seems to be located in the east of the Baltic Sea. Could it be Homer's Hellespont? We can identify it with the Gulf of Finland, which is the "geographic counterpart" of the Dardanelles (as a matter of fact, both of them lie to the Northeast in their respective seas). Since Troy, according to the Iliad, was situated Northeast of the sea (here is another reason to dispute Schliemann's location), then it seems reasonable, for the purpose of this research, to go over a region of southern Finland, where the Gulf of Finland joins the Baltic Sea. In this area, west of Helsinki, we find lots of name-places which astonishingly resemble those mentioned in the Iliad and, in particular, those given to the allies of the Trojans: Askainen (Ascanius), Reso (Rhesus), Karjaa (Caria), Nästi (Nastes, the chief of the Carians), Lyökki (Lycia), Tenala (Tenedos), Kiila (Cilla), Kiikoinen (Ciconians) etc. There is also a Padva, which reminds us of Italian Padua, which was founded, according to tradition, by the Trojan Antenor and lies in the region of Veneto (the "Eneti" or "Veneti" were allies of the Trojans). What is more, the place-names Tanttala and Sipilä (the mythical King Tantalus, famous for his torment, was buried on Mount Sipylus) indicate that this matter is not only limited to Homeric geography, but seems to extend to the whole world of Greek mythology.

What about Troy? Right in the middle of this area, half way between Helsinki and Turku, we discover that King Priam's city has survived the Achaean sack and fire. Its characteristics correspond exactly to those given to us by Homer, i.e. the hilly area which dominates the valley with its two rivers, the plain which slopes down towards the coast and the highlands in the background. It has even maintained its own name nearby unchanged throughout all this time. Today, "Toija" is a peaceful Finnish village, unaware of its glorious and tragic past.

Various trips to these places from July 11, 1992 onwards, have confirmed the extraordinary correspondence between the Iliad's descriptions and the area surrounding Toija. What is more, there we come across many significant traces of the Bronze Age. Incredibly, towards the sea we find a place called Aijala, which recalls the "beach" ("aigialòs" in Greek), where, according to Homer, the Achaeans beached their ships (Il. XIV, 34).

The correspondence extends as far as the neighbouring areas. Along the Swedish coast, for example, in front of Toija, 70 km north of Stockholm, the long and relatively narrow Bay of Norrtälje recalls Homeric Aulis, from where the Achaean fleet set sail for Troy. Nowadays, ferries leave here for Finland, following the same ancient course. They pass off the island of Lemland, whose name reminds us of ancient Lemnos, where the Achaeans stopped and abandoned the hero Philoctetes. Nearby, there is also Åland, the largest island of the homonymous archipelago, which probably coincides with Samothrace, the mythical site of the metalworking mysteries. The adjacent Gulf of Bothnia is easily identifiable with Homer's Thracian Sea, and the ancient Thrace, which the poet places to the northwest of Troy on the opposite side of the sea, probably lay along the northern Swedish coast and its hinterland (it is remarkable that a Norse saga identifies Thrace with the home of the god Thor).

Further south, outside the Gulf of Finland, the island of Hiiumaa, situated opposite the Esthonian coast, corresponds exactly to Homer's Chios, which the Odyssey places on the return course of the Achaean fleet after the war.

In short, apart from the morphological characteristics of this area, the geographic position of this Finnish Troas fits the mythological directions like a glove. We finally come to understand why a "thick fog" often fell on those fighting on the Trojan plain and why Ulysses's sea was never as bright as that of the Greek islands, but always "grey" and "misty". As we travel through Homer's world, we experience the harsh weather which is typical of the Nordic world. The weather described throughout has little to do with the Mediterranean climate, with its fog, wind, rain, cold temperatures and snow (which falls on the plains and even out to sea) whilst the sun and warm temperatures are mentioned hardly ever. Most of the time we find unsettled weather, to the point that the bronze-clad fighting warriors invoke cloudless sky during the battle!

We are far away from the torrid Anatolian lowlands. The way in which Homer's characters are dressed is in perfect keeping with this kind of climate. They wear tunics and "thick, heavy cloaks" which they never remove, not even during banquettes. This attire corresponds exactly to the remains of clothing found in Bronze Age Danish graves, down to details as the metal brooch which pined the cloak on the shoulder.

This northern collocation also explains the huge anomaly of the great battle which takes up the central books of the Iliad. The battle continues for two days (XI, 86; XVI, 777) and one night (XVI, 567). The fact that the darkness does not put a stop to the fighting is incomprehensible in the Mediterranean world. Instead, the faint night light, which is typical of high latitudes during the summer solstice, allows Patroclus's fresh troops to carry on fighting through to the following day, without a break. This interpretation - which is confirmed by the overflowing of the Scamander during the following battle, given that in the northern regions these phenomena occur just in that period owing to the thaw - allows us to reconstruct the whole battle in a coherent and logical manner, dispelling the present-day perplexities and strained interpretations. Furthermore, we even manage to pick out from a passage in the Iliad the Greek word used to denominate the faintly lit nights characteristic of the regions located near the Arctic Circle: the "amphilyke nyx" (VII, 433) is a real "linguistic fossil" which, thanks to the Homeric epos, has survived the transfer of the Achaeans to Southern Europe.

It is also important to note that the Trojan walls, as described by Homer, were alike to rustic fences made of wood and stone. They resemble the archaic Nordic wooden enclosures (such as the Kremlin Walls up to the XV century) much more than the mighty strongholds of the Mediterranean civilizations.

Let us now examine the so-called Catalogue of Ships from Book II of the Iliad, which lists the twenty-nine Achaean fleets participating in the Trojan War together with names of their captains and places of origin. This list unwinds in an anticlockwise direction, starting from Central Sweden, travelling along the Baltic coasts and finishing in Finland. If we combine this with the directions contained in the two poems, as well as in the rest of Greek mythology, we get to completely reconstruct the Achaean world around the Baltic Sea, where, as attested by the archaeology, a thriving Bronze Age was flourishing in the second millennium B.C., favoured by a warmer climate than today's.

In this new geographical context, the entire universe belonging to Homer and Greek mythology finally discloses itself with its astonishing consistency. For example, by following the Catalogue's sequence, we immediately locate Boeotia (corresponding to Stockholm's region), where it is possible to identify Oedipus's Thebes and the mythical Mount Nysa (which was never found in the Greek world!!) where baby Dionysus was nursed by the Hyads. Homer's Euboea coincides with the modern-day island of Öland, located off the Swedish coast in a similar position to that of its Mediterranean correspondent.

Mythological Athens, Theseus's native land, lay in the present day area of Karlskrona in southern Sweden. This explains why Plato referred to it as being a rolling plain full of rivers in his dialogue Critias, which is totally alien to Greece's rough morphology. Nevertheless, the features of other Achaean cities, such as Mycenae or Calydon, as described by Homer also appear completely different from those of their namesakes on Greek soil; in particular, Mycenae lay in the site of today's Copenhagen, where the island of Amager possibly recalls its ancient name and explains why the latter was in the plural.

We rediscover Agamemnon's and Menelaus's kingdoms and Arcadia on the flat island of Zealand (i.e. Homeric "Peloponnese"), where we also find the River Alpheus and King Nestor's Pylos, whose location were held to be a mystery even by the ancient Greeks. By setting Homer's poems in the Baltic, also this age-old puzzle is solved at once!

Here the Catalogue links up with Ithaca's archipelago, which we had already identified by making use of directions supplied by the Odyssey. We are thus able to verify the consistency of the information contained in the two poems as well as their congruity with the Baltic geography (here it is easy to solve also the problem of the strange border between Argolis and Pylos, which is attested in the Iliad but is "impossible" in the Greek world).

After Ithaca, the list continues with the Aetolians, who recall the ancient Jutes. They gave their name to Jutland, which actually lies near the South-Fyn Islands. Homer mentions Pylene in the Aetolian cities, which corresponds to today's Plön, in North Germany, not far from Jutland. Opposite this area, in the North Sea, the name of Heligoland, one of the North Frisian Islands, reminds Helike, a sanctuary of the god Poseidon mentioned in the Iliad.

What about Crete, the "vast land" with "a hundred cities" and many rivers, which is never referred to as an island by Homer? As a matter of fact, it corresponds to present Pomeranian region in the southern Baltic area, which stretches from the German coast to the Polish one. This explains why in the rich pictorial productions of the Minoan civilisation, which flourished in Aegean Crete, we do not find any hint at Greek mythology and ships are so scantily represented. It would also be tempting to assume a relationship between the name "Polska" and the Pelasgians, the inhabitants of Homeric Crete. At this point, it is also easy to identify Naxos (where Theseus left Ariadne on his return journey from Crete to Athens) with the island of Bornholm, situated between Poland and Sweden, where the town of Neksø still recalls the ancient name.

Likewise, we discover that the Odyssey's "River Egypt" probably coincides with the present-day Vistula, thus revealing the real origin of the name given by the Greeks to Pharaohs' land, known as "Kem" in local language. This explains the incongruous position of the Homeric Egyptian Thebes, which, according to the Odyssey, is queerly located near the sea. Evidently the Egyptian capital, which on the contrary lies hundreds of kilometres from the Nile delta and was originally known as Wò'se, was renamed by the Achaeans with the name of Baltic city, once they moved down to the Mediterranean. On the other hand, Homer's Thebes probably corresponds to the present-day Tczew, on the Vistula delta.

To the north of the latter, in the centre of the Baltic Sea, the island of Fårö reminds the Homeric Pharos, which according to the Odyssey lay in the middle of the sea at a full day's sail from "Egypt" (whereas Mediterranean Pharos is not even a mile's distance from the port of Alexandria). Thus we solve another of the problems that tormented poor Strabo.

The Catalogue of Ships now touches the Baltic Republics. Hellas lay on the coast of present-day Esthonia, therefore, next to Homeric Hellespont (i.e. the "Helle Sea"), the present Gulf of Finland.

In this area, scholars have come across legends which present interesting parallels with Greek mythology. Phthia, Achilles's homeland, lay on the fertile hills of southeastern Esthonia, along the border with Latvia and Russia, stretching as far as the Russian river Velikaja and the lake of Pskov. Myrmidons and Phthians lived there, ruled by Achilles and Protesilaus (the first Achaean captain who fell in the Trojan War) respectively.

Next, proceeding with the sequence, we reach the Finnish coast, facing the Gulf of Bothnia, where we find Jolkka, which reminds us of Iolcus, Jason's mythical city.

Further north, we are also able to identify the region of Olympus, Styx and Pieria in the Finnish Lapland (which in turn recalls the Homeric Lapithae, i.e. the sworn enemies of the Centaurs who also lived in this area).

This location of Pieria north of the Arctic Circle is confirmed by an apparent astronomical anomaly, linked to the moon cycles, which is found in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes: it can only be explained by high latitude. The "Home of Hades" was even further northwards, on the icy coasts of Russian Karelia: here Ulysses arrived, whose journeys represent the last vestige of prehistoric routes in an era which was characterised by a very warmer climate than today's.

In conclusion, from this review of the Baltic world, we find its astonishing consistency with the Catalogue of Ships as well as the entire Greek mythology (Tab. 1). It is very unlikely that this immense set of geographical, climatic, toponymical and morphological parallels is to be ascribed to mere chance, apart from considering the glaring contradictions arising in the Mediterranean setting.

