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
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 Topic: Basic Questions on Egypt, Sumer, Indus, China,Peru
    Posted: 30-Oct-2018 at 03:48

Originally posted by Sharrukin

This isn't complicated.   Asshur was ASSHUR, the ancient LAND and CAPITAL of the Assyrians, not Tiwanaku or Atlantis.    Even the Nimrod account makes that quite clear.  From Shinar (where the cities of Babylon, Uruk, and Akkad were within) he went to ASSHUR and built Nineveh and Calah among other places which are easily identifiable as the Assyrian cities of Ninua and Kalhu.   


I am aware that Asshur is supposed to be Assyria and i agree that it might possibly be right. But there are problems with Asshur of Genesis 10 being Assyria including that only two cities are known while two are not (one of them a "great city"; though 1 is supposed to be a province/extension of Nineveh), moreover where are the "broad places" (meaning of Rehoboth, though some make it suburbs of Nineveh)?
Also Assyria and its cities only become prominent quite late in Mesopotamian and Biblical history long after the time of Nimrod. Old Assyrian Period/dynasty appears after Ur 3. (Though some sites like Nineveh have earlier periods.) Also Asshur in Genesis 2 was one of the great 4 lands of preflood world. It is my opinion that Assyrian Nineveh might be a later namesake or copy site, or that the biblical author(s) conflated the two. There are two Asshurs in Genesis 10, one is Semite son of Shem, other is in the Hamite section? Some scholars have connected Assyria with Asshurim sons of Abraham and Hagar/Keturah.

For Asshur  to be Assyria the problem is:
- if 4 parts of one great city this doesnt match Assyria.
- if 3/4 cities not 1: if Calah is Calah/Nimrud then there is no Resen between Calah & Nineveh; if Calah is Calah Shergat then Resen the "great city" would have to be either Asshur or Calah/Nimrud or Ekallate, and the question is does either/both the name and/or meaning match the site? As Hislop pointed out none of Nimrod's cities in Shinar were called "great".

Also different translations say either out of that land he (Nimrod) went forth into Asshur, or out of that land Asshur went forth, or out of that land "the strong one" ("Asshur") went forth. So it might not even be a country/people or person name even.

Asshur can mean either "a step/steps" / "black" / "strong" / "to go in  a straight line" / "the gracious one" / "heaven prince/host" (or another one i haven't yet refound).

Any honest historian has to objectively openly consider other evidences and decide for themselves which of the scenarios is stronger or has better evidences. If it is true/right them what darn evidence would convince people since no matter what evidences i ever give in all topics they just dismiss with clever.

We discussed the candidates for Asshur here http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=36071 before i found the seeming match with Tiahuanaco/Atlantis.



Edited by Arthur-Robin - 31-Oct-2018 at 01:32
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: 30-Oct-2018 at 11:10
Asshur is a name in its given context. What it can possibly mean is irrelevant.
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314 		  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Nov-2018 at 01:29
Occam's razor applies here.  Nimrod was not going to cross entire continents and oceans to establish the Assyrian cities if all the resources he needs for his base in Shinar are already close by.   Assyria is just north of Shinar and we do see that historically the Sumerians and Akkadians had established emporia throughout the middle east including Assyria.  The archaeological evidence is quite conclusive. These expansions were adequate enough for them to get the resources they required for their civilizations.  'Nuff sed.
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314 		  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Nov-2018 at 01:31
Occam's razor applies here.  Nimrod was not going to cross entire continents and oceans to establish the Assyrian cities if all the resources he needs for his base in Shinar are already close by.   Assyria is just north of Shinar and we do see that historically the Sumerians and Akkadians had established emporia throughout the middle east including Assyria.  The archaeological evidence is quite conclusive. These expansions were adequate enough for them to get the resources they required for their civilizations.  'Nuff sed.
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: 02-Nov-2018 at 22:12

Ok i cant see any way to resolve it because cant prove it heavily enough either way, and its too difficult always answering clever. So i wont talk about it in this thread/topic anymore. Time will tell who/which is right. All i can say is only the evidences/proof matters not theory/ideas. I dont see any Resen between Nineveh and Calah in Assyria unless Calah is Kalah Shergat and Resen is Assur city. Noah's Ark is evidence they could cross oceans (which might have been smaller before continental shifts or before land bridges sank/submerged). (Popul Vuh says first race examined the 4 corners of the earth. Piri Reis map centered on Giza shows Americas. Poseidon came to Atlantis before ships in "Plato's" account.) Opinion that unlikely is not proof he couldnt/didnt. Ockhams razor is not God and doesnt override other truths too (i seem to remember somoene saying about my quotes that quotes can be found for different sides) and is often misused.



Edited by Arthur-Robin - 02-Nov-2018 at 22:17
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
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314 		  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Nov-2018 at 22:17
Time will tell who/which is right. All i can say is only the evidences/proof matters not theory/ideas.

I agree "evidence/proof matters" but what you put forward are mere speculations.  Your following "evidence/proof" shows how speculative they actually are.

I dont see any Resen between Nineveh and Calah in Assyria unless Calah is Kalah Shergat and Resen is Assur city.

I must point out that there are many archaeological sites within the area which have NOT been excavated.    Look at the region of Babylonia, for instance.   We have the names of MANY places among the more well-known sites such as Kish, Uruk, Ur, Lagash, Umma, Adab, etc. which has not been located yet.   Calah and Niniveh are KNOWN locations, hence those other sites should be nearby. 

Noah's Ark is evidence they could cross oceans (which might have been smaller before continental shifts or before land bridges sank/submerged).

This illustrates a speculation, not evidence/proof.   The biblical text does NOT give a starting point for the ark, it only gives an ending point, "the mountains of Ararat".   What the text only implies is that the ark could maintain buoyancy for 150 days until it landed on a mountain.   It took another 5 months before he came out of the ark to a completely dried land.  The ark could've just floated above the waters until they receded on virtually an island.

(Popul Vuh says first race examined the 4 corners of the earth.

