Atlantis has been discovered?!

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Hanslune

Not one word addressing the images? It is not I who is denying reality.

The images show structures/ruins that could be anything from a few years to a few centuries old. But without archaeology they prove absolutely nothing.

But you know that.

Yes he does but he is frantically trying to turn the conversation away from the lack of evidence forAtlantis (which he doesn't have any so that is a big problem) so he keeps going to evidence that people were there. Which is already known. Its just silliness on his part.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Hanslune

Not one word addressing the images? It is not I who is denying reality.

The images show structures/ruins that could be anything from a few years to a few centuries old. But without archaeology they prove absolutely nothing.

But you know that.

What I know is everyone has their own independent brains that they can use for themselves, and do not need a Paradigm like "Archeology" to do it for them, in this particular case.

Archeology is a fine pursuit, when it is allowed to be performed in the open, but when it comes to this country, this region, it is forbidden.

But, you know that.

If Archeology refuses to take into consideration the African Humid Period and lots of water in the region before 4000bc, the structures remain a mystery. But if they do, then it becomes obvious the structures must come before the end of water in the region. Then a community on the banks of a extinct river, to include islands and a boat dock, becomes logical.

Ahh, but we are discouraged from using our own minds, and bludgeoned into accepting what the establishment dictates.

Forbidden? All Seeing Eye seriously why all this lying and evasion? Do you think it helps your case?

Archaeology isn't 'forbidden' there. There is instead hostile forces in the desert and believe me they don't care one wit about Atlantis. When I worked in the Middle-East I got to every country there except Iraqi and Yemen - as an American I even got into Iran. Do you know why I didn't go to those two countries? They were fighting wars in them. It's a real downer for archaeology (a few sites did keep digging but they invested in mercenaries and local militias to keep going).

No body cares if Atlantis gets found (it would be great if it was)- maybe we should discuss this delusion of yours. Explain if could why you think international organization would be against finding Atlantis?

Then explain why these same organizations didn't stop our finding all the other stuff we have in the last two centuries?

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: fromunclexcommunicate
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Peer review might suggest this cartographer understood the eye of Ra world view(first impression).

Yes, I can see the relationship. I also can see how the "Lunatics" shield our "Eyes" from that ancient truth.

No one saw or mentioned the dualism in your old map, dualism in the Nubii characters, East-west VS North-South even the 90 degree rotation.



Since Atlantis was conceived in the mind of Plato we probably need to assimilate that world view.
Platonic dualism as described in the allegory of the chariot pulled by the two winged horses might tie in with the Egyptian myth of the Wadjet Human-falcon eye from Egypt.

en.wikipedia.org...

Its not any black and white that I clearly recognize.

The black ships in Homers Iliad were the fastest.
The lean sailors with the "thin brown hands" that piloted them might have appeared stubborn and surly to some of the fat more poorly anchored white women.

My point is if Plato "borrowed" from the Wadjet myth for his chariot allegory we might have a clue to where the extraordinary water for Atlantis came from..

Probably get him for grand theft auto as well now that King Tut’s Chariot has been disclosed..

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous


Don't you find it interesting that Plato's story says it can't be navigated "now" (in his day)?

It wasn't but then it was a story and not real. In his time the Phoenicians and others were traveling in the Atlantic.

The Atlantic is a much rougher sea that the Med. However, his story was a political one so some of the side comments are not science

A shoal of mud? What shoal of mud ever blocked access to the Atlantic in historical times?

None its a story, he made it up.

I'm thinking, if he made it up, he would have tailored it better to his message.

When you see an author use a story that isn't very well tailored to his message, its usually because the common acceptance adds credibility.

Even in modern argumentation, making a reference to say... an Avengers movie can add credibility to an argument, but weaving a similarly fanciful story from whole cloth, just to put it in your narrative, wouldn't add any credibility. If an author did that, I would expect them to tailor it quite a bit to their narrative.

However, if Atlantis was a river city, or an island in the middle of a wide river or lake, instead of an oceanic island, then whatever obliterated it could possibly have filled the river up with silt and made it unnavigable for a while.

Yes that would be great if he had said he put his fictional city inside a country instead of an island.

That assumes the myth is reaching him completely intact.

A legend that makes its way from Mauritania to Egypt to Greece is crossing several language barriers. Words like "river", "lake", "sea" and "ocean" can get mixed up.

