<< Atlantis in Gibraltar, between Iberia and Africa >>
Comparisons between the theory of the Hispano-american investigator Georgeos Diaz-Montexano and French geologist Jacques Collina-Girard. Simple Coincidences or Plagiarism?
By María Fdez-Valmayor
The French geologist Jacques Collina-Girard claims no one
before him
(Sept, 2001, publication date of his article) had realized Atlantis
Island could be located in one of the sunken islands or shoals at the
Strait of Gibraltar, which was exactly where hispano-american
investigator Georgeos Díaz-Montexano has been upholding for the
last years: he could prove the first publication of his theory was in
April, 2000 (see: Proofs 1 and Proofs 2)
Georgeos Díaz-Montexano
Theory in April, 2000
Jacques Collina-Girard
Theory in September, 2001
Collina-Girand has successfully confused the National Geographic Society, as well as everyone else, with his "influence", "degrees", and "academic references". He has "more credibility" than Georgeos Díaz, as he is part of the "oficial" and "academic world". However, he is neither entitled to nor has the right to take advantage of someone's effort and intellectual property, even from an "amateur".
Anyway, this point is, in fact, easy to solve (both in front of public opinion and court, if there was no other way but turn to Law): In order to prove Collina-Girard has formulated a theory almost identical if not really similar to Georgeos Diaz-Montexano's one, at least in the most fundamental points and the theoretical statement, he just needs to settle two obstacle, from my on point of view, easy to overcome.
1. He has to prove that those who read the basic statements of Collina-Girard's theory, which was same as Georgeos Diaz's, would find both theories similiar or almost identical to each other, close enough for them to be easy confused, regardless of who was the first person to write it. So, first of all, it would be necessary to lay down how close the two basic statements are: the major defence of Collina-Girard's is still that both theories are "totally different". Of course, what else would he say!
If there is a high similitude between both basic statements of this two theories, then, we have a problem, as both autors cannot claim in their writtings, and in front of mass media, they are the original creators of it. It can only be one, and this point could be solve if one of them says so, in public, that is, his theory is later, just a "simple" and "curious casuality". If the secondary or later author keeps saying everywhere in mass media that he was the first to announce that theory, then, of course, he would be damaging the original and previous author, who won't be able to get neither financing nor any support to develop his theory, as everybody would argue there's a previous investigator claiming to have been developing the same statement before.
2. So after laying down how close to eah other the basic statements are, it would be necessary to show who was the first publishing it. There're magazines and news to demostrate this point.
To make it easy, I've arranged a short article and clear comparative table, with the basic statements of both theories, showing the most relevant points people can see when reading them. Accurately, these comparisions should be done with investigators' first publicacions, instead of their later developing of themselves. And so it is. We have compared the main statements of both theories in Georgeos' first publication (the mass media magazine "Más Allá de la Ciencia" -Beyong Science-, April, 2000), and Jacques Collina-Girard's, in Science Academy, September, 2001. The French geologist submitted a report, with date March 15th, 2001, to French Science Academy. Collina-Girard states this theory came up to his mind just by chance in January, 2001, but the report was not accepted until June, 2001, and published in September, 2001. So, before September, 2001, no one could neither know nor even think Collina-Girard's theory did exist. Up until that date, the only theory about "Atlantis in Gibraltar, between Iberia and Morocco" was Georgeos Diaz's statement. Also, as the bulletin where Collina-Girard published his "pseudo-theory" would only circulate in academic media, it hadn't reached outside if it wasn't for the big divulgation campaign at the end of September, 2001, using all international mass media.
Why did they do so?
How many relevant and even more original reports are submitted every year to Science Academy, no announced at any international mass media?
Why even, being Atlantis a "taboo" topic, with a really bad image for scientific society, all institutions and media regarding them hastened to support this "pseudo-theory" divulgation campaign, Collina-Girard's (the Georgeos's theory) "Atlantis in Gibraltar, between Iberia and Africa"?
The French scientist (Jacques Collina-Girard and his team) did know perfectly Georgeos Diaz's investigations, and, convinced of his higher scientific possiblities, they planned to steal Georgeos Diaz's theory as soon as they realized he was not part of any University, with neither possible credibility nor institutional support with him. Looks like, as we have seen, these French "scientists" did think it is the "oficial science", not again "amateurs", the ones to represent and take the glory for (maybe, who knows) the scientific discovery of Atlantis. This is not the first time in History, "so-called" academic "scientist"had tried the same, not only against Spanish investigators.
In any case, we need your most sincere opinion and votes, after reading this article and analyzing the comparative table between both theories:
http://civilizaciones.web...ry/tablacomparativa2.pdf
Please, see to the pdf archive.
http://usuarios.lycos.es/...n_front_of_Gibraltar.pdf
Yours, María Fdez-Valmayor
Secretary, "The Civilizations Origins Scientific Society"
http://Atlantis.sitio.net
origenesinfo@todito.com
Votes:
Survey: Think that a great similarity between both theories exists?
http://miarroba.com/encuestas/votar.php?id=73637
Translate by Lc. César Guarde. Universidad de Barcelona, Spain.
Dear Friends:
I offer a Link to him to a map of the Georgeos's book, that I hope that she can interest and serve to him to him. I recommend to him that it opens the map in the beginning and maintains it open so that is including/understanding better the text...
All links to the photos, I have placed them to facilitate the understanding of the text of the Georgeos's book.
http://civilizaciones.web...io.com/mapa_atlantis.jpg
Or this mirror Link:
http://club2.telepolis.co.../images/mapa_atlantis.jpg
The text that explains that map in the book on "Atlantis in front of Gibraltar, between Iberia and Morocco", of Georgeos, are the following one:
> > > Plato say that there was an island in front of the mouth, that they, the Greeks, knew like Pillars of Hercules. In the Greek version that has arrived to us until today, that is not the original one, says "to pro tou stomatos", that is to say, "ahead or before the mouth or mouth or entrance"; Chalcidius (century IV) that was first - according to it seems that it made a translation commented to Latin of the Timaeus de Plato, translates these words like "IN ORE AC VESTIBULO SINUs", o sea, "en la boca y vestíbulo del golfo; whereas Marsilio Ficino (century XV), first that translated complete works of Plato to the Latin, translated it like "in ore & quasi vestibulo", "en la boca y casi en el vestíbulo". He is unquestionable, therefore, which the Atlantis island would be then in front of the mouth of the Straits of Gibraltar, and closely together, since one needs, before the mouth and almost in the lobby or entrance of the gulf, that is the Gulf of Cadiz or Atlantic, that begins right by where is Cabo Trafalgar and the Island of Majuan. He is certainly peculiar that the old "Island of Majuan" (that Collina-Girard has changed properly by Island of Spartel) is just in the same mouth of the Straits; nevertheless, it is very little probable that this is the Nêsos to which it talks about Plato, since Plato says by mouth of Kritias that still in the times of Solón or Plato, not could as soon as to sail over the place where the island had submerged, due to "the very low" bottoms (in Greek karta braxeos) and to the mud that the island caused when sinking. The island was then to very little depth, and according to all the data collected by oceanographers, the "Island of Majuan" (Majuan Bank in naúticas letters) was emerged for the last time does, approximately, about 13,000 years BP.
In the times of Plato the top or superior part of this island, that is like a hill, would be below the -50 meters. Nevertheless, as opposed to the present Câbo de Trafâlgar a great extension of bottoms exists, that still today are relatively low and dangerous for the coastal navigation.
1. This is my hypothesis number one, as far as the location of the Island the Acropolis de Atlantis. This extension presents the form of a peninsula, it castrates or promontory, and the Greek word Nêsos was used the same for island that stops peninsula or earth end that excels towards the sea, and also it was used to denominate to the deltas of the rivers, like Latin insula. Therefore, the "Nêsos Atlantis", would be the extension or submerged prolongation of the old Câbo dê Trafâlgar, that not by chance in the antiquity said that it had a temple dedicated to the Iuno goddess, Hêra or of Venus of the Sea "(according to the sources). This peninsula now submerged was in the past (Age of the Bronze) a Nêsos of "the Atlantic sea", that is to say, a Nêsos Atlantis, since Atlantis are in feminine, and according to the definition of Perseus, is not "of Atlas" or "the God Atlas" as i myself it thought before; according to the definition of Perseus, Atlantis are due to translate like "the Atlantic sea"; therefore, "Atlantis Nêsos" would have to be translated like "the Nêsos of the Atlantic sea" (to see definition in Perseus). As it is possible to be observed in the map, this "Nêsos Atlantis" of the Câbo dê Trafâlgar, still are at the present time extended between the -5 meters and the -20 meters, and present/display a group of islands and small barren islands reunited like an archipelago, that are between the -5 meters and the -17 meters. It is necessary to consider that the level of the sea can have raised until about 4 meters over the level that existed at the time of Plato, which means that more likely, in the times of Solón or Plato, the level of the sea in the Atlantic could be below -3 or -4 meters, with respect to the present level; therefore, these submerged islands, and this Nêsos or peninsula, would still be to smaller depth of which today they are. In any case, recent studies exist that raise the possibility that, shortly before Plato, the level of the sea could even have been -5 or -6 meters underneath. As it wants that it is watched, this "Atlantic Nêsos Atlantis" or submerged, is the only Nêsos that exists in front of the Columns of Hercules and in the lobby or entrance of the Gulf of Cadiz, because, in fact, the Gulf begins in this same Câbo dê Trafâlgar, whereas in the part of Morocco similarity, at least near the mouth of the Gulf or before the mouth of the Straits of Gibraltar exists anything not even.
2. My hypothesis number two is Chîclana dê lâ Frontêra and Cadiz, because also both meetings conform an extensive Nêsos, and are immediate to the Câbo de Trafalgar.
3. My hypothesis number three would be Rotâ and Chipîona, that also conform a great Nêsos, surrounded by two rivers of great volume in their openings, the Guadalete and the Guadalquivir. In the same way which Chipiona derived from the Greek name old, Kaipionos (pronouncing Kepiono), Chiclana could have derived from the Greek name * kyclana Kyklonos or *, "circulating", that is, a sobrename of the circular city of Atlantis, which we could see also confirmed in anitguo name of Rotâ, that in most of old Indo-European languages means "wheel"; a wheel with its central point or axis and the rays, is something enough similarity to the Acropolis of Atlantis.
4. The hypothesis that I consider with number four, is the one to locate it in some point near the delta of the Guadalquivir (Cotô dê Doñâna). This hypothesis is not mine but of other also Spanish investigators: Juân dê Marîana (century XVI), Josê Pellîcer Ossâu î Tovâr (century XVII), Francîsco Fernândez î Gonzâlez and its son Juân Fernândez Amadôr î dê lôs Rîos (1919). Josê Pellicer affirmed that Tartessós that was the same city of Atlantis, was in the Greater Island of the delta of the Guadalquivir, because at its time, that Greater Island, near Seville, is still called between the natural ones of the place, Tarsis. On the other hand, Antônio Blázquêz and Dêlgado-Aguîlera (1923), just a year before Adolf Schülten, published a book on Tartessós and the "Orâ Marîtima" of Avîeno. In this work, as far as the location of Tartessos, my predecessors raised, just like a year later Schülten practically wrote, on the theory of Tartessós in the western margin of the Guadalquivir river. When he left the work Schülten the Spanish scholars they got infuriated themselves - and with reason -, and demanded his originality to Schülten, that never responded, as if it had not passed anything; the indignation of the Spanish scientists vió increased by the fact that they knew that Schülten had received book copy that they wrote a year before, and therefore, Schülten was to the current of the ideas and hypotheses spilled in this work of both Spanish authors. In fact, Schülten copied almost all the original ideas of Blázquêz and Dêlgado-Aguîlera, and it made them happen as hers in his book "Tartessós" (1924).
Were united to this claim of Blázquêz and Dêlgado-Aguîlera against Schülten, very important Spanish investigators, among them the same Jûan Fernándêz Amâdor dê lôs Rîos, that also protested to Schülten - and yet straight -, since he himself, and their father, Frâncisco Fêrnández î Gonzâlez, identified the Atlântida with Tartessós before Schülten, and they before made several years ("Iberian Antiques public ", 1919). This claim was allowed, although also it is certain (and this did not know the mentioned authors to it) that first that it identified to Tartessos with Atlantis she was priest Jesuîta, Juân Dê Marîana, (century XVI) and after this Josê Pellîcer Ossâu and Tôvar (Century XVII), that a study made complete much more.
It is peculiar the parallelism that exist between the case of the plagiarism of Schülten to the mentioned Spanish authors, and the plagiarism that Jacques Collina-Girard of the fundamental points and the essence of my theory has made. In both cases, as much Schülten as Collina-Girard was not Spanish, both they were informed into original works, and in both cases, both they published its theoretical plagiarisms, a year after the publication of the original ones. The sad thing is that as anything it served all the protests of the Spanish scholars, Schülten robbed that glory to them, in spite of not to have econtrado no test of the city of Tartessós; which me trasmite a certain preoccupation that to my also it ends up to me happening the same. It seems that it is an old custom, that some nonSpanish European scientists take control of the intellectual effort and the original ideas of the scientists or Spanish investigators. History is being repeated, and this time has not been a German, is a French. Saddest of everything, he is that until in sites of Internet where supposedly much people seemed to appreciate my contributions and argumentations, when aid was requested to them soliciing that sent letters to all means of press requesting so that the facts were known, and in spite of to have offered the necessary tools for it, single a pair of people they responded publishing the news on my theory and discoveries in other forums, perhaps this must that most of the participants of these forums where I also contributed and discussed, they are European nonSpanish, many of them are French, Belgian, Swedish, Germans, English, but Spanish or Hispano-American, I believe that I was the unique one. In fact, in the Forum of Atlantis Rising, that was my preferred forum, instead of supporting to one of his more participant assets like were I at those moments, some made all the opposite took advantage of my misfortune and began an authentic campaign in my against. It was arrived until saying, Jacques Collina-Girard is Science, Georgeos Diaz-Montexano pseudoscience, and also Alive Collina-Girard, down Georgeos Diaz! It is very probable, that my greater sin, my greater crime, than many cannot pardon, is not to be a German, English, Swedish or a French, not to be not even a Spanish, since I am son and grandson of Spaniards by both parts, but as I were born in Cuba, because oy Cuban, and that turns to me a Hispano-American, who to European eyes of many, which they are still created a species of superior race, more intelligent, is as if not even he had right to being intelligent and to happen to history like one of the investigators whom also something original and important contributed to the enigma of Atlantis. It is sad, but it is one hard reality. Still it continues existing much people who, unfortunately, continue thinking this way. For that reason almost nobody has made nothing help not even by means of the shipment of a simple informative note means, because at heart, many they prefer that he is a French, although is a plagiador and thief of theories, gives equal, but better than he is a French who can happen to history like the discoverer of Atlantis that Hispanic-Cuban or a Hispano-American, this of course would be something very humiliating for certain people. In the Forum of Graham Hancock, an anonymous user talking about to my discoveries of the last summer, said, when talking about to the possibility not so distant that I could discover the Atlantis island: Oh, no. That would be something terrible.
5. Returning to the alternative hypotheses; my hypothesis number five is to look for the city in some coastal point near the city of Huelva.
6. My hypothesis number six, is that the city of Atlantis could be on the level platform that exists upon the Câbo dê Sân Vîcente known like "Câbo Sagrê", since this also it is a Nêsos, and over the same one one long plain extends.
7. My hypothesis number seven is the own Island of Madeira and other near ones that now is submerged like submarine mountains.
8. My hypothesis number eight is transferred to Morocco, a submerged island that is almost seven times greater than the Island of Majuan and is to smaller depth (to -40 meters). This island is surrounded as well by others six smaller islands, all almost of the same size that the Island of Majuan. These submerged islands are exactly located before the mouth of the small river of Bougadou, to few kilómteros after doubling the Tanger Cape, more near this place than of the city of Asilah. This is the only option which I consider possible in the part of Morocco, since these islands (that receive the name of "Bânco dêl Castîllo" in the Spanish tastings naúticas) are the unique ones that is relatively near the mouth of the Straits of Gibraltar. Any other location in Morocco, that I was beyond these islands, cannot be maintained with rigor if we decided to respect the descriptions of Plato.
According to Plato it is precise that we look for a Nêsos that is, an island or a peninsula or promontory or a great delta of river that begins closely together of the entrance of the Gulf and the mouth of the Straits of Gibraltar. It is obvious that the islands that we handled like possible, are too small to lodge a great city and in addition do not present a great plain around. The only possibility that we have left, that can harmonize of the best possible way the descriptions of Plato is the Nêsos of the Câbo dê Trafâlgar, my hypothesis number one.
Since to the being a earth Nêsos or end that leaves towards the sea, was an island or peninsula, one insula, that in addition extends in the great plain of the Guadalquivir and is surrounded by mountains that arrive until the sea. Any other Nêsos with these same characteristics in front of the mouth of the Straits does not exist, in the lobby or entrance of the Gulf, as it affirms Plato through the Latin translations of Chalcidius, disciple of the Academy of Plato, that worked with original texts of Plato, and Marsilio Ficino that also worked with Greek medieval codices that later disappeared.
The Greek transcription that today we know, for many experts in philology is a medieval translation that became from the Latin version of Ficino and Cornarius. Therefore my argumentations are more outposts and have greater possibility of guessing right, because I work with well-known the oldest and more trustworthy sources, not with copies of a Greek translation of another Latin translation that had as well been a possible translation of original a Greek. The Greek version of Perseus, belongs to the editions that became from the Greek translation of Aldina, that made of the Latin translation of Ficino.
And that Greek translation of the Latin translation is the one that investigators like Erick use Wright and Jonas Bergman, who tries to place the city and lines up main of Atlantis in Morocco, and the Dr Rainer W. Kühne that like I consider in my hypothesis number four, thinks that it is possible to hayar the rest of the Acropolis in some point of the Guadalquivir, exactly in the same area that had indicated already in century XVII, Josê Pellîcer Ossâu î Tovâr. My recommendation for these investigating colleagues is that they more even use - the Latin translations of Ficino and Cornarius that the Greek of Perseus; although they are possible to be worked simultaneously with the three, always must predonimar in the precisions the Latin translations, in special the one of Cornarius that without doubts, seems most correct and coherent.
In order to be able to investigate with rigor any subject of a so remote past, it is necessary, forced, to work with the primary sources, which means that we must work with the sources older than we pruned to find. He is not scientist to direct the search and to build all a theory starting off of a source that is not primary, and despising for the true primary sources, although I only am by this methodologic question, I take to much more advantage on all the investigators who are looking for Atlantis, by all the corners of the world; because while the immense majority is guided by translations that contain serious errors like those of the so popular Jowett Youngest child or by the Greek texts of Perseus, which they are few that in addition they never respect the grammar rules of the style attic of Plato, and single they are limited to do what until ninño it would do, that is to say, to take the words and to alongside place them in row or column like a dictionary with the meaning, and this are thought that they are going to be able to decipher an enigma.
This is complete an absurd one, and that is not metaphrastical translation either or literal, the metaphrastical translation respects the grammar rules, simply, its difference with the common translations phrasticals, is that while these adapt the message original of the text so that he is more comprehensible in certain community and time, the translations metaphrasticals are limited to exactly translate what puts the translation, without adaptations nor adornment, a good example, would be "Atlantis Nêsos": the phrastical translation would be "the Atlantis Island", whereas the metaphrastical translation would be, "the island or Atlantic peninsula" (of the Atlantic sea), that evidently is not the same. It is not the same "the Atlantis Island", that is like saying, "the Madeira Island", that is, the called Island or whose name is Madeira, that to say, "the Atlantic Island or of the Atlantic sea"; in the single previous example we would know as the island is called, whereas in the second example, that is metaphrastical translation, we would know the place geographic where is this island, that is, in the Atlantic sea. As it is possible to be verified in both cases has been respected the grammar norms, as far as the sort, time and syntax, single it changes the semantics of the message, that in the phrastical is simplified and adapted to one more a generalized and vulgar understanding, whereas in the metaphrastical its original sense, since is respected in the texts oldest Atlantis, he was used single to denominate to the sea or the sea (to be in feminine) Atlantic, whereas to the God Atlas it was called to him such in texts like Atlas, and Atlantos or Atlan, that are masculine forms derived from Atlas. In more delayed date, mainly in Roman texts, appears some cases of Atlantis used to name to the Atlas daughters.
9. My hypothesis number nine, by logic, the one that I consider less probable, is the one of the "Islâ Albôrán", that is had in front of Gibraltar, but for the part of the Mediterranean, between Iberia and Marrueco also. This island back does several thousands of years had quite great, at least as long as the present Cadiz, but nowadays as soon as it occupies little more of a kilometer.
http://www.clubdelamar.org/alboran.jpg
http://www.clubdelamar.org/alboran1.jpg
http://www.almeriware.net...a/Alboran/Alboran_001.htm
I think that îsla Albôrán is the same "Platêa Nêsos", "flat island", that the navengante Kolaios, discovered before passing the Columns of Hërcules and arriving at Tartessós. The Alborán Island is an absolutely flat island. Of all ways there are in her some interesting elements that remember the story of Plato like can be species of caves or hollows with ceiling in vaulted projection or, seemed to which, according to Plato, made atlanteans to protect the boats (to see Alboran_013 photo) On the other hand, next to these caves with salient ceiling, is observed in the water which seems channels. Plato also said that the island had cliffs of the coast like cut to tip, is peculiar who in the island of Alborân their cliffs present/display natural marks of you fold inclined which they indeed remember the tracks that leave the stonecutters when they peck stones (to see Alboran_011 photo)...." (aim of appointment of the Georgeos's book)
http://www.almeriware.net...a/Alboran/Alboran_011.htm
http://www.almeriware.net...a/Alboran/Alboran_003.htm
http://www.almeriware.net...a/Alboran/Alboran_013.htm
Warm greetings of Maria.
------------------
María Fdez-Valmayor
Secretary of "The Civilizations Origins Scientific Society" (C.O.S.S.) and "The Scientific Atlantology".
http://Atlantis.sitio.net
http://Georgeos-Diaz.sitio.net
Proofs of which Atlantis were not in Morocco. (taken from the Georgeos's Book)
As all or they know, Georgeos have been coming defending for more than seven years (demonstrated in his first publication in 1997), that the empire or kingdom of Atlantis was made up by the South and western part of the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and of the North and western part of Africa (Morocco). This has been always the essence of its theory. Georgeos always has defended "Atlantis ibero-moroccian", but in relation to capital or island and the Acropolis sacred, Georgeos always has considered that would find in front of Straits of Gibraltar, in mouth of gulf Atlantic, between Iberia and Morocco, because this is exactly what Plato says, the same when is reading in Greek that when it is reading in Latin. If Plato affirms of clear way that the Atlantis island, when talking about to the Acropolis island that sank under the sea, it was located ahead same of the Columns of Hercules, in the lobby or threshold of the gulf or Atlantic sea, is then absurd that is tried to look for the Acropolis on earth in Morocco or same Spain.
The Acropolis could be of no earth way neither in Spain nor in Morocco, so that Plato, and all the later authors did not leave any doubt as far as the collapse of Atlantis under waters of the sea. Plato affirms through Critias that at the time of Solón, when Egyptian priests Sonchis, of Sais, and Psenophis, of Heliopolis (according to Ploutarch) counted the history of Atlantis to Solón, still navigation was dangerous over where it had sunk Atlantis island due to mud waters and to the low or stumbling blocks that were after their collapse under the sea. This description of Plato is very clear and it corresponds, without place to doubt, for whatever it knows to read old Greek and the Latin of correct way, with the geographic characteristics that exist in the marine coasts of Spain, from Gibraltar to Huelva, that is a great zone of waters little deep much dangerous low mud and floods, that does impossible to see under the water nor a meter during most of the year.
This same zone was described by several authors of the antiquity, among them the own Aristotle, disciple of Plato, with the same words that use Plato to talk about to the area where it had sunk the island and the Acropolis of Atlantis. Nevertheless, in spite of these so clear evidences and data, now some insist on falsear or modifying to convenience these data, to be able to sustain the absurd idea that Atlantis the sea is in nonlow earth and.