Again, this illustrates a speculation, not evidence/proof.  Every culture had a perception of what "the earth" meant.   For most cultures this just meant what they were aware of, of their surroundings.  NOTHING in the narrative shows knowledge of the world other than their local geography.  The Popol Vuh, itself is what was written down by about the middle of the 16th century, of legends and lore of the Quiche Maya.  You cannot use it to "prove" anything other than of what the Quiche knew of their own story.    

Piri Reis map centered on Giza shows Americas.

And again, more speculation.   The notes on the maps state that its sources were variable including the classical geographer Claudius Ptolemy (who didn't know the Americas) as well as Christopher Columbus (who did).    Hence, the Piri Reis map DOES show the knowledge of the world (as known in 1510!!!).   NOTHING can be proved from it of any ancient knowledge of the Americas.

Poseidon came to Atlantis before ships in "Plato's" account.)

Plato existed in the 4th century BC.   And what were the sources of Plato?   Supposedly ancient Egyptian sources?   There is NO ancient Egyptian source for the legend of Atlantis.    How did Poseidon get to Atlantis?   Submarine or spaceship, if not boat?  I'm sorry but "Atlantis" and "Poseidon" are ahistorical lore, not proof of anything.

Opinion that unlikely is not proof he couldnt/didnt. Ockhams razor is not God and doesnt override other truths too

Occams razor DOES apply.   If Nineveh and Calah are identified and they were just to the north of Shinar, then those other unidentified sites are there as well.  This is the simplest solution and is probably true.   It would be impractical for Nimrod to make such a world-wide journey if those locales were close by.  Oh, and by the way, there is NO evidence that the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians and Assyrians had any knowledge of the Americas.
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: 04-Nov-2018 at 02:49

Originally posted by Sharrukin


I agree "evidence/proof matters" but what you put forward are mere speculations.  Your following "evidence/proof" shows how speculative they actually are.


No not all our evidences are "mere speculations". We just obviously differ on what we each see or consider to be valid evidences. Critics are always trashing most source texts despite evdiences that the texts have some stark real matches in real history.

Evidence can be documentary/eye-witness or archaeological. Unless you prove the source is wrong or wrongly interpreted. You have not proven that Asshur matches Assyria and/or doesnt match Peru. I agree that it might match Assyria not Peru but i have the right to hold my opinion based on my seeming evidences until/unless proven either way.
Originally posted by Sharrukin


I must point out that there are many archaeological sites within the area which have NOT been excavated.    Look at the region of Babylonia, for instance.   We have the names of MANY places among the more well-known sites such as Kish, Uruk, Ur, Lagash, Umma, Adab, etc. which has not been located yet.   Calah and Niniveh are KNOWN locations, hence those other sites should be nearby. 

So what? There are at least two Caerleons in England/Wales. There are two Blackwater rivers in Ireland. There are two Calahs in Assyria. There are two or more Babylons (Babel, Babylon, Rome "Babylon", Babylon 5). There are more than three Romes (Rome, Byzantium, Moscow, Rum, Caerleon "2nd Rome").
(See this thread on namesakes http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=37422 which i prepared for because of similar arguments in Arthurian sites disputes.)

Nineveh and Calah are not necessarily in the right time though Nineveh has some older cultures.
There are no known cities Resen and Rehoboth(-Ir).

(What sites are not located? I know Akkad and Dilmun and Aratta are not.)

Its all very well for orthodox scholars to always/often fall back on the "we may not have found them yet". (Compare once said to me by Egyptologist "Oh you cant say Moses cant be 19th dynasty because lack of evidences (and because conflicting eviences and evidences he was in other dynasties) because we may not have found it yet or it may be lost".) Sure Resen might not be found or known yet but it might not be there. There is notmuch between Nineveh and Calah. The scolarly website on Assyrian history acrhives looks like they have massive amounts of info.

 Resen (or "all these") was a "Great City" (and "none of the ones in Shinar was called a great city"), and Resen was between Nineveh and Calah, which makes it less likely it "may not have been found yet".
Atlantis is the most famous great city, and surely the bible must have mentioned it somewhere.

Originally posted by Sharrukin


This illustrates a speculation, not evidence/proof.   The biblical text does NOT give a starting point for the ark, it only gives an ending point, "the mountains of Ararat".   What the text only implies is that the ark could maintain buoyancy for 150 days until it landed on a mountain.   It took another 5 months before he came out of the ark to a completely dried land.  The ark could've just floated above the waters until they receded on virtually an island.


The point was the people not long after flood (Nimrods time) surely remembered the knowledge of Arks building/design.
The flood was pretty surely global (various evidences from bible, Gilgamesh, myths, etc) and it was a pretty big long storm.
Covered all mountains. All with breath of life died except those in Ark. No way it can only be Mesopotamia or Black Sea or Mediterranean or Atlantis. There was no need to take on board all types of animals if only one small region was flooded.

See my Flood thread here  http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1058334 . Dont assume that the name hancock means is it his theories, it is just in a forum on mysteries etc hosted by his site for people interested in similar world history mysteries etc.)

Originally posted by Sharrukin


Again, this illustrates a speculation, not evidence/proof.  Every culture had a perception of what "the earth" meant.   For most cultures this just meant what they were aware of, of their surroundings.  NOTHING in the narrative shows knowledge of the world other than their local geography.  The Popol Vuh, itself is what was written down by about the middle of the 16th century, of legends and lore of the Quiche Maya.  You cannot use it to "prove" anything other than of what the Quiche knew of their own story.    


Ok i can see that you/they can claim that it could possibly mean that (their known world 4 quarters). But it could also more possibly mean what we feel it probably does. 4 suns, 4 world ages. It is still a possible evidence.
I listed heaps of evidences Egyptians knew Americas in a recent thread/topic but you dismissed them all. In the Atlantis ebook/papers i gave heaps of evidences of pre-Columbian contacts between New World and Old World. There are books full of evidences of contacts between Americas and Old World (eg Pierre Honore, Nigel Davies, Don Mackenzie, Sitchin, Barry Fell, Jim Allen, Fitzgerald-Lee, my own articles, etc etc etc).
The Americans had to get to America some time some how.
Originally posted by Sharrukin


And again, more speculation.   The notes on the maps state that its sources were variable including the classical geographer Claudius Ptolemy (who didn't know the Americas) as well as Christopher Columbus (who did).    Hence, the Piri Reis map DOES show the knowledge of the world (as known in 1510!!!).   NOTHING can be proved from it of any ancient knowledge of the Americas.