..or the guy writing in int Attic Greek made it up there are no language mix ups

As a culture progresses from river boating, to ocean boating, some of the words they used previously probably get repurposed. If the biggest body of water you have a word for is a lake, and then your people discover a sea, its quite possible you might invent a new word to describe a lake, and use the old word to describe a sea. But legends are often kept by rote memorization, and the tellers will reluctant to change the wording.

Poseidon was originally not an oceanic deity, but only a river and inland water deity. Which I think shows us an example of how a culture can repurpose concepts as its technology grows.

When the writer of this story was creating it Poseidon was commonly considered a sea and water god

I feel like you are arguing that Plato made it up,.... by assuming he made it up. A bit circular.

What I look for in an account is random imperfections. When people make stuff up they have a tendency to make it all too perfect. Too symmetric. Too much like the way the human imagination works.

So, does that match the millions of year old geological feature in Mauritania? Nope

the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together,

Libya is what the Greeks called AFRICA, odd they are saying its larger than itself in some people's interpretations...Chuckle

It's only odd if you assume they had a modern understanding of geography.

Nope it means the writer was comparing a fictional island he made up to to the size of Africa and Asia - because it was an island and not part of Libya.

That part does make it sound like it was in the Atlantic. So long as we assume the Americas is the far continent.

Since the American continent stretches almost all the way from the Arctic to Antarctica, an ancient culture who discovered it might actually believe it forms a ring around the world. If you sailed from the East coast of Panema around the Horn of Africa, and over to the West coast of Panema, .... how would you know it was the same continent?

I think maybe you wouldn't. Ancient navigators could determine latitude, but not longitude.

A modern navigator would know they were in basically the same place they had left. But only a modern one.

(Especially if this is the ice age, and the Strait of Magellan were closed off.)

Why would the Drake strait be closed?

www.worldatlas.com...

During the ice age?

The Greeks never made it there, so if they knew anything about it, it was figured out by a culture we don't remember anymore.

originally posted by: fromunclexcommunicate

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: fromunclexcommunicate
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Peer review might suggest this cartographer understood the eye of Ra world view(first impression).

Yes, I can see the relationship. I also can see how the "Lunatics" shield our "Eyes" from that ancient truth.

No one saw or mentioned the dualism in your old map, dualism in the Nubii characters, East-west VS North-South even the 90 degree rotation.

Since Atlantis was conceived in the mind of Plato we probably need to assimilate that world view.
Platonic dualism as described in the allegory of the chariot pulled by the two winged horses might tie in with the Egyptian myth of the Wadjet Human-falcon eye from Egypt.

en.wikipedia.org...

Its not any black and white that I clearly recognize.

The black ships in Homers Iliad were the fastest.
The lean sailors with the "thin brown hands" that piloted them might have appeared stubborn and surly to some of the fat more poorly anchored white women.

My point is if Plato "borrowed" from the Wadjet myth for his chariot allegory we might have a clue to where the extraordinary water for Atlantis came from..

Probably get him for grand theft auto as well now that King Tut’s Chariot has been disclosed..

I was thinking about a second part of the thread, but, now have decided to keep it all in one place. So what happened to Plato's story, doesn't happen here lol lol.

My point is if Plato "borrowed" from the Wadjet myth for his chariot allegory we might have a clue to where the extraordinary water for Atlantis came from..

Now, if Plato's Ringed City is actually the Richat, then there had to be water, and lots of it.

We have established that there was in deed a time when this part of the Sahara was Green and wet. It ended approx 3500BC. That figure changes from one source to the next, but a good ball park.

The onset and termination of the African Humid Period mark the most dramatic changes in North African climate of the past 20,000 years. During the African Humid Period (~15-5 ka), the modern-day Sahara was the site of multiple large lakes as well as extensive vegetation, animal life and human settlements. These conditions are thought to relate to a precessional increase in local summer insolation, which led to an intensification of the North African summer monsoon.

Reconstructing the African Humid Period

This is a closeup of the theoretical AHP. You will note the very large body of water to the north of the Richat Structure, Maghreb Sea. There is a River that runs from it to the ocean, The Tamanracett River. To the south there is the Senegal Lake.



When you compare this composite map to a topographical map, you can see that the Senegal Lake is much larger in size.



