I see that, once again, when you cannot argue your case sufficiently you resort to assigning blame...but never to yourself, of course.

I also see that, once again, you are accusing me of employing tactics designed to "divert attention and escape responsibility." Why is it, do you suppose, that you can never seem to just limit yourself to the arguments that would support your contentions and accusations? Why is it, do you suppose, that you always have to resort to insults, accusations, and attacks of a personal nature? Could it possibly be that you know your arguments are weak and that the text does not support your position?

quote:

---

The debate started like this, that you said that there were only two mentions during the dialogues of their truthfulness, while I said there were several, I found six, to be perfectly accurate.

---

Again, only two of them have any pertinence in regards to the Atlantis story, since 2 or 3 of them were Socrates merely repeating what he had just heard (i.e., that it was a true story; Socrates hadn't even heard the story yet at the point his remarks were made about it being true), and 1 of them was Timaeus praying that his words be found truly spoken and acceptable to the Being (Universe) - about whom he had just finished speaking. Furthermore, Critias could not attest to the truth of the story because he was not there when it happened. Again, Critias' statements regarding the "truth" of the story is nothing more than the "hearsay" testimony of a man 5 times removed from the event.

quote:

---

I believe at the start of this little exercise, you said something, about your attack on the dialogues, something along the lines of “let’s see what type of savior you are.”

---

My attack on the dialogues? Where do you come up with these cheesy lines? My arguments are less an attack on the dialogues, than your arguments are an attack on logic and common sense!

Yes, I said "let's see what kind of saviour you are" because you insinuated that you had to "save" everyone from the likes of me. Apparently, you're not a very good "saviour" because, so far, you've failed to effectively argue a single point.

quote:

---

I remind you, though, that since Plato uses the word “true” in the better part of the mentions, it was incumbent on you to prove to us all that when he said “true”, he really meant “false.”

---

It has never been incumbent upon me to prove that when Plato wrote "true" he actually meant "false," because that has never been my position. My position has always been that Plato laid the framework for the manner in which "true" is to be construed in relation to the likeness of a Model, which is 1.) that it must be analogous to the Model and 2.) possess likelihood - and this position is supported by the text and by the 4 members of the dialogue having agreed to such a condition. You have yet to prove otherwise.

You have based your position on "belief" and "a feeling" and you want me to abandon all logic and reason and come "feel the text" and "believe" in its "truthfulness" right along with you, but that is not how the argumentative process works. You must first establish your case with such ironclad logic and reason that I could never hope to argue otherwise, and Helios, you have quite simply failed to do so.

quote:

---

From this point on, I'll remind you, whatever hostility that arose through our discourse was something of your making, and I simply responded in kind.

---

Assigning blame to anyone but yourself again, I see.

quote:

---

It is the others here who may or may not have become confused by your rather self-serving interpretation that I care to enlighten, your own confusion seems to be quite apparent.

---

Once again with the saviour nonsense, eh? Your brand of "enlightenment" is rather like a burnt-out lightbulb in a dark room. Oops! There you go again. Now you have to argue how my confusion is supposedly "apparent."

quote:

---

From Critias:

Timaeus: "And I pray the being who always was of old, and has now been by me revealed, to grant that my words may endure in so far as they have been spoken truly and acceptably to him; but if unintentionally I have said anything wrong, I pray that he will impose upon me a just retribution, and the just retribution of him who errs is that he should be set right..."

I simply presented this point as the narrators saying that they spoke truth the say before and intended, under the threat of divine retribution, that they would speak also speak truth this day as well.

You defended this point to saying that the speakers were confining their speech about the gods. In addition, you also raised the diversion of the first paragraph.

---

Yet again with the blame (anyone but yourself, of course). First of all, once again, Timaeus is the only person speaking in Critias 106a, and he is ending his discussion. Critias will speak in just a few, short, paragraphs later, and he will speak for the remainder of the book. So, I ask you again, how could Timaeus be swearing to tell the truth in his discussions that day, when his discussion was coming to an end and he would not be speaking at all any more in the whole rest of the Critias? Your argument makes no sense in the hard, cold, light of reason, and in the face of the evidence.

And, once again, this was still the same day; another day had not passed, otherwise, Plato would have noted so in the Critias, just as he did in the Timaeus.

quote:

---

About ancient Athens:

"Concerning the country the Egyptian priests said what is not only probable but manifestly true..."

Of course, on this I said that "true" meant "true."

While you, in turn, after first stating that the line nowhere appeared in your copy, then repented and apologized, also cast doubt that the land of Athens was ever anything other than it appears now, again something Plato does not say. Later, switching tactics, of course, much discussion on the "cosmological" nature of Timaeus, then, of course, further sarcasm to underline your point.

---

Who's trying to confuse who here? I suggest you re-read my postings. You are mixing my postings to you and my posting to Jiri together. There was, indeed, much discussion as to the Cosmological treatices discussed in the Timaeus, but not in response to the quote about the Egyptian priests and what they told Solon about ancient Athens! You really are a piece of work! Do you know that?

quote:

---

Ah, here we had all the varied definitions of the word "incredible." I said that you were reading too much into the line, you opened a dictionary and proceeded to read even more. Ah, the joys, and triumphs of eptimology.

---

Uh..where, exactly, was your triumph, Helios?

quote:

---

From Timaeus:

Critias: "Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is certainly true, having been attested by Solon, who was the wisest of the seven sages..."

Again, I said that "true" was "true."

And, of course, hear was where we had, initially, at least, the definition of the word "hearsay" as your key arguing point. Friends, remember the discussion of the "bored, 1950's housewives..?" I believe here also arose the discussion of "plausible deniability" as Erick later reached for a more respectable metaphor in order to prove his "point." Presumably, a built-in method for Plato to "bob and weave" and escape the story's credibility, should it, perhaps, be received poorly, I imagine.

I trust I paid that point the proper consideration, Erick?

---

Not at all, and I would never, in a million years, trust you to pay proper consideration to any of my points. As usual, you were either not paying attention to what you were reading, or you failed to understand the point, which was that the fact that he could deny it, or he could embrace it is what gives it plausible deniability. Whether or not Plato would or would not do anything is never addressed or surmised; the fact that it has plausible deniability stands irrespective of what Plato would or would not do.

Once again, Critias could not attest to the fact that Solon attested to the truth of the story; he was merely going off of what his grandfather told him and who, in turn, went off of what Dropides told him. It is hearsay, plain and simple, any way you cut it.

quote:

---

Concerning the war between Athens & Atlantis:

Socrates: "And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?"

This was one of the most obvious references by Socrates concerning the story's truth, which, I believed best attested to it's truth.

Erick's response?

quote:

"To save time, see my previous point. "

Of that, I'll simply rest my case.

---

You never really ever respond to anything, do you? Once again, Socrates is merely repeating (like a parrot does) what he has just heard Critias tell him. He cannot, therefore, be used to attest to the truthfulness of the story.

quote:

---

Again concerning the war:

Socrates (later in the dialogue): "And what other, Critias, can we find that will be better than this, which is natural and suitable to the festival of the goddess, and has the very great advantage of being a fact and not a fiction?"

Erick viewed this as merely an "echo" of the earlier point and called on his pet parrots to assist him. He chose various other ways to explain himself, but I believe that this one sums up his position most perectly:

quote:

"Squawk! Polly want a cracker?"

I trust, if we explored this again, we would be treated to further explanations of the word "hearsay."

---

Once again, Socrates is merely repeating (like a parrot does) what he has just heard Critias tell him. He cannot, therefore, be used to attest to the truthfulness of the story.

quote:

---

I, in turn, wrote:

"Parrot-speak aside, Plato makes a point to say that the story is true. It is only those that wish to claim it as an allegory of some type that wish to insist it's a fiction."

All told, three mentions at the mininum of the word "true" or variation thereof, two mentions of the word "fact," and one reference by the narrator that his descriptions are as he was "told."

---

Once again, Plato never said it; he didn't even include himself as one of the members of the group; he left the fifth member up to the imagination of the reader.

The Bible contains the word "true" and "truth" and "verily" countless times; should we take everything that is written in it as "true" also?

All of your arguments completely ignore what the whole point of the dialogue was; to put forth a suitable model of Socrates' ideal polity in action, in a suitable war. In order for the war to be suitable, the opponent must, too, be suitable - hence, the Atlanteans.

quote:

---

So when I say that you are a crude debator and a sloppy researcher, I am, perhaps, being kind, Erick. I submit that you are the one with a truly low comprehension of the material, for, had you really been as aware of the material as you pretend to be, you would have been aware of each of these quotes before I even told them to you. Indeed, as I have also told you, I wouldn't have even had to inform you of them at all.