If the map is post-Columbus then ok it doesnt necessarily prove/evidence anything. But surely all the books that mention it were not all idiots or liars?
The map is considered to be centered on Cairo/Giza.
There are plenty of other evidences which cant all be explained away.
(Fact is cunning people can find ways to explain away almost everything "except a dead body".)

Originally posted by Sharrukin


Plato existed in the 4th century BC.   And what were the sources of Plato?   Supposedly ancient Egyptian sources?   There is NO ancient Egyptian source for the legend of Atlantis.    How did Poseidon get to Atlantis?   Submarine or spaceship, if not boat?  I'm sorry but "Atlantis" and "Poseidon" are ahistorical lore, not proof of anything.


Excuse me but we have elsewhere shown stark matches of Atlantis with Tiahuanaco and Sout America which prove that the text is historically reliable/accurate/truthful (as the text/account it self says it is "true history").
Atlantis Account says the sources went Atlantean -> Egyptian -> Greek.
Medinet Habu is considered by some to match Atlantean invasion. See my quotes of origins of Sea Peoples in the thread/topic in here a year or so ago.

Americans got there somehow. Its no more stretching belief than Bering Strait theory. Supposed difficulties disbeliefs dont disprove evidences. There are stark matches of Atlantis city with Tiahuanaco and "Altiplano" etc.

Atlantis thread with my table of correspondences between Tiahuanaco and Atlantis city is in one of these threads: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=36133 ?
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8257&PN=16
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35128
Some other notes in my unfinished rough ebook:
http://www.allempires.com/forum/ebook_view.asp?BookID=105

How did the Americans/Atlanteans get there? I dont know for sure but could be by raft/boat (might just be before sailing?), by landbridges or caves, by aircraft or hot air balloons (the preflood world must have had some high tech knowledge, they couldnt cheat the flood if no were to land for a year).

Another possibility is that the sealevels were lower during ice ages and we know that Sumerians wee related to Combe-Capellids (near contemporaries of Cro-Magnons who were around during the last great maximum of the last ice age), plus the Sumerian floods might have been connected with interglacials? There is also the possibility that the continents were still joint or were closer together than they are now, some think that Pangaea split during the flood, others thing it was during the days of Peleg when the earth was divided around about same time as Babel.

There are plenty of possible Egyptian and other nations pre-Plato sources mentions of Atlantis under different names: Urani & Menes ebony label; Scheria/Phaeacia; Sea Peoples; Dilmun? Thoth came from a land in the west; etc. I listed many in some of my earlier Atlantis paper editions in my blog etc.

 Daniel about the same time as Sonchis and Solon (a few generations before Plato, and a little while before Herodotus) wrote of 10 kings from the western sea/ocean. John in Revelation/Apocalypse wrote of 10 kings from the sea close to the time Philo's mention of Atlantis.

Originally posted by Sharrukin


Occams razor DOES apply.   If Nineveh and Calah are identified and they were just to the north of Shinar, then those other unidentified sites are there as well.  This is the simplest solution and is probably true.   It would be impractical for Nimrod to make such a world-wide journey if those locales were close by.  Oh, and by the way, there is NO evidence that the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians and Assyrians had any knowledge of the Americas.


Probably doesnt mean it is definitely proven.

(Shinar possibly may not even be Sumer though i tend to agree that it seemingly probably is.)

I agree that Shinar is probably in Sumer/Mesopotamia/Iraq area, but i dont agree that that means that "Asshur" (person or place or title) is evidently and/or must definitely be in the same region. Hislop said Asshur unlikely to set up so close to .
For "Asshur" to be Assyria we have to show the "4" cities and/or the"great city" all match and the time matches (and even then it is still possible for there to be 2 with one a copy).

A similar argument is Eden is also in Iraq because "we have two of the  rivers there". But this is also disputable.

Ockhams razor does not erase evidences/matches. Simplest is not always the only-best and is only "probably/likely to be", and things that are supposed to be simplest are not always really the simplest. It is not simple that there is no Resen "yet?" found.
I dont agree that there is no evidences the Middle Easterners didnt know Americas. But is too long and difficult to answer here and now. I am also reluctant if you are just always going to be so darn anti me as you have been in the last number of threads/topics. I admit i am not always right about everything but i hate being unfairly made out to be all wrong. It is only fair to acknowledge what good/right points there are not just the supposed weak/wrong ones. It is not fair to only all/always focus on supposed weak/wrong/difficult things and to always not ever acknowledge what things are good/right or possible.

Supposed "impractical" difficulties disbeliefs are not defintie proof and dont erase evidences there are (unless our evidences are all wrong which they are not all though some might be).

So in conclusion i maintain that the great city of Asshur could still possibly match Tiahuanaco & Atlantis city (which latter two definitely do match even if Asshur might not).

All the other extra points arguments are beside the main point which latter is whether the source text details best matches Assyria or Tiahuanaco/Atlantis. For Assyria the only possible matches are Asshur, Nineveh and Calah, while Resen and Rehoboth are missing, and Asshur is debatible whether person/title or place.



Edited by Arthur-Robin - 04-Nov-2018 at 20:53
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
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314 		  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2018 at 03:08
evidences are "mere speculations".

No, A-R.   Evidences are "available bodies of facts".   The operative word is "facts".    You are NOT presenting facts, just speculations which YOU are trying to present as facts.  You cannot use your "interpretation" of information as "fact" when there are much more plausible solutions with the same information.    Nimrod did not have to jump a half a world away to establish colonies when there were neighboring regions to do the same.   Why would he?   That would've been impractical.   And what we know of the ancients were that they were very practical.  He would have to have conquered a very large number of tribes and states to do that when the historical record of Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, and Assyrian conquerors ONLY conquered in the Middle East.    