This is supported by the vast number of (Blue Hash marks) ruins that follow the Northern Shore, along the ridge. Hence, they were living on the edge of a lake. These ruins are dated at 4000BC. 500 years before the end of the AHP.

Ill continue later.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

Given that (at present) there is zero evidence of Atlantis existence and what details he did provide don't make sense one is left with:

1. He made it up
2. He adapted it from some legend of his time that has not come down to us
3. He wrote down what he heard or was told

I believe it was 1 given we have no evidence of 2 or 3

....and the discussion ends and he goes back to ignoring reality to repeat his same points again

You concede that there isn't a UNESCO conspiracy to hide Atlantis

You concede that the Richat is not Atlantis and is a geographical feature millions of years old

You concede you were just making up stuff to avoid evidence you didn't like

So you have lost that debate - so what else would you like to lie about or misrepresent?

Chuckle

What he has found is evidence of widespread settlement around an ancient lake. I doubt that any accredited archaeologist would dispute it, because there is no reason to doubt it.

It's an established fact that there was a Green Sahara period. It's not in doubt that there was a lake in the area he's showing us. It's an established pattern through history that humans tend strongly to settle near sources of fresh water when they have the option.


The question is: did the settlements in this area influence or give rise to the Atlantis myth? I don't know. Maybe? I would say it depends on whether it is a Libyan/Mauritanian/Berber myth or not. It's known that the Greeks got a portion of their mythology from Libya. (The timing of certain characters' arrival in their stories coincides with Greece beginning to interact with Libya..... so not likely to be a coincidence.)

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

Given that (at present) there is zero evidence of Atlantis existence and what details he did provide don't make sense one is left with:

1. He made it up

If he made it up, it would make sense.

We're talking about one of history's most widely recognized greatest logicians. Not some random imbecile.

2. He adapted it from some legend of his time that has not come down to us

3. He wrote down what he heard or was told

I believe it was 1 given we have no evidence of 2 or 3

We don't have evidence for any of the three.

a reply to: Hanslune

I do not think that any of us can fathom the kind of destruction that happened here, as well as so many other places in the world where the entire surface has been peeled off like an onion. This kind of abrasive power grinds everything into dust and if anything somehow did survive, it has been displaced by hundreds of miles and buried so deep it will never be found.

There are of course, a great deal of OOParts at depths and ages that Science will not officially acknowledge, and rightfully so, since our present civilizations have not been around long enough to preserve any documented, first hand knowledge of what came before us. The are hints that we know so little.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous
I'm at present, under the weather fighting a infection. Will be back full speed by Monday, I hope.

What he has found is evidence of widespread settlement around an ancient lake. I doubt that any accredited archaeologist would dispute it, because there is no reason to doubt it.

This "Community" is not only wide spread, but also appears to be connected by ancient road work. Just these ruins represent not hundreds of souls, but in the hundreds of thousands. It is a understatement in saying that Academia does not do these sites, this society, justice.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
What he has found is evidence of widespread settlement around an ancient lake. I doubt that any accredited archaeologist would dispute it, because there is no reason to doubt it.

It's an established fact that there was a Green Sahara period. It's not in doubt that there was a lake in the area he's showing us. It's an established pattern through history that humans tend strongly to settle near sources of fresh water when they have the option.

Yep the average is that people try to stay within a half a kilometer of water - usually not right on it as predators also hang around water sources to - especially if water is in short supply

The question is: did the settlements in this area influence or give rise to the Atlantis myth? I don't know. Maybe? I would say it depends on whether it is a Libyan/Mauritanian/Berber myth or not. It's known that the Greeks got a portion of their mythology from Libya. (The timing of certain characters' arrival in their stories coincides with Greece beginning to interact with Libya..... so not likely to be a coincidence.)

Extensive research by Atlantisologist (those who believe in ancient Atlantis) have scoured the myths of people all over the world and found nothing that suggest it was an ancient myth. There are in the Hindu tradition a city with three walls, lots of cities destroyed or lost but none located as Plato did at that place in the Atlantic and in a war with Greece, etc.

Given that (at present) there is zero evidence of Atlantis existence and what details he did provide don't make sense one is left with:

If he made it up, it would make sense.

We're talking about one of history's most widely recognized greatest logicians. Not some random imbecile.