Several proofs that demonstrate that the theory of the capital of Atlantis in Morocco is not objective, nor can be maintained with scientific rigor. Between these proofs, the main one gives own the Plato it, when it says that the Greek names are not the original ones, but the translations by meaning, of the names that the Egyptians had translated from the original language of atlanteans. Then, if the Greek name of Atlases and Atlantis is not the original one, because then he is completely absurd and pseudo scientist, in addition to useless, to try to develop all a theory on Atlantis in Morocco, because in Morocco are the Atlas mounts. The name of Atlantis was not Atlantis nor Atlas, as or it clarifies Plato simply, because then it is not possible to be looked for Atlantis near the Atlas nor in Morocco, because this was not his true name. The only name that Plato it affirms - through Kritias- that was of the original language of the country of the Atlanteans is Gadeiros and the region of Gadeirikê, that is to say, the region of Gadeira, that corresponds with the province of Cadiz.
Therefore, being the this only name they atlantean that it can be identified surely, because the only scientific theory is the one that directs its glances towards Iberia. Although it is not possible to be discarded that by its Morocco proximity it comprised of the Atlantean kingdom, does not exist in the story of Plato any geographic name that allows to confirm that Morocco comprised of the kingdom of Atlantis, and much less than in Morocco was the island and the main Acropolis (according to Plato the power of the Atlanteans extended by almost all Mediterranean).
The only data that allows to suppose that Morocco comprised of Atlantis is the mention of the elephants, but it is known that in the Iberian Peninsula there were elephants even until the classic times, probably brought from Morocco. The certain thing is that in Spain have been several old cities previous to the arrival of the Romans and Carthaginians who coined their own currencies with elephants by a face and Hercules by the other, among other symbols. The writing of these coins is not known, although the Libyan-phoenician neon-aramean has occurred him or name of, in fact it is a new alphabet, and completely not known, and nobody can assure the exact age these coins. One of those cities survived until the arrival of the Romans, since it presents by a face this strange writing and an elephant and by the other to Hercules and the name written in Latin of "Laskuta".
Some modern authors think that the famous elephants that Hannibal in Iberia used to cross the Pyrenees, were of Iberia, because any reference does not exist that that says it brought them of Africa. In Andalusia was a tomb previous to the Romans with a sculpture of elephant ("Lâ Tûmba dêl Elefânte") and in mountains of Barcelona have been discovered great petroglifos of the Age of the Bronze that represent Elephants and soldiers with swords and shields and helmets of pens, very similar to which appears drawn in the temple of Madinat-Habu, in Egypt and which they are denominated like "Towns of the Sea".
These petroglifos demonstrate that the elephant existed in Iberia in the Age of the mentioned Bronze and coins above with strange writing demonstrates also that the elephant was still well-known in Iberia before the arrival of the Carthaginians and Romans. Nobody has made a genetic study of the DNA of found ivories in Iberia, that they are many, but Georgeos is convinced that the day that becomes this study will demonstrate that ivories do not belong to any race of elephants of Africa nor of Asia, and that these single will be similar to the rest of elephants found in Iberia.
In any case, and returning to the main question, and that truely matters. Atlantis are not the original name of the island or peninsula that Plato it ahead places and upon the Columns of Hercules (Gibraltar), therefore nothing related to the name Atlantis, Atlante or Atlas has no value in the search of the solution of this mystery. We only have two safe datum points. Gadeira and Columns of Hercules, because although also it is a Greek name, like Atlas and rest of names, in text Egyptian affirm to Solón, that the Columns of Hercules (Herakleous Stêlas) were the name that the Greeks gave that place, that is to say, to the mouth or opening of the Straits where to the island or peninsula of Atlantis was located (to see Timaeus 24).
As it demonstrates Georgeos in his book, with these two only safe names, offered by Plato, single can look for Atlantis, or at least one important part of the kingdom of Atlantis in Iberia. Atlas, was not called Atlas, therefore, the name of all the island and the sea or Atlantic gulf that had taken the name by this, was not Atlantis nor Atlantic either. As the main region where the first son had been born and where did not erect the city either sacred would be called Atlantis by king Atlas, but of another way who Solón did not register in its written narration of which there were counted the Egyptian priests to him.
We do not know then, as it was the true name of Atlantis, nor of the gulf, sea or sea that opened in front of the Columns of Hercules nor the true name of the first king, but we know the name of the second king, the twin brother, Gadeiros and also know to the name of the region that dominated east king and who arrived until the Columns of Hercules, the region of Gadeira (Gades or Cadiz). Therefore, we know surely that the region of Gadeira comprised of the island or peninsula of Atlantis, and this region of Gadeira, always has comprised of the peninsula or island of Iberia (to be surrounded this by three seas: the Mediterranean, the Atlantic and the Cantabrian) As Gadeira comprised of the peninsula of Iberia, because it is logical to think that about this same peninsula or island, would be the other region of its twin brother, the one that had been born before he and who Solón translates to the Greek like Atlas. Therefore, the primitive region where was the mountain of low height, and the hill that was surrounded by concentric ring of sea and earth, to protect the dwelling and the temple of Kleitós, could be in any other point of the coast of Iberia near the Columns of Hercules. The same passing the Columns towards the Atlantic, that ahead, in the Mediterranean, but always between Iberia and Morocco.
These are the facts, and these are the true data worthy to study and to consider like serious. Any theory which it is tried to support in the Greek names of the story of Atlantis - with exception of the "Herakleous Stêlas" - cannot be considered like serious, so that own the Plato through Kritias already noticed that they were not original them name, but the translations of the names that the Egyptians had translated from the language of atlanteans.
Finally, and in relation to the Atlas and to Morocco, are important to indicate that the Atlas of Morocco was not well-known before the times of Solón, that is to say, before the VI century (BC). Before Solón the Atlante mount was located in the Alps or in the Pyrenees of between Spain and France, since the few references that exist before Solón affirm that Monte Atlante was to the other side of the sea, before the Hespérides, and to these they place texts such, near the present city of Tunisia. Therefore to the other side of the sea, opposite of the area between the Syrtis and Carthage, the only high mounts that existed were the Alps and the Pyrenees.
Are possible that the Egyptian priests knew the Columns Hercules (Gibraltar) and the western coasts of Morocco, by the trip of Neko, made shortly before Solón, but nothing of this trip in the narration comments, nor affirms at no moment that the main region of region of the Atlantis island was near Monte de Atlas. Single the names derived from Atlas are used to denominate to the sea and the island or peninsula. Whereas on the other hand, the testimonies that are conserved of the trips of Neko and Sataspes do not mention at any moment the Atlas mount, in spite of describing to the passage by the Columns of Hercules and the coasts of Morocco. Not even the trip of exploration of Hanno, of later date to Solón, mentions Monte Atlante nor the Atlante name. And it is peculiar because the text mentions the Columns of Hercules and abounds in names and geographic details. In fact he was not after Herodotus (that was later to Solón) that began to consider itself by some authors who the Atlas mount was in the extreme West of Libya or Africa.
All these data demonstrate without doubt that, does not exist no objective and serious reason to continue looking for the Acropolis of Atlantis in Morocco, nor to identify to the island or peninsula of Atlantis with the mount Atlante and Morocco. In the first place, because Atlantis were a Greek name, it was not the original name, and secondly, because before Solón the Atlante mount was located between the Alps and the Pyrenees. Primitively it was in Arcadia, later would happen to the Alps and shortly before Solón it would be located in the Pyrenees, as they demonstrate the sources previous to Solón.
I trust that the weight of the reason ends up squashing the errors of interpretation and the ignorance that exists on the historical data and the primary sources. I also hope, that the force of the argument prevails. Not the argument of the force, as lamentably it is happening in this Forum.
Warm Greetings of Maria.
------------------
María Fdez-Valmayor
Secretary of "The Civilizations Origins Scientific Society" (C.O.S.S.) and "The Scientific Atlantology".
http://Atlantis.sitio.net
http://Georgeos-Diaz.sitio.net
The Name Original de Atlantis. Linguistic reconstruction.
Jonas investigator Bergman de AtlantisRising.com defends the old theory of?Atlantis in Morocco. Between their main arguments are the geographic comparisons and the names. Jonas Bergman raises the hypothesis that the Semitic word (in this Hebrew case) Salah or Shelah, is the same word that Solón translated to Greek Atlas and Atlantis. According to Bergman, these words mean "to to bear, to lift up, to weigh, to balance". Bergman tries with this to relate to the old city phoenician of Room with the own city of Atlantis. Nevertheless, as we see after the cuatros meant that he exposes Bergman, single both last are correct. And these do not appear between the meaning of the Greek word Atlas. That they say the dictionaries on the matter? Let us see proofs: Shelah (Sheh'-lakh) = "sprout". Proper Name Masculine. An they are of Arphaxad and to father of Eber. (The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon) Whereas Shalah = "happy", "to prosper", "safety"; "decive"; "away"; "amiss". Other related words are Shalat, "dominion", "to power", "rule", "ruleth", and Shelet, "shields". In Hebrew Shalat: to primitive root; to dominate, i.e. govern; by implication, to permit : - - (to to bear, have) rule, have dominion, give (have) to power. These definitions do not fit with the one of a word that was used the same for "suffering, to?soportar? and to?padecer punishment, that to?aguantar a load or weight, like Atlas was it the Greek word. Shalat cannot be translated by the Greek Atlas of any way, and less still, existing in the semíticas languages other words, truely equivalent to the Greek Atlas. The Greek single Atlas can be a translation of the Sbl Semite (S?b?l) who is used with these same meaning. In the Hebrew and Greek dictionary one says that Shlet (shel-it ties ') is a voice Aramaic that, corresponding to ' shalat ': - - have the mastery, have to power, to bear rule, be (make) to ruler. That is, nothing that to see with the translation of the Greek word Atlas. As he can see itself, Jonas investigator Bergman is not going to obtain to nothing serious nor important, with respect to Atlantis in Morocco, using the hypothesis of the word Salah or Shelah like original name of Atlantis.
On the other hand, the name is not due to forget that Room, appears registered like Roman or Latin name, not as they phoenician. In Latin Room, it would be "(city) Salty" or "the Salty sea"; of the Latin Salt, "salt", "the salt to water", "brine", "is". By this same root we have in the southwest of Iberia, between Andalusia and Portugal, the old city of Salacia, which in coins had like symbols, exactly to the God Poseidôn. The city of Room, in Morocco, would be then the "Salty City". In the western coasts of Morocco, everything full of salt. Any inhabitant of the place can give testimony of as the salt is throughout. Anyway, as any Greek nor Roman appointment does not exist that to afir me that the name of Room was phoenician or indigenous, because single we can accept like the more serious and rigorous the hypothesis that Room is the name that the Romans gave that city. Its original name to the arrival of the first Romans would be another one, that has not sobrevido the passage of the Roman colonization and the time. On the other hand, in any dialecto Libyan-bereber Room either does not mean anything similar to the meaning of the Greek voice Atlas. If Jonas Berman knows some example convincing, because it would not have to delay in showing that example to be able to illustrate to all the readers and students.
I cannot include/understand of as dictionary has removed to Jonas Bergman who Salah and Shelah mean "to to bear, to lift up. In fact Sl' (pronounced saw-law' http://club.telepolis.com...sonidos/saw-law_jonas.mp3 ) means "comparable" and comes from a primitive root; "to suspend in a balance", i.e. "weigh": - - "it compares". S'l'h (Salah) also is, "down", "foot", "valued". To primitive root; to hang up, i.e. weigh, or (figuratively) contemn : - - tread down (to under foot), value. S'l'h (Selah): from ' Salah '; suspension (of music), i.e. slows down : - - Selah. Sl' (Selá, pronouncing seh'-lah http://club.telepolis.com...deiros/sonidos/sehlah.mp3 )"hold", "rock", "stones": from an unused root meaning to be lofty; to craggy rock, literally or figuratively (to fortress) : - -(ragged) rock, stone(-ny), strong hold.
These definitions - as much of "Shelah" as of "Salah" -, analyzed from languages semíticas aramaic and hebrew, not fit with the one of word that was used the same for "suffering", "supporting" and "to suffer" punishment, that stops "to hold a load or weight", like the Greek word Atlas. Shelah nor Salah can be translated by the Greek name Atlas of no way. The Greek name single Atlas could have translated of an Egyptian word that had translated as well to one word like the Semite whose S'b'l, whose Sbl root, was used with such meant shared which the Greek word Atlas.
As anyone can verify by itself, Jonas investigator Bergman is not going to obtain nothing serious nor important - with respect to Atlantis going to the erroneous hypothesis of Salah or Shela of Morocco like the name of which supposedly the name of Atlantis would be originated. Jonas Bergman would have to be looking for another history to count, because this story of Shela/Salah = Atlantis, already has been finished. I say it with all my respect, and a tone of healthful humor. Now its turn to another word corresponds to him, to another more objective and real hypothesis: S'b'l (S'bael) = S'bila; Latin Sebilla = Seville. The most important city of the Southwest of Spain, and that the old sources of the Spanish and Arab historians said that it was the oldest city of Iberia, the first founded city.
Seville this in the Guadalquivir river, and the antiquity the boats arrived until the own city, due to the ample and navigable channel of rio Baetis. It is very possible that when submerging the primitive city of Sebila, that is to say, the Acropolis sacred which Solón translates like Atlantis, which was to single about 9 kilometers of the coast, the survivors transferred its capital towards a moved away point more of the coast, but right to where the boats could arrive to continue with their expeditions and the marine commerce. The heart of the Tartésico kingdom is located nowadays, indeed, near Seville. They tartesian more famous treasure is the one than it was discovered in "the Carambolo", Seville. The own Romans called to Seville, "Italica" and "Rome" in their older currencies; being the only city of all the Roman empire to which they denominated with those names. Because the Romans would give the names of their country, "Italica" and "Rome", to a city of Iberia? The single answer could be, because the Romans knew the own natives ibero-tartessians that this city was - as they affirm to the medieval historians the oldest and more important city of all the oocidente of Europe; the capital of Iberia or Hispania. The Arabs still called to Italica with a form that remembered its original name, "Ysbiliya" (pronouncing " Ysbeeliya ": http://club.telepolis.com...iros/sonidos/ysbiliya.mp3 ), since they phoenician form or semítica would be "Y-sbael-ya", "the S'bal Island", that is to say, "the island of which it Supports, of that which Endure, of that which Holds". According to the Spanish historians and philologist of this Arab form of "Ysbiliya", it derived the present name from Seville. Whereas the Romans also called to "Italica" with the name of "Hispal" or "Ispal" (according to the sources); without a doubt, a variant of the same original name from which it derived the Arab, "Ysbilya" or "Isbiliya". The Arabs trasmitieron one more a form nearer the original one phoenician or ibero-tartessian, because the Arabs speak a Semitic language, relative of the old one phoenician, reason why the original name of "Ys?bilya" or "Is?biliya" was easier to understand of the settlers hispanians to them; whereas the Romans spoke an Indo-European language, the Latin, whose phonetic structure is completely different from the semíticas languages. For that reason, the Romans transcribed "Ispali-s", instead of "Isbaelya", in the same way that the Arabs wrote "Ysban" and "ebhrikiya", where the Romans wrote "Hispan"/"Ispan" and Aphrica.
My theory is that the original name of Atlantis could be * Y-Sbael-ya by the semítica root sbl (s'bael) of which derive the forms " AaSB'eL ", " SaB, ", "SB'eL", "SB, aL", and "SeB, LaT" . All of them with the meaning of "suffer", "to to bear", "to support", "to endure", "hold"). He is peculiar, but in Spain still it exists the Semitic last name Bi-Sbal, that would be "son of Sbal", or" son of whom, "to Bear", "to Hold" or "to Suffer". These roots are in the language aramaic. "Aramaic is the ancient language of the Semitic family group, which includes the Assyrians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Arameans, Hebrews, and Arabs. In fact, to large part of the Hebrew and Arabic languages is borrowed from Aramaic, including the Alphabet." (to see http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/aramaic_language.html ) Therefore, to reconstruct old words of possible Phoenician origin he is very recommendable to guide itself by the arameo lexical, nonsingle by the Hebrew.
Let us see the meaning of raiz SBL in the semíticos and dialectos languages aramaics, and Hebrew:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sbl: "to to suffer", "to support", "to carry", "to porter". (Syr. Dialectos Christian, Palestinian and Aramaic)
Sbl: "to carry", "endure". (Dialectos Christian, Palestinian and Aramaic)
S'b'l: to primitive root; to carry (literally or figuratively), or (reflexively) be burdensome; specifically, to be gravid: -- to bear, be to burden, carry, strong to labour. (Hebrew)
Sb'l: from (S'b'l); to load (literally or figuratively): - - they burden, charge. (Hebrew)
Sb'l (Aramaic Word): corresponding to S'b'l; to erect: - - strongly laid. (Hebrew)
Sbl (Aramaic Word): "to to suffer", "to bear", "to support". (Dialectos Babylonian and Talmudic)
Sbl: "to carry", "endure". (Dialectos Christian, Palestinian and Aramaic)
Sbb'l: from S'b'l; to porter: - - (to to bear, to bearer of) burden(-s). (Hebrew)
Sb'lh: from Sb'l; porterage:--burden. (Hebrew)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas also meant the one that "undergoes, supports or experiences difficulties"; literally, "endure", "the one that is submitted". Then it is that also the old semítica form is known, Sbr (SaYB'aR HTTP://club.telepolis.com...deiros/sonidos/SaYBaR.mp3 ). Thus then, one old semítica form like "Y-Saybar-ya" (that would be pronounced approximately like "YSaYBaRya" HTTP://club.telepolis.com...ros/sonidos/ysaybarya.mp3 ) and that signficaría "the land of that which Endure", could with the passage of time - and several conquest and colonization of foreign towns of Indo-European origin, like the Greeks, celtas and Romans to transform itself into the sonorous variant, "Ysbeerya", that some Indo-European towns as the Greeks would understand like Ibêr or Ibêria, without the s (that in Greek would be pronounced like "eeber" and "eebereea" HTTP://club.telepolis.com...iros/sonidos/eebeeria.mp3 ), according to the phonetical english), and other towns as the Carthaginians would understand like "Y-sbael-ya", by confusion with the other semítica root of similar meaning Sbl (sbal or sbel). Later the Romans would understand this carthaginian variant of * Y-sbael-ya "like" Ispal "or" Hispali ". A pronunciación quite near the old Phoenician form or Carthaginian had to survive until the medieval age, because loscomo or we have seen, the Arabs called to the old Italica or Roman Ispalis, with the name of "Ysbilya". Of the custom of the Hispanic-musulmanians to listen to and to pronounce this semítica variant, "Ysbilya", and product of the mixture with the Romance forms derived from Latin and the sprouting of castilian language, would be ended up losing and or the initial I, being left the pronuncianción single like * S'bilya, or also by a phenomenon very known in linguística, that denominates "metatesis", that it is the transposition or interchange of sounds within a same word like for example, Latin "mîraculo", that was transformed into the Spanish "mîlagro"; this way, primeta and or I would happen to occupy a second place behind the S, being in "Sibilya", forms this that is documented like previous to the present name of Seville.
Philologist Spanish has explained the origin of the name of Seville - through the sources conserve-from the Arab "Ysbiliya" and this form from Latin * the Hispalia, Hispali or Ispal, but never they had included/understood from where the Roman name of Hispal came, because this is not a word of the Latin. One knew that it had to be the Roman or adapted form to the Latin of some indigenous name of the place, but nobody before had discovered as it could be that indigenous form. My theory raises a possibility that goes merely beyond the probable thing. The analysis of texts of Plato could be the key of the remote origin of the name of "Seville" or "Ysbiliya", as the original name of the city and region that Solón translated like Atlantis and that according to the dialogues of the Kritias, its name had taken from its first king, whose original name, in Phoenician or semítica language, would be then * Sbal, * Sbael or * Sebil, that is to say, "there am Supports, there am Endure, there am Holds, there am Suffer"
--------------------------------------------
http://club.telepolis.com...dos/arameo_atlantis2.html
Comparative table of the evolution of the name of Seville (Atlantis)
--------------------------------------------
To these evidences we would have to add in addition, that another semítica root exists present in the old dialectos Aramaic, Babylonian, Talmudic, paleo-Christian, and Palestinian, that would also explain the true origin and meaning of the name of Tarte-ssós or Tarshish, name that received the kingdom or commercial empire that dominated in the same geographic area where the city of Ispalia, Ysbilya or Seville settled down. This Semitic word is Trsy (pronounced like Tarsiy HTTP://club.telepolis.com...deiros/sonidos/TaRSiY.mp3 , and like Tarsea HTTP://club.telepolis.com...deiros/sonidos/TaRSeA.mp3 ), and besides to explain the origin of the name of Tarschish or Tartessós, as we see next, also agrees with one of the meaning of the Greek word Atlas.
First we will make a brief analysis of the name of Tartessós, that is a Greek variant. Old the Greeks used like suphije behind the names of cities and countries the word - ssós, that according to seems meant "country of" or "land of", like the city of Kno-ssós of Crete. By consequence the name that the Greeks had to really listen would be something similar to * Tarte. Forms derived from this name are known registered by the Roman authors like Turdetania and Turthetani and Turdulos. Like the completions - tani and - also they are used them by the Romans, like Greek - ssós, to designate "country of" or "region of", because then we remained again with the word * Turde or * Turthe, but like we have seen that the vowels changed in the different variants from the same name, because we reduce the root to * T'rth. This way we arrived at a form quite similar to the registered one in the Old Testament like Trshy (Tarshis). In the main lexicos and dictionaries it is assumed that this name is a word of foreign origin. And most of the scholars for centuries they have been identifying to the Biblical Tarshish with the Tarte-ssós of Iberia. Therefore, the original form iberian of the name that the Greeks registered like Tartessós, and the Hebrews like Tarschish or Tarshys, had to be * T'rth. But that meant really this word? The Greeks do not say to anything on their meaning nor the Romans, and either the Hebrews. Nevertheless, it would be logical to think that its original meaning would be very similar to one of the names that later the Romans used to denominate to Iberia, as he can be Hispan-ia, Hispal-ia or Ispal-ia. We have seen that a great possibility that exists the primitive name that evolved until becoming Seville was "Ysbaelya" (thanks to the Arab medieval authors), and as this name could probably derive from another old Semitic name ( they phoenician) like * Y-sbl-yA, "the S'bal Island", that is to say, "the Support island; the Endure Island; the Hold Island ". Then if my theory is valid, and journeys by good footpaths, then we would have to hayar another similar Semitic root in phonetics to iberian root * T'rth or * T'rs, that formed the original name of Tarschis or Tartessós... Then indeed, in the old dialectos Aramaic, Babylonian, Talmudic, paleo-Christian and Palestinian, I have discovered already mentioned root of Trsy, that was pronounced in old aramaic of two forms: Tarsea, and Tarsiy. And this Semitic root was used to denominate, exactly to which "it supports", "maintains" or "it supports", "support" (thus appear in the old version aramaic of the New Testament in? Mattai - 6:26; Luqa - 12:24; Ephesians - 5:29). This word since we have seen, agrees with others of the meaning by the other Semitic root "S'bael", and with another one of the semantic values of the Greek voice "Atlas". The circle is closed.
Hispal or Ispal, Roman name of Seville, city located in the geographic and neuralgic center of tartessian kingdom, was the Latin or Roman form of the Semitic name * Ysbaelya, documented by the Arabs like "Ysbiliya", and whose meaning would be "the S'beel Island", that is to say, "the Support island; the Endure Island; the Hold Island "; whereas on the other hand, Tartessós would be the Greek form and Turdetani and Turthetani the Roman forms of the other Semitic name T'rth (* Tarthee) whose meaning could be the one that "it supports", "it maintains" or "it supports", "support". In the same language aramaic exists the form Tarsiyt'uon (HTTP://club.telepolis.com...s/sonidos/TaRSiYT'uON.mp3 )como variant of Tarsiy, whose pronunciación could have originated the Greek form Tartessón, although Polibio (Pol. 3.33.9) it mentions the Greek form "Thersi"(HTTP://club.telepolis.com...deiros/sonidos/Thersi.mp3 ), which corresponds with aramaic Tarsiy. Of this way, we have two old names of Iberia, * Ysbaelya and * Tharthee, with meaning similar, that agrees as well with the meaning of the Greek word Atlas.