Therefore, here is the "secret" which has been hidden inside Homer's poems up to now and explains all oddities of Homeric geography: the Trojan War and other events handed down by Greek mythology were not set in the Mediterranean, but in the Baltic area, i.e. the primitive home of the blond "long-haired" Achaeans. On this subject, the distinguished Swedish scholar, Professor Martin P. Nilsson, in his works (Homer and Mycenae and The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion) reports a series of pieces of archaeological evidence uncovered in the Mycenaean sites in Greece, supporting the fact that the Achaean population came from the North. Some examples are: the existence of a large quantity of baltic amber in the most ancient Mycenaean tombs in Greece (which is not to be ascribed to trade, because the amber is very scarce in later graves as well as in the coeval Minoan tombs in Crete); the typically Nordic features of their architecture (the Mycenaean megaron "is identical to the hall of the ancient Scandinavian Kings"); the "striking similarity" of two stone slabs found in a tomb in Dendra "with the menhirs known from the Bronze Age of Central Europe"; the Nordic-type skulls found in the necropolis of Kalkani, etc. A remarkable affinity between Aegean art and some Scandinavian remains dating back to the Bronze Age has also been noted, with particular regard to the figures engraved on Kivik's tomb in Sweden, to the point that a scholar in the nineteenth century suggested that this monument was built by the Phoenicians!

Another sign of the Achaean presence in the Nordic world in a very distant past is a Mycenaean graffito found in the megalithic complex of Stonehenge in Southern England. Other remains revealing the Mycenaean influence were found in the same area ("Wessex culture"), which date back to a period preceding the Mycenaean civilisation in Greece. A trace of this sort of contact can be found also in the Odyssey, which mentions "a bronze market placed overseas, in a foreign country, named "Temese"", never found in the Mediterranean area.

Since bronze is an alloy of copper and tin, which in the North is only found in Cornwall, it's very likely that the mysterious Temese corresponds to the Thames, named "Tamesis" or "Tamensim" in ancient times. So, following the Odyssey, we learn that, during the Bronze Age, the ancient Scandinavians used to sail to Temese/Thames - "placed overseas, in a foreign country" (Od. I, 183-184) - to supply themselves with bronze.

And what about Odysseus's trips, after the Trojan War? When he is about to reach Ithaca, a storm takes him away from his world; so he has many adventures in fabulous localities until he reaches Ogygia, that's Faroe. They are located out of the Baltic, in the North Atlantic (he also experiances the "Ocean River", that's the Gulf Stream). For example, the Eolian island, where there is the "King of the winds", "son of the Knight", is one of the Shetlands (maybe Yell), where there are strong winds and ponies.

Cyclops lived in the coast of Norway (near Tosenfjorden: the name of their mother is Toosa): they coincide with the Trolls of the Norwegian folklore. The land of Lestrigonians was in the same coast, towards the North; Homer says that there the days are very long (actually, the famous scholar Robert Graves places the Lestrigonians in the North of Norway! In that area we find the island Lamøj, the homeric Lamos).

The island of sorceress Circe, where there are the midnight sun and the rotating dawns ("the dancing of the Dawn", as Homer says), is Jan Mayen (at that time the climate was quite different). The strange "wandering rocks" are icebergs.

Charybdis is the well-known whirlpool named Maelström, near Lofoten. South of Charybdis Odysseus meets the island Thrinakia, that means "trident": really, near the Maelström Vaerøy, three-tip island, lies. Sirens are very dangerous shoals for sailors, who are attracted by the misleading noise of the backwash (the "Sirens' song" is a metaphor similar to Norse "kennings") and deceive themselves that landing is at hand, instead, if they get near, are bound to shipwreck on the reefs.

So, these adventures, presumably taken from tales of ancient seamen and elaborated again by the Poet's fantasy, represent the last memory of the oceanic routes followed by the ancient navigators of the Nordic Bronze Age, but they became unrecognizable because of their transposition into a totally different context.

Besides, we can find remarkable parallels between Greek and Norse mythology: for example, Ulysses is similar to Ull, archer and warrior of Norse mythology, the sea giant Aegaeon (who gave his name to the Aegean Sea) is the counterpart of the Norse sea god Aegir.

We can even try to link directly Homeric and Norse mythology: actually, the latter states that Odin came from Troy (the Finnish location of Homeric Troy, of course, makes this piece of news more credible). He maybe was a successor of King Priam on the throne of Troy, and lived at the time of the terrible Ragnarok, i.e. a climatic upsetting probably aroused by the explosion of the volcano of Thera, in Eastern Mediterranean Sea, in 1630 B.C.. This phenomenon affected the whole planet and probably triggered the Mycenaean migration (which happened just in those years) towards the South.

Afterwards Odin was deified, taking some features of goddess Athene (whose he is almost homonymous: Othin = Athene): they are both gods of war and wisdom, with a spear and a bird (the rook and the little owl respectively). Also his strange horse with eight legs possibly is a vestige of the Bronze Age, when the knights did not ride but used a chariot with two horses (here are the eight legs, that probably were inspired by some ancient image).

The period in which Homer's poems are set is close to the end of an exceptionally hot climate that had lasted several thousands of years, the "post-glacial climatic optimum". It corresponds to the "Atlantic phase" of the Holocene, when temperatures in northern Europe were much higher than today (at that time the broad-leaved forests reached the Arctic Circle and the tundra disappeared even from the northernmost areas of Europe). It reached its climax around 2500 B.C. and began to drop around 2000 B.C. ("subboreal phase"), until it came to an end some centuries later.

Therefore, it is highly likely that this was the cause that obliged the Achaeans to move down to the Mediterranean for this reason. They probably followed the Dnieper river down to the Black Sea, as the Vikings (whose culture is, in many ways, quite similar) did many centuries later. The Mycenaean civilisation, not native of Greece, was thus born and went on to flourish from the XVII or XVI century B.C., soon after the change in North European climate.

Incidentally, this is the same age as the arising of Aryan, Hyksos, Hittite and Cassite settlements in India, Egypt, Anatolia and Mesopotamia respectively. In a word, this theory can explain the cause of the contemporary migrations of other Indo-European populations (following a recent research carried on by Prof. Jahanshah Derakhshani of Teheran University, the Hyksos very likely belong to the Indo-European family). In a word, the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans was most likely located in the furthest North of Europe, when the climate was much warmer than today's. However, on the one hand G.B. Tilak in The Arctic Home of the Vedas claims the Arctic origin of the Aryans, "cousins" of the Achaeans, on the other both Iranian and Norse mythology (Avesta and Edda respectively) remember that the original homeland was destroyed by cold and ice. It is also remarkable that, following Tilak (The Orion), the original Aryan civilization flourished in the "Orionic period", when the Spring equinox was rising in the Orion constellation. It actually happened in the period from 4000 up to 2500 B.C., i.e. during the "climatic optimum".

We also note the presence of a population known as the Thocarians in the Tarim Basin (northwest China) from the beginning of the II millennium B.C. They spoke an Indo-European language and were tall, blond with Caucasian features. This dating provides us with yet another confirmation of the close relationship between the decline of the "climatic optimum" and the Indo-European Diaspora from Scandinavia and other Northern regions.

In this picture, it is amazing that the Bronze Age starts in China just between the XVIII and the XVI century B.C. (Shang dynasty). We should note that the Chinese pictograph indicating the king is called "wang", which is very similar to the Homeric term "anax", i.e. "the king" (corresponding to "wanax" in Mycenaean Linear B tablets). On the other hand, the terms "Yin" and "Yang" (which express two complementary principles of Chinese philosophy: Yin is feminine, Yang masculine) could be compared with the Greek roots "gyn-" and "andr-" respectively, which also refer to the "woman" and the "man" ("anér edé gyné", "man and woman", Od. VI, 184).

In this picture we could dare to insert the Olmecs, too, who seem to have reached the southern Gulf Coast of Mexico about in the same period; if this will be confirmed, one could infer that they were a population who formerly lived in some region in the farthest north of America, where they could have been connected with the Scandinavian Proto-Indo-European civilization through the Arctic Ocean, which during the "climatic optimum" was free from ice. Then they moved to Mexico when the climate collapsed (this, of course, could help to explain certain similarities with the Old World, apart from other possible contacts).

Returning to Homer, this reconstruction* does not only explain the extraordinary consistency between the Baltic-Scandinavian context and Homer's world, but also clarifies why the latter was decidedly more archaic than the Mycenaean civilisation. Evidently, the contact with the refined Mediterranean cultures favoured its rapid evolution, also considering their marked inclination for trade and seafaring, which pervades not only the Homeric poems, but also all Greek mythology. This is hard to explain with the hypotheses in vogue about the continental origin of the Indo-Europeans, whereas the remains found in England fit in very well with the idea of a previous seaboard homeland (by matching this with the typically northern features of their architecture, as the scholars assert, we remove any doubt as to their place of origin).

On the other hand, Stuart Piggott, famous scholar and archaeologist, states: "The nobility of the [Homeric] hexameters shouldn't deceive us inducing us to believe that the Iliad and the Odyssey are something different from the poems of the largely barbaric Europe during the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age". Soon afterwards he quotes an extremely significant statement of Rhys Carpenter: "No Minoic or Asian blood runs in the veins of the Greek Muses: they are far away from the Cretan-Mycenaean world. Rather they are in contact with the European elements of Greek culture and language... behind Mycenaean Greece... Europe lies" (Ancient Europe, chap. IV).

It was, therefore, along the Baltic coast that Homer's events took place, presumably about the beginning of the second millennium B.C., when the "climatic optimum" collapsed, before the Achaean migration towards the Mediterranean and the consequent rise of the Mycenaean civilisation in Greece (this explains why any reliable information regarding the author, or authors, of the poems had already been lost before the classical times). The migrants took their epos and geography along with them and attributed the same names they had left behind in their lost homeland to the various places where they eventually settled. This heritage was immortalized by Homer's poems and Greek mythology, which on the one hand has a lot of similarities with the Nordic one, on the other seems to have lost the memory of the great migration from the North (this probably happened after the collapse of the Mycenaean civilisation, around the XII century B.C.). Moreover, they went as far as renaming other Mediterranean regions with corresponding Baltic names, such as Libya, Crete and Egypt, thus creating an enormous "geographical misunderstanding" which has lasted till now.

These transpositions were encouraged, if not suggested, by a certain similarity between the geography of the Baltic and that of the Aegean. We only have to think about the analogy between Öland and Euboea or between Zealand and Peloponnese (where, as we have already seen, they forced the concept of island in order to maintain the original layout). This phenomenon was then consolidated over the centuries by the increasing presence of Greek-speaking populations in the Mediterranean basin, from the time of the Mycenaean civilisation to the Hellenistic-Roman period.

Yes, Peter James is an English scholar. (He is also known for his work in attempts to revise chronology for the "dark age" of Greece 1100-800 BC.)

Peter James has probably demonstrated that the "lost/sunken" city of Tantalus was subjected to "liquifaction", just like the classical Greek city of Helike.

I recall a post you made last year about the descendents of Atlas. At that time I could not reply to your suggestion, because it was so far-ranging. But during the last year, I have noticed what I consider to be an important issue. (Actually, Docyabut pointed this out this oddity in a discussion with Rainer Kuehne.)

In the Atlantis theme, Plato says the Atlanteans started from a family with 10 boys, but no girls. That is truly odd, since a more normal mix would call for roughly 5 boys and 5 girls.

In classical mythology the exactly opposite imbalance occurs. Atlas had about 10 or 15 daughters (but only one insignificant son, whose primary claim to fame is that he was torn apart by lions before he had any children).

Based purely on mathematics, its really odd to think that Atlas could have 15 daughters but only 0 or 1 sons.

