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.

Friday, 26 February 2016

02. Conspiracy?

A number of question marks surround the credibility of the Atlantis story. Archaeological evidence is coming to light that corroborates much of what is hypothesised here. What about the story itself? It's no secret influential people will use propaganda to exploit fearful ignorance. Let's first look at the person from whom the story originated, Solon (640-558 BC).

It is possible Solon concocted his story, but unlikely. There is however good reason to believe he embellished it significantly. Perhaps he didn't embellish so much as change the emphasis. He was a statesman and lawmaker who fought the moral decline in Athenian society. Although unsuccessful during his time in office, Solon is considered by many to have laid the foundations of democracy. There is understandably no documented record of Atlantis before Solon - ignoring possible ambiguous references from Homer and Hesiod - not in Greek literature anyway.

Around 594 BC Solon was chosen as archon (chief magistrate) in Athens. Solon implemented reforms largely unpopular with the ruling class. He travelled abroad for 10 years so influential Athenians couldn't induce him to repeal any of his laws. First off he went to Egypt and it was there the story of Atlantis came to light. Solon visited the Pharaoh, Amasis II (reign 570-526 BC), and spent some time with two Egyptian priests discussing philosophy. The priest Sonchis of Sais is attributed as the source of the history of Atlantis.

Note: Sais is stated as the birthplace of the Pharaoh Amassis II which adds a little weight to Solon being there, although Sonchis being the priest who related the story is contested by some.

The Greek Dark Ages (c.1200-800 BC) blotted out ancient history, as surmised by the Egyptian priest in the Timaeus Dialogue (see Literature [1c]). Plato's account doesn't name the priests. Sonchis speaks of a great victory by Athens in defeating the all-conquering Atlanteans. Although the Dialogue is consistent, there are question marks against certain aspects. It is conceivable Solon twisted the story to put Athens in a better light, so he could best relate the moralistic tale without further antagonising those in power. On the other hand Sonchis might well have done that himself, but if he had been discussing philosophy with Solon it is unlikely.

Whatever embellishment the story might have received at the hands of Solon, it is very likely it was further edited by Plato, in order to make it more palatable to those in power. Socrates had died for his views and Plato wouldn't want to share the same fate as his tutor. Plato had a habit of 'he said, she said' to allow denial of accountability. In effect Socrates has very little bearing here as none of his works are extant and we rely on Plato as his 'mouthpiece'. Just how much was from the tutelage by Socrates, and how much was purely Plato's own thoughts, is open to question.

There is no record of Timaeus anywhere else. He is Italian according to the Dialogue and his story of the creation has similarities with the biblical version in Genesis. Critias is likely genuine, as is Hermocrates the third speaker who never spoke, or whose dialogue is lost. Both are referenced by others from the time. The existence of Socrates is not in doubt. What is in doubt is if these dialogues were a coming together. It is almost certain the part of Socrates in the dialogues are assumptions by Plato, on how he perceived his mentor would respond. This could also be a cover story for his own protection. Nevertheless, although most date the Dialogues to 360 BC, some 39 years after the death of Socrates, it doesn't mean such a meeting never took place. My personal view is that Plato met with his fellow protagonists but at different times and simply put together a series of dialogues he had with them individually.

Socrates had a strange role in the Dialogues. From what Critias states, it appears Socrates was constructing a moral tale. The suspicion of a conspiracy of sorts is high in my opinion yet this doesn't discredit the tale, it merely suggests caution when assessing truthful elements. Socrates may have discussed intent with Plato when tutoring him. Plato may well have met Critias some time later and heard Solon's story. By combining the account of Critias and the intent of Socrates, he in effect told the story his tutor hadn't.

The more we look at it, the more we see evidence of some kind of fabrication. Was Plato responsible for carrying out a deception or merely recording the thoughts of others? Nor did he always get it right as we see with his Pythagorean notes in Republic, which are nonsensical in their ambiguity. In Critias the Gods are barely mentioned apart from Poseidon, Though purported descendants of the Gods, the mortality of the Atlanteans is clear. At the end of the incomplete Dialogue there is mention of Zeus as 'God of Gods' before the text stops abruptly. Did Plato see he was painting himself into a corner?

In the Dialogues there is mention of an absentee who was taken ill, and then there is Hermocrates who never managed to speak, whose dialogue was lost, or was simply not written. Hermocrates could be key. He was a general who repelled Athens in Sicily and advised Sparta. His part can be surmised but the real issue is the time of his death, 407 BC and the fact he had returned to Sicily in 408 BC. There is divided opinion on Plato's date of birth. Taking the earliest estimates he would be 19/20 years old when Hermocrates returned to Sicily, taking the latest he would have been 16/17.

Socrates was a member of the Boule (council of citizens) who debated the fate of the generals after the Battle of Arginusae (406 BC). The means the meeting would still be plausible, Critias was one of the Thirty Tyrants installed to govern Athens after the fall in 404 BC, Timaeus has always been a mystery. Perhaps the meeting took place and during the writing Plato heard of the death of Hermocrates. Academics will argue the Dialogue was among Plato's later works but many an author has old drafts they only publish much later. When all said and done, I am perhaps a little harsh on Plato, he is after all just an author.

There is of course much more to Plato than the scant mention here, and I could dissect all his works, but all I'm trying to establish is how much credence we can give him with regard to the Timaeus and Critias Dialogue. It is important to look at things objectively and inconsistencies must be addressed. Having said that, even the implausible cannot be dismissed out of hand, often fact is stranger than fiction.

Irrespective of the conspiracy theory and the ideology behind it influenced by Solon / Socrates / Plato, the main body of evidence suggests the basis of the Atlantis story is historical fact.

Thursday, 25 February 2016

03. Sunken Cities

Atlantis isn't the only example of a legendary sunken city / island - it was never referred to as a continent - and other possible sites include the South China Sea, Indian Ocean, and Caribbean Sea. Also there are mentions of Mu and Lemuria with striking similarities to Atlantis. This is to be expected. Sea levels have risen an average of 120 metres since the last ice age. The rise has by no means been uniform though, some areas have seen a much higher rise than others.
                                                                            Shi Cheng, China
There are many cities now lost to the waves all over the globe, and for a variety of reasons. In China the ancient city of Shi Cheng (Lion City), lies in a valley flooded to construct a dam in 1959. The lake in which it sits is of course man-made, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen naturally. A natural dam is more likely to occur in mountainous terrain for obvious reasons. Apart from sudden geological upheaval, rivers do change their course over time. It's not just small rivers either. The Amazon at one time flowed into the Pacific Ocean, until the continued rise of the Andes blocked its route. The Nile has changed its course many times and accounts for abandoned ancient cities in Egypt. When the Nile changed its route to the Mediterranean the water supply was lost to cities reliant on the river for irrigation. Conversely, for cities near the coast the threat was not of being left high and dry but sharing a similar fate to Atlantis.