---

I was perfectly aware of them, Helios, I just knew that they weren't applicable because they were either non-contextual or hearsay. You presume a great deal too much for such a "newbie." By the way, you still have not proven, nor shown, in any way shape or form, how I am a "crude debator, sloppy researcher, or have a low comprehension of the material." When are you planning on doing that? Are you ever?

quote:

---

The long and short of it is that only someone who happens to be desperate to support his own perculiar idea on Atlantis would resort to such vague and short-sighted arguments to plead his case, in terms of this material.

---

Uh oh, there you go again! Now you have to argue how my arguments have been "vague" and/or "short-sighted," and in what manner I have displayed any "desperation." A person would think that you would learn to quit sticking your foot in your mouth, but apparently not.

quote:

---

I am not coming up with any new line of logic here, I am simply applying a logic that has been in force since as long as mankind knew the value of writing which is that "true" means "true."

---

Apparently, you believe everything that you read. Its a good thing that Plato didn't write that the Atlanteans had big, long, pointy teeth and hair all over the bodies, because you probably would have thought that was "true" also! Herodotus wrote that there was men in Libya "that had eyes in the middle of their chests" - do you believe that was "true" also? He used the word "verily" (i.e., in truth)?

Give it a rest, Helios. You know just as well as I do that just because someone says or writes that something is "true," doesn't necessarily make it "true." It isn't a faulty, obtuse, line of defense, its just reality.

quote:

---

Indeed there are several variations of the text between all three translations, but since they are too numerous and that would be a much longer exercise, I will not illustrate the examples. If you are as interested in the material as you claim to be, you will feel free to investigate themselves. Be assured, they are there, and they are not minor ones either.

---

O.K., so, first there are three, and then there are so many it would take too long to list them? I didn't ask for all of them, I only asked for three. Please list those three. Remember, you have stated several times that my text is somehow faulty, so now you must defend that position by supplying the evidence to support it. I already know that there aren't any major differences or variations between the different versions; you are the one who has said that there is, therefore it is now "incumbent" upon you to prove that there are variations between the different translations.

quote:

---

Then again, I have always maintained that you need to return to the dialogues in order to have a better grasp of the material at hand. You have resisted this suggestion, it seems, at your own peril and because of your own faulty pride. To further resist it would be even more at your own peril, for it will put you at a further disadvantage when it comes to true comprehension of the points at hand, not the ones that you simply wish to be there, but aren't.

---

I have lived in these texts for the past six years. How can I return to something I never left?

You have yet to prove a single one of your contentions and that is why I find your suggestions so laughable.

quote:

---

The dialogues remain intact, still, after 2400 years, while your theory as well as perhaps yourself, seem to have taken quite a beating.

---

What theory? We haven't discussed any "theory" of mine.

quote:

---

I do not see this so much as a victory for me, but rather Plato, who has been vindicated once again, after yet another ill-informed amateur has tried to "take him down."

---

Victory? (chuckle) You have to actually win a point in order to claim "victory." Heck, the only point you even responded to was the one about "manuscript," and on that point you admitted defeat! Victory? Not quite.

Uh, how, exactly, have I tried to "take Plato down?"

"Ill-informed amateur?" Well, I guess you'll have to defend this one too, now.

quote:

---

Conclusion: whether or not Atlantis did indeed exist or not, Plato himself believed that it existed and also wished for the story to be taken as true as others as well.

---

Your conclusion presumes to know what Plato believed and what he wished for others to believe, fixates on the appearance of the word "true," but disregards all of Plato's words in the dialogues as to how "true" is to be construed.[/quote]

My conclusion rests squarely on all of Plato's words and pays close attention to what they actually say as to how "true" is to be construed. [b]It presumes nothing.

quote:

---

"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

Not to be rude, but I believe we have just seen a perfect example.

---

"Not to be rude?" You don't consider that to be rude?

Now, please focus yourself on the 10 requests I made in my previous posting, and make an honest attempt to address them. To refresh your memory, those were:

quote:

---

1. Please illustrate for us all, by quoting any one of my postings, where and when I ever implied that you said that Critias 106a was not the first paragraph of the Critias.

2. Please demonstrate for us all, Helios, where, in passage 106a of the Critias, Plato attested to the truth of the Atlantis story?

You chose to demonstrate that Plato attested to the truth of the Atlantis story in Critias 106a by quoting the phrases “spoken truly and acceptably by him” and “just retribution if he errs” from Critias 106a. You have failed, however, to demonstrate that Plato’s use of these phrases was for the purpose of attesting to the truth of the Atlantis story, because you did not demonstrate that these phrases were said in regards to the Atlantis story. Again, please demonstrate that the aforementioned phrases were written in regards to the Atlantis story.

3. Please illustrate for us all, Helios, by quoting from the Critias, where Plato ever indicated that yet another day had passed?

4. To inform us all as to just what articles of Mr. Gill’s you have ever read, what journal(s) it/they appeared in, and what about it/them caused you to have such a low opinion of him?

5. Demonstrate your familiarity with Christopher Gill by telling us all what university Mr. Gill is associated with?

6. Provide evidence that supports your contention that my conclusion, that Plato wishes us to observe Critias’ disbelief due to his use of the word “incredible,” is “reaching” in order to prove my point.

The evidence for my conclusion was provided in the form of:

A. A list of words synonymous with “incredible” (i.e., not credible) that illustrate the negative aspects of the word “incredible” in relation to that topic (e.g., unbelievable (i.e., not believable), implausible (i.e., not plausible), improbable (i.e., not probable), doubtful (i.e., full of doubt), questionable(i.e., causing one to question), nonsensical (i.e., not making any sense), not to mention absurd and far-fetched)
B. Plato’s own statement that “a work of such extent (in addition to others) could never have been artificial.” The logical inference to be drawn from this is that either the writer - Plato, the speaker - Critias, or both, believed that particular detail in the description of Atlantis to be either naturally occurring (i.e., not man-made) or fictional (i.e., not occurring at all).
C. Two different ways that the passage could be approached based on the available evidence, both of which necessitate the observance of Critias’ own incredulity regarding that particular detail in the description of Atlantis.
D. A list of words & phrases synonymous with the word “nevertheless” that illustrate that Critias’ use of the word “nevertheless” indicates that he felt obliged to say what he was told regardless of its incredulous nature.

Please respond to the evidence listed above.

8. Please explain to us all how my agenda, which you have stated is “to use both dialogues to support my point(s)”, is any less your agenda, or the agenda of any person posting in this Forum?

9. Please “put up” by providing evidence of the insults, or “shut up” and quit stating that I have insulted you.

10. Please illustrate how my responses were non-contextual, contained erroneous comparisons, were based in false logic, or contained any insults. Please illustrate this by providing evidence that supports that contention.

11. Either “put up or shut up” regarding being able to refute my research at its core.

---

Regards,

Erick

------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

------------------
‘Hydrogen: a light, colorless, odorless gas, that given enough time, turns into people.’

You might want to try actually reading the information contained in the web sites that you post links to. You should pay special attention to:

Propaganda - Fear Mongering, Hate Mongering, Scare Tactics
- Ridicule

Logical Fallacies - Circular Reasoning
- Non-Sequitur
- Shifting the Burden of Proof

Smokescreen - Ad Hominem
- Side-stepping
- Bluffing
- Subjectivity

Helios' postings have shown evidence of all of those.

You, Anteros, however, have not written anything at all in regards to this discusion. You have sat by on the sidelines, allowed Helios to fight the good fight for you, and thrown in a quick quip every now and again. At least Helios has the strength of his convictions and the guts to stand up for what he believes. You have stood for nothing. Mind you, that doesn't get Helios "off the hook" - he still has to support his positions, statements, assertions, contentions, etc., with evidence.

------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

Helios is doing a great job making you look like a ranting buffoon without my help, or anyone else's for that matter.

Do you have anything constructive to add to this discussion? An argument of any sort? All you ever seem to post are insults and negative opinions.

You disagree with me...I get it. Now how about posting some sort of argument as to how I am supposedly wrong?

quote:

---

You act as if your loss to this forum would be a great tragedy.

---

The loss of any forum member, for any reason other than disinterest, is a loss.

quote:

---

May I point out that this is, again, a perfect example of your huge ego and arrogance.

---

The fact that I don't believe that a forum member should be able to get away with calling another forum member names is an example of my huge ego and arrogance? Or the fact that I said that I would leave the forum, like so many others have, if nothing is done about it, and you don't think my leaving would be a loss to the forum, is an example of my ego and arrogance? Did it ever occur to you that everybody might not share your same opinion of me?

quote:

---

Your totally closed minded, tunnel vision is what turns people off.

---

Are you presuming to speak for everyone with that remark, or just expressing your own opinion?

quote:

---

Its always the same with you; Atlantis was the sea people, you were right everyone else was wrong.