And its also suggestive that the "Pleiades" daughters of Atlas mostly migrated from Asia Minor to the Peloponnese peninsula, at some very early date. This tends to make the "daughters of Atlas" (in Greek myths) substantially similar to the powerful group whom Hittite scribes called Ahiyyawa (=Achaeans??)

In regard to your comment that you are proceeding from a different line of reasoning than Peter James:

Yes, indeed you are following a different approach than PeterJames. But that is not a bad thing.

It seems that Solon got "both sides of the story" before he returned to Athens and composed his Atlantis theme. First Solon visited Egypt and probably acquired the "Egyptian perspective" about the (Sea Peoples) era ca. 1400-1175 BC. Then, as Peter James emphasizes, Solon went to Lydia and heard the Lydian version of events in that period which preceeded the Trojan War, roughly 2000-1200BC.

Some viewpoints against Asia as Atlantis;

Critias;

which, as was saying, was an island greater in extent than Libya and Asia,

war which was said to have taken place between those who dwelt outside the Pillars of Heracles and all who dwelt within them;

became an impassable barrier of mud to voyagers sailing from hence to any part of the ocean

All these and their descendants for many generations were the inhabitants and rulers of divers islands in the open sea

Timaeus

For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia,

Realistically, we can assume 3 major sites for the Pillars of Hercules;

The Straites of Gibraltar

The Delta Nile-Temple of Hercules

The Bosphorous Straite/Black Sea.

In the mentioning of a Time before Theseus we have Cecrops and Ericthonius,which fits in to the time of the Battle of Troy as the story of Atlantis. The only problem with this is the statement that the war took place before the Flood of Deucalion, or the third inundation before Deucalion.

I feel they mentioned these names to give validity to the age of the story rather than that time era.

We know the Phoenicians controlled Byblos and Tyre,etc and were trade merchants with the entire mediterranean.

So,it does seem that these Atlanteans definitely were outside of the mediterranean area.

Also considering that the Ionians,Carians,Dorians etc were all associated with the others,as were the Sea Peoples who were pirates that formed from within these communities and rebelled aginst Egypt.

You've raised some really interesting points, and you've obviously done a lot of research on the Troy/Atlantis theory, and I can respect that. On the other hand, with this whole thesis, you also seem to want to rewrite the whole of Greek mythology and I don't know if I, or some of the others are ready to make that leap. Need more evidence first, in some cases a lot more evidence. Do you live in Scandinavia, by the way?

The story of the Oddyssey becomes a lot more realistic if you have the journey from the north, not in the Mediterranean. I can even see some prehistoric animals still alive there some four millenium before present times. On the other hand, I cannot see Troy in the north or any of the other regions you were talking about from the Illiad. For one thing, Troy's importance seemed to be that it was the gateway between the western world and the riches of the east. It stays that way if you keep it where Schliemann places it, but what is it the gateway to if it's in the north where you place it?

You seem to say the Greeks fighting Troy were not really Greeks at all, but Norsemen fighting other Norsemen. That is the most radical part of this theory of all. What evidence is there of cultures advanced as the ones told about in the Illiad existing that far north at that time? We have it of the Greeks in Mycenae, other ancient cities, if there are any of the Norse (which I have yet to hear about), it certainly isn't the same degree of the Greeks. History is often wrong, but it has yet to record any evidence of some great Norse civilization during the times we are speaking of, in Troy, let alone Atlantis (your earlier theory). On the other hand, if you have the Greeks from Mycenae invading there, we have another problem. What interest could they possibly have in a Troy that far north? How would they even hear of such a place? You said the climate was more temperate then, but you would still have a very harsh winter, I cannot imagine any siege of Troy lasting ten years, as suggested, in the ice or snow. At the very least, I certainly wouldn't want to be a soldier that was a part of that one (!). It would be worse than the Germans surrounding Stalingrad, Napoleon attacking Moscow.

The topography might fit better for you, but the Homeric geography doesn't fit as badly as you might first think when you consider that both the Iliad and the Odyssey were initially both passed down by oral tradition and that errors might have been made in that way (again, as demonstrated by the Atlantis story). Not to mention there are other versions of the Illiad and not all the details match perfectly (for instance, some mention a Trojan Horse, others do not, that's a big omission if it actually happened). Homer was supposed to be blind, I doubt if he care much about the minutia of the geography if he couldn't see it. He might not have even known about some of the things the legend was talking about.

There are only superficial similarities between the names and histories of the Norse gods and the Greek gods. I'm aware that's a favorite arguing point to make among people among the forum, but the truth is that you can find those similarities between almost any two ancient mythologies around the globe if you compare them. Quatzacoatl and Atlas have a lot more in common than Odin and Athena, that isn't conclusive proof that Mediterranean and MesoAmerican civilzations had anything to do with one another. Ignatius Donnelly is riduculed today for saying that, among other things. The fact that the palaces of Crete have no depictions of the Greek gods proves nothing. All it proves is that their civilization existed at a time before those gods were invented, or that they had a different form of worship (how prevalent is bull worship up north, by the way?)

Bringing the Chinese kings and the Olmecs into it is really reaching. There's no evidence that these cultures had anything to do with anyone from the west, they would have to be the greatest explorers in a time well before the world was even thought to be flat. I give the ancient Atlanteans that kind of credit, I 'm not sure how generous I would be to give it to too many others.

The fact that wood found in ancient Mycenae burial sites may have come from the north doesn't in itself prove that the people of the Pelopenneise came from the north. Yes, I know scientists use that kind of argument to prove their theories on all sorts of things, but all the time they're grasping at straws. Just because I have a VCR that was made in Japan doesn't mean I came from Japan. There's all sorts of ways that wood could have gotten there without the people who settled the land bringing it with them, trade with those people, for instance, or forests of those trees that are now wiped out of existence. It just astonishes me how many assumptions have been accepted as fact and gotten into history books based on this kind of flimsy evidence.

I am skeptical, by the way, each time I hear the words "great migration." It makes me think that five thousand people just got the same idea to move one day and started south. Science is really reaching when it says these things and we owe it to ourselves to look a little more closely at their research before we accept it as fact. Even if we want to believe in Atlantis, and the myth of Troy, we owe it to the spirit of the quest to examine things with a critical eye, not just with our hearts.

You have a lot of great research on the Bock Saga and the Norse, I think you should put it together into a book. The interesting point to me about it is that, for a long time, very little is known in the west about the Norse people before the Vikings began ravaging the coastlines of Gaul and Britannia in the 8th century a.d. I'm still not convinced that there was any great Norse civilization there, though, let alone that it had anything to do with Troy or Atlantis.

Firstly, I am not from Scandinavia, unless it goes back as far as the Achaeans! I am half English, by way of the American mid-west for many generations, and half northern Greek, of the tall blonde sort.

Secondly, the material is an introduction to the book "Homer in the Baltic" by Dr. Felice Vinci of Rome, who spent many many years on this project. It has been published in Italy for some time and this excerpt and another are on websites in German, French, Russian, English and a couple of other languages I can't remember.

He sent me a xeroxed copy of the English translation of the full book which is 300 plus pages long. It explains in great detail what is skimmed over in the intro you read above. It all feels totally logical as you absorb it. Dr. Vinci Has been invited to various universities around the world to present his theories with feedback like this:

"Homer in the Baltic is a rare example of a work that turns received notions upside-down. Vinci has done so with such thoroughness that, if one only credits half his examples, one is compelled to accept his thesis" (Joscelyn Godwin, Colgate University)

"This book poses so many intelligent and pertinent questions and offers so many brilliant solutions to various problems contained in the Homeric epic that it would truly be a pity if it passed unnoticed" (Leszek Wysocki, McGill University);

"Your essay presents a remarkably compelling thesis which is very well researched and documented (...) Your thesis is, to say the least, both fascinating and revolutionary in terms of accepted lore" (Thomas Wyman, Stanford University);

"Felice Vinci has done what was considered an almost impossibility. He has opened up a new front in the battle lines of the Homeric question (...) After reading Vinci's Homer in the Baltic, one is irresistably tempted to say "yes" to the origins of the Greek peoples in Scandinavia" (Victor DeMattei, an United States historian and scholar specializing in Balkan civilization and culture);

"I find it powerful, methodical, important, and convincing" (Alfred de Grazia, Princeton).

So you see the research is not mine....

If the location of Troy is universally accepted as being where Schleimann stated, and that is "set in stone", as it were, then we cannot examine with an open mind, any idea that might prove that the city he found was another city. Even if Homer himself describes Troy as being completely different from what Schleimann found, in buildings, surroundings and placement, and weather, Schleimann's city could have never been the Troy described by Homer.

As to Troy being a gateway...If you examine the placement of Troy in the Baltic, see maps at www.bocksaga.de and then go to HOMER, you will see that it is placed at the tip of Finland, facing what is now Sweden and Denmark, behind it is where Hel, the ancient center of the world for millennia was located. The center of the "ringlands". It could be (I speculate)that it was an important coastal link to the massive river trade routes that criss-crossed northern Europe and connected Asia to the North.

You said:"History is often wrong, but it has yet to record any evidence of some great Norse civilization during the times we are speaking of, in Troy"
There is evidence of plenty bronze-age presence, but of course buildings of wood don't survive. The area around so-called Troy is littered with swords, stone axes (as described by Homer) and various other material. Unfortunately the plain where the actual main battle took place is covered with water now.

Vinci places the ORIGINAL Mycenaeans in part of what is now Sweden, I believe. That which we call "norsemen" today, were then called many other things, as they had many tribes. Also called Hyperborean...

The wood you mentioned is incorrect..It was amber, not wood found in the earliest Mycenae burial sites in the Mediterranean. That amber was a petrified resin from Baltic Sea area conifers. It was considered a tremendously valuable jewel. The fact that it was not in later burials meant that the access to it was from an earlier time. Just because your VCR is from Japan doesn't mean you are NOT from Japan, either!

The migrations mentioned took place over hundreds of years, down two or three river systems to various locations.

I thank God that I don't have the bug to write a book! Pecking at a keyboard for years is not my idea of life!!!

In his book "the Secret of Atlantis" (a very good book, by the way), Otto Muck gives the date Atlantis was destroyed as June 5, at 1:00 in the afternoon in the year 8498 b.c.

This is one of the first dates of the Mayan calendar and also the time Dr. Muck hypothesizes an asteroid struck the earth in the fracture zone of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, causing the two craters in the ocean in the Carolina Bays region. Atlantis, at the point of the impact would have been the hardest hit, the thin, volcanic Mid-Atlantic Ridge would have exploded with earthquakes and eruptions (and many parts of it now beneath the ocean are covered with lava), and a massive flood would have covered at least part of the earth. Setting aside the argument over where Atlantis actually was for a moment, can anyone imagine just how great the human toll would have been? Depending upon it's population, the catastrophe would have killed thousands, if not millions.

What HAS survived is the stupendous Lemminkainnen (sp?) Temple, which has been in the process of excavation for some years before the project ran out of funds. They need about another quarter mill.$ to open it up. It is said that this underground temple is carved into millions of rooms forming a huge underground cone cut into the thickest formation of solid granite on the planet. This formed when the earth's north pole was there. There are many stone towers in Scaninavia. Many of the most important and most ancient buildings of stone wwere destroyed by the Pope's army around 1050. The saddest was the precious one they dismantled and hauled the huge stones out onto the ice, so in the spring thaw, the whole thing dropped into the Gulf of Finland. That sacred tower was the center of HIDEN (heathen) civilization dating back to who knows when....