As all already we know, Solón translated the names of the places and personages from the Egyptian to the Greek, because these had also done it from the indigenous language of atlanteans; therefore, the name of Atlases and Atlantis is not the original name of the island and civilization that bloomed next to the Columns of Hercules or Straits of Gibraltar. But as also we know what means the Atlas name in Greek, we can then reconstruct the original name of this famous civilization. And thus it is since we have arrived up to here. Even this point where we have been able to recognize and to identify to the old names of Seville and Tartessós, like the original names that the Egyptians later translated to their language and the Greeks to hers with the name of Atlases, and Atlantis. But in spite of everything, somebody could ask on which security we can have of which the names that the Egyptians translated the Egyptian were Semitic or phoenicians. Then, I have an answer. Solón it notices that the Greek names are not the true names, but translations that made of the Egyptian names, and these were translations of the names as well atlanteans, but Solón was the careful to leave one of the original names atlanteans, perhaps so that it was left a testimony that could serve to the readers and students to be able to determine the language of atlanteans, and of course its nationality and geographic origin. Of all the names that Solón had ahead at the time of writing up its work, it chose one and it left it in the narration, and this name was indeed the one of the region of Gadeiros and Gadeira, the name of the old region and city phoenician of Gadeira, the Roman Gades and present Cadiz. A region within the kingdom or lines up of * Tarthei or * Tharsi (Tartessós); region that closely was related - commercially with the interior of the river Baetis or Baitis (Guadalquivir) and the zone where the city of * Ysbaelya or old Seville was located, as they demonstrate the archaeological sources to it. The name of Gadeira is also of Semitic origin, as they testify some Roman sources. Solino and Plinius affirm that she was phoenician name. Therefore, if the name of Gadeira were atlantean name, according to it affirms to Plato through Kritias (and this according to Solón), then the language of atlanteans would be one old language semitíca. Therefore, the orginales analyses that we have made that allows to reconstruct the meaning of the old names of Seville and Tartessós as Semitic forms, are not separated from the logic and the way drawn up by own words of Plato and other old Roman authors. Gadeira was phoenician name, therefore, they semitian; * Ysbaelya = Seville, is semítica word, and * Tharsi = Tartessós also is of semítico origin.
Conclusion: original name which the Egyptians translated to the Egyptian language of the civilization located next to the Columns of Hercules (Gibraltar), could be * Y-tharsei-ya or * Y-sbael-ya. The semíticas roots, * Sbael and * Tharthei - in anyone of the two cases they could be translated by the Egyptians by names like "support", "to to bear", "the one that it supports, it maintains or it loads"; "the one that serves as support and you maintain"; "to to suffer, to hold, to support". Later Solón (as it affirms Kritias) would translate one of these two names (or both simultaneously) by the Greek Atlas name, since this era the only masculine own name that such presented/displayed meaning that the roots * Sbael and * Tharthei.
Therefore, the Island or peninsula that Solón named like Atlantis or Atlantida, and that were located, just ahead, alongside and above same of the Columns of Hercules (Gibraltar), single could have been * Ysbaelya or * Ytharsiya, "the S'beel Island", that is to say, "the Support island; the Endure Island; the Hold Island ". The same Island or Peninsula of Iberia, Hispalia or Hispania.
--------------------------------------------------------
María Fdez-Valmayor
Secretary of "The Civilizations Origins Scientific Society" (C.O.S.S.) and "The Scientific Atlantology".
http://Atlantis.sitio.net
http://Georgeos-Diaz.sitio.net
The Origin of the Name of Atlantis. Seville and Tartessos = Atlantis. (II Part)
Looking for the key words in lexicón of Perseus, by means of the option exact search (to avoid confusions) these have been the results:
Suffer (to suffer): For total 189 words whose definitions contain "to suffer". Of all between all these words, single otleô (relative of the word Atlas) with a frequency of use - in all the Greek Literature of 0 appears the form. It means, that a single case is not known nor this word like so. It is a word supposed or deduced like part or raiz of others. Eight more used by order they are: lambanô, eaô, tunchanô, pherô, paschô, apodidômi, aphiêmi and sumpherô.
Endure: For total 63 words whose definitions contain "endure". It appears the same previous form of otleô, with the same LF of 0 or -0. The explanation also in this case is the same one. Four more used by order they are: pherô, krateô, diapherô and tolmaô,
Bear (to bear): For total 233 words whose definitions contain "to bear". She appears registered Atlas between those not even of frequency 0. Of the 233 words the most used to express to bear ", "to bear", was agô, anaireô, diapherô, dunamai, echô, eimi, pherô, phulassô, sumpherô, tithêmi, chalepos. Being more widely used, by order: eimi, echô, dunamai, agô, pherô and tithêmi. The rest of the words was used not very often, less than others.
Support (to support): For total 131 words whose definitions contain "support". It does not appear the voice Atlas. Five more used by order they are: Epi, echô, krateô, diapherô and trephô. The rest of the words presents/displays a use LF.
Hold (to hold): For total 409 words whose definitions contain "hold". The word is not registered either Atlas nor their relatives. Five more used by order they are: echô, poieô, lambanô, archô and agô. The rest of the words also presents/displays a gradual LF of use.
Undergo: For total 20 words whose definitions contain "undergo". The word does not exist Atlas nor their relatives. Five more used by order they are: tolmaô, metaballô, hupechô, aeirô and tiô. In general líenas all the words present/display a frequency of use of average to almost null.
Echô and Agô were the words more used to define the concepts of "to Bear", "to Support" and "Hold". Echô appears between the words of maximum frequency of use for "to Bearr", "to Support" and "Hold". Agô appears between the words of high frequency of use for "to Bear", "to Support". Lambanô appears between the words of high frequency of use for "Suffer" and "Hold". Pherô appears between the words of high frequency of use for "Suffer", "to Bear" and "Endure", "Sumpherô appears between the words of high frequency of use for" Suffer "and" to Bear ". Diapherô appears between the words of high frequency for "to Support", "to Bear" and "Endure". Tolmaô appears between the words of high frequency of use for "Endure" and "Undergo".
Everything seems to indicate that the words of more frequent use to express three of the meaning attributed to the Atlas name, were Echô for "to Bear", "to Support" and "Hold" and Pherô for "Suffer", "to Bear" and "Endure". Peculiarly the medieval Spanish historians gather the tradition of which, the founder of Atlantis, who was all Iberia (according to Pellicer and Ossau; S. XVII), Phoro was called. And it was related to the God of the waters or Poseídôn. According to some it was the name Atlantean or Iberian-tartessian of the own Poseidôn, and according to others it was the true name or atlantean of Greek Atlas or Atlante. If Solón had had to translate a shared or common Egyptian word or phoenician whose meaning was those of "to Bear" and "Hold", then it must have used some of these names, Echô, Pherô or Diapherô, but never it would have been happened to him to translate such signifcados, indeed with a word like Atlas, of so little (not to say, almost null) frequency of use.
In any case, since we have seen, in no of the statistical lists of frequency of uses of Greek words it appears Atlas nor Atlante, which demonstrates of unquestionable way, the extreme peculiarity of the use of the word Atlas and their relatives to express these meaning. This simple statistical analysis demonstrates that the probabilities that Solón had chosen the Atlas name to translate these meaning are very excasas. It is practically impossible that Solón used the Atlas name to translate these meaning, because this word was not even between those of little or little use. The only explanation possible that Solón has used the Atlas name, to translate some of these meaning, would be to accept that vió forced to resort to this name like only way to translate a concept that single was translatable through the voice Atlas and Atlante. But as it would be that unique concept of the Atlas name?
Then the only word associated to the Atlas meaning that appears between the words of high frequency of use is tlêmôn, "patient", "steadfast". This word appears in the registry of "patient", between a for total 41 words whose definitions contain "patient" with a maximum frequency of 182. And one is in the fifth position of five more used. In this same group of words used for "patient", it appears with a single maximum frequency of 9, another word Atlas relative, tlêtos, "patient, steadfast in suffering or labour". Exactly this is the definition more used by the Greek authors of the antiquity to describe to the God Atlas and to their "punishment" or "suffering" to load on its shoulders the weight of the sky, as a fixed axis or stand and of way steadfast. It does not have to be a simple coincidence that once again same semítica root S'B'L' of "to Support", "to Bear", "to Hold", "Endure" and "Suffer", also comprises of the Hebrew word Sblnth (pronounced approximately like Sebilaanoth: http://club.telepolis.com...os/sonidos/sebilanoth.mp3 ), exactly to express "Patience"; whereas "Patient", in Hebrew, is also Sblny (approximately it is pronounced like Seb'laany).
Without a doubt some, if Solón decided to use the Atlas name to translate an Egyptian name or phoenician would be because this name would mean "patient", "steadfast", "steadfast in suffering or labour". The search of the word "steadfast" offers a for total 31 words whose definitions contain "steadfast". Of all of them, tlêmôn appears again between those of greater frequency of use (182). Occupying again the fifth place of seven more used. What the frequent use of this voice confirms relative of Atlas and Tlaô for "steadfast". A fundamental quality of the God Atlases that are described by most of the oldest authors, previous even to Solón. Atlas was the God that was "steadfast" in the Earth border, in the West; "steadfast in suffering or labour" of "to support" or "to maintain" the celestial sphere. And only the semitics root that it includes most of these meaning in if same, are the S-b-l root; the same one which it appears in the old name of Seville, "Y-Sbil-ya", and in the name adapted to the Latin of I-Spal-i or Hi-Spal-is, with which the Romans denominated to the same city of Seville.
(Extract of the Georgeo's book, "Atlantis in front of Gibraltar, in Iberia and Morocco").
María Fdez-Valmayor
Secretary of "The Civilizations Origins Scientific Society" (C.O.S.S.) and "The Scientific Atlantology".
http://Atlantis.sitio.net
http://Georgeos-Diaz.sitio.net
The Origin of the Name of Atlantis. Seville and Tartessos = Atlantis. (III Part)
Georgeos have demonstrated to date to have more solid and but rigorous arguments, until archaeological tests under the sea in the same area in front of the Straits of Gibraltar of a civilization of several thousands of years before Solón with a development elevated enough similar to the cultures of the Age of the Bronze. Georgeos has shown in this site, photos of satellite and áereas where circular and semicircular constructions under the sea near Gibraltar are see.
Georgeos have demonstrated like already hiso before Âmador Juân dê lôs Rîos in 1924 and later Schülten that the geographic descriptions of Atlantis of everything what surrounds to the city and the plain fit prefectamente with the great rectangular plain of the Guadalquivir in Andalusia. But you whenever this comments to him it makes happen like which one has still not found out, and outside changes of conversation always repeating the same questions - as if a robot although these well have been responded in many occasions. In any case it seems that it will have to wait for you to that the book of Georgeos can be published in English. Since single then, perhaps, you get to admit that Georgeos has satisfactory explanations for all those questions and in addition much more solid arguments that his.
For example, Georgeos have discovered that in Egyptian, the "island or land of support, to suffer, of which it holds or it supports", also said Tartjesu or Tartchesu. In fact, the country of Schu, was pronounced in Egyptian, TArSchu, and the "country of the pillars of Schu", TArtjesSchu. that it says to me now, simple chances? On the other hand, according to Georgeos, the same Semitic raiz that appear in the name of Seville (Sbl and Sb) appears in Egyptian with such meant: Sb-n "support", Sf-n "to be patient", "log-suffering", "to to suffer", "to endure". The n, in old the Egyptian and almost all the old languages used to derive or to be confused with an l, reason why sb-n and sb-n could derive in sf-r and sb-r, the same raiz that appears in I-sbal-is or Ispalis. the f, the b and p interchange, which explicaria the passage of sfn to sbn within the own Egyptian language. Therefore, also in the old Egyptian language is explanation for old the name of Iberia Y-Sbl-ya (I-sbal-is or I-spal-is = Sebillia or Seville), whereas sbn could also originate the other name of Spain or Iberia, Egyptian aY-Sbn-wy could derive in the Phoenician Y-sban-ya that is, Isbania or Ispania. In all the cases, always one appears to Spain or Iberia like "pais of which to support, to to suffer, to endure, to hold, to be patient", the true Atlas attributes.
Also in the old Egyptian language the Sp root mean "to suffer"; TArtTes = "the one that to to suffer and to support"; TArtA = "the one that hold and to endure". In addition you continue using the method of the evación, to become the distraido one, the one that do not find out or the idiot, although. I believe that you truely very ready are, and for that reason the idiot becomes. I say this, because of all the solid evidences and argumentations against his hypothesis that Georgeos presents in its work and which I have placed partly here in this forum, single you indeed comment that that you can use, being ambiguous or very weak. You for example, one clings to a single translation - nonauthorized by no serious dictionary of the Hebrew), that is to say, lift clings to "to", indeed a meaning that does not appear in any Greek dictionary like pertaining to the word Atlas.
Georgeos in its book quote:
"... Estêban de Bizancîo describes to a promontory or end located between the Columns of Hercules and the Guadalquivir with the name of Tarseión, apparently related to a variant of the name of Tarte-ssós or Tarschish, registered by the Greeks like Thersi, and also related to the name of a city, that according to the known Arab author like the "Môro Rassis", was to two miles of Cordova, to borders of the Guadalquivir, near Seville, and whose name was indeed the one of Tarsis. In relation to this name of Tarsis, the Latin sources mention to a famous cortesana from Hispania, called Tarsis and Tarsilas, that offered its services of pleasing and love to the leader carthaginian, Hannibal. The first patriarchs of the Christian Church identified Tartessós with the Tarschisch, in Latin Tarsis, of the Old Testament. Eusebio de Cesarea affirmed that Julîus Afrîcanus, that it lived a.d. in century III, said that the Spaniards descended from Tarsis. The Génesis says that Tarsis was son of Iavân and grandson of Iaphet, that is identified with the Iaphetos of the Greek Theogonia, father of Atlas or Atlante, with which we have another indication of the relation between Tarsis and Atlas or in this case, of tartessian them like relatives of the same Atlas predecessor. Old the Hebrews also called to the chrysolita precious stone with the name of Tarschisch and Plinius in its "Natural History" affirms that, this mineral one was original of Iberia, where in addition it was the place of greater abundance of the same one. The exiliados Jews of the Medieval Age called to Iberia or Spain like Sprd (Siphâred) by the Sfr root or Sphr that in the lexicons in Latin is translated like "legis sacrae", "libris sacri" and "Scripture" and in Greek editions like "tà hierà grammata", "sacred or santa writing" In chaldean Sphr (Sipher) means "book". The Jews sephardians had to know the hisórica tradition gathered by Strabon and Ephorus on which Iberia was the country that conserved annals of writing and laws written older of the world, according to Strabon of until more than 6,000 years, that is to say, of about 8,300 years BP. These annals and "written laws" conserved the Turdetani, that were the old descendants of the Tartessi. This demonstrates that already from the own classic antiquity Iberia she was considered as cradle of civilizations, at least as the written cradle of the writings and the "laws", so and as it describes Plato, when it speaks of the laws that the atlantes wrote on metallic laminae. This affirmation of Strabon indicates a great antiquity of Iberia like civilization that used the writing in times previous to even sumerian them and the Egyptians... "
Georgeos also have demonstrated that the Greek and Latin forms of the old kingdom of Tarschish or Tartessos exist as they are: Tartessi, Tarsis, Tarseios, Tarseion, Thersita, Tarsitaii, and Thersi that correspond with the semítica form Trsy, and which they could also be related to the Egyptian forms * tArSw (TarSchu)"Country or land of Schu", * tArTsw (Tartjesu)"Country of Soportes or Pilares" or * ' y-TArSw (Y-TarSchu)"Island of Schu, the one that to Sujeta or Sostiene"; "it supports", "maintains" or "it supports", "support" (thus to appear in the old version aramaic of the New Testament in? Mattai - 6:26; Luqa - 12:24; Ephesians - 5:29). This Word since we have seen, agrees with others of the meaning by the to other Semitic root "S'bael", and with to another one of the semantic values of the Greek voice "Atlas".
Also Georgeos have discovered one old Roman form of the delayed time (they paleo-christian) of the name of Seville, this form is Spal-is, without Î or Hî, of "island", ahead. What the true root of the name of present Seville confirms that, was Spl- or Sbl -, since -îs is sufije Roman or Indo-European used to indicate "place, country or land of origin". love you more you still prove? perhaps have you arguments and demonstrate like which she has Georgeos, or better even?
As Georgeos in its book raises:
"... the Indo-European roots "to carry", "to support" and "to to bear" are * Per and * Bher, which gives back us to the name of I-beer-ia, which in in some Indo-European language of that they were spoken in the Iberian Peninsula, it could be Bheria, "the country of which, to support". Î ahead adaptation explains through of language Phoenician of "Island or Coast of", whereas sufije -îa or - yâ it can to explain, the same from Phoenician, that used to add it to the completions of names of places, like through Indo-European languages like Latin and Greek which also they used this sufije, in its form -îa, of "place, country or land of". ... "
Georgeos quote:
"... Iberia is one of the names that the Greeks gave the Iberian Peninsula (the Atlantis Nêsos de Plato), but in the Greek language this word does not find explanation satisfactory; in fact, it is considered like a nonGreek word. Therefore, it is very probable that, Î-Bêr-ia, outside the Greek adaptation of a name which they heard of the Phoenicians as it could be, * Y-Baer-ya, "the Island or Coast of (God) who to support" or simply, "the Suppor't Island", in relation to a divinity that would do of pounding and support of the sky like the Greek Atlas, and the Egyptian Schu, or in relation to the Pillars or Columns of the Straits of Gibraltar, that also was known like the "Atlas Columns", and long before, like the "Columns of Chronos or Saturnus" and like the "Columns of Briareo", name this in that the Indo-European root * Bher is observed, the same one that is in the name of Î-Bêr-ia. According to Diodorus Siculus, the first king of the atlantes had been Uranos, that governed on the coasts of the Oceáno, towards the north. This first king atlantean, had two children: Chronos and Atlas. Avieno confirms this affirmation of Diodorus, when it says that ls Tartessians adored the God Saturnus, that is the same Chronos of the Greeks. As far as king Atlas, according to Diodorus, this it reigned on Monte Atlas, Hesperia or Iberia and the country of the Hyperboreans, identified by the French scholar D'Arbois de Jubainville with the region of the Galia. Opinion this that enough has been accepted by many other scholars. Therefore Plinius mentions to the town of the Cambolectres, to which Atlanteans calls, near the Pyrinean Mts. In any case, Uranos was to prmer king of atlanteans or uranians, and this God reigned on the Atlantic coasts of the Ocean in the direction of the north, as it affirms Diodorus; whereas Theopompus affirms that the Atlantis was surrounded by two rivers, the Volupté and the Tristesse or Tirstesse, that is to say, the river Tartessi, the same one that Strabon says that in his time he was well-known like Baetis, the present Guadalquivir: "and as the river has two openings (Volupté and Tirstesse), it also dícese that the city of Tartessos, homónima of the river, was built formerly in the Earth placed between both, being called this Tartéside region." (Strabon 3.2)
Some authors also accept that the Annaku-ki name, that appears writing in one old tablet assirian of the time of Sargón de Akkad, approximately 4,800 years BP (inscription asiria published by Or Schröder, Kleinschrifttexte aus Assur, Leipzig, 1920), and that talks about to a remote country "beyond the superior sea, it is the name whereupon they assirian them denominated to Iberia. This name has been translated as "the country of tin and the silver", of the voice sumeria an-na, "tin", ku, "silver", "precious metal" and ki, "land". Nevertheless, nobody before had considered the possibility that, to the being the aglutinante language sumeria, could also be translated the name of An-na-ku-ki like "the country of holy stones or sacreds of the Sky", of An, "sky", na, "stone, rock", ku, "pure, santo, sacred" and ki, "land". This way, An-na-ku-ki, that country that "existed beyond the superior sea" (the Mediterranean), and that is identified with Iberia, it would be then, "the country of Santas or Sacreds Stones of the Sky", a name of the same name that the Greeks gave later to the Straits of Gibraltar like "Hêrakleus Stêlas", and the Romans like "Herculis Columns". In Greek Stêlê, "pillar", could derive from one old Indo-European root * Stei, "stone", since, in many dialectos Hindu-iranians "atala" is "stone" and "rock"; "to pound"; "hill"; "flat stone", and "wake". In fact, in most of the descriptions on the "Hêrakleus Stêlas", they affirm that these were two great rocks or elevated rocks, located before a other, in means of the Straits of Gibraltar. On the other hand, the Greek God Atlas is also described in some early sources like "the Pillar of the Sky". ... " (aim of the appointment of Georgeos)
María Fdez-Valmayor
Secretary of "The Civilizations Origins Scientific Society" (C.O.S.S.) and "The Scientific Atlantology".
http://Atlantis.sitio.net
http://Georgeos-Diaz.sitio.net
The Origin of the Name of Atlantis. Seville and Tartessos = Atlantis. (IV Part)
If Plato - it affirms through Kritias- that the Greek names (as the one of Atlas) had been translated to the Greek from the Egyptian by Solón, since the Egyptians had also done it from the original language atlantean, because then it is necessary to reconstruct the original name. Georgeos has been first that has tried to do this, already makes a pair of years back Georgeos managed to reconstruct the previous form of the Atlas name between the Egyptians. Between the Egyptians a God exists that is identical in the symbolism and the characteristics to the God Atlas, is the God Schu.
But Georgeos also has explored other possibilities, within the Egyptian language, since Plato affirms that the translations became by the meaning of the words. This implies, that it is not necessary that the name used by the Egyptians to translate the original name of the Atlantis was the God Schu; if the Egyptians guided themselves by the meaning - as he affirms Plato -, then they could not resort to the Schu word that conforms the name of this twin divinity of the Greek Atlas, because in Egyptian Schu it does not share meaning with any of the meaning well-known and accepted of the Atlas name, derivative of the Greek word "tlaô" (I suggest to consult the lexico of Perseus which he is most complete than he exists at the present time)
In Egyptian exist several words to express the meaning of the Greek word Atlas, "to support", "to hold", "to endure", "patient"; as they appear associate and used by the words of the Atlas family: tlaô, tlêmôn and tlêtos. Georgeos has discovered in the Egyptian language, that exist several same words that were also used to express these meaning and these are tA, TAr, Tsi, Ts, and sTsw (among others). The combination of TAr, "to hold" to + the rest of the voices, throws phrases or names composed like the following ones: TAr-Tsi (Tjar-tjesi), "the pillar or support that hold" or "the one that hold and support". The same translation is admitted for the other cominaciones: TAr-Tsw (Tjar-tjesu); TAr-sTsw (Tjarstjesu) and tA-r-Tsw (Tartjesu), and all of them remember - inevitably the old name of Tartessos and Tarschish, the oldest kingdom of the West of the old world, and that was in Iberia, surrounding to the Columns of Hercules or Gibraltar.
Other possible Egyptian forms would be the same words mentioned but instead of TAr, "to hold", ahead, because with the combination of TA + r, that literally is translated like "country of". Therefore, we would have tA-r-Tsi (Tartjesi) and tA-r-Tsw (Tartjesu) like "the country of which it supports, to to suffer, it maintains or it holds". The hypothesis of Georgeos is that the Hebrew name of Tarte-ssos, which the Greeks transcribed of that form, and Phoenicians and like Tarschish, was the name that the Egyptians gave the empire of the West that reigned next to the pillars of the sky or pillars of Schu, the homologous one of Atlas.
Egyptian empire translated name original of this which it describes Plato (and who Solón translates like Atlantis), like Tjartjesw or TarTjesw, and later Solón when investigating in the meaning of these names, noticed that these names could be translated by the Greek name of Atlas or Atlantis, since last the meaning associated to these Egyptian names, allowed to translate anyone of these Egyptian names like Atlas and Atlantis, that is, "the country of which supports, to to suffer, maintains or holds". Although also the Egyptians could translate another name of Iberia, of sources Phoenician, that would be Y-Sbl-y (YSbilya), Ispal, Ispalis or Spalis, present Seville, since like he has also demonstrated Georgeos Sbl is a Semitic root that contain meaning of the Egyptian names TArTsi such, and tArsTsw, and such meant of the family of Greek names of Atlas, Atlantis, Tlaô, Tlêmôn and Tlêtos.
(Extract of the Georgeo's book, "Atlantis in front of Gibraltar, in Iberia and Morocco")
María Fdez-Valmayor
Secretary of "The Civilizations Origins Scientific Society" (C.O.S.S.) and "The Scientific Atlantology".
http://Atlantis.sitio.net
http://Georgeos-Diaz.sitio.net
The Origin of the Name of Atlantis. Seville and Tartessos = Atlantis. (V Part)
The Atlas identification with Schu is not a strongpoint in the theory of Georgeos, is a simple indication to consider. Single that. If you read better your contributions in this sense she would include/understand as the single speech of translations by meaning of the words - so and as she affirms Plato -, not of symbolic equivalences. According to Georgeos Solón it translated the name of Atlantis by the one of an Egyptian name that allowed this translation according to its semantic meaning, that is to say, that does not have anything to do whereupon Atlas was Schu, nor that the Atlantis was the country of Schu, because to you you have forgotten to him, that as affirms Plato, Solón translated the names from the Egyptian, by its meaning, because the Egyptians had the same done with the names atlanteans. Therefore, the original name of the Atlantis and atlanteans single we can know that it would mean something related to the "pillars", the "supports", and with the idea of "to support", "to endure", "patient", "steadfast", and "steadfast in suffering or labour". That affirmation of Solón demonstrates by itself, that it would be a stupidity to think about a possible war between Schu and Neith. Georgeos never has considered this possibility, indeed, reason why I finish exposing; because the affirmation of Solón does not allow to draw that conclusion, therefore, it does not worry you for that reason, that Georgeos will never consider this idea since it is not sustained with which it affirms Plato through Kritias.