There was no Athen or Egypt in the time frame he stated, nor a continent outside the straits

It makes sense it just isn't there and Plato understanding of history was limited. We know more about the Egyptians and what was happening all over the world at that time than he did

2. He adapted it from some legend of his time that has not come down to us

3. He wrote down what he heard or was told

I believe it was 1 given we have no evidence of 2 or 3

We don't have evidence for any of the three.

We actually do his 'facts' point to it being made up and not based on reality

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: Hanslune

I do not think that any of us can fathom the kind of destruction that happened here, as well as so many other places in the world where the entire surface has been peeled off like an onion. This kind of abrasive power grinds everything into dust and if anything somehow did survive, it has been displaced by hundreds of miles and buried so deep it will never be found.

Actually we can we've seen the effects of volcanos, earthquakes, tsunamis and asteroid/meteor hits. They effect areas but Atlantis was suppose to be huge and parts of Europe and Africa were said to have been conquered are still here and show no evidence of this natural action or having had Atlanteans on them.

There are of course, a great deal of OOParts at depths and ages that Science will not officially acknowledge, and rightfully so, since our present civilizations have not been around long enough to preserve any documented, first hand knowledge of what came before us. The are hints that we know so little.

And those ooparts aren't evidence of anything we don't understand - they are believed by the fringe but not by others. Fringe belief doesn't set what reality is.

We do have excellent if incomplete archaeological and geological information that demonstrates the proposed 'Atlantis' did not exist. Now, we might find something at some point but at the current time - nada.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

It is a understatement in saying that Academia does not do these sites, this society, justice.

Neither do you. You are demanding that these unknown ruins must be Atlantis based on blurry images and your unscientific belief in your own personal opinions. You are dismissing any possible chance these are other later people with their own culture. You are demanding that they be Atlantean without doing any basic research whatsoever.

You are being silly sir, very silly.

You problem with 'Academia' is that you feel they are not impressed by your opinions - Academica actually doesn't know you exist or what your ideas are. Why would they you are fighting a battle with a vagueness you neither understand nor wish to understand.

They know Richat exists and is millions of years old and like any place in the world there is human habitation associated with it. They know a lot more than you do. BECAUSE YOU WON'T DO RESEARCH THAT MIGHT THREATEN YOUR BELIEFS.

a reply to: Hanslune

There was no Athen or Egypt in the time frame he stated, nor a continent outside the straits

Athens 500 BC was probably a circular street design with a major thoroughfare crossing the circular layout up the hill towards Kimon's tomb.

“[A]mong the many exceptional and divine things your Athens has produced and contributed to human life, nothing is better than those [Eleusinian] Mysteries. For by means of them we have been transformed from a rough and savage way of life to the state of humanity, and have been civilized.

Could have been an inner circle with some kind of hierarchy (in the mind of Plato).
Certainly there was a rivalry with Sparta and Plato talked about this "earthquake" as only killing the warrior population off.

But Athens could have adopted the layout after being inspired by some earlier ancient "split society".

The Eye of Ra is considered to possess a violent and dangerous power that Ra could rely upon to help subjugate his enemies. It was typically thought of as a violent, destructive force linked to the heat of the sun.

There would be some other duality before 2700 BC when the Wadjet was adopted in Egypt.

Which supports the possibility of a lost civilization in the African humid period prior to 2700 BC.

originally posted by: Hanslune

The question is: did the settlements in this area influence or give rise to the Atlantis myth? I don't know. Maybe? I would say it depends on whether it is a Libyan/Mauritanian/Berber myth or not. It's known that the Greeks got a portion of their mythology from Libya. (The timing of certain characters' arrival in their stories coincides with Greece beginning to interact with Libya..... so not likely to be a coincidence.)

Extensive research by Atlantisologist (those who believe in ancient Atlantis) have scoured the myths of people all over the world and found nothing that suggest it was an ancient myth. There are in the Hindu tradition a city with three walls, lots of cities destroyed or lost but none located as Plato did at that place in the Atlantic and in a war with Greece, etc.

Given that (at present) there is zero evidence of Atlantis existence and what details he did provide don't make sense one is left with:

Let's evaluate the question based on what Plato actually claimed his source was: A visit by his ancestor Solon, about 300 years before Plato's time, to a city in Egypt that was located reasonably far away from the Capital. (A city ruled by a Libyan prince.)

