The taxation of agricultural production was a principal source of wealth of the Ptolemies, as it was with the Seleucids. Land was also the important endowment of Egypt, allowing the Ptolemies to settle soldiers and establish a Greek presence throughout Egypt. The major question, and one for which I do not yet have a ready answer, is what was the ratio of available land to population? No figures survive on pre-Ptolemaic population, although most scholars assume population growth under the Ptolemies largely due to immigration into new urban centers. The usually accepted estimate for the "Greco-Roman" Egypt, including the city of Alexandria, lies between 3.5 and 4.5 million, on a theoretical maximum agricultural base of nine million arouras (1 aroura = ca. two-thirds of an American acre, or 2756 m2; the total is 24, 793 KM2), roughly comparable to Egypt at the beginning of the nineteenth century AD.22 Greeks comprised roughly 10% of the population.
Footnote 22 Population estimates: Rathbone (1990):109-15; Scheidel (2001). Estimates based on documents are usually lower: Clarysse (2003):21 estimates a total population of 2.8 million on the basis of burial records from Edfu ca. 225 BC. The estimate is derived from data that might not allow us to posit a reliable population figure given the bias toward certain groups being mummified, and with Clarysse's assumption that Edfu was a "typical" nome. But see Butzer (1976):76-80 on regional population densities, showing much higher densities historically in the Thebaid than in Middle Egypt. Nevertheless, the figures of Clarysse (2.8 million) and Rathbone (3.5-4.5 million) are not necessarily incompatible, with allowance for some positive growth between 225 BC and the first century BC. The estimate of seven million by Turner (1984):167 is too high. The total arable and total cropped area would have fluctuated...
The categorization of land was complex and variable, but the general organizational scheme is well known, and I need only summarize here.23 From the point of view of the state, there were two types of land, land that yielded a rent to the ruler, and land on which rent was foregone. This latter category included temple estate land and land on which soldiers were settled (kleruchic land). It is important to note that these categories were not rigid, and there was considerable movement of land into and out of these categories. Much of the land had institutional and well as private claims attached to it. The tradition of holding land privately that was held nominally bound to temple estates continued, as did private working of fruit trees and garden land. A key to royal revenues was the tenancy on royal land leased by persons called "royal farmers" in the administrative papyri. This class of land is most in evidence in the Fayyum and the neighboring Herakleopolite and Oxyrhynchite nomes, but it certainly existed in the Thebaid, if as a smaller percentage of the total land. The state intervened directly here, since the farmers borrowed seed from state granaries. Outside of tenancy on royal land, other categories of land were tied to service, either to a temple estate or to the military. Temples also leased their land to tenants. Free, small-scale farming was the historic norm in Egypt, despite the rhetoric of forced tenancy or bound peasants that occasionally appears in the texts. Property rights were traditionally held within temple estates in the south, and this appears to continue. Indeed, in the famous demotic archive now in the British Museum from Asyut (Lykopolis) in Middle Egypt (further below), the interaction of state officials at the local and regional level strongly attests to the fact that the Ptolemaic state enforced traditional Egyptian property rights in land within temple estates. Ptolemaic temples still maintained regional connections to other temples through cult ritual and inter-locking land holding patterns. The phenomenon is seen very well in the Edfu Donation Text, which records a kind of cadastre of land in the three southernmost nomes of Egypt dating to the fourth century BC.24 The settling of soldiers on land, particularly cavalry, was a very important aspect of Ptolemaic political and economic power, but I find it for the moment difficult to fully comprehend in the context of economic development. There was, at first, as far as we can tell from the evidence, a regional difference between the north and the south of the country with respect to military settlement on land. After the Theban revolt (207-186 BC) was put down, military settlement in the south increased.25 The recently published Boethos archive shows the continued importance of military to the foundation of new towns (and presumably the exploitation of land) in the late second century BC.26 Economic performance and the limits of centralization One of the implicit assumptions in the analysis of the Ptolemaic economy has been that the royal economy functioned without what economists call transaction costs (the costs of running an economic system, including enforcement costs, and also "the costs of establishing, maintaining or changing a system's basic institutional framework").27
quote:Originally posted by Hossam Aboulfotouh: People still speak about the date of the great deluge that destructed the Atlantis; the priest said it was the third before that was happen in 1628bc; any date after that is invalid.
This subject already widely has been discussed, and was well explained and clarified.
