That were the Ertrusks. And the Antikytera or Better Ancitapatus was a device to estimate the levels of the tides around Greece! That should be about 11.000 years ago
How can it be that this article (and the comments) fail to mention the Antikythera mechanism?
There most definitely WAS a technologically advanced civilization somewhere around the Mediteranean Sea, deep in the BC centuries. Because we have a piece of machinery they made.
Your argument that Plato was referring to surface area instead of length when using the unit "stadia" is definitively repudiated in the specific case of the plain of Atlantis. In one passage, he describes the plain as follows: "As to the population, each of the lots in the plain had to find a leader for the men who were fit for military service, and the size of a lot was a square of ten stadia each way, and the total number of all the lots was sixty thousand." If the size of a single lot was ten stadia each way, then each lot would have an area of 100 square stadia, and there being 60,000 of them, the total area of the plain would come out to be 6,000,000 square stadia.
Earlier in Critias, Plato describes the dimensions of the plain as follows: "it was smooth and even, and of an oblong shape, extending in one direction three thousand stadia, but across the centre inland it was two thousand stadia." The word "oblong" is defined as follows: "having an elongated shape, as a rectangle or an oval." Given that the area of a rectangular area can be calculated by multiplying its length and width, this plain would have an area of 3,000 x 2,000 stadia = 6,000,000 stadia squared.
If Plato did not mean units of length but rather units of area when using the unit of measure of stadia, how can you explain the fact that area of the plain comes out to be identical - namely 6 million stadia squared, in both cases? Clearly, you must concede the argument in the specific case of the unit stadia being used to measure the plain's dimensions. And if a stadia was referring to a unit of length in the particular case of the plain, why would it be used as a unit of area anywhere else in the dialogue?
By the way, I don't have to even have to address your convoluted argument that Atlantis was supposedly anywhere in the Aegean Sea because I have repudiated the premise on which it stands - that Plato used the unit of measure of stadia as units of area rather than length. If this is wrong, as I have demonstrated above, then there is no way a roughly 80,000 square mile plain can be squeezed into the Aegean Sea, as you have argued.
____________
As for your claim that the "small islets" could have been referring to Atlantis, and not Athens, I have the following to say.
If you read the passage where Plato describes the transformation of Attica with more care, you will notice that he did not actually say that the "small islets" were a remnant of either Attica or what you think Atlantis was: "And, just as happens in small islands, what now remains compared with what then existed is like the skeleton of a sick man, all the fat and soft earth having wasted away, and only the bare framework of the land being left." When he uses the words "just as" to begin the phrase that mentions the small islands, he is COMPARING what has happened in Attica (which was a general erosive process that converted a fertile, hilly land to a bare and rocky promontory) to an analogous erosive process that he claims happens in small islands. He speaks of "small islands" in a general sense, and does not identify them as either Atlantis or Athens. Now this is a subtle point - I expect that you will fail to grasp it even when it is pointed out to you. For your information, the specific translation and page of Critias that I am referencing is this one: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.01...
It is absolutely irrelevant whether I use my real name or a pseudonym. Your arguments and theory will not stand up to the scrutiny of anyone who has actually read and understood Plato's dialogues.
This is the narrow first road which leads from the sea to the villages. Narrow, confining, but to this day small stores selling souveniers, fast food, 1 hotel. To this day we all run/walk this money-making Gauntlet hike to the church. The villagers do as they have for over 1000 years in selling false idols to the Pilgrims, (us, the tourists).
My knowledge of this is from staying on the Mount 4 times, each a stay of 5 nights. I highly regard this as a wonder of the world and France maintains the secrets hidden in the 75% still unseen by Tourists or Scholars like myself. Go, stay for a night and go out at night, the real Medieval wonder comes alive only at night. See Jumieges on your way out.
Light doses of libertycap - 100% shure that was use with a vide range of substances (medicine) and other techniques. Drumming, Chanting, breathing Techniques ( check holotropic breathing technique )
In several cultures today they use a wide range of techniques to enter trance - Take those two into account and you /// ability to "travel" easy + Culture of honor in dying + Culture of high substance intake. For shure they where high as fuck - Guarnatee they would still fight with one arm chopped off - As you are supposed to impress Odin and all your fighting brothers :: Its just like a jihaddist today who blows himself up with great eager to enter the "best place"... Amanita high dose combined with libertycaps is a possibility -- and mead/ beer --- The knowledge of the plant are still used in some cultures in the artic-- Its not mainstream or talken much about but it is still there.. Vikings where settlers all over - most likely much earlier bigger culture than it is officialy said.. First russian chronicles talks about the Varangian Rus(slavik word for viking) - The ppl in siberia know this.. Vikings where known for fairness and law - the upper part of norway was settled with ppl more than 6000,- years ago.. The knowledge of the Herbs is still kept.. Some Sami shamans still use the medicine for its use.. and it is possible to get into very psycidelic high states with drumming and chanting... I think to understand more we need antrhopologist to study "warrior" cultures still "alive" and see similarities in times of war preparation / preparation to die in battle. Modern soldiers since ww2 use allot of amphetamines and traculizers -- Everything has its use -- Correctly used it makes a different... just like in sports... And there are many other not well known stimulants in nature.. Take amazon tribes as examples.. some medicine they use to not feel hunger and tierdness.. also medicine to sharpen theyr sences (sentral stimulants ) ... Another thing to take into account is that the nordic ares ppl where generally better fed - Less dence population and 1000ds of Fjords full of whales, fish, seals -- and on land huge amount.. + the farmed animals, pigs - cows.. If you compare a diet of eat as much as you can meat - fats - protein ect for generations and compare that to lower europe (famines, generations of unstability, lawlessness ect to the point of christianity) No wonder Vikings had a blast and struch such fear in their opponed.. How else can a Small band of Vikings become King and rules over Kiev ?!?!
I have been there. It was not signage marked when I was there. It was on a map that I bought in Sicily. You can drive to it. Then park off the road and walk in it.
As we all have the right to our own opinion, I don't usually find myself replying to article comments, especially to those who choose to hide their true identity behind fake names. In this particular case though, I felt I should make an exception. Not so much because your comments are downright personal (I wonder if you could equally communicate your points across without all the slinging mud?) but because I felt the readers of Ancient Origins in this case deserve a reply.
While I also agree that the linguists who originally translated Plato's text from ancient Greek to English may be fine scholars, we must always remember that they are primarily translators. While they translate a document from one language to another, they often leave the true meaning of the text to be interpreted by the reader, as in the original Greek format. When it comes to Greek, we must not ignore that it has a very different syntactic structure than the English language that we use to translate it. What often seems strange to those who first try to learn Greek is the inversion of the possessive adjective in respect to the noun. Similarly, inversions like these may also exist in the sequence of entire sentences. For example, in an independent clause, an item which is stressed, i.e. which is uttered with emphasis or is contrastive, in Greek generally goes at the beginning of the clause, rarely at the end. The middle position is occupied by an item receiving no particular emphasis. In a series of clauses in a sentence, as in the translated text below, a prominent item goes at the beginning of its clause if it relates to the previous context, and at the end if it relates to the following one (the emphasis in the example below should be placed on the first sentence of the first paragraph, as well as on the last sentence of the second one.)
<em>For it is related in our records how once upon a time your State stayed the course of a mighty host, which, starting from a distant point in the Atlantic ocean, was insolently advancing to attack the whole of Europe, and Asia to boot.
(For) the Ocean that was at that time navigable; for in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say “the Pillars of Hercules” [Strait of Gibraltar] there lay an island which was larger than Libya and Asia together; and it was possible for travelers of that time to cross from it to the other islands and from the islands to the whole of the continent over against them which encompasses the veritable ocean ...</em>
When seen this way, a different meaning emerges out of the two paragraphs. In this case, and contrary to past assumptions, Plato does not point to the direction of Atlantis across the ocean. The phrase “your state stayed the course of a mighty host”, at the beginning of the clause, is where the emphasis first should be placed. While in this sentence, Plato clearly reveals the very close proximity of Atlantis to Greece, in the rest of the sentence he poetically describes the might of Atlantis and its capacity that stretched around the world to a “distant point” and another continent across the ocean. Of course, once he illustrates their incredible capability, he then describes their audacious and warlike character and their plans to “advance against the whole of Europe and Asia.”
