Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Basic Questions on Egypt, Sumer, Indus, China,Peru
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
What ancient civilizationis older:Egypt, Sumer, Indus, Peru, or China?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
4 [36.36%]
4 [36.36%]
1 [9.09%]
0 [0.00%]
2 [18.18%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Atlantean35 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 22-Oct-2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 40 		  Quote Atlantean35 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Basic Questions on Egypt, Sumer, Indus, China,Peru
    Posted: 12-Dec-2018 at 10:50
Originally posted by Arthur-Robin

Originally posted by Atlantean35

I don't know Arthur-Robin. Maybe Atlantis the city was built somewhere in the Nile River delta. This delta is known for its tendency for the ground to sink. Such a resultant marsh would resemble the in-navigable mud shoals described as all that was left of Atlantis. Maybe there was once a hill near the Nile delta region. So Atlantis the continent/island was Africa, and Atlantis the city in the Nile Delta? To build three concentric moats would take a lot of water, which the Nile River had. Also, a canal to the sea is in the description. It had to have access to the sea, sinking ground, which all points to a delta region, particularly the deltas that form at the end of a massive river like the Nile. The earthquake may have been a mud slide or the ground wasn't stable due to massive amounts of water undermining it. The current Nile Delta is shifted northward because silt gradually expands the shoreline of the delta. If we move the Nile Delta southward, projecting for its possible past locations, it is closer to some highlands that are just to the east of the Nile.


If you wish I am willing to discuss the evidences with you on where Atlantis can/can't be and is/isn't from the details of the Atlantis Account and other historical/archaological/etc evidences in a separate thread/topic (if i am able re troubles i've been having). We have found it for sure and i have no doubts or dont know or maybe about it (though there are some few details that we still have not answered, but the many matches we have leave no doubts).

When i started looking years ago i first narrowed down where it can/cant be considering the details of its size, direction, distance, etc.
After i finally found the capital city i now find it better to work out from the central city to the wider geographical details.

If you dont wish to discuss it then i will just say you need to read the acount and make a "checklist" of all the important identification details and then see where it can or cant be. People cant guess "maybe" "i dont know" if they haven't read the account and are not using its details as guide.

You can also check out Jim Allen's Atlantis in Bolivia website though his city candidate is some miles from ours.

Other than that all i can say is what matches evidences would convince you/people? (The Milos conference listed 25 details they expect a site must match, but there are some other matches details that are quality too.)

We have match for the big hill or small mountain in centre of city.
Match for size of palace/temple
Match for the size of the central island
Match for the distance from city to the sea
Match for conecntric circles
Match for the quake(s) and flood(s)
Match for the Plain and ditch and channels
Match for "in the midpoint of the island" and "on the side of the sea"
Match for the high mountains
Match for 2 crops a year
Match for bulls and type of sacrifice
Match for the distance
Match for the direction
Match for the cisterns and conduits
Match for the orichalc and other metals
Match for size of whole island
Match for Atlantic sea or ocean
and quite alot of other matches too.
The question is what detail matches of these will people accept as convicting enough quality-wise and quantity-wise?

If they match, then so what? Peru is still disproven to be Atlantis. There are a range of possible locations. Peru is not one of them. I've also offered some better candidates.

The story's location names and descriptions are probably not completely accurate. But I think some of the quirky details of the story might be worth trying to match. But mountains, plains, place names, size measurements, these are not the sort of details you want to start comparing because either they are too general or are too likely to be inaccurate.


Edited by Atlantean35 - 12-Dec-2018 at 10:58
Back to Top
Arthur-Robin View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23-Feb-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 937 		  Quote Arthur-Robin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2018 at 02:45
Originally posted by Atlantean35


If they match, then so what?


If they match (and they do strongly match) then this is pretty serious evidence that can not be rightly just dismissed as just so what. Only the true site can match (only-best), others dont/cant.

Originally posted by Atlantean35


Peru is still disproven to be Atlantis.


Why? What evidence? Says who?
I do not see any disproof. And if people dont give a fair chance full hearing of all the evidences first before passing judgment then they are not being very objective or fair or genuine.