At no moment the priests (neither Solón, nor Plato) said that Atlantis were destroyed by a Deluge, nor that this Deluge had been third before the Deucalión, that in addition did not happen either in the 1628 BC, but in 1529/8BC; according to it appears writing in the Greek chronology older than it has been conserved, in the Marmora Parium, well-known like “Chronicle of Unemployments”; this chronicle, is the older Greek chronology and authentic well-known, because it is recorded in a marble, in Greek letters classic, all capital letters, without spaces nor score some, like was the custom; and dating from 264/3 BC.
You have confused the facts, like already has happened before to numerous persons, that they have not read manner deeper the Plato's texts. In that passage, the priests are speaking of the destruction of the primitive Athens, not of the Atlantis destruction. The destruction of Atlantis is mentioned once, in the Timaeus, and only is when it says that because of “earthquakes of great intensity”, that preceded to a flood (Kataklismós, that is, cleaning by liquids, water, waves, etc.), the Atlantis island submerged (lit., hid) under the sea… This is the typical description of the known sismical process like tsunami; first a great earthquake, or “several of great intensity” happens, and later tsunami takes place great (kataklismos), that floods all the immediate coastal regions, or next, to the epicenter of earthquakes, that with all probability would be of marine origin.
Plato fix the time of the war between the Atlanteans and the Athenians, in the times of the legendary kings of Athens, the lineage of the Cecropidae, that is, according to the Marmora Parium, between the 1582 BC, and the 1399/50 BC, and before the Theseus's times (1259 BC). The Deluge of the Deucalion happened, according to the Marmora Parium, in 1529/8BC, that is, when still the kings of the lineage of the Cecropidae were reigning.
The end of Atlantis happened, “last a time later”, to finalize the war, and the last one of the legendary kings of Athens, the lineage of the Cecropidae, that mentions Plato is Erekhtheus, and if this king governed until a date, next to the 1350 BC, then, the end of Atlantis took place after this date, because it was, “spent a time later” to finalize the war, that is to say, at one more a more recent time; therefore it is very probable that the sismic-tsunamical catastrophe that destroyed Atlantis happened between the 1350 BC and the 1259 BC (before the Theseu's times, as indicates the Critias 110a-b), but we cannot either discard that it has been even in a much more recent date…
In any case, a thing now yes we know, and is that sismic-tsunamical catastrophe that destroyed Atlantis could not to happen before to finalize war between Atlanteans and Athenians, because this catastrophe happened later in “a time after” of which the Athenians won to the Atlanteans, that is, after finalizing the war, and the war took place, as indicates Plato in the Critias 110a-b, in the times of the lineage of the Cecropidae (1582 BC to the 1399/50 BC), and before the Theseus's times (1259 BC), therefore, the sismic-tsunamical catastrophe that destroyed Atlantis could not happen before finalizing the war, that is, never before the 1399/50 BC or of the 1259 later, but yes at any time more recent BC…
And although you did not want to accept the Greek chronologies that offer the Greeks himself (that stops my are most trustworthy), in any case, the data that offer Plato, in the Timaeus and Critias, determine, also, that the sismic-tsunamical catastrophe who destroyed Atlantis, she could not happen before the end of the war between the Atlanteans and the Athenians that were under the command of the Cecropidae; then as Plato mentions to Erekhtheus, between these legendary kings of the lineage of the Cecropidae, and Erekhtheus were the last king of that lineage, that Plato mentioned, then, now we know that the sismic-tsunamical catastrophe who destroyed Atlantis, could not happen before the Deucalion's times, because king Erekhtheus is later, that is, more recent in the time, and the sismic-tsunamical catastrophe who destroyed Atlantis, happened after this king Erekhetheus, that is, in more recent date still.
All this I already demonstrated it many years ago. And in fact I have been first atlantologis in detecting all these clues in the Critias and the Timaeus, that have allowed to make this reconstruction of the true chronology, and succession of the facts narrated in the History of Atlantis in Plato's Timaeus and Critias.
"For the fact is that a single night of excessive rain washed away the earth and laid bare the rock; at the same time there were earthquakes, and then occurred the extraordinary inundation, which was the third before the great destruction of Deucalion."
We understand from the above that the Athenian were distructed at that date "during the third innundation before the great destruction of Deucalion" and that had happend more than 1000 years before the destruction of Deucalion.
Your investigation is based only on what Plato had said; you did not read what Plato did not write about the whole story. Even based on the few information that Plato had mentioned, the date is much earlier than you have thought.