This civilization has been hidden from us on purpose for a long long time. It was the source of all that pre-dated the worlds religions. It was a peaceful, joyful culture that existed to produce GOD PI POL (good people) who would protect the PLAN ET and were connected to one another through a planet-wide religion which celebrated festivals which could never be overcome by the church and are still celebrated today. These festivals ALL related to pro-creation rites and celebrations (Unacceptable to the church!!!)

They were the only culture anywhere on the planet at any time to use the term ALT LAND IS about themselves. They could not have predicted or control how the world would eventually view the mysterious culture of a so called "Atlantis". Blame the Popes for it's being a mystery at all!!!

Remember, the saga explains that the earth is peopled, spreading out from the north, covering the planet with 10 branches, before the earth tilts and the ice begins. Then, the ruling Aser population who lived by the coast of the Gulf, survived as the ice grew up around them for 50 MILLION 10 THOUSAND years. And became blond/red haired and blue/green eyed. These were truely magical people, I daresay that as time goes on, if Ior Bock lives long enough and trusts enough to tell the whole story, much will emerge that will just floor people. His story is not channelled, not a fairy tale, definately not fiction. This is a man in his 60's raised as a true pagan by a pagan family going back to the beginning of time. He learned the saga in the traditional method, from age 7 to age 27 he learned it from his mother and elder sister for hours a day.

And on and on and on.....

Here is some material I just found:

"In the period of Atlantis Time the Uudenmaa area was isolated (ice-olated) from the rest of the world, as it was surrounded by kilometers high ice wall. Uudenmaa remained as an ice free oasis with the help of an hot sea current entering the Gulf of Finland from the Atlantic Sea. Thus the shores or Gulf of Finland could be inhabited the whole period of the Ice Time.

The Saga tells that the Ice Time came to its end 10 thousand years ago when ice masses glided over Uudenmaa and deserted the area completely. People could escape this destruction into an island called Bock Land (Goat-land, now Gotland), where they survived by hiding inside the caves of Lummelunda.

People who had survived the destruction caused by ice, stayed in Gotland with their descendants a thousand years period called the Vendel Period. After this people returned to Uudenmaa (9000 years ago) and started to build up life and culture in Southern Finland, Uudenmaa and to inhabit again the Northern hemisphere.

The ancient ceremonial places were taken into use again, but also some new arrangements took place. For example the Bock family grandfather Gubbe did not do his death ceremony inside Manala any more but did it outside.
(Next to these gubbes' stupas we can find today stone constructions called Kummeli or Stove, which had originally pyramid form and marked the place of Gubbe's burial, the burning place of the pyre).
Gumman Ella continued her death ceremony in Gumbo at the ancient site.

The Finnish heathen (Hiiden) culture came closer to its end, when the mighty Eastern neighbour Rosland with its emperor, the grandduke Vladimir quit pagan customs and turned to Christianity in 987 ad.
The same year the Uudenmaa people closed the entrance of the Lemminkäinen Temple, as they understood that there could happen a hostile invasion or conquest, which they could not resist.
The final destruction of the "Hiiden" culture started in 1050 ad, when the Mid-European papal mercenary army joined with Svea King Anund Jacod invaded and destroyed Uudenmaa. However, the conquerors could not find the entrance into underground Temple and Manala.
The Bock family succeeded to survive also this destruction by escaping into Northern Finland, where their descendants lived 200 years.

Birger Jarl, the Swedish general and the ambassador of the king of Sweden, made a peace with Russian Emperor Aleksander Nevski the year 1248, and defined the new Eastern border of Sweden to be the Neva River between old Finland and Rosland.
After this Birger Jarl visited the Northmost Finnish Castle of Carljarleborg (Corelenborg) and made also a peace contract with the Bock family.
Thus the Bock family became unarmed and the kingdom of Finland fell under the rule of Swedish King.

In the year 1250 the Bock family members returned to Uudenmaa seashore and started to live as peasants, but preserved their oral family narration up today.
Excavations and research history
The last descendant of the Bock family (Boxström) who has learned the family Saga is a man called Ior Bock. He started to tell about their family Saga in February 1984.

In 1987 Ior Bock told about the Lemminkäinen Temple and the underground storage system. As he was the owner of the site (his father and mother had bought the land in 1937/38 and given to him as a gift in 1941) his friends and followers could start to search for the entrance.

The Saga gave good definition where to start the excavations, but the actual work has been from the beginning very difficult.
The stone plates covering the entrance in the bottom of the ravine in front of the Stupa were huge in size and had to be blasted by dynamite.
Just under the Stupa itself was again stone plate (1,5 meter thick), and after another blocking the entrance.
When these stones were removed, there was found an empty space where was something the excavators called as "gray mass".
When excavators brought this gray mass out of the tunnel to sunshine it became very hard, stony, and difficult to break.

In 1988 and 89 the excavations were supported with sponsorship, and afterwords in 1990 an 1991 the work continued without financial support but with great enthusiasm and hope for hitting soon into the hollow space, the Round Room, which unfortunately has not been found yet.

The entrance tunnel is now 31 meters long from the Stupa, and the floor of the tunnel at its end is 21,5 meters below the ground level above, and the altitude of the tunnel floor is 4 meters below the floor level at the entrance.

During the underground excavations has been used subsurface radar scans to detect fragmentary walls and the most propable direction the entrance would follow.

Excavations themselves followed in the beginning both the ceiling and the floor, but finally the ceiling alone. This has caused, that the floor of the tunnel is at the end horizontal and may be some distance above the real floor level.

Radar scans had been made on the hill top to detect the Temple Cupola (1990) and the Round Room (1991). Results were encouraging showing, that there exists underground structures from 15 to 25 meters below the ground.

In 1992 was done extensive radar scans at the site by German mining company DMT.

In 1995 has been made a new radar scannig , and the scanner material is here available to look at as colour scanner images.

The site topography and the scanning lines are available.

Note: In the Topography the X-axis leads approximately Eastwards and the Y-axix Northwards."

Oh P.S. I am in beautiful Washington state!

interesting Maria how your scholars,like others, misinterpret great works.

So we see in all the translators and authors how much they differ from one to the other, and how if we ourselves translate the story how we too arrive at a different view.

And for how convenient it was for your facility to change the word PRO, which is always "for" or "before" to your conjuction of your word "Ante",which means after.

So if you base Ficini was mistranslated, then who did Ficini mistranslate or accentuate?

[112a] what it is now. For as it is now, the action of a single night of extraordinary rain has crumbled it away and made it bare of soil, when earthquakes occurred simultaneously with the third of the disastrous floods which preceded the destructive deluge in the time of Deucalion

[112a]
pro tês epi Deukaliônos phthoras tritou proteron hudatos exaisiou genomenou

before that with Deucalion's destruction the third before this water beyond what is ordained into being

This is what I believe, thank you for your intellect.

This is not a question of envy nor detestment of Georgeos's work.

Rather a question of Acceptance of Theory.

Your work is highly researched and at a stage where it sounds more credible,like Robert Sarmast. Pick a theory,find all the coincidences, back it up scientifically, and presto, you have a best selling novel.

I do not want a novel.

In regard to the source which Ficino used to translate Plato, does Georgeos say that the source was purely "Greek"; or (as many people suspect) that Arabic Language was the only source where Plato's works had been preserved through the Middle Ages (ca. 1000-1200 AD.)?

(Its interesting that Ficino barbarized two personal names by placing a "t" rather than an "e" at the beginning of the traditional Greek names.)

quoting from you and Georgeos:
Therefore, if Ficino, in spite of knowing this well, wrote Trechtheum and Triclechthonium by Erechtheus and Erichthonio (as later Cornarius in the following century translated), the only possible explanation is that then Ficino worked with medieval codices that were original copies of Greek, reason why decided to respect and to make most trustworthy the translation possible to which it was possible to be read in these medieval codices.
endquote

Recently, Maria, you have mentioned that the so-called island of Antillia first appeared on European maps at the same time when Plato's works were "rediscovered" ca 1500 AD.

So it seems highly likely (to me at least) that European languages had no copies of Plato's works around 1400 AD.

There's a perfect example where you said:

"As anything it serves that Georgeos shows the oldest texts and trustworthy than they exist of Plato that are those of Ficino,he oldest texts"

Vicini was a "Platonic Fanatic" who worshipped Plato as a Prophet,and that all his works should be read by Christians.

quote:

---

A philosopher, philologist, physician, b. at Florence, 19 Oct., 1433; d. at Correggio, 1 Oct, 1499. Son of the physician of Cosmo de' Medici, he served the Medicis for three generations and received from them a villa at Monte Vecchio. He studied at Florence and at Bologna; and was specially protected in his early work by Cosmo de' Medici, who chose him to translate the works of Plato into Latin. The Council of Florence (1439) brought to the city a number of Greek scholars, and this fact, combined with the founding of the Platonic Academy, of which Ficino was elected president, gave an impetus to the study of Greek and especially to that of Plato. Ficino became an ardent admirer of Plato and a propagator of Platonism, or rather neo-Platonism, to an unwarranted degree, going so far as to maintain that Plato should be read in the churches, and claiming Socrates and Plato as fore-runners of Christ.

---

The weakness seems to lie in Ficini's involvement with religion and the church, for as we know in those times men were put to death for anti-religious beliefs.

And as we have seen the altered texts including the Bible and works from the Vatican and other religious entities which conform to suit there Theogonies. Especially since Sais was destroyed,the library of Alexandria and the non-conformist theories of the middle ages just as in the example that Christopher Columbus discovered America. Fallacies.

Therefore it is probable that Ficini,who was appointed by Cosmo de Medici to translate the works of Plato, conformed his translations to their acceptance of reality.

Apparently,these men already had their religious beliefs which would have carefully been translated to conform to their beliefs to avoid persecution or exilement.

Thus,I believe a good explanation for the use of Ficini stating that this war was after Deucalion for they were ignorant of the time before,and it was probably unacceptable to think that such a power existed in those times with such a vast army of ships and men,and they were not educated of this time before Deucalion.

It is probable to think that men had an average of 2000 years of history known to them as we see today that we are also well aware of history 2000 years before Christ,where only the Trojan war and Peleponnesian wars,stand out as the Greatest wars and the lineage of Greek,Ionic,Sicyon history is recorded.

We must also remember that men in their time had to rely heavily on written or oral knowledge of history for they had not the technologies we have today,such as carbon dating.

Bearing this in mind, we cannot rely heavily on any written texts by man because of the probability of those texts being altered to conform to there perspective and altered through the oral transformations from one person to the next, especially if they had to rely on memory.

So, in closing, even though we have many great works,The Bible,Homer,Plato,etc... and especially Perseus Tufts and Oxford or other Universities, I personaly do not conform to these works in their entirety, but rather seek to find my own, be it ignorant, truth in the discovery of Atlantis.

That is why I seek Atlantis everywhere and especially to find it's evidence in Egypt from where the story came. As well as you notice the many clues and histories that I and Atalante have provided for all of you, easily accesible in our posts in Tribes of Atlantis and other threads. This is unique because we are all working together and our mistakes can easily be singled out. Where also we share this knowledge with others to provide assistance with their researches.

Because for one, Atlantis in it's entirety cannot be found by any one single person. We have to rely on each other,and the works of Great men before us.

As the stories say, King Minos of Crete was one of the FIRST naval powerhouses of the mediterranean and he was also noted as having studied with Zeus in his cave,when he was a child. So I feel that 3 of the main ingredients lie in the trio of Crete,Peleponnesia and Egypt. There is no record in your time frame of 1450 bC to 900 bC of a Naval powerhouse in Spain or Morocco for the matter, other than Carthage around 800 bC. Then you have the Etruscans,Salamis,Megarians,Argos,etc and the Cyrene Greeks of 560 bC. It seems that as we have discovered that the real purpose with Spain was the Rio Tinto mines and Tin.