---

I was right, and I have given you as much of the evidence of it as I can without violating my publication rights agreement. You are free to purchase a copy of the article when it is published, though.

quote:

---

Then it was in Turkey, you were right everyone else was wrong.

---

Please feel free to quote any one of my postings, at any time, and illustrate where and when I have ever said that I was right about Turkey and everybody else was wrong.

quote:

---

Now it never existed, you are right everyone else is wrong.

---

This one is one-in-the-same with "Atlantis was the Sea Peoples."

quote:

---

Do you see a pattern here?

---

Yes, but only that you are consistently angry, hateful, and bitter.

------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

Please feel free to elaborate, at any time, as to how Helios has succeeded in making me look like a "ranting buffoon."

Hmmmm, "ranting buffoon," I guess that would fall under "Propaganda: Ridicule."

Perhaps you should re-read the site a third time?

------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

Erick,

I suggest you use your vast knowledge of eptimology, not to mention your Webster's dictionary, to look up the words "true", "truly" and, of course, "fact." I note, with interest, that those seem to be of the few words of Plato's who's meanings you do not supply. My position has remained consistent in this throughout, I merely say that when Plato says "true", he means "true." It is only to those with particularly obtuse minds wherein "true" actually means "false." Any other issues besides that, your "list", for instance, is a mere sidebar meant to divert attention from the central "truth" of the dialogue. I need no diversionary tactics on my side, for "truth", it seems, is on my side.

Ah, Erick, wih each passage you write, your explanation vary a little more to suit the situation, your tone seems a little more desperate. I think that you are finally beginning to see the flaws in some of your arguments, though you are, as yet, loathe to admit them to any of us. I say this, not meaning to demean you, did I detect a tear in your voice behind some of your comments of today..?

First let me address this little kernel of wisdom of yours concering my use of the word "manuscript":

"As one who fancies himself an expert in eptimology," you'll be interested to know that R.G. Bury's translation also uses the word "writings."

And yet, on your quote of 07/02, you also said:

"Second, regarding the passage discussing Critias’ supposed possession of the “letters” (never, in any place, is it referred to as a manuscript!) that Solon brought back from Egypt, of course I was aware of it and why on earth would you ever think that I would bring up a passage that would seemingly support a position contrary to my own?"

Why? Why to find the truth, Erick, then again, I keep forgetting, you seem more interested in being "right" than in finding the truth. The quote continues:

"Additionally, the supposed possession of Solon’s “letters” necessitates the question “If he had been in possession of the letters since childhood, then why would he have needed nearly an entire night to recall the tale from memory?” Are we supposed to believe that Critias never once, in all the intervening years since his childhood, pulled the letters out and read them again? And why did Critias earlier say that he had to recollect the story overnight, and from childhood, but, then, later change his tune and say that he had been in possession of Solon’s letters since childhood? None of Solon’s letters has ever surfaced, and nothing remains of the Temple of Neith, as it was destroyed long ago (not that the story was ever inscribed there); this means that there is still only one (not three) source for the Atlantis story – Plato. Oral tradition is certainly a possibility, but, if you support that argument you cannot then also support the argument of Critias’ supposed possession of Solon’s letters, now can you?"

In all six uses by you of the word "letters" even though you claim that the Bury translation calls them "writings." Next, you'll tell me that you were paraphrasizing. Of course, my use of the word "manuscript" (two times) was simple paraphrasing, too. I was intending to let your usage of the word "slide" yet you made such a grand deal out of my own usage of "manuscript" that I must now say:

Yet another error on your part. Even if you now claim, as it seems you were that there is little difference between "writings" and "letters"I think we can all see you true "scientific methodology" at work here: spend voluminous amounts of time upon petty details that have little to do with the gist of the material in order to deflect attention from logic on your part when it is at it's weakest and most suspect.

Concerning this little pearl of today:

"My attack on the dialogues? Where do you come up with these cheesy lines? My arguments are less an attack on the dialogues, than your arguments are an attack on logic and common sense!"

Ah yes, Erick, far be it from you to have ever been insulting to anyone here, ever the victim.

Concering your attack on the dialogues, I refer you to your now infamous comments of 06/30:

" There's so much "hearsay" going on in this narrative that it reminds me of how, back in the 1950's, bored housewives used to stand on opposite sides of a fenceline and gossip about their neighbors. Its ridiculous!

I trust that that was attack enough for both of us, though, of course now you'll no doubt simply say you were being "facetious." Again, I ask you, how can you ever hope to comprehend the dialogues if you don't even respect them?

"Propaganda
- Fear Mongering, Hate Mongering,
Scare Tactics
- Ridicule

Logical Fallacies - Circular Reasoning
- Non-Sequitur
- Shifting the Burden of Proof

Smokescreen - Ad Hominem
- Side-stepping
- Bluffing
- Subjectivity"

Honestly, this proves what I have been saying a thousandfold,for they each apply far more ably to your arguments than mine. My stated position has not changed, never wavered. I simply imply that "truth" means "truth". Why would I need to employ any such tactics when "truth" is on my side? "Truth" it seems only means "false" if one happens to be desperate to prove a vain new theory upon Atlantis. I invite anyone to read, even re-read the discussion, only yourself or one who happens to be a good friend of yours could even remotely see the logic in such ill-formed, mal-nourished arguments as yours. A shame upon you to even try to deflect these items upon me when each happened to be a method of your employ at almost every posting.

quote:

"I have lived in these texts for the past six years. How can I return to something I never left?"

I find that statement most comical considering the lack of knowledge you have displayed upon the topic. It is quite plain to myself and anyone just how much work needs to be done on your behalf. Again, I suggest a return to the dialogues, yet this time, perhaps try a version other than the "Bury" version. The versions by either Jowett or Lee first come to mind. Jowett's, perhaps first for it does seem to be the most enlightened of them all. At any rate, please do not return to the "writings" of Mr. Gill, as has been known to also confuse, rather than enlighten, those who happen to embark upon an honest quest for Plato.

Your quote regarding Brig:

"Yes, but only that you are consistently angry, hateful, and bitter."

Again, it would seem that anyone who agrees with you is subject to this same kind of treatment.

Regarding Anteros:

"Anteros, Please feel free to elaborate, at any time, as to how Helios has succeeded in making me look like a "ranting buffoon."

"Hmmmm, "ranting buffoon," I guess that would fall under "Propaganda: Ridicule."

"Perhaps you should re-read the site a third time?

Please don't wish that upon them. Actually, it is you that might do well to re-read your comments of the last few postings, Erick, for it is plain that they are becoming increasingly more bitter and hostile. I realize that you now see long-cherished theories of yours currently unravelling before your eyes, but that is the way of things, especially if they are faulty to begin with. Bring them only to friends or family if you wish consistent encouragement. Now, of course, we'll all be in for another long-winded diatribe of yours in response. Please do not confuse the quantity of your material wih the quality, however. I think that others are "onto" you when I hear comments like "the more you write, the less you say." The sad truth of the matter, for you, that is, is that, to me, your "writings" seem very much long on opinions even "hearsay", yet they sadly bereft of any actual "proof" to support your, at times, ill-formed conclusions.

Again, sadly, Plato himself is also no longer here to validate any new theories, all we have is his writings, one of which was:

"And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?"

All told, three mentions at the mininum of the word "true" or variation thereof, two mentions of the word "fact," and one reference by the narrator that his descriptions are as he was "told."

As I said, the dialogues remain intact, still, after 2400 years, while your theory as well as perhaps yourself, seem to have indeed taken quite a beating.

Conclusion: whether or not Atlantis did indeed exist or not, Plato himself believed that it existed and also wished for the story to be taken as true as others as well.

As I have said, I don't see this so much as my own victory, Erick, but one on behalf of Plato, the Academy, perhaps even those who once may have dwelt in Atlantis. I am hoping that, if they really existed, their ghosts are at rest this night.

You may be very close to point of Erick. Indeed Plato's characters are confirming with regular intervals that it's all true.

So how do I see it all?

Erick has discovered a very delicate plot in the writings, based on the homograph idea. He cannot elaborate on that presently. But this would proof beyond any doubt that the Atlantis story is virtually identical to the sea people story. Just assume that this is true for the moment.

If there has been a real Atlantis city that was destroyed, it would also have been known in the other sources concerning the sea people. As it is not, the conclusion of the non existance of Atlantis is logical.

The question remains who made that delicate plot. Was it Solon, Critias or Plato? If it was not Plato and Plato acted merely as a reporter then he also could be convinced of the truth of the story. Solon was a remarkable man and a poet and it may be very likely that he invented the modification of the sea people story.

But then again Plato seems to have been rather intelligent too and he never played objective reporter before or after. So he may have had an objective when he had his characters stating the story to be true.

