Yes, another thread about Atlantis.

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

This is a depiction of the Sea People battle of the Delta, 1178 BC Medinet Habu Mortuary Temple of Ramesses III Luxor, Egypt. This sure resembles the Viking look. I wonder when and where the Vikings picked up the use of the horned helmet.

Hollywood.

Actual Vikings didn't wear horned helmets.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

I'd add that what we think it horns could very well be crescent shapes, or even Minoan or Mycenaean helmuts.

a reply to: Harte

However, there is a more likely explanation. Good evidence exists for horned helmets in Scandinavia during the Bronze and early Iron Ages, well before the start of the Viking era. Stone carvings and sculpture (right) survive, showing these helmets, and bronze helmets found at Viksø in Denmark date from around the year 900 BCE (left), about 1500 years before the Viking age.

www.hurstwic.org...

However, the Vikings were not the only people who were said to have worn or have been depicted in art with these horned helmets or Gods. The first people that I have found with this type of head gear were a people known as the Kheta, or the Hittites who were the sons of Heth (Ham, Amon or Jupiter). Here is an image of a Hittite God that I believe represents Jupiter, and is very similar to that of Odin above with the horned helmet and upturned shoes as well. Notice the Trident in his hands and the horned winged disk above his head.

gnosticwarrior.com...

a reply to: All Seeing Eye


It could also be nothing more than early representations of Etruscan military helmets or early Celt alliances. Look at the Waterloo helmet and the horns it has. The idea of Atlanteans making up the bulk of the Sea People is possible since the Sea People were described as being the people of the north. In this case the "north" would basically mean anyone from the northern coast of the Mediterranean. So if the Persians had attacked Egypt by sea, they might have just said Sea People. It's like saying Middle Easterner without stating Jordanian, Iranian, Syrian, or ... you get the idea.

If you want to push the idea of the Celts being the proper name for the Atlanteans, I would like to hear some historic reasons for this. Does the base word for Atlantis mean anything in the Runic Language? Does the Celtic traditions have any stories that resembles the tail of Atlantis? You put out a pretty bold claim, it doesn't seem impossible, but without any follow up information it sounds like a dead end at best.

a reply to: Guyfriday

I have said this before, this is a name game. Its part of the "babble" self defense. A good man never has to change his name, but the guilty?


Around the world this same character changes his name, but the attributes stay the same.

Greek Nibiruan name/real name

KRONOS ANU
HERA NINHURSAG
ARES ISHKUR
ZEUS ENLIL
POSEIDON ENKI
HERMES NANNAR*
APOLLO UTU
APHRODITE INANNA
HERMES NINGISHZIDDA*

EGYPTIAN Nibiruan name/real name


GEB/SEB ANU
ISIS __INANNA
HORUS ISHKUR
OSIRIS ENLIL
PTAH ENKI
HARPOCRATES UTU
HATHOR NINHURSAG
RA (AMON-RA) MARDUK
THOTH/TEHUTI NINGISHZIDDA

TEUTONIC Nibiruan name/real name

BURI/MANNUS ANU
EDUN/BESTLA NINHURSAG
THOR/DONAR ENLIL
HOENIR ENKI
ODIN/WODEN NANNAR
ULL/MAGNI UTU
FRIJI/FRIGG INANNA

www.facebook.com...

More at the link.

Ill follow up later with more connections.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye


out of curiosity do you have a better source for this than Facebook? No offence but Nibiruan isn't a historical thing unless you have better examples than a person on Facebook. When I look it up in my sources (posted on the first page) I can find Nibiru, he's the Babylonian ruler of the sky, but adding in other cultures to it does nothing for explaining anything.

For example (pulled from your listed names):

Apollo: is a Greek deity who despite having a number of names he is very constant with being the god of Light, Mice, woves, poetry, shepards, prophacey, truths, archery, and beauty. He is also listed as the Son of Zeus.

Utu: both descriptions are Nordic, one is that she is the Queen of Burgundy, sister of Pilgrim, wife of Dankrat, and the mother of Gernot Giselher Gunther and Krimhild. The other says that she is the wife of Hildebrand, mother of Hadubrand and in some accounts the wife of Dankrat.

That was just one example of the disconnect of your list. So again an academic source please.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: Harte

I'd add that what we think it horns could very well be crescent shapes, or even Minoan or Mycenaean helmuts.

In Sumer, gods were usually depicted in horned hats wearing wavy-looking clothing.

Harte

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

However, there is a more likely explanation. Good evidence exists for horned helmets in Scandinavia during the Bronze and early Iron Ages, well before the start of the Viking era. Stone carvings and sculpture (right) survive, showing these helmets, and bronze helmets found at Viksø in Denmark date from around the year 900 BCE (left), about 1500 years before the Viking age.

www.hurstwic.org...