The same rule applies when analyzing the remaining text. In this case, the revelation of a continent across the ocean is not where the emphasis should be placed. As explained earlier, in a series of clauses in a sentence, prominent items usually are either placed at the beginning or at the end of their clause. The middle part of a sentence is occupied by items that should receive less emphasis. According to this rule, and in this particular case, the explanation of how Atlantians were able to reach the continent across the ocean, at the end of the clause, is where the emphasis should be placed and not on the continent itself that is mentioned earlier (the part that many automatically are drawn to when they first read the text). Not knowing where the emphasis on a clause should be placed, can cause a great deal of confusion as often, and depending where the emphasis or a comma goes, two separate meanings can emerge out of the same paragraph.
In short, when a story from ancient Greek is translated to English, the translated sentences may require proper "repositioning" in order for an English reader to make better sense of it. For instance, when understanding the syntactic structure of the Greek language and how to properly "read it", Plato’s second paragraph above, to an English reader should read as follows:
<em>... and it was possible for travelers of that time to cross from it (the island of Atlantis) to the other islands, and from the islands to the whole of the continent over against them which encompasses the veritable ocean.... (For) the (Atlantic) Ocean that was at that time navigable; for in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say “the Pillars of Hercules,” there lay a continent which was larger than Libya and Asia together.</em>
When seen in this context, the continent across the ocean outside the Pillars of Hercules (one that the Atlantians were able to reach by island hopping) is no longer the place of origin, but the destination. In this paragraph, Plato simply describes the might of Atlantis by depicting their incredible capability to travel half way around the world by island hopping, (via Orkney islands, Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland.) Incidentally, the existence of Haplogroup X in North America not only confirms that a Mediterranean gene migrated there 10,000+ years ago (as Plato suggested in the properly interpreted text) but heavy concentrations of haplogroup X in Orkney islands, Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland) also show that it made it there by island hopping. Is this some strange coincidence? Conversely, we have no genetic evidence to show a possible migration of genes from west to east. In other words, no proof whatsoever that Atlantians arrived into the Mediterranean from the west, or any other place outside the Strait of Gibraltar, as you argue.
As for the island's dimensions, I believe this is a subject for interpretation. For example, while ancient Greeks used different words to describe length (distance) and other words to describe land coverage (surface area), we know one of the words they used, the word "pous" (it means foot) was used not only to describe length (as in linear feet) but also to describe total coverage (as in square feet).
Just as in the case of the word "pous," I believe in the case of Atlantis, Plato used the word "stadia" (in Greek it means stadiums) to imply ground surface and not length. When he said the oblong valley was 3000 stadia, I don't think he meant 3000 stadia long (as in 555 kilometers long) but the oblong valley covered an area of 3000 stadia (roughly 555 square kilometers). If he wanted to imply length, why did he use stadia instead of any other measuring unit available to him one that best describes a great length. For example, instead of 3000 stadia he could have said the oblong valley was 18 "Stages" long, as this also equals to 555 kilometers in length. (By the way, "250 dolichos" or "75 schoinos" also equal to 555 kilometers in length). My point is this. Just like today when we measure long distance we don't say "I run for 8,800 yards" but instead we say "I run for 5 miles". To relay long distance we always use the highest unit available to us, in our case we use miles and not yards or anything else. On the other hand, when describing land coverage we also sometimes use football fields (in Greek stadia or stadiums) as a unit of measurement to indicate land coverage ("the small lake is about 5 football fields in size".)
While of course anyone can argue with this point, the truth is, when using "stadia" to suggest ground surface rather than length, by some "strange coincidence" we actually have a site that for the first time perfectly matches with Plato's description. Region by region, all the physical aspects are in the right order, the right shape and in the right proportion, including the island of Santorini (a setting of concentric rings of earth and water) which falls exactly within 9 kilometers from the primary island). What are the chances for that to happen? Considering that when insisting on the traditional ways of reading and understanding Plato that always led us to a dead end, we must not ignore the possibility that the prehistoric island of the Cyclades Plateau (now under 400 feet of water) must have been the place Plato was referring to (regardless if, and just as in the case of Troy, the rest of Plato's story was real or not).
Finally, after the destruction of Atlantis there is the case where I suggested Plato compares some small remaining islets to the bones of the wasted body of Atlantis.
First and foremost, in the example you used you misquoted Critias. The accurate quote in regards to the remaining small islets reads exactly as below and not as you quoted (while it sounds almost the same, word by word is very different and it clearly leads to a different meaning. (I hope the misquote was not intentional just to help your point).
<em>The consequence is, that in comparison of what then was, there are remaining in small islets only the bones of the wasted body, as they may be called; all the richer and softer parts of the soil having fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the country being left.- (Republic. Timaeus. Critias, page 597).</em>
Although, in this paragraph Plato may have initially started to talk about Attica, he ultimately compares Attica's transformation to another body of land off of Attica's coast, one that ultimately sank and in its place only small islets remained. Although, we all know that Attica was transformed to some extent by the sudden rise of the Mediterranean, I must point that it never turned into small islets as Plato clearly implies in this sentence (Plato said "there are remaining in small islets only the bones of the wasted body". In your example you said "as in the case of small islands".)
In the end, I must say that is very easy to criticize others work and/or to attack them on a personal level while hiding behind a fake name. In the future though, should you feel the need to carry yourself in that manner, it would be more appropriate if you used your real name as well as list your credentials on the general subject. Most importantly though, if you choose to rely on a quote to help you make a point, be absolutely sure you are using the quote in its original format (word by word) and not how you "remember" it. As I pointed out earlier, in Greek, a single comma or a few extra words, or reading the text in the wrong way leads to a whole different understanding of things.
As we all have the right to our own opinion, I don't usually find myself replying to article comments, especially to those who choose to hide their true identity behind fake names. In this particular case though, I felt I should make an exception. Not so much because your comments are downright personal (I wonder if you could equally communicate your points across without all the slinging mud?) but because I felt the readers of Ancient Origins in this case deserve a reply.
While I also agree that the linguists who originally translated Plato's text from ancient Greek to English may be fine scholars, we must always remember that they are primarily translators. While they translate a document from one language to another, they often leave the true meaning of the text to be interpreted by the reader, as in the original Greek format. When it comes to Greek, we must not ignore that it has a very different syntactic structure than the English language that we use to translate it. What often seems strange to those who first try to learn Greek is the inversion of the possessive adjective in respect to the noun. Similarly, inversions like these may also exist in the sequence of entire sentences. For example, in an independent clause, an item which is stressed, i.e. which is uttered with emphasis or is contrastive, in Greek generally goes at the beginning of the clause, rarely at the end. The middle position is occupied by an item receiving no particular emphasis. In a series of clauses in a sentence, as in the translated text below, a prominent item goes at the beginning of its clause if it relates to the previous context, and at the end if it relates to the following one (the emphasis in the example below should be placed on the first sentence of the first paragraph, as well as on the last sentence of the second one.)
<em>For it is related in our records how once upon a time your State stayed the course of a mighty host, which, starting from a distant point in the Atlantic ocean, was insolently advancing to attack the whole of Europe, and Asia to boot.
(For) the Ocean that was at that time navigable; for in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say “the Pillars of Hercules” [Strait of Gibraltar] there lay an island which was larger than Libya and Asia together; and it was possible for travelers of that time to cross from it to the other islands and from the islands to the whole of the continent over against them which encompasses the veritable ocean ...</em>
When seen this way, a different meaning emerges out of the two paragraphs. In this case, and contrary to past assumptions, Plato does not point to the direction of Atlantis across the ocean. The phrase “your state stayed the course of a mighty host”, at the beginning of the clause, is where the emphasis first should be placed. While in this sentence, Plato clearly reveals the very close proximity of Atlantis to Greece, in the rest of the sentence he poetically describes the might of Atlantis and its capacity that stretched around the world to a “distant point” and another continent across the ocean. Of course, once he illustrates their incredible capability, he then describes their audacious and warlike character and their plans to “advance against the whole of Europe and Asia.”