What would have been said in the missing part of the Critias?

Presumably that festival could be the Eleusinian mysteries, which were intended to be kept secret.

Therefore, perhaps Plato was introducing Solon's egyptian story (Atlantis) as an acceptable way to comment on some of the "secrets".

In regard to linking truth to belief: it seems that the Athenians were expected to "believe" their Eleusinian mysteries, and their Panathenaia festivals.

So Plato/Solon could have been trying to cite external (Egyptian) info regarding the "truth", or the basis, behind the Eleusinian war, and the Eleusinian mysteries.

Alternately, the story could have been seeking a basis for the great festival of Panathenia, and the conflict between Athena and Poseidon for control of Athens.

As I have seen already noted by others in previous threads I shall now paraphrase here:

(1.) Atlantis operated from a base clearly in the Atlantic, the Sea People were clearly from Asia Minor.

(2.) The limits to the Atlantean empire stretched from the Atlantic to the western Mediterranean, to the boundaries of Egypt and Tyrhennia, while the Sea People, if not controlled, at least made war with the eastern Mediterranean.

(3) In addition to the Egyptians, the Sea People also warred with the Hittites. There is no indication in the dialogues that Atlantis ever invaded what we call today as "the Middle East", let alone Turkey, in fact, the Atlantean territorial boundaries are clearly designated in Plato as up to Egypt and Tyrhennia.

Given that the time elapsed in the dialogues could well be incorrect, and that we cannot be certain that Plato actually meant "nine thousand years," 1250 b.c. is still of relatively recent origin for the tale to have taken place. This is around the same time as the Trojan War, and, as we know, we have several accounts of that.

I'll grant you there are some superficial similarities, but, as also has also no doubt been noted in earlier, both Santorini and Minoan Crete, even ancient Troy, for that matter, also share those certain similarities with Atlantis.

As for the story being told "verbatim," well, of course not, the descriptions of both Atlantis and ancient Athens are no doubt exaggerated to some extent. But since Plato makes a point to "underline" so to speak both the antiquity and location of Atlantis, we can be certain that he did not mean a people that existed in the eastern Mediterranean, not the western Mediterranean, nor hardly the Atlantic Ocean.

In addition, even if Greek records were sorely lacking on the history of the Sea People, Egyptian records were certainly not. They would not make such a great mistake as to place them in the Atlantic Ocean whilst they clearly came from the east. Nor would they gain any advantage by deceiving Solon of their origin, should the story of how Atlantis actually became known Solon actually have existed, of course. Of this, I can only refer to you to Helios' seemingly essential point regarding the "truth" of the story.

Any "homographs" built into the tale are, of course, in the eye of the beholder, but I remind you, gentlemen, that the original dialogues are lost and we are merely working from "translations of translations" at best. This leaves the work open to all manner of errors, both numerical and grammatical, and one can't even be certain of what they are seeing. We aren't even reading Plato's original words.

Josh Billings.

quote:
`The Origin of the Atlantis Myth', Trivium 11 (l976), 1-11.

`The Genre of the Atlantis Story', Classical Philology 72 (l977), 287-304.

`Plato and Politics: the Critias and the Politicus', Phronesis 24 (l979), l48-67.

`Plato's Atlantis Story and the Birth of Fiction', Philosophy and Literature 3 (l979), 64-78.

Quote Chronos: Simply the fact that the Sea Peoples have no legend of a cicular city does not in itself prove that there was no Atlantis.

The fact that we don't ( yet ) know about any concentric city connected to the Sea Peoples doesn't mean that there never was such a city connected to them.

Quote Chronos: There is no indication in the dialogues that Atlantis ever invaded what we call today as "the Middle East", let alone Turkey, in fact, the Atlantean territorial boundaries are clearly designated in Plato as up to Egypt and Tyrhennia.

Actually there is.

Quote from Timaeus translated by Benjamin Jowett:
For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against
the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end.

Asia included both Turkey and the Middle-East. The Sea Peoples invaded parts of
Europe and Asia allied with the Libyans, as did the Atlanteans.

Quote Chronos: Erick, I read that, according to Helios, you perhaps need a better understanding of Plato's works.

The important thing is that Erick doesn't need a better understanding of Plato's work to prove his research.

Quote from Critias translated by Benjamin Jowett: "The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were incredible, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial. Nevertheless I must say what I was told."

Erick: In other words, even Critias (or Plato?) wasn't buying Solon's description of Atlantis, but decided, nevertheless, to pass on what he overheard his grandfather (the Elder Critias) telling Amynandes! Here, in Critias' own words, Plato has Critias himself - the narrator of the story - casting doubt on the voracity of the description of Atlantis!"

I totally agree here. Plato(or Critias) thought the measurements was incredible, almost unbelievable, but decided to pass on the story, very much like Diodorus and Herodotus decided to pass on legends and myths to preserve them, even though they didn't believe in everything they heard. Some people, in the time of Diodorus, stated that the earth was round. He decided to include this statement in one of his books, even though he thought it was unbelievable and almost ridiculous.
I think it is obvious ( when you have read the first part of Critias ) that Plato( or Critias ) was passing on an old story, as he remembered it.

Interesting part of Critias translated by Benjamin Jowett:

" I can only attempt to show that I ought to have more indulgence than you, because my theme is more difficult; and I shall argue that to seem to speak well of the gods to men is far easier than to speak well of men to men: for the inexperience and utter ignorance of his hearers about any subject is a great assistance to him who has to speak of it, and we know how ignorant we are concerning the gods. But I should like to make my meaning clearer, if Timaeus, you will follow me.

All that is said by any of us can only be imitation and representation. For if we consider the likenesses which painters make of bodies divine and heavenly, and the different degrees of gratification with which the eye of the spectator receives them, we shall see that we are satisfied with the artist who is able in any degree to imitate the earth and its mountains, and the rivers, and the woods, and the universe, and the things that are and move therein, and further, that knowing nothing precise about such matters, we do not examine or analyze the painting; all that is required is a sort of indistinct and deceptive mode of shadowing them forth. But when a person endeavours to paint the human form we are quick at finding out defects, and our familiar knowledge makes us severe judges of any one who does not render every point of similarity. And we may observe the same thing to happen in discourse; we are satisfied with a picture of divine and heavenly things which has very little likeness to them; but we are more precise in our criticism of mortal and human things. Wherefore if at the moment of speaking I cannot suitably express my meaning, you must excuse me, considering that to form approved likenesses of human things is the reverse of easy. This is what I want to suggest to you, and at the same time to beg, Socrates, that I may have not less, but more indulgence conceded to me in what I am about to say. Which favour, if I am right in asking, I hope that you will be ready to grant. "

Examples of defects in the story is:
1. "A Bronze Age nation 9000 years ago".
2. "A sunken island as large as Libya and Asia combined"

Critias explains that Timaeus task was easier because it was cosmological in nature, while Critias "Tale of Atlantis" was a difficult one. Plato warned his readers. ("All that is said by any of us can only be imitation and representation")

Was he saying that we shouldn't take the story literally? ( because he didn't remember it correctly or because much of it, was, or may have been invented/changed over time? )
Did he want us to look at it as a painting of reality?
Did he meant to say: "I´m just passing on an ancient tradition, don't take everything literally."?

One thing is certain: Plato(or Critias) knew that the story was incredible ( almost unbelievable ).

Plato: "all that is required is a sort of indistinct and deceptive mode of shadowing them forth"

indistinct: not clear
deceptive: making you believe something that is not true:

Warm Regards,

Jonas Bergman

How calm you sound!!

I wanted to insert this....

RE: 2. "A sunken island as large as Libya and Asia combined"

This was my initial impression when I first stumbled upon that theory, but I now I find it to be one of the most believable. So far this claim, which I first came across at http://www.atlan.org, actually boasts the most shall I say "evidence" (since no theory has obviously been proven), than any other theory, IMHO. Even the obvious questions of "why isn't it in the Atlantic?" or "why isn't it just outside the Pillars of Hercules?" is directly answered without contradicting Plato’s story. I’m not saying I'm 100% convinced Atlantis was here (although at the very least I'm pretty sure it was home to A civilization during the same time) I’m just saying that I think it's been substantiated by the strongest scientific research and historical facts thus far.

Of course, that doesn’t mean I’m closed off to others theories that place Atlantis in the present-day Atlantic Ocean or South America. However, I’m not so inclined to believe Atlantis was anywhere in the Mediterranean, and I find Antarctica to be one of the least plausible theories of all. I enjoy reading and taking into consideration all arguments for Atlantis though.

