Saturday, 17 June 2017

For Information

Part III of Redefining Atlantis is now back on track and weekly posts are scheduled. During this time there may be changes to certain areas of the chronology hypothesised here. At the end of this section there will be what I believe is the most accurate Timeline for events in the Eastern Mediterranean. It was ready to publish until new information came to light.

The task was quite daunting when the number of anomalies were taken into consideration. The chief problem was two-fold. First was the volatility of the region. There is so much evidence of historic geological disturbance and conflicting information with dating, the lines blur very quickly. I had to consider all the possibilities and rely heavily on information I feel had been misconstrued.

Taking Aegea's southern capital, Atlantis, as a prime example. There are still some who doubt but Santorini (Thera) IS the site of the lost city. When I first researched this some 30-odd years ago, the information at the time stated quite categorically the Santorini eruption was dated to 1450BC. Immediately I picked up on this date as it coincided with Biblical events in Egypt. You see my initial research wasn't about Atlantis, it was to try and make sense of ancient scriptures..... it was actually to discover the origins of human existence.

Geology was as much a part of my research as archaeology, history, scripture, myth and legend. Again the research from years ago threw up a few more dates of previous eruptions. Among these were 1850BC and 2500BC. Over the years 'experts' have since revised their timeline for the Santorini eruption(s) and this threw me somewhat. The most commonly given date now is 1650BC. What happened to 1450BC? Everything that had fit like a glove was suddenly askew.

It took some time to come up with a possible answer to this sudden change of date. Stating, one eruption may wipe out or obscure evidence from a previous one in the same location, may account for some things but not why the most recent eruption had suddenly 'disappeared'. The solution was there all the time yet I have no expert to confirm or deny my hypothesis. I believe the eruption was in 1650BC and afterwards the magma ebbed away leaving Atlantis resting atop an empty magma chamber.

In 1450BC either through the process of time or perhaps triggered by an earthquake, the cone collapsed and formed the islands as we see them today. This is a pretty common phenomena with cones collapsing on volcanoes and it would explain why the eruption was dated to 200 years earlier. Evidence from Crete shows tsunami damage in 1450BC which would indicate a preceding earthquake, or perhaps the collapse itself triggered the tsunami.

This is just one problem faced when trying to accurately document the order of events. The second major hurdle are the people themselves. The proclivity to name sons after grandfathers causes much confusion. If that wasn't enough, the change of names, or use of nicknames further exacerbates the situation. Heracles for instance, I believe there were at least three, was originally named Alcides. Priam was Podarces and I contend that Ganymede was Erichthonius (the Third). Even 'Plato' was a nickname.

Minos was another major headache. The son of Europa, Minos, was taken in by Asterion the king of Crete. The Minotaur - son of Minos - was also named Asterion. Minos actually means 'king' and there were a lot more than one. The problem I had here was assuming the Minos of Europa was the progenitor of the Minoans and the same one famously associated with the Minotaur. After much thought I realised I was paying too much attention to flawed observations of old historians.

A line through Theseus indicates the king Minos is dated to the mid 13th century BC but the first 'Minos' was some 200 years earlier. Minoan itself is a misnomer. The people were Hellenes, or more specifically Dorians.

The next post 'Minoans v. Mycenaeans' deals with this distinction. Over the course of the next week or two, some dates already given in earlier posts may be revised. As stated, a full timeline will be provided and the end of this third section.

Monday, 29 February 2016

00. Introduction


'Redefining Atlantis' is perhaps a little misleading, it goes much deeper*. The focus is not only the enigmatic lost city / island / continent, but also on Greek Mythology, ancient Greek culture, anthropology, and the migratory patterns of the Bronze Age eastern Mediterranean peoples.

*It is safe to assume puns and ambiguous comic references are intentional

Originally intended as a book, Redefining Atlantis just became too big. This blog builds into a comprehensive guide that explodes myths, provides answers, and gives informed personal hypotheses. Much of what you read here is well documented, the perception however is personal and to the best of my knowledge unique. Though not considered an expert in any field, an eclectic wisdom has certain advantages over a specialised one. My chief criticism of others who may have researched Atlantis is tunnel-vision, preconception, and inflexibility of thought.

The story of Atlantis is bigger than the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah type tale. The Atlanteans were key to history, the missing link. The Atlanteans were the progenitors of the Hellenes, and their polytheism is the origin of monotheist religion. There is little doubt they were the superior race of their time. Although there could be a basis for some otherworldly explanation, there is also a more natural one, in Redefining Atlantis we will consider all the options. Split into four sections, an overall picture is given for you to assess and draw your own conclusions.

Before the Romans adopted and tainted it (see Greek Love), Greek 'religion' was in many ways something to be lauded. Over the years, misinterpretation has led to many misconceptions. Redefining Atlantis aims to set the record straight. If you have anything to add or require additional information, please comment on the relevant post or e-mail in confidence.

Statement of Facts:

This blog-book is neither intended to offend nor influence the beliefs of the reader. This is MY belief. In these sensitive times, it appears just holding an alternate view of our origins can cause hysteria. The information here is provided as a statement of 'facts' as I see them and in my opinion is no less plausible than the views of anyone else. 

Sunday, 28 February 2016

Part I - The Evidence

This section gives an overview on what we already know for sure and / or what can reasonably be assumed to be true.