Dear Hossam: Do you believe in what Plato said??According to Platos writings georgeos `theory is right..But, Is it true what Plato says??What is In the egyptian sources written??
Posts: 1251 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hossam Aboulfotouh: Mr. Montexano
Your investigation is based only on what Plato had said; you did not read what Plato did not write about the whole story. Even based on the few information that Plato had mentioned, the date is much earlier than you have thought.
Once again you it is mistaken and it prejudges to me bad. I have read all the history of Atlantis completes, that is to say, everything what Plato narrates in the Timaeus, related to Atlantis, and all the complete Critias. In addition, it I have studied with depth greater to immense majority of atlantologists, because I have been the unique one who have demonstrated to have made even a palaeographical deep study, that is to say, I am only atlantologist of all the history of the Atlantology that has demonstrated to have made a deep scientific study of all codices and older MS conserved of the Plato's Timaeus and Critias.
What supposedly about did not write Plato the Atlantis, do not know anybody, nor you to it by all means. Therefore, it is an absolute deceit, to use like argument against my investigations, the fact that I have not read what about Atlantis did not write Plato, by all means, nor I, nor nobody! … It is truely surprising that somebody that remembers to us constantly, by means of their signature, that is PhD, is able to use an argument so false, and as absurd as this.
On the other hand I have explained very or, and I have demonstrated that in that passage, the priests (or Solón, or Plato) are speaking of the deluge that had affected in the past Athens ( not to Atlantis), and that had been the cause of which Athens was later with that dry and barren aspect, with only rocks, and without hardly vegetation, etc.,…
And the dates that I handle, are not dates of “my thought”, are exactly the dates that Plato himself offers in the Critias 110a-b, and in the Timaeus25, when it affirms that the seismic-tsunamical catastrophe that it destroyed Atlantis, a time happened last “later” to finalize the war between Atlantis and Athens, that is, subsequent to the lineage of the Cecropidae, that is, subsequent to the 1399/50 BC (according to the dates of the Marmora Parium)… And not believe that is neceario to repeat everything again what I have already explained often before, in this sense.
If you want to believe another thing, you are not free to believe in what she satisfies more to his ideology, and its conception of history, but would not have at least you to try to put in mouth of Plato (or Solón) things that he never said, and would have either you to try to alter the natural composition of the order of the passages written in the Timaeus and the Critias; you must respect that order, and know, when Plato is speaking of Athens, and when he is speaking of Atlantis, and not to interchange the passages, according to its convenience…
And if you think that the dates of the end of Atlantis, that evidently happened after finalizing the war between Atlantis and Athens, she happened thousands of years before the dates that I have reconstructed, basing on the Plato's Timaeus and to me Critias, because simply, instead of saying this you to manner categorical, as if outside you a species of “Guru of the Truth”, that with its only word is sufficient…
No!, you would have to argue your belief, that is to say, you would have to make a study deep, and to demonstrate point by point, in which arguments, and which collected data of the Plato's Timaeus and Critias, you are based to affirm that the end of the war between Atlantis and Athens, and the destruction of Atlantis happened thousands of years before the dates that I have reconstructed, and that are of end of the Bronze Age.
It seems that you have forgotten that the story was said by the Egyptian Priests, and Plato did wrote only few pages on it, i.e, your zero-base-reference is the few pages that Plato wrote. On the other hand, you do not know the time intervals of the disaster cycles of the earth, thus you do not understand the meaning of " -- Then occurred the extraordinary inundation, which was the third before the great destruction of Deucalion." in Critias. Do you see any mistranslation in this sentence like that you have said about the 9000? I hope to hear your reply with yes, it is wrong, because of this and that...
By the way, you can not tell me even how that war was started and what was the role of the many countries in it; you cannot tell me when the Egyptian Heracles build his Pillars on the Atlantic ocean.
Mr. Montexano the references of all these things are here in Egypt whcih are recorded in many ways.
You asked about the so-called 3rd flood before Deucalion.
Critias 111e to 112a has been a difficult challenge for translators, because the Greek text is composed of phrases that lack enough verbs to form complete sentences. An unusually large fraction of the Greek words stand in Genitive case.
The Greek letters which appear in this passage have been peeled apart so that 98% of the Greek letters can form Greek words. However roughly 2% of the Greek letters (i.e. ouch) do not appear to be Greek words, as commented by the lexicon on the Perseus-Tufts website. It would be interesting to see if any experts in Classical Greek language can peel the letter sequence apart so that the remaining string of nonsense-letters actually has a meaning, perhaps borrowed from a foreign language.