We just obviously differ on what we each see or consider to be valid evidences. Critics are always trashing most source texts despite evdiences that the texts have some stark real matches in real history.

The science, expertise, and philosophy behind the extraction, and discernment of the facts, with a healthy sense of skepticism is alive and well, thank you.   Criticism is always a good thing.   It keeps scholars honest or even helps in improving their own arguments.    As far as YOUR "stark real matches" are concerned, they are just not there!!!!

The rest of your responses aren't even worth arguing.    You pick up that we haven't discovered Resen and Rehoboth-Ir in Assyria, when we haven't even discovered Akkad in Nimrod's Shinar, yet you are willing to accept that Shinar was Sumer or Babylonia.     And then...….Resen and Rehoboth-Ir could have been the most ancient names of certain cities (only a speculation) and became known by other names.    The city of Asshur itself was also known as Baltil.    The Assyrian city of Nuzi was known more anciently as Gasur.  and yet a third Assyrian city earlier named Sekhna was later known as Shubat-Enlil.  Another alternative was that these places were perhaps districts to the sites of Nineveh and Calah since their names may mean "streets of the town" "public square of the town" (Rehoboth-Ir) and since Resen was supposed to be located between Nineveh and Calah, the village of Selamiyah has been proposed as a possible site.   The point is that you don't have to look all over the world for them when they could be located near Shinar.
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: 12-Nov-2018 at 18:47
I can understand why someone might think Atlantis is across the Atlantic Ocean in the Americas. But ancient geographies were probably messed up. The people in question probably migrated from the Indian Ocean theater to the Mediterranean then forgot that they did this and got their geographies mixed up in the process. Thus, Atlantis was just in Africa. Specifically East Africa. We should think about the ancient Greek myths and legends as being told from the perspective of when the ancestors of the Greeks were still in Africa. The stories got changed to fit the Mediterranean in order to make them more relatable.

The journey of the Atlanteans can be projected to be as such. They sailed from East Africa into the Persian Gulf where they founded Sumeria's coastal cities. Then some of them hopped over into the Mediteranean where they founded colonies in the Aegean Sea, the Black Sea/Pontic Steppes, Anatolia/Asia Minor. All the while Egypt was just enduring in the background of these events. I can't decide whether Egypt or Sumeria would come first because from a coastal seafaring group's perspective, Egypt may be closer to the Atlantean heartland in the East Africa, but actually might be more difficult to reach due to difficult terrain and its lack of coastal access. The southern coast of Arabia around Yemen is also important, but perhaps less significant due to its lack of a major river. Whoever was exploring that area could have discovered both the Persian Gulf and the Yemen coast within the same year when they decided to first put their ships out into the sea, and simply decided to initially focus on building up Sumeria. This might be why Sumeria appears to predate Egypt, because it had much better coastal access, while the land route to Egypt was difficult. But I'm almost certain there was something in East Africa that predates Sumeria. We know that it says in the Bible, the group that found the Plains of Shinar (Mesopotamia) were moving east when they discovered it. There is also strong indications that they could have done this using seafaring ships. From East Africa by ship, its a lot easier to colonize Shinar than it is to colonize Egypt. Distance is not the issue here. It's the fact that the coasts to the east of Egypt are basically desert, while Ur and Eridu were originally coastal cities at the end of a fertile plain watered by two major rivers, meaning easy ship access.


Edited by Atlantean35 - 12-Nov-2018 at 18:58
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: 13-Nov-2018 at 15:30
Furthermore, in regards to Egypt. To the cavemen hunter-gatherers who were just emerging into a civilizational state, the part of the Nile River that cuts through the Sahara, namely the place we call Egypt, it may have represented a place of death. Basically a place you don't want to travel to, and want to stay away from. It had river surrounded by desert, with a thin strip of flood soil that grows plants, but is otherwise barren before the invention of irrigation. Before farming and irrigation, there really wouldn't have been much to eat in this region, despite there being plenty of water. Thus making the region, relatively sparse in terms of food in hunter-gather times. Yet this is the only transit point for traveling between Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. All this comes together to explain why there are strong indications that Egypt was initially home to people who were cannibals. How we know is there was a certain figure (or "god") named Osiris who is credited with imparting the people of Egypt with farming and instructing them to cease their cannibalistic practices. This is where the River Styx fits the description of the Egyptian part of the Nile River, being that it also represents the passage of death that leads into the underworld. With Cerberus being an ancient cannibalistic culture that fed on the people who tried to cross the area.  Wild canines in ancient times were often known to dig up and feed on human flesh. This is how Cerberus is connected to a primeval cannibal culture in pre-Osirisian Egypt.

Now, I have to say I'm just guessing that Cerberus and the River Styx are referring to primeval Egypt. But what is fairly certain is, there was a cannibal culture in ancient Egypt before the founding of Egyptian civilization. Egypt would have represented a place of fear and death to the ancient peoples neighboring it, in the time before it was a prosperous farming region. It was Hades in essence, if it wasn't the actual Hades to people in the time of the dawn of civilizations. This is another reason Egypt was more difficult than the Plains of Shinar. An ancient primeval cannibal culture. It naturally follows that Sumerian civilization predates Egyptian because it was much easier for the "Atlanteans" aka East African seafarers to establish it first, with some deliberate attempts to avoid going to Egypt.


Edited by Atlantean35 - 13-Nov-2018 at 15:31
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314 		  Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Nov-2018 at 14:17
I can understand why someone might think Atlantis is across the Atlantic Ocean in the Americas. But ancient geographies were probably messed up. The people in question probably migrated from the Indian Ocean theater to the Mediterranean then forgot that they did this and got their geographies mixed up in the process. Thus, Atlantis was just in Africa. Specifically East Africa. We should think about the ancient Greek myths and legends as being told from the perspective of when the ancestors of the Greeks were still in Africa. The stories got changed to fit the Mediterranean in order to make them more relatable.

No, the earliest reference to "Atlantis" (in Plato) describes the Atlanteans attacking Athens "from a distant point in the Atlantic Ocean".   The land was described a an "island" and a "continent".