Originally posted by Atlantean35


There are a range of possible locations.


No there are not. Only the true location only-best matches all the details of the account, while other locations don't. Many locations are ruled out by the details of size, direction, distance, mountains, large plain, etc.

Originally posted by Atlantean35


Peru is not one of them.


Why? What evidence?
You have not even heared all our evidences.

Originally posted by Atlantean35


I've also offered some better candidates.


What candidates? You mentioned Africa/Egypt. I said some reasons why Atlantis certainly doesn't/can't be in Africa. (No personal offense meant, but if you dont try to be objective then it is not easy to not seem antagoistic.)

Originally posted by Atlantean35


The story's location names and descriptions are probably not completely accurate.


This is only an opinion or theory. What proof is there for such?
We found most all the details are true and match the found site. Only some things like the date and Greek name are not necessarily totatly literally "accurate" (though they are true just not totally literally/verbatim.)

Originally posted by Atlantean35


But I think some of the quirky details of the story might be worth trying to match. But mountains, plains, place names, size measurements, these are not the sort of details you want to start comparing because either they are too general or are too likely to be inaccurate.


You cant just pick and choose what details are or are not "accurate" unless you have pretty good evidence that they are not. Once you start throwing out the source text details then you have nothing to go on except what fancies/suits you have. (Not using "you" in any offensive meaning. I cant really say "we" since i am not doing the quoted.)
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
Back to Top
Atlantean35 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 22-Oct-2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 40 		  Quote Atlantean35 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Dec-2018 at 09:43
The fact that New World crops did not exist in the Old World means that Atlantis is not the Americas. And there is no other continent or island in the Atlantic. Thus, its necessary that the descriptions and place names are inaccurate.
Back to Top
Arthur-Robin View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23-Feb-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 937 		  Quote Arthur-Robin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Dec-2018 at 01:16

Originally posted by Atlantean35

The fact that New World crops did not exist in the Old World means that Atlantis is not the Americas.


I agree that this is a slight challenging point, but i do not agree that it proves Atlantis can't be in Americas because it is not itself an absolute proof/disproof, and the one thing doesn't override all the other many matches evidences, and it has possible answers to or reasons.
America tobacco/cocaine was found in Egyptian New Kingdom mummies.
South American fan palm is depicted in Assyrian pictures of Toakkari Sea Peoples.
S Compton's Exodus Lost says that Phoenicians etc may have got their blue/purple from murex from Mexico.
I think i read somewhere that bananas were carried from Old to New World?
Maize is related to corn?
(Can you supply a list of all crops?)
Heliolithic culture found all around world, it was neolithic which means agriculture. 
Quinoa/Keenwah "mother of all grain" resembles Havah/Eve mother of all life.
Atlantis Account says/implies Atlanteans were remotest and had little contacts with Old World.
Atlantis in Peru didn't need Old World crops because they had large plain with 2 crops a year. The Account says the island suppied all their own needs.
(Animals and plants crossed early to Americas after Noah's flood. Joseph's famine might also relate.)

Originally posted by Atlantean35


And there is no other continent or island in the Atlantic. Thus, its necessary that the descriptions and place names are inaccurate.


I agree that Atlantis was a continent or (large) island in the Atlantic ocean/sea (which Africa is not really), and that there ae not other (sunken/submerged) large lands in the Atlantic ocean.

But i do not agree that the statement is true.
America is in the Atlantic.
(But i assume you may mean sunken/submerged, which there are answers to.... And/or are thinking of the opposite continent, which there are also answers to....)
The Atlantic sea of the Account is not the ocean but the sea Titicaca, when reading original Greek words.
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
Back to Top
Atlantean35 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 22-Oct-2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 40 		  Quote Atlantean35 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Dec-2018 at 00:00
The Atlantic Sea originally referred to the sea off the coast of the Atlas Mountains. But the ancients had their geographies mixed up because they believed the Atlas mountains were the source of the Nile River. This much we at least know for certain, that they had their geography mixed up. The Nile River starts from East Africa, not Northwest Africa. There is also the mixup over the Ethiopian Ocean, where it is also in the wrong place.