Heracleion is one such city and coincidentally it has ties with our story here. Heracleion, aka Thonis, was on the Mediterranean coast of Egypt near Alexandria. It was said to be where Paris (Alexander) and Helen of Troy took refuge from the jealous Menelaus, just before the Trojan War. Heracles himself was said to have visited the city. Perhaps a little more significantly, Heracleion is mentioned on the Stele of Naukratis, stating a tenth of taxes from imports passing through Heracleion were to be given to the sanctuary of Neith of Sais. The sanctuary of Neith of Sais being where Solon was told the Atlantis story by the priest Sonchis.
Heracleion, Egypt

Heracleion sank a century after the time of Plato as a result of subsidence after an earthquake. Like the Atlantis the priests spoke about, Heracleion probably sank beneath the waves overnight. Another area that has partially submerged is the Island of Heracles, once part of ancient Tyre in modern day Lebanon. The process is ongoing. Port Royal, Jamaica, sank after a 7.5 earthquake as recent as 1692. Then there are much older examples like Dwarka, India 7500 BC, and possibly the earliest (though disputed as to whether man-made or natural structure) the Pyramids of Yonaguni-Jima, Japan circa 10000 BC.

The Aegean is unlike any other area on the planet. It rides atop a micro plate situated in the middle of three other tectonic plates. To the south is a subduction zone where the African Plate dives beneath the Aegean. There are areas in Greece where results of earthquakes show a split in the land where one side has been elevated up to 12 metres. This opens up other possibilities. For as easily - and dramatically - as the land can be lifted, so too can it fall. It is conceivable the whole floor of the Aegean suddenly dropped at some point.

To summarise we can safely say that large areas and cities do sink beneath the waves AND it can happen very quickly indeed. So if we can by now assume Atlantis did exist, the next step is to find out where.

Wednesday, 24 February 2016

04. Where Was Atlantis?

The only clues we have as to where, or how big Atlantis was, comes from Plato. It is easy to critique the Atlantis story, there are so many inconsistencies and impossibilities. I approve of scepticism, but the tendency is to find something that couldn't be, and then dismiss the concept as a whole. There is much conjecture over the minutest detail and we have already looked at one or two open to debate. Atlantis is probably one of the most argued about myths - not including the obvious - yet I feel nobody has yet fathomed it.

Pillars of Hercules (Heracles)

I'm not about to join in with the arguments, it has always seemed obvious to me. For a long time I have identified Atlantis as being in the Aegean Sea. Sea levels rose considerably after the end of the last ice age (10,000 BC), and much of the now submerged Aegean Sea area was previously above sea-level. So what does Plato tells us about location? First off he doesn't say Atlantis is 'beyond the Pillars of Hercules' as is popularly thought, and even if he did it could still apply to pretty much anywhere.

Pillars of Hercules could refer to the pillars of the temples of Hercules, of which there were many but Plato actually referred to the stele of Hercules. A stele can just be a flat slab of rock, the ancient Greeks used them as boundary markers. Part of ancient Tyre (in modern day Lebanon) was the Island of Hercules (now submerged) perhaps the stele was there.

To further confuse things, Plato's pupil Aristotle states they were called the steles of Briareus in earlier times. Briareus was regarded as one of three Hecatoncheires, and was also known as Aegaeon. Briareus is associated with Ogygia where he guarded Cronus. Then there are several Homeric references, including Calypso and Odysseus in Odyssey Book V that gives Malta - or more specifically Gozo - as being Ogygia. On the positive side, both options could easily apply to an Aegean location for Atlantis.

The diagram shows Tyre (Tyrus) with the Phoenician mainland (Lebanon) to the east, and the now submerged Island of Hercules to the south.

Atlantic Ocean

There are references to the Atlantic Sea or Ocean, but this could easily be written as Atlantis or Atlas and is most likely the Mediterranean. Furthermore the 'ocean' is said to be surrounded by a vast continent (Europe & Africa). If the steles of Hercules were on the Island of Hercules, the 'straits' would be the channel between Crete and the Aegean. There are mentions of smaller seas which could be the north of the hypothesised Aegean landmass, then there are the Sea of Marmara, the Black Sea, Red Sea, and Persian Gulf, all bodies of water that could be attributed to the text.

Armed with all these factors it is possible to argue the plausibility of one large Aegean island. Then there is debate about size. One line of thought is to do with the Egyptian numeric system and an anomaly which appears to multiply everything ten-fold when translated to Greek. I have seen opposition to this idea stating it wouldn't have been an issue in Plato's time, but the story was told by an old man whose grandfather's grandfather had been told the story by another old man. Going back to this time the anomaly would be an issue. There has to be some allowance for margin of error but one so large I would normally regard with suspicion. However this seems to make so many other things make sense and it has to be a real possibility, whatever the critics say.

If this numeric anomaly was applied to the date of Atlantis and it was 900 years (as opposed to 9000) before Solon's time, it would tie in nicely with the eruption of Santorini. Experts cannot even agree on the dates of the Santorini eruption with opinion divided between 1650 BC and 1450 BC. In my experience volcanoes have a habit of erupting more than once. Didn't anybody consider they might both be correct. There is also archaeological evidence of another possibility. There was an earthquake and flooding (tsunami) on Crete in 1450 BC, perhaps there was no eruption at that time. After the undisputed 1650 BC eruption, the magma chamber may have ebbed back into the mantle leaving Atlantis situated above a potential sinkhole. An earthquake could have triggered the collapse or perhaps it was just a matter of time. Evidence from the region that indicates an even earlier volcanic cataclysm around 2500 BC and a similar collapse could have occurred in nearby Milos, a site I favour as the home of Hades.

Now we have established Atlantis did exist, where it was, and when it was destroyed, we can take a look at the inhabitants.

Tuesday, 23 February 2016

05. Greek Gods?

I could now hypothesise about God, extra-terrestrials, or just an amazing series of coincidences that made us who we are. I could, but what would be the point. Let's put aside the supernatural / extra-terrestrial element for a moment and assume accounts of these Gods are related to people. Who were they?

It is not implausible that hominids isolated or segregated from one another may evolve at different rates, and in different ways. We can see this today if we look at indigenous peoples around the world. A good example is how the Chinese 'evolved' at a different rate to the west. It is often just a case of who invents what and when. The four great inventions of China - paper-making, printing, gunpowder and the compass - took them down one route, but they were heavily restricted in some areas particularly in their inability to make glass.

Today we are happy to accept the existence of genius such as Einstein, Tesla and Stephen Hawkins, yet we still consider the ancients to be primitive. The population of Atlantis - or more accurately, the Aegean landmass - are almost irrefutably the ancestors of the ancient Greeks, such people as Pythagoras and Archimedes. Some ancient technology is staggering in its complex simplicity. That's not an oxymoron, let's take the Antikythera Mechanism as an example. This is an astronomical clock found on a 2,000 year old ship-wreck. It is the first known analogue computer, the quality and complexity of the mechanism indicates it had predecessors, probably manufactured during the Hellenistic period. The construction relies upon theories of astronomy and mathematics developed by the ancient Greeks, and is dated to around the late 2nd century BC

There has always been a mystery about 'sea-peoples', Minoans, Phoenicians, Mycenaeans, etc. In addition there are the Dorians, Ionians, Aeolians etc. It is considered a mystery yet much literature states these people are Aegeans. They are ignoring the fact the Aegean Sea once supported a significant landmass. This is the one missing link in the chain that would give clarity to so many things. Fair enough if it was just one thing the hypothesis gave weight to, then it would be folly to give too much credence. However, it then explains so many other possibilities that are routinely dismissed and is foolish to ignore. On that basis, 'Atlantis' was a large Aegean Island where Atlas (son of Poseidon) was first king.