Furthermore, in regards to Egypt. To the cavemen hunter-gatherers who were just emerging into a civilizational state, the part of the Nile River that cuts through the Sahara, namely the place we call Egypt, it may have represented a place of death. Basically a place you don't want to travel to, and want to stay away from. It had river surrounded by desert, with a thin strip of flood soil that grows plants, but is otherwise barren before the invention of irrigation. Before farming and irrigation, there really wouldn't have been much to eat in this region, despite there being plenty of water. Thus making the region, relatively sparse in terms of food in hunter-gather times. Yet this is the only transit point for traveling between Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. All this comes together to explain why there are strong indications that Egypt was initially home to people who were cannibals. How we know is there was a certain figure (or "god") named Osiris who is credited with imparting the people of Egypt with farming and instructing them to cease their cannibalistic practices. This is where the River Styx fits the description of the Egyptian part of the Nile River, being that it also represents the passage of death that leads into the underworld. With Cerberus being an ancient cannibalistic culture that fed on the people who tried to cross the area.  Wild canines in ancient times were often known to dig up and feed on human flesh. This is how Cerberus is connected to a primeval cannibal culture in pre-Osirisian Egypt.

This has already been covered.   The land was lush and the Nile was NOT considered a pathway of death.
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: 17-Nov-2018 at 22:56
Egypt was the underworld because it was a place of death and filled with cannibals. This is why there exists the tale of Osiris simultaneously imparting ancient Egypt with agriculture while forbidding cannibalism. The ancient Sumerian name for the underworld was 'kur'. The ancient name of Egypt was 'krmt' (pronounced something like 'kermet'). The pre-Osirisian Egyptians needed another option besides cannibalism, which is why agriculture was the solution to ending their cannibalistic ways. In time, they may have already become a people who preferred human meat, thus the entrance to Egypt probably had to be guarded. The reason there is a desert there in the first place is a consequence of geography. It would mostly stay a desert except for the rare flukes or exceptional occasions. Unless of course you are talking about a radically different time frame, which is the reason there is often oil underneath these deserts, but that would have no relevance in this discussion. There seem to have been 7 gates into the underworld in Sumerian myths. This could be a reference to the cataracts of the Nile river, which made naturally defensible fortifications that faced in the direction of Egypt.

Edited by Atlantean35 - 17-Nov-2018 at 23:05
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: 07-Dec-2018 at 12:51
I have to add something that i think is important. There is a certain dynamic in Greek mythologies that i have been trying to contextualize with certain facts and realities. There were a recent set of gods who had overthrown an earlier set of gods called the Titans. The Titans were likely a race of giants. They were also probably associated with the mythical Cyclops race. It's thought that the Cyclops were merely smiths who wore eyepatches designed for metalworking, not that they actually had a mono-eye, which is an unheard of feature not found anywhere in nature. This Cyclops or Titan group were perhaps responsible for many of the earliest inventions that became the basis for civilization. Who were then supplanted by another group from a different region. The Greek mythologies seem to carry a perspective where they were once in Africa, looking at Eurasia as some kind of cold underworld. This aligns with the 'ker' or 'kermet' underworld narrative. But it also seems to align with the native denisens of Eurasia, namely the 'Kurgans' who were the giants of Anatolia. Some indications point to the earliest farms and cities (ie. Gobleki Tepi), and perhaps even metalworking coming from this region Anatolia. What this means is we need to be careful about the perspectives. There is not a single broadly common perspective, but two very different ones from different continents. Some sort of dynamic mixture may have always been occuring in the Middle East. What is strange though is why a more Africanized group (ie. Mongoloid, archaic yellow Africans, commonly of the highlands) had reached the Americas first if the Anatolian Caucasians invented the earliest technologies. This may have simply been due to an innate nomadic tendency due to the irregular climate of Africa. But these were not just explorers. They had dynamic technological, even mathematical tendencies as well, as can be seen from the Mayans. Hmm.. am i just second guessing myself? Is there actually no reason for considering Anatolia the "oldest"? Well, there's the Greek Titans dynamics. But maybe the Titans were also in Africa... i guess this is possible too. But the Mayans also importantly are a slightly Eurasian looking group too so maybe they were just mixed with the Anatolian natives? But then again, even the most isolated, farflung human groups can be fairly ingeneous in inventiveness, given their circumstances.

Edited by Atlantean35 - 07-Dec-2018 at 13:13
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084 		  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Dec-2018 at 04:21
Sorry people your posts just say you can not connect that idea of God&State&Civilisation have spread around the world from primal times.Names you used today were frequently used sentences than.How do we can create sustainable human society that is mature enough to change itself with change of surroundings and tolls of manufacturing??That's Aristotle ,that"s Plato...Volter...Dialectics...That"s everything...Smile
Na"De"Na"J=From Worshiping =Praising God-Compensation=Refund=Tax-Bank=Money=Cash=Coin originated-positioned-suited... Population=People-Mortality=Lethality-Action=Activity=Business=Trade=Culture(Ja)
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: 08-Dec-2018 at 18:47
Originally posted by Sharrukin

evidences are "mere speculations".
No, A-R.   Evidences are "available bodies of facts".   The operative word is "facts".    You are NOT presenting facts, just speculations which YOU are trying to present as facts.  You cannot use your "interpretation" of information as "fact" when there are much more plausible solutions with the same information.    Nimrod did not have to jump a half a world away to establish colonies when there were neighboring regions to do the same.   Why would he?   That would've been impractical.   And what we know of the ancients were that they were very practical.  He would have to have conquered a very large number of tribes and states to do that when the historical record of Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, and Assyrian conquerors ONLY conquered in the Middle East.    


You twisted whatever sentence of mine you half quoted by only posting half of it. You are the one that claimed many of our evidences are mere speculations.
What is a "fact"? Orthodox shelve many out of place facts. What i always tried to do was post evidences of quality matches between the source texts details and historical/arhcaeological sites/etc. But you and others constantly refuse to admit the matches are even possible.
All that mattered to me was the matches evidences that the great city of Asshur seems to possibly match Tiahuanaco and Atlantis city.