The same rule applies when analyzing the remaining text. In this case, the revelation of a continent across the ocean is not where the emphasis should be placed. As explained earlier, in a series of clauses in a sentence, prominent items usually are either placed at the beginning or at the end of their clause. The middle part of a sentence is occupied by items that should receive less emphasis. According to this rule, and in this particular case, the explanation of how Atlantians were able to reach the continent across the ocean, at the end of the clause, is where the emphasis should be placed and not on the continent itself that is mentioned earlier (the part that many automatically are drawn to when they first read the text). Not knowing where the emphasis on a clause should be placed, can cause a great deal of confusion as often, and depending where the emphasis or a comma goes, two separate meanings can emerge out of the same paragraph.
In short, when a story from ancient Greek is translated to English, the translated sentences may require proper "repositioning" in order for an English reader to make better sense of it. For instance, when understanding the syntactic structure of the Greek language and how to properly "read it", Plato’s second paragraph above, to an English reader should read as follows:
<em>... and it was possible for travelers of that time to cross from it (the island of Atlantis) to the other islands, and from the islands to the whole of the continent over against them which encompasses the veritable ocean.... (For) the (Atlantic) Ocean that was at that time navigable; for in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say “the Pillars of Hercules,” there lay a continent which was larger than Libya and Asia together.</em>
When seen in this context, the continent across the ocean outside the Pillars of Hercules (one that the Atlantians were able to reach by island hopping) is no longer the place of origin, but the destination. In this paragraph, Plato simply describes the might of Atlantis by depicting their incredible capability to travel half way around the world by island hopping, (via Orkney islands, Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland.) Incidentally, the existence of Haplogroup X in North America not only confirms that a Mediterranean gene migrated there 10,000+ years ago (as Plato suggested in the properly interpreted text) but heavy concentrations of haplogroup X in Orkney islands, Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland) also show that it made it there by island hopping. Is this some strange coincidence? Conversely, we have no genetic evidence to show a possible migration of genes from west to east. In other words, no proof whatsoever that Atlantians arrived into the Mediterranean from the west, or any other place outside the Strait of Gibraltar, as you argue.
As for the island's dimensions, I believe this is a subject for interpretation. For example, while ancient Greeks used different words to describe length (distance) and other words to describe land coverage (surface area), we know one of the words they used, the word "pous" (it means foot) was used not only to describe length (as in linear feet) but also to describe total coverage (as in square feet).
Just as in the case of the word "pous," I believe in the case of Atlantis, Plato used the word "stadia" (in Greek it means stadiums) to imply ground surface and not length. When he said the oblong valley was 3000 stadia, I don't think he meant 3000 stadia long (as in 555 kilometers long) but the oblong valley covered an area of 3000 stadia (roughly 555 square kilometers). If he wanted to imply length, why did he use stadia instead of any other measuring unit available to him one that best describes a great length. For example, instead of 3000 stadia he could have said the oblong valley was 18 "Stages" long, as this also equals to 555 kilometers in length. (By the way, "250 dolichos" or "75 schoinos" also equal to 555 kilometers in length). My point is this. Just like today when we measure long distance we don't say "I run for 8,800 yards" but instead we say "I run for 5 miles". To relay long distance we always use the highest unit available to us, in our case we use miles and not yards or anything else. On the other hand, when describing land coverage we also sometimes use football fields (in Greek stadia or stadiums) as a unit of measurement to indicate land coverage ("the small lake is about 5 football fields in size".)
While of course anyone can argue with this point, the truth is, when using "stadia" to suggest ground surface rather than length, by some "strange coincidence" we actually have a site that for the first time perfectly matches with Plato's description. Region by region, all the physical aspects are in the right order, the right shape and in the right proportion, including the island of Santorini (a setting of concentric rings of earth and water) which falls exactly within 9 kilometers from the primary island). What are the chances for that to happen? Considering that when insisting on the traditional ways of reading and understanding Plato that always led us to a dead end, we must not ignore the possibility that the prehistoric island of the Cyclades Plateau (now under 400 feet of water) must have been the place Plato was referring to (regardless if, and just as in the case of Troy, the rest of Plato's story was real or not).
Finally, after the destruction of Atlantis there is the case where I suggested Plato compares some small remaining islets to the bones of the wasted body of Atlantis.
First and foremost, in the example you used you misquoted Critias. The accurate quote in regards to the remaining small islets reads exactly as below and not as you quoted (while it sounds almost the same, word by word is very different and it clearly leads to a different meaning. (I hope the misquote was not intentional just to help your point).
<em>The consequence is, that in comparison of what then was, there are remaining in small islets only the bones of the wasted body, as they may be called; all the richer and softer parts of the soil having fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the country being left.- (Republic. Timaeus. Critias, page 597).</em>
Although, in this paragraph Plato may have initially started to talk about Attica, he ultimately compares Attica's transformation to another body of land off of Attica's coast, one that ultimately sank and in its place only small islets remained. Although, we all know that Attica was transformed to some extent by the sudden rise of the Mediterranean, I must point that it never turned into small islets as Plato clearly implies in this sentence (Plato said "there are remaining in small islets only the bones of the wasted body". In your example you said "as in the case of small islands".)
In the end, I must say that is very easy to criticize others work and/or to attack them on a personal level while hiding behind a fake name. In the future though, should you feel the need to carry yourself in that manner, it would be more appropriate if you used your real name as well as list your credentials on the general subject. Most importantly though, if you choose to rely on a quote to help you make a point, be absolutely sure you are using the quote in its original format (word by word) and not how you "remember" it. As I pointed out earlier, in Greek, a single comma or a few extra words, or reading the text in the wrong way leads to a whole different understanding of things.
As we all have the right to our own opinion, I don't usually find myself replying to article comments, especially to those who choose to hide their true identity behind fake names. In this particular case though, I felt I should make an exception. Not so much because your comments are downright personal (I wonder if you could equally communicate your points across without all the slinging mud?) but because I felt the readers of Ancient Origins in this case deserve a reply.
While I also agree that the linguists who originally translated Plato's text from ancient Greek to English may be fine scholars, we must always remember that they are primarily translators. While they translate a document from one language to another, they often leave the true meaning of the text to be interpreted by the reader, as in the original Greek format. When it comes to Greek, we must not ignore that it has a very different syntactic structure than the English language that we use to translate it. What often seems strange to those who first try to learn Greek is the inversion of the possessive adjective in respect to the noun. Similarly, inversions like these may also exist in the sequence of entire sentences. For example, in an independent clause, an item which is stressed, i.e. which is uttered with emphasis or is contrastive, in Greek generally goes at the beginning of the clause, rarely at the end. The middle position is occupied by an item receiving no particular emphasis. In a series of clauses in a sentence, as in the translated text below, a prominent item goes at the beginning of its clause if it relates to the previous context, and at the end if it relates to the following one (the emphasis in the example below should be placed on the first sentence of the first paragraph, as well as on the last sentence of the second one.)
<em>For it is related in our records how once upon a time your State stayed the course of a mighty host, which, starting from a distant point in the Atlantic ocean, was insolently advancing to attack the whole of Europe, and Asia to boot.