Poseidon was considered one of Olympian Gods and it was his people (and the other Olympians) who were responsible for so many technological advances throughout the Bronze Age. These Olympians were pretty smart people and with all the problems in the surrounding regions, it would make sense they stayed insular and had a closed door policy towards immigration. The evidence of trade is there, but I would imagine little other contact with peoples they considered barbarians. In a somewhat ironic twist it would soon be the Atlanteans who would be forced to migrate.

It is difficult to imagine the Aegean with lowered sea-levels yet vague references in Homeric tradition speak of unnavigable waters, swamps, and salt lakes. This sort of terrain would serve to isolate an Aegean landmass except from the south where the Sea of Crete afforded access to the Mediterranean. As sea-levels rose and the island began to sink, mass migration occurred in stages over several centuries.

Zeus was a younger brother of Poseidon, but we have to go back even further. When we get to the Titans things get a little fuzzy and the Gods start to lose their human characteristics. Logically it is impossible to go back before the Titans because any information would have to come from the Titans themselves. Some information could have been filtered via the Olympians but if so it would likely be very sketchy. We have to start somewhere but I'm not going to analyse various creation myths, simply because I cannot find one that is plausible without making massive allowances for symbolism and ambiguity.

'Everything came from Chaos', okay so far so good. Chaos was the great void or nothingness, I think even creationists can agree with that. Pretty much everything else followed, darkness, light, sky, earth, etc. These are all natural elements and are readily dismissed as having a consciousness, for want of a better way to put it. The Titans were the offspring of Uranus and Gaia, in effect they were the children of Father Sky and Mother Earth. If prior to these there was some divine connection, it is lost with the Titans. Mythology itself tells us the Titans and all that follow have Earthly origins.

According to the accepted myth, the Titans having overthrown Uranus were then themselves usurped by Zeus and the other Olympians. It was as a result of a great war between the gods called the Titanomachy. I dispute this ever took place.

For a civilisation to develop to such an extent, it must have been around thousands of years. Perhaps Plato wasn't so numerically challenged after all. One thing I do agree with is the fact Plato stated there were more than just one deluge. The first would have been when the Atlantic Ocean breached the Mediterranean wall. It would have had devastating effects all around low lying coasts and the Aegean area was particularly susceptible.

Ever wonder why the Olympians were supposedly based on Mount Olympus and the Titans on Mount Othrys? If all the land around me was sinking, I'd seek some nice secure high ground. The Titans and Olympians were most likely among the first evacuees from Atlantis. Nor were they the Titans and Olympians we know. The first evacuees could have left as early as 2500 BC or as late as 1800 BC. I base these dates on significant advances in technology, fermenting, metallurgy, etc. seen on mainland Greece, Crete, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and even as far as India. There are different dates for various migrations. Attica saw Hellene integration around 2000 BC, the Dardanelles 1900 BC, Crete 1900 BC and the Peloponnese in phases over a 200 year period.

In Plato there may be no suggestion of the Gods being the actual inhabitants of Atlantis yet there is much stating their descendants were. For an indeterminable period Atlantis thrived, until according to Plato things turned sour. When you look at all the scant information as a whole, it is easy to see what happened and why. There was a lot more to the story than just the account Plato gave us.

I'm not totally dismissing the idea these 'Gods' were actual Gods, spacemen, whatever. They still could be but the point is, they don't necessarily need to be. 

Monday, 22 February 2016

06. Bloody Weather!

Exactly when the Atlantic Ocean breached the Mediterranean 'wall' between Africa and Europe is open to debate. Personally I think it happened more than once due to the nature of the melt-down from the ice age. Sea-level rises fluctuated in their speed and volume. For centuries it may be slow and gradual, then for a variety of reasons there would a sudden rapid rise before once again slowing. The impact of these sudden spurts would be felt globally but the Mediterranean was particularly vulnerable.

Going back 10,000 years to the end of the ice age would seem to be a logical place to start looking for catastrophes, but in reality it would likely take a few thousand years before a thaw became globally significant. The Ogygian flood is eponymous with Ogyges a mythical king of Attica, other accounts have him as the king of Thebes. The name 'Ogyges' is synonymous with 'primeval' and 'earliest dawn', the Ogygian flood is said to have covered the whole world and devastated Attica until the reign of king Cecrops.

Plato stated in 'Laws' that this flood had occurred ten thousand years before his time, as opposed to only 'one or two thousand years that have elapsed' since the discovery of music, and other inventions. Again we have this numerological anomaly, but in this case it can be plausible whichever way you apply it.  It has to be considered that Plato may well have been inaccurate numerically with the Atlantis story as it came from Egypt. The same discrepancy is unlikely for stories of Greek origin as the system had changed by the time of Plato. In the Dialogue of Timaeus the texts report that many great deluges took place since that time. On this point I can broadly agree with Plato yet many choose to overlook it.

For our purposes we just need to find a Biblical proportioned deluge we can trace. We know most Great Deluge legends fall between 3200-2800 BC, but the Aegean area is somewhat unique due to location. Perhaps one most significant account of a great flood - to our story of Atlantis - happened around 2130 BCE, as mentioned by Marcus Terrentius Varro 116-27 BC. Varro was a Roman writer whom, in the Varronian Chronology, tried to give a year by year account of Roman history. Although not a fan of Roman 'historians', it is through him we can hypothesise about a now almost traceable Atlantis.

Zeus by all accounts, was an Olympian god was born from two Titans, as was Prometheus who was himself considered a Titan. It was Zeus who was alleged to have sent forth the flood of Deucalion, a type of event usually associated with Poseidon. It was of course natural phenomena and the genealogy of Deucalion is heavily flawed. As a consequence of this particular deluge, we see the first migrations to the eastern Mediterranean shorelines. A descendant of Prometheus through Deucalion, or in other versions Zeus, was Hellen the progenitor of the Greek speaking peoples. Hellen is associated with ancient Thessaly which is the location for both Mount Othrys - home of the Titans - and the city of Thebes.

From Hellen we get the Hellenes and Hellas, as recorded by Homer in the Iliad. This also gives the historical eras known as the Helladic Periods. In brief, they are as follows:-

Early Helladic Period 2900-2000 BC
Historians will tell you nomadic tribes chose to settle down in central and southern Greece, but they state their origin is a mystery. Once again this is due to not taking into account the Aegean landmass. They brought with them new methods of agriculture. Little is known other than they were fully integrated with indigenous Greek tribes around 2000 BC.

Middle Helladic Period 2000-1550 BC
The Middle Helladic Civilization saw a number of city-states beginning to emerge. More significance was placed on warriors and maritime trade. A social order developed in Greece. This period shows Minoan influence and moves into the Mycenaean era.

Later Helladic Period 1500-1100 BC
The Later Helladic Civilization was dominated by Mycenaean politics. The rich culture and traditions of this era gave rise to the Classical Greek legends. There is much speculation surrounding the decline of the Helladic Civilization which began the Greek Dark Ages, internal strife, invasion, or as I tend to think, a combination of both with a bit of natural disaster thrown in.

Our interest here is more with the offspring of Hellen, rather than Hellen himself. His sons were Aeolus, Dorus, and Xuthus. Xuthus had two sons Achaeus and Ion, although Ion was said to be the adoptive son of Apollo. From here we get Aeolus the progenitor of the Aeolians, Dorus the Dorians, Achaeus the Achaeans, and Ion the Ionians. We will look at these later but for the moment we recognise these as the ancient Greeks who are stated as Aegean in origin. One of the interesting things I find with accepted views of Atlantis, is how well the hypothesised shape fits nicely into our Aegean map. The only flaw being the map is for some reason upside down.

