Where did the world's first civilization appear?

[Adalbertus]

Racial memmory is an idea with no route of functionality. We have genes. They don't have any sign of storing data on acient myths.

Yes and no.
Yes: There is no point in storing a single event in genes, simply because nobody has a disadvantage from not knowing about Atlantis, or even WWII (1000 years from now, that is).
No: Although being far from being a proof, I always wonder where the strong notion of dragons comes from. They are present in many cultures around the globe, unlike most other fantastic animals like unicorns. I see two possibilities: Either the warans on Comodo who look remotely like dragons. In this case only Chinese and Corean cultures should have such a strong notion of dragons. In Europe and Africa, to my knowledge the dinosaurs were the only animals that came close to be a dragon. This would be something worth to be remembered in genes because they were dangerous.
A possibility. Not a proof.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Am I also supposed to believe the Jews came to America and had a civilization that left no traces yet had horses and chariots and were the anscestors of the Amerinds, simply because so many do believe that fairy story?

Eh?

[Bereta_Eder]

Plato based his tale about Atlantis on older scripts that Solon IIRC found in Egypt. They were given to him by elder egyptian scholars.
It's all there in Timaios and Kritias go read it

The Trojan wars as told by Homer was also thought to be a croax, a non existant fairy tale untill Troy itself was discovered.

[Ethelred]

Mormons. They believe that.

L. Ron Hubbard was not the first religous fraud to get taken seriously by many people.

This is why I say I want some evidence before I am going to take the Tiahuanaco claims at all seriously. There is scads of evidence to the contrary. There is none to support it.

Part of Wilshire Blvd. in Los Angeles is called the Miracle Mile. Because of all the alleged miracle cures by the hordes of quaks that worked there. One was 'curing' his victims with a box full of christmas tree lights. He was caught prosecuted and the jury, in a masterpiece of gullibility and ignorance, found the con-artist not guilty.

People want to believe. An open mind must be guarded by some degree of skepticism. I simply ask for some evidence. Some that makes sense and doesn't reek of the same stuff as miracle cure from christamas tree lights.

Show me a horse from 3,000 years ago in the New World and I will give a little more credence to the Book of Mormon. The Jews had an alphabet. How come there is no sign of it in the New World? No genetic evidence?

Where is linguistic study for Tiahuanaca? Signs of a written language as the Atlanteans clearly should have had? How about some C-14 dating? Oh sorry we do have some. It says the place is from around 2,000 years ago. As long as the evidence all says no to Atlantis I will be going with that.

[Adalbertus]

As you say there is a flood story in Gilgamesh.

Wasn't it that Archaeologists found large layers of mud in several sites in Mesopotamia? So there should have been an extraordinary flood. I could imagine that during the warming after the glaciale sometime a barrier has been formed behind which lots of water were trapped. When this breaks down, an extraordinary flood might have happened (Imagine, Hoover Dam breaks and New York were in the way of the water). The rest is usual exaggeration.

Most stories in the Bible which are dated before Abraham are of Mesopotamian origin.

[Saint Marcus]

Where is linguistic study for Tiahuanaca? Signs of a written language as the Atlanteans clearly should have had?

The whole site is covered in writing! Though only a small part has been uncovered and decyfered yet.

How about some C-14 dating? Oh sorry we do