Orthodox scholarship and "science" has many sepculations and theories not proven definite facts. Your/their own match of Asshur of Genesis 10 with Assyria is not more better than ours with Peru. Yous have no Resen between Nineveh & Calah.

Why did/would Poseidon cross to "a distant point in the ocean" as you admitted in a recent post? Why did Columbus travel across ocean? Why did Meskiaggusheir go up into the mountains?

Our matches might not be deifnite facts but they are not just speculations either. The matches & evidences do have a certain amount of quality to them.

He didnt have to, why would he, it is impractical are only theoretical disbeliefs they are not definite.

The translations are unclear whether Nimrod or "Asshur".

Some scholars have shown matches between Sumerian and Peruvian/Andean (Sitchin. Jim Allen. me). Anaku resembles Wanaku. I already posted some evidences.

Originally posted by Sharrukin
We just obviously differ on what we each see or consider to be valid evidences. Critics are always trashing most source texts despite evdiences that the texts have some stark real matches in real history.
The science, expertise, and philosophy behind the extraction, and discernment of the facts, with a healthy sense of skepticism is alive and well, thank you.   Criticism is always a good thing.   It keeps scholars honest or even helps in improving their own arguments.    As far as YOUR "stark real matches" are concerned, they are just not there!!!!


You are arguing mere words. Not valid unless we are discussing a particular source text (HB, Atlantis Account, Bible, Herodotus, etc). There are stark matches for some of these. The stark matches are there but they are evaded/ignored/silenced/coveredup or unfairly/untruly trashed. For example i have shown stark matches between Atlantis city and Tiahuanaco in a thread in this forum a year or so ago.
The opposition constantly call themselves "science" etc and call others "unscientific" etc but this is mere untrue tactics. Only the matches evidences mater not tactics or claimed credentials.
Criticism is not good if not also balanced by acknowledging the good/true/right/strong/possible matches not just always only negative.
Orhtodox "experts" admit they couldn't find Atlantis or Arthur's battle sites or Moses/Joseph in Egypt etc (except they eventually steal and claim credit themselves. They dismiss even the mention of word Atlantis. They prejudicially trash all source texts as unreliable using artrtificial "textual criticism" theories.

Originally posted by Sharrukin


The rest of your responses aren't even worth arguing.    You pick up that we haven't discovered Resen and Rehoboth-Ir in Assyria, when we haven't even discovered Akkad in Nimrod's Shinar, yet you are willing to accept that Shinar was Sumer or Babylonia.     And then...….Resen and Rehoboth-Ir could have been the most ancient names of certain cities (only a speculation) and became known by other names.    The city of Asshur itself was also known as Baltil.    The Assyrian city of Nuzi was known more anciently as Gasur.  and yet a third Assyrian city earlier named Sekhna was later known as Shubat-Enlil.  Another alternative was that these places were perhaps districts to the sites of Nineveh and Calah since their names may mean "streets of the town" "public square of the town" (Rehoboth-Ir) and since Resen was supposed to be located between Nineveh and Calah, the village of Selamiyah has been proposed as a possible site.   The point is that you don't have to look all over the world for them when they could be located near Shinar.


Resen is different to Akkad. You know where Resen should be (between Nineveh and Calah) and in a much smaller area.  Ir can mean river or city. "Broadplaces or streets of the town also altertnatively can match Atlantis plain and the "Altiplano". Surely the bible had to mention Atlantis city somewhere. Atlantis was very early like Asshur in Genesis 10.

I accept Shinar is probably Sumer because of various evidences reasons similar to why/how i opine that the city of Asshur seemingly may be in Peru not Assyria. The district(s) theory doesnt seem vey quality to me. Bible has either 1 or 3 or 4 cities of Asshur.

"Dont have to" depends on the evidences for the different locations. If the evidences for some other location like Peru are convicting enough then we do have to admit it is possible, if the evidences for Assyria is not strong enough we cant admit it is necessarily convicting enough.

The difference between me and you/them is that i admit Assyria is possible though i think/feel Peru is more possible, where as you/they refuse to admit Peru is at all possible despite our seeming matches evidences and only assert Assyria is possible despite lack of Resen etc.

All these replies above in this post are mere words sorry to defend myself from untrue/unfair said words. I have already posted specific pros for Peru and cons for Assyria in previous posts/threads. I would just be repeating unless find more new evidences. If you are willing i am willing to discuss Atlantis city matches with Tiahuanaco in another thread.
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
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: 08-Dec-2018 at 21:40

Let me and you try to just stick to mere details rather than mere words.
The 1 or 3 or 4 cities of Asshur in Genesis 10 are claimed by you/them to match Assyria (and not Peru/Atlantis), and claimed by us to possibly match Peru/Atlantis (better than Assyria). So let us revise the city/cities matches with the 2 locations and see whether one or other is better or both are equally indefinite until further evidences.

Before we discuss the details matches we need to say that different translations of the Genesis 10 verse differ on whether the person is Nimrod or Asshur, and whether the land is Asshur or unnamed, and whether it is 1 great city with 4 components or 3 or 4 cities (and the great city being all 3/4 components or just the one Resen city).

"From/Out-of that land [Shinar] (he [Nimrod]) went (forth) (into) Asshur/Assyria...

or

"From/Out-of that land [Shinar] (he [Nimrod]) went (forth) being made strong, or when he had been made strong...

or

"From/Out-of that land [Shinar] went (forth) Asshur/Assyria ["the strong/gracious one"]...

... and (set himself to) building/built Nineveh, (and) Rehoboth (- ((of/by/on) the) Ir/river/city [Euphrates]), (and) Calah, and Resen (which is) between Nineveh and Calah ;/: ((all) these the/a great city)."

or

... and (set himself to) building/built Nineveh, (and) Rehoboth (- ((of/by/on) the) Ir/river/city [Euphrates]), (and) Calah, and Resen (which is) between Nineveh and Calah ;/: this/that/the (same) [Resen] (is) the/a great city."