The dimensions and location leave something to be desired. This could be due to misinterpretation as otherwise it fits nicely, even to the central mountain (Naxos).

At this point I feel I should mention, it is my belief Solon,  Critias and / or Plato, begin to twist the story to their own ends (see Conspiracy). The problem most people have in interpreting Plato is knowing whether he is presenting fact or fiction. Indeed most are of the opinion it is one or the other. Even those who tend to share my belief it is a combination of the two, tend to guess wrong my opinion.

Being an advocate of Socrates didn't endear Plato to Athens and he would have felt the need to tread carefully. The purpose of the tale (implied by Socrates) was as a moral warning against corruption.

In the Timaeus Dialogue the Egyptian priest says to Solon:
'Many great and wonderful deeds are recorded of your state in our histories. But one of them exceeds all the rest in greatness and valour. For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city (Athens) put an end'

Plato suggested the Atlanteans tried to conquer the world such was their greed, but this is very unlikely, at least in the way Plato/Critias/Solon presents it. They were more technologically advanced and dominated trade, enforced evacuation was most likely the reason behind 'invasion'. Evidence also suggests they were on the whole accepted in the earlier migrations, even welcomed, due to the knowledge they brought with them. Pre-Deucalion the Aegean island home of Atlantis would have looked similar to the map below. The surrounding Aegean shore-lines would also have been extended but I made no adjustments for those. It is very relevant though.

Landmass - generally the most fertile land - was being lost all around the Mediterranean coasts. This caused people to move inland as pastures and agricultural land flooded. As the people moved inland, generally to less arable land, over-population became a huge problem.

At first the Atlanteans are living the good life, in every way. They traded and had everything they needed. The Atlanteans had 'slaves' of sorts but they were more farmers, builders, and those who tended to animals. They were well treated and well fed, sharing in the spoils a relatively advanced culture provided. In a modern context they would be considered working class but were treated far better than elitists treat the equivalent today. Legend has it that the island was divided up amongst the ten children of Poseidon, the eldest, Atlas, becoming the first king.

It is reasonable to assume the Titans (whoever they were) knew the increased flooding and volcanic activity on the Aegean landmass were likely to get worse. They may have abandoned the island during the first volcanic eruption, possibly on Milos, one of three known major eruptions to further devastate the island. Earthquakes and tsunamis were also prevalent at this time. An increase in tectonic activity over a 10 year period could well have given rise to the Titanomachy myth. 

Whilst there may well have been ructions between the Titans and Olympians it is unlikely - in my opinion - to have resulted in a war of epic proportions. In a nutshell the Titanomachy myth was purely a matter of bad weather.

Sunday, 21 February 2016

07. Outta Here

There is no doubt problems existed among the Atlanteans but for such a successful nation to suddenly implode there must have been a catalyst. A couple of possibilities spring to mind. The obvious one would be half the island sinking beneath the waves. The Deucalion Flood, like most depictions of a great deluge, was supposed to be sent as a punishment but this is of course nonsense. So too was the destruction of Atlantis deemed punitive. Divine retribution might be nonsense but we should instead be looking at why it could be considered a punishment. What did they do that was so wrong?

According to Plato they waged war on everyone else and were only repelled by Athens. In the Critias Dialogue ancient Athens represents the perfect society, whilst Atlantis represented the antithesis of the 'perfect' traits described in Plato's Republic. Obviously a sweetener but still getting across the Socratic message. Could there be any truth in the suggestion of a war between Athens and Atlantis? I don't doubt there may have been some kind of conflict due to migratory patterns as sea-levels continued to rise. So how can we put a time on this when there is so much doubt and contradictory information.

There is evidence that Corinth was destroyed by a major earthquake in 2000 BCE, and this is likely to have had knock-on effects for the rest of the Aegean peoples. This is a convenient date as it also begins the Middle Helladic Period. There had been a steady stream of evacuees from the Aegean landmass up until that point but the next 350 years would see a mass exodus.

Prior to the Middle Helladic Period, the indigenous people of mainland Greece were the Pelasgians or autochthons (of the Earth). These are mentioned by Hesiod and Asius of Samos who describes Pelasgus as the first man, a common belief among many ancient Greeks. Other accounts have Pelasgus as the father of king Lycaon who founded the dynasty of Arcadian kings. Ties to the Peloponnese and in particular Argos, recur. There is also mention by Herodotus that the people of Attica were originally Pelasgians. He describes them as having a non-Hellenistic 'barbarian' language.

The Minyans suddenly 'appeared' during the Middle Helladic Period. They are set apart from the Pelasgians and had ties to Lemnos and Santorini (Atlantis). The name is eponymous with Minyas the ancestor of the Boeotians and indicates an Aoelian origin. Heracles is linked to Erginus who waged war on Thebes to avenge his father's death. The genealogy surrounding Erginus, Clymenus, and Orchomenus is distorted but Minyas is said to be a son of Poseidon.

We saw the generally accepted migratory patterns (below left) around the Aegean coast. This of course makes no allowance for an Aegean landmass. My version with the landmass included makes a lot more sense.  I've left blanks as much, particularly the Peloponnese peninsular, needs further explanation. The maps are constructed from dialects still evident today. The Peloponnese appears to have 'changed hands' a number of times in antiquity, only the Arcadians in the middle of the peninsular were a constant.

If you were to do a search you would get a result similar to this:-

Traditions recounted that, during the Greek Dark Ages, Attica had become the refuge of the Ionians, who belonged to a tribe from the northern Peloponnese. Supposedly, the Ionians had been forced out of their homeland by the Achaeans, who had been forced out of their homeland by the Dorian invasion. It is said, the Ionians integrated with the ancient Atticans, who, afterwards, considered themselves part of the Ionian tribe and spoke the Ionian dialect. Many Ionians later left Attica to colonize the Aegean coast of Asia Minor and to create the twelve cities of Ionia.

There are a number of issues with this and people still ignore what appears painfully obvious. We will look at things more in depth in due course but for now, in brief, here are a few of things I find contentious.
  • The Greek Dark Ages are dated between 1200-800 BC yet sources state the Ionians had fully integrated with the Atticans by 2000 BC. Even without this source, the final nail in the coffin of Atlantis was in 1450 BC when Santorini erupted for the third and (as yet) final time.
  • If integrated with the Atticans it is reasonable to believe the Ionians would spread further, especially as land was still being lost to the sea. However, the northern Peloponnese peninsular couldn't be considered their 'homeland' if they were residing on the Attican peninsular. It is more likely they arrived from Euboea. 
  • The Dorian Invasion is loosely dated around 1200 BC by some sources and 1100 BC by others. It fits in nicely with the statement above yet this is another example of people missing the obvious. It is commonly thought the Dorians came from the north, but there is much confusion surrounding this. I will be looking more at the Dorians but suffice to say the Dorian Invasion is also known as the Return of the Heracleidae. You can see by our map the migration pattern.
  • The article also states many Atticans migrated to Asia Minor but again our map disputes this was a migration from Attica, and was instead a direct migration from 'Atlantis' by other Ionians.
During the early migrations the people from the Aegean landmass were most likely welcomed and became leaders or wise men. As things in the region deteriorated, migrants would be less welcome and regarded as competition for food and resources. The Atticans boasted they were 'original people' (not from anywhere else) which seemed a curious statement, suggestive of large scale migration by others. There is much evidence of such migrations around the eastern Mediterranean but the origin of these people is considered a mystery.