However, the Vikings were not the only people who were said to have worn or have been depicted in art with these horned helmets or Gods. The first people that I have found with this type of head gear were a people known as the Kheta, or the Hittites who were the sons of Heth (Ham, Amon or Jupiter). Here is an image of a Hittite God that I believe represents Jupiter, and is very similar to that of Odin above with the horned helmet and upturned shoes as well. Notice the Trident in his hands and the horned winged disk above his head.

gnosticwarrior.com...

Forget almost every Viking costume you’ve ever seen. Yes, the pugnacious Scandinavians probably sported headgear when they marched into battle, but there’s no reason to believe it was festooned with horns. In depictions dating from the Viking age—between the eighth and 11th centuries—warriors appear either bareheaded or clad in simple helmets likely made of either iron or leather. And despite years of searching, archaeologists have yet to uncover a Viking-era helmet embellished with horns.

source

Harte

originally posted by: Guyfriday

Cities and cultures were still developing, and the creative notion of farming and domestication of livestock was still a very new idea. So this war that is being discussed is taking place during the earliest days before organized and stationary societies. If we are to take Critias story as true, then we will have to accept that the Attica Peninsula was inhabited since the end of the last ice age.

Traditional archaeology has the invention of farming happening during the Younger Dryas, by a group called the Natufians.

www.thoughtco.com...

I've been watching a documentary about them on Amazon Prime "Stories from the Stone Age"

They have them progressing from harvesting wild cereals prior the the Younger Dryas cold snap, and then starting to deliberately plant during the Dryas cold snap.

However, I have a hard time accepting the idea that people would start deliberately planting during a time when the weather doesn't favor it.

It makes more sense to me if the idea had been invented elsewhere, either during better weather, or at a location that was getting better weather during the Younger Dryas.

originally posted by: Guyfriday

originally posted by: SamIamSam
The city of Atlantis was the Eye of Africa, obviously. There's mysterious structures all over the Sahara, and The Eye itself is covered in clear signs of ancient human construction. There are even what some believe are canals. When was the last time there was water enough in the region to warrant that kind of construction? 6000 years ago, and that's the minimum.

This is a possibility. I assume that you are going to go with the story of Atlantis taking place during the 9300BC timeframe then. If this is so then why was Athens going to war with any of the people that lived there? The eye itself is an eroded volcanic dome, and has nothing to offer in the area of archeology for it being populated in the 9300BC timeframe by any civilization powerful enough to command armies from the region. Then we come into the issue of it being destroyed. What natural event could have destroyed the area but not damage the volcanic rocks that the city was built on? I'm not trying to call you, or anyone, out over this "Eye Theory" but as I stated in the other threads the Cruiser Tablemount in the Atlantic makes better sense than the Eye of the Sahara.

On the other hand I am will to hear any information you would like to share, even your opinion as to why you believe that the "Eye Theory" is correct?

I'm thinking that if Atlantis had its start on a volcanic island out in the Atlantic, the fertile volcanic soil would be a sensible place for them to invent agriculture.

Another issue that got raised in the documentary I was watching is that the dawn of agriculture was also the dawn of overpopulation. (Larger families gave them more workers to work the farm, but there wouldn't be enough farms for each child to go on to have their own later.)


So the dawn of agriculture was in many ways the dawn of large scale war, and wars of conquest (to get more farms so the children who grew up working on their family farm could have one of their own.)

originally posted by: Harte
Hollywood.
Actual Vikings didn't wear horned helmets.

Phoenicians? Or Minoans, maybe? They were all about bulls and stuff, right?

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

I've been watching a documentary about them on Amazon Prime "Stories from the Stone Age"

They have them progressing from harvesting wild cereals prior the the Younger Dryas cold snap, and then starting to deliberately plant during the Dryas cold snap.

However, I have a hard time accepting the idea that people would start deliberately planting during a time when the weather doesn't favor it.

Here you assume that climate is the same everywhere on the globe.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelousIt makes more sense to me if the idea had been invented elsewhere, either during better weather, or at a location that was getting better weather during the Younger Dryas.

Agriculture wasn't invented in one place and then spread. Like iron and bronze making, different cultures developed the technology independently.

Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

They have them progressing from harvesting wild cereals prior the the Younger Dryas cold snap, and then starting to deliberately plant during the Dryas cold snap.

The theory, debated, is the other way round. The colder climate reduced the ability for the land to sustain the populations it previously did, so they were forced to innovate and try new food sources out. You are also assuming that because the climate was colder, this made cultivating crops more difficult - is this the case?

originally posted by: FatherLukeDuke

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

They have them progressing from harvesting wild cereals prior the the Younger Dryas cold snap, and then starting to deliberately plant during the Dryas cold snap.

The theory, debated, is the other way round. The colder climate reduced the ability for the land to sustain the populations it previously did, so they were forced to innovate and try new food sources out. You are also assuming that because the climate was colder, this made cultivating crops more difficult - is this the case?

If you look at modern history, most of the life changing inventions that were invented, were by people who actually were doing pretty well financially and economically. Eli Whitney. Thomas Edison. The Wright Brothers.