So, I guess it wouldn't have been a story circulating around Greece, because Solon didn't know about it until the priests in that city told him.

The Egyptians were rabidly ego centric, so if the Myth originates in Mauritania/Libya/Berbers then I don't expect a Libyan myth to have occupied much time or interest in the Pharaoh's court.


And Solon learning of it from priests in that city is the only theory of legitimacy.

There are other Libyan figures who were said to be sons of Poseidon, so Poseidon's involvement doesn't reduce the likelihood of the story being Libyan.

If he made it up, it would make sense.

We're talking about one of history's most widely recognized greatest logicians. Not some random imbecile.

There was no Athen or Egypt in the time frame he stated, nor a continent outside the straits

True... but the story only really concerns their ancestors. There is no expectation for a city actually called "Athens" to exist in that time.

It makes sense it just isn't there and Plato understanding of history was limited. We know more about the Egyptians and what was happening all over the world at that time than he did

Which is why Plato being wrong about some things is NOT evidence that he made the story up.

It's evidence that his knowledge was limited, and contained some amount of speculation.

2. He adapted it from some legend of his time that has not come down to us

3. He wrote down what he heard or was told

I believe it was 1 given we have no evidence of 2 or 3

We don't have evidence for any of the three.

We actually do his 'facts' point to it being made up and not based on reality

You really haven't shown that his "facts" point to that. His facts point any which number of ways.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

The point of the story is to show Athens with its government was superior...

It didn't the area of Attica became inhabited around 5000 BCE, archaeology shows some HG groups may have been around earlier. There were no Greeks, no Athenians or any organized group in that part of the world at that time.

That is why believers attack the dating.

Which is why Plato being wrong about some things is NOT evidence that he made the story up.

It's evidence that his knowledge was limited, and contained some amount of speculation.

...and this brings us to the ever popular, 'determination' listing of all facts mentioned by Plato and then picking which ones were real and which ones are not.

All Atlantologists arrive at this point: mostly they reject just enough so they can place Atlantis pretty much everywhere in the world and at any time they like.

So, in your estimation which of his 'facts' are real and which are not?

originally posted by: fromunclexcommunicate
a reply to: Hanslune

Athens 500 BC was probably a circular street design with a major thoroughfare crossing the circular layout up the hill towards Kimon's tomb.

No need to guess here is map of Athen in Plato's time

www.plato-dialogues.org...

There would be some other duality before 2700 BC when the Wadjet was adopted in Egypt.

Which supports the possibility of a lost civilization in the African humid period prior to 2700 BC.

I think you mean culture, yes there were many cultures in Africa going back tens of thousands of years and in pretty much every other continent too.

Plato said Atlantis was of a size that used the Greek name of Africa to define it. You usually don't describe something being of certain size by including it in the description. Baltimore is as large and Baltimore and Washington.

From T.

or it is related in our records how once upon a time your State stayed the course of a mighty host, which, starting from a distant point in the Atlantic ocean, was insolently advancing to attack the whole of Europe, and Asia to boot. For the ocean there was at that time navigable; for in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say, 'the pillars of Heracles,' there lay an island which was larger than Libya and Asia together; and it was possible for the travelers of that time to cross from it to the other islands, and from the islands to the whole of the continent over against them which encompasses that veritable ocean. For all that we have here, lying within the mouth of which we speak, is evidently a haven having a narrow entrance; but that yonder is a real ocean, and the land surrounding it may most rightly be called, in the fullest and truest sense, a continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there existed a confederation of kings, of great and marvelous power, which held sway over all the island, and over many other islands also and parts of the continent.

So, taking into consideration the Richat: Do these apply to it?

"starting from a distant point in the Atlantic ocean"

"for in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say, 'the pillars of Heracles"

"there lay an island"

"which was larger than Libya and Asia together"

"and it was possible for the travelers of that time to cross from it to the other islands, and from the islands to the whole of the continent over against them which encompasses that veritable ocean."