  • Sources
  • Conspiracy
  • Sunken Cities
  • Location
  • Gods
  • Climate Change
  • Migration
  • Civil Unrest
  • Beliefs
  • Summary

Saturday, 27 February 2016

01. Sources

Personal research began as a child. It was purely a need for answers, answers that nobody seemed to know yet were willing to kill each other over. The research was never meant to be so diverse, but when studying one thing numerous side issues came to light and were in need of investigation. The initial goal was rather simplistic; discover the origins of human existence, how hard could it be? Redefining Atlantis is a spin-off from the main body of research but no less significant.

The problem is verifiable fact. What is fact? Archaeological evidence is perhaps most reliable, although one cataclysm can wipe out significant evidence from a previous one, and I have reservations about the accuracy of dating systems due to atmospheric fluctuation and variations in terrain. Art-work and sculpture are not only open to interpretation, but can also be misleading, especially when drawing comparisons with society today as was the tendency of many historians. Even text is dubious, just because somebody wrote it doesn't make it true, changes in language leave context open to conjecture. With such a view, problems were soon encountered. As much information as possible was gathered and analysed for clues, or tenuous links that could possibly substantiate another claim.

The clues are there, and in abundance. Nevertheless, all this information still doesn't make it fact. Even when corroborated by another, it is most likely they all came from the same sources. There will always be doubts when looking at early history, religion, archaeological evidence, myth, and legend. At some point a decision has to be made on which information can or cannot be trusted. No matter what the source cited here there will always be critics, such is the nature of the beast. The information provided is from the most reliable sources available to me and has been included only after careful consideration.

The primary source of the Atlantis story comes from Plato as told by Critias in the Timaeus and Critias Dialogues. Most other sources are later and almost exclusively based on Plato's account. Some argue the tale of Atlantis is just a fictional moralistic metaphor, and there is some evidence to justify this. There is no direct mention by Homer of Atlantis, although there are suggestions an Atlantean society had been existence. Other ambiguous references from the Middle East, India, and Egypt, could easily relate to Atlantis but Plato is the only one to mention it by name. Homer does however give us invaluable information about the life, times, and culture in ancient Greece and among Mediterranean peoples.

Herodotus is another prime source due to his Homeric references. If Plato is considered a little suspect in some ways, Herodotus gives even more reason for scepticism.  Herodotus was called the 'father of history' by many, a phrase supposedly coined by Cicero. Yet despite numerous accolades, Herodotus, like Plato, had critics who ridiculed his work. Some of his contemporaries called him the father of lies. There is little doubt he travelled extensively, verified by geographical and historical facts he described in detail, and much information was gathered from folklore or wandering minstrels. Herodotus stated he only reported what was told to him (echoes of Plato in some respects), and there were some fanciful stories by consequence. Thucydides was a critic of Herodotus, not without cause.

Thucydides was known as the 'father of scientific history' and whilst his need for accuracy is commendable, to completely overlook myth and legend is folly. It is a problem shared by scientists and atheists alike. They dismiss a whole book due to sporadic nonsense. Many of the collected folk tales were undoubtedly embellished but rather than discard them, we should look for the clues they hold. Another thing about Herodotus is his being a contemporary of Socrates, and he too seemed loathe to attribute acts to the Gods. However his 'reporting' style saved him sharing the same fate and may have been an inspiration for Plato.

Homer is an enigma. When the fact there is uncertainty as to whether Homer even existed is thrown into the mix, any remaining readers of a sceptical disposition will roll their eyes. Very little can be verified. It is one view that Homeric Poetry was akin to folklore and not directly attributable to one person, named Homer or otherwise. Travelling minstrels and entertainers would entertain with such tales. No doubt they were subject to the Chinese Whispers treatment. Even Plato's account of Atlantis was heard 4th or 5th-hand at best.

Hesiod (c.750-650 BC) is thought to be a contemporary of Homer and his Theogeny is the major source of the genealogy of the Gods. There was a lot more to Hesiod besides his Homeric dialect poetry. He was cited as a major source of farming techniques, economic thought and astronomy. Hesiod's genealogy is one source I use for my own hypothesised genealogy but there are significant differences.

Here, Greek Myths are treated in much the same way as other ancient scriptures, possibilities are explored objectively. The pleasing thing with the ancient Greeks is how they 'humanised' many of their deities. There are clues to actual people and places that can loosely be accounted for by 'known' historical / geological events. Conversely there is also a lot of nonsense (or superstitious misinterpretation of natural phenomena and the cause).

Of course it would be folly to believe or try to rationalise without at least a little evidence. Socrates tried to dispel the nonsensical areas of mythology but was executed (encouraged to commit suicide) for impiety and corrupting youth. Unfortunately all the work of Socrates is non-extant and Plato's accounts of it may be coloured by paranoia. The Greek Myths themselves are taken from a variety of sources, the majority having their documented origins with Herodotus, Homer, and Plato. Most are pretty similar both in translation and the way they are generally perceived.

For the most part I haven't attributed sources but translations are from those generally accepted as most accurate. Being linguistically challenged with regard to Linear B and ancient Greek, I have to accept these'true translations' but I often feel context has been misconstrued.

Some translations are of text that is no longer extant and leaves the door open for more inaccuracy. Whilst extracts of generally accepted translations will be posted here, they are subject to closer scrutiny and are often given a slightly different slant. For the most part, I regard contributions from Roman sources as deeply suspicious. I feel the Romans on conquering Greece adopted the culture of those who were in essence their ancestors, but besmirched it with their excesses.

Geological and archaeological evidence is invaluable yet even here I feel many are missing the obvious or simply failing to correlate data correctly. Text is open to (mis)interpretation just as is art. To fully appreciate and understand the context of scripture or imagery, a more holistic view is necessary.