As for your other point, not enough is known about the Sea People to build a case for Atlantis. There probably never will be either, as most of the records pre-1200 b.c. have been destroyed according to the material I've studied. A loose conglomeration of cities that sometimes unite to make war on Egypt and the Hittites? Atlantis was supposed to be a large empire, in the ATLANTIC, not a loose alliance of city-states. They actually fit just as well, if not better, as a renegade people, post-Atlantis than the sole basis for Atlantis itself.

I noticed you didn't mention the time element, 1200 b.c. as opposed to 9000 b.c. in you impasssioned defense, nor the fact that the Sea People originated from Turkey while Plato clearly places Atlantis "beyond the Pillars of Hercules," in the Atlantic Ocean.

Where is the continent, larger than Libya and Asia combined..?

I know, next you'll say that it was not "bigger than" but "in the middle of."

What about the large, flat rectangular plain?
How about the elephants, do they get a lot of elephants in Turkey?

Two growing seasons??

Any canals there one hundred foot deep, five and a half miles long?

So long as we're quoting Plato, let's look at the whole account, shall we, not just the parts that suit our purposes.

Let me help you out with some of the answers to some of these, as, of course we know the same ones from the Santorini argument. Of course, we all know the answer to the time element factor, too, Solon mistook the Egyptian symbol for one thousand for one hundred, right? Clever. They look nothing alike.

The sad truth for both of you is that, if the Egyptians were involved, the time element wouldn't be as nebulous as anyone suggests, they were, to put it mildly, very accurate keepers of time.

Or maybe the Egyptians weren't involved at all, and Plato, or Solon, simply "made the whole thing up." In which case the new theory doesn't mean anything anyway because "academics" have long thought anyway. It's nothing new to them. In that case, buying into this would be akin to "selling out."

Friendship seems to be driving your defense of this, nothing more, and the sad truth of the matter is that neither of you is as educated on the subject as you would have others believe. When it comes to Atlantis, there are no experts. There's only one real account, that of Plato, and we're all entitled to read it.

This effort to come up with something new on Atlantis just to be "original" is really getting wearisome. Maybe the truth is just where it's always been said to be and you people can't find it, or have gotten tired of looking. Either you believe in it or you don't, but if you don't believe in it, the question remains, why even come here in the first place?

I will tell you the reason of this: Solon, who was intending to use the tale for his poem, enquired into the meaning of the names, and found that the early Egyptians in writing them down had translated them into their own language, and he recovered the meaning of the several names and when copying them out again translated them into our language. My great-grandfather, Dropides, had the original writing, which is still in my possession, and was carefully studied by me when I was a child.

Dhill: Where is the continent, larger than Libya and Asia combined..?

The original Egyptian account was probably refering to coastlands. An alliance of coastlands mightier than Libya and Asia combined.

Dhill: Of course, we all know the answer to the time element factor, too, Solon mistook the Egyptian symbol for one thousand for one hundred, right? Clever.

Remember that the Egyptian priest mentioned mythical kings from the time of Theseus in connection to the war. This is definitely not 9000 years before Solon. Plato is very clearly describing a Bronze Age culture, and the fact that the Egyptian priest said that the ancient Greek civilization collapsed and lost its writing is very important, because we know that this happened approximately 1100 B.C in close relation to the invasions of the Libyans and the Sea Peoples. Is this just a coincidence? Definitely not. The priest also said that the legend of Phaethon had a kernel of truth, and this story is clearly describing the events around 1100 B.C. All this tells me that either

1. Plato's Atlantean invasion is the invasions of the Libyans and the Sea Peoples.

OR

2. Plato's Atlantean invasion was another huge invasion roughly at the same time as the Invasion of the Libyans and the Sea Peoples.

Dhill: What about the large, flat rectangular plain? How about the elephants, do they get a lot of elephants in Turkey? Two growing seasons??

All of those descriptions could easily be found in connection to the Sea Peoples, if Solon didn't invent it. I´ll write more soon.

Warm Regards, Jonas Bergman

I's interesting that very few people on the 4th page here actually said something remotely regarding Atlantis....

Important or not, you're going about it the wrong way.

History has shown that to get things done, each does their own particular, specialized jobs, and together, they bear fruit.

A General is nothing without his troops.

Who's the Linguist? Let him be linguist.
Who's the Geographer? Let him be geographer.

Etc etc....

Assume a role, and let others do likewise.

No one is right 100% of the time, so stop trying to be.

If I may make a suggestion: Employ a ground penetrating radar. Devices like this have previously been used to map the ocean floor; Why does no one try the same whilst looking for a great archaeological site?

no? well, what about a satellite radar?

(think about it, If it were visible, it would have been found already, right? and the 10 tons of spacedust falling to earth each and every day, plus Earth's ravaging weather, covering up our history, coupled with Atlantis THEORETICALLY being near water, would soon render such a measure necessary)

(see? this is exactly why I don't bother with the 'Atlantis' threads. Everybody thinks they're right, and allows NO room for alternatives, some even disregarding the words of Plato himself, perhaps assuming that he had 'made a mistake' somehow. These fruitless discussions are a joke.)

quote:

"Quote Chronos: Simply the fact that the Sea Peoples have no legend of a cicular city does not in itself prove that there was no Atlantis.

The fact that we don't ( yet ) know about any concentric city connected to the Sea Peoples doesn't mean that there never was such a city connected to them."

It also doesn't prove that they ever had one either. If some of you aren't going to allow Atlantis the benefit of the doubt, you shouldn't be offering it to the Sea People either.

quote:

"Quote Chronos: There is no indication in the dialogues that Atlantis ever invaded what we call today as "the Middle East", let alone Turkey, in fact, the Atlantean territorial boundaries are clearly designated in Plato as up to Egypt and Tyrhennia.

"Actually there is.

Quote from Timaeus translated by Benjamin Jowett:

"For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against
the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end."

Actually, Jonas, you should have continued on with the rest of the quote, which reads:

"For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end. This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia."

The location of Atlantis is clearly fixed in the Atlantic Ocean, the Asia reference is clearly mentioned only in passing, and the geography painted by Plato clearly does not match Turkey, but rather, an area around the Atlantic. One has to work very hard to get Turkey into the Atlantis equation.

quote:

"Quote Chronos: Erick, I read that, according to Helios, you perhaps need a better understanding of Plato's works.

"The important thing is that Erick doesn't need a better understanding of Plato's work to prove his research."

No, but if one is going to comment on Plato and tell us what he meant, one would think he would try and get a keen understanding.

quote:

Regarding Atlantis' great ditch and the evidence of it as the story being imaginary:

"I totally agree here. Plato(or Critias) thought the measurements was incredible, almost unbelievable, but decided to pass on the story, very much like Diodorus and Herodotus decided to pass on legends and myths to preserve them, even though they didn't believe in everything they heard."

One detail in itself does not make the whole story incredible. Having said that, yes, perhaps there are some embellishments. Which ones? Well, I suppose if we ever find Atlantis, we'll see.

"Examples of defects in the story is:
1. "A Bronze Age nation 9000 years ago".
2. "A sunken island as large as Libya and Asia combined"

Sea travel was accomplished by the ancient people as early as 40,000 b.c. as evidenced by the fact of human occupation on both Australia and Indonesia. That was thirty thousand years before the time that Atlantis was supposed to have existed. It would not be too much of a stretch of the imagination to say that, nine thousand years before Plato, a similar Bronze Age civilization also sprung up. In any event, the truth of this is at the heart of the Atlantis debate, is it not?

"A sunken island larger than Libya and Asia combined," I'll take this point, too, since you referenced it later. Plato may not call it a continent, you may not call it a continent, but something of the size that Plato mentions would have been almost certainly bigger than an "island." It would be about the size as Australia, one of the known "continents."

"One thing is certain: Plato(or Critias) knew that the story was incredible ( almost unbelievable ).

"Remarkable" might be a better way to put it as opposed to "almost unbelievable." Egypt is also remarkable, too, one can also say it is "incredible." I doubt that anyone would believe in the Sphinx or the Great Pyramid if it didn't exist before their own eyes.

The Sea People have long been linked with Atlantis, nonetheless, my original points still remain, which are:

(1.) Atlantis operated from a base clearly in the Atlantic, the Sea People were clearly from Asia Minor.

(2.) The limits to the Atlantean empire stretched from the Atlantic to the western Mediterranean, to the boundaries of Egypt and Tyrhennia, while the Sea People, if not controlled, at least made war with the eastern Mediterranean.

(3) In addition to the Egyptians, the Sea People also warred with the Hittites. There is no indication in the dialogues that Atlantis ever invaded what we call today as "the Middle East", let alone Turkey, in fact, the Atlantean territorial boundaries are clearly designated in Plato as up to Egypt and Tyrhennia.

Given that the time elapsed in the dialogues could well be incorrect, and that we cannot be certain that Plato actually meant "nine thousand years," 1250 b.c. is still of relatively recent origin for the tale to have taken place. This is around the same time as the Trojan War, and, as we know, we have several accounts of that.