(For) the Ocean that was at that time navigable; for in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say “the Pillars of Hercules” [Strait of Gibraltar] there lay an island which was larger than Libya and Asia together; and it was possible for travelers of that time to cross from it to the other islands and from the islands to the whole of the continent over against them which encompasses the veritable ocean ...</em>
When seen this way, a different meaning emerges out of the two paragraphs. In this case, and contrary to past assumptions, Plato does not point to the direction of Atlantis across the ocean. The phrase “your state stayed the course of a mighty host”, at the beginning of the clause, is where the emphasis first should be placed. While in this sentence, Plato clearly reveals the very close proximity of Atlantis to Greece, in the rest of the sentence he poetically describes the might of Atlantis and its capacity that stretched around the world to a “distant point” and another continent across the ocean. Of course, once he illustrates their incredible capability, he then describes their audacious and warlike character and their plans to “advance against the whole of Europe and Asia.”
The same rule applies when analyzing the remaining text. In this case, the revelation of a continent across the ocean is not where the emphasis should be placed. As explained earlier, in a series of clauses in a sentence, prominent items usually are either placed at the beginning or at the end of their clause. The middle part of a sentence is occupied by items that should receive less emphasis. According to this rule, and in this particular case, the explanation of how Atlantians were able to reach the continent across the ocean, at the end of the clause, is where the emphasis should be placed and not on the continent itself that is mentioned earlier (the part that many automatically are drawn to when they first read the text). Not knowing where the emphasis on a clause should be placed, can cause a great deal of confusion as often, and depending where the emphasis or a comma goes, two separate meanings can emerge out of the same paragraph.
In short, when a story from ancient Greek is translated to English, the translated sentences may require proper "repositioning" in order for an English reader to make better sense of it. For instance, when understanding the syntactic structure of the Greek language and how to properly "read it", Plato’s second paragraph above, to an English reader should read as follows:
<em>... and it was possible for travelers of that time to cross from it (the island of Atlantis) to the other islands, and from the islands to the whole of the continent over against them which encompasses the veritable ocean.... (For) the (Atlantic) Ocean that was at that time navigable; for in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say “the Pillars of Hercules,” there lay a continent which was larger than Libya and Asia together.</em>
When seen in this context, the continent across the ocean outside the Pillars of Hercules (one that the Atlantians were able to reach by island hopping) is no longer the place of origin, but the destination. In this paragraph, Plato simply describes the might of Atlantis by depicting their incredible capability to travel half way around the world by island hopping, (via Orkney islands, Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland.) Incidentally, the existence of Haplogroup X in North America not only confirms that a Mediterranean gene migrated there 10,000+ years ago (as Plato suggested in the properly interpreted text) but heavy concentrations of haplogroup X in Orkney islands, Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland) also show that it made it there by island hopping. Is this some strange coincidence? Conversely, we have no genetic evidence to show a possible migration of genes from west to east. In other words, no proof whatsoever that Atlantians arrived into the Mediterranean from the west, or any other place outside the Strait of Gibraltar, as you argue.
As for the island's dimensions, I believe this is a subject for interpretation. For example, while ancient Greeks used different words to describe length (distance) and other words to describe land coverage (surface area), we know one of the words they used, the word "pous" (it means foot) was used not only to describe length (as in linear feet) but also to describe total coverage (as in square feet).
Just as in the case of the word "pous," I believe in the case of Atlantis, Plato used the word "stadia" (in Greek it means stadiums) to imply ground surface and not length. When he said the oblong valley was 3000 stadia, I don't think he meant 3000 stadia long (as in 555 kilometers long) but the oblong valley covered an area of 3000 stadia (roughly 555 square kilometers). If he wanted to imply length, why did he use stadia instead of any other measuring unit available to him one that best describes a great length. For example, instead of 3000 stadia he could have said the oblong valley was 18 "Stages" long, as this also equals to 555 kilometers in length. (By the way, "250 dolichos" or "75 schoinos" also equal to 555 kilometers in length). My point is this. Just like today when we measure long distance we don't say "I run for 8,800 yards" but instead we say "I run for 5 miles". To relay long distance we always use the highest unit available to us, in our case we use miles and not yards or anything else. On the other hand, when describing land coverage we also sometimes use football fields (in Greek stadia or stadiums) as a unit of measurement to indicate land coverage ("the small lake is about 5 football fields in size".)
While of course anyone can argue with this point, the truth is, when using "stadia" to suggest ground surface rather than length, by some "strange coincidence" we actually have a site that for the first time perfectly matches with Plato's description. Region by region, all the physical aspects are in the right order, the right shape and in the right proportion, including the island of Santorini (a setting of concentric rings of earth and water) which falls exactly within 9 kilometers from the primary island). What are the chances for that to happen? Considering that when insisting on the traditional ways of reading and understanding Plato that always led us to a dead end, we must not ignore the possibility that the prehistoric island of the Cyclades Plateau (now under 400 feet of water) must have been the place Plato was referring to (regardless if, and just as in the case of Troy, the rest of Plato's story was real or not).
Finally, after the destruction of Atlantis there is the case where I suggested Plato compares some small remaining islets to the bones of the wasted body of Atlantis.
First and foremost, in the example you used you misquoted Critias. The accurate quote in regards to the remaining small islets reads exactly as below and not as you quoted (while it sounds almost the same, word by word is very different and it clearly leads to a different meaning. (I hope the misquote was not intentional just to help your point).
<em>The consequence is, that in comparison of what then was, there are remaining in small islets only the bones of the wasted body, as they may be called; all the richer and softer parts of the soil having fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the country being left.- (Republic. Timaeus. Critias, page 597).</em>
Although, in this paragraph Plato may have initially started to talk about Attica, he ultimately compares Attica's transformation to another body of land off of Attica's coast, one that ultimately sank and in its place only small islets remained. Although, we all know that Attica was transformed to some extent by the sudden rise of the Mediterranean, I must point that it never turned into small islets as Plato clearly implies in this sentence (Plato said "there are remaining in small islets only the bones of the wasted body". In your example you said "as in the case of small islands".)
In the end, I must say that is very easy to criticize others work and/or to attack them on a personal level while hiding behind a fake name. In the future though, should you feel the need to carry yourself in that manner, it would be more appropriate if you used your real name as well as list your credentials on the general subject. Most importantly though, if you choose to rely on a quote to help you make a point, be absolutely sure you are using the quote in its original format (word by word) and not how you "remember" it. As I pointed out earlier, in Greek, a single comma or a few extra words, or reading the text in the wrong way leads to a whole different understanding of things.
Or more believably, the few survivors after an epidemic/catastrophe carried those genes.
Which, coincidentally, would tie in with the collapse of civilization and population that accompanied the end of the bronze age.
My grandfather worked in the space program. I grew up in California. I was his first grandchild so he took me everywhere and showed me off, as a result I met many of his colleagues. They loved my enthusiasm. I was a fly on the wall. Once someone he worked with (who was also a collector), pulled out this very large skull ( he said he brought it with him from Europe). He held it up to his head( he was 6ft,broad built), this skull made his head look like a child compared to a adult. It was large, but otherwise appeared like ours. I don't recall extra rows of teeth.
With your statement "The native indians are some the the historically bravest people the world has ever known" shows you have watched too many old westerns. The reality is that this foolhardy "bravery" was after taking drugs derived from plants.
My grandparents both grew up in Utah. Gramps was born there, grandma's family moved there when she was four from Iowa. They grew up with these stories their church (latter day saints of Jesus Christ) are fabulous gemologists that keep detailed records of the ' walking babies', and the tall offspring ( because of their beliefs). I grew up in California gramps worked in NASAs space program and I grew up with the stories of the ' tall Vikings', and of the tall towheaded blue eyed 'tall people' the had very clear skin, deep blue eyes. The 'Vikings' were rugged. Both were everywhere, highly intelligent and technologically advanced.
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
Interesting in the video, one of the man on the scupture wear a watch :). Ok it is maybe a bracelet but still it look like a watch.
That were the Ertrusks. And the Antikytera or Better Ancitapatus was a device to estimate the levels of the tides around Greece! That should be about 11.000 years ago
How can it be that this article (and the comments) fail to mention the Antikythera mechanism?
There most definitely WAS a technologically advanced civilization somewhere around the Mediteranean Sea, deep in the BC centuries. Because we have a piece of machinery they made.