By the way Maria, I do value Georgeo's work,even though I have not studied his work in it's entirety. And,like the many other works, I look to them for clues and not facts that are to be accepted for their entirety.

And,as it is apparent that your facility will not accept any other theory of course,other than Georgeos, so do others accept only theirs.

I do not accept that my theories are the only ones that should be validated, for they are all novice in their infancy. I do accept to be open to conclusions and that my theories can be shared by others to assist in the road to truth.

What I can say though is that word for word,no other theory matches the exact readings of Critias,as translated, to conform to 9000 years before and the size and shape of Atlantis as Critias described in his exactness.

So, it is easy for you to not waste your time with long enticing research that differs from the scriptures,to try to convince me of your theories,for they are yours and not mine. Thank you for the clues you provide.

Your research is based firstly around 900bC,then from 1450 to 900 bC.

Mine is based prior to this time as you are well aware.

And when Georgeo's book is ready for publication,I would gladly purchase it to study.

The problem with your theory is that it can easily be taken apart,like Robert Sarmasts.

The impression I perceive is that the Phoenicians play an important part in both your theories,as we shall see.

This I strongly accept because of the importance of the Phoenicians in that time era.

Just as Erick proposed Atlantis to be a Phoenician colony,which to me would have been more acceptable than his Sea People theories and now his Anatolia theory.

I could see this feasible at an earlier time prior to 1450 bC.

These are my opinions and not facts,be they ignorant or whatever deterement you prefer to accuse.

For your biggest mistake Maria was to insult others and use derogratory statements to maintain your theories which have yet to root in the soil. These old arguments hindered your facilities acceptance greatly by myself and
others,around the world.

"The Finnish linguist Wettenhovi-Aspa, who had studied in Denmark, Germany and France about a century ago, wrote a ”Golden Book”, in which he brought into light the surprising similarities between Finnish and Egyptian words and names of localities.
In it, he thinks that Finnish people came from Egypt, but now that we know the Saga of Bock, we know better, the high culture of Egypt was brought there by the sons of Väinämöinen, or Frei, as is said by Ior Bock.

Messengers, those called "narrators", had left HEL to establish the high culture and civilization to Crete, in Greece, known as the Minoan culture.
From there, it was spread to Egypt, and from Egypt Greeks got it later on, as Herodotus has pointed out in his ”History” book.
But to those names now:
Egypt was called Kemi, the land of black earth, earlier.
In Finland, there is a town and river called Kemi, also Kemiland.
The old name of river Nile is Aura, and there is a river Aura in Finland also.
In Finnish, aura means a plough, and a river is kind of plough that makes it’s bed.
A gold-plough was used by the pharaoh of Egypt to plough the first furrow after the flood to start the planting season. The word gold-plough (kulta-aura in Finnish) was the root to the word ”culture” also, as is said by Wettenhovi-Aspa.

Kerma was a capital of the land called Kush, south of Egypt, which Pharaoh Thutmosis I destroyed 3300 years ago because it had got too powerful, and because there was a lot of gold.
Kerma in Finnish means cream that rises on top of unprocessed milk, if left alone. It’s on top, a capital city. Also a place in Finland.
Syria is syrjä, brink, at the border, in this case of the Mediterranean Sea, looking from the old capital of Egypt, Memphis.

Libya comes from lipeä, in Finnish, the natron that Egyptians used to embalm the bodies. There are natron lakes in Libya.
Kena, a city where Nile makes a bend, comes from the word käänne in Finnish, a bend.
There is a place with a name Abu Kirkas, in Egypt, which is a Finnish word, meaning bright.
Sudan is sydän, the heart, heartland.

It is tempting to explain the word ”Aswan” as follows is great, ”As” as Asers and ”Wan” as Vaners, which could mean the border between ”Aser country”, or northern Egypt from the ”Vaner-country” or southern part.

And so on, there are numerous other words which could be traced to Finnish, as their origin, according to Wettenhovi-Aspa.

As for the linguistic comparisons between the Finnish and the Egyptians, well, that is a two-edged sword. For every word you find that is similar, you can probably find ten that aren't. Ignatius Donnelly used that argument in the Antidiluvian world, then L. Sprague de Camp showed how dicey that can be in his book, Lost Continents. I like Donnelly's work a lot more than de Camp's, but he has a point there. It's possible, not likely, though. People link the Egyptians to the ancient Celts, even thought they visited ancient America, but the bottom line is, from what I know of them, they didn't sail as often as we want to give them credit for. An Egypt at it's height, a society capable of building the pyramids that we still see, probably could have conquered the known world if it wanted. I don't think that they were all that interested in other lands, except for the ones in their immediate area, and then, only if they were a potential threat (the Nubians, the Hittites, the Sea People, etc.).

The excavations you described up there sound like they are pretty exciting. An ancient Scandinavian civilization even half as advanced as you say two thousand years b.c. would rewrite history. But not every ancient civilization discovered is going to be Atlantis and it doesn't have to be either. Maybe what they will uncover is the old Viking myths of Asgard or Valhalla, come to earth.

Georgeous is welcome to come back to the forum at anytime. I know I speak for everyone when I say it's always interesting to hear from anyone who is doing actual research on Atlantis, especially if they are about to embark upon an expedition. I don't think any two people here agree upon the details of Atlantis, a civilized debate is actually a pretty healthy thing.

"Zeus, the god of gods, who rules according to law, and is able to see into such things, perceiving that an honourable race was in a woeful plight, and wanting to inflict punishment on them, that they might be chastened and improve..."

How would they be able to improve if everyone was killed in the catastrophe?

Are you really going to start with the accusations of plagiarism again? I thought that we had passed beyond all of that by now. Are you so absentminded as to forget that these types of accusations are what inflamed our passions earlier? Why do you so stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the reality that two (or more) people are capable of reaching similar conclusions independently? Come on...get real! There is no exclusivity to a conclusion!

Your fear (and Georgeos' as well) that some other individual might possibly receive credit for the discovery of Atlantis has caused you to act and speak as if you (and Georgeos) believe that Georgeos has the right to lay claim to everyone else's work - simply because he claims to have done the work first. HE DOES NOT POSSESS THAT RIGHT. My work is my own and I will receive the credit for it - not Georgeos. Georgeos can lay claim to his own work and any profit that he might realize as a result of it - financial or otherwise. Any attempt to lay claim to my work and any profit that I might realize as a result of it - financial or otherwise - will cause him to find himself in a battle that he is not prepared to fight.

My recommendation would be for you to cease with the accusations of plagiarism. It would truly be unwise to test these waters with me again.

I would also like to take this opportunity to set a couple of things straight once and for all. In your posting of 5/9/2004 you wrote:

quote:

---

...and in more recent dates (later to Georgeos) now they are working with the Greek texts of Perseus, that are not very trustworthy (because they are later to Ficino and they leave fundamentally from the translation medieval of mentioned Aldina) Jonas, Erick and Ritcher, of this same forum. Although in the case of Jonas and Erick, they confess that they or before had been several years (this said it in the 2003), also translating by the metaphrastical or literal method like Georgeos, although never they have demonstrated with no publication nor in Internet in which really dates began to use this methodology to apply translations metaphrastical to Greek texts of Perseus, in any case cannot have worked with Greek texts of Perseus, since according to I have been able to verify, Perseus did not publish Greek texts of Plato until DEC 01, 2002. Thus he appears registered in log of the servant.

---

First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been, working with or from the Perseus website. I have always maintained, since my very first posting on this website, that I have worked from a Greek version of the text and a Greek-English Lexicon. It does not matter that I did not cite the exact title, edition number, and date of the Lexicon's publication in my very first posting; that information was provided at a later date (one week later), at an appropriate time, and in the appropriate context. Nor does it matter that my metaphrastic translation of the text was not published online (or otherwise) prior to my arrival in this forum. The fact that my metaphrastic translation was not published online (or otherwise) does not in any way negate my work, nor should it in any way serve to suggest that I have somehow, or at any point in time, plagiarized Georgeos' work. I believe that if you would have taken the time to actually investigate the matter, even just a small amount, you would have found that my metaphrastic translation is actually quite different from Georgeos' - as is my overall theory - and it has been since before I joined this forum. In fact, Georgeos and I have been on opposite sides of the debate since I joined this forum, and he and I have agreed on very few points. Sadly, you apparently did not investigate the matter very well. Perhaps you should leave the investigating to Georgeos?

Next, you wrote:

quote:

---

...Erick did not use Greek texts until a message published in date of 09-14-2002. In this Erick message it tries to contribute something on the discussion that had initiated Georgeos a few messages before, with relation to the name of Eumelos and Gadeiros that appear mentioned in the Critias 114b. Erick speaks of the fragment?Hellenisti men Eumalon, and says that according to?the Greek text and to Lexicon? fashion means?indeed in Greek (i.e. like Greece) it is rich in sheep. But Erick does not mention of which?the Greek text and to Lexicon? it has taken this fragment and this translation that is the same one that Georgeos had used in the previous messages that were being discussed. Erick not even mentions to that fragment of the Critias belongs that is, that nonappointment that this fragment is of the Critias 114b, reason why we do not have the security of which really it was working with some different Greek edition or that simply it was reviewing with a dictionary or Greek Lexicon of fragments in Greek of Plato who Georgeos was mentioning before in the messages of the forum.

---

So the supposition of the supposedly logical and scientific Georgeos is that because I did not cite in my posting that which had already been stated earlier ( i.e. the exact passage in the Critias from which the fragment had been taken), and which was already known to the members of the discussion (i.e. AJK & Rajesh), then I must have plagiarized Georgeos? I would love to see Georgeos attempt to show any sort of direct correlation in the causality of my action (i.e. failure to cite reference source) with the effect that it supposedly had (lack of security regarding originality of work) from which his allegation of plagiarism is derived! Let me help you out here - there is none. This example merely serves as evidence of Georgeos' paranoia and ego. Rather than being delighted that another investigator has independently verified the accuracy of Georgeos' translation of that fragment of the text, I am, instead, accused of plagiarizing his work. The ego! The nerve! Unbelievable!

quote:

---

...but we we think that Erick, knew texts in Greek the Critias and the Timaeus thanks to Georgeos, and also we think that after reading and knowing the published works of Georgeos in the Forum, went when really began to translate metaphrastical the texts of Plato.

---

You are free to believe whatever you choose Maria, however, if I were you, I would restrain myself from expressing that belief here in this forum - at least, during the period of time that I am remain a member, as those beliefs carry a direct accusation of plagiarism and they are slanderous and inflamatory.

If you really want this to degrade into a battle, we can do that, but I would remind you that neither Georgeos nor yourself have provided any of the "evidences" that you have always claimed that he is in possession of. Should I take this moment to remind you that absolutely no portion of Georgeos' past is verifiable on the Internet?

Regarding my posting of 6/20/2003, in which I am supposed to have quoted the author of an English translation of Plato's Timaeus & Critias, and for which I placed a link to the Perseus website, this was done merely for the purpose of convenience. Whenever I have quoted someone else's work, I have always endeavored to cite the author and work from which the quote was derived and, if possible, provide links to online sources. Since I have not had occasion, nor need, to cite Georgeos for any reason (as I do not consider him to be an expert in anything), I have never used his material nor cited him as a source author. It is really just that simple.

Although I realize that you cannot fathom that not everybody considers Georgeos to be an expert of any particular subject, I fear that you will someday have to face that reality; I imagine that it will be a time during which your whole world will probably come crashing down around your head, but that is your problem, not mine.