The question are in asking, that town was that, that lived in the remote one on the West, next to the Columns of Hercules, and that maintained wars or attempts of colonization with the towns of the interior of the Mediterranean. Then Georgeos has an answer, that town were the own inhabitants of Iberia of the Age of the Bronze, also known like Tartessian or Ibero-Tartessian. Several references of the antiquity exist, like those of Diodorus Siculus, that they affirm that the old settlers of Iberia had colonized almost all the points of the Mediterranean, incluídas the Islands of Córcega, Sardinia, Sicily and until the own Tyrrenia peninsula, where founded the first populations before the first Latin or Roman ones arrived.
This affirms several authors to it of the antiquity to which a reasonable credibility is lent to them. In the book of georgeos these testimonies take shelter all. Any other reference does not exist nevertheless that speaks of colonizations or old conquests of other towns coming from the extreme West. This cannot be of any way, another simple chance. Everything aims towards a single direction! The Columns of Hercules, between Iberia and Morocco, the theory of Georgeos, but fundamentally Iberia as it cradles or main seat of the Atlantean empire.
According to which I have read of Georgeo's book, Georgeos reconstructs Atlantis from his beginnings, so and as it does Plato, that is to say, from origins, when times arose the first men (as Euenor) and still did not know the art the navigation, that is to say, from paleolithics, to the end of the empire Atlantis, that Georgeos locates between the end of the Average Bronze, and principles of the Final Bronze.
Georgeos think, that the aim of Atlantis happened in the times of Krekops, Erechtheus, Erichthonius and Erysichthon, since this is what Kritias affirms; that these were the kings who fought against the kings atlanteans, and this time is considered (even by the own authors of the antiquity) as few hundreds of years before the war of Troy and after the deluge of the Deucalion. That is to say, between the deluge and the times previous to Theseus, as it affirms Kritias. Approximately, according to old the chronology classic, this time settles down between the 1,450 and 1,300 BC.
At that time, Iberia was in its greater splendor like civilization of the Bronze. Probablmente the civilization tartessian, or was well-known with that same name, and right towards the 1300 B.C. The céltica civilization or Keltibera arises in Iberia.
1. Virgilius considered to the Ibero-Sicanians as the oldest settlers of the latium (it is to say of the peninsula Thyrrenian or Italian)
2. The Iberian origin of the Sicanians is confirmed by Thucydides, Denys Halicarnasse, Ephorus (quin affirms had been the first inhabitants of the Magnâ Greece (islands of Sicily and the Aegean) and Philiste de Syracuse.
3. Servius, in its "Antiques of the Latium or of Italy", affirms that "old" the Ibero-Sicanes "was the first inhabitants of the same city that later got to dominate the world". It affirms Servius that the Ibero-Sicanians, was the first colonizadores of old Rome.
4. Plinius, also confirms the data of the colonization of the Ibero-Sicanians on the Thyrrenian.
5. Denys Halicarnasse, counts up to two thousands of Iberos on the old inhabitants of priemra primitive Rome.
6. Canton affirms that still at the time in which they arose the Sicules (Sicilians) existed the Sicanians dominating on the Latium, until they were defeated by the Sicules.
7. According to Diómedes, the Iberian got to colonize until the coasts of the Adriatic, that is to say, until Asia.
8. According to Denys Halicarnasse, the Ibero-Sycanians was allied with the Pelasges and Tursanes (Etruscians) to fight against the Ombrios, Sicules and other towns egeans. According to this same author, the Ibero-Sicanians was those that gave name to the Tiber river and the old city of Tibur in the peninsula of the Latium or Thyrrenian.
9. Thucydides, affirms that ibero-sicanians when they colonized Sicily, they called Sicania, and thus he appears attested by Homero in his Odyssey, which confirms that the colonizations that made the Iberians in the direction of the interior of the Mediterranean, that is to say, towards the East, until the Thyrrenia and Asia, it was long before the times of Homero, and before the Phoenicians arrived at Iberia.
With complete certainty the Phoenicians learned the route towards Iberia, by the ibero-sicanos that knew in the islands of the Aegean and of the sea they thyrrenian, that already had been long time living in those islands, Asia and the Latium, like descendants of the old colonizadores iberians that would be such atlanteans of Plato, since this denomination is a mere translation by meaning.
In Homero, it is possible to be read:
"...to toigar egô toi panta mal' atrekeôs katalexô. eimi men ex- Alubantos, hothi kluta dômata naiô, anaktos huios Apheidantos Polupêmonidao: to autar emoi g' onom' estin Epêritos *: alla me daimôn planx' apo Sikaniês deur' elthemen ouk ethelonta... "
"... I will tell you everything, "answered Odysseus," clear truly. I eats from Alybas, where I have to fine house. Is a.m. are of king Aphidante Polypemonide. My own name is Epêrito; to daimôn drove me off my course ace I was leaving Sicaniê, and I have been carried here against my will... "
Since we have verified previously, existed a tradition rather hard on the origin iberian of ibero-sicanians that is, of the Sicanians; then in this fragment of the Odissea de Homero, one affirms that a city or a place of Sicania came from Alyba. Some authors think that Alyba or Alybê was some place near Troy, nevertheless, other authors of the antiquity affirmed that they were a place of Iberia, opinion that defends at the present time, the Spanish experts in classic languages, Elvira Gangutia Elícegui, Alberto Bernabé and Rosa Pedrero, among others, that think that Alibê or Aliba was the name that received an island in front of the Columns of Hercules or Gibraltar, as they demonstrate siguentes following fragments to it:
"... from very far, from Alibê, where it is the site (original place) of the silver... " (Ilias 2,854)
Traditionally that remote or distant place, where was the country or place of the silver, were the region of Tartessós of Iberia.
Anacreo Lyricus say:
"Alybê dè nêsos hupò tàs Hêrakleios stêlas, archê tou stomatos tês thalassês..."
"... Alyba is an island, on the feet (underneath) of the Columns of Hercules, in the beginning of the mouth... "
Almost the same words that use Plato when it says that the Atlantis island is in front of the mouth "...(Atlantis) nêson gar pro tou stomatos) of the Columns of Hercules. Therefore, Alyba or Alybê, of the country of Sicania, was another one of the names that the same island received that later Solón translated like Atlantis.
Also of Tartessós it was said: "Tartêssòs, dè nêsos pròs taîs Hêrakleíais Stêlais" (Schol. Lycophron, 643), and the same of the Island Oggigia, Erytheia, and Gadeira. All of them islands located in front of the same mouth of the Columns of Hercules. The same Anacreonte affirms in the same paragraph that Tartessós is next to Aliba, and that the Column of Hercules is called Alibê. Whereas Georgeos identifies the names of Aphida-nte (-nte is ending or sufije) and Epêri-to (-to is ending or sufije) with the names ibero-tartessians, Abides, king of Tartessós, whose name they know formas:Abis, Habis, Abidis and Habides. Whereas Epêrito, could be a bad trascripción of Eberi-to or Iberi-to, because the raiz -Br- or -Pr- is perfectly interchangeable in most of the languages. In any case, being these two names of Aphida-nte and Epêri-to (Abida-nte or Abide and Ebêri-to or Eberi) associated in the narration with those of Alyba and Sicania, both of origin iberian (according to the mentioned old authors, among others), because nothing preposterous would turn out to accept these two hypotheses.
10. These same authors affirm that the founder of Italy, was king Sicanian who was called Italo, and Diodorus affirms that these Sicanians was first that introduced agriculture in Sicily, of where it happened later to the Latium or Italy.
11. Pausanias also affirms that the founders of Sardinian were iberians, to the control of a king iberian Norax call, which founded the city of Nori, and of I finish there present of the culture of the Nuragas, whose constructions are very similar to which they are in the Balearic ones in Spain.
I have tried to argue a little the bases of the theory of Georgeos as far as the chronology of the towns that Solón translated like atlanteans, and that Georgeos is convinced that they were such ibero-tartessians or ibero-sicanians; these Georgeos towns chronological locate them during all the Age of the Bronze, but with a development of expansion and colonization that would extend by the Mediterranean as of the 2000 or the 1800 BC. Nonsingle these mentioned authors confirm, also archaeology, since most of the own elements of Iberia or which they are more abundant in Iberia of that time also are in the interior of the Mediterranean as they can be the "Glasses of Bell", "Atlantic bronze swords", "halberds" and "axes of Heel", and reasons for petroglifos that represent the scheme of the city of Atlantis, that is to say, concentric ring plus a channel that leaves from the center towards outside the ring outer; in specialized Literature Cup is called to them "and Ring" and "Channell" or "Stream". They are by almost all the Atlantic coast of Spain and Europe, but in no place of the world as much amount and frequency as in Iberia are with, fundamentally in the Atlantic coasts of Iberia, from Portugal to Galicia. And this it is the main symbol of atlanteans, according to defends Georgeos. To see the Georgeo's article (published in 1997):
http://usuarios.lycos.es/...ols/atlantean_symbols.pdf
(Extract of the Georgeo's book, "Atlantis in front of Gibraltar, in Iberia and Morocco")
María Fdez-Valmayor
Secretary of "The Civilizations Origins Scientific Society" (C.O.S.S.) and "The Scientific Atlantology".
http://Atlantis.sitio.net
http://Georgeos-Diaz.sitio.net
The theory of Georgeos are made up of multiple hypotheses that include almost all the fields of sciences of humanities and phisical sciences related to history, archaeology, philology, anthropology, the Art Rock, geology, oceanography, paleoceanography, sismology and geography in general. The most difficult point of the theory of Georgeos, at the moment continues being, the exact location of the Acropolis island, that is, of the island city surrounded by concentric ring where was the temple of Poseidôn and Kleitos. Georgeos handles several alternative hypotheses: in front of the mouth of the Columns of Hercules as it says Plato, it could be the Submerged Island of Majuan (the Spartel de Collina-Girard), the Island of Tarîfa, the Island of same Cadiz, the peninsula or submerged end of Trafalgar, the island of Saltés in Huelva, or even the Island of Alborán that is of the Mediterranean part. But of all these alternative hypotheses, Georgeos considers like more probable, the Island or submerged peninsula of Trafalgar, since this has an enormous extension and it is to little depth (between the -7 meters and the -20 meters, in spite of introducing itself almost in the center of the gulf of Cadiz, separated well from the coast. In this submerged island or sacred promontory (as he were well-known in the antiquity) it widely fitted and it exceeded the city of Atlantis even up to 50 stages or 9 kilometers inwards. In this same area it is where they are appearing the rest of walls, megalíticos slabs, blocks and paving stones and pillars.
As you can observe the theory of Georgeos are quite complex and include many alternative hypotheses, and that is a caracterísitica that demonstrates scientific rigor, since Georgeos is not fanatizado with a fixed idea. Georgeos is not a fundamentalist of any theory, because its theory is enough ample integral and. Georgeos this opening constantly to the new contributions and the new ideas, as long as these can be sustained with other evidences or solid indications. For that reason Georgeos always has considered possibility (although quite remote for him) of which the Acropolis island could be in the coasts of Morocco com defend Jonas and Erick now, but Georgeos always has handled this possibility like very remote. If tomorrow Morocco appear Atlantis in, Georgeos will be first surprised, because it is of all the hypothesis that it handles, the one that he considers less possible.
Another reference that I have removed from the Georgeos's book:
> > >... also the Christian priest, Cosmas Indicopleustes, one of the calls "firsts fathers of the Christian Church", spoke of the Plato's Atlantis island. Although Cosmas thought that it was a legend, in his brief commentary on this island offers another indication to us that Atlantis were towards the part of Europe or Iberia. Better we will analyze the reading of its own words:
"... In like to manner, the to philosopher Timaeus also you describe this earth was surrounded by the Ocean, and the Ocean ace surrounded by the dwells remote earth. For there am supposes that there is to westward an island, Atlantis, lying out in the Ocean, the direction of Gadeira or Cadiz... " (Cosmas Indicopleustes, "Early Church Fathers")
As we can observe, Cosmas affirms that the Atlantis island was "...lying out in the Ocean, in the direction of Gadeira or Cadiz... " Of course, Gadeira or Cadiz is not in the same direction of the Atlantic coasts of Morocco, where some authors insist on wanting to locate the island Atlantis "(Aim of appointment of the Georgeos's book)
Already but of a year back Georgeos developed east subject with data in this same Forum. Reason why memory of to have read in Georgeos's book, indeed, Anti-ilha, that is as she appears written in the old maps but, signifca in medieval Portuguese, "the island" or "island ahead that are ahead", of Europe or Portugal or in front of Azores, since these appear represented in the same reporting line, in front of Portugal and Gulf of Cadiz, the Antilha island and opposite, to the height of Galicia, Spain, the Island of Salvagia (the wild island).
Georgeos has several maps of shortly before Columbus where it is observed clearly that this group of islands is, approximately, to the same height that the Islands You embarrass, but after these. It does not seem to have greater mystery in the subject. According to Georgeos, it is very probable that when knowing the existence the Islands You embarrass, some navigators were entered out to sea more towards the West, reason why they would arrive until the Bermudâs Islands and Bahâmas (the same ones that later were called the Antilles by the Spaniards)
One map confused them of place and it put a little more down, but the majority places them in the same direction that the excellent map or Portolan Chart de Albino de Canepa, Cartographer, of the 1489 (to see links in the end) logic and the common sense indicates that they were then the first representations imprecisas of some of the islands of the present Antilles.
In any case, objective reasons nor data sufficient do not exist to associate these islands with the Atlantis island, since in any case single they would be the "other islands", that according to Plato were after Atlantis. The Atlantis Island is not due to never forget that, Serving dish locates it with amazing precision in front of the mouth of the COlumnas de Hercules, in the lobby of the gulf of Cadiz. As much in the Greek version as in the Latins of Ficino, Chalcidius and Cornarius, always affirm that the Atlantis island was just in front of the Columns of Hercules, in the same entrance of the Atlantic gulf, that is the Gulf of Cadiz.
If the Madeiras estan too much far, as it exposes Georgeos, so that they can be considered like the Atlantis Island, because less probable still they are those islands that estan almost more near the Antilles than of Europe.
On the other hand, Georgeos in its book proposes a new theory on the origin of this Island of Antilha and the other imaginary islands that arose later. Georgeos has discovered that exactly the first well-known map where it imagines this mythical island of Antilha, became few years right after the first edition in Latin of works of Plato was made.
The reading of Plato, had to influence of great way in the scholars, scientists, geographers and cartographers of the time. Therefore the Atlantis island de Plato and the other islands that were beyond the Atlantis and the continent that surrounded them had to convince the scholars that they were real islands and that that continent of opposite or after Atlantis would be then Asia.
From then they began to represent hypothesis way so that it served as guide to the explorers and navigators in its search of the western route of Asia.
Links to the maps and a good article on the subject:
http://usuarios.lycos.es/...antisiberia/maps/west.jpg
http://usuarios.lycos.es/...isiberia/maps/westisl.jpg
http://www.uni-mannheim.d...aref/cmh/cmh101.html#020
http://www.apol.net/dightonrock/questionsandanswwerssaboutthetur.htm
http://www.apol.net/dight...antilles_newfoundland.htm
A simple summary has done you of official text books, of the texts that are accepted, by consensus, between most of the academic ones of the world. But also most of the experts in bíbilica archaeology, they mention to Tarschisch like Tartessi, Spain, and most of the experts in history of the old east, also they create, very possible, that the mention in the text assirian of Annaku-ki, "the country of tin and the silver" or "the country of stones (or pillars) holy", talks about Iberia, and this text is of approximately the year 2,800 BC. Whereas the references to Tarshisshi=Tartessis go back to century IX BC.
Sure to you this does not interest to him to have it in account. It does not agree to him. On the other hand, all the appointments that Georgeos handles are real, anyone can verify them; they exist, and they are so valid and acceptable as the rest of the appointments of those same authors, who the today historians, accept like trustworthy or valid.
If Pliny, Diodorus Siculus, Anacreonte, Theucidides, Cantôn, ect, ect, are not worthy of confidence, when they affirm that a western empire of Iberians, calls Sicanes or sicanians also existed, that colonized all Mediterranean, from Europe, until the Thyrrenian and Asia (as same it says to Plato), then these authors cannot be valid nor credible for when they are used to support other theories. The same validity must have all those data or no validity, but he is not scientist - nor he is honest -, who you or many other people single accept (or they remember) those appointments that agree to them to your ideas, but of that do not support the theories of Georgeos.
(Extract of the Georgeo's book, "Atlantis in front of Gibraltar, in Iberia and Morocco")
María Fdez-Valmayor
Secretary of "The Civilizations Origins Scientific Society" (C.O.S.S.) and "The Scientific Atlantology".
http://Atlantis.sitio.net
http://Georgeos-Diaz.sitio.net
The plain of Atlantis, really it was sheltered from the Northern blasts?
Another one of the serious errors that are in the common translations of the Timaeus and the Critias de Plato, it deals with on the description and geographic direction the great rectangular plain. All the existing translations in modern languages western (english, french, they italian, they german, spanish) 118b of the following way translates the fragment of the Critias more or less:
Y esta región, a lo largo de toda la isla, miraba al sur y estaba abrigada del viento del Norte. ..."
In the English translation more updated and recommended (R.G. Bury. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1966) it is possible to be read:
"... And this region, all along the island, faced towards the South and was sheltered from the Northern blasts. ... .
These translations have been made on the following Greek version:
".... ho de topos houtos holês tês nêsou pros noton etetrapto, apo tôn arktôn kataborros. ..." (Kritias. 118b)
Nevertheless, a philological deeper analysis, ethymological and lexicographical, it demonstrates that this fragment of the Critias badly has been
translated or badly interpreted. Let us see next the data and the tests that sustain this revision that I propose.
When comparing the modern translations with the translations to the Latin made in the Average Age by Marsillio Ficino (s. XV) and Iano Cornario (s. XVI), quickly it is observed that the Latin translations of this fragment in Greek of the Critias (118b) do not correspond with the modern translations. Let us see these translations the Latin of Ficino and Cornarius.
I. Ficin'o Translation:
... Situs autem insulae ad Austrum vergebat to Septêntriône Boreae expositus. ..."(Marsilio Ficino. S. XV)
"... But this site of the island towards the Austral one bent, exposed to the Northern Boreas. ..."(metaphrastical translation of Georgeos Diaz, 2000)
"... This region of the island extended (it oriented) towards the south, exposed to the wind (boreal) of the north. ..."(grammar or phrastical translation of the expert priest in Latin translations, Jose Antonio Fortea Cucurull, 2004)
Commentaries: "Septêntriônes", it is the Latin translation of the Greek "Arktos", the name of the two constellations known like the Bears (greater and the minor); this Latin denomination was used to designate to the region near the celestial North Pole. Whereas Boreas was the Greek name of the wind of the wind of the northeast or the East, since in fact, for Greek the region of Boreas, a place or concrete zone was not the geographical north of any point of the world but, located to the northeast of old Europe, beyond of the region of Greece and the Colchians. Texts exist that demonstrate this observation. For example, describing to the towns of Iberia, when speaking of cities or places, following an order in the direction of the East and to the Northeast, it was gotten to use the term of Boreas, since, in effect, the region to the North or the Northeast of old Greece and the Cholchide also is, towards the East and the Northeast of the Iberian Peninsula. Let us see three examples:
(1) ... Prôton men oi epi tois eschatois oikoûntes ta <pros> düsmeôn Kynetes onomazontai; ap ekeinôn de êdê pros Borêan ionti Glêtes; meta de Tartêssioi; meta de Elbysinioi; meta de Mastiênoi; meta de Kelkianoi; epeita de êdiorodanos. ... (Herodorus Heracleota, 400 b. C.)
... First they are those that inhabiting extreme territories of the West are called Kynetes (Keenetes o Kinetes); from them, for that it goes towards the Boreas they are the Gletes; later the Tartessios; later the Elbysinios; later the Mastiênos; later the Kelkianos; and later already the Rhodano. ..."(metaphrastical translation of Georgeos Diaz-Montexano, 2000, on grammar translation of the Doctor in Clasics Philology, Elvira Gangutia Elícegui, 1999.
(2) "... hos epeite tên diôrucha epausato orussôn tên ek tou Neilou diechousan es ton Arabion kolpon+, apepempse* Phoinikas andras ploioisi, enteilamenos es to opisô di' Hêrakleôn stêleôn ekpleein heôs es tên borêiên* thalassan kai houtô es Aigupton apikneesthai. ..." (Herodoto. 4.42.1.)
"... When there am had finished digging the channel which leads from the Nile to the Arabian Gulf, there am sent Phoenicians in ships, instructing them to sail on to their return voyage past the Pillars of until Heracles they came into the northern is and under to Egypt. ..."(Herodoto. 4.42.1. Herodotus. A. D. Godley. Cambridge. Harvard University Press. 1920.)
(3) "... Saspeirôn de Kolchoi katêkontes epi tên borêiên thalassan, es tên Phasis potamos ekdidoi. tauta tessera ethnea oikeei ek thalassês es thalassan. ..." (Herodoto. 4.37.1.)
"... and beyond the Saspires the Colchians, whose country extends to the northern sea1 into which the Phasis to
river flows; so these four nations live between the one sea and the other. ..." (Herodoto. 4.37.1. Herodotus. A. D. Godley. Cambridge. Harvard University Press. 1920.)
I. Translation of Cornarius:
"... Locus aunt hic totius insulae ad austrûm cônversus erat, à promontoriis ad Boreâ. ..." (Iano Cornarius. S. XVI)
"... Here all this place of the island towards the Austral one occurred the return, from the promontories to the Boreas..." (metaphrastical translation of Georgeos Diaz, 2000)
"... (Everything) this place was directed towards the south, from the promontories towards the North. ... " (grammar or phrastical translation of Jose Antonio Fortea Cucurull, 2004)
Commentaries: In the translation of Iano Cornarius some small differences are appraised, that they are very interesting. The Greek word "etetrapto", is translated by Ficino by the Latin word "vergebat", whereas Cornarius translates "etetrapto" with the Latin word "cônversus". In anyone of the cases, the translations of these two experts in Greek and Latin are valid or correct, since "etetrapto" (of "trepô") was translated like "becoming", "to occur the return", "to incline", "to go towards"; whereas Latin "vergebat", it was translated like "bending", "to incline", "to orient itself", "to go towards", and Latin "cônversus" was translated like "becoming", "to occur the return", "to turn itself in the direction of". In both cases it is reaffirmed that the correct sense of the Greek word "etetrapto" is the one what "the return occurs", "one bends", "one goes" or "a point or determined place is oriented" towards, that in the text it is in direction towards the South.
On the other hand, between the two Latin translations a very important difference is observed, since this is one of the tests that the theory of the experts in the texts of Plato confirms which they assure that, Cornarius used for its translation to Latin Greek texts of origin different from which Ficino used. The same Cornarius in its introduction affirms to have used "Vetustis Libris". Several medieval copies are known texts of Plato, of origins and different times. Ficino uses the Greek text that is the same one that has served as base for all the western modern translations. Thus we verified that Ficino translates "apo tôn arktôn kataborros" like "a Septêntriône Boreae expositus", "exposed to the Northern" or "exposed to the Boreas" or "to the wind (boreal) of the North". This demonstrates that Ficino worked with this well-known Greek version, since the translation to Latin of the Greek word "arktôn" is "Septêntriône". Nevertheless, Cornarius had to work with texts of another origin, that is to say, with other copies, since instead of "Septêntriône" it uses Latin "promontoriis" that is, "promontories". Any connoisseur of the Greek language, it knew perfectly that the Greek word "arktôn" could not be translated like "promontoriis", then... because Cornarius, that he was a famous old translator of the Greek, use the word "promontoriis" instead of "septêntriône", that she would be the correct one?
The explanation to the previous question arises immediately, as soon as we discovered that in Greek a word exists that, written in any codex or old manuscript, it could perfectly be confused with "arktôn", is the word "aktôn" (plural, derivative of "aktê"), whose translation in Latin is exactly, "promontoriis" (among other meaning associated to "cliffs", the "high coasts" and the "high places") the question still to determine is as it is the true or correct version.