Whilst his sons / grandsons have obvious connections to a hypothetical Aegean landmass, Hellen himself was said to have taken up residence in Thessaly (also known as Aeolia after his son Aeolus). At the time Thessaly incorporated both Mount Othrys in the south and Mount Olympus in the north. Aeolus became king and on his death, nephew Achaeus moved to Thessaly. The Achaean dialect survived in the north of the Peloponnese and in the central region of Arcadia. The story of the settlement on the Peloponnese peninsular is complex.

It seems likely the last to abandon the Aegean island were the Dorians. The Dorians are linked with Zeus and Poseidon in various ways, yet 'historians' still struggle to explain evidence of the Dorians on Crete. The tardy evacuation by the remaining Dorians caused a lot of problems on the mainland but the divisions on the island had begun long before.

By 1450 BC the island home of Atlantis had sunk beneath the waves leaving just groups of islands that were formally high ground on the landmass. Principle city Atlantis (Santorini) being the most noteworthy.

Saturday, 20 February 2016

08. Internal Strife

A culture, however well developed and efficient, is always subject to a higher power .......Mother Earth. Many ancient civilizations disappeared almost over night. The Minoans, Aztecs, Incas, Mycenaeans, are just some known casualties. It could even be argued a whole species vanished in homo sapiens neanderthalis, but it is not my belief. These cultures disappeared but they left legacies of their lifestyles. 

Things on the Aegean landmass were as idyllic as was possible, yet divisions between the offspring of Hellen and / or their descendants would escalate as natural catastrophes increased in frequency. The problems given by Plato are probably valid although they are mere 'reports' rather than an in depth analysis. As such they are open to interpretation not to mention 'coloured' by author bias. If the Hellenes were indeed among the first to colonise the Aegean landmass, there had to be more plausible reasons for a family to divide.

Greed and excess is prevalent in society today, perhaps the Atlanteans were guilty of it too. I found it hard to believe though and analysed the traits of the Hellenes. This was done simply by the looking at the variations and idiosyncrasies of the cultures where their dialects were dominant. The first thing that draws the attention is the fact the Ionians and Dorians were the two most dominant forces among the Hellenes. They were also very different culturally and most likely the chief protagonists in any disputes between the Hellenes.

Moving on to the Dialogue of Critias, we get our descriptions of Atlantis.

Extract from the Critias Dialogue (Jowett translation):

[There were many special laws affecting the several kings inscribed about the temples, but the most important was the following: They were not to take up arms against one another, and they were all to come to the rescue if any one in any of their cities attempted to overthrow the royal house; like their ancestors, they were to deliberate in common about war and other matters, giving the supremacy to the descendants of Atlas. And the king was not to have the power of life and death over any of his kinsmen unless he had the assent of the majority of the ten. 

Despite this 'law' being diluted as the Hellenes divided, migrated, and integrated with Pelasgians, it was still very much in evidence in early Greek culture. The tale of the 300 Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae is perhaps the best indication. Hollywood as ever juggled with the truth as Leonidas of Sparta in 480 BC led a force of 7,000 Hellenes from various Greek States to repel an attack by 150,000-200,000 Persians. They were betrayed and Leonidas remained with 300 Spartans, 700 Thespians and 400 Thebans to fight to the death covering the retreat of the main force.

Another indicator, albeit more tenuous, is the cessation of hostilities during the Olympic and Pythian Games and various festivals. This is actually mis-reported by many as there was no actual truce during these times but competitors, priests and spectators making the pilgrimage were allowed safe passage.

Such was the vast power which the god settled in the lost island of Atlantis; and this he afterwards directed against our land for the following reasons, as tradition tells: For many generations, as long as the divine nature lasted in them, they were obedient to the laws, and well-affectioned towards the god, whose seed they were; for they possessed true and in every way great spirits, uniting gentleness with wisdom in the various chances of life, and in their intercourse with one another. They despised everything but virtue, caring little for their present state of life, and thinking lightly of the possession of gold and other property, which seemed only a burden to them; neither were they intoxicated by luxury; nor did wealth deprive them of their self-control; but they were sober, and saw clearly that all these goods are increased by virtue and friendship with one another, whereas by too great regard and respect for them, they are lost and friendship with them. 

By such reflections and by the continuance in them of a divine nature, the qualities which we have described grew and increased among them; but when the divine portion began to fade away, and became diluted too often and too much with the mortal admixture, and the human nature got the upper hand, they then, being unable to bear their fortune, behaved unseemly, and to him who had an eye to see grew visibly debased, for they were losing the fairest of their precious gifts; but to those who had no eye to see the true happiness, they appeared glorious and blessed at the very time when they were full of avarice and unrighteous power. 

Zeus, the god of gods, who rules according to law, and is able to see into such things, perceiving that an honourable race was in a woeful plight, and wanting to inflict punishment on them, that they might be chastened and improve, collected all the gods into their most holy habitation, which, being placed in the centre of the world, beholds all created things.]

All this comes at the very end of the Critias Dialogue the remainder of which was unfinished or lost. Plato / Solon / Sonchis give the Atlanteans a divine origin but whether or not that is true is irrelevant here. What we know for sure is the Atlanteans / Hellenes were of different origin to the autochthons of the Aegean. The virtues of the Atlanteans were extolled initially and their downfall suggested to be due to mixed-breeding. This cements my belief the Atlanteans were peaceful and a democracy was in place. The last paragraph descends into the type of nonsense sceptics relish. Zeus with his thunderbolts, and Poseidon with his earth-shaking had some bad press. Tsunamis often occur after and earthquake so the link to Poseidon is understandable, not sure what Zeus did wrong but spectacular lightning storms are associated with volcanic eruptions.

The Ionian dialect is common to Athens, renowned for a love of philosophy, art, democracy, and a somewhat hedonistic lifestyle. They were also somewhat elitist so mixed breeding would be abhorrent to them. Apollo and Athena were their most influential Gods. This was in stark contrast to the Dorians, linked closely with both Zeus and Poseidon, and more loosely with Hades. Zeus certainly had no qualms about interbreeding if we believe what we are told. Poseidon is reported as having spawned the kings of Atlantis with Cleito. the daughter of the regional autochthon ruler Evenor.

The Dorian dialect in Crete, Rhodes and areas of the Peloponnese show the Dorians to be more militaristic by nature. If I had to give the Achaeans a characteristic it would be one of being more in tune with nature than the other Hellenes. Their close association with the Arcadians hints at this. The Aeolians seem to be more a combination of the others and despite the Ionians being the first to integrate on mainland Greece (Attica), I feel sure the Aeolians were not far behind. Hellen was said to have taken up residence in Thessaly with his son Aeolus.

Whether the Ionians or the Dorians were right or wrong in their views is open to debate. The Atlanteans were obviously more technologically advanced than the Pelasgians. Perhaps the account by Sonchis was exactly what the Ionians feared would happen by diluting the bloodline. By contrast the Dorians may have foreseen the cataclysms and bred either for allegiance (a common practice) or simply for manpower. Life on Aegea (Atlantis) might be Utopian before the waters rose too high but elsewhere wars and skirmishes were commonplace.