It's possible that the Ethiopian Ocean, and the Atlantic Sea, are part of the same process that got the geographies mixed up. Because both of them would be more appropriate for the seas off of the east of Africa, wherein the Atlas Mountains are described as the source of the Nile, making them possibly being originally located in East Africa.


Edited by Atlantean35 - 23-Dec-2018 at 00:16
Back to Top
Arthur-Robin View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23-Feb-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 937 		  Quote Arthur-Robin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Dec-2018 at 22:23
Originally posted by Atlantean35

The Atlantic Sea originally referred to the sea off the coast of the Atlas Mountains. But the ancients had their geographies mixed up because they believed the Atlas mountains were the source of the Nile River. This much we at least know for certain, that they had their geography mixed up. The Nile River starts from East Africa, not Northwest Africa. There is also the mixup over the Ethiopian Ocean, where it is also in the wrong place.


Yes off from Africa like the account says (Atlas & Gadeira later eastern parallels to Atlantis & Gadeira, "from next Libya"). Diodorus Siculus "out in deep off Africa", "many days sailing across Atlantic".

But the Account original Greek words seem to imply that the Atlantic sea was lake Titicaca.
Atlantic pelagos/"sea". (It is said that pelagos means shallow/small/enclosed sea not deep/big/open sea/ocean.)
"At a distant point in the Atlantic".
"from its base in the Atlantic / this power came forth out of the Atlantic ocean", "outside they came from the sea of Atlas" / "outside jumped from this Atlantic small-shallow sea".
Muddy sea may match Titicaca better than Atlantic ocean.
"Atlantis was inside the Pillars, Athens was outside the Pillars". protu "before" the pillars. Pillars were the most distant/furtherest point of world. Pillars in Andean pictures flanking Atlas pillar.

Herodotus between Solon & Plato had Atlantic same place as we have.
Thoth came from land in West. Menes died in land of sunset.
Sea Peoples from "the isles and mainland of the outer circle of water".
Atlanteans were "invaders".

Atlas mountains are mirror image of Andes.
Atlantis' mountains (~ Atlas) were among highest in world according to the Account. Atlas held up earth & sky. (Also compare Antaeus?)
Greek myth of labours of Hercules also have them in far west.
Atlas pillar is motif in Andean pictures.
(Egyptians had south as "up/top". Antarctica is high.)

Originally posted by Atlantean35


It's possible that the Ethiopian Ocean, and the Atlantic Sea, are part of the same process that got the geographies mixed up. Because both of them would be more appropriate for the seas off of the east of Africa, wherein the Atlas Mountains are described as the source of the Nile, making them possibly being originally located in East Africa.


I agree it is off Africa (as account implies by "from next Libya", and Atlas, etc) but the west not east.
If there is good evidence not just possible.
The Account only mentions Atlantic and the real ocean not the Ethiopian.
The account doesn't mention any source of the Nile.
There might be some mixed up but there is a strong match that doesn't require any such major mixing up. We should always try our best to objectively look to see if there is any match with as little mixing up as possible, unless there is good evidence there is no such match and/or that there is corruption. The mixing up was not in the Account but all them & us since the account.
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
Back to Top
Atlantean35 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 22-Oct-2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 40 		  Quote Atlantean35 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Dec-2018 at 03:27
Well... what I mean is, the positions of the Atlas mountains and its associated Atlantic Sea, and also the old name of the south Atlantic Ocean, 'Ethiopian Ocean', were switched at some point to locations west of Africa when they were originally east of Africa. For both cases, there is reason to believe they would be more appropriately named for locations in East Africa. Namely if we switch things around and say the Atlas Mountains originally referred to the source of the Nile River, as some ancients would have believed, then the Atlas Mountains are in East Africa. And Ethiopia is better known to be located in East Africa as well.

If I had to guess a reason for the switch.. its possible the legendary events of Greek mythology originally took place somewhere removed from the Mediterranean Sea, but later were transplanted there. In order to make the stories more relatable, various locations nearby were renamed accordingly to somewhat fit the geography in the stories. The legends had to be made to fit the surrounding geography, because it was part of their religion. They built entire temples for the sake of these legends. For this it was necessary that the old legends had matching locations nearby, which they probably made up as they were exploring the Mediterranean.