Your whole theory of plagiarism is based upon the false supposition that I used the Perseus website to perform my translations. I did not - which, again, is easily verifiable. If you had bothered to read just a few posts further - to the date of 9/16/2002 (17:15) - you would noticed that I did, indeed, quite clearly list the reference material that I used to perform my metaphrastic translations.

Once again, perhaps you should leave the investigating to someone better suited to it, as your investigation of this matter was not very thorough.

In addition, I would once again remind you that Georgeos never used the term "metaphrastic" until after my arrival in this forum and my repeated use of the term. At some point in the past year, Georgeos decided that he liked the way it sounded, added the word to his vocabulary, and adopted it as his own - as if he had been using it all along. I'm sure he has probably used it in his book, as well. So, who here is the real plagiarist? Before you respond please just bear in mind that his postings in this forum stand as testimony to the fact that the word wasn't part of his vocabulary prior to my arrival.

Anyway, I hope that you finally have this all out of your system and we can now resume the amicable relationship that we had finally developed?

Regards,

Erick

I would first like to thank you for acknowledging that it is your theory (and yours alone) that I, and others in this forum, were unaware of certain facts until we had read Georgeos’ postings. It is, of course, nothing more than mere speculation, completely unfounded, and without substance and/or means of substantiation. I cannot help but believe that some part of that belief – no matter how small – finds its cause in the deep love, respect, and admiration that you have already admitted that you have for Georgeos. Although it does make your actions more understandable, it does not by any means make it excusable. And although you did state in your posting that you hoped that we would not take offense to your words, and although you stated that you did not use the word “plagiarism” specifically, the essence of some sort of impropriety was nevertheless implied by your words, and that is what was found to be offensive and inflammatory. I also think that it is possible that you overestimate Georgeos’ infamy, due to the fact that I (& others) had never heard of Georgeos, nor read anything about him or his research, until joining this forum.

Upon reading two or three postings of Georgeos’, it was very apparent to me that he was a very intelligent person, as I have said many times before, and I was very delighted to find that someone else had reached similar conclusions regarding the translation (or rather mistranslation) of specific words, such as meizon. From the two or three postings of his that I had read, however, that – and only that – was all that was apparent about him. He had not mentioned in the 2-3 postings that I had read that he had performed a literal translation of the complete text and, in fact, I was quite surprised to find out that he had – for the simple reason that performing a literal translation of an entire text is not considered to be acceptable amongst academic circles. It is considered acceptable to literally translate single words and/or small phrases, but not entire texts. As I have always been an individual who questions everything, it was natural to me that I would question the validity of the prose translations, however, that was not the reason that I performed a Metaphrastic translation of the text. My decision to perform a Metaphrastic translation of the text was for the express purpose of performing an experiment designed to either prove or disprove my original hypothesis – which was that the only common thread that ran through every investigation into the Atlantis mystery was the prose translation of the text, and since every investigator had received their details of the mystery from the prose translation of the text, and since every investigation had failed, then perhaps the prose translation of the text was the cause for their failures. I cannot speak as to Georgeos’ motivation for performing a Metaphrastic translation of the text, nor can I speak as to when he actually performed that translation, but I can say with absolute certainty and with complete conviction, honesty, and sincerity, that Georgeos was not my inspiration for doing so and that the translations had been performed prior to my arrival in this forum. If this is not sufficient for you, then so be it.

Who it was that actually decided to perform a Metaphrastic translation first is really not important anyway; what is important is whose Metaphrastic translation will be found to be correct and will ultimately lead to the solution to the Atlantis mystery and the remains of the Lost City of Atlantis. Aside from which, if you take the time to examine our individual metaphrastic translations, what you would immediately notice is that our translations are vastly different, as are our methods and overall theories. Each of our individual theories, translations & research material is original and unique. When similar conclusions are reached by two or more parties, we should rejoice that agreement has been reached on some point and not quibble over who reached that conclusion first or quibble over who posted it in the forum (or online) first. It really is petty and beneath us all.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I don’t have any respect for Georgeos or for his work and, in reality, nothing could be farther from the truth. I have a great deal of respect for Georgeos’ work – both in its breadth and thoroughness. That does not mean, however, that I agree with Georgeos’ overall theory, nor does it mean that I agree with all of his conclusions. Here in the U.S., the standard to which somebody is held up in order to be considered an expert is a long-term commitment to the study of a particular subject. That long-term commitment to the study of a particular subject usually begins with a formal education in that subject, which is then advanced through further education, until no more formal education is able to be obtained. That person then excels above his peers and, in doing so, earns their respect, admiration, and the coveted title of “expert”. When held up to that standard, neither Georgeos nor I qualify as experts. Offense should not therefore be taken when I say that I do not consider Georgeos to be an expert in any particular field. If familiarity with a subject were the only qualifier in order to be considered an expert in a particular field, then Georgeos would certainly qualify as an expert, as he has definitely demonstrated an intimate familiarity in the subject. Unfortunately, however, that is not the reality in the world outside of this forum.

You should understand that since your arrival in this forum you have maintained a position as official spokesperson for Georgeos; in that capacity, things that you write do (and will) have an immediate and complete association with Georgeos. Aside from which, Georgeos has expressed similar views in the past.

I would like to set the record straight regarding your comment that I did not state what reference material I used to perform my Metaphrastic translation. That is completely incorrect. In only my 12th posting to this forum, on 9/16/02 (which was, incidentally, only the 3rd day that I had logged into the forum), in the thread “Was Atlantis a Phoenician City?” in a response to Andre, I listed the reference material used to perform my Metaphrastic translation. That was over a year and a half ago.
http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000429.html

As I said in that posting, I used the Loeb Classical Series, which contains both the English translation and the original Greek. The Greek version was based upon the Zurich edition - the main deviations from which are indicated in the footnotes. I also listed “An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon – founded upon the 7th edition of Liddell & Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon – published by Oxford University Press (1997).

In the spirit of cooperation, and in accordance with your proposal, I will therefore delete my posting time-stamped 05-12-2004 [21:34] if you will eliminate my name from your posting time-stamped 05-09-2004 [19:49]. Furthermore, if you will then delete your posting time-stamped 05-13-2004 [12:59], I will then return to delete this posting (time-stamp not yet known), and we can resume in the amiable, good-natured manner that we had just recently developed towards each other.

You can send me an e-mail at erickwright@msn.com to notify me as to if, when, and what you plan to do.

Regards,

Erick

Atlantis in the platonic myth

(Rosary You come)

The reputation of the mythical continent of Atlantis must to two converses of Platone: the Timeo and the Crizia . In they Greek philosopher ( Timeo, 2ê-2äbcd ; Crizia, 108e-109a ), in agile way and succinta before, more detailed then (in the Crizia ) tells of Atlantis how much has reached to it from the tradition and the sources. The narration appears evanescente as it can it are it the ghost of that it is not more, but only in appearance; very to watch, there are of the elements that in certain way can are us of aid in order to say something in more on vexata cotesta quaestio .

For centuries the commentators have taken for sure who to of the same Columns of Ercole meaning here beyond the strait of Gibilterra . We, after to have riletto Platone carefully, are sure that the things are various; and we will clear some because.

We begin from the Crizia .

It makes reference to a very 9000 years front age to that one of the Author, and these it says: "? island of Atlantis, which, as we said was to that time more large of Libia and of Africa, while now, submergeeed from earthquakes, it is an unsurmountable mire that prevents the step those who is annoying here from in order catching up the opened sea, for which the travel does not go beyond ."

E' in the first place interesting to notice the premise that ago the philosopher; it says nearly to that time (pote - pote) anticipating a visibility judgment that becomes obvious then in while now . But the point of greater interest is not this. V' is in fact those meizo ( meizw ) that it does not mean necessarily larger but simply more powerful ; that also in the light of how much says in the Timeo when it asserts that that power invaded all Europe and Asia . Of other part the gr. megas - megaV ) it must be made to go back to the root sscr. mag/meg from which drift also machomai macomai that it wants to say " to fight ", and this, in way in its turn agglutinated, to men+ago ( men a + agw )che it clears to us, if never ve of it were need, than fighting is typical activity and member of parliament of the man. Same Alexander was said " large " not for its stature, obviously, but for the beautiful enterprises that succeeded to complete. For which it goes reorganized the image of a island that to all appeared enormous and that it has made to gush, in the time, the fantasiose hypotheses (moreover, are sufficient to analyze the dimensions that of the island the same Platone offers to us). V' is then a data of a sure interest: while now, submergeeed from earthquakes, unsurmountable mire is one? . To the times of Platone, therefore, it was already still possible to notice traces of how much was happened and of that that it remained of that island.

This is important, and the language of the philosopher rispecchia faithfully, reconstructs, testifies, describes with exactitude, if not the exact location that we lazy modern readers make of the antichi witnesses, at least its positioning in the river bed of the Mediterranean, of that great marsh on which s' they point out like frogs yes many people.

Platone says exactly: that he prevents the step to those who the Epis are annoying here from in order catching up the open sea (to pan pelagos - Epi to pan pelagoV ): better he would be to render also the pan ( pan) with " in every direction ".

It must here emphasize while that in order to indicate the Platone sea he uses, in the cited steps on, three terms only apparently similar: one, generic, thalatta ( qalatta ) ; then pelagos ( pelagoV ) to indicate the open sea ; finally pontos ( pontoV ) in order to designate to a delimited sea and action to the coasting trade . And not to case in first term, primigenio, it is feminine and indicative of maternal humor and uterino; last the male one in correspondence with acting of the Greek sailors and not that they dared to defy waters and the incognito of new travels; the neutral second because it is and it represents the sign of the divinity and the unfathomable mystery beyond the visible horizon. Orbene, in step in issue Platone speaks about sea opened , sign that it is wanted to be put to comparison the inner sea, es. the Aegean or other inner seas, from which it was possible with the coasting trade to catch up every island and every near earth with an other sea, very immenser and open, without immediate visible references, which some ingenuously today assign the name of "the ocean".

It must endured to assert, to scanso of misunderstandings, than such term "the ocean" is all ours, and that it would be wrong to read to the past in the light of ours puts into effect them cognitive parameters you and symbolic.

To the same way, trying to characterize which it could then be considered ponto and which opened sea , we will see to make light on an other problem that seems basic here: that relative one to the denomination of columns of Ercole .

In order to return a moment to how much we have as soon as said, relatively to the term "the ocean", translate the Timeo , someone (us pack-saddles to remember the translate text of Enrico V. Maltese here) say express proceeding from outside of the Atlantic Ocean ( pelagous - pelagouV )... Obviously they mistake. But it is granted to us, hour, to make a small jump before returning to our immediate problem.

When it was read, to my times, the Odissea di teaching Omero ours held to us to emphasize, sicilian he, than speaking about the Trinacria the Poet it wanted to allude obviously to the Sicily. Also in that case, null more wrong. Or better, account of the onomastica stratification of the poemi was not kept omerici; and if that were most obvious for the Iliad (also for other structural reasons), however it was worth also for the other of the two poemi: sicché just Luigi Walls (in ancient Sicily ) could then clear the thing asserting that for Trinacria the tracico Chersoneso had to agree. And it had reason, in as far as the sailors this yes that then it appeared from the sea like a cape to 3 tips, while for the Sicily, and in lack of nautical papers, the thing seems improbable much; and then also because the first stations of the profugo Odìsseo had to be attempted in that inner sea, and only in according to moment outside.