The Dorians recognised a military force  was necessary for defence. It was probably an alien concept for the peace-loving Ionians. The first Ionian migrants were fortunate when the Pelasgians of Attica afforded them protection. They were seen as different and revered because of their knowledge and organisation. The Attican Pelasgians became the muscle for the Ionians. The Dorians moved to Crete and the Peloponnese peninsular.

It is easy to speculate the true reason behind the division of the Hellenes and they will be discussed. For now it is just a case of discovering possible reasons behind the split and there are several to choose from without looking too hard.

Friday, 19 February 2016

09. Accepting God(s)

I try as much as possible not to promote my own beliefs or denigrate the beliefs of others. Sometimes this is difficult but the aim here is to give an objective view of possibilities without delving too far into the realms of personal hypotheses (until Part IV). It may confuse some when I offer evidence in both support of, and contrary to, accepted beliefs. I'm merely searching for the truth but at some point there has to be a 'leap of faith' and a conclusion drawn. That doesn't guarantee I leapt the right way. Sceptics may want to bypass this post but I feel it necessary to include.

Let us - loosely - accept the fact God(s) did / do exist in some indefinable shape or form. Go on, it can't be hard, millions do. Who or what were these Gods? As with the history of the ancient Greeks, there is a hole in the picture. Either side of the hole people are scratching their heads but once you fill it in, everything makes sense. At least when I fill it in it does to me. Religion, let's face it, doesn't cut the mustard, and science's denial of anything they can't explain is naive. Ancient Alien theorists are closer to the truth than most would think, but they go way too far.

If we look at how the Earth formed and its geological history, there have been many times when it has been inhabitable, such as now. There have also been many times when it hasn't, just ask the dinosaurs. My personal theory is that we are the third age of primates this world has seen. Here is how I see what happened, please note the dates are estimates based on my analysis of results from dating methods I consider questionable.

4.8/4.5 billion years ago our little ball of molten rock was fashioned from heavier materials left over from the Sun.

4 billion years ago Earth cooled sufficiently to develop a solid crust and within another 0.25 billion years, surface water appeared and by natural progression the first living cells.

[At this point it is worth noting that all the planets within the asteroid belt were made of heavier materials left over from the Sun as were many of the gas giants' moons. Each of the inner planets, with the likely exception of Mercury, would be capable of sustaining life during their life cycle. Mars being the outermost cooled first. At the time our atmosphere was most likely similar to that of Venus today, and indeed how Mars had been briefly.

The atmosphere on Venus is carbon dioxide with clouds of sulphuric acid. Every second there are 2 x 1024 hydrogen atoms streaming away from Venus. Where there are hydrogen and oxygen atoms, there will eventually be water. Where there is water there is life. Unfortunately for Mars it was too close to the asteroid belt, numerous direct hits eventually killed the planet. It is unlikely Mars had evolved life to the point of 'intelligence' but debris from the planet may well have brought basic forms of life with it.]

I believe that the evolutionary process from the first living cells to primate takes on average 700 million years, atmosphere allowing. Extinction Level Events can of course interfere with the process but so too can surviving species hurry the process along. Between 3.2 and 2.55 billion years ago life evolved and may have seen the first mammals but evidence of major geological upheaval on those dates probably killed them off. The first hominids did not appear until around 1.9 billion years ago.

Okay I know what you are saying. How come there is no evidence of them? Why would there be? Dinosaur fossils only date back 250 million years. The only fossils we see from before are sea creatures. The mountains are former sea-beds. Even if such fossils exist we are unlikely to find them. In addition the earliest hominids would have had little or no impact on the Earth. Their reign was less than 100 million years before they were made extinct.

Life began again from scratch and was doing well for 0.5 billion years when another ELE struck. Then followed the crucial point in Earth's history. Middle Earth (in human terms) was when mankind really ruled the Earth. Between 1.3 billion and 500 million years ago, evolution had free reign for 800 million years. It wasn't wasted.

Most people automatically assume extra-terrestrials come from a far off galaxy but IF they are /were around, I imagine they probably originated a lot closer to home, most likely here on Earth. The picture shows our solar system's heliosphere as it orbits the centre of the Milky Way. My theory is that if a craft could break out of the heliosheath it would lose momentum. Rather than travelling to another star, the Solar System travels at 515,000 mph and the craft could simply wait for the next one that passes. Alternately it could wait 226 million years for Earth to come around again.

Perhaps the answer to interstellar travel is not propulsion but the ability to stay still whilst all around you moves. I've always thought electromagnetic force on an as yet unknown silicate is probably key. It just seems to make sense as both are present in abundance and our species is particularly adept at overlooking the obvious. The theory is intelligent life had evacuated Middle Earth 500 million years ago when a massive asteroid struck. They probably saw it coming.

The impact split the single landmass Pangaea into the continents we know today. After such an impact tectonic plate movement would accelerate far beyond what we imagine. It would cause a ripple in the molten mantel that would crack the thin crust above. Of course it would soon slow again to the geological crawl we understand today. After the break up of Pangaea, evolution took a different turn. Surviving species from the ELE were predominantly reptiles and insects. and 250 million years ago the age of the dinosaurs came into being. They of course ruled until the next ELE 65 million years ago.

After the dinosaur extinction the first hominids started to appear around 8 million years ago. Small mammals survived so hominid evolution had the upper hand once again. All appeared to be normal until homo sapiens neanderthalis appeared, or rather, disappeared. This is where we have to give a basic acceptance to some sort of intervention. Credit it to Middle Earth evacuees, other spacemen, or God, whatever, there is no doubt something happened that wasn't in the evolutionary plan.

There is now coming to light evidence that we have neanderthal genes, something I've never doubted. However I think the neanderthal genes were weaker than the dominant neotenic genes of modern man. There is an overlap between us and neanderthals and no evidence of mass slaughter. It would be natural to thus assume we are the next stage in the evolutionary process. The only problem I have with this is the neanderthal brain. It was slightly larger than ours but worked in a completely different way.

The only possible explanation is that we were 'interfered' with. The question is why and the theories are many. It is logical to assume that any extra-terrestrials (gods) came from a long way away or at the very least spent millennia in space. This being the case we then have to consider the evolutionary implications in such an environment. Evolution is notorious for the mantra of 'use it or lose it' as flightless birds will attest.

Imagine a sterile atmosphere, devoid of airborne impurities. What is the need of a nose. There would be no need of an iris to protect the pupils against sunlight, nor hair to protect the skin against the elements. Most crucially the skin would become pale with no need for melanin as a shield against harmful solar rays. This was the downfall of the visitors / returnees. Their intolerance to sunlight was their Achilles' Heel, instant melanoma.

They must have been severely disappointed. Here was the perfect 'Goldilocks' planet but taking so long to get here made it uninhabitable for them. The reasons for what followed can be debated but the visitors proceeded to genetically modify monkeys (okay apes) and 'created' us. In effect we DO have creators but I think we give them far too much respect. Really they are just us a bit further on in the evolutionary process, nothing special, just a bit smarter with fancier gadgets. On top of that they do some pretty dumb things.

Now I don't know their motives but all the alternatives I can think of are pretty selfish and I feel at the very least they owe us a massive apology. I'm torn between thinking neanderthals were modified to produce us so we could provide them with resources, and the possibility that they saw the only way to inhabit the planet and ensure the survival of their genes would be to integrate with us. Perhaps they want us to build suitable dwellings for them (temples) or maybe they are pushing us to discover something else they need and are just biding their time.