The old approach to Atlantis is probably through the Red Sea. There was possibly a canal there in ancient times that led to the Nile Delta. There is apparently evidence for this, that is, an ancient canal connecting the Red Sea and the Nile. And there was perhaps once a major hill city in the Nile Delta, one that suddenly sank into the water and basically became a swamp or lagoon. Based on the accounts, it sounds as though they had tunneled a canal under the hill that the city was built on, which would obviously have ended in collapse.


Edited by Atlantean35 - 26-Dec-2018 at 04:11
Back to Top
Arthur-Robin View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23-Feb-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 937 		  Quote Arthur-Robin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Dec-2018 at 18:55

I knew/saw/got what you meant and the things are interesting, but I disagree that it is relevant to Atlantis' location in the account.

Atlantis was in the west (of Africa/Libya/Egypt & Europe/Spain/Gades/Tyrrhenia/Greece) not the east.
"Invaded up to Tyrrhenia (Italy) or Greece and Libya or Egypt" or "from next Libya"
"Beyond the pillars of Hercules (furtherest point of world)"
"Distant point in the Atlantic ocean/sea" (Indian Ocean not called Atlantic)
"the real ocean" "[not in the inner Mediterranean sea]"
"[Gades & Atlas later eastern copies of Atlas & Gadeira in Atlantis]".
Strabo's Erythrean sea was west of Spain. Strabo's extension of Spain extended west of Spain.
West African links with Atlantis (Olokun, etc).
Etc.

No Nile or Ethiopian is mentioned in "Plato's" Account.

Considering all the details of the Account (size, direction, distance, highest mountains, large plain, etc etc) South America / West fits far better than Africa / East.

I agree that Atlantis is next to Atlas/Libya/Africa, so you are not far off. But it is not Libya/Africa it is "next" to it.
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
Back to Top
Atlantean35 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 22-Oct-2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 40 		  Quote Atlantean35 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Dec-2018 at 01:46
That's all very nice.. but remember when I said that the Nile River in Egypt would have originally been mostly barren except for a thin strip along the river? Well, it actually turns out the Nile River Delta is an exception and would have been extremely lush in wildlife and well irrigated. Basically it would have been a fairly significant, expansive "oasis" in the middle of deserts and sparse vegetation. This would have made the region a virtual fortress for the primeval people who lived there, perhaps giving rise to things like distinctive appearances and rapid technological advancement. The people who entered it and founded the key society there probably originated from up the Nile River in East Africa. It would be much more difficult for stone age people to enter the region from the east and west due to deserts. Thus its fairly consistent with the geography that the ancient Egyptians would trace their ancestry to East Africa, namely Punt, or what's probably the true Atlas Mountains.

Over time, the people in the Nile Delta may have reached a level of distinctiveness, perhaps after having mixed with some primeval natives of Eurasia that they made outward forays to, having achieved a certain level of technological advancement. And through oceanic exploration, creating societies in various places, including the place that you are mistaking for Atlantis. Obviously these places could resemble Atlantis if they were founded by Atlantis. What else would they model their society after besides their founding culture. So what you're saying (or "matching") may just be evidence that those cultures were founded by Atlantis, assuming your matches are even valid.

In conclusion, this theory would make the Atlas Mountains the source of the Nile River in the East Africa highlands, and Atlantis, the "island of Atlas", at the bottom of the Nile where there are segments of the Nile Delta that formed virtual islands. All of which together form one contiguous, unbroken Atlasian region. And when Atlantis is described as continent sized, it was actually referring to the whole of Africa because Atlantis was virtually the only gateway to Africa and thus came to represent all of it. There is an immense level of elegance and consistency to this explanation of Atlantis.

This also answers the question that was sought out from the beginning. Egypt, or Atlantis, is the oldest. (We can just blur the lines between the two.) It's obvious just by eye. Ancient Egypt looks way more developed and sophisticated than Sumeria.


Edited by Atlantean35 - 27-Dec-2018 at 02:39
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.