To such care us profit returns to emphasize that therefore as the war of Troy documents, poeticamente, the frontal and periodic crash between two cultures and the attempt of expansion to east of the Elleni, to the same way the travel, or return, of the Ulissìdi other is not that the report of the expansion then Greek pre-Greek and of the Elleni, before towards east and then, and in consisting measure more, towards the west; to case they have not been found obvious traces of their passage in all the points touches to you from this ancient one and "tormented" people.

Hour, also for the columns of Ercole we believe that it is reached the moment to begin to make clarity. While we give a look to the level submarino of the Mediterranean, and try with the isobate ones of tacciarne a enough obvious profile. When I was graduate to Messina, in my old thesis on the Arvali (acquired then to the Actions of the Academy of the Members of the Accademia dei Lincei) I tried myself to trace a map of that presumablly there was between Greece and Turkey to the end of the freezing of the Wurmiano. That, then, on the supply of the myth of Deucalione and Pirra; but the thing was interesting much because from there it came outside that all those that now appear as islands then other were not that the tops of one enormous island mail between two lands. Me it is today of consolation to read, in the last book of Castellani, than the student it reaches to the same conclusion: anch' he from the analysis of the isobate ones, as I then had made ( cfr. p. 51 - Figg . 1 and 2 ).

Hour, if they are analyzed I found them of the Mediterranean (although how much has been able to make the currents in this lasso of time), can be noticed things of a sure interest.

While, to that time and during the last freezing of the Wurmiano, the level of the Mediterranean was lowered presumablly at least of 100 meters, or perhaps also of 200; that had to be sufficient to redesign the line of the coasts. In some zones that did not give events of particular importance, but in others it modified the nearer coasts and yields some lands. The thing had to be enough important in the median part of a our sea, tant' it is that Sicily and Calabria (puts into effect it them Calabria, obviously) divennero much near, and therefore equally it happened on the southern coast of the island.

Hour of the neck of the funnel, in order to say therefore, more strait between Scilla and Cariddi we have testimony also in the poemi much omerici : the two monster succeeds to swallow the companions of Ulisse and to destroy of the ships for via of the motion of flow and riflusso of the two seas (Jonio and Tirreno), the whose level had to be, also, necessarily various one. The thing happened also for other reason, and is right that here it comes emphasized. For that we know, the island goes away from Italy to a rhythm of ca. 4 cm. the year. If to how much over we said it adds also this element (and it is easy to multiply 4 for 3 millenia to the incirca: a figure of 120 meters is obtained), then the things begins to appear various. It could be objected that 120 meters in bottom son little thing; but we have held while account of we put into effect them motion of sliding of the sod, and he is not from excluding that in such past motion was faster; but, however, also those 120 meters added to decreasing of the level of waters will have been much incisive and meaningful. The Strait, then, was more "dangerous strait" and for the sailors much. From here the myth of Scilla and Cariddi.

Hour, in order to return to our task, in the southern part of the island a lowering of the sea level could have carried to the light an immense such shoal to hardly join the Sicily to Malta and the approach of the coast line end nearly to Tunisia, leaving a space hardly one score of kilometers or little more. That I found them, here, they are lower and sabbiosi it demonstrates the direct observation to it. Still today, in spite of the action and the erosion of the currents, who it is approached the airport of Tunisi becomes visible from high an immense sand bank zone and of I found them lowest that characterizes such ancient continental platform. But on that we will return more ahead.

We continue to analyze the platonic text.

Therefore, proceeding from outside of the ' pelago' Atlantic Atlantis it invaded all Europe and Asia .

Then in fact that sea was navigable (sign, this, than to the times of Platone - or of who it has told the vicissitude to it it was not more), and in front of that mouth? Eccola finally! Just in front of that mouth (the presumed columns of Ercole ) were the island of Atlantis. And from that one it was possible to catch up the others isole?e from the islands to all the opposite continent that was found around to that true sea (pear trees ton alithenon ekeinon ponton - p and r the ton aliqhnon ekeinon ponton ).

Ecco la prima segnalazione distintiva. Si tratta di un mare interno, ma per la profondità e la pericolosità appare al filosofo, ed alle genti del tempo, come una mare vero e proprio. E qui si trovava Atlantide. E' la prima indicazione sufficientemente circostanziata.

Ma davanti a quella imboccatura significa "al di qua" o "al di là" di tale imboccatura?

L'unica possibilità che abbiamo, alla luce delle indicazioni del filosofo, è che le colonne d'Ercole altro non erano che lo stretto braccio di mare fra la costa sud-orientale della Sicilia e quella della Tunisia. Una ventina appena di km; o forse meno.

Spiridon Marinatos amava credere che Atlantide fosse Santorini. Ma ciò non è testimoniato da Platone, in quanto questi ci dice più avanti che i re dell'isola governavano le regioni della Libia che sono al di qua dello stretto sino all'Egitto, e l'Europa sino alla Tirrenia; segno che tale stretto doveva trovarsi a ridosso della Libia, nella sua parte centrale; e poi sarebbe stato oltremodo strano che a combattere le genti dell'Ellade fossero popoli che stavano in un territorio a ridosso dell'Ellade.

Questo è il passo più significativo di tutta la descrizione. Ma ci ritorneremo.

Infatti - continua - tutto quanto è compreso nei limiti dell'imboccatura di cui ho parlato appare come un porto caratterizzato da una stretta entrata. Anche questo particolare è degno di nota: non si tratta di un semplice 'passo', uno stretto, o, come vorrebbero tutti, dell'odierno Stretto di Gibilterra, in quanto all'interno di esso appare come un porto (limen - limhn) caratterizzato da una stretta entrata. Poi continua: quell'altro mare, invece, puoi effettivamente chiamarlo mare e quella terra che interamente lo circonda puoi veramente e giustamente chiamarla continente.

Qui già comincia ad apparire l'effettiva localizzazione, se non di Atlantide, almeno dello stretto in questione e delle terre che lo circondano. L'allusione è chiara: ci si riferisce alla zona, indicata dalla cartina 2, che sta fra la Sicilia e la Tunisia. Abbiamo uno stretto, ed abbiamo un porto naturale; quindi un mare che, se pure interno, è vero mare ed una terra che interamente lo circonda e che si può definire continente. Anzi, le Colonne d'Ercole non sono il punto più vicino fra Sicilia e Tunisia bensì uno stretto budello che doveva esserci all'altezza dell'isola di Malta e che rac****deva, assieme all'altro, quel porto naturale di cui parla il filosofo.

Ma questi non si ferma qui.

In quest'isola di Atlantide… dinastia regale che dominava tutta l'isola e molte altre isole e parti del continente: inoltre governavano le regioni della Libia che sono al di qua dello stretto sino all'Egitto, e l'Europa sino alla Tirrenia… (pros de toutois eti ton entos tede Libues men erchon mechri pros Aigupton, tes de Europes mechri Turrenias - proV de toutoiV eti twn entoV thde LibueV

men hrcon mecri proV Aigupton, thV de EurwphV mecri TurrhniaV).

Ne vien fuori che, dal punto di vista fisico di un greco che vive nel cuore dell'Ellade, esiste uno stretto oltre il quale c'è Atlantide e che questa dominava…le regioni della Libia che sono al di qua di tale stretto; quindi l'antica Libia, ovvero l'Africa del nord, si estendeva al di là e al di qua di tale stretto. Infatti appare ovvio che, se si intendono le colonne d'Ercole per l'attuale Gibilterra, dire le regioni della Libia che sono al di qua etc…sarebbe stato tautologico, eccessivo, sovrabbondante, inutile e superfluo; perché si trovano effettivamente al di qua di Gibilterra; né si può affermare che Platone intendesse alludere a quella parte dell'odierno Marocco che sta oltre Gibilterra, in quanto la descrizione è ben delimitata geograficamente: …al di qua dello stretto fino all'Egitto. Ed allora è come se avesse detto: "nella parte centrale sino all'Egitto". Del resto, se Atlantide era così potente come giustamente dice il filosofo e visto che stava oltre le colonne d'Ercole, come mai avrebbe dovuto estendere la sua dominazione solo al di qua e non anche "al di là"?

Gli è che egli vuol mettere in evidenza i quadranti su cui tale dominio si estendeva: dalla Tunisia all'Egitto, e dalla fenicia Europa sino alla Tirrenia; e cioè che Atlantide aveva la propria sfera d'influenza sull'attuale Maghre'b orientale (ovviamente per dominare i traffici commerciali che proprio là erano fiorentissimi) e poi sulla parte più ad est del Mediterraneo, e poi su su fino alle zone dell'Asia Minore che non erano state ancora colonizzate dagli Elleni. Questi erano allora relegati a nord di Creta, nell'Egeo, e da qui fino all'Ellesponto.

Ma ritorniamo al Crizia.

Qui (108e) si legge: …erano 9000 anni da quando, come si racconta, scoppiò la guerra tra i popoli che abitavano al di là rispetto alle Colonne d'Ercole e tutti quelli che abitano al di qua; e questa guerra bisogna ora descriverla compiutamente.

Va sottolineato, qui, il tutti quelli che abitano al di qua (tois entos pasin - toiV entoV pasin) del testo. Qui l'Autore intanto vuol mettere in evidenza come ci fosse stata un'enorme coalizione di tutti i popoli del Mediterraneo orientale, massime gli Elleni, per contrastare coloro che, guidati dagli Atlantidi, volevano conquistare anche quella parte del mondo allora "visibile".

In quanto ai popoli che abitavano al di là rispetto alle Colonne d'Ercole è assurdo pensare, credere, ipotizzare che Platone volesse alludere… a chi?, agli Amerindi forse? Perché non si limita a dire "gli Atlantidi", ma tutti i popoli etc. etc.; ed allora tale coalizione contro gli Elleni, guidata dagli abitanti di Atlantide, doveva forse essere formata da "Americani", Cubani, abitanti di Vattelapesca e così via? Certo che no!, e la cosa mi pare fin troppo evidente per spenderci altro tempo.

La descrizione dell'isola la troviamo poi più avanti (113c sqq.). Vi si legge che la parte centrale dell'isola di Atlantide, là dov'era la città del maggiore dei 10 re, intanto aveva un diametro di appena 5 stadi, ovvero di poco meno di 1000 mt (essendo la stadio att. di 177,60 mt); che attorno a questa città si fecero correre 5 cinte difensive, tre d'acqua e due di terraferma; che oltre tale cintura v'era una pianura che si estendeva sui due lati per 3000 stadi e per 2000 dall'ultima cinta fino al mare; che vi era abbondanza di fauna, e fra i tanti animali pure l'elefante.

V'è poi un altro riferimento geografico: la parte più importante guardava verso il mare (aperto), mentre sull'altro lato essa guardava verso la regione Gadirica.

Qui bisogna procedere con maggiore attenzione. I più intendono, per avvalorare l'ipotesi Colonne d'Ercole = Gibilterra, "nei pressi di Cadice". Il fatto è che Platone dice molto semplicemente il fratello (scil. di Atlante) gemello nato dopo di lui, che aveva ricevuto in sorte l'estremità dell'isola verso le colonne d'Ercole, di fronte alla regione oggi chiamata Gadirica (epi to tes Gadeirikes nun choras - epi to thV GadeirikhV nun cwraV) dal nome di quella località, in greco era Eumelo (Eumelon - Eumhlon), mentre nella lingua del luogo Gadiro, il nome che avrebbe appunto fornito la denominazione a questa regione.

Non dice, difatti, presso e neppure nelle vicinanze; dice solamente verso; il che significa solo che era rivolta verso quella regione che, per qualche motivo, doveva essere assai nota; ma ciò prescinde dalla nozione di vicinanza, ovviamente.