Dhill also raised several more points regarding the elephants, geography, growing season and geography. Now you'll produced evidence of an elephant skeleton in Turkey in the era of 1200 b.c. However, it is important to realize that, if we are to take Plato literally, these comparisons are forced, for it is clearly stated that Atlantis lay "in the Atlantic."

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent."

True, but my point was that the Sea Peoples is a great mystery in itself.

Quote Chronos: Actually, Jonas, you should have continued on with the rest of the quote, which reads: ...........

The location of Atlantis is clearly fixed in the Atlantic Ocean, the Asia reference is clearly mentioned only in passing, and the geography painted by Plato clearly does not match Turkey, but rather, an area around the Atlantic. One has to work very hard to get Turkey into the Atlantis equation.

True, but if we skip the fact that the story mentions The Pillars of Hercules and the Atlantic Ocean, we are left with a story which easily matches the geography of the eastern and north-eastern Mediterranean coastlands. Remember that Solon translated each original name into Greek. This is why the king was named Atlas and the ocean Atlantic. I´ll write more regarding this later.

A question for you:

How could Gades(modern Cadiz) be mentioned in the original Egyptian account if it didn't exist in the time of Atlantis?
Gades was founded approx 1100 B.C according to ancient authors, and much later if we are looking at the archaeological record. Isn't Erick's "Gedeirus" the most obvious solution to this problem? I mean, Plato wrote that Solon translated each meaning of the original Egyptian names into Greek. This created Atlas, Gades, the Atlantic Ocean and so on.

Quote Chronos: In addition to the Egyptians, the Sea People also warred with the Hittites. There is no indication in the dialogues that Atlantis ever invaded what we call today as "the Middle East", let alone Turkey, in fact, the Atlantean territorial boundaries are clearly designated in Plato as up to Egypt and Tyrhennia.

Plato very clearly states that they invaded Asia. This includes eastern Turkey and the Middle-East. They held sway as far as Egypt and Tyrhennia, but made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia.

Quote Chronos: Given that the time elapsed in the dialogues could well be incorrect, and that we cannot be certain that Plato actually meant "nine thousand years," 1250 b.c. is still of relatively recent origin for the tale to have taken place. This is around the same time as the Trojan War, and, as we know, we have several accounts of that.

Yes this is around the same time as the Trojan war, but also in the time of mythical kings such as Cecrops, Erechteus and Theseus ( mentioned by the Egyptian priest ). This is also when the ancient Greek civilization collapsed and lost its writing, exactly like the Egyptian priest said. Everything makes perfectly sense.

Quote from Timaeus translated by Benjamin Jowett
in the next place, you do not know that there formerly dwelt in your land the fairest and noblest race of men which ever lived, and that you and your whole city are descended from a small seed or remnant of them which survived. And this was unknown to you, because, for many generations, the survivors of that destruction died, leaving no written word. For there was a time, Solon, before the great deluge of all, when the city which now is Athens was first in war and in every way the best governed of all cities, is said to have performed the noblest deeds and to have had the fairest constitution of any of which tradition tells, under the face of heaven.

Quote from Collapse of the Bronze Age by Manuel Robbins
In Greece, Linear B records were no longer kept after the disasters that occured toward the end of 1190 B.C, and this seem to signal the end of the palace-centered management of the economy, it is safe to say that the palace no longer ruled.

Greek began to sink irreversibly into a profound depression that lasted for centuries. Nothing is known of Greece in the long-lasting dark period that followed from any contemporary record, and the land was so impoverished, so lacking in material possessions, that archaeologists have found little which would illuminate those times.
There was no writing, even in the alphabetic script which came to Greece later.

All aspects of high culture were gone. It is a question whether what remained can still be considered civilization, so severe seems the regression.

Plato: for many generations, the survivors of that destruction died, leaving no written word

Quote from Collapse of the Bronze Age by Manuel Robbins
It is primarily the evidence of destruction in the urban centers of Bronze
Age Greece which has given shape to the barbarian invasion theory, and which
has influenced other theories as well.

Myceane: In South House also, walls collapsed. In the Cult Center, walls were damaged. The House of Idols burned down. Following this, Mycenae continued to be occupied into IIIC but with little evidence of rebuilding. This destruction in Mycenae is now attributed to another earthquake.

Tiryns: Twenty miles south of Mycenae, the citadel of Tiryns severely damaged in a great fire, at about the time of the destruction in the Mycenae citadel it is thought. Evidence of ground shift and the remains of a woman trapped under the remains of fallen walls point towards earthquake.

Midea: A few miles east of Tiryns, Midea was severely damaged at the end of IIIB Late, an event again attributed to earthquake.

Thebes: At Thebes there is some evidence of a great fire and destruction in IIIB Late.

Iolkos: At Iolkos, the palace was burned, possibly in IIIC.

Orchomenos: Near Orchomenos, on a high point in Lake Copais, was the fortress of Gla. Gla was part of the defenses of Orchomenos. Signs of fire have been found there, associated with late IIIB or possibly IIIC pottery.

Pylos: The palace of Pylos and its associated buildings were consumed in a terrible fire, never again to be occupied. This happaned about the same time of the destruction in Mycenae.

The Countryside: [i] In The Late Bronze Age, nearly every fertile valley of Greece contained clusters of towns and villages. From the pottery, something can be learned of the period in which the town or village thrived. Largely by these means, close to 500 settlement sites in mainland Greece have been found dating to IIIB period. Pottery evidence from these sites shows something very remarkable. Almost half of the sites do not continue into IIIC. A major disaster occured in the countryside.

Overall removal or disappearance: close to half the population, hundreds of thousands of people

Palmer believed that he had identified in the Pylos tablets records of defensive preparations made in anticipation of an attack, the attack in which Pylos was destroyed. Together, they speak of a situation of high tension and anxiety, a situation of high military alert. These dispositions appear to be directed to an attack expected from the sea, from the south.

Not all the centers or cities experienced
destruction. Athens survived, and seemed to have remembered that survival in later legends, yet even in Athens there is evidence that the city made preparations against the threat of a dangerous assault.

Archaeologists have found evidence that the walls were strengthened and a defensive
bastion added in order to better protect the main gate. At close to the same time,
within the citadel, a shaft was driven down through 120 feet of rock in order
to reach water. A wooden stairway was fitted along the inside of this shaft.

Earlier, water was obtained from a well outside the wall. However, to be able to withstand a long siege, a source of water accessible from within the walls was indespensable. Such preparations appear to show a concern of a possible attack, the need to withstand a long siege. There is no evidence of destruction, no evidence
of an attack on the citadel, and this is entirely in accord with the belief of later Athenians that Athens was never conquered, never abandoned.

Mycenaeans migrated out of the mainland in increasing numbers, many heading for the islands to the south and the east. And great epic poems fall silent concerning anything past a generation or two after the Trojan War. << As The Egyptian priest told Solon: the Greeks lost their writing and didn't remember their distant past, while the Egyptians preserved all the details in their temples.

Plato: Whereas just when you and other nations are beginning to be provided with letters and the other requisites of civilized life, after the usual interval, the stream from heaven, like a pestilence, comes pouring down, and leaves only those of you who are destitute of letters and education; and so you have to begin all over again like children, and know nothing of what happened in ancient times,

Plato: This vast power, gathered into one, endeavoured to subdue at a blow our country and yours; and then, Solon, your country shone forth, in the excellence of her virtue and strength, among all mankind. She was pre-eminent in courage and military skill, and was the leader of the Hellenes. And when the rest fell off from her, being compelled to stand alone, after having undergone the very extremity of danger, she defeated and triumphed over the invaders, and preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated, and generously liberated all the rest of us who dwell within the pillars. But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods;

Sounds very much like the collapse of Bronze Age Greek. Athens survived the attack of the invaders and a lot of earthquakes occured in close relation to this.

I dont think this is a coincidence.

Warm Regards,

Jonas Bergman

This really is the "kicker" in the whole magilla isn't it.
"True, but if we skip the fact that the story mentions The Pillars of Hercules and the Atlantic Ocean, we are left with a story which easily matches the geography of the eastern and north-eastern Mediterranean coastlands. Remember that Solon translated each original name into Greek. This is why the king was named Atlas and the ocean Atlantic."

With Sarmast's Cyprus location every point in Plato's story fits perfectly except this apparent "Atlantic" and "beyond the pillars of Heracles" stuff. Obviously someone is translating something erroneously and you appear to be exactly on the right track. Why is that?

Regards, Jonas Bergman

"An island larger than Libya and Asia combined."