Not exactly living in the ghetto.

And more than often, they happened in the most prosperous nations. Not Mexico.


Sacrificing the seeds you have in hand, and could eat right now, on a speculative venture like farming. That's something you do when you can afford to be wrong.


The idea that "necessity is the mother of invention" sounds really "truthy" when you say it. But it is not at all backed by observable history.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

Sacrificing the seeds you have in hand, and could eat right now, on a speculative venture like farming. That's something you do when you can afford to be wrong.

Except there'sof evidence that people were doing just that LONG before they even stopped being nomadic.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

Sacrificing the seeds you have in hand, and could eat right now, on a speculative venture like farming. That's something you do when you can afford to be wrong.

Except there'sof evidence that people were doing just that LONG before they even stopped being nomadic.

Harte

Once it was a tried and true technology, of course they did.

But the argument being advanced is that this was them trying it for the first time. In the younger Dryas cold snap.

I'm not disputing that they did it. The evidence is iron clad that they did. I'm suggesting it couldn't have been the first time. It must have been done before, or they wouldn't risk their food during a difficult time.

If the odds of success are very near 100%, then you can go "all in" on a bet. If the odds are only say... 15% or even as high as 75%, you would want to hedge the bet quite a bit. A "first try" of a new technology is never anything close to a "sure thing".

I think the researchers who found the site would really like it to be the first time, because that would make it a more prestigious find. And this is clouding their judgement.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

Sacrificing the seeds you have in hand, and could eat right now, on a speculative venture like farming. That's something you do when you can afford to be wrong.

Except there'sof evidence that people were doing just that LONG before they even stopped being nomadic.

Harte

Once it was a tried and true technology, of course they did.

But the argument being advanced is that this was them trying it for the first time. In the younger Dryas cold snap.

I'm not disputing that they did it. The evidence is iron clad that they did. I'm suggesting it couldn't have been the first time. It must have been done before, or they wouldn't risk their food during a difficult time.

If the odds of success are very near 100%, then you can go "all in" on a bet. If the odds are only say... 15% or even as high as 75%, you would want to hedge the bet quite a bit. A "first try" of a new technology is never anything close to a "sure thing".

I think the researchers who found the site would really like it to be the first time, because that would make it a more prestigious find. And this is clouding their judgement.

I think you are unfamiliar with that argument.
"Agriculture" is more than planting.

Harte

a reply to: Guyfriday
Whether Atlantis existed or not is less important to me than the civil engineering described about it.
Techniques we could use now, to create more efficient cities...
Radial spread of sections of agricultural, parks, rural living, on the outer, metropolitan educational/governance/ business center in the center...wildlife pin the outer...
All connected with humble pathways above ground, and (with our augment to the plans..) High speed transit underground...
"The Venus Project" works on making this a reality...Google it.

a reply to: prevenge


It's a really bad model to use for todays world, but if you are interested in it you should go check out what Walt Disney had in mind for humanity with his future cities idea. There are too many issues with the original ideas presented, and these issues could very well have been the down fall of Atlantis. Before anyone gets the idea that Atlantis was this utopian society, ask your selves this: "Why did the Heracleidians leave Atlantis to populate Attica if Atlantis was the ideal kingdom?"

Even in the Critias, the kingdom of Atlantis had issues with it's kings, so I personally would advise against using it as an example of "The Ideal World". It's a cautionary tale for a reason.

originally posted by: Harte

Forget almost every Viking costume you’ve ever seen. Yes, the pugnacious Scandinavians probably sported headgear when they marched into battle, but there’s no reason to believe it was festooned with horns. In depictions dating from the Viking age—between the eighth and 11th centuries—warriors appear either bareheaded or clad in simple helmets likely made of either iron or leather. And despite years of searching, archaeologists have yet to uncover a Viking-era helmet embellished with horns.

source

Harte

If I'm not mistaken they've only ever found one viking helmet, and it didn't look very sturdy. Not a huge sample set to be going off of.

Maybe none of them wore helmets. I found a source once that said the vikings had left their armor in their camp before a battle once, because it was going to be a hot day.

Maybe their bodies were too accustomed to the cold, and they had a hard time fighting in warm weather?

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

Sacrificing the seeds you have in hand, and could eat right now, on a speculative venture like farming. That's something you do when you can afford to be wrong.

Except there'sof evidence that people were doing just that LONG before they even stopped being nomadic.

Harte

It's definitely evident in modern history, looking at the way native Americans would leave seeds behind in places as they migrated from place to place.

I guess sedentary planting wouldn't be too much of a jump. I just didn't like the way the documentary was describing it as them taking some big risk.


Rethinking this, it actually makes more sense if they started planting in those remaining oases because they were fiercely contested territories, and living there year round was the only way to assert a private claim?

There are written descriptions of vikings though, none of which mention horned helmets.

There could be many reasons a society settles into one place, yours could very well be a primary one.

Harte