Maybe they saw what a bunch of savages they produced and left a long time ago. Any way you look at it, messing with Mother Nature will come back to bite you (yet that's exactly what we've started doing). Evolution cannot be hurried without consequences. In our case our modern brains could suddenly reason but knew nothing. The result was paranoia, fear, aggression .....murder. Natural phenomena was deemed the work of angry unseen deities. The rest is history, in essence the evacuees of Middle Earth / aliens / gods, whatever they are / were, really made a mess of things.

So as you can see whilst this is perhaps a little tongue-in-cheek (or thumb to nose), I cannot deny the possibility of a 'creator' of sorts. However, I'm afraid my perception is vastly different to any of the more accepted versions. Irrespective of who the Atlanteans were, or where they originated from, their race had diluted and fully integrated into the Mediterranean coastal regions by 1600 BC.

Thursday, 18 February 2016

10. Why The Mystery?

To summarise so far, Atlantis and its fate are pretty much taken care of. Errors concerning scale and perhaps an over-appreciation of 'new' technology most likely accounts for the intrigue. Despite what was said in the last post, Plato never referred to the Atlanteans as Gods. The mystery is now more a case of who the Atlanteans were. Looking at our proposed map of Atlantis (Aegea), and the spread of the Hellen dialects in the surrounding regions, it is obvious the Atlanteans were the ancestors of the Hellenic people.

The final cataclysm that destroyed Atlantis, was probably the collapse of the central cone on Santorini (Thera) after magma had seeped back to the mantle. This happened around 1450 BC based on dates I attribute to Moses and the Exodus from Egypt. There are obvious disputes over dates and I have considered them all. Some place Moses around 1550 BC and the Santorini eruption at 1650 BC, and although I consider 100 years a minor inconsistency when going back 3.5 millennia, I do strive for as much accuracy as is possible..

If the evidence points to an event, it would be foolish to overlook it based on a discrepancy in dates. Evidence of volcanic activity in the Aegean goes back long before the last time Santorini erupted. I have found mention of dates as far back as 1800BC and 2500BC. The initial date given when I began my research pointed to 1450 BC date for Thera but this has been revised to the now generally accepted 1650 BC. It is unclear when this was changed but I stuck with the 1450 BC as being the date Atlantis sank. The cone collapse theory is actually more likely than there being an eruption at this time. It is not an uncommon phenomenon and evidence on Crete shows signs of earthquake and tsunami corresponding to the 1450 BC date.

In an attempt to try and get verifiable dates for myths and legends, the first step is to look at written evidence. It is generally accepted the Phoenicians developed writing. Their cities are thought to have emerged around 1500 BC in the Eastern Mediterranean including the location of Tyre. The Greeks supposedly adopted the writing method from the Phoenicians but this is another 'mystery' an Aegean landmass would clear up. The Phoenicians /  Sea-peoples were often stated as being of Aegean origin but nobody knew exactly where they were from. They could easily have been evacuees from Atlantis and merely passed on the knowledge as did other evacuees colonising the Aegean coast..

Significantly the date of the Phoenicians also ties in nicely for the Santorini eruption / collapse and the Exodus from Egypt. This is also the end of the Middle Helladic Period and the time the Mycenaeans thrived as the Minoan culture faded. Even though we have archaeological evidence of these peoples, dates still have this minor discrepancy. The Mycenaeans supposedly adopted the Linear A form of writing from the Minoans, but it is more likely that they too have a similar common origin to the Phoenicians.

If you believe in coincidence Linear A is dated by experts to have been used between 2500-1450 BC. Of course Linear A was the precursor to Linear B and by natural progression, the writing accredited to the Phoenicians. Linear A remains to date indecipherable. In my opinion, writing is very much a 'human thing'. For alien theorists, I feel an advanced civilisation would have no need of it. In addition, the way writing evolved seems quite natural and gives no reason to believe there was a fillip involved.

Perhaps the start of the Late Bronze Age 1550-1200 BC is most significant. It certainly gives plenty to consider and greater detail will given in a future post. The question now is, can we go back even further. There are of course other records from other regions but they have very little relevance to the story of Atlantis. There are vague biblical references and of course tales from Egypt and India, but nothing significant that hasn't been told by Plato.

Statement:of Facts:

  1. Atlantis was the capital city of an Aegean landmass. 
  2. The landmass gradually sank beneath the waves, by consequence of the melt-down from the last ice age.
  3. The people evacuated in every direction to coastal regions around the Eastern Mediterranean.
  4. They were more advanced in many ways than the peoples of the regions they migrated to.
  5. They are the forbears of the Hellenes / Minoans / Mycenaeans.
  6. The landmass was gradually evacuated over the course of 500 years before the final cataclysm in 1450 BC.

Wednesday, 17 February 2016

Part II - The Legends

This section describes some of the popular myths surrounding people, places, and events that shaped the traditional beliefs of the ancient Greeks.

  • Chronicles
  • Exodus
  • Minos
  • Troy
  • Odyssey
  • Jason
  • Atlantis
  • Olympians
  • Titans
  • Summary

Tuesday, 16 February 2016

11. Chronicles

Chronicles come from different sources and different periods. Some have more merit than others. Genealogies have frequently been hypothesised but many are contradictory and just serve to confuse things further. At the end of Part III is my own in depth Chronicle which has some significant differences to the generally accepted attempts. The Gods are naturally a problem in terms of longevity, if you believe they sired even a fraction of the offspring they are credited for.

Attributing dates to people and events seems to be the stumbling block for many historians, yet the clues are all there. Prior to 500 BC things tend to get a little hazy and I found the best way is to look at historical events, put them in chronological order and try to fill in the blanks. For example the great deluge we link with Noah happened somewhere between 3200 and 2800 BC. There is little doubt about this as such deluges are recorded globally around this time, although it is highly unlikely it occurred at the same time everywhere. Then we skip to Abraham whom can loosely be traced to around 2000 BC and finally Moses some 500 years later.

Those examples are of course Biblical and have little to do with Atlantis but I chose those on purpose. The Mediterranean is different when speaking of a great deluge as there would have been several. The initial flood would have been when the Straits of Gibraltar were breached and the Atlantic came pouring in but this likely pre-dates Noah. At first the Aegean would have been safe but when sea-levels continued to rise then came the threat to any landmass contained within. The Deucalion Flood was much later than the Biblical one and was simply a consequence of geographical location. The area was particularly susceptible to earthquakes as well and by consequence, tsunamis.

The Parian Chronicle is an interesting artefact in many respects. Though the marble stele is fragmented it retains much information supposedly going back as far as 1582 BC, the alleged time of Cecrops, the first king of Athens. The stele itself was probably engraved around 264 BC. Paros was famous for its marble, it was fine-grained and semi-translucent making it perfect for sculpting. The island itself is situated in the middle of the Aegean and would have been at the centre of the speculated landmass.

How much credence can the stele be given? The fact it comes from the 3rd century BC casts some doubts as there were earlier accounts. It is nevertheless very useful as a reference point when trying to determine order if not specific dates. Also it mentions the Trojan War and voyages of Jason as historical events rather than myth. The fact the chronicle revolves around the kings of Athens and is etched in the Attic dialect suggests a source from Athens, evidence perhaps that records were indeed kept though now lost. Sadly parts of the stele were 'recycled' by masons on Paros and are no longer extant. Below are some notable extracts.