Bury's translation of this passage:
[111e]...In the first place, the acropolis, as it existed then, was different from [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.
In the first place the Acropolis was not as now. For the fact is that a single night of excessive rain washed away the earth and laid bare the rock; at the same time there were earthquakes, and then occurred the extraordinary inundation, which was the third before the great destruction of Deucalion.
It is worth noting that Critias 111e - 112a is the first and oldest discussion of soil erosion among known texts of the classical era. So perhaps the medieval monk-copyists can be partially excused for failing to understand the distortions which appear in the copies they made for 112a.
The English translation which you quoted above (Jowett) has made a loose, and very imaginative, translation the Greek text for 111e and 112a. Because this is a controversial passage, I recommend using the "Word Study Tool" on the Perseus-Tufts website, to examine every Greek word individually in 112a, before giving any credibility to a "third flood". As I show below, the Greek text is actually saying "the erosiveness of the third aforesaid", not "in the third corruption before the Deucalion". http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin///ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0179:text=Criti.:section=112a (This link also allows jumping back and forth between Greek text and the Bury translation of the text in English.)
Based on grammar, it is obvious that a subject (in nominative case) is stated in the second half of 112a, in the midst of some complicated phrasing. That subject word is "phthoras", (nominative case, feminine) --- “deterioration”, "erosion", "crumbling away", "corruption", "rubble", "decay". The second half of Critias 112a, is presenting a parallel list of "phrases" that lack enough verbs to form complete sentences. In other words, the Greek text of 112a is somewhat "elliptical".
Critias [111e]...In the first place indeed (= prôton men) that has been the status of the Acropolis (= to [tês] akropoleôs eiche ) [see below for tês as "ho" in "General Elliptical with Genitive", item B.II.2] [112a] at that time [ ]. (= tote [ouch] , and ouch might not be a Greek word) For it is now held (= hôs ta nun echei ) [that various erosions have altered it.] 1) Because currently indeed (= nun men gar) merely-one night [of rainfall] having-ceased, (= mia genomenê nux) a fluid carrying itself above the earth (= hugra diapherontôs gês autên ) has made bare some surrounding-rock; (= psilên peritêxasa pepoiêke ) 2) [any results] of earthquakes (= [tis] seismôn, in genitive plural case) [where tis or tês is inferred elliptically] in combination with [the above]; (= hama), 3) so too is the affair of (= kai pro tês, where tês stands as a "General Elliptical with Genitive", which is item B.II.2 in the following link from the Perseus-Tufts Word Study Tool)
"in the Deucalion". (= epi Deukaliônos, [where "epi" is followed by the genitive case]) The erosiveness (=phthoras, [which is nominative case, feminine]) of the third aforesaid (= tritou proteron, [which is in genitive case]) [was a matter] of water (=hudatos, [in genitive case to agree with its antecedent: either "tritou proteron" or "epi Deukaliônos" or "tês"] )
having become (=genomenou, as a past participle in middle voice) excessive. (= exaisiou, in genitive, to agree with the genitive case of its antecedent)
Georgeos has collected most of the old translations of the Critias dialog. He can cite the translations that were made into Latin and English and Spanish.
In regard to English transations, they began rather late in time. I expect that in 1627 AD, when Francis Bacon wrote his famous novel (in English) titled The New Atlantis, no translation of the Critias dialogue was available in English.
What did Maqrisi say in Arabic? (I think we have determined that Maqrizi still has not been translated into English.)
This book says: A. There were minoan cities IN EGYPT, dating to the time of HATSHEPSUT. B. There were 23 islands IN EGYPT, that are sunk now. C. The Great Green Sea was not the mediterranean, but the immediate vicinity of Egypt.
Lake Moeris When the Mediterranean Sea was a hot dry hollow near the end of the Messinian Salinity Crisis in the late Miocene, Faiyum was a dry hollow, and the Nile flowed past it at the bottom of a canyon 8000 feet deep or more (where Cairo is located today). After the Mediterranean reflooded at the end of the Miocene, the Nile canyon became an arm of the sea reaching inland further than Aswan. Over geological time that sea arm gradually filled with silt and became the Nile valley.