If the logic is applied, within the context of the narration it does not seem to have sense that is used two identical terms, and twice followed, in order to mean the North or the wind of the North as it is observed in the translatio
Georgeos Díaz-Montexano
Theory in April, 2000
Jacques Collina-Girard
Theory in September, 2001
Collina-Girand has successfully confused the National Geographic Society, as well as everyone else, with his "influence", "degrees", and "academic references". He has "more credibility" than Georgeos Díaz, as he is part of the "oficial" and "academic world". However, he is neither entitled to nor has the right to take advantage of someone's effort and intellectual property, even from an "amateur".
Anyway, this point is, in fact, easy to solve (both in front of public opinion and court, if there was no other way but turn to Law): In order to prove Collina-Girard has formulated a theory almost identical if not really similar to Georgeos Diaz-Montexano's one, at least in the most fundamental points and the theoretical statement, he just needs to settle two obstacle, from my on point of view, easy to overcome.
1. He has to prove that those who read the basic statements of Collina-Girard's theory, which was same as Georgeos Diaz's, would find both theories similiar or almost identical to each other, close enough for them to be easy confused, regardless of who was the first person to write it. So, first of all, it would be necessary to lay down how close the two basic statements are: the major defence of Collina-Girard's is still that both theories are "totally different". Of course, what else would he say!
If there is a high similitude between both basic statements of this two theories, then, we have a problem, as both autors cannot claim in their writtings, and in front of mass media, they are the original creators of it. It can only be one, and this point could be solve if one of them says so, in public, that is, his theory is later, just a "simple" and "curious casuality". If the secondary or later author keeps saying everywhere in mass media that he was the first to announce that theory, then, of course, he would be damaging the original and previous author, who won't be able to get neither financing nor any support to develop his theory, as everybody would argue there's a previous investigator claiming to have been developing the same statement before.
2. So after laying down how close to eah other the basic statements are, it would be necessary to show who was the first publishing it. There're magazines and news to demostrate this point.
To make it easy, I've arranged a short article and clear comparative table, with the basic statements of both theories, showing the most relevant points people can see when reading them. Accurately, these comparisions should be done with investigators' first publicacions, instead of their later developing of themselves. And so it is. We have compared the main statements of both theories in Georgeos' first publication (the mass media magazine "Más Allá de la Ciencia" -Beyong Science-, April, 2000), and Jacques Collina-Girard's, in Science Academy, September, 2001. The French geologist submitted a report, with date March 15th, 2001, to French Science Academy. Collina-Girard states this theory came up to his mind just by chance in January, 2001, but the report was not accepted until June, 2001, and published in September, 2001. So, before September, 2001, no one could neither know nor even think Collina-Girard's theory did exist. Up until that date, the only theory about "Atlantis in Gibraltar, between Iberia and Morocco" was Georgeos Diaz's statement. Also, as the bulletin where Collina-Girard published his "pseudo-theory" would only circulate in academic media, it hadn't reached outside if it wasn't for the big divulgation campaign at the end of September, 2001, using all international mass media.
Why did they do so?
How many relevant and even more original reports are submitted every year to Science Academy, no announced at any international mass media?
Why even, being Atlantis a "taboo" topic, with a really bad image for scientific society, all institutions and media regarding them hastened to support this "pseudo-theory" divulgation campaign, Collina-Girard's (the Georgeos's theory) "Atlantis in Gibraltar, between Iberia and Africa"?
The French scientist (Jacques Collina-Girard and his team) did know perfectly Georgeos Diaz's investigations, and, convinced of his higher scientific possiblities, they planned to steal Georgeos Diaz's theory as soon as they realized he was not part of any University, with neither possible credibility nor institutional support with him. Looks like, as we have seen, these French "scientists" did think it is the "oficial science", not again "amateurs", the ones to represent and take the glory for (maybe, who knows) the scientific discovery of Atlantis. This is not the first time in History, "so-called" academic "scientist"had tried the same, not only against Spanish investigators.
In any case, we need your most sincere opinion and votes, after reading this article and analyzing the comparative table between both theories:
http://civilizaciones.web...ry/tablacomparativa2.pdf
Please, see to the pdf archive.
http://usuarios.lycos.es/...n_front_of_Gibraltar.pdf
Yours, María Fdez-Valmayor
Secretary, "The Civilizations Origins Scientific Society"
http://Atlantis.sitio.net
origenesinfo@todito.com
Votes:
Survey: Think that a great similarity between both theories exists?
http://miarroba.com/encuestas/votar.php?id=73637
Translate by Lc. César Guarde. Universidad de Barcelona, Spain.
Dear Friends:
I offer a Link to him to a map of the Georgeos's book, that I hope that she can interest and serve to him to him. I recommend to him that it opens the map in the beginning and maintains it open so that is including/understanding better the text...
All links to the photos, I have placed them to facilitate the understanding of the text of the Georgeos's book.
http://civilizaciones.web...io.com/mapa_atlantis.jpg
Or this mirror Link:
http://club2.telepolis.co.../images/mapa_atlantis.jpg
The text that explains that map in the book on "Atlantis in front of Gibraltar, between Iberia and Morocco", of Georgeos, are the following one:
> > > Plato say that there was an island in front of the mouth, that they, the Greeks, knew like Pillars of Hercules. In the Greek version that has arrived to us until today, that is not the original one, says "to pro tou stomatos", that is to say, "ahead or before the mouth or mouth or entrance"; Chalcidius (century IV) that was first - according to it seems that it made a translation commented to Latin of the Timaeus de Plato, translates these words like "IN ORE AC VESTIBULO SINUs", o sea, "en la boca y vestíbulo del golfo; whereas Marsilio Ficino (century XV), first that translated complete works of Plato to the Latin, translated it like "in ore & quasi vestibulo", "en la boca y casi en el vestíbulo". He is unquestionable, therefore, which the Atlantis island would be then in front of the mouth of the Straits of Gibraltar, and closely together, since one needs, before the mouth and almost in the lobby or entrance of the gulf, that is the Gulf of Cadiz or Atlantic, that begins right by where is Cabo Trafalgar and the Island of Majuan. He is certainly peculiar that the old "Island of Majuan" (that Collina-Girard has changed properly by Island of Spartel) is just in the same mouth of the Straits; nevertheless, it is very little probable that this is the Nêsos to which it talks about Plato, since Plato says by mouth of Kritias that still in the times of Solón or Plato, not could as soon as to sail over the place where the island had submerged, due to "the very low" bottoms (in Greek karta braxeos) and to the mud that the island caused when sinking. The island was then to very little depth, and according to all the data collected by oceanographers, the "Island of Majuan" (Majuan Bank in naúticas letters) was emerged for the last time does, approximately, about 13,000 years BP.
In the times of Plato the top or superior part of this island, that is like a hill, would be below the -50 meters. Nevertheless, as opposed to the present Câbo de Trafâlgar a great extension of bottoms exists, that still today are relatively low and dangerous for the coastal navigation.
1. This is my hypothesis number one, as far as the location of the Island the Acropolis de Atlantis. This extension presents the form of a peninsula, it castrates or promontory, and the Greek word Nêsos was used the same for island that stops peninsula or earth end that excels towards the sea, and also it was used to denominate to the deltas of the rivers, like Latin insula. Therefore, the "Nêsos Atlantis", would be the extension or submerged prolongation of the old Câbo dê Trafâlgar, that not by chance in the antiquity said that it had a temple dedicated to the Iuno goddess, Hêra or of Venus of the Sea "(according to the sources). This peninsula now submerged was in the past (Age of the Bronze) a Nêsos of "the Atlantic sea", that is to say, a Nêsos Atlantis, since Atlantis are in feminine, and according to the definition of Perseus, is not "of Atlas" or "the God Atlas" as i myself it thought before; according to the definition of Perseus, Atlantis are due to translate like "the Atlantic sea"; therefore, "Atlantis Nêsos" would have to be translated like "the Nêsos of the Atlantic sea" (to see definition in Perseus). As it is possible to be observed in the map, this "Nêsos Atlantis" of the Câbo dê Trafâlgar, still are at the present time extended between the -5 meters and the -20 meters, and present/display a group of islands and small barren islands reunited like an archipelago, that are between the -5 meters and the -17 meters. It is necessary to consider that the level of the sea can have raised until about 4 meters over the level that existed at the time of Plato, which means that more likely, in the times of Solón or Plato, the level of the sea in the Atlantic could be below -3 or -4 meters, with respect to the present level; therefore, these submerged islands, and this Nêsos or peninsula, would still be to smaller depth of which today they are. In any case, recent studies exist that raise the possibility that, shortly before Plato, the level of the sea could even have been -5 or -6 meters underneath. As it wants that it is watched, this "Atlantic Nêsos Atlantis" or submerged, is the only Nêsos that exists in front of the Columns of Hercules and in the lobby or entrance of the Gulf of Cadiz, because, in fact, the Gulf begins in this same Câbo dê Trafâlgar, whereas in the part of Morocco similarity, at least near the mouth of the Gulf or before the mouth of the Straits of Gibraltar exists anything not even.
2. My hypothesis number two is Chîclana dê lâ Frontêra and Cadiz, because also both meetings conform an extensive Nêsos, and are immediate to the Câbo de Trafalgar.
3. My hypothesis number three would be Rotâ and Chipîona, that also conform a great Nêsos, surrounded by two rivers of great volume in their openings, the Guadalete and the Guadalquivir. In the same way which Chipiona derived from the Greek name old, Kaipionos (pronouncing Kepiono), Chiclana could have derived from the Greek name * kyclana Kyklonos or *, "circulating", that is, a sobrename of the circular city of Atlantis, which we could see also confirmed in anitguo name of Rotâ, that in most of old Indo-European languages means "wheel"; a wheel with its central point or axis and the rays, is something enough similarity to the Acropolis of Atlantis.
4. The hypothesis that I consider with number four, is the one to locate it in some point near the delta of the Guadalquivir (Cotô dê Doñâna). This hypothesis is not mine but of other also Spanish investigators: Juân dê Marîana (century XVI), Josê Pellîcer Ossâu î Tovâr (century XVII), Francîsco Fernândez î Gonzâlez and its son Juân Fernândez Amadôr î dê lôs Rîos (1919). Josê Pellicer affirmed that Tartessós that was the same city of Atlantis, was in the Greater Island of the delta of the Guadalquivir, because at its time, that Greater Island, near Seville, is still called between the natural ones of the place, Tarsis. On the other hand, Antônio Blázquêz and Dêlgado-Aguîlera (1923), just a year before Adolf Schülten, published a book on Tartessós and the "Orâ Marîtima" of Avîeno. In this work, as far as the location of Tartessos, my predecessors raised, just like a year later Schülten practically wrote, on the theory of Tartessós in the western margin of the Guadalquivir river. When he left the work Schülten the Spanish scholars they got infuriated themselves - and with reason -, and demanded his originality to Schülten, that never responded, as if it had not passed anything; the indignation of the Spanish scientists vió increased by the fact that they knew that Schülten had received book copy that they wrote a year before, and therefore, Schülten was to the current of the ideas and hypotheses spilled in this work of both Spanish authors. In fact, Schülten copied almost all the original ideas of Blázquêz and Dêlgado-Aguîlera, and it made them happen as hers in his book "Tartessós" (1924).
Were united to this claim of Blázquêz and Dêlgado-Aguîlera against Schülten, very important Spanish investigators, among them the same Jûan Fernándêz Amâdor dê lôs Rîos, that also protested to Schülten - and yet straight -, since he himself, and their father, Frâncisco Fêrnández î Gonzâlez, identified the Atlântida with Tartessós before Schülten, and they before made several years ("Iberian Antiques public ", 1919). This claim was allowed, although also it is certain (and this did not know the mentioned authors to it) that first that it identified to Tartessos with Atlantis she was priest Jesuîta, Juân Dê Marîana, (century XVI) and after this Josê Pellîcer Ossâu and Tôvar (Century XVII), that a study made complete much more.
It is peculiar the parallelism that exist between the case of the plagiarism of Schülten to the mentioned Spanish authors, and the plagiarism that Jacques Collina-Girard of the fundamental points and the essence of my theory has made. In both cases, as much Schülten as Collina-Girard was not Spanish, both they were informed into original works, and in both cases, both they published its theoretical plagiarisms, a year after the publication of the original ones. The sad thing is that as anything it served all the protests of the Spanish scholars, Schülten robbed that glory to them, in spite of not to have econtrado no test of the city of Tartessós; which me trasmite a certain preoccupation that to my also it ends up to me happening the same. It seems that it is an old custom, that some nonSpanish European scientists take control of the intellectual effort and the original ideas of the scientists or Spanish investigators. History is being repeated, and this time has not been a German, is a French. Saddest of everything, he is that until in sites of Internet where supposedly much people seemed to appreciate my contributions and argumentations, when aid was requested to them soliciing that sent letters to all means of press requesting so that the facts were known, and in spite of to have offered the necessary tools for it, single a pair of people they responded publishing the news on my theory and discoveries in other forums, perhaps this must that most of the participants of these forums where I also contributed and discussed, they are European nonSpanish, many of them are French, Belgian, Swedish, Germans, English, but Spanish or Hispano-American, I believe that I was the unique one. In fact, in the Forum of Atlantis Rising, that was my preferred forum, instead of supporting to one of his more participant assets like were I at those moments, some made all the opposite took advantage of my misfortune and began an authentic campaign in my against. It was arrived until saying, Jacques Collina-Girard is Science, Georgeos Diaz-Montexano pseudoscience, and also Alive Collina-Girard, down Georgeos Diaz! It is very probable, that my greater sin, my greater crime, than many cannot pardon, is not to be a German, English, Swedish or a French, not to be not even a Spanish, since I am son and grandson of Spaniards by both parts, but as I were born in Cuba, because oy Cuban, and that turns to me a Hispano-American, who to European eyes of many, which they are still created a species of superior race, more intelligent, is as if not even he had right to being intelligent and to happen to history like one of the investigators whom also something original and important contributed to the enigma of Atlantis. It is sad, but it is one hard reality. Still it continues existing much people who, unfortunately, continue thinking this way. For that reason almost nobody has made nothing help not even by means of the shipment of a simple informative note means, because at heart, many they prefer that he is a French, although is a plagiador and thief of theories, gives equal, but better than he is a French who can happen to history like the discoverer of Atlantis that Hispanic-Cuban or a Hispano-American, this of course would be something very humiliating for certain people. In the Forum of Graham Hancock, an anonymous user talking about to my discoveries of the last summer, said, when talking about to the possibility not so distant that I could discover the Atlantis island: Oh, no. That would be something terrible.
5. Returning to the alternative hypotheses; my hypothesis number five is to look for the city in some coastal point near the city of Huelva.
6. My hypothesis number six, is that the city of Atlantis could be on the level platform that exists upon the Câbo dê Sân Vîcente known like "Câbo Sagrê", since this also it is a Nêsos, and over the same one one long plain extends.
7. My hypothesis number seven is the own Island of Madeira and other near ones that now is submerged like submarine mountains.
8. My hypothesis number eight is transferred to Morocco, a submerged island that is almost seven times greater than the Island of Majuan and is to smaller depth (to -40 meters). This island is surrounded as well by others six smaller islands, all almost of the same size that the Island of Majuan. These submerged islands are exactly located before the mouth of the small river of Bougadou, to few kilómteros after doubling the Tanger Cape, more near this place than of the city of Asilah. This is the only option which I consider possible in the part of Morocco, since these islands (that receive the name of "Bânco dêl Castîllo" in the Spanish tastings naúticas) are the unique ones that is relatively near the mouth of the Straits of Gibraltar. Any other location in Morocco, that I was beyond these islands, cannot be maintained with rigor if we decided to respect the descriptions of Plato.
According to Plato it is precise that we look for a Nêsos that is, an island or a peninsula or promontory or a great delta of river that begins closely together of the entrance of the Gulf and the mouth of the Straits of Gibraltar. It is obvious that the islands that we handled like possible, are too small to lodge a great city and in addition do not present a great plain around. The only possibility that we have left, that can harmonize of the best possible way the descriptions of Plato is the Nêsos of the Câbo dê Trafâlgar, my hypothesis number one.
Since to the being a earth Nêsos or end that leaves towards the sea, was an island or peninsula, one insula, that in addition extends in the great plain of the Guadalquivir and is surrounded by mountains that arrive until the sea. Any other Nêsos with these same characteristics in front of the mouth of the Straits does not exist, in the lobby or entrance of the Gulf, as it affirms Plato through the Latin translations of Chalcidius, disciple of the Academy of Plato, that worked with original texts of Plato, and Marsilio Ficino that also worked with Greek medieval codices that later disappeared.
The Greek transcription that today we know, for many experts in philology is a medieval translation that became from the Latin version of Ficino and Cornarius. Therefore my argumentations are more outposts and have greater possibility of guessing right, because I work with well-known the oldest and more trustworthy sources, not with copies of a Greek translation of another Latin translation that had as well been a possible translation of original a Greek. The Greek version of Perseus, belongs to the editions that became from the Greek translation of Aldina, that made of the Latin translation of Ficino.
And that Greek translation of the Latin translation is the one that investigators like Erick use Wright and Jonas Bergman, who tries to place the city and lines up main of Atlantis in Morocco, and the Dr Rainer W. Kühne that like I consider in my hypothesis number four, thinks that it is possible to hayar the rest of the Acropolis in some point of the Guadalquivir, exactly in the same area that had indicated already in century XVII, Josê Pellîcer Ossâu î Tovâr. My recommendation for these investigating colleagues is that they more even use - the Latin translations of Ficino and Cornarius that the Greek of Perseus; although they are possible to be worked simultaneously with the three, always must predonimar in the precisions the Latin translations, in special the one of Cornarius that without doubts, seems most correct and coherent.
In order to be able to investigate with rigor any subject of a so remote past, it is necessary, forced, to work with the primary sources, which means that we must work with the sources older than we pruned to find. He is not scientist to direct the search and to build all a theory starting off of a source that is not primary, and despising for the true primary sources, although I only am by this methodologic question, I take to much more advantage on all the investigators who are looking for Atlantis, by all the corners of the world; because while the immense majority is guided by translations that contain serious errors like those of the so popular Jowett Youngest child or by the Greek texts of Perseus, which they are few that in addition they never respect the grammar rules of the style attic of Plato, and single they are limited to do what until ninño it would do, that is to say, to take the words and to alongside place them in row or column like a dictionary with the meaning, and this are thought that they are going to be able to decipher an enigma.
This is complete an absurd one, and that is not metaphrastical translation either or literal, the metaphrastical translation respects the grammar rules, simply, its difference with the common translations phrasticals, is that while these adapt the message original of the text so that he is more comprehensible in certain community and time, the translations metaphrasticals are limited to exactly translate what puts the translation, without adaptations nor adornment, a good example, would be "Atlantis Nêsos": the phrastical translation would be "the Atlantis Island", whereas the metaphrastical translation would be, "the island or Atlantic peninsula" (of the Atlantic sea), that evidently is not the same. It is not the same "the Atlantis Island", that is like saying, "the Madeira Island", that is, the called Island or whose name is Madeira, that to say, "the Atlantic Island or of the Atlantic sea"; in the single previous example we would know as the island is called, whereas in the second example, that is metaphrastical translation, we would know the place geographic where is this island, that is, in the Atlantic sea. As it is possible to be verified in both cases has been respected the grammar norms, as far as the sort, time and syntax, single it changes the semantics of the message, that in the phrastical is simplified and adapted to one more a generalized and vulgar understanding, whereas in the metaphrastical its original sense, since is respected in the texts oldest Atlantis, he was used single to denominate to the sea or the sea (to be in feminine) Atlantic, whereas to the God Atlas it was called to him such in texts like Atlas, and Atlantos or Atlan, that are masculine forms derived from Atlas. In more delayed date, mainly in Roman texts, appears some cases of Atlantis used to name to the Atlas daughters.
9. My hypothesis number nine, by logic, the one that I consider less probable, is the one of the "Islâ Albôrán", that is had in front of Gibraltar, but for the part of the Mediterranean, between Iberia and Marrueco also. This island back does several thousands of years had quite great, at least as long as the present Cadiz, but nowadays as soon as it occupies little more of a kilometer.
http://www.clubdelamar.org/alboran.jpg
http://www.clubdelamar.org/alboran1.jpg
http://www.almeriware.net...a/Alboran/Alboran_001.htm
I think that îsla Albôrán is the same "Platêa Nêsos", "flat island", that the navengante Kolaios, discovered before passing the Columns of Hërcules and arriving at Tartessós. The Alborán Island is an absolutely flat island. Of all ways there are in her some interesting elements that remember the story of Plato like can be species of caves or hollows with ceiling in vaulted projection or, seemed to which, according to Plato, made atlanteans to protect the boats (to see Alboran_013 photo) On the other hand, next to these caves with salient ceiling, is observed in the water which seems channels. Plato also said that the island had cliffs of the coast like cut to tip, is peculiar who in the island of Alborân their cliffs present/display natural marks of you fold inclined which they indeed remember the tracks that leave the stonecutters when they peck stones (to see Alboran_011 photo)...." (aim of appointment of the Georgeos's book)
http://www.almeriware.net...a/Alboran/Alboran_011.htm
http://www.almeriware.net...a/Alboran/Alboran_003.htm
http://www.almeriware.net...a/Alboran/Alboran_013.htm
Warm greetings of Maria.
------------------
María Fdez-Valmayor
Secretary of "The Civilizations Origins Scientific Society" (C.O.S.S.) and "The Scientific Atlantology".
http://Atlantis.sitio.net
http://Georgeos-Diaz.sitio.net
Proofs of which Atlantis were not in Morocco. (taken from the Georgeos's Book)
As all or they know, Georgeos have been coming defending for more than seven years (demonstrated in his first publication in 1997), that the empire or kingdom of Atlantis was made up by the South and western part of the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and of the North and western part of Africa (Morocco). This has been always the essence of its theory. Georgeos always has defended "Atlantis ibero-moroccian", but in relation to capital or island and the Acropolis sacred, Georgeos always has considered that would find in front of Straits of Gibraltar, in mouth of gulf Atlantic, between Iberia and Morocco, because this is exactly what Plato says, the same when is reading in Greek that when it is reading in Latin. If Plato affirms of clear way that the Atlantis island, when talking about to the Acropolis island that sank under the sea, it was located ahead same of the Columns of Hercules, in the lobby or threshold of the gulf or Atlantic sea, is then absurd that is tried to look for the Acropolis on earth in Morocco or same Spain.
The Acropolis could be of no earth way neither in Spain nor in Morocco, so that Plato, and all the later authors did not leave any doubt as far as the collapse of Atlantis under waters of the sea. Plato affirms through Critias that at the time of Solón, when Egyptian priests Sonchis, of Sais, and Psenophis, of Heliopolis (according to Ploutarch) counted the history of Atlantis to Solón, still navigation was dangerous over where it had sunk Atlantis island due to mud waters and to the low or stumbling blocks that were after their collapse under the sea. This description of Plato is very clear and it corresponds, without place to doubt, for whatever it knows to read old Greek and the Latin of correct way, with the geographic characteristics that exist in the marine coasts of Spain, from Gibraltar to Huelva, that is a great zone of waters little deep much dangerous low mud and floods, that does impossible to see under the water nor a meter during most of the year.
This same zone was described by several authors of the antiquity, among them the own Aristotle, disciple of Plato, with the same words that use Plato to talk about to the area where it had sunk the island and the Acropolis of Atlantis. Nevertheless, in spite of these so clear evidences and data, now some insist on falsear or modifying to convenience these data, to be able to sustain the absurd idea that Atlantis the sea is in nonlow earth and.
Several proofs that demonstrate that the theory of the capital of Atlantis in Morocco is not objective, nor can be maintained with scientific rigor. Between these proofs, the main one gives own the Plato it, when it says that the Greek names are not the original ones, but the translations by meaning, of the names that the Egyptians had translated from the original language of atlanteans. Then, if the Greek name of Atlases and Atlantis is not the original one, because then he is completely absurd and pseudo scientist, in addition to useless, to try to develop all a theory on Atlantis in Morocco, because in Morocco are the Atlas mounts. The name of Atlantis was not Atlantis nor Atlas, as or it clarifies Plato simply, because then it is not possible to be looked for Atlantis near the Atlas nor in Morocco, because this was not his true name. The only name that Plato it affirms - through Kritias- that was of the original language of the country of the Atlanteans is Gadeiros and the region of Gadeirikê, that is to say, the region of Gadeira, that corresponds with the province of Cadiz.