From Adam until the 14th year of Valens (378 AD), 5,579 years. This gives Adam a date of around 5200 BC but he has little relevance here.

From Abraham to the capture of Troy (26 kings of the Assyrians), 835 years. This is a more interesting date. We can almost certainly date the capture of Troy to 1190 BC according to an archaeological destruction layer. This gives a date of Abraham at 2025 BC. Abraham left his native Ur just before the Elamite invasion dated 2004 BC.

Inachus reigned for 50 years 1856 BC. This is a difficult one to give credence to, Inachus, the king of Argos, was the father of Io whom some state was kidnapped and taken to Egypt.* At best this date is 200 years too early suggesting the possibility of confusion between more than one Inachus.

Ogygian Flood 1757 BC. It would be difficult to dispute this date, there were many great floods in the region. Ogygia as mentioned in Odyssey is most likely Malta.

Sphaerus, 20 years; birth of Moses 1592 BC. Early by my reckoning, I still associate Moses and the 10 Plagues with the Santorini cataclysm of 1450 BC**

Deucalion flood 1526 BC. The Parian Chronicle gives this as 1528 BC but Jerome has it much later at 1460 BC which is least likely in my opinion. It could be that Jerome is confusing his flood with the tsuna,mi that hit Crete in 1450 BC.

Moses on Mount Sinai 1515 BC. Not impossible but maybe a little early.

Birth of Minos, Rhadamanthus, and Sarpedon 1445 BC. This I feel is too late. It is known the Mycenaeans took control of Crete around 1450 BC. Later poets and rationalists put forward the idea there were two kings named Minos, one a grandfather to the other, and there is plausibility in this. Not only that, the etymology of Minos shows it to mean 'King' and could therefore apply to almost any ruler.

Sosarmus, 19 years; Hercules, Priam, Theseus, Seven against Thebes 1234 BC. Not an unreasonable date.

Mithraeus, 27 years; Olympic games 1212 BC. There is 'evidence' of earlier games than those of 776 BC which are commonly thought to be the first.

Tautanes, 32 years; Trojan War 1191-1182 BC. This fits in with archaeological evidence from Troy VIIa

*Another line of thought is that Io actually ran away to hide the shame of being with child. Her son Epaphus is associated with Apophis /.Apepi, a Hyksos (foreign ruler) Pharaoh. There were two Apepi's but the earliest dates from 1650 BC.
**There were two Pharaohs during the time of Moses, Thutmose II and III. Thutmose II reigned 1493-79 BC. Hatshepsut became Pharaoh in 1478 BC as the aunt of Thutmose III who was just two years old. She ruled jointly with Thutmose III until her death in 1458 BC  This was just 8 years before the Santorini eruption / collapse.

Below is a list of kings of Athens, made by Castor of Rhodes in the 1st century BC by cross-referencing the Parian Chronicle with tradition and folklore.

There were three kings of Athens prior to the Deucalion Flood:-

Periphas who was turned into an eagle by Zeus
Ogyges ? -1650 BC (1650 BC fits in with the penultimate cataclysm on Santorini), king of the Ectenes, the earliest inhabitants of Boeotia
Actaeus  1641 BC father of Agraulus, father-in-law to Cecrops I

1556–1506 BC Cecrops I
1506–1497 BC Cranaus
1497–1487 BC Amphictyon
1487–1437 BC Erichthonius
1437–1397 BC Pandion I
1397–1347 BC Erechtheus
1347–1307 BC Cecrops II
1307–1282 BC Pandion II
1282–1234 BC Aegeus Walls of Troy built by Poseidon, Apollo & Aeacus (Troy VIh c.1300 BC)
1234–1205 BC Theseus
1205–1183 BC Menestheus Fall of Troy 1183 BC (Troy VIIa c.1190 BC)
1183–1150 BC Demophon
1150–1136 BC Oxyntes
1136–1135 BC Apheidas
1135–1127 BC Thymoetes

It is not my intention to give a complete history of the eastern Mediterranean people, Mesopotamians, etc. To replicate all the data here is unnecessary although it was vital to my research. Some things you may dispute I would advise you to Google for your own peace of mind.

Monday, 15 February 2016

12. Exodus

Having stretched as far back as the 1650 BC eruption of Santorini (Thera), it should now be possible to fill in some of the gaps. Perhaps the best place to start would be with Io and her father Inachus. Inachus was the grandfather of Epaphus (Apophis 1580-50 BC*) placing him somewhere near 1630 BC.

*the Mask of Agamemnon was found in Mycenae and dates from around 1550 BC. It is too early to actually be that of Agamemnon but would fit nicely with Epaphus. Was he buried close to home in Mycenae? Less than 15 years later the Hyksos kings of Egypt were driven out by Ahmose I.

Following the pharaohs forward, the dates are disputed, but we have Amenhotep I (rgn.1526-06 BC), Thutmose I (rgn.1506-1493), Thutmose II 1493-79 BC), and Hatshepsut (1478-58 BC) bringing us back to Thutmose III being pharaoh during the exodus. Many believe Ahmose I (the predecessor of Thutmose II) to be one of the pharaohs during the time of Moses and Thutmose II to be the other. It is interesting Thutmose II is the only mummy to show signs of a plague.

The Bible is very often a good source of information once you cut through the superstition. Examining the exodus in detail it all begins to make sense. There was known to be a drought at the time and this prompts the growth of a blood red algae Oscillatoria rubescens. Of course the next problem would be an excess of frogs and once they started dying it would be a mass of flies and gnats. Disease would spread through livestock and people would come out in boils in the unsanitary conditions. Did this lead to the death of Thutmose II - the mummy with boils.

The other plagues are consistent with phenomena associated with volcanic eruptions; ash in the atmosphere would lead to darker skies and hail. The high humidity and low pressure would bring forth the locusts, especially after a drought. The 'smoking gun' though comes from the next part of the Biblical epic. Parting the Red Sea. Yam Suph is better translated as Sea of Reeds and could apply to any number of areas on the Mediterranean coast. The evidence from Santorini suggests the central cone collapsed when the magma subsided. This would cause a huge tsunami that wiped out any survivors left on Crete on its way to Egypt.

Typical of a tsunami the waters would withdraw enabling the Israelites to cross otherwise non-negotiable marsh. By the time the Egyptians gave chase they were just in time for the tsunami to hit. In the Bible there is mention of Ramesses who is by some mistakenly thought to be pharaoh. Queen Hatshepsut's highest state official was named Ramose a variant of the same name meaning 'born of Ra'. Did he advise Thutmose III for a time after Hatshepsut's death.

As interesting as all this is, in terms of Atlantis / Aegea it gives us the date of the final demise (1450 BC) and a date for Epaphus (1550 BC). Most genealogies have him as the grandfather of Agenor, king of Tyre and father of Cadmus and Europa. Cadmus was to become the first king of Thebes, and Europa was of course the mother of king Minos. Minos is a name given to the first king of Crete but itself means 'king'. In my mind the first king Minos would not be the one at the time of the eruption / earthquake / tsunami from Santorini which resulted in the Mycenaean take over.

Although Minos was named first king of Crete and his name is eponymous with the Minoan Civilisation, it is my belief the Minoans were in fact Dorians. It has been a conundrum for many historians as to why there is evidence of Dorians on Crete, simply because they do not allow for the now submerged Aegean landmass. There had been a steady dribble of evacuees from the Aegean island as land was lost to the sea.