Eventually the Nile valley bed silted up high enough to let the Nile in flood overflow into the Faiyum hollow and make a lake in it. The lake is first recorded from about 3000 BC, around the time of Menes (Narmer). However, for the most part it would only be filled with high flood waters. The lake was bordered by neolithic settlements, and the town of Crocodilopolis grew up on the south where the higher ground created a ridge.
In 2300 BC, the waterway from the Nile to the natural lake was widened and deepened to make a canal which is now known as the Bahr Yussef. This canal fed into the lake. This was meant to serve three purposes: control the flooding of the Nile, regulate the water level of the Nile during dry seasons, and serve the surrounding area with irrigation. There is evidence of ancient Egyptian pharaohs of the twelfth dynasty using the natural lake of Faiyum as a reservoir to store surpluses of water for use during the dry periods. The immense waterworks undertaken by the ancient Egyptian pharaohs of the twelfth dynasty to transform the lake into a huge water reservoir gave the impression that the lake itself was an artificial excavation, as reported by classic geographers and travellers
-------------------- An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future. Posts: 1270 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
In contemplating, Atlantis in Nile delta in Egypt; I was wondering if you are familiar with the work of Reginald Fessenden, who places the Atlantean province of Egypt in Colchis, as we do also.
“When the original language is thus taken into account, it is found that the hidden land of Amen where the sun rose out of the water (the Caspian, where the god Kha-Ra, the Greek Charon, transported the dead), passed over the mountain of morning, Bakhau (now Mt. Bakhar near Baku) along the mountain range of the horizon, with its gap (the Caucasus range and pass of Dariel) and set over the mountain of Temu, Ta-Manu (now the peninsula of Tamen, the temenos of the sun-god) into the Pool of Maatis (Lake Maeotis of the Greeks, now the Sea of Azov), was the Caucasus isthmus, the land of Aia of the Greeks. And that the directions of the Book of the Dead were very precise directions for reaching the valley of the Cyrus (now the Kur). Since the old name for Egypt was Aetia and the old name for the Nile was Siris (Rawlinson, note to Herodotus 2.15) and the Egyptians and Colchians were of the same race (Herodotus 2.104 and 3.12), this was probably (there are many reasons for holding this) the old home land of the Egyptians.”
THE DELUGED CIVILIZATION OF THE CAUCASUS ISTHMUS (ZENITH OF THE BABYLONIAN ASTRONOMERS) by REGINALD AUBREY FESSENDEN, FORMERLY HEAD CHEMIST TO THOMAS A. EDISON; PROFESSOR OF POST GRADUATE MATHEMATICS AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH. Copyright, 1933
Hi Eaglewind That was a brilliant article. Thanks for the link. I learned a lot from that work. I never knew that the ancients put so much store in the numerical "power" of names, nor did I realize how differently the names were spelled back then.
I will copy and paste a bit of that article here:
quote: PLATO'S ATLANTIS WORD PUZZLE
No edition of Plato, with which I am acquainted, calls attention to the fact that his story of Atlantis contains a very simple but interesting and important cipher.
It is difficult to see how it has escaped notice, for Plato specifically states that the names are given in cipher and specifically states the nature of the, cipher, one well-known to adepts of his time, and specifically gives, and states that he gives, along with one of the names, its cipher solution, so affording a means of checking the method.
To quote Critias, sections VII and VIII:
"Yet before we narrate this, we must briefly warn you not to be surprised at hearing Hellenic names given to barbarians; and the cause of this you shall now hear. Solon, intending to make use of this story in his poetry, made an investigation into the power of names, and found that the early Egyptians who committed these facts to writing transferred these names into their own language, and he again receiving the meaning of each name, introduced it into our language . . . and to the twin born after him who had received for his share the extreme parts of the nesos (land) towards the Pillars of Hercules, as far as the region which now in that country is called Gadeirica, he gave the titular name which we Greeks call Eumelus, but which the people of that country call Gadeirus."
The "power of names" cipher was a standard international cipher used by scholars of that and earlier and later ages. By it a name, to be correctly translated, must not only mean the same thing as the original, but the letters of each, read as numbers, must, when added, give the same sum. To take an example from Berossus (Eusebi Chronicorum, Liber 'Prior, Schoene, pp. 14-18). "The ruler of them all was a woman whose name was Omorka, which in Chaldean is interpreted Thalatth, and in Greek Thalassa; but by numerical equivalence it is Selene."