The only question is, where were they located?
The Antikythera Mechanism
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110109.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
http://www.antikythera-mechanism.gr/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLPVCJjTNgk
Antikythera Mechanism - An Ancient Greek Computer?
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_4.htm Part 1
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_4_2.htm Part 2
I am very sorry link above is broken I just found out just now .. this one works >
http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/science-channel-presents/videos/u...
Your argument that Plato was referring to surface area instead of length when using the unit "stadia" is definitively repudiated in the specific case of the plain of Atlantis. In one passage, he describes the plain as follows: "As to the population, each of the lots in the plain had to find a leader for the men who were fit for military service, and the size of a lot was a square of ten stadia each way, and the total number of all the lots was sixty thousand." If the size of a single lot was ten stadia each way, then each lot would have an area of 100 square stadia, and there being 60,000 of them, the total area of the plain would come out to be 6,000,000 square stadia.
Earlier in Critias, Plato describes the dimensions of the plain as follows: "it was smooth and even, and of an oblong shape, extending in one direction three thousand stadia, but across the centre inland it was two thousand stadia." The word "oblong" is defined as follows: "having an elongated shape, as a rectangle or an oval." Given that the area of a rectangular area can be calculated by multiplying its length and width, this plain would have an area of 3,000 x 2,000 stadia = 6,000,000 stadia squared.
If Plato did not mean units of length but rather units of area when using the unit of measure of stadia, how can you explain the fact that area of the plain comes out to be identical - namely 6 million stadia squared, in both cases? Clearly, you must concede the argument in the specific case of the unit stadia being used to measure the plain's dimensions. And if a stadia was referring to a unit of length in the particular case of the plain, why would it be used as a unit of area anywhere else in the dialogue?
By the way, I don't have to even have to address your convoluted argument that Atlantis was supposedly anywhere in the Aegean Sea because I have repudiated the premise on which it stands - that Plato used the unit of measure of stadia as units of area rather than length. If this is wrong, as I have demonstrated above, then there is no way a roughly 80,000 square mile plain can be squeezed into the Aegean Sea, as you have argued.
____________
As for your claim that the "small islets" could have been referring to Atlantis, and not Athens, I have the following to say.
If you read the passage where Plato describes the transformation of Attica with more care, you will notice that he did not actually say that the "small islets" were a remnant of either Attica or what you think Atlantis was: "And, just as happens in small islands, what now remains compared with what then existed is like the skeleton of a sick man, all the fat and soft earth having wasted away, and only the bare framework of the land being left." When he uses the words "just as" to begin the phrase that mentions the small islands, he is COMPARING what has happened in Attica (which was a general erosive process that converted a fertile, hilly land to a bare and rocky promontory) to an analogous erosive process that he claims happens in small islands. He speaks of "small islands" in a general sense, and does not identify them as either Atlantis or Athens. Now this is a subtle point - I expect that you will fail to grasp it even when it is pointed out to you. For your information, the specific translation and page of Critias that I am referencing is this one: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.01...
It is absolutely irrelevant whether I use my real name or a pseudonym. Your arguments and theory will not stand up to the scrutiny of anyone who has actually read and understood Plato's dialogues.
This is the narrow first road which leads from the sea to the villages. Narrow, confining, but to this day small stores selling souveniers, fast food, 1 hotel. To this day we all run/walk this money-making Gauntlet hike to the church. The villagers do as they have for over 1000 years in selling false idols to the Pilgrims, (us, the tourists).
My knowledge of this is from staying on the Mount 4 times, each a stay of 5 nights. I highly regard this as a wonder of the world and France maintains the secrets hidden in the 75% still unseen by Tourists or Scholars like myself. Go, stay for a night and go out at night, the real Medieval wonder comes alive only at night. See Jumieges on your way out.
Light doses of libertycap - 100% shure that was use with a vide range of substances (medicine) and other techniques. Drumming, Chanting, breathing Techniques ( check holotropic breathing technique )
In several cultures today they use a wide range of techniques to enter trance - Take those two into account and you /// ability to "travel" easy + Culture of honor in dying + Culture of high substance intake. For shure they where high as fuck - Guarnatee they would still fight with one arm chopped off - As you are supposed to impress Odin and all your fighting brothers :: Its just like a jihaddist today who blows himself up with great eager to enter the "best place"... Amanita high dose combined with libertycaps is a possibility -- and mead/ beer --- The knowledge of the plant are still used in some cultures in the artic-- Its not mainstream or talken much about but it is still there.. Vikings where settlers all over - most likely much earlier bigger culture than it is officialy said.. First russian chronicles talks about the Varangian Rus(slavik word for viking) - The ppl in siberia know this.. Vikings where known for fairness and law - the upper part of norway was settled with ppl more than 6000,- years ago.. The knowledge of the Herbs is still kept.. Some Sami shamans still use the medicine for its use.. and it is possible to get into very psycidelic high states with drumming and chanting... I think to understand more we need antrhopologist to study "warrior" cultures still "alive" and see similarities in times of war preparation / preparation to die in battle. Modern soldiers since ww2 use allot of amphetamines and traculizers -- Everything has its use -- Correctly used it makes a different... just like in sports... And there are many other not well known stimulants in nature.. Take amazon tribes as examples.. some medicine they use to not feel hunger and tierdness.. also medicine to sharpen theyr sences (sentral stimulants ) ... Another thing to take into account is that the nordic ares ppl where generally better fed - Less dence population and 1000ds of Fjords full of whales, fish, seals -- and on land huge amount.. + the farmed animals, pigs - cows.. If you compare a diet of eat as much as you can meat - fats - protein ect for generations and compare that to lower europe (famines, generations of unstability, lawlessness ect to the point of christianity) No wonder Vikings had a blast and struch such fear in their opponed.. How else can a Small band of Vikings become King and rules over Kiev ?!?!
I have been there. It was not signage marked when I was there. It was on a map that I bought in Sicily. You can drive to it. Then park off the road and walk in it.
Don't forget the two Sinclairs that explored America below Newfoundland, and that apparently included Oak Island.
As we all have the right to our own opinion, I don't usually find myself replying to article comments, especially to those who choose to hide their true identity behind fake names. In this particular case though, I felt I should make an exception. Not so much because your comments are downright personal (I wonder if you could equally communicate your points across without all the slinging mud?) but because I felt the readers of Ancient Origins in this case deserve a reply.
While I also agree that the linguists who originally translated Plato's text from ancient Greek to English may be fine scholars, we must always remember that they are primarily translators. While they translate a document from one language to another, they often leave the true meaning of the text to be interpreted by the reader, as in the original Greek format. When it comes to Greek, we must not ignore that it has a very different syntactic structure than the English language that we use to translate it. What often seems strange to those who first try to learn Greek is the inversion of the possessive adjective in respect to the noun. Similarly, inversions like these may also exist in the sequence of entire sentences. For example, in an independent clause, an item which is stressed, i.e. which is uttered with emphasis or is contrastive, in Greek generally goes at the beginning of the clause, rarely at the end. The middle position is occupied by an item receiving no particular emphasis. In a series of clauses in a sentence, as in the translated text below, a prominent item goes at the beginning of its clause if it relates to the previous context, and at the end if it relates to the following one (the emphasis in the example below should be placed on the first sentence of the first paragraph, as well as on the last sentence of the second one.)
<em>For it is related in our records how once upon a time your State stayed the course of a mighty host, which, starting from a distant point in the Atlantic ocean, was insolently advancing to attack the whole of Europe, and Asia to boot.
(For) the Ocean that was at that time navigable; for in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say “the Pillars of Hercules” [Strait of Gibraltar] there lay an island which was larger than Libya and Asia together; and it was possible for travelers of that time to cross from it to the other islands and from the islands to the whole of the continent over against them which encompasses the veritable ocean ...</em>
When seen this way, a different meaning emerges out of the two paragraphs. In this case, and contrary to past assumptions, Plato does not point to the direction of Atlantis across the ocean. The phrase “your state stayed the course of a mighty host”, at the beginning of the clause, is where the emphasis first should be placed. While in this sentence, Plato clearly reveals the very close proximity of Atlantis to Greece, in the rest of the sentence he poetically describes the might of Atlantis and its capacity that stretched around the world to a “distant point” and another continent across the ocean. Of course, once he illustrates their incredible capability, he then describes their audacious and warlike character and their plans to “advance against the whole of Europe and Asia.”