Interessante il nome greco di Gadiro che è, come s'è visto, Eumelon. Esso (cfr. melas, mhlaV ma in Hom. - H104 - melopa, mhlopa "couleur de coing"(1)) ci indica come gli Elleni avevano denominato il fratello di Atlante; inoltre se si analizza l'etimo del nome che apparentemente non è greco, come dice Platone, e cioè Gadiro (Gadeiron - Gadeiron ), e quindi quello della regione Gadirica, ci si accorge che esso ci richiama pure ad un etimo greco: abbiamo difatti un ga (ga - terra) e un deiras / deire (deiraV / deirh - sscr. drsat) (collo, roccia, giogo, catena, collana).

La prima voce è chiaramente dorica, e questo la dice lunga sull'antichità del termine (altrove abbiamo dimostrato come la prima discesa dei Dori debba collocarsi intorno al 16° sec. a.C.)(2); la seconda ci richiama alla probabile conformazione del territorio governato da tale Gadiro: "Una striscia di terra" o "una collana di isole". Potrebbe essere, questa, una valida ipotesi, anche al fine di localizzare il punto esatto di Atlantide. Non di certo Cadice.

Ci sarebbe poi, in analogia col nome gr. Eumelo, la possibilità che Gadiro volesse anche significare "dal dorso colore della terra". Non è la prima volta, difatti, che l'etimo di un termine sia doppio, ambivalente; che rac****da in sé, cioè, tutta la strana magia della parola.

Insomma, tutto concorda a designare la zona da noi indicata come l'unica possibile per identificarvi il sito dell'antica Atlantide. Che poi la fantasia degli uomini e degli scrittori abbia fatto di tale terra un luogo arcano dello spirito e il rifugio ultimo dei sogni, ebbene questa è altra cosa che esula ovviamente dalla ricerca e dall'analisi del testo.

A noi basta quanto lo stesso Platone ci dice. E non è poco.

(Figura 1)

(Figura 2)

Bibliografia:

Platone, Timeo e Crizia, a cura di Enrico V. Maltese, Newton C. ed., Roma, 1997.

Fra le fonti antiche: Omero, Esiodo, Euripide, Teopompo, Diodoro Siculo, Plutarco, Strabone, Plinio, Dionigi di Mitilene, Pomponio Mela, Marcello, Arnobio, Macrobio, Eliano.

A. Arecchi, Atlantide. Un mondo scomparso, un'ipotesi per ritrovarlo, Ed. liutprand, Pavia, 2001.

P. Benoit, Atlantide, 1919.

V. Castellani, Quando il mare sommerse l'Europa, 1999.

G. D'Amato, Platone e l'Atlantide, 1990.

R. Ellis, Atlantide, Ed.Tea, Milano, 1998.

J.V. Luce, La fine di Atlantide, 1976.

B. Martinis, Atlantide: mito o realtà, 1989.

O.T. Much, I segreti di Atlantide, 1979.

G. Perrone, Atlantide, leggenda e testimonianze, 1928.

R. Pinotti, I continenti perduti, Mondadori, Oscar Saggi, 1995.

Note:

(1) P. Chantraine, La formation des noms en grec ancien (p. 258).

(2) R. Vieni, La lingua dei Micenei, Cz, 1990.

- - - - -

Rosario Vieni è nato a Messina nel 1942, vive attualmente a Pistoia. Ha insegnato per 39 anni nei Licei, e nel 92-93 è stato ricercatore all'Università di Siena (su comando). Traduttore dei Lirici greci e di Virgilio, ha pubblicato col CNR un saggio sulla Lingua dei Micenei (90) in cui propone una nuova lettura dei testi in Lineare B e di un libello sul Disco di Festo. Ha partecipato al II Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia (91) come delegato del Presidente del CNR, e nel 98 è stato chiamato a partecipare al III Congresso Internazionale di dialettologia neoellenica, dove ha presieduto alla fase finale dei lavori (Chalimnos/Rodi) (cfr. Atti dell'Università di Atene, 2000). E' stato citato da Harald Haarmann in un testo apparso a Berlino e a New York, e al suo lavoro si fa riferimento sulla rivista dell'Università di Madison nel Wisconsin (del Dipartimento diretto da E.Bennett).

Punch in the English translation if you do not read Italian

Best regards,

My previous post of course has nothing to do with my theory at all.

It does however provide some interesting facts which we can see that of course there are others who have developed this Atlantis in front of or around Gibraltar.

quote:

---

Then in fact that sea was navigable (sign, this, than to the times of Platone - or of who it has told the vicissitude to it it was not more), and in front of that mouth? Eccola finally! Just in front of that mouth (the presumed columns of Ercole ) were the island of Atlantis

---

Here's an interesting ancient Greek word you can translate Maria and Georgeo's;

hubris, and this one, atasthaliai.

As I recall, Plato almost always used the phrase "stele of Hercules" (and Plato almost never wrote about pillars or columns of Hercules).

A stele is a special kind of memorial plaque. http://www.touregypt.net/stele.htm

Can someone please explain to me what Maria and Riven are disagreeing about?

Do you really need an explanation?

It get's pretty sickening the slander coming from her when anyone posts a theory and that her glorious Georgeo's is always the "first" to "discover" Atlantis.

We can clearly see he is not the first to undertake these theories, and merely scavenges from other theories,such as Ficini for example.

I disagreed with Ficini, because he was in medievel times and religion played an important part in his "Plato" translations.

Also, Ficini's source obviously would have been Timeaus from Chalcidius,since they were both Latin Authors.

How they can say Ficini was first is beyond me.

Also,I would not slander other theorists,but rather will express opinions to take apart their theories,as we have seen with Sarmast and Catastrophe for example.

Neither men said they were the first,and to exhalt and glorify themselves. Rather they pointed out their arguments,scientificaly.

Obviously,we can only accomplish our theories by studying works of other people before ourselves,like Plato and Solon,for example, and to what resources we have like Chalcidius,the Lexicons,and Universities.

My approach was to take Critias, "literally" for what he taught us,without changing the dates or distances,and without claiming I am the first.

My theory as you all know from my website and from my novice study of Atlantis,includes a continental island that once existed in the Atlantic and the Amperes,Gettysburg seamount area.

And,from all my previous posts in Tribes of Atlantis, Atlantis Risen, Astrologicaly Atlantis, Atlantean Atavism,etc... you can see how WE grew together and how my opinions came about.

The facts are all there, a fresh new approach to the Atlantis dilemna from Scientific,Archaeological,Cultural,Astronomical and Spiritual theories combined with logic to arrive at my conclusions.

Definitely,I am not the first,nor the last.
Just another voice searching for the Truth,nothing more, nothing less.

I am Nobody,yet, I am somebody.

He who has the Gold makes the Golden Rule,and he like Schleimann and the Golden Mask of Agemmemnon,He who holds the Orichalcum Sceptre of Atlantis, shall make the Golden Rule and remain exhalted.

Whichever theorist may be fortunate enough to find the "REAL" Atlantis.

In my opinion, learning about the WAY in which Plato's work became available to Western readers and authors can be useful to anyone who makes a serious study of Atlantis.

Maria answered me in a recent post, stating that the book of Georgeos will propose Ficino worked exclusively from Greek manuscripts dating roughly 7th to 10th centuries AD (but decisively NOT from any Arabic translations of Plato.)

I have done some "googling" and found that many Greek manuscripts from Constantiople were hurriedly smuggled into Europe during the decade after 1453 AD, when Constantinople was conquored by the Turks. Presumably the Medici family was able to buy some of those smuggled Greek manuscripts, thus getting them into the hands of Ficino.

But "philosophy" seems to have reached the west in a very complex way.

Here is link to a scholarly history-of-philosophy website, which discusses the way Plato and Aristotle were reintroduced into Europe after the Dark Ages (i.e. after the 7th to 10th centuries, which seem to influence the thinking of Georgeos).

quote from: http://www.webster.edu/~evansja/guides/medieval.html
"4. Major philosophical influences on medieval philosophy: Plato, Aristotle, & the Neoplatonists
A note on sources
Plato: known only second-hand and through an incomplete 3rd/4th cen. C.E. Latin translation with commentary by Chalcidius of the Timeaus until translations of the Meno and Phaedo appeared in the 12th cen. C.E.
Aristotle known only indirectly until 12th & 13th cen. C.E.
Plotinus & Proclus became available again about the 10th cen. C.E. via secondary translations from Arabic
(Pseudo-)Dionysius the Areopagite (7th/8th cen. C.E.???)
Plato's Influence: The Timaeus
Aristotle's Influence on medieval philosophy
rejected Plato's separation of form from matter.
universe: eternally moving (changing) system of celestial & terrestrial substances moved by desire to imitate the Prime Mover.
knowledge is possible because intellect can abstract forms from concrete individuals and can deduce the necessrity of a material substrate; sense experience has a fundamental role in this process.
hierarchical, organized universe: a great chain of being.
until the 12/13th cen. C.E. both Plato & Aristotle were interpreted through the lens of NeoPlatonism"

In summary of the above, it seems to me that no "Greek" manuscripts of Critias survived through the 7th to 10th centuries AD.

Only two books of Plato (Meno and Phaedo) were backwards-translated from Arabic during the 12th and 13th centuries. (Although Timaeus had been known in Latin for roughly 1000 years before that.)

Therefore it seems to me that Ficino's Greek manuscripts of Critias SOULD NOT BE DATED EARLIER THAN the 14th or 15th century AD.

Presumably some Spanish writers mentioned Ficino in regard to Atlantis in the 15th century AD.

But it seems to me that Ficino was using manuscripts for Critias which had been backwards-translated from Arabic into Greek. And if those documents had been smuggled into Europe after the fall of Constantinople, then we probably have no way to verify whether the scholars at Constantinople regarded Ficino's manuscripts as stellar translations, or alternatively as merely preliminary (superceded?) attempts to bridge the gap between Arabic and Greek languages.

That is part of the enigma of Atlantis.

Not to mention hollow Earth!

But in regard to Ficino, I hope I demonstrated that his Greek Critias manuscripts were probably written in the 14th or 15th century AD.

Okay, I'll say it one more time for the last time;

I do not hate nor envy Georgeos.

I hate Bigotry and defamation of character.

I for one Senora cabesa grande,I am Portuguese in case you forget,so it is in my blood to be able to read,speak and write in Portuguese,Spanish,French,Italian and Latin. In case you didn't notice I am from the Azores Islands where my name also descends from Royal blood through Mneseus into King Menes of Egypt, and I was born on All Saints Day,a day of mysticism.

And,I am gifted with intelligence and powers in the extra sensory dimensions.
Things you would neither comprehend nor grasp in your mortal soul which is filled with darkness and envy of others,for truly you are blinded.

The shadows and the light Senora, I have witnessed. There you will always be afraid of the light,for your heart knows it not,reaching out in agony and despair for the sins in your soul could not forgive you.

Though your tongue like your diluted mind speaks in circles,then shall your destiny be.

As I firmly believe, no one will find Atlantis until they either find it in Egypt,or the villa of Critias and Dropides, hidden somewhere, the true words of the tale.

And how may years have you studied Atlantis?
How many time do you and Georgeo's say the same madra over and over again?
Georgeos is right,his theory is first and only one,everyone else is wrong,but yet in all these years of your wonderous glory and study you have nothing.

Yet,you live in Spain and have the resources and the fortune to be able to dive underwater with.....nothing.

For how many years?

Well,it's a good thing Senora that Atlantis put's food on your table, isn't it?

You see, to me Senora, Atlantis will put food in my heart.

Georgeo's, you hide well behind the Senora.

Fala Senor.