The international number-letter system, omitting now discussion of modified values given to some of the "hundreds" letters, was:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Units a b g d e F z e th
Tens i k 1 m n ks o p kh
Hundreds r s t u ph ch ps o sh
(F is the digamma which may be taken as v or w; e is eta and o is omega)
Taking the example given by Berossus, we have:
Omorka is numerically 70,40,70,100,20,1, the sum of which is 301:
Selene is numerically 200,5,30,8,50,8, the sum of which is 301.
And so Selene is considered to be the perfect translation of Omorka.
Taking next the example given by Plato, of one of the Atlantis -names, i.e. that Eumeles is the Greek translation of the Egyptian Gadeirus, we must remember that Solon, who tells the story, lived several hundred years before Plato and spoke an older form of Greek, and that even if Plato did give the spelling as handed down to him, it was probably corrected as old-fashioned by his editors. So we must be prepared to change the scientific spelling of the Greek grammarians back to the old spelling of Solon's time. According to the rule of the cipher, Gadeirus and Eumeles must mean the same thing. Since Gadeirus is Egyptian, it can only be connected with the root Gad, meaning "happy". So Eumeles must mean "happy" and, on looking in Liddell and Scott's Greek Dictionary, we find the word eumeles and that it was used by the poet Plato, who lived in the time of the philosopher Plato, in the sense of "agreeable". So the first condition is fulfilled.
For the second, we have Plato's statement that the name was a titular one of the land of Gadeirica and, on looking in Liddell and Scott again, we find that the proper Greek for an inhabitant of Gadeirica is Gadeireus.
Gadeireus is then 3,1,4,5,10,100,5,400,200 and the sum is 728.
Eumeles is 5,400,40,5,30,8,200 and its sum is 688.
They do not agree. But, looking in our Greek dictionary, we find other words, such as eummelies, from eu and melia, also emmeles, etc., showing that the M was commonly doubled, and other facts indicating that Eumeles was originally spelled with two Ms and that, for scansion and to avoid confusion, one M was dropped later by the grammarians. So we have:
Eummeles which is 5,400,40,40,5,30,8,200 and totals 728, the same as Gadeireus, and the second condition is fulfilled; as of course it must be, since Plato gave it as an example.
We can now proceed somewhat confidently to solve the rest of the cipher. Take the name of the mother of Gadeireus, i.e. Klito. Its meaning is "the end", (Greek Klitos). What name of an Egyptian woman means "end"? Plutarch, in his "Iris and Osiris", section 38, says: "for which reason they call Nephthys the `end' and say that she is the consort of Typhon."
We know that the true spelling is Naphthys (see Herodotus, 7.193) and that it is the word from which naphtha is derived. So we have:
Klito is numerically 20,30,10,300,800 and sums to 1160.
Naphthys is numerically 50,1,500,9,400,200 and sums to 1160.
So this is the correct translation of the cipher.
Klito married Poseidon, or in old Greek, Poteidaon, whose Egyptian equivalent is Typhon.
Poteidaon is 80,70,300,5,10,4,1,800,50 which sums to 1320.
Typhon is 300,400,500,70,50 the sum of which is 1320
and as Plutarch states, supra, Nephthys married Typhon.
Atlas is Harmakhis (the Pillars) .
Atlas is numerically 1,300,30,1,200 which sums to 532.
Harmakhis is 90,1,100,40,1,90,10,200 which sums to 532.
And now go on with the story. Solve the other names and you will be interested. Atlantis city was at the hot springs near Pjatigorsk, north of the Dariel Pass. The mud flats Plato speaks of have now been solidified. You will find Gadira on the old maps to the southeast of Atlantis.
"They rebuild Alexandria too, but its name was different in the olden eras. ... Alexandria was rebuilt again during the days of the queen that some call her wrongly HATSHEPSUT" -- Can you explain further?
Posts: 2666 | From: Parts Unknown, USA | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
This passage was added to Critias 112a, to explain the nebulous phrase "in the Deucalion" ("in the time of Deucalion"). This gloss was probably composed in the Middle Ages, when Greek was a nearly dead language.