The same rule applies when analyzing the remaining text. In this case, the revelation of a continent across the ocean is not where the emphasis should be placed. As explained earlier, in a series of clauses in a sentence, prominent items usually are either placed at the beginning or at the end of their clause. The middle part of a sentence is occupied by items that should receive less emphasis. According to this rule, and in this particular case, the explanation of how Atlantians were able to reach the continent across the ocean, at the end of the clause, is where the emphasis should be placed and not on the continent itself that is mentioned earlier (the part that many automatically are drawn to when they first read the text). Not knowing where the emphasis on a clause should be placed, can cause a great deal of confusion as often, and depending where the emphasis or a comma goes, two separate meanings can emerge out of the same paragraph.
In short, when a story from ancient Greek is translated to English, the translated sentences may require proper "repositioning" in order for an English reader to make better sense of it. For instance, when understanding the syntactic structure of the Greek language and how to properly "read it", Plato’s second paragraph above, to an English reader should read as follows:
<em>... and it was possible for travelers of that time to cross from it (the island of Atlantis) to the other islands, and from the islands to the whole of the continent over against them which encompasses the veritable ocean.... (For) the (Atlantic) Ocean that was at that time navigable; for in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say “the Pillars of Hercules,” there lay a continent which was larger than Libya and Asia together.</em>
When seen in this context, the continent across the ocean outside the Pillars of Hercules (one that the Atlantians were able to reach by island hopping) is no longer the place of origin, but the destination. In this paragraph, Plato simply describes the might of Atlantis by depicting their incredible capability to travel half way around the world by island hopping, (via Orkney islands, Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland.) Incidentally, the existence of Haplogroup X in North America not only confirms that a Mediterranean gene migrated there 10,000+ years ago (as Plato suggested in the properly interpreted text) but heavy concentrations of haplogroup X in Orkney islands, Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland) also show that it made it there by island hopping. Is this some strange coincidence? Conversely, we have no genetic evidence to show a possible migration of genes from west to east. In other words, no proof whatsoever that Atlantians arrived into the Mediterranean from the west, or any other place outside the Strait of Gibraltar, as you argue.
As for the island's dimensions, I believe this is a subject for interpretation. For example, while ancient Greeks used different words to describe length (distance) and other words to describe land coverage (surface area), we know one of the words they used, the word "pous" (it means foot) was used not only to describe length (as in linear feet) but also to describe total coverage (as in square feet).
Just as in the case of the word "pous," I believe in the case of Atlantis, Plato used the word "stadia" (in Greek it means stadiums) to imply ground surface and not length. When he said the oblong valley was 3000 stadia, I don't think he meant 3000 stadia long (as in 555 kilometers long) but the oblong valley covered an area of 3000 stadia (roughly 555 square kilometers). If he wanted to imply length, why did he use stadia instead of any other measuring unit available to him one that best describes a great length. For example, instead of 3000 stadia he could have said the oblong valley was 18 "Stages" long, as this also equals to 555 kilometers in length. (By the way, "250 dolichos" or "75 schoinos" also equal to 555 kilometers in length). My point is this. Just like today when we measure long distance we don't say "I run for 8,800 yards" but instead we say "I run for 5 miles". To relay long distance we always use the highest unit available to us, in our case we use miles and not yards or anything else. On the other hand, when describing land coverage we also sometimes use football fields (in Greek stadia or stadiums) as a unit of measurement to indicate land coverage ("the small lake is about 5 football fields in size".)
While of course anyone can argue with this point, the truth is, when using "stadia" to suggest ground surface rather than length, by some "strange coincidence" we actually have a site that for the first time perfectly matches with Plato's description. Region by region, all the physical aspects are in the right order, the right shape and in the right proportion, including the island of Santorini (a setting of concentric rings of earth and water) which falls exactly within 9 kilometers from the primary island). What are the chances for that to happen? Considering that when insisting on the traditional ways of reading and understanding Plato that always led us to a dead end, we must not ignore the possibility that the prehistoric island of the Cyclades Plateau (now under 400 feet of water) must have been the place Plato was referring to (regardless if, and just as in the case of Troy, the rest of Plato's story was real or not).
Finally, after the destruction of Atlantis there is the case where I suggested Plato compares some small remaining islets to the bones of the wasted body of Atlantis.
First and foremost, in the example you used you misquoted Critias. The accurate quote in regards to the remaining small islets reads exactly as below and not as you quoted (while it sounds almost the same, word by word is very different and it clearly leads to a different meaning. (I hope the misquote was not intentional just to help your point).
<em>The consequence is, that in comparison of what then was, there are remaining in small islets only the bones of the wasted body, as they may be called; all the richer and softer parts of the soil having fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the country being left.- (Republic. Timaeus. Critias, page 597).</em>
Although, in this paragraph Plato may have initially started to talk about Attica, he ultimately compares Attica's transformation to another body of land off of Attica's coast, one that ultimately sank and in its place only small islets remained. Although, we all know that Attica was transformed to some extent by the sudden rise of the Mediterranean, I must point that it never turned into small islets as Plato clearly implies in this sentence (Plato said "there are remaining in small islets only the bones of the wasted body". In your example you said "as in the case of small islands".)
In the end, I must say that is very easy to criticize others work and/or to attack them on a personal level while hiding behind a fake name. In the future though, should you feel the need to carry yourself in that manner, it would be more appropriate if you used your real name as well as list your credentials on the general subject. Most importantly though, if you choose to rely on a quote to help you make a point, be absolutely sure you are using the quote in its original format (word by word) and not how you "remember" it. As I pointed out earlier, in Greek, a single comma or a few extra words, or reading the text in the wrong way leads to a whole different understanding of things.
As we all have the right to our own opinion, I don't usually find myself replying to article comments, especially to those who choose to hide their true identity behind fake names. In this particular case though, I felt I should make an exception. Not so much because your comments are downright personal (I wonder if you could equally communicate your points across without all the slinging mud?) but because I felt the readers of Ancient Origins in this case deserve a reply.
While I also agree that the linguists who originally translated Plato's text from ancient Greek to English may be fine scholars, we must always remember that they are primarily translators. While they translate a document from one language to another, they often leave the true meaning of the text to be interpreted by the reader, as in the original Greek format. When it comes to Greek, we must not ignore that it has a very different syntactic structure than the English language that we use to translate it. What often seems strange to those who first try to learn Greek is the inversion of the possessive adjective in respect to the noun. Similarly, inversions like these may also exist in the sequence of entire sentences. For example, in an independent clause, an item which is stressed, i.e. which is uttered with emphasis or is contrastive, in Greek generally goes at the beginning of the clause, rarely at the end. The middle position is occupied by an item receiving no particular emphasis. In a series of clauses in a sentence, as in the translated text below, a prominent item goes at the beginning of its clause if it relates to the previous context, and at the end if it relates to the following one (the emphasis in the example below should be placed on the first sentence of the first paragraph, as well as on the last sentence of the second one.)
<em>For it is related in our records how once upon a time your State stayed the course of a mighty host, which, starting from a distant point in the Atlantic ocean, was insolently advancing to attack the whole of Europe, and Asia to boot.