"For all that we have here, lying within the mouth of which we speak, is evidently a haven having a narrow entrance; but that yonder is a real ocean"

NOPE

I use to give a questionnaire to my students. I found that over seven years that while 85% believed in Atlantis only 15% had (well they said they had) read T & C. I suspect they had not instead they had seen carefully selected bits of it by other believers or listened to Donavan's song. Very few people actually read what Plato wrote.

a reply to: Hanslune

Neither do you. You are demanding that these unknown ruins must be Atlantis based on blurry images and your unscientific belief in your own personal opinions. You are dismissing any possible chance these are other later people with their own culture. You are demanding that they be Atlantean without doing any basic research whatsoever.

I demand nothing. And as far as "Blurry" your going to have to point to the offending image. Unscientific? Science, starts with the observation, not, the theory. Yes, I have my own personal opinion,, and it has the absolute same weight of everyone else's opinion, including yours.

And my opinion concerning you?

The-lady-doth-protest-too-much

You problem with 'Academia' is that you feel they are not impressed by your opinions - Academica actually doesn't know you exist or what your ideas are. Why would they you are fighting a battle with a vagueness you neither understand nor wish to understand.

"Your problem is"? ? Where is the problem? I find, I share, I let people come to their own conclusions. Is that a problem, for me, or, you. As far as "Academia" is concerned, I could care less. They have their opinions, I have mine.

Your problem is a inability to focus on the materials presented. You constantly go on tangents that have nothing to do with the debate. The images are not "Blurry", its your lack of perception.

Note the differences between these two articles concerning the "Tichitt Culture".

archiqoo.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

On the ground



Again, this "Society" is under rated, even at admittedly 500 sites (More like 1000). It also neglects to mention the roads that are obvious, if one looks. Roads would transfer this culture, society, to Nation Status. But not one word about them....



It is not I who refuses to see what is there. And willful blindness, is just plane silly!

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Let's evaluate the question based on what Plato actually claimed his source was: A visit by his ancestor Solon, about 300 years before Plato's time, to a city in Egypt that was located reasonably far away from the Capital. (A city ruled by a Libyan prince.)

Solon was a poet probably working from an acquired source rather than personal experience..

“Where Nile pours Forth his floods, near the Canobic shore”

That is near modern day Alexandria in the Nile delta.

It takes a lot of artistic license to dream up an earthquake that kills only warriors but maybe that is one of those secret covert things you only see after taking acid. Me, I drain the acid and melt the lead.

When Syd Barrett was singing and writing I remember having the same struggle to understand.

Emily tries but misunderstands, ah ooh She's often inclined to borrow somebody's dreams till tomorrow There is no other day Let's try it another way

WTF?

But your observations about the Pharoah's court probably explains the situation.

The Egyptians were rabidly ego centric, so if the Myth originates in Mauritania/Libya/Berbers then I don't expect a Libyan myth to have occupied much time or interest in the Pharaoh's court.

Each new Dynasty stole from the earlier ones and either reworked or defaced the large public faces.
So if there were any important artifacts that survived since the African Humid Period in the Richat structure they might be moved to Egypt or defaced by one of the early Egyptian Dynasties. There should have been diamonds in the Richat vent with unique geological signature but no mention of a diamond mine for the Richat? Copper mine came much later according to history so you wouldn't expect to find stones with identifiable copper/bronze tool marks on them from the AHP.

There was likely a civilization near the Richat structure during the AHP and obviously stone tool evidence for hunter gatherer tribes.
Why would a simple hunter gathering civilization from the AHP inspire Plato?

a reply to: fromunclexcommunicate

There was likely a civilization near the Richat structure during the AHP and obviously stone tool evidence for hunter gatherer tribes. Why would a simple hunter gathering civilization from the AHP inspire Plato?

It wouldn't. But a road building society, would. Road building, laying out, maintenance, use and restrictions requires, management.

Depending on your source Organized Roads began around :

The first indications of constructed roads date from about 4000 BC and consist of stone-paved streets at Ur in modern-day Iraq and timber roads preserved in a swamp in Glastonbury, England.

From the earliest times, one of the strongest indicators of a society's level of development has been its road system-or lack of one. Increasing populations and the advent of towns and cities brought with it the need for communication and commerce between those growing population centers. A road built in Egypt by the Pharaoh Cheops around 2500 BC is believed to be the earliest paved road on record-a construction road 1,000 yards long and 60 feet wide that led to the site of the Great Pyramid.








Yes, there was a Civilization surrounding the Richat, and it built roads. Where was its "Management" located??