Coastline. Well, perhaps, but the area still fits better in the Atlantic than the eastern Mediterranean. You mentioned the geography matches Turkey better than the coastlines bordering the Atlantic. It certainly doesn't when it comes to the Atlantic itself:

"and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded
the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent."

Saying that the Mediterranean was the true ocean implies that the Greeks knew nothing about the Atlantic. Actually they, not the Romans, were the ones to probably name the Atlantic.

There seems to be a lot of skimming over the most vital points of the account, geography, the time it existed in, the type of civilization they had, the physical description of the island itself, all to get to the Sea People.

Atlantis was supposed to have been destroyed by flooding and earthquakes. Where is the earthquake, or has it become a volcano, Santorini again? The only massive disaster in this time is Santorini.

Then, there is still the question of the location. If you're going to translate all the Egyptian names back into their Greek again, the one name that still remains the sticking point is "Atlantis" or "Atlantic." I suppose the Atlantic references were added later, like Robert Sarmast, right?

your quote:

"Remember that the Egyptian priest mentioned mythical kings from the time of Theseus in
connection to the war. This is definitely not 9000 years before Solon."

I didn't say it does. What I´m saying is that Greece was preparing for invasions from the Sea. Athens obviously survived those invasions, and soon after that the whole of Greece went into a Dark Age, without any written documents. This is exactly what the Egyptian priest told happened after the Atlantean invasions.

Quote from the Collapse of the Bronze Age: And great epic poems fall silent concerning anything past a generation or two after the Trojan War.

In other words: The Greeks didn't remember what happened during those times. Atlantean invasions took place according to the Egyptian priest.

This doesn't prove or disprove that the Atlanteans was the Sea Peoples, but it seem to prove that Plato's Atlantean invasions took place in this time period.

Quote Dhill: You mentioned the geography matches Turkey better than the coastlines bordering the Atlantic.

I didn't say that it matches Turkey better.
I have always said that the best match is the Atlantic side of Morocco, without doubt.

Quote Dhill: Atlantis was supposed to have been destroyed by flooding and earthquakes. Where is the earthquake, or has it become a volcano, Santorini again? The only massive disaster in this time is Santorini.

Believe me, flooding and earthquakes occured in those times. Evidence of great earthquakes and floods has been found all over the world in connection to the Bronze Age collapse. You will find both earthquakes, floods and "mud" in the story of Phaethon, which the Egyptian priest said had a kernel of truth. Santorini was not the only massive disaster. Guess why it is called "the collapse of the Bronze Age". Disasters such as earthquakes, floods, invasions, great migrations, drought, famine etc took place everywhere.

From the Phaethon myth: Everywhere the ground breaks apart, light penetrates through the cracks down into Tartarus, and terrifies the king of the underworld and his queen. The sea contracts and what was a moment ago wide sea is a parched expanse of sand.

Quote Dhill: There are superficial similarities when you compare the Sea People with Atlantis. There are the same ones, perhaps even better ones if you compare the Minoan culture with Atlantis, and, for whatever reason, people aren't doing that anymore.

The only true similarity between the Minoan culture and Atlantis is the bull ritual with golden cups. We don't know enough about the Sea Peoples to discuss similarities.

Quote Dhill: If you're going to translate all the Egyptian names back into their Greek again, the one name that still remains the sticking point is "Atlantis" or "Atlantic." I suppose the Atlantic references were added later, like Robert Sarmast, right?

I don't know anything about Robert Sarmast.
One thing is certain: The Greek name Atlantic was added because Solon translated it as that. If the true location actually was the Atlantic is unknown. Perhaps Solon and the Egyptian priests didn't know where it was located, but Solon found a nice location he could use in his poem, when he translated the names. How should we know?

Warm Regards,

Jonas Bergman

"True, but if we skip the fact that the story mentions The Pillars of Hercules and the Atlantic Ocean, we are left with a story which easily matches the geography of the eastern and north-eastern Mediterranean coastlands. Remember that Solon translated each original name into Greek."

Quote Jonas: 07/22:

Quote Dhill:You mentioned the geography matches Turkey better than the coastlines bordering the Atlantic.

"I didn't say that it matches Turkey better. I have always said that the best match is the Atlantic side of Morocco, without doubt."

So which is it?

Personally, I liked your Morocco theory better, too.

my quote:

The only massive disaster in this time is Santorini.

Quote Jonas:

"Believe me, flooding and earthquakes occured in those times. Evidence of great earthquakes and floods has been found all over the world in connection to the Bronze Age collapse. You will find both earthquakes, floods and "mud" in the story of Phaethon, which the Egyptian priest said had a kernel of truth. Santorini was not the only massive disaster. Guess why it is called "the collapse of the Bronze Age". Disasters such as earthquakes, floods, invasions, great migrations, drought, famine etc took place everywhere."

Jonas, there are still disasters happening all the time in that part of the world. How many are so terrible that "the whole of Greece would go into a Dark Age, without any written documents." It had to be more than a flood, more than an earthquake and something similar to Santorini.

Here is a quote from material Helios posted yesterday on the Sea People thread:

"The abrupt end of several civilizations in the decades traditionally dated around 1200 BC have caused many ancient historians to hypothesize that the Sea People caused the collapse of the Hittite, Mycenaean and Mittani kingdoms. However, Marc Van De Mieroop and others have argued against this theory on several points. Grimal argues that the kingdoms of the Mittani, Assyria, and Babylon were more likely destroyed by a group who dwelled on the edges of the settled lands called by the Akkadian word habiru. Another argument Grimal makes is that the attempted Sea People invasion of Egypt that Ramses III foiled is now seen as nothing more than a minor skirmish, the records of his victories on his temple walls being greatly exaggerated. Though it is clear from the archeological excavations that Ugarit, Ashkelon and Hazor were destroyed about this time, Carchemish was not and other cities in the area such as Byblos and Sidon survived unscathed."

Here is another quote:
http://web.raex.com/~obsidian/gktrib.html#Sea%20People <http://web.raex.com/~obsidian/gktrib.html>

"THE SEA PEOPLES Students of European history will be familiar in a general way with thephenomena of the devolution of Classic cultures, the swarming forth of innumerable barbarian tribes, and the subsequent emergence of the so-called "Dark Ages", together with the slow re-emergence of a vibrant civilization in the Mediaeval and Renaissance eras. Such a model is an oversimplification of what occured, but it is valid at least in broad descriptive outline. What is perhaps less well recognized is that such a pattern has happened, albeit on a smaller scale, before. Before the 1200's BCE, the Eastern Mediterranean played host to a variety of sophisticated civilizations. For a variety of reasons, the 17th to 13th centuries BCE saw a general retreat, one which did not begin to reverse itself until the 9th century BCE (leading to the eventual flowering of Classic-Age civilization by the 5th century)"

The links for both quotes are posted under the Sea People thread. You can take a lot of things from this, one of the most important being that there were other conditions than the Sea People that caused the Bronze Dark Age, that their influence was, perhaps, overestimated, that Ramses might have not even fought them at all, and that "as abruptly as they enter history, the Sea People leave it.." It is, perhaps, an oversimplification to say that they were the basis for Plato's account.

Quote Jonas:

"The only true similarity between the Minoan culture and Atlantis is the bull ritual with golden cups. We don't know enough about the Sea Peoples to discuss similarities."

That's actually wrong. We actually know less about the Minoans because they left no written histories, and we at least have accounts of the Sea People, suspect as they are. Both are sea-faring peoples, in the eastern Mediterranean, exerted some influence. The cult of the bull has at least has a literal relation with Plato's account, the Sea People attacks may have been a war, they may also have been simply raids, similar to the Vikings.

Quote Jonas:

"I don't know anything about Robert Sarmast.
One thing is certain: The Greek name Atlantic was added because Solon translated it as that. If the true location actually was the Atlantic is unknown. Perhaps Solon and the Egyptian priests didn't know where it was located, but Solon found a nice location he could use in his poem, when he translated the names. How should we know?"

Robert Sarmast is the investigator searching a sunken area of Cyprus, which he assumes, was Atlantis, if not Eden. He is the author of the book "Discovery of Atlantis." A good deal of his theory rests in the notion that the Atlantis references were added later.

Quote Jonas:

"The Greek name Atlantic was added because Solon translated it as that."

Which means that the Atlantic reference had to come from somewhere, it didn't emerge out of thin air.

Quote Jonas:

"Perhaps Solon and the Egyptian priests didn't know where it was located, but Solon found a nice location he could use in his poem, when he translated the names. How should we know?"

This is exactly the kind of "shortcutting" that I personally hate to fit a theory. So much work to prove a connection that is, at best, vague and indistinguishable. Then, "skidding" over a major point of the story. I suppose if we're looking at a definition for "sloppy research" it would be something similar to this. Where is the basis for it? It may well be that the whole thing is simply a story, but, as others have also noted on this thread, several time Critias attests to the story's "truth."