Here are some observations which I derive from the Word Study Tool of the Perseus-Tufts website, for this part of Critias 112a.
phthoras -- is the subject of this participial clause, because phthoras is in nominative case. Phthoras means erosion, decay, corruption, or destruction.
tritou -- is in genitive singular case (either masculine or neuter); and is an adjective, as used here, modifying an elliptical noun. (ie. All readers of this Greek passage must infer which word which was originally intended to be modified by the adjective "tritou".) In general, the Greek "tritou" is cognate with the English word "third"
proteron -- is an adverb here, because proteron is not in genitive case; in general, proteron means "earlier (in time)"or "in front of (a place)" , or "preceeding".
hudatos exaisiou -- means "of excess water"
genomenou -- is a Past Participle, in middle/passive voice; and it means "was produced by", or "was a consequence of", or "originated from"
112a is somewhat interesting then. One of the surnames of Athena is Tritogeneia. Trito= either 3rd or the river Tritonis. Geneia= originated from.
So she is either 3rd-born or born from the river tritonis or daughter of the Titan Triton.
************ Here is the latin cornarius passage: "[112a] as now s/he/it was having: Indeed now one damp night round about might have melted where the land nude(bare) him/her/itself markedly, likewise you frighten! it has induced moving, also before with Deucalionas the destruction, with the third earlier with the huge rising inundation: The more previous truth in that time, with the size was being about Eridanum and Ilissum extended, and within was seizing firmly the judicial market, and Lycabetum was having the mountain out of the opposite of the market. But s/he/it was being whole earthly, and with the only a few removed, you may be thrown level." -- cornarius ****** "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.1 But in its former extent, at an earlier period, it went down towards the Eridanus and the Ilissus, and embraced within it the Pnyx; and had the Lycabettus as its boundary over against the Pnyx2 ; and it was all rich in soil and, save for a small space, level on the top."--Bury
******** So Atalante is correct... Bury has re-ordered the sentence. And [thing] also looks correct. It seems like there is a missing word like "year" or "day"... ie 3 years before the flood of Deucalion. Bury has interpreted [thing] as "3rd flood". This is clearly a disputable translation.
Additionally, it looks like "Landslide" may be more appropriate than "EarthQuake".
******** Since Julia once asked about this passage... Eridanus is a river in Italy... (although the Italian river has been called Eritanis instead)(one ancient author calls this near-name as a cause for confusion). There is a second Eridanus river within Athens. I have previously posted that this dried up Eridanus river in Athens was found recently (my memory is within the last 50 years).
[ 07-26-2007, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Rich ]
Posts: 2666 | From: Parts Unknown, USA | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
I've read that the Hellenized translitertion of the name for the native section of Alexandria was Racottis or varient spellings and that the older town there [not described as a city]bore that name.The Pe/Pi portion once had an r sound supposedly later dropped as in Per or Pir. But the transliteration is closer to a name beginning with the Ra/Re of the sungod's name.Still, Per [etc.] was generally part of place names, meaning 'house' in the sence of inheritable property. The final s is a typical greek ending. So, the original name must've sounded like Cotti, which fits Gauti but might mesh with Guda/gudi as well.Any transcription inour alphabet would be a reconstruction and so conjectural and variable. I recall that the late Mythologist, Robert Graves beleived the Minoans had a port there which served as the basis for the Bronze age aspect of Atlantis.Some associate it with the submerged 'harbour works' at Ras AL Tin which are reputedly preclassical.Others in the late 19th century I believe claimed the site was built up by Ramesses 2.Of course he may not have been the first but he did build several fortresses to gaurd against the Lybians and Sea Peoples in the west. Seti 1 had faught the Lybians there and Ramesses 2 had to battle the Sea Peoples prior to Kadesh.As I've noted before elsewhere Sais appears to have been built up at this era after a long period of dissuse or poverty after the collapse of the Old Kingdom. There was nothing found there so far from the Middle Kingdom or Second Intermediate Period and very little from the 18th dynasty.What was from the 18th dynasty was late and poor.
I did not read that name Racottis, but as a Greek pronunciation it is equal to the Arabic pronunciation Ra-Quda, that was mentioned by Al-Maqrizi; taking into consideration that Q could be pronunced as G or C, and TT equal D
These forums are maintained by
Atlantis Rising as a public service. The intent is to give everyone the freedom
to express independent points of view without censure or undue restriction.
However, we ask that you act responsibly in the exercise of your freedoms.
Please keep all comments in good taste and free from insult or the disparagement
of any individual or group (religious, political, racial, ethnic, sexual preference,
For the record, the management
of Atlantis Rising wishes to make clear that any and all statements presented
on this forum represent the views of that particular writer ONLY and should
NOT be construed to represent in any way the views, opinions or policies of
Atlantis Rising Magazine or AtlantisRising.com.