(For) the Ocean that was at that time navigable; for in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say “the Pillars of Hercules” [Strait of Gibraltar] there lay an island which was larger than Libya and Asia together; and it was possible for travelers of that time to cross from it to the other islands and from the islands to the whole of the continent over against them which encompasses the veritable ocean ...</em>
When seen this way, a different meaning emerges out of the two paragraphs. In this case, and contrary to past assumptions, Plato does not point to the direction of Atlantis across the ocean. The phrase “your state stayed the course of a mighty host”, at the beginning of the clause, is where the emphasis first should be placed. While in this sentence, Plato clearly reveals the very close proximity of Atlantis to Greece, in the rest of the sentence he poetically describes the might of Atlantis and its capacity that stretched around the world to a “distant point” and another continent across the ocean. Of course, once he illustrates their incredible capability, he then describes their audacious and warlike character and their plans to “advance against the whole of Europe and Asia.”
The same rule applies when analyzing the remaining text. In this case, the revelation of a continent across the ocean is not where the emphasis should be placed. As explained earlier, in a series of clauses in a sentence, prominent items usually are either placed at the beginning or at the end of their clause. The middle part of a sentence is occupied by items that should receive less emphasis. According to this rule, and in this particular case, the explanation of how Atlantians were able to reach the continent across the ocean, at the end of the clause, is where the emphasis should be placed and not on the continent itself that is mentioned earlier (the part that many automatically are drawn to when they first read the text). Not knowing where the emphasis on a clause should be placed, can cause a great deal of confusion as often, and depending where the emphasis or a comma goes, two separate meanings can emerge out of the same paragraph.
In short, when a story from ancient Greek is translated to English, the translated sentences may require proper "repositioning" in order for an English reader to make better sense of it. For instance, when understanding the syntactic structure of the Greek language and how to properly "read it", Plato’s second paragraph above, to an English reader should read as follows:
<em>... and it was possible for travelers of that time to cross from it (the island of Atlantis) to the other islands, and from the islands to the whole of the continent over against them which encompasses the veritable ocean.... (For) the (Atlantic) Ocean that was at that time navigable; for in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say “the Pillars of Hercules,” there lay a continent which was larger than Libya and Asia together.</em>
When seen in this context, the continent across the ocean outside the Pillars of Hercules (one that the Atlantians were able to reach by island hopping) is no longer the place of origin, but the destination. In this paragraph, Plato simply describes the might of Atlantis by depicting their incredible capability to travel half way around the world by island hopping, (via Orkney islands, Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland.) Incidentally, the existence of Haplogroup X in North America not only confirms that a Mediterranean gene migrated there 10,000+ years ago (as Plato suggested in the properly interpreted text) but heavy concentrations of haplogroup X in Orkney islands, Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland) also show that it made it there by island hopping. Is this some strange coincidence? Conversely, we have no genetic evidence to show a possible migration of genes from west to east. In other words, no proof whatsoever that Atlantians arrived into the Mediterranean from the west, or any other place outside the Strait of Gibraltar, as you argue.
As for the island's dimensions, I believe this is a subject for interpretation. For example, while ancient Greeks used different words to describe length (distance) and other words to describe land coverage (surface area), we know one of the words they used, the word "pous" (it means foot) was used not only to describe length (as in linear feet) but also to describe total coverage (as in square feet).
Just as in the case of the word "pous," I believe in the case of Atlantis, Plato used the word "stadia" (in Greek it means stadiums) to imply ground surface and not length. When he said the oblong valley was 3000 stadia, I don't think he meant 3000 stadia long (as in 555 kilometers long) but the oblong valley covered an area of 3000 stadia (roughly 555 square kilometers). If he wanted to imply length, why did he use stadia instead of any other measuring unit available to him one that best describes a great length. For example, instead of 3000 stadia he could have said the oblong valley was 18 "Stages" long, as this also equals to 555 kilometers in length. (By the way, "250 dolichos" or "75 schoinos" also equal to 555 kilometers in length). My point is this. Just like today when we measure long distance we don't say "I run for 8,800 yards" but instead we say "I run for 5 miles". To relay long distance we always use the highest unit available to us, in our case we use miles and not yards or anything else. On the other hand, when describing land coverage we also sometimes use football fields (in Greek stadia or stadiums) as a unit of measurement to indicate land coverage ("the small lake is about 5 football fields in size".)
While of course anyone can argue with this point, the truth is, when using "stadia" to suggest ground surface rather than length, by some "strange coincidence" we actually have a site that for the first time perfectly matches with Plato's description. Region by region, all the physical aspects are in the right order, the right shape and in the right proportion, including the island of Santorini (a setting of concentric rings of earth and water) which falls exactly within 9 kilometers from the primary island). What are the chances for that to happen? Considering that when insisting on the traditional ways of reading and understanding Plato that always led us to a dead end, we must not ignore the possibility that the prehistoric island of the Cyclades Plateau (now under 400 feet of water) must have been the place Plato was referring to (regardless if, and just as in the case of Troy, the rest of Plato's story was real or not).
Finally, after the destruction of Atlantis there is the case where I suggested Plato compares some small remaining islets to the bones of the wasted body of Atlantis.
First and foremost, in the example you used you misquoted Critias. The accurate quote in regards to the remaining small islets reads exactly as below and not as you quoted (while it sounds almost the same, word by word is very different and it clearly leads to a different meaning. (I hope the misquote was not intentional just to help your point).
<em>The consequence is, that in comparison of what then was, there are remaining in small islets only the bones of the wasted body, as they may be called; all the richer and softer parts of the soil having fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the country being left.- (Republic. Timaeus. Critias, page 597).</em>
Although, in this paragraph Plato may have initially started to talk about Attica, he ultimately compares Attica's transformation to another body of land off of Attica's coast, one that ultimately sank and in its place only small islets remained. Although, we all know that Attica was transformed to some extent by the sudden rise of the Mediterranean, I must point that it never turned into small islets as Plato clearly implies in this sentence (Plato said "there are remaining in small islets only the bones of the wasted body". In your example you said "as in the case of small islands".)
In the end, I must say that is very easy to criticize others work and/or to attack them on a personal level while hiding behind a fake name. In the future though, should you feel the need to carry yourself in that manner, it would be more appropriate if you used your real name as well as list your credentials on the general subject. Most importantly though, if you choose to rely on a quote to help you make a point, be absolutely sure you are using the quote in its original format (word by word) and not how you "remember" it. As I pointed out earlier, in Greek, a single comma or a few extra words, or reading the text in the wrong way leads to a whole different understanding of things.
As we all have the right to our own opinion, I don't usually find myself replying to article comments, especially to those who choose to hide their true identity behind fake names. In this particular case though, I felt I should make an exception. Not so much because your comments are downright personal (I wonder if you could equally communicate your points across without all the slinging mud?) but because I felt the readers of Ancient Origins in this case deserve a reply.
While I also agree that the linguists who originally translated Plato's text from ancient Greek to English may be fine scholars, we must always remember that they are primarily translators. While they translate a document from one language to another, they often leave the true meaning of the text to be interpreted by the reader, as in the original Greek format. When it comes to Greek, we must not ignore that it has a very different syntactic structure than the English language that we use to translate it. What often seems strange to those who first try to learn Greek is the inversion of the possessive adjective in respect to the noun. Similarly, inversions like these may also exist in the sequence of entire sentences. For example, in an independent clause, an item which is stressed, i.e. which is uttered with emphasis or is contrastive, in Greek generally goes at the beginning of the clause, rarely at the end. The middle position is occupied by an item receiving no particular emphasis. In a series of clauses in a sentence, as in the translated text below, a prominent item goes at the beginning of its clause if it relates to the previous context, and at the end if it relates to the following one (the emphasis in the example below should be placed on the first sentence of the first paragraph, as well as on the last sentence of the second one.)
<em>For it is related in our records how once upon a time your State stayed the course of a mighty host, which, starting from a distant point in the Atlantic ocean, was insolently advancing to attack the whole of Europe, and Asia to boot.