0. 1/3/4 cities/components of Asshur:

Bible: 1 great city of Asshur ("a step/steps" / "black" / "strong" / "to go in  a straight line" / "the gracious one" / "heaven prince/host") with 3 or 4 components, or 3 or 4 cities of Asshur with one of them (Resen) a "great city".

Assyria: For 3 or 4 cities they have 2 cities possible names matches (Nineveh & Calah) but not the other two (Resen, Rehoboth), though 1 of the latter 2 (Rehoboth) "might be district/streets of Nineveh", and the other 1 (Resen) is proposed to possibly be Selamiyah. For 1 great city they have a city Ashur/Assur or Gasur, though it might not match "great city" with 3/4 components at an early date? (Ashur was also late?)

Atlantis (Peru): 1 great city with 3/4 components could match Atlantis city. (Atlantis had a few main buildings and rings.) The bible surely must have mentioned Atlantis city somewhere, and the great city of Asshur is similarily as early as Atlantis was. "None of Nimrod's cities in Shinar is called great like Resen".

Peru (Atlantis): 1 great city with 3/4 components could match Tiahuanaco (& Akakor?) (The main parts of Tiahuanaco are the Akapana, Kalasasaya/gateway, (Kantatayita,) PumaPunku,
(Lukurmata).)  3 or 4 cities could match 3 or 4 of the 5 cities in the route of Viracocha (some equidistant from preceding and succeeding sites), and the 3 windows (in a line) of Peruvian traditions.
(Stede Citades in Americas?)

1. City/component Nineveh:

Bible: Nineveh "house/abode/dwelling of Ninus/fish/Nina/son" or "agreeable/handsome" or "lady/goddess Eve" (one of 3/4 cities or 3/4 components of great city, on opposite side of Resen from Calah).

Assyria: There is a Nineveh (Koyunuk/Mosul) which does have prehistoric strata/levels, though such a prehistoric city might not match the city in Genesis 10?

Atlantis (Peru): the big/small hill/mountain (which is the dwelling/temple/grove of Clito (& Poseidon))? or else the temple or palace?

Peru (Atlantis): could match either the Pumapunku (puma matches Nimrod) or the Akapana (had water fed into various parts of it) at Tiahuanaco.
Or else Tiwanaku or Pucara or Cuzco (south), or Macchu-Picchu/Intihuatana or Olantaytampo or Cuzco (north), & Sutic-tocco or Tampu-tocco (right/left window)?

2. City/component Calah:

Bible: Calah "vigour, firm rugged strength, full/old age" (one of 3/4 cities or 3/4 components of great city, on opposite side of Resen from Nineveh).

Assyria: could match Kalah (Nimrud) or Kalah-Shergat, but how much details matches do they have apart from the names?

Atlantis (Peru): palace/temple/citadel/acropolis of Poseidon/Atlantis?

Peru (Atlantis): Could match Kalasasaya or Pumapunku at Tiahuanaco.
Or else Macchu-Picchu or Olantaytampo or Cuzco (north), or Tiwanaku/Kalasasaya or Pucara or Cuzco (south), & Tampu-tocco or Sutic-tocco (left/right window)?

3. City/component Resen:

Bible: Resen/Dasen "halter/bridle/jaw (of crocodile)", "great city" of 3/4 cities, or one of 3/4 components of great city, between Nineveh & Calah.

Assyria: No find of Resen between Nineveh & Calah, though Selamiyah or Larissa or Yassin tepe or Karameles has been proposed.

Atlantis (Peru): ring(s) of Atlantis? ditch "comes to city from either/both/two sides?

Peru (Atlantis): "canal" around central Tiwanaku (like 2 pincers, between Kalasasaya/Akapana & Pumapunku)?
Or Cuzco or Pucara or Olantayampo (between MP & Tiwanaku), & Maras-tocco (middle window).

4. City/component Rehoboth:

Bible: Rehoboth(-Ir) "(the) wide-squares/ public-square / wideplaces/broadplaces / roominess/openland / streets/avenues (of the city/town/river)" (one of 4 cities or 4 components of great city, or a non-city associate of 3 cities/components).

Assyria: No Rehoboth(-Ir) has been found in Assyria, though it is claimed could be districts/streets of Nineveh though not a separate city (unless it was a later merger). Ir "(the) (great) river" is usually Euphrates though it could also/alternatively be Tigris/Hiddekel (Dan 10:4).

Atlantis (Peru): (The "central ground" and/or rings and/or) "large Plain" with its channels and canal/ditch (and/or the country) of Atlantis city/island. 

Peru (Atlantis): (Tiwanaku &) the "Altiplano" (with its geoglyphs around Tiwanaku), & the Dessaguadero canal (south).
Meski-Ag(g)ushe-ir who went up into the mountains (Andes/Atlas) also contains the same ir "swift" word?

5. Land Asshur/unnamed:

Bible: "went forth into" land Asshur ("a step/steps" / "black" / "strong" / "to go in  a straight line" / "the gracious one" / "heaven prince/host") or unnamed land "out of that land (Shinar "two rivers")". "Asshur is unlikely to have set up so close to Nimrod's cities" (Hislop).

Assyria: they have a possible land name match, and the bible does also call Assyria the land of Nimrod, though the bible is unclear if the name is Asshur or unnamed land. Assyria is late in Mesopotamian history (after Akkadian and Ur 3, near-contemporary to Isin and Old Babylonian).
Asshur & "Tigris" of Genesis 10 are before the Flood, and it is unlikely that the Tigris would have survived the Flood if it was global (as the bible and other traditions seem to imply it was).
Unnamed land & river Ir of Genesis 10 could match Euphrates and unnamed land of Eden in Genesis 2, rather than Assyria/Tigris/Hiddekel? (Atlanteans may match 4th age in Daniel?)

Atlantis (Peru): Asshur/Arthura is maybe similar to aTRoS & Atlas & Artus/Arthur?

Peru (Atlantis): "Out of that land" & "went forth" & "into" & unnamed land could match Peru.
Peru was land of storm/bull god Ishkur/Rimac (ref Sitchin and Paracas candelabra etc).
Osiris was in Amenti/Urani in the west or underworld.
Asshur was one of the 4 world quarters lands around Eden in Genesis 2.
(The great river Euphrates in Revelation/Apocalypse might match the Atlantic?)
The route of Viracocha?