Therefore, being the this only name they atlantean that it can be identified surely, because the only scientific theory is the one that directs its glances towards Iberia. Although it is not possible to be discarded that by its Morocco proximity it comprised of the Atlantean kingdom, does not exist in the story of Plato any geographic name that allows to confirm that Morocco comprised of the kingdom of Atlantis, and much less than in Morocco was the island and the main Acropolis (according to Plato the power of the Atlanteans extended by almost all Mediterranean).
The only data that allows to suppose that Morocco comprised of Atlantis is the mention of the elephants, but it is known that in the Iberian Peninsula there were elephants even until the classic times, probably brought from Morocco. The certain thing is that in Spain have been several old cities previous to the arrival of the Romans and Carthaginians who coined their own currencies with elephants by a face and Hercules by the other, among other symbols. The writing of these coins is not known, although the Libyan-phoenician neon-aramean has occurred him or name of, in fact it is a new alphabet, and completely not known, and nobody can assure the exact age these coins. One of those cities survived until the arrival of the Romans, since it presents by a face this strange writing and an elephant and by the other to Hercules and the name written in Latin of "Laskuta".
Some modern authors think that the famous elephants that Hannibal in Iberia used to cross the Pyrenees, were of Iberia, because any reference does not exist that that says it brought them of Africa. In Andalusia was a tomb previous to the Romans with a sculpture of elephant ("Lâ Tûmba dêl Elefânte") and in mountains of Barcelona have been discovered great petroglifos of the Age of the Bronze that represent Elephants and soldiers with swords and shields and helmets of pens, very similar to which appears drawn in the temple of Madinat-Habu, in Egypt and which they are denominated like "Towns of the Sea".
These petroglifos demonstrate that the elephant existed in Iberia in the Age of the mentioned Bronze and coins above with strange writing demonstrates also that the elephant was still well-known in Iberia before the arrival of the Carthaginians and Romans. Nobody has made a genetic study of the DNA of found ivories in Iberia, that they are many, but Georgeos is convinced that the day that becomes this study will demonstrate that ivories do not belong to any race of elephants of Africa nor of Asia, and that these single will be similar to the rest of elephants found in Iberia.
In any case, and returning to the main question, and that truely matters. Atlantis are not the original name of the island or peninsula that Plato it ahead places and upon the Columns of Hercules (Gibraltar), therefore nothing related to the name Atlantis, Atlante or Atlas has no value in the search of the solution of this mystery. We only have two safe datum points. Gadeira and Columns of Hercules, because although also it is a Greek name, like Atlas and rest of names, in text Egyptian affirm to Solón, that the Columns of Hercules (Herakleous Stêlas) were the name that the Greeks gave that place, that is to say, to the mouth or opening of the Straits where to the island or peninsula of Atlantis was located (to see Timaeus 24).
As it demonstrates Georgeos in his book, with these two only safe names, offered by Plato, single can look for Atlantis, or at least one important part of the kingdom of Atlantis in Iberia. Atlas, was not called Atlas, therefore, the name of all the island and the sea or Atlantic gulf that had taken the name by this, was not Atlantis nor Atlantic either. As the main region where the first son had been born and where did not erect the city either sacred would be called Atlantis by king Atlas, but of another way who Solón did not register in its written narration of which there were counted the Egyptian priests to him.
We do not know then, as it was the true name of Atlantis, nor of the gulf, sea or sea that opened in front of the Columns of Hercules nor the true name of the first king, but we know the name of the second king, the twin brother, Gadeiros and also know to the name of the region that dominated east king and who arrived until the Columns of Hercules, the region of Gadeira (Gades or Cadiz). Therefore, we know surely that the region of Gadeira comprised of the island or peninsula of Atlantis, and this region of Gadeira, always has comprised of the peninsula or island of Iberia (to be surrounded this by three seas: the Mediterranean, the Atlantic and the Cantabrian) As Gadeira comprised of the peninsula of Iberia, because it is logical to think that about this same peninsula or island, would be the other region of its twin brother, the one that had been born before he and who Solón translates to the Greek like Atlas. Therefore, the primitive region where was the mountain of low height, and the hill that was surrounded by concentric ring of sea and earth, to protect the dwelling and the temple of Kleitós, could be in any other point of the coast of Iberia near the Columns of Hercules. The same passing the Columns towards the Atlantic, that ahead, in the Mediterranean, but always between Iberia and Morocco.
These are the facts, and these are the true data worthy to study and to consider like serious. Any theory which it is tried to support in the Greek names of the story of Atlantis - with exception of the "Herakleous Stêlas" - cannot be considered like serious, so that own the Plato through Kritias already noticed that they were not original them name, but the translations of the names that the Egyptians had translated from the language of atlanteans.
Finally, and in relation to the Atlas and to Morocco, are important to indicate that the Atlas of Morocco was not well-known before the times of Solón, that is to say, before the VI century (BC). Before Solón the Atlante mount was located in the Alps or in the Pyrenees of between Spain and France, since the few references that exist before Solón affirm that Monte Atlante was to the other side of the sea, before the Hespérides, and to these they place texts such, near the present city of Tunisia. Therefore to the other side of the sea, opposite of the area between the Syrtis and Carthage, the only high mounts that existed were the Alps and the Pyrenees.
Are possible that the Egyptian priests knew the Columns Hercules (Gibraltar) and the western coasts of Morocco, by the trip of Neko, made shortly before Solón, but nothing of this trip in the narration comments, nor affirms at no moment that the main region of region of the Atlantis island was near Monte de Atlas. Single the names derived from Atlas are used to denominate to the sea and the island or peninsula. Whereas on the other hand, the testimonies that are conserved of the trips of Neko and Sataspes do not mention at any moment the Atlas mount, in spite of describing to the passage by the Columns of Hercules and the coasts of Morocco. Not even the trip of exploration of Hanno, of later date to Solón, mentions Monte Atlante nor the Atlante name. And it is peculiar because the text mentions the Columns of Hercules and abounds in names and geographic details. In fact he was not after Herodotus (that was later to Solón) that began to consider itself by some authors who the Atlas mount was in the extreme West of Libya or Africa.
All these data demonstrate without doubt that, does not exist no objective and serious reason to continue looking for the Acropolis of Atlantis in Morocco, nor to identify to the island or peninsula of Atlantis with the mount Atlante and Morocco. In the first place, because Atlantis were a Greek name, it was not the original name, and secondly, because before Solón the Atlante mount was located between the Alps and the Pyrenees. Primitively it was in Arcadia, later would happen to the Alps and shortly before Solón it would be located in the Pyrenees, as they demonstrate the sources previous to Solón.
I trust that the weight of the reason ends up squashing the errors of interpretation and the ignorance that exists on the historical data and the primary sources. I also hope, that the force of the argument prevails. Not the argument of the force, as lamentably it is happening in this Forum.
Warm Greetings of Maria.
------------------
María Fdez-Valmayor
Secretary of "The Civilizations Origins Scientific Society" (C.O.S.S.) and "The Scientific Atlantology".
http://Atlantis.sitio.net
http://Georgeos-Diaz.sitio.net
The Name Original de Atlantis. Linguistic reconstruction.
Jonas investigator Bergman de AtlantisRising.com defends the old theory of?Atlantis in Morocco. Between their main arguments are the geographic comparisons and the names. Jonas Bergman raises the hypothesis that the Semitic word (in this Hebrew case) Salah or Shelah, is the same word that Solón translated to Greek Atlas and Atlantis. According to Bergman, these words mean "to to bear, to lift up, to weigh, to balance". Bergman tries with this to relate to the old city phoenician of Room with the own city of Atlantis. Nevertheless, as we see after the cuatros meant that he exposes Bergman, single both last are correct. And these do not appear between the meaning of the Greek word Atlas. That they say the dictionaries on the matter? Let us see proofs: Shelah (Sheh'-lakh) = "sprout". Proper Name Masculine. An they are of Arphaxad and to father of Eber. (The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon) Whereas Shalah = "happy", "to prosper", "safety"; "decive"; "away"; "amiss". Other related words are Shalat, "dominion", "to power", "rule", "ruleth", and Shelet, "shields". In Hebrew Shalat: to primitive root; to dominate, i.e. govern; by implication, to permit : - - (to to bear, have) rule, have dominion, give (have) to power. These definitions do not fit with the one of a word that was used the same for "suffering, to?soportar? and to?padecer punishment, that to?aguantar a load or weight, like Atlas was it the Greek word. Shalat cannot be translated by the Greek Atlas of any way, and less still, existing in the semíticas languages other words, truely equivalent to the Greek Atlas. The Greek single Atlas can be a translation of the Sbl Semite (S?b?l) who is used with these same meaning. In the Hebrew and Greek dictionary one says that Shlet (shel-it ties ') is a voice Aramaic that, corresponding to ' shalat ': - - have the mastery, have to power, to bear rule, be (make) to ruler. That is, nothing that to see with the translation of the Greek word Atlas. As he can see itself, Jonas investigator Bergman is not going to obtain to nothing serious nor important, with respect to Atlantis in Morocco, using the hypothesis of the word Salah or Shelah like original name of Atlantis.
On the other hand, the name is not due to forget that Room, appears registered like Roman or Latin name, not as they phoenician. In Latin Room, it would be "(city) Salty" or "the Salty sea"; of the Latin Salt, "salt", "the salt to water", "brine", "is". By this same root we have in the southwest of Iberia, between Andalusia and Portugal, the old city of Salacia, which in coins had like symbols, exactly to the God Poseidôn. The city of Room, in Morocco, would be then the "Salty City". In the western coasts of Morocco, everything full of salt. Any inhabitant of the place can give testimony of as the salt is throughout. Anyway, as any Greek nor Roman appointment does not exist that to afir me that the name of Room was phoenician or indigenous, because single we can accept like the more serious and rigorous the hypothesis that Room is the name that the Romans gave that city. Its original name to the arrival of the first Romans would be another one, that has not sobrevido the passage of the Roman colonization and the time. On the other hand, in any dialecto Libyan-bereber Room either does not mean anything similar to the meaning of the Greek voice Atlas. If Jonas Berman knows some example convincing, because it would not have to delay in showing that example to be able to illustrate to all the readers and students.
I cannot include/understand of as dictionary has removed to Jonas Bergman who Salah and Shelah mean "to to bear, to lift up. In fact Sl' (pronounced saw-law' http://club.telepolis.com...sonidos/saw-law_jonas.mp3 ) means "comparable" and comes from a primitive root; "to suspend in a balance", i.e. "weigh": - - "it compares". S'l'h (Salah) also is, "down", "foot", "valued". To primitive root; to hang up, i.e. weigh, or (figuratively) contemn : - - tread down (to under foot), value. S'l'h (Selah): from ' Salah '; suspension (of music), i.e. slows down : - - Selah. Sl' (Selá, pronouncing seh'-lah http://club.telepolis.com...deiros/sonidos/sehlah.mp3 )"hold", "rock", "stones": from an unused root meaning to be lofty; to craggy rock, literally or figuratively (to fortress) : - -(ragged) rock, stone(-ny), strong hold.
These definitions - as much of "Shelah" as of "Salah" -, analyzed from languages semíticas aramaic and hebrew, not fit with the one of word that was used the same for "suffering", "supporting" and "to suffer" punishment, that stops "to hold a load or weight", like the Greek word Atlas. Shelah nor Salah can be translated by the Greek name Atlas of no way. The Greek name single Atlas could have translated of an Egyptian word that had translated as well to one word like the Semite whose S'b'l, whose Sbl root, was used with such meant shared which the Greek word Atlas.
As anyone can verify by itself, Jonas investigator Bergman is not going to obtain nothing serious nor important - with respect to Atlantis going to the erroneous hypothesis of Salah or Shela of Morocco like the name of which supposedly the name of Atlantis would be originated. Jonas Bergman would have to be looking for another history to count, because this story of Shela/Salah = Atlantis, already has been finished. I say it with all my respect, and a tone of healthful humor. Now its turn to another word corresponds to him, to another more objective and real hypothesis: S'b'l (S'bael) = S'bila; Latin Sebilla = Seville. The most important city of the Southwest of Spain, and that the old sources of the Spanish and Arab historians said that it was the oldest city of Iberia, the first founded city.
Seville this in the Guadalquivir river, and the antiquity the boats arrived until the own city, due to the ample and navigable channel of rio Baetis. It is very possible that when submerging the primitive city of Sebila, that is to say, the Acropolis sacred which Solón translates like Atlantis, which was to single about 9 kilometers of the coast, the survivors transferred its capital towards a moved away point more of the coast, but right to where the boats could arrive to continue with their expeditions and the marine commerce. The heart of the Tartésico kingdom is located nowadays, indeed, near Seville. They tartesian more famous treasure is the one than it was discovered in "the Carambolo", Seville. The own Romans called to Seville, "Italica" and "Rome" in their older currencies; being the only city of all the Roman empire to which they denominated with those names. Because the Romans would give the names of their country, "Italica" and "Rome", to a city of Iberia? The single answer could be, because the Romans knew the own natives ibero-tartessians that this city was - as they affirm to the medieval historians the oldest and more important city of all the oocidente of Europe; the capital of Iberia or Hispania. The Arabs still called to Italica with a form that remembered its original name, "Ysbiliya" (pronouncing " Ysbeeliya ": http://club.telepolis.com...iros/sonidos/ysbiliya.mp3 ), since they phoenician form or semítica would be "Y-sbael-ya", "the S'bal Island", that is to say, "the island of which it Supports, of that which Endure, of that which Holds". According to the Spanish historians and philologist of this Arab form of "Ysbiliya", it derived the present name from Seville. Whereas the Romans also called to "Italica" with the name of "Hispal" or "Ispal" (according to the sources); without a doubt, a variant of the same original name from which it derived the Arab, "Ysbilya" or "Isbiliya". The Arabs trasmitieron one more a form nearer the original one phoenician or ibero-tartessian, because the Arabs speak a Semitic language, relative of the old one phoenician, reason why the original name of "Ys?bilya" or "Is?biliya" was easier to understand of the settlers hispanians to them; whereas the Romans spoke an Indo-European language, the Latin, whose phonetic structure is completely different from the semíticas languages. For that reason, the Romans transcribed "Ispali-s", instead of "Isbaelya", in the same way that the Arabs wrote "Ysban" and "ebhrikiya", where the Romans wrote "Hispan"/"Ispan" and Aphrica.
My theory is that the original name of Atlantis could be * Y-Sbael-ya by the semítica root sbl (s'bael) of which derive the forms " AaSB'eL ", " SaB, ", "SB'eL", "SB, aL", and "SeB, LaT" . All of them with the meaning of "suffer", "to to bear", "to support", "to endure", "hold"). He is peculiar, but in Spain still it exists the Semitic last name Bi-Sbal, that would be "son of Sbal", or" son of whom, "to Bear", "to Hold" or "to Suffer". These roots are in the language aramaic. "Aramaic is the ancient language of the Semitic family group, which includes the Assyrians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Arameans, Hebrews, and Arabs. In fact, to large part of the Hebrew and Arabic languages is borrowed from Aramaic, including the Alphabet." (to see http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/aramaic_language.html ) Therefore, to reconstruct old words of possible Phoenician origin he is very recommendable to guide itself by the arameo lexical, nonsingle by the Hebrew.
Let us see the meaning of raiz SBL in the semíticos and dialectos languages aramaics, and Hebrew:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sbl: "to to suffer", "to support", "to carry", "to porter". (Syr. Dialectos Christian, Palestinian and Aramaic)
Sbl: "to carry", "endure". (Dialectos Christian, Palestinian and Aramaic)
S'b'l: to primitive root; to carry (literally or figuratively), or (reflexively) be burdensome; specifically, to be gravid: -- to bear, be to burden, carry, strong to labour. (Hebrew)
Sb'l: from (S'b'l); to load (literally or figuratively): - - they burden, charge. (Hebrew)
Sb'l (Aramaic Word): corresponding to S'b'l; to erect: - - strongly laid. (Hebrew)
Sbl (Aramaic Word): "to to suffer", "to bear", "to support". (Dialectos Babylonian and Talmudic)
Sbl: "to carry", "endure". (Dialectos Christian, Palestinian and Aramaic)
Sbb'l: from S'b'l; to porter: - - (to to bear, to bearer of) burden(-s). (Hebrew)
Sb'lh: from Sb'l; porterage:--burden. (Hebrew)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas also meant the one that "undergoes, supports or experiences difficulties"; literally, "endure", "the one that is submitted". Then it is that also the old semítica form is known, Sbr (SaYB'aR HTTP://club.telepolis.com...deiros/sonidos/SaYBaR.mp3 ). Thus then, one old semítica form like "Y-Saybar-ya" (that would be pronounced approximately like "YSaYBaRya" HTTP://club.telepolis.com...ros/sonidos/ysaybarya.mp3 ) and that signficaría "the land of that which Endure", could with the passage of time - and several conquest and colonization of foreign towns of Indo-European origin, like the Greeks, celtas and Romans to transform itself into the sonorous variant, "Ysbeerya", that some Indo-European towns as the Greeks would understand like Ibêr or Ibêria, without the s (that in Greek would be pronounced like "eeber" and "eebereea" HTTP://club.telepolis.com...iros/sonidos/eebeeria.mp3 ), according to the phonetical english), and other towns as the Carthaginians would understand like "Y-sbael-ya", by confusion with the other semítica root of similar meaning Sbl (sbal or sbel). Later the Romans would understand this carthaginian variant of * Y-sbael-ya "like" Ispal "or" Hispali ". A pronunciación quite near the old Phoenician form or Carthaginian had to survive until the medieval age, because loscomo or we have seen, the Arabs called to the old Italica or Roman Ispalis, with the name of "Ysbilya". Of the custom of the Hispanic-musulmanians to listen to and to pronounce this semítica variant, "Ysbilya", and product of the mixture with the Romance forms derived from Latin and the sprouting of castilian language, would be ended up losing and or the initial I, being left the pronuncianción single like * S'bilya, or also by a phenomenon very known in linguística, that denominates "metatesis", that it is the transposition or interchange of sounds within a same word like for example, Latin "mîraculo", that was transformed into the Spanish "mîlagro"; this way, primeta and or I would happen to occupy a second place behind the S, being in "Sibilya", forms this that is documented like previous to the present name of Seville.
Philologist Spanish has explained the origin of the name of Seville - through the sources conserve-from the Arab "Ysbiliya" and this form from Latin * the Hispalia, Hispali or Ispal, but never they had included/understood from where the Roman name of Hispal came, because this is not a word of the Latin. One knew that it had to be the Roman or adapted form to the Latin of some indigenous name of the place, but nobody before had discovered as it could be that indigenous form. My theory raises a possibility that goes merely beyond the probable thing. The analysis of texts of Plato could be the key of the remote origin of the name of "Seville" or "Ysbiliya", as the original name of the city and region that Solón translated like Atlantis and that according to the dialogues of the Kritias, its name had taken from its first king, whose original name, in Phoenician or semítica language, would be then * Sbal, * Sbael or * Sebil, that is to say, "there am Supports, there am Endure, there am Holds, there am Suffer"
--------------------------------------------
http://club.telepolis.com...dos/arameo_atlantis2.html
Comparative table of the evolution of the name of Seville (Atlantis)
--------------------------------------------
To these evidences we would have to add in addition, that another semítica root exists present in the old dialectos Aramaic, Babylonian, Talmudic, paleo-Christian, and Palestinian, that would also explain the true origin and meaning of the name of Tarte-ssós or Tarshish, name that received the kingdom or commercial empire that dominated in the same geographic area where the city of Ispalia, Ysbilya or Seville settled down. This Semitic word is Trsy (pronounced like Tarsiy HTTP://club.telepolis.com...deiros/sonidos/TaRSiY.mp3 , and like Tarsea HTTP://club.telepolis.com...deiros/sonidos/TaRSeA.mp3 ), and besides to explain the origin of the name of Tarschish or Tartessós, as we see next, also agrees with one of the meaning of the Greek word Atlas.
First we will make a brief analysis of the name of Tartessós, that is a Greek variant. Old the Greeks used like suphije behind the names of cities and countries the word - ssós, that according to seems meant "country of" or "land of", like the city of Kno-ssós of Crete. By consequence the name that the Greeks had to really listen would be something similar to * Tarte. Forms derived from this name are known registered by the Roman authors like Turdetania and Turthetani and Turdulos. Like the completions - tani and - also they are used them by the Romans, like Greek - ssós, to designate "country of" or "region of", because then we remained again with the word * Turde or * Turthe, but like we have seen that the vowels changed in the different variants from the same name, because we reduce the root to * T'rth. This way we arrived at a form quite similar to the registered one in the Old Testament like Trshy (Tarshis). In the main lexicos and dictionaries it is assumed that this name is a word of foreign origin. And most of the scholars for centuries they have been identifying to the Biblical Tarshish with the Tarte-ssós of Iberia. Therefore, the original form iberian of the name that the Greeks registered like Tartessós, and the Hebrews like Tarschish or Tarshys, had to be * T'rth. But that meant really this word? The Greeks do not say to anything on their meaning nor the Romans, and either the Hebrews. Nevertheless, it would be logical to think that its original meaning would be very similar to one of the names that later the Romans used to denominate to Iberia, as he can be Hispan-ia, Hispal-ia or Ispal-ia. We have seen that a great possibility that exists the primitive name that evolved until becoming Seville was "Ysbaelya" (thanks to the Arab medieval authors), and as this name could probably derive from another old Semitic name ( they phoenician) like * Y-sbl-yA, "the S'bal Island", that is to say, "the Support island; the Endure Island; the Hold Island ". Then if my theory is valid, and journeys by good footpaths, then we would have to hayar another similar Semitic root in phonetics to iberian root * T'rth or * T'rs, that formed the original name of Tarschis or Tartessós... Then indeed, in the old dialectos Aramaic, Babylonian, Talmudic, paleo-Christian and Palestinian, I have discovered already mentioned root of Trsy, that was pronounced in old aramaic of two forms: Tarsea, and Tarsiy. And this Semitic root was used to denominate, exactly to which "it supports", "maintains" or "it supports", "support" (thus appear in the old version aramaic of the New Testament in? Mattai - 6:26; Luqa - 12:24; Ephesians - 5:29). This word since we have seen, agrees with others of the meaning by the other Semitic root "S'bael", and with another one of the semantic values of the Greek voice "Atlas". The circle is closed.
Hispal or Ispal, Roman name of Seville, city located in the geographic and neuralgic center of tartessian kingdom, was the Latin or Roman form of the Semitic name * Ysbaelya, documented by the Arabs like "Ysbiliya", and whose meaning would be "the S'beel Island", that is to say, "the Support island; the Endure Island; the Hold Island "; whereas on the other hand, Tartessós would be the Greek form and Turdetani and Turthetani the Roman forms of the other Semitic name T'rth (* Tarthee) whose meaning could be the one that "it supports", "it maintains" or "it supports", "support". In the same language aramaic exists the form Tarsiyt'uon (HTTP://club.telepolis.com...s/sonidos/TaRSiYT'uON.mp3 )como variant of Tarsiy, whose pronunciación could have originated the Greek form Tartessón, although Polibio (Pol. 3.33.9) it mentions the Greek form "Thersi"(HTTP://club.telepolis.com...deiros/sonidos/Thersi.mp3 ), which corresponds with aramaic Tarsiy. Of this way, we have two old names of Iberia, * Ysbaelya and * Tharthee, with meaning similar, that agrees as well with the meaning of the Greek word Atlas.
