Re: Atlantis = The Sea People?
- From: "Lynette" <lynette_19@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 Dec 2005 17:40:56 -0800
markwh04@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Reading the description provided in Plato's dialogues Critias and
> Timaeus, one is struck by several items that (in light of present-day
> knowledge) stand out quite prominently. [...]
> Here's where it gets interesting: there was in fact a confederation of
> maritime peoples around the 1230-1180 period which did, in fact, assail
> Egypt -- placing it in an era of turmoil -- brought down the Hittite
> Empire and (most likely) also fought alongside the Dorians who were the
> agents of the demise of Mycenaean Greece.
[etc]
It's an obvious comparison that's almost certainly been made from time
to time. The 10 kingdoms would correspond to the Libyans and their Sea
People allies, which (combining the participants of the 2 attacks on
Egypt) add up to 10. There was, in fact, an article published in the
June 2004 edition of Antiquity which carried out this comparison one
step further, even doing a side-by-side comparison of the account given
in Plato with that provided in the Medinet Habu. These two, in turn,
are linked to a presumed early Iron Age or late Bronze Age Tartessos.
The overall frame of mind behind the question is also refreshing: the
suggestion hasn't been taken to heart enough that to get the missing
pieces on the various puzzles of the ancient world, one should be
casting a broader net to get in all the snippets in a wide range of
areas (archaeology, DNA, legends and other ancient accounts, etc.) and
(just as importantly) from a wide range of peoples.
In that light, it's worth noticing that the names of the Sea Peoples
(as well as Tartessos) appear to occur in another place: the Hebrews'
Table of Nations.
Taking a closer look at Genesis 10, one finds some curious occurrences.
Amongst the various peoples named therein, besides the Philistines, are
those named the Meshech (= Meshwesh?), Tiras (= Turusha?), Togarmah (=
Tjekker?), Dodanim ( = Danua?).
Tubal, who is also listed there, is also worthy of mention. Bible
scholarship has raised the notion that the two pre-Noah lineages raised
in Genesis are actually slightly duplicates arising from two separate
sources (the Chapter 4 account being associated with the Priestly
source, I believe, and the Chapter 5 account with the "Book of
Generations").
What's not as well-known is that this apparent duplication extends
*beyond* Noah with Tubal/Tubal-Cain. The latter is identified, no less,
than the forefather of the Iron Age; whereas the former is listed
alongside the various peoples above (mostly off the line of Japeth),
which seems to include some of the Sea Peoples who forcefully brought
in the Iron Age alongside others, like the Dorians, Phrygians, etc.
There could be other traditions or accounts from other places which may
help further shed some light on the big picture and maybe help form a
cohesive tapestry that one could use as a foundation to actually pull a
Schliemann with.
This is a good approach: focus on the WHO's and WHAT's first before
running around trying to find the WHERE's. There are too many people
laying spurious claims to places as remote as the Bahamas,
Antarctica(?), the Andes, the Baltic, etc. as the self-same historical
analogus of Atlantis who haven't even bothered to read what Plato
wrote, much less to at least try to keep to the actual story. There may
very well have been submergence events or inundations elsewhere (like
New Orleans and Venice the past few months), but just because something
sank beneath the water and just because there might even be remains to
be found, that doesn't make it Atlantis.
In contrast, though it seems to not be widely known for some reason,
Plato actually DID give the location explicitly, stating that the
westernmost outcropping of the sunken city was to be found just off the
coast of Cadiz.
So, even though in the prior article, the point is made that one should
address the who's and what's first before even tackling the where's,
the question still needs to be asked at some point. But, it's already
answered by Plato -- it's supposed to be somewhere around Cadiz, near
where Tartessos, itself, was.
It's also worth pointing out that the baby should not be thrown out
with the bathwater. An earlier hypothesis had been published about a
decade ago that Troy had a central involvement in the actual historical
events that the Atlantis legend was based on and that the war described
therein was either a retelling, through Egyptian eyes, of the Trojan
War, itself, or (more significantly) a part (as seen by Egypt) of a
much more comprehensive war that included the conflict in Troy as a
subset.
When couched in these terms, it becomes clear that (despite the
repudiation of the Troy hypothesis in the times since), this is NOT
mutually exclusive with the Tartessos/Sea Peoples hypothesis!
If these all shed light on various pieces of a much larger cohesive
picture, then what's found in various places (e.g. Philistine remains,
old ironsmithing sites, various apocryphal snippets, archaeological
finds near Cadiz) will then serve to simultaneously shed light on the
whole host of mysteries encompassed within -- including (for instance)
the Trojan War.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Atlantis = The Sea People?
- From: Italo
- Re: Atlantis = The Sea People?
- From: grapheus
- Re: Atlantis = The Sea People?
- Prev by Date: Re: Dual Origin of the Japanese...
- Next by Date: Re: Jungle find opens "new chapter" in Maya history
- Previous by thread: Re: Atlantis = The Sea People? & Genesis 10
- Next by thread: Re: Atlantis = The Sea People?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