6. Person Nimrod/Asshur:

Bible: Nimrod ("subduer of the spotted one", "rebel", a gibbor and hunter) or Asshur ("a step/steps" / "black" / "strong" / "to go in  a straight line" / "the gracious one" / "prosper" / "heaven prince/host") went "out of that land (Shinar "(land of) two rivers" / "sleeps") forth into" Asshur or unnamed land. Two Asshurs one Hamite & one Shemite. (Nimrod might be Ninurta or Marduk or Nisroch or Enmerkar.)

Assyria: Assyrian is latterly related to Sumerian, and the bible does call Assyria the land of Nimrod, but can they show that a person matching Nimrod/Asshur went there then at such an early date? (Assyria is late in Mesopotamian history (after Akkadian and Ur 3, near-contemporary to Isin and Old Babylonian).) There is an Assyrian god Ashur/Assur though they have to show a historical/traditional match. Ninus of Nineveh is legend and not as verified as ours. The bible text says "out of that land" "wnt forth" "into" "Assyria or unnamed land" which may not match Assyria which was also in Mesopotamia? Calah is called Nimrud but this is late Moslem/Arab from Biblical. Unless Asshur might be Sargon?

Atlantis (Peru): "Poseidon" went to Atlantis from Old World; Meskiaggusheir "went up into the mountains" could match Atlas/Atlantis mountains

Peru (Atlantis): Meski-Ag(g)ushe-ir "went up into the mountains" could match Andes; Viracocha or Manco Capac or Naymlap came to Americas from Old World. Puma of Pumapunku can match Nimrod. Peru was land of storm/bull god Ishkur/Rimac (ref Sitchin and Paracas candelabra etc). Peruvian is almost as early as Sumerian.
Various sources give evidence of Peruvian links with Sumerian (Jim Allen, Sitchin, me), eg Anaku resembles Wanaku/Tiwanaku.
Tiahuanaco/Tiwanaku/Wanaku at the bottom of lake Titicaca is analogous to Eridu/Urdu at the top of the (Persian) Gulf (and some people like Rohl think Eridu is Babel).



Edited by Arthur-Robin - 08-Dec-2018 at 22:15
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: 09-Dec-2018 at 06:00
Peru is literally too far away to invade Greece. Thus the Atlantis, in Plato's context, can't be talking about the Americas. Also, basically all of the new world crops can't be found in the old world. This pretty much damns any notion of major contact between the old world and new world.  Peru can be a colony of Atlantis though, in fact, I believe that to be the case. I'm saying this again, but Atlantis was probably Africa or in Africa. Africa was essentially an island because of the Sahara desert. Any sort of contact between Eurasia and Africa in ancient times, were more likely to occur by ship, whether its floating along the Nile River or crossing the western and eastern seas.


Edited by Atlantean35 - 09-Dec-2018 at 06:33
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: 09-Dec-2018 at 23:51

Originally posted by Atlantean35

Peru is literally too far away to invade Greece. Thus the Atlantis, in Plato's context, can't be talking about the Americas.


1. This is only a incredulous disbelief not definite fact. People can not dismiss stark matches between Atlantis city & plain etc and Tiahuanaco city & "Altiplano" etc.

2. Atlantis Account and other sources say/imply Atlantis was remote with little/no contact with other humans; called "invaders"; at the pillars of Hercules (the furthest distant point); "at a distant point in the Atlantic"; etc. The sea peoples were also said to have come from the ocean.

3. Invasion could have happened in stages with colonies/outposts in places like Heligoland & Tartessos/Huelva. The account may imply this by saying the invaed upto Tyrrhenia and Libya/Egypt, and that they travelled through Europe & Asia & Libya/Africa.
There are evidences of intermediate stages, eg statue of man on horse in Azores pointing west with word cates which is "this way" in Quechua (Inca).
Heliolithic culture is found in various places all over the world including Peru.

Originally posted by Atlantean35


Also, basically all of the new world crops can't be found in the old world. This pretty much damns any notion of major contact between the old world and new world. 


This is not necessarily valid for various reasons.
Bananas.
Mutation/evolution.
Used ones which fitted the environment/climate.
Quinoa/Qeenwah "mother of all grains" recalls Eve/Hawah "other of all life".
Some New World plants/grains are related to Old World grains (maize & corn?)

Originally posted by Atlantean35


Peru can be a colony of Atlantis though, in fact, I believe that to be the case.


Peru is not just a colony, there are stark matches for the Atlantis capital city, and plain, and mountains, etc etc which do not match any otherlocation candidate we checked. There are not many places in world that atch the right distance, direction, high(est) mountains, inland sea, large plain, etc. Look in your atlas for such a large plain and high mountains. Andes is also one of the only major sites for brass/brone / tin/zinc, and gold.
Peruvian masks etc have the Atlantis pillar rising from concentric circles city which is as good as "Atlantis" name written in words.
How come Peru is not "too far" for a colony but is "too far" for an invasion over time?

Originally posted by Atlantean35


I'm saying this again, but Atlantis was probably Africa or in Africa. Africa was essentially an island because of the Sahara desert. Any sort of contact between Eurasia and Africa in ancient times, were more likely to occur by ship, whether its floating along the Nile River or crossing the western and eastern seas.


Atlantis was a large island land mass, a separate land mass to Old World, with high mountains, large plain, in a certain direction, a certain distance (distant/remote/no-contact). Atlantis can't be closer than Atlas mountains and "Pillars of Hercules" "at Gibraltar". As such it does not match Africa/Libya.
Urani/Aaru/Amenti "land of the sunset".
Egyptian world had 10 bows/arcs.
Some West Africans do seem to have had contacts with Atlantis to the west, eg Olokun, etc.



Edited by Arthur-Robin - 09-Dec-2018 at 23:57
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: 11-Dec-2018 at 09:25
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.


Edited by Atlantean35 - 11-Dec-2018 at 09:31
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: 12-Dec-2018 at 01:06
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?

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
 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 0.172 seconds.