As all already we know, Solón translated the names of the places and personages from the Egyptian to the Greek, because these had also done it from the indigenous language of atlanteans; therefore, the name of Atlases and Atlantis is not the original name of the island and civilization that bloomed next to the Columns of Hercules or Straits of Gibraltar. But as also we know what means the Atlas name in Greek, we can then reconstruct the original name of this famous civilization. And thus it is since we have arrived up to here. Even this point where we have been able to recognize and to identify to the old names of Seville and Tartessós, like the original names that the Egyptians later translated to their language and the Greeks to hers with the name of Atlases, and Atlantis. But in spite of everything, somebody could ask on which security we can have of which the names that the Egyptians translated the Egyptian were Semitic or phoenicians. Then, I have an answer. Solón it notices that the Greek names are not the true names, but translations that made of the Egyptian names, and these were translations of the names as well atlanteans, but Solón was the careful to leave one of the original names atlanteans, perhaps so that it was left a testimony that could serve to the readers and students to be able to determine the language of atlanteans, and of course its nationality and geographic origin. Of all the names that Solón had ahead at the time of writing up its work, it chose one and it left it in the narration, and this name was indeed the one of the region of Gadeiros and Gadeira, the name of the old region and city phoenician of Gadeira, the Roman Gades and present Cadiz. A region within the kingdom or lines up of * Tarthei or * Tharsi (Tartessós); region that closely was related - commercially with the interior of the river Baetis or Baitis (Guadalquivir) and the zone where the city of * Ysbaelya or old Seville was located, as they demonstrate the archaeological sources to it. The name of Gadeira is also of Semitic origin, as they testify some Roman sources. Solino and Plinius affirm that she was phoenician name. Therefore, if the name of Gadeira were atlantean name, according to it affirms to Plato through Kritias (and this according to Solón), then the language of atlanteans would be one old language semitíca. Therefore, the orginales analyses that we have made that allows to reconstruct the meaning of the old names of Seville and Tartessós as Semitic forms, are not separated from the logic and the way drawn up by own words of Plato and other old Roman authors. Gadeira was phoenician name, therefore, they semitian; * Ysbaelya = Seville, is semítica word, and * Tharsi = Tartessós also is of semítico origin.
Conclusion: original name which the Egyptians translated to the Egyptian language of the civilization located next to the Columns of Hercules (Gibraltar), could be * Y-tharsei-ya or * Y-sbael-ya. The semíticas roots, * Sbael and * Tharthei - in anyone of the two cases they could be translated by the Egyptians by names like "support", "to to bear", "the one that it supports, it maintains or it loads"; "the one that serves as support and you maintain"; "to to suffer, to hold, to support". Later Solón (as it affirms Kritias) would translate one of these two names (or both simultaneously) by the Greek Atlas name, since this era the only masculine own name that such presented/displayed meaning that the roots * Sbael and * Tharthei.
Therefore, the Island or peninsula that Solón named like Atlantis or Atlantida, and that were located, just ahead, alongside and above same of the Columns of Hercules (Gibraltar), single could have been * Ysbaelya or * Ytharsiya, "the S'beel Island", that is to say, "the Support island; the Endure Island; the Hold Island ". The same Island or Peninsula of Iberia, Hispalia or Hispania.
--------------------------------------------------------
María Fdez-Valmayor
Secretary of "The Civilizations Origins Scientific Society" (C.O.S.S.) and "The Scientific Atlantology".
http://Atlantis.sitio.net
http://Georgeos-Diaz.sitio.net
The Origin of the Name of Atlantis. Seville and Tartessos = Atlantis. (II Part)
Looking for the key words in lexicón of Perseus, by means of the option exact search (to avoid confusions) these have been the results:
Suffer (to suffer): For total 189 words whose definitions contain "to suffer". Of all between all these words, single otleô (relative of the word Atlas) with a frequency of use - in all the Greek Literature of 0 appears the form. It means, that a single case is not known nor this word like so. It is a word supposed or deduced like part or raiz of others. Eight more used by order they are: lambanô, eaô, tunchanô, pherô, paschô, apodidômi, aphiêmi and sumpherô.
Endure: For total 63 words whose definitions contain "endure". It appears the same previous form of otleô, with the same LF of 0 or -0. The explanation also in this case is the same one. Four more used by order they are: pherô, krateô, diapherô and tolmaô,
Bear (to bear): For total 233 words whose definitions contain "to bear". She appears registered Atlas between those not even of frequency 0. Of the 233 words the most used to express to bear ", "to bear", was agô, anaireô, diapherô, dunamai, echô, eimi, pherô, phulassô, sumpherô, tithêmi, chalepos. Being more widely used, by order: eimi, echô, dunamai, agô, pherô and tithêmi. The rest of the words was used not very often, less than others.
Support (to support): For total 131 words whose definitions contain "support". It does not appear the voice Atlas. Five more used by order they are: Epi, echô, krateô, diapherô and trephô. The rest of the words presents/displays a use LF.
Hold (to hold): For total 409 words whose definitions contain "hold". The word is not registered either Atlas nor their relatives. Five more used by order they are: echô, poieô, lambanô, archô and agô. The rest of the words also presents/displays a gradual LF of use.
Undergo: For total 20 words whose definitions contain "undergo". The word does not exist Atlas nor their relatives. Five more used by order they are: tolmaô, metaballô, hupechô, aeirô and tiô. In general líenas all the words present/display a frequency of use of average to almost null.
Echô and Agô were the words more used to define the concepts of "to Bear", "to Support" and "Hold". Echô appears between the words of maximum frequency of use for "to Bearr", "to Support" and "Hold". Agô appears between the words of high frequency of use for "to Bear", "to Support". Lambanô appears between the words of high frequency of use for "Suffer" and "Hold". Pherô appears between the words of high frequency of use for "Suffer", "to Bear" and "Endure", "Sumpherô appears between the words of high frequency of use for" Suffer "and" to Bear ". Diapherô appears between the words of high frequency for "to Support", "to Bear" and "Endure". Tolmaô appears between the words of high frequency of use for "Endure" and "Undergo".
Everything seems to indicate that the words of more frequent use to express three of the meaning attributed to the Atlas name, were Echô for "to Bear", "to Support" and "Hold" and Pherô for "Suffer", "to Bear" and "Endure". Peculiarly the medieval Spanish historians gather the tradition of which, the founder of Atlantis, who was all Iberia (according to Pellicer and Ossau; S. XVII), Phoro was called. And it was related to the God of the waters or Poseídôn. According to some it was the name Atlantean or Iberian-tartessian of the own Poseidôn, and according to others it was the true name or atlantean of Greek Atlas or Atlante. If Solón had had to translate a shared or common Egyptian word or phoenician whose meaning was those of "to Bear" and "Hold", then it must have used some of these names, Echô, Pherô or Diapherô, but never it would have been happened to him to translate such signifcados, indeed with a word like Atlas, of so little (not to say, almost null) frequency of use.
In any case, since we have seen, in no of the statistical lists of frequency of uses of Greek words it appears Atlas nor Atlante, which demonstrates of unquestionable way, the extreme peculiarity of the use of the word Atlas and their relatives to express these meaning. This simple statistical analysis demonstrates that the probabilities that Solón had chosen the Atlas name to translate these meaning are very excasas. It is practically impossible that Solón used the Atlas name to translate these meaning, because this word was not even between those of little or little use. The only explanation possible that Solón has used the Atlas name, to translate some of these meaning, would be to accept that vió forced to resort to this name like only way to translate a concept that single was translatable through the voice Atlas and Atlante. But as it would be that unique concept of the Atlas name?
Then the only word associated to the Atlas meaning that appears between the words of high frequency of use is tlêmôn, "patient", "steadfast". This word appears in the registry of "patient", between a for total 41 words whose definitions contain "patient" with a maximum frequency of 182. And one is in the fifth position of five more used. In this same group of words used for "patient", it appears with a single maximum frequency of 9, another word Atlas relative, tlêtos, "patient, steadfast in suffering or labour". Exactly this is the definition more used by the Greek authors of the antiquity to describe to the God Atlas and to their "punishment" or "suffering" to load on its shoulders the weight of the sky, as a fixed axis or stand and of way steadfast. It does not have to be a simple coincidence that once again same semítica root S'B'L' of "to Support", "to Bear", "to Hold", "Endure" and "Suffer", also comprises of the Hebrew word Sblnth (pronounced approximately like Sebilaanoth: http://club.telepolis.com...os/sonidos/sebilanoth.mp3 ), exactly to express "Patience"; whereas "Patient", in Hebrew, is also Sblny (approximately it is pronounced like Seb'laany).
Without a doubt some, if Solón decided to use the Atlas name to translate an Egyptian name or phoenician would be because this name would mean "patient", "steadfast", "steadfast in suffering or labour". The search of the word "steadfast" offers a for total 31 words whose definitions contain "steadfast". Of all of them, tlêmôn appears again between those of greater frequency of use (182). Occupying again the fifth place of seven more used. What the frequent use of this voice confirms relative of Atlas and Tlaô for "steadfast". A fundamental quality of the God Atlases that are described by most of the oldest authors, previous even to Solón. Atlas was the God that was "steadfast" in the Earth border, in the West; "steadfast in suffering or labour" of "to support" or "to maintain" the celestial sphere. And only the semitics root that it includes most of these meaning in if same, are the S-b-l root; the same one which it appears in the old name of Seville, "Y-Sbil-ya", and in the name adapted to the Latin of I-Spal-i or Hi-Spal-is, with which the Romans denominated to the same city of Seville.
(Extract of the Georgeo's book, "Atlantis in front of Gibraltar, in Iberia and Morocco").
María Fdez-Valmayor
Secretary of "The Civilizations Origins Scientific Society" (C.O.S.S.) and "The Scientific Atlantology".
http://Atlantis.sitio.net
http://Georgeos-Diaz.sitio.net
The Origin of the Name of Atlantis. Seville and Tartessos = Atlantis. (III Part)
Georgeos have demonstrated to date to have more solid and but rigorous arguments, until archaeological tests under the sea in the same area in front of the Straits of Gibraltar of a civilization of several thousands of years before Solón with a development elevated enough similar to the cultures of the Age of the Bronze. Georgeos has shown in this site, photos of satellite and áereas where circular and semicircular constructions under the sea near Gibraltar are see.
Georgeos have demonstrated like already hiso before Âmador Juân dê lôs Rîos in 1924 and later Schülten that the geographic descriptions of Atlantis of everything what surrounds to the city and the plain fit prefectamente with the great rectangular plain of the Guadalquivir in Andalusia. But you whenever this comments to him it makes happen like which one has still not found out, and outside changes of conversation always repeating the same questions - as if a robot although these well have been responded in many occasions. In any case it seems that it will have to wait for you to that the book of Georgeos can be published in English. Since single then, perhaps, you get to admit that Georgeos has satisfactory explanations for all those questions and in addition much more solid arguments that his.
For example, Georgeos have discovered that in Egyptian, the "island or land of support, to suffer, of which it holds or it supports", also said Tartjesu or Tartchesu. In fact, the country of Schu, was pronounced in Egyptian, TArSchu, and the "country of the pillars of Schu", TArtjesSchu. that it says to me now, simple chances? On the other hand, according to Georgeos, the same Semitic raiz that appear in the name of Seville (Sbl and Sb) appears in Egyptian with such meant: Sb-n "support", Sf-n "to be patient", "log-suffering", "to to suffer", "to endure". The n, in old the Egyptian and almost all the old languages used to derive or to be confused with an l, reason why sb-n and sb-n could derive in sf-r and sb-r, the same raiz that appears in I-sbal-is or Ispalis. the f, the b and p interchange, which explicaria the passage of sfn to sbn within the own Egyptian language. Therefore, also in the old Egyptian language is explanation for old the name of Iberia Y-Sbl-ya (I-sbal-is or I-spal-is = Sebillia or Seville), whereas sbn could also originate the other name of Spain or Iberia, Egyptian aY-Sbn-wy could derive in the Phoenician Y-sban-ya that is, Isbania or Ispania. In all the cases, always one appears to Spain or Iberia like "pais of which to support, to to suffer, to endure, to hold, to be patient", the true Atlas attributes.
Also in the old Egyptian language the Sp root mean "to suffer"; TArtTes = "the one that to to suffer and to support"; TArtA = "the one that hold and to endure". In addition you continue using the method of the evación, to become the distraido one, the one that do not find out or the idiot, although. I believe that you truely very ready are, and for that reason the idiot becomes. I say this, because of all the solid evidences and argumentations against his hypothesis that Georgeos presents in its work and which I have placed partly here in this forum, single you indeed comment that that you can use, being ambiguous or very weak. You for example, one clings to a single translation - nonauthorized by no serious dictionary of the Hebrew), that is to say, lift clings to "to", indeed a meaning that does not appear in any Greek dictionary like pertaining to the word Atlas.
Georgeos in its book quote:
"... Estêban de Bizancîo describes to a promontory or end located between the Columns of Hercules and the Guadalquivir with the name of Tarseión, apparently related to a variant of the name of Tarte-ssós or Tarschish, registered by the Greeks like Thersi, and also related to the name of a city, that according to the known Arab author like the "Môro Rassis", was to two miles of Cordova, to borders of the Guadalquivir, near Seville, and whose name was indeed the one of Tarsis. In relation to this name of Tarsis, the Latin sources mention to a famous cortesana from Hispania, called Tarsis and Tarsilas, that offered its services of pleasing and love to the leader carthaginian, Hannibal. The first patriarchs of the Christian Church identified Tartessós with the Tarschisch, in Latin Tarsis, of the Old Testament. Eusebio de Cesarea affirmed that Julîus Afrîcanus, that it lived a.d. in century III, said that the Spaniards descended from Tarsis. The Génesis says that Tarsis was son of Iavân and grandson of Iaphet, that is identified with the Iaphetos of the Greek Theogonia, father of Atlas or Atlante, with which we have another indication of the relation between Tarsis and Atlas or in this case, of tartessian them like relatives of the same Atlas predecessor. Old the Hebrews also called to the chrysolita precious stone with the name of Tarschisch and Plinius in its "Natural History" affirms that, this mineral one was original of Iberia, where in addition it was the place of greater abundance of the same one. The exiliados Jews of the Medieval Age called to Iberia or Spain like Sprd (Siphâred) by the Sfr root or Sphr that in the lexicons in Latin is translated like "legis sacrae", "libris sacri" and "Scripture" and in Greek editions like "tà hierà grammata", "sacred or santa writing" In chaldean Sphr (Sipher) means "book". The Jews sephardians had to know the hisórica tradition gathered by Strabon and Ephorus on which Iberia was the country that conserved annals of writing and laws written older of the world, according to Strabon of until more than 6,000 years, that is to say, of about 8,300 years BP. These annals and "written laws" conserved the Turdetani, that were the old descendants of the Tartessi. This demonstrates that already from the own classic antiquity Iberia she was considered as cradle of civilizations, at least as the written cradle of the writings and the "laws", so and as it describes Plato, when it speaks of the laws that the atlantes wrote on metallic laminae. This affirmation of Strabon indicates a great antiquity of Iberia like civilization that used the writing in times previous to even sumerian them and the Egyptians... "
Georgeos also have demonstrated that the Greek and Latin forms of the old kingdom of Tarschish or Tartessos exist as they are: Tartessi, Tarsis, Tarseios, Tarseion, Thersita, Tarsitaii, and Thersi that correspond with the semítica form Trsy, and which they could also be related to the Egyptian forms * tArSw (TarSchu)"Country or land of Schu", * tArTsw (Tartjesu)"Country of Soportes or Pilares" or * ' y-TArSw (Y-TarSchu)"Island of Schu, the one that to Sujeta or Sostiene"; "it supports", "maintains" or "it supports", "support" (thus to appear in the old version aramaic of the New Testament in? Mattai - 6:26; Luqa - 12:24; Ephesians - 5:29). This Word since we have seen, agrees with others of the meaning by the to other Semitic root "S'bael", and with to another one of the semantic values of the Greek voice "Atlas".
Also Georgeos have discovered one old Roman form of the delayed time (they paleo-christian) of the name of Seville, this form is Spal-is, without Î or Hî, of "island", ahead. What the true root of the name of present Seville confirms that, was Spl- or Sbl -, since -îs is sufije Roman or Indo-European used to indicate "place, country or land of origin". love you more you still prove? perhaps have you arguments and demonstrate like which she has Georgeos, or better even?
As Georgeos in its book raises:
"... the Indo-European roots "to carry", "to support" and "to to bear" are * Per and * Bher, which gives back us to the name of I-beer-ia, which in in some Indo-European language of that they were spoken in the Iberian Peninsula, it could be Bheria, "the country of which, to support". Î ahead adaptation explains through of language Phoenician of "Island or Coast of", whereas sufije -îa or - yâ it can to explain, the same from Phoenician, that used to add it to the completions of names of places, like through Indo-European languages like Latin and Greek which also they used this sufije, in its form -îa, of "place, country or land of". ... "
Georgeos quote:
"... Iberia is one of the names that the Greeks gave the Iberian Peninsula (the Atlantis Nêsos de Plato), but in the Greek language this word does not find explanation satisfactory; in fact, it is considered like a nonGreek word. Therefore, it is very probable that, Î-Bêr-ia, outside the Greek adaptation of a name which they heard of the Phoenicians as it could be, * Y-Baer-ya, "the Island or Coast of (God) who to support" or simply, "the Suppor't Island", in relation to a divinity that would do of pounding and support of the sky like the Greek Atlas, and the Egyptian Schu, or in relation to the Pillars or Columns of the Straits of Gibraltar, that also was known like the "Atlas Columns", and long before, like the "Columns of Chronos or Saturnus" and like the "Columns of Briareo", name this in that the Indo-European root * Bher is observed, the same one that is in the name of Î-Bêr-ia. According to Diodorus Siculus, the first king of the atlantes had been Uranos, that governed on the coasts of the Oceáno, towards the north. This first king atlantean, had two children: Chronos and Atlas. Avieno confirms this affirmation of Diodorus, when it says that ls Tartessians adored the God Saturnus, that is the same Chronos of the Greeks. As far as king Atlas, according to Diodorus, this it reigned on Monte Atlas, Hesperia or Iberia and the country of the Hyperboreans, identified by the French scholar D'Arbois de Jubainville with the region of the Galia. Opinion this that enough has been accepted by many other scholars. Therefore Plinius mentions to the town of the Cambolectres, to which Atlanteans calls, near the Pyrinean Mts. In any case, Uranos was to prmer king of atlanteans or uranians, and this God reigned on the Atlantic coasts of the Ocean in the direction of the north, as it affirms Diodorus; whereas Theopompus affirms that the Atlantis was surrounded by two rivers, the Volupté and the Tristesse or Tirstesse, that is to say, the river Tartessi, the same one that Strabon says that in his time he was well-known like Baetis, the present Guadalquivir: "and as the river has two openings (Volupté and Tirstesse), it also dícese that the city of Tartessos, homónima of the river, was built formerly in the Earth placed between both, being called this Tartéside region." (Strabon 3.2)
Some authors also accept that the Annaku-ki name, that appears writing in one old tablet assirian of the time of Sargón de Akkad, approximately 4,800 years BP (inscription asiria published by Or Schröder, Kleinschrifttexte aus Assur, Leipzig, 1920), and that talks about to a remote country "beyond the superior sea, it is the name whereupon they assirian them denominated to Iberia. This name has been translated as "the country of tin and the silver", of the voice sumeria an-na, "tin", ku, "silver", "precious metal" and ki, "land". Nevertheless, nobody before had considered the possibility that, to the being the aglutinante language sumeria, could also be translated the name of An-na-ku-ki like "the country of holy stones or sacreds of the Sky", of An, "sky", na, "stone, rock", ku, "pure, santo, sacred" and ki, "land". This way, An-na-ku-ki, that country that "existed beyond the superior sea" (the Mediterranean), and that is identified with Iberia, it would be then, "the country of Santas or Sacreds Stones of the Sky", a name of the same name that the Greeks gave later to the Straits of Gibraltar like "Hêrakleus Stêlas", and the Romans like "Herculis Columns". In Greek Stêlê, "pillar", could derive from one old Indo-European root * Stei, "stone", since, in many dialectos Hindu-iranians "atala" is "stone" and "rock"; "to pound"; "hill"; "flat stone", and "wake". In fact, in most of the descriptions on the "Hêrakleus Stêlas", they affirm that these were two great rocks or elevated rocks, located before a other, in means of the Straits of Gibraltar. On the other hand, the Greek God Atlas is also described in some early sources like "the Pillar of the Sky". ... " (aim of the appointment of Georgeos)
María Fdez-Valmayor
Secretary of "The Civilizations Origins Scientific Society" (C.O.S.S.) and "The Scientific Atlantology".
http://Atlantis.sitio.net
http://Georgeos-Diaz.sitio.net
The Origin of the Name of Atlantis. Seville and Tartessos = Atlantis. (IV Part)
If Plato - it affirms through Kritias- that the Greek names (as the one of Atlas) had been translated to the Greek from the Egyptian by Solón, since the Egyptians had also done it from the original language atlantean, because then it is necessary to reconstruct the original name. Georgeos has been first that has tried to do this, already makes a pair of years back Georgeos managed to reconstruct the previous form of the Atlas name between the Egyptians. Between the Egyptians a God exists that is identical in the symbolism and the characteristics to the God Atlas, is the God Schu.
But Georgeos also has explored other possibilities, within the Egyptian language, since Plato affirms that the translations became by the meaning of the words. This implies, that it is not necessary that the name used by the Egyptians to translate the original name of the Atlantis was the God Schu; if the Egyptians guided themselves by the meaning - as he affirms Plato -, then they could not resort to the Schu word that conforms the name of this twin divinity of the Greek Atlas, because in Egyptian Schu it does not share meaning with any of the meaning well-known and accepted of the Atlas name, derivative of the Greek word "tlaô" (I suggest to consult the lexico of Perseus which he is most complete than he exists at the present time)
In Egyptian exist several words to express the meaning of the Greek word Atlas, "to support", "to hold", "to endure", "patient"; as they appear associate and used by the words of the Atlas family: tlaô, tlêmôn and tlêtos. Georgeos has discovered in the Egyptian language, that exist several same words that were also used to express these meaning and these are tA, TAr, Tsi, Ts, and sTsw (among others). The combination of TAr, "to hold" to + the rest of the voices, throws phrases or names composed like the following ones: TAr-Tsi (Tjar-tjesi), "the pillar or support that hold" or "the one that hold and support". The same translation is admitted for the other cominaciones: TAr-Tsw (Tjar-tjesu); TAr-sTsw (Tjarstjesu) and tA-r-Tsw (Tartjesu), and all of them remember - inevitably the old name of Tartessos and Tarschish, the oldest kingdom of the West of the old world, and that was in Iberia, surrounding to the Columns of Hercules or Gibraltar.
Other possible Egyptian forms would be the same words mentioned but instead of TAr, "to hold", ahead, because with the combination of TA + r, that literally is translated like "country of". Therefore, we would have tA-r-Tsi (Tartjesi) and tA-r-Tsw (Tartjesu) like "the country of which it supports, to to suffer, it maintains or it holds". The hypothesis of Georgeos is that the Hebrew name of Tarte-ssos, which the Greeks transcribed of that form, and Phoenicians and like Tarschish, was the name that the Egyptians gave the empire of the West that reigned next to the pillars of the sky or pillars of Schu, the homologous one of Atlas.
Egyptian empire translated name original of this which it describes Plato (and who Solón translates like Atlantis), like Tjartjesw or TarTjesw, and later Solón when investigating in the meaning of these names, noticed that these names could be translated by the Greek name of Atlas or Atlantis, since last the meaning associated to these Egyptian names, allowed to translate anyone of these Egyptian names like Atlas and Atlantis, that is, "the country of which supports, to to suffer, maintains or holds". Although also the Egyptians could translate another name of Iberia, of sources Phoenician, that would be Y-Sbl-y (YSbilya), Ispal, Ispalis or Spalis, present Seville, since like he has also demonstrated Georgeos Sbl is a Semitic root that contain meaning of the Egyptian names TArTsi such, and tArsTsw, and such meant of the family of Greek names of Atlas, Atlantis, Tlaô, Tlêmôn and Tlêtos.
(Extract of the Georgeo's book, "Atlantis in front of Gibraltar, in Iberia and Morocco")
María Fdez-Valmayor
Secretary of "The Civilizations Origins Scientific Society" (C.O.S.S.) and "The Scientific Atlantology".
http://Atlantis.sitio.net
http://Georgeos-Diaz.sitio.net
The Origin of the Name of Atlantis. Seville and Tartessos = Atlantis. (V Part)
The Atlas identification with Schu is not a strongpoint in the theory of Georgeos, is a simple indication to consider. Single that. If you read better your contributions in this sense she would include/understand as the single speech of translations by meaning of the words - so and as she affirms Plato -, not of symbolic equivalences. According to Georgeos Solón it translated the name of Atlantis by the one of an Egyptian name that allowed this translation according to its semantic meaning, that is to say, that does not have anything to do whereupon Atlas was Schu, nor that the Atlantis was the country of Schu, because to you you have forgotten to him, that as affirms Plato, Solón translated the names from the Egyptian, by its meaning, because the Egyptians had the same done with the names atlanteans. Therefore, the original name of the Atlantis and atlanteans single we can know that it would mean something related to the "pillars", the "supports", and with the idea of "to support", "to endure", "patient", "steadfast", and "steadfast in suffering or labour". That affirmation of Solón demonstrates by itself, that it would be a stupidity to think about a possible war between Schu and Neith. Georgeos never has considered this possibility, indeed, reason why I finish exposing; because the affirmation of Solón does not allow to draw that conclusion, therefore, it does not worry you for that reason, that Georgeos will never consider this idea since it is not sustained with which it affirms Plato through Kritias.