There is a lot of good information on the Sea People in the 'Sea People' thread. I doubt you've had the chance to read it all. Your main source seems to be "Collapse of the Bronze Age" by Manuel Robbins. I don't doubt it's worth, but personally, I like to get at least two or three different corroborating sources before I formulate an opinion on something. Maybe, since, as you say, you aren't trying to prove "a Sea People link to Atlantis" with this material this discussion should be continued over there.

"Jonas, there are still disasters happening all the time in that part of the world. How many are so terrible that "the whole of Greece would go into a Dark Age, without any written documents." It had to be more than a flood, more than an earthquake and something similar to Santorini. "

Perhaps dhill and jonas it was something completely different. Could this possibly be the answer to what happened to Greece?

So which is it?

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

What I meant was that it may match parts of the eastern Mediterranean coastlands too. I´ll show you what I mean later.

Quote Dhill: Jonas, there are still disasters happening all the time in that part of the world. How many are so terrible that "the whole of Greece would go into a Dark Age, without any written documents." It had to be more than a flood, more than an earthquake and something similar to Santorini.

Or why not famine, drought, invasions, plague and earthquakes at the same time?

Quote from Collapse of the Bronze Age
However, there is no reason to believe, nor does the evidence require, that the collapse of Mycenaean civilization was produced by a single cause. Had there been but one cause, whether war or natural catastrophe, a society which was otherwise healthy could be expected to have recovered. The Mycenaean civilization of the mainland did not. It was wounded, recovered for a time and only to a degree, and then slid into oblivion. It is a common observation that trouble comes in twos or threes, and it has happened that a multiplicity occur nearly the same time. In year AD 1347, Plague raged in Cyprus. Then a devastating earthquake struck, destroying cities. It was followed by a damaging tidal wave that surged over much of the island, entirely destroying olive groves and the fishing fleet upon which the economy depended.
It is reasonable to expect that there were several contributing factors in the collapse of Bronze Age Greece.

Quote Dhill: You can take a lot of things from this, one of the most important being that there were other conditions than the Sea People that caused the Bronze Dark Age

When did I say that the Sea People caused the Bronze Dark Age?

Quote Dhill: Which means that the Atlantic reference had to come from somewhere, it didn't emerge out of thin air.

The Atlantic reference came from the name "Atlas".

Quote from Critias translated by Benjamin Jowett
And he named them all; the eldest, who was the first king, he named Atlas, and
after him the whole island and the ocean were called Atlantic.

If you want to find the word used in the original Egyptian account you must look for Egyptian words with equal meaning ( i.e to endure, to bear ), because Plato told us that Solon translated each meaning of the original names giving birth to "Atlas, Ampheres etc". If you find a word in the Egyptian language with the meaning "to endure, to bear" and the Egyptians used that word when they were refering to the Atlantic Ocean or an area there, then you probably have true reference to the Atlantic Ocean in the story of Atlantis. We can't just skip the fact that Solon translated the meaning of each original name into Greek.

Warm Regards,

Jonas Bergman

She wasnt' real popular with all the upstanding mommy's. Then she told me once that she was more grown up than the grown ups are, and I kind of liked that attitude, but you sure couldn't talk to her about anything important. Eventually she just sort of shut down or something. Later, I decided she was one of those robotic grey aliens or something that was so poular back then, but my grandma corrected that right away.I loved my grandma dearly, but she sure could make the sparks fly when she wanted to.

"These Hellenic invaders brought along with them anthropomorphic God concepts similar to those which their Aryan fellows had carried to India.

This importation inaugurated the evolution of the Greek family of gods and goddesses.

This new religion was partly based on the cults of the incoming Hellenic barbarians, but it also shared in the myths of the older inhabitants of Greece.

The Hellenic Greeks found the Mediterranean world largely dominated by the mother cult, and they imposed upon these peoples their man-god, Dyaus-Zeus, who had already become, like Yahweh among the henotheistic Semites, head of the whole Greek pantheon of subordinate gods. And the Greeks would have eventually achieved a true monotheism in the concept of Zeus except for their retention of the overcontrol of Fate. A God of final value must, himself, be the arbiter of fate and the creator of destiny.

As a consequence of these factors in religious evolution, there presently developed the popular belief in the happy-go-lucky gods of Mount Olympus, gods more human than divine, and gods which the intelligent Greeks never did regard very seriously. They neither greatly loved nor greatly feared these divinities of their own creation. They had a patriotic and racial feeling for Zeus and his family of half men and half gods, but they hardly reverenced or worshiped them.

The Hellenes became so impregnated with the antipriestcraft doctrines of the earlier Salem teachers that no priesthood of any importance ever arose in Greece. Even the making of images to the gods became more of a work in art than a matter of worship.

The Olympian gods illustrate man's typical anthropomorphism. But the Greek mythology was more aesthetic than ethic. The Greek religion was helpful in that it portrayed a universe governed by a deity group. But Greek morals, ethics, and philosophy presently advanced far beyond the god concept, and this imbalance between intellectual and spiritual growth was as hazardous to Greece as it had proved to be in India."

"But the average men of these times could not grasp, nor were they much interested in, the Greek philosophy of self-realization and an abstract Deity; they rather craved promises of salvation, coupled with a personal God who could hear their prayers. They exiled the philosophers, persecuted the remnants of the Salem cult, both doctrines having become much blended, and made ready for that terrible orgiastic plunge into the follies of the mystery cults which were
then overspreading the Mediterranean lands. The Eleusinian mysteries grew up within the Olympian pantheon, a Greek version of the worship of fertility; Dionysus nature worship flourished; the best of the cults was the Orphic brotherhood, whose moral preachments and promises of salvation made a great appeal to many."

(...terrible orgiastic plunge into the follies of the mystery cults...)

I think that these mystery cults were made from the remnants of memory of the strict pagan culture of planned breeding and use of sperm and (sap) as connected to health and intelligence/god/perfection, but so far removed from the time and culture where it was valid that it had no intrinsic connection to people (culture) as a whole, which it did originally.

[This message has been edited by rockessence (edited 07-23-2004).]

"(...terrible orgiastic plunge into the follies of the mystery cults...)

I think that these mystery cults were made from the remnants of memory of the strict pagan culture of planned breeding and use of sperm and (sap) as connected to health and intelligence/god/perfection, but so far removed from the time and culture where it was valid that it had no intrinsic connection to people (culture) as a whole, which it did originally. "

from what I understand of where I think you are trying to go here is really what happened in the phases of mixed evolution of the principals and purposes of the beginnings of mortal and super-mortal life on Earth.
please see my link on the Sea People thread regarding my latest post on hte different races and how they came to be.
There were really a few different things going on, some hard to believe but nonetheless true. We really are quite a mixture of evolution(originally planted) and actual alien intervention.

As you progress in all of this you will understand how much sense the old myths of Enki, Enlil and others make. Enki/Marduk was Adam.
What you should realize as well when you see pictures of Enki/Marduk and what looks like water always coming from his shoulders is really what you call the "sap" or sperm. He and Eve were the fertility Gods, and his genes upgraded the evolutionary Cro-Magnons and populated the Earth as we know it today. All planned and carried out from the start.

http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/myths/texts/enki/enkiworld.htm

I will give this a read rather than a scan as soon as I have time.
I know that the information given through the Bock saga seems strange to process. The fact that we have someone alive today to tell it in it's original form, rather than modern (or relatively modern) interpretations of ancient writings makes it intrinsicly different from all other sources.

I am curious about the source (ancient and modern) of the Urantia material. Who was Melchisadik (?sp.) and who was the interpreter? Thanks again for your input here.

Oh, and I forgot...the "sap" as is described in the saga, would be the female counterpart...

"Enki, lord of the hegal the Anunna-gods possess.
Nudimmud, the mighty one of the Ekur,
the strong one of An and Uras.
Nudimmud, the mighty one of the Ekur,
strong one of the Anunna,
whose noble house set up in the Abzu is
the mast of heaven and earth"

E---Sperm bank, All sperm knowledge=Oak Tree
N---North Star=means Knowledge
K---The middle Caste
I---The Beginning and the End(i)the P-- and the drop of semen

"I am the first among the rulers.
I am the father of all the lands.
I am the big brother of the gods,
the hegal is perfected in me."

H---The Center/Whole/Holy
E---Sperm bank (see above)
G---Giving/the Ground
E---
L---The Law People Make/The Flow Between Things

ANUNNA
A---The First People
N---North Star/Knowledge
U---means Original or Origin

NUNDIMMUD
N---See Above
U---"
N---
D---Day/Light
I---The Beginning and the End(i)the P-- and the drop of semen
M---The Moon=King and Queen together=two sides
U---
D---