by John » Thu 15 Sep 2016 5:41 pm
It strikes me as very odd that the idea that human kind, having gained the benefit of an expanded understanding facility, the Cortex by at least 50,000 BC, and would have benefited from its slowly increasing usability for about 200,000 thousand years before gaining the full Monte, should have stumbled around getting nowhere very fast until an apparently sudden cultural leap forward around 12,000 BC. This has to be just about the most unlikely of scenarios!
The followers of the Saturn Dwarf star theory, might say that being shrouded by an impenetrable cloud that obscured the heavens’ gave no scope for the discoveries that became possible with the advent of the Solar System - this is an understandable criterion, but … It shuts so many doors.
It is my preferred opinion that, even in those circumstances, human need and ingenuity would simply have faced a more difficult challenge. In all history, of every kind, there is no claim that there was a time of no day and no night. We have always had ten toes and ten fingers, so the ‘idea’ of a number amounting to twenty was inescapable! This being so, useful and usable elements of time and arithmetic was endemic!
Can we believe that, say, having made a suitable holder (cup) from mud, man was too stupid to realise that he had at hand (!) a form of clock, needing only a hole and some sand. Assuming, if only for the sake of discussion, that seasons (of some kind) have always been in man’s life – the very cycle of life, even that life of millions of years earlier, has depended on the seasons (a Spring and an Autumn perhaps) for its evolution. These seasons could have been numbered in days for a start. Man (anywhere) would have wanted to note when edible fruits might become available. He would see the signs and plan his time, as do even apes and monkeys.
So, I reject the idea that we made no notable progress in all those, possibly a hundred or more thousands of years. Physical evidence of such would, in our much later age, be but a daydream. I cannot accept that all that we know that ancient man could handle, has evolved only after the acquisition of the Solar System, that is for sure. If that transposition did in fact happen, it would, of course, have spurred man on. So, at this point, Homo Sapiens is in full bloom, equal in mental ability to ourselves. No-one seriously disputes this.
BUT – All researchers (well almost all) denigrate mankind by consigning him to, at the very least, 40,000 latter day years of no notable progress. Patent nonsense. Those of us enlightened by the Catastrophic approach to Earth history, know better. We all know better because we know that humanity has experienced near extermination on many occasions and recovered. It is an unrecorded history. This all takes a very long time. Many catastrophe’s are recorded as disturbances in the rock structure, but leave us with unanswered questions.
The emphasis in human history is on mobility: this is why when seeking a ready source of food and -before the advent of agriculture - man needed the already available, relatively easy prey. So, I think, he moved to the seaside! There is a good deal of speculation that we evolved from the sea anyway, so mayhap, it’s in the blood. Having found suitable fishing grounds his society soon expanded.
Unfortunately this seaside paradise meant that natural disasters could sweep him and his society into the sea, with few, if any survivors and virtually no trace of his stay there.
After a bit, it would have become obvious that coastal areas, long term, harbingered extreme dangers. The ‘sideline’ of farming inland would have already been started by non-fishermen and had perhaps, soon gained in estimation and long term advantage. It was shown to be, overall, more advantageous and more reliable than fishing. At least some avenue of escape, perhaps to higher land, could be made before the dreaded, known and expected, tsunami could cover the distance to their inland settlements.
Times of famine would have, again, left little but the devastations of time when critical levels were breached. A temporary return to fishing and the seaside may have been part of the story. But, nothing could save them from earthquake or volcano wheresoever they lived. Decimating experiences, like the pyroclastic cloud that can reach speeds of 450 mph would wipe out all in its path, making matchwood of the their homes in seconds, leaving no discoverable remains, especially after the passage of several thousands of years. Others, elsewhere, survived.
Nonetheless, what may lie over the hill is one of the more exciting of our imaginings. It will drive us, even to extreme lengths, to seek and see. We just must find out. So, presumably, the young would leave home and go a-wandering. Home had enriched and established animal husbandry and produced a few tools, plus harnessing the Ox to draw the plough. All obvious, no stretch called for here.
So ,what was to stop them winding up on a land, a huge island, which, with its environs made passage to the Americas simply a long stroll with short boat trips. If it existed – nothing! I think there is much in mythology and the record to say that it did. Basking in sunshine and rich in arable land, these adventurers would quickly build their societies and readily import their fauna and flora, if it wasn’t already there! It is now known that the art of sea-faring was well established and widely used.
However, the old enemy catastrophe returns and perhaps quite soon the land is submerged and all is lost. Eventually, with re-emergence it all happens again – and again! The old priest Pateneit referred to several ups and downs in our human recollection of the long ago. This could easily mean that that these ‘Atlanteans’, being so favoured, learned, (aided by elephants – handy tractors!) skills of archaeology that were later used by the Aztecs and Egyptians. This thought suggests the possibility that elephants were imported to raise Stonehenge. I know no elephant remains have surfaced, but it strikes me as more likely than loading boats (how) with potentially fatal results – and – if there was a landbridge and Atlanteans were a present force, why not elephants? There are so many questions.
In the final (latest) submergence of the land bridge it seem quite probable that already established émigré Atlanteans became what we know as the Beaker People. They already knew of bronze – how, if not from Atlantis? What of the body of the “Amesbury Archer” Late Neolithic, 2400–2200BC. Found near Stonehenge, the burial is over 4000 years old. It is one of the earliest bell Beaker style graves in Britain. Might he be an Atlantean, a member of the Beaker people, and might he have died – before or during the erection of Stonehenge and owned elephants?
The dating of these ‘events’, barring some ‘discovery’ that settles the matter, must rely on such related ‘history’ as we have. The most reliable appear to be those maintained in world-wide myth and custom. There are any number of these from all around the eastern borders of the Atlantic. Among these are Welsh and Irish as well as Mediterranean sources. Their essential thread gives what I believe is an overwhelming endorsement of the idea of an Atlantic based power and the spread of its influence.