(For) the Ocean that was at that time navigable; for in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say “the Pillars of Hercules” [Strait of Gibraltar] there lay an island which was larger than Libya and Asia together; and it was possible for travelers of that time to cross from it to the other islands and from the islands to the whole of the continent over against them which encompasses the veritable ocean ...</em>
When seen this way, a different meaning emerges out of the two paragraphs. In this case, and contrary to past assumptions, Plato does not point to the direction of Atlantis across the ocean. The phrase “your state stayed the course of a mighty host”, at the beginning of the clause, is where the emphasis first should be placed. While in this sentence, Plato clearly reveals the very close proximity of Atlantis to Greece, in the rest of the sentence he poetically describes the might of Atlantis and its capacity that stretched around the world to a “distant point” and another continent across the ocean. Of course, once he illustrates their incredible capability, he then describes their audacious and warlike character and their plans to “advance against the whole of Europe and Asia.”
The same rule applies when analyzing the remaining text. In this case, the revelation of a continent across the ocean is not where the emphasis should be placed. As explained earlier, in a series of clauses in a sentence, prominent items usually are either placed at the beginning or at the end of their clause. The middle part of a sentence is occupied by items that should receive less emphasis. According to this rule, and in this particular case, the explanation of how Atlantians were able to reach the continent across the ocean, at the end of the clause, is where the emphasis should be placed and not on the continent itself that is mentioned earlier (the part that many automatically are drawn to when they first read the text). Not knowing where the emphasis on a clause should be placed, can cause a great deal of confusion as often, and depending where the emphasis or a comma goes, two separate meanings can emerge out of the same paragraph.
In short, when a story from ancient Greek is translated to English, the translated sentences may require proper "repositioning" in order for an English reader to make better sense of it. For instance, when understanding the syntactic structure of the Greek language and how to properly "read it", Plato’s second paragraph above, to an English reader should read as follows:
<em>... and it was possible for travelers of that time to cross from it (the island of Atlantis) to the other islands, and from the islands to the whole of the continent over against them which encompasses the veritable ocean.... (For) the (Atlantic) Ocean that was at that time navigable; for in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say “the Pillars of Hercules,” there lay a continent which was larger than Libya and Asia together.</em>
When seen in this context, the continent across the ocean outside the Pillars of Hercules (one that the Atlantians were able to reach by island hopping) is no longer the place of origin, but the destination. In this paragraph, Plato simply describes the might of Atlantis by depicting their incredible capability to travel half way around the world by island hopping, (via Orkney islands, Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland.) Incidentally, the existence of Haplogroup X in North America not only confirms that a Mediterranean gene migrated there 10,000+ years ago (as Plato suggested in the properly interpreted text) but heavy concentrations of haplogroup X in Orkney islands, Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland) also show that it made it there by island hopping. Is this some strange coincidence? Conversely, we have no genetic evidence to show a possible migration of genes from west to east. In other words, no proof whatsoever that Atlantians arrived into the Mediterranean from the west, or any other place outside the Strait of Gibraltar, as you argue.
As for the island's dimensions, I believe this is a subject for interpretation. For example, while ancient Greeks used different words to describe length (distance) and other words to describe land coverage (surface area), we know one of the words they used, the word "pous" (it means foot) was used not only to describe length (as in linear feet) but also to describe total coverage (as in square feet).
Just as in the case of the word "pous," I believe in the case of Atlantis, Plato used the word "stadia" (in Greek it means stadiums) to imply ground surface and not length. When he said the oblong valley was 3000 stadia, I don't think he meant 3000 stadia long (as in 555 kilometers long) but the oblong valley covered an area of 3000 stadia (roughly 555 square kilometers). If he wanted to imply length, why did he use stadia instead of any other measuring unit available to him one that best describes a great length. For example, instead of 3000 stadia he could have said the oblong valley was 18 "Stages" long, as this also equals to 555 kilometers in length. (By the way, "250 dolichos" or "75 schoinos" also equal to 555 kilometers in length). My point is this. Just like today when we measure long distance we don't say "I run for 8,800 yards" but instead we say "I run for 5 miles". To relay long distance we always use the highest unit available to us, in our case we use miles and not yards or anything else. On the other hand, when describing land coverage we also sometimes use football fields (in Greek stadia or stadiums) as a unit of measurement to indicate land coverage ("the small lake is about 5 football fields in size".)
While of course anyone can argue with this point, the truth is, when using "stadia" to suggest ground surface rather than length, by some "strange coincidence" we actually have a site that for the first time perfectly matches with Plato's description. Region by region, all the physical aspects are in the right order, the right shape and in the right proportion, including the island of Santorini (a setting of concentric rings of earth and water) which falls exactly within 9 kilometers from the primary island). What are the chances for that to happen? Considering that when insisting on the traditional ways of reading and understanding Plato that always led us to a dead end, we must not ignore the possibility that the prehistoric island of the Cyclades Plateau (now under 400 feet of water) must have been the place Plato was referring to (regardless if, and just as in the case of Troy, the rest of Plato's story was real or not).
Finally, after the destruction of Atlantis there is the case where I suggested Plato compares some small remaining islets to the bones of the wasted body of Atlantis.
First and foremost, in the example you used you misquoted Critias. The accurate quote in regards to the remaining small islets reads exactly as below and not as you quoted (while it sounds almost the same, word by word is very different and it clearly leads to a different meaning. (I hope the misquote was not intentional just to help your point).
<em>The consequence is, that in comparison of what then was, there are remaining in small islets only the bones of the wasted body, as they may be called; all the richer and softer parts of the soil having fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the country being left.- (Republic. Timaeus. Critias, page 597).</em>
Although, in this paragraph Plato may have initially started to talk about Attica, he ultimately compares Attica's transformation to another body of land off of Attica's coast, one that ultimately sank and in its place only small islets remained. Although, we all know that Attica was transformed to some extent by the sudden rise of the Mediterranean, I must point that it never turned into small islets as Plato clearly implies in this sentence (Plato said "there are remaining in small islets only the bones of the wasted body". In your example you said "as in the case of small islands".)
In the end, I must say that is very easy to criticize others work and/or to attack them on a personal level while hiding behind a fake name. In the future though, should you feel the need to carry yourself in that manner, it would be more appropriate if you used your real name as well as list your credentials on the general subject. Most importantly though, if you choose to rely on a quote to help you make a point, be absolutely sure you are using the quote in its original format (word by word) and not how you "remember" it. As I pointed out earlier, in Greek, a single comma or a few extra words, or reading the text in the wrong way leads to a whole different understanding of things.
Why was this article even posted? There is no evidence given - none! - that any of this ever happened.
Are there no guidelines or requirements at all?
Or more believably, the few survivors after an epidemic/catastrophe carried those genes.
Which, coincidentally, would tie in with the collapse of civilization and population that accompanied the end of the bronze age.
It makes a good case for the plausibility of genetic engineering being done on humans.
My grandfather worked in the space program. I grew up in California. I was his first grandchild so he took me everywhere and showed me off, as a result I met many of his colleagues. They loved my enthusiasm. I was a fly on the wall. Once someone he worked with (who was also a collector), pulled out this very large skull ( he said he brought it with him from Europe). He held it up to his head( he was 6ft,broad built), this skull made his head look like a child compared to a adult. It was large, but otherwise appeared like ours. I don't recall extra rows of teeth.
With your statement "The native indians are some the the historically bravest people the world has ever known" shows you have watched too many old westerns. The reality is that this foolhardy "bravery" was after taking drugs derived from plants.
Oops- so sorry- using Android device.
Should read genealogists. And also towheaded bleu eyed blonds.
My grandparents both grew up in Utah. Gramps was born there, grandma's family moved there when she was four from Iowa. They grew up with these stories their church (latter day saints of Jesus Christ) are fabulous gemologists that keep detailed records of the ' walking babies', and the tall offspring ( because of their beliefs). I grew up in California gramps worked in NASAs space program and I grew up with the stories of the ' tall Vikings', and of the tall towheaded blue eyed 'tall people' the had very clear skin, deep blue eyes. The 'Vikings' were rugged. Both were everywhere, highly intelligent and technologically advanced.
I enjoy all of your posts and eagerly await the next one....thank you...
I find your page fascinating and eagerly await any and all of your posts....
Pages