The question are in asking, that town was that, that lived in the remote one on the West, next to the Columns of Hercules, and that maintained wars or attempts of colonization with the towns of the interior of the Mediterranean. Then Georgeos has an answer, that town were the own inhabitants of Iberia of the Age of the Bronze, also known like Tartessian or Ibero-Tartessian. Several references of the antiquity exist, like those of Diodorus Siculus, that they affirm that the old settlers of Iberia had colonized almost all the points of the Mediterranean, incluídas the Islands of Córcega, Sardinia, Sicily and until the own Tyrrenia peninsula, where founded the first populations before the first Latin or Roman ones arrived.
This affirms several authors to it of the antiquity to which a reasonable credibility is lent to them. In the book of georgeos these testimonies take shelter all. Any other reference does not exist nevertheless that speaks of colonizations or old conquests of other towns coming from the extreme West. This cannot be of any way, another simple chance. Everything aims towards a single direction! The Columns of Hercules, between Iberia and Morocco, the theory of Georgeos, but fundamentally Iberia as it cradles or main seat of the Atlantean empire.
According to which I have read of Georgeo's book, Georgeos reconstructs Atlantis from his beginnings, so and as it does Plato, that is to say, from origins, when times arose the first men (as Euenor) and still did not know the art the navigation, that is to say, from paleolithics, to the end of the empire Atlantis, that Georgeos locates between the end of the Average Bronze, and principles of the Final Bronze.
Georgeos think, that the aim of Atlantis happened in the times of Krekops, Erechtheus, Erichthonius and Erysichthon, since this is what Kritias affirms; that these were the kings who fought against the kings atlanteans, and this time is considered (even by the own authors of the antiquity) as few hundreds of years before the war of Troy and after the deluge of the Deucalion. That is to say, between the deluge and the times previous to Theseus, as it affirms Kritias. Approximately, according to old the chronology classic, this time settles down between the 1,450 and 1,300 BC.
At that time, Iberia was in its greater splendor like civilization of the Bronze. Probablmente the civilization tartessian, or was well-known with that same name, and right towards the 1300 B.C. The céltica civilization or Keltibera arises in Iberia.
1. Virgilius considered to the Ibero-Sicanians as the oldest settlers of the latium (it is to say of the peninsula Thyrrenian or Italian)
2. The Iberian origin of the Sicanians is confirmed by Thucydides, Denys Halicarnasse, Ephorus (quin affirms had been the first inhabitants of the Magnâ Greece (islands of Sicily and the Aegean) and Philiste de Syracuse.
3. Servius, in its "Antiques of the Latium or of Italy", affirms that "old" the Ibero-Sicanes "was the first inhabitants of the same city that later got to dominate the world". It affirms Servius that the Ibero-Sicanians, was the first colonizadores of old Rome.
4. Plinius, also confirms the data of the colonization of the Ibero-Sicanians on the Thyrrenian.
5. Denys Halicarnasse, counts up to two thousands of Iberos on the old inhabitants of priemra primitive Rome.
6. Canton affirms that still at the time in which they arose the Sicules (Sicilians) existed the Sicanians dominating on the Latium, until they were defeated by the Sicules.
7. According to Diómedes, the Iberian got to colonize until the coasts of the Adriatic, that is to say, until Asia.
8. According to Denys Halicarnasse, the Ibero-Sycanians was allied with the Pelasges and Tursanes (Etruscians) to fight against the Ombrios, Sicules and other towns egeans. According to this same author, the Ibero-Sicanians was those that gave name to the Tiber river and the old city of Tibur in the peninsula of the Latium or Thyrrenian.
9. Thucydides, affirms that ibero-sicanians when they colonized Sicily, they called Sicania, and thus he appears attested by Homero in his Odyssey, which confirms that the colonizations that made the Iberians in the direction of the interior of the Mediterranean, that is to say, towards the East, until the Thyrrenia and Asia, it was long before the times of Homero, and before the Phoenicians arrived at Iberia.
With complete certainty the Phoenicians learned the route towards Iberia, by the ibero-sicanos that knew in the islands of the Aegean and of the sea they thyrrenian, that already had been long time living in those islands, Asia and the Latium, like descendants of the old colonizadores iberians that would be such atlanteans of Plato, since this denomination is a mere translation by meaning.
In Homero, it is possible to be read:
"...to toigar egô toi panta mal' atrekeôs katalexô. eimi men ex- Alubantos, hothi kluta dômata naiô, anaktos huios Apheidantos Polupêmonidao: to autar emoi g' onom' estin Epêritos *: alla me daimôn planx' apo Sikaniês deur' elthemen ouk ethelonta... "
"... I will tell you everything, "answered Odysseus," clear truly. I eats from Alybas, where I have to fine house. Is a.m. are of king Aphidante Polypemonide. My own name is Epêrito; to daimôn drove me off my course ace I was leaving Sicaniê, and I have been carried here against my will... "
Since we have verified previously, existed a tradition rather hard on the origin iberian of ibero-sicanians that is, of the Sicanians; then in this fragment of the Odissea de Homero, one affirms that a city or a place of Sicania came from Alyba. Some authors think that Alyba or Alybê was some place near Troy, nevertheless, other authors of the antiquity affirmed that they were a place of Iberia, opinion that defends at the present time, the Spanish experts in classic languages, Elvira Gangutia Elícegui, Alberto Bernabé and Rosa Pedrero, among others, that think that Alibê or Aliba was the name that received an island in front of the Columns of Hercules or Gibraltar, as they demonstrate siguentes following fragments to it:
"... from very far, from Alibê, where it is the site (original place) of the silver... " (Ilias 2,854)
Traditionally that remote or distant place, where was the country or place of the silver, were the region of Tartessós of Iberia.
Anacreo Lyricus say:
"Alybê dè nêsos hupò tàs Hêrakleios stêlas, archê tou stomatos tês thalassês..."
"... Alyba is an island, on the feet (underneath) of the Columns of Hercules, in the beginning of the mouth... "
Almost the same words that use Plato when it says that the Atlantis island is in front of the mouth "...(Atlantis) nêson gar pro tou stomatos) of the Columns of Hercules. Therefore, Alyba or Alybê, of the country of Sicania, was another one of the names that the same island received that later Solón translated like Atlantis.
Also of Tartessós it was said: "Tartêssòs, dè nêsos pròs taîs Hêrakleíais Stêlais" (Schol. Lycophron, 643), and the same of the Island Oggigia, Erytheia, and Gadeira. All of them islands located in front of the same mouth of the Columns of Hercules. The same Anacreonte affirms in the same paragraph that Tartessós is next to Aliba, and that the Column of Hercules is called Alibê. Whereas Georgeos identifies the names of Aphida-nte (-nte is ending or sufije) and Epêri-to (-to is ending or sufije) with the names ibero-tartessians, Abides, king of Tartessós, whose name they know formas:Abis, Habis, Abidis and Habides. Whereas Epêrito, could be a bad trascripción of Eberi-to or Iberi-to, because the raiz -Br- or -Pr- is perfectly interchangeable in most of the languages. In any case, being these two names of Aphida-nte and Epêri-to (Abida-nte or Abide and Ebêri-to or Eberi) associated in the narration with those of Alyba and Sicania, both of origin iberian (according to the mentioned old authors, among others), because nothing preposterous would turn out to accept these two hypotheses.
10. These same authors affirm that the founder of Italy, was king Sicanian who was called Italo, and Diodorus affirms that these Sicanians was first that introduced agriculture in Sicily, of where it happened later to the Latium or Italy.
11. Pausanias also affirms that the founders of Sardinian were iberians, to the control of a king iberian Norax call, which founded the city of Nori, and of I finish there present of the culture of the Nuragas, whose constructions are very similar to which they are in the Balearic ones in Spain.
I have tried to argue a little the bases of the theory of Georgeos as far as the chronology of the towns that Solón translated like atlanteans, and that Georgeos is convinced that they were such ibero-tartessians or ibero-sicanians; these Georgeos towns chronological locate them during all the Age of the Bronze, but with a development of expansion and colonization that would extend by the Mediterranean as of the 2000 or the 1800 BC. Nonsingle these mentioned authors confirm, also archaeology, since most of the own elements of Iberia or which they are more abundant in Iberia of that time also are in the interior of the Mediterranean as they can be the "Glasses of Bell", "Atlantic bronze swords", "halberds" and "axes of Heel", and reasons for petroglifos that represent the scheme of the city of Atlantis, that is to say, concentric ring plus a channel that leaves from the center towards outside the ring outer; in specialized Literature Cup is called to them "and Ring" and "Channell" or "Stream". They are by almost all the Atlantic coast of Spain and Europe, but in no place of the world as much amount and frequency as in Iberia are with, fundamentally in the Atlantic coasts of Iberia, from Portugal to Galicia. And this it is the main symbol of atlanteans, according to defends Georgeos. To see the Georgeo's article (published in 1997):
http://usuarios.lycos.es/...ols/atlantean_symbols.pdf
(Extract of the Georgeo's book, "Atlantis in front of Gibraltar, in Iberia and Morocco")
María Fdez-Valmayor
Secretary of "The Civilizations Origins Scientific Society" (C.O.S.S.) and "The Scientific Atlantology".
http://Atlantis.sitio.net
http://Georgeos-Diaz.sitio.net
The theory of Georgeos are made up of multiple hypotheses that include almost all the fields of sciences of humanities and phisical sciences related to history, archaeology, philology, anthropology, the Art Rock, geology, oceanography, paleoceanography, sismology and geography in general. The most difficult point of the theory of Georgeos, at the moment continues being, the exact location of the Acropolis island, that is, of the island city surrounded by concentric ring where was the temple of Poseidôn and Kleitos. Georgeos handles several alternative hypotheses: in front of the mouth of the Columns of Hercules as it says Plato, it could be the Submerged Island of Majuan (the Spartel de Collina-Girard), the Island of Tarîfa, the Island of same Cadiz, the peninsula or submerged end of Trafalgar, the island of Saltés in Huelva, or even the Island of Alborán that is of the Mediterranean part. But of all these alternative hypotheses, Georgeos considers like more probable, the Island or submerged peninsula of Trafalgar, since this has an enormous extension and it is to little depth (between the -7 meters and the -20 meters, in spite of introducing itself almost in the center of the gulf of Cadiz, separated well from the coast. In this submerged island or sacred promontory (as he were well-known in the antiquity) it widely fitted and it exceeded the city of Atlantis even up to 50 stages or 9 kilometers inwards. In this same area it is where they are appearing the rest of walls, megalíticos slabs, blocks and paving stones and pillars.
As you can observe the theory of Georgeos are quite complex and include many alternative hypotheses, and that is a caracterísitica that demonstrates scientific rigor, since Georgeos is not fanatizado with a fixed idea. Georgeos is not a fundamentalist of any theory, because its theory is enough ample integral and. Georgeos this opening constantly to the new contributions and the new ideas, as long as these can be sustained with other evidences or solid indications. For that reason Georgeos always has considered possibility (although quite remote for him) of which the Acropolis island could be in the coasts of Morocco com defend Jonas and Erick now, but Georgeos always has handled this possibility like very remote. If tomorrow Morocco appear Atlantis in, Georgeos will be first surprised, because it is of all the hypothesis that it handles, the one that he considers less possible.
Another reference that I have removed from the Georgeos's book:
> > >... also the Christian priest, Cosmas Indicopleustes, one of the calls "firsts fathers of the Christian Church", spoke of the Plato's Atlantis island. Although Cosmas thought that it was a legend, in his brief commentary on this island offers another indication to us that Atlantis were towards the part of Europe or Iberia. Better we will analyze the reading of its own words:
"... In like to manner, the to philosopher Timaeus also you describe this earth was surrounded by the Ocean, and the Ocean ace surrounded by the dwells remote earth. For there am supposes that there is to westward an island, Atlantis, lying out in the Ocean, the direction of Gadeira or Cadiz... " (Cosmas Indicopleustes, "Early Church Fathers")
As we can observe, Cosmas affirms that the Atlantis island was "...lying out in the Ocean, in the direction of Gadeira or Cadiz... " Of course, Gadeira or Cadiz is not in the same direction of the Atlantic coasts of Morocco, where some authors insist on wanting to locate the island Atlantis "(Aim of appointment of the Georgeos's book)
Already but of a year back Georgeos developed east subject with data in this same Forum. Reason why memory of to have read in Georgeos's book, indeed, Anti-ilha, that is as she appears written in the old maps but, signifca in medieval Portuguese, "the island" or "island ahead that are ahead", of Europe or Portugal or in front of Azores, since these appear represented in the same reporting line, in front of Portugal and Gulf of Cadiz, the Antilha island and opposite, to the height of Galicia, Spain, the Island of Salvagia (the wild island).
Georgeos has several maps of shortly before Columbus where it is observed clearly that this group of islands is, approximately, to the same height that the Islands You embarrass, but after these. It does not seem to have greater mystery in the subject. According to Georgeos, it is very probable that when knowing the existence the Islands You embarrass, some navigators were entered out to sea more towards the West, reason why they would arrive until the Bermudâs Islands and Bahâmas (the same ones that later were called the Antilles by the Spaniards)
One map confused them of place and it put a little more down, but the majority places them in the same direction that the excellent map or Portolan Chart de Albino de Canepa, Cartographer, of the 1489 (to see links in the end) logic and the common sense indicates that they were then the first representations imprecisas of some of the islands of the present Antilles.
In any case, objective reasons nor data sufficient do not exist to associate these islands with the Atlantis island, since in any case single they would be the "other islands", that according to Plato were after Atlantis. The Atlantis Island is not due to never forget that, Serving dish locates it with amazing precision in front of the mouth of the COlumnas de Hercules, in the lobby of the gulf of Cadiz. As much in the Greek version as in the Latins of Ficino, Chalcidius and Cornarius, always affirm that the Atlantis island was just in front of the Columns of Hercules, in the same entrance of the Atlantic gulf, that is the Gulf of Cadiz.
If the Madeiras estan too much far, as it exposes Georgeos, so that they can be considered like the Atlantis Island, because less probable still they are those islands that estan almost more near the Antilles than of Europe.
On the other hand, Georgeos in its book proposes a new theory on the origin of this Island of Antilha and the other imaginary islands that arose later. Georgeos has discovered that exactly the first well-known map where it imagines this mythical island of Antilha, became few years right after the first edition in Latin of works of Plato was made.
The reading of Plato, had to influence of great way in the scholars, scientists, geographers and cartographers of the time. Therefore the Atlantis island de Plato and the other islands that were beyond the Atlantis and the continent that surrounded them had to convince the scholars that they were real islands and that that continent of opposite or after Atlantis would be then Asia.
From then they began to represent hypothesis way so that it served as guide to the explorers and navigators in its search of the western route of Asia.
Links to the maps and a good article on the subject:
http://usuarios.lycos.es/...antisiberia/maps/west.jpg
http://usuarios.lycos.es/...isiberia/maps/westisl.jpg
http://www.uni-mannheim.d...aref/cmh/cmh101.html#020
http://www.apol.net/dightonrock/questionsandanswwerssaboutthetur.htm
http://www.apol.net/dight...antilles_newfoundland.htm
A simple summary has done you of official text books, of the texts that are accepted, by consensus, between most of the academic ones of the world. But also most of the experts in bíbilica archaeology, they mention to Tarschisch like Tartessi, Spain, and most of the experts in history of the old east, also they create, very possible, that the mention in the text assirian of Annaku-ki, "the country of tin and the silver" or "the country of stones (or pillars) holy", talks about Iberia, and this text is of approximately the year 2,800 BC. Whereas the references to Tarshisshi=Tartessis go back to century IX BC.
Sure to you this does not interest to him to have it in account. It does not agree to him. On the other hand, all the appointments that Georgeos handles are real, anyone can verify them; they exist, and they are so valid and acceptable as the rest of the appointments of those same authors, who the today historians, accept like trustworthy or valid.
If Pliny, Diodorus Siculus, Anacreonte, Theucidides, Cantôn, ect, ect, are not worthy of confidence, when they affirm that a western empire of Iberians, calls Sicanes or sicanians also existed, that colonized all Mediterranean, from Europe, until the Thyrrenian and Asia (as same it says to Plato), then these authors cannot be valid nor credible for when they are used to support other theories. The same validity must have all those data or no validity, but he is not scientist - nor he is honest -, who you or many other people single accept (or they remember) those appointments that agree to them to your ideas, but of that do not support the theories of Georgeos.
(Extract of the Georgeo's book, "Atlantis in front of Gibraltar, in Iberia and Morocco")
María Fdez-Valmayor
Secretary of "The Civilizations Origins Scientific Society" (C.O.S.S.) and "The Scientific Atlantology".
http://Atlantis.sitio.net
http://Georgeos-Diaz.sitio.net
The plain of Atlantis, really it was sheltered from the Northern blasts?
Another one of the serious errors that are in the common translations of the Timaeus and the Critias de Plato, it deals with on the description and geographic direction the great rectangular plain. All the existing translations in modern languages western (english, french, they italian, they german, spanish) 118b of the following way translates the fragment of the Critias more or less:
Y esta región, a lo largo de toda la isla, miraba al sur y estaba abrigada del viento del Norte. ..."
In the English translation more updated and recommended (R.G. Bury. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1966) it is possible to be read:
"... And this region, all along the island, faced towards the South and was sheltered from the Northern blasts. ... .
These translations have been made on the following Greek version:
".... ho de topos houtos holês tês nêsou pros noton etetrapto, apo tôn arktôn kataborros. ..." (Kritias. 118b)
Nevertheless, a philological deeper analysis, ethymological and lexicographical, it demonstrates that this fragment of the Critias badly has been
translated or badly interpreted. Let us see next the data and the tests that sustain this revision that I propose.
When comparing the modern translations with the translations to the Latin made in the Average Age by Marsillio Ficino (s. XV) and Iano Cornario (s. XVI), quickly it is observed that the Latin translations of this fragment in Greek of the Critias (118b) do not correspond with the modern translations. Let us see these translations the Latin of Ficino and Cornarius.
I. Ficin'o Translation:
... Situs autem insulae ad Austrum vergebat to Septêntriône Boreae expositus. ..."(Marsilio Ficino. S. XV)
"... But this site of the island towards the Austral one bent, exposed to the Northern Boreas. ..."(metaphrastical translation of Georgeos Diaz, 2000)
"... This region of the island extended (it oriented) towards the south, exposed to the wind (boreal) of the north. ..."(grammar or phrastical translation of the expert priest in Latin translations, Jose Antonio Fortea Cucurull, 2004)
Commentaries: "Septêntriônes", it is the Latin translation of the Greek "Arktos", the name of the two constellations known like the Bears (greater and the minor); this Latin denomination was used to designate to the region near the celestial North Pole. Whereas Boreas was the Greek name of the wind of the wind of the northeast or the East, since in fact, for Greek the region of Boreas, a place or concrete zone was not the geographical north of any point of the world but, located to the northeast of old Europe, beyond of the region of Greece and the Colchians. Texts exist that demonstrate this observation. For example, describing to the towns of Iberia, when speaking of cities or places, following an order in the direction of the East and to the Northeast, it was gotten to use the term of Boreas, since, in effect, the region to the North or the Northeast of old Greece and the Cholchide also is, towards the East and the Northeast of the Iberian Peninsula. Let us see three examples:
(1) ... Prôton men oi epi tois eschatois oikoûntes ta <pros> düsmeôn Kynetes onomazontai; ap ekeinôn de êdê pros Borêan ionti Glêtes; meta de Tartêssioi; meta de Elbysinioi; meta de Mastiênoi; meta de Kelkianoi; epeita de êdiorodanos. ... (Herodorus Heracleota, 400 b. C.)
... First they are those that inhabiting extreme territories of the West are called Kynetes (Keenetes o Kinetes); from them, for that it goes towards the Boreas they are the Gletes; later the Tartessios; later the Elbysinios; later the Mastiênos; later the Kelkianos; and later already the Rhodano. ..."(metaphrastical translation of Georgeos Diaz-Montexano, 2000, on grammar translation of the Doctor in Clasics Philology, Elvira Gangutia Elícegui, 1999.
(2) "... hos epeite tên diôrucha epausato orussôn tên ek tou Neilou diechousan es ton Arabion kolpon+, apepempse* Phoinikas andras ploioisi, enteilamenos es to opisô di' Hêrakleôn stêleôn ekpleein heôs es tên borêiên* thalassan kai houtô es Aigupton apikneesthai. ..." (Herodoto. 4.42.1.)
"... When there am had finished digging the channel which leads from the Nile to the Arabian Gulf, there am sent Phoenicians in ships, instructing them to sail on to their return voyage past the Pillars of until Heracles they came into the northern is and under to Egypt. ..."(Herodoto. 4.42.1. Herodotus. A. D. Godley. Cambridge. Harvard University Press. 1920.)
(3) "... Saspeirôn de Kolchoi katêkontes epi tên borêiên thalassan, es tên Phasis potamos ekdidoi. tauta tessera ethnea oikeei ek thalassês es thalassan. ..." (Herodoto. 4.37.1.)
"... and beyond the Saspires the Colchians, whose country extends to the northern sea1 into which the Phasis to
river flows; so these four nations live between the one sea and the other. ..." (Herodoto. 4.37.1. Herodotus. A. D. Godley. Cambridge. Harvard University Press. 1920.)
I. Translation of Cornarius:
"... Locus aunt hic totius insulae ad austrûm cônversus erat, à promontoriis ad Boreâ. ..." (Iano Cornarius. S. XVI)
"... Here all this place of the island towards the Austral one occurred the return, from the promontories to the Boreas..." (metaphrastical translation of Georgeos Diaz, 2000)
"... (Everything) this place was directed towards the south, from the promontories towards the North. ... " (grammar or phrastical translation of Jose Antonio Fortea Cucurull, 2004)
Commentaries: In the translation of Iano Cornarius some small differences are appraised, that they are very interesting. The Greek word "etetrapto", is translated by Ficino by the Latin word "vergebat", whereas Cornarius translates "etetrapto" with the Latin word "cônversus". In anyone of the cases, the translations of these two experts in Greek and Latin are valid or correct, since "etetrapto" (of "trepô") was translated like "becoming", "to occur the return", "to incline", "to go towards"; whereas Latin "vergebat", it was translated like "bending", "to incline", "to orient itself", "to go towards", and Latin "cônversus" was translated like "becoming", "to occur the return", "to turn itself in the direction of". In both cases it is reaffirmed that the correct sense of the Greek word "etetrapto" is the one what "the return occurs", "one bends", "one goes" or "a point or determined place is oriented" towards, that in the text it is in direction towards the South.
On the other hand, between the two Latin translations a very important difference is observed, since this is one of the tests that the theory of the experts in the texts of Plato confirms which they assure that, Cornarius used for its translation to Latin Greek texts of origin different from which Ficino used. The same Cornarius in its introduction affirms to have used "Vetustis Libris". Several medieval copies are known texts of Plato, of origins and different times. Ficino uses the Greek text that is the same one that has served as base for all the western modern translations. Thus we verified that Ficino translates "apo tôn arktôn kataborros" like "a Septêntriône Boreae expositus", "exposed to the Northern" or "exposed to the Boreas" or "to the wind (boreal) of the North". This demonstrates that Ficino worked with this well-known Greek version, since the translation to Latin of the Greek word "arktôn" is "Septêntriône". Nevertheless, Cornarius had to work with texts of another origin, that is to say, with other copies, since instead of "Septêntriône" it uses Latin "promontoriis" that is, "promontories". Any connoisseur of the Greek language, it knew perfectly that the Greek word "arktôn" could not be translated like "promontoriis", then... because Cornarius, that he was a famous old translator of the Greek, use the word "promontoriis" instead of "septêntriône", that she would be the correct one?
The explanation to the previous question arises immediately, as soon as we discovered that in Greek a word exists that, written in any codex or old manuscript, it could perfectly be confused with "arktôn", is the word "aktôn" (plural, derivative of "aktê"), whose translation in Latin is exactly, "promontoriis" (among other meaning associated to "cliffs", the "high coasts" and the "high places") the question still to determine is as it is the true or correct version.
If the logic is applied, within the context of the narration it does not seem to have sense that is used two identical terms, and twice followed, in order to mean the North or the wind of the North as it is observed in the translatio