Their varied stories indicate a period at least prior to 10,000 BC. The existence of a large area of land, or land and islands, that provided access to the Americas, must then have existed as I have suggested.
Such a land, climatically delightful, and probably well stuffed with goodies, as was the USA until exploited to near ruin. These riches would allow the rapid growth of an advanced culture, relatively unafflicted by outside threat, as the Mediterranean peoples were mostly engaged with itinerant savages from the north and Persia’s rise in the east. Those in the west, too few, with much else to do.+
Pateneit, the ancient priest of Sais, told Solon (640 – 558 BC) that he knew about the American Continent, (he apparently described it as an island of sorts) let alone Atlantis! He ‘knew’ that the land bridge that housed Atlantis, had risen and fallen ‘several times’. If, as I do, you believe this is a most likely scenario (I’m a catastrophist!) then inevitably more than just a few thousand years of history must have been in the hands of the Egyptian’s.
If so, there would without a doubt, have been inscriptions, written history and vocally inherited records. The old priest refers to their existence in no uncertain manner. As these would have been extant at the time of Solon’s visit, for the priest to lie would have been the height of folly, probably punishable by death for defaming Egyptian history. At this time Sais was teeming with Greeks who had also probably heard at least part of the story and would have seen the inscriptions.
Of course, we were not there and cannot be certain beyond a doubt (yet), but the politics that control us controlled them - even more closely, so this I think must be a true account of that time.
However, truth does not necessarily entail detailed accuracy. For me personally, there is a major uncertainty. Where was Plato? How did he learn the story? Probably from Critias or Socrates when he Plato was himself but a youth. While the time defined as 9600 BC is affirmed with great emphasis, it would have gained added importance by its reference distant time, before Greek history had been recorded. Indeed a momentous point in time. But - this very point, handed down through many years in remembrance, may be its Achilles heel! That date, ascribed to the founding of Athens, became a key factor in cementing Athens and Sais historically. Perhaps a confusion arose, to the effect that perhaps that date, years before Athens became a power, relates to the first awareness of the Atlantean Empire rather than its demise.
At that particular time Athens could not have posed a threat – it had barely begun! I can nowhere find a source that dates the founding of Atlantis. Adding to the confusion, it may be that cities such as Atlantis may have appeared and disappeared several times on the Atlantic escalator! I fear that even today, tracing timelines presents a confusing picture. Any authoritative help will be appreciated**.
The apparent several Earth inversions (**particularly here!) would obviously play a devastating role in an area of such subsidence and violent volcanic capacity, bounded as it was by a vast ocean.
Allowing for time and distance, on foot for the troops anyway – it could have been a very long time indeed before Atlantis reached a peak and was corrupted by internal problems, events that fore-shadow the fall of Rome. Meanwhile, the slow advance of Athenian Society would eventually arm it with the strength to challenge and perhaps defeat their enemy.
Then – calamity. The ‘Island of Atlantis’ (very possibly sited on Tore, a now an undersea volcanic seamount, situated about two hundred miles west of Lisbon), as posited by Spence in his “Roots of Cataclysm” pp 101-105) is blown apart and the whole landmass sinks below sea level. It is of note that this super volcanic eruption is near a line that extends to the Yellowstone National Park caldera which – they say – is already overdue – and may cause a lot of N. America to disappear overnight.
At 200 miles distance the coasts of Iberia and N. Africa (Britain et al) would have been seriously affected and there is evidence that the present coastlines follow the line of adjacent land fall. This – putative – super volcano is dated at 1640 BC ± and its fallout has been confused with the later Thera 1540 BC eruption that largely destroyed Santorini.
If then, we put the demise event as circa 1640 BC, this is still some 1100 years before Solon hears the story. A long time in which much can be lost, particularly in the subsequent, nearby Thera event.
This suggests that the Atlantean history encompasses a period from at least 9,600 BC, as it pre-dates Athens, to the eruption of 1,640 BC. Its disappearance would have left its imperial tentacles ‘hanging loose’ and those ‘survivors’, principally by then, new Europeans, may turn out to be what are now known as the ‘Beaker’ people.
The following has been ‘lifted’ from the internet:
“Although different researchers have located Atlantis just about everywhere on the face of the earth, Plato, in his Timaeus gives several distinctive indications of its true location.
1. "This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean." This gives the general location.
2. Plato also describes Atlantis as "an island (nesos) situated in front of (pro) the straits which are by you called the pillars of Heracles." The Greek word pro can be translated "before," or "in front of". (Some translators prefer to translate pro as "facing" or "opposite".)
3. Plato says both the island and the ocean were named after Atlas, the firstborn of Poseidon and Cleito. Even Herodotus, a hundred years before Plato, calls the sea outside the Pillars of Heracles the "Atlantis Sea". (History, Book I)
4. Plato describes the Mediterranean Sea which is "within the Straits of Heracles" as "only a harbour, having a narrow entrance," but the other sea (outside the Straits) as a "real sea".
5. Finally, Plato describes Atlantis as "the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent [America?] which surrounds the true ocean [the Atlantic]." Atlantis was situated just outside Gibraltar in the Atlantic Ocean—I find it difficult to interpret any other way”. Sadly this author appears to be anonymous.
I am now engaged upon something of a treatise, intended to relate the essence of the Atlantis saga in a manner that can be readily followed by such as myself who find it frustrating to be told of this era, age, or that ‘ioscene, without any reference to its place in time, X000 BC for example. I like a timeline as it seems to help me put things together. Those deeply engaged in these scenarios need no help with this but I am fed up with having to continually check back on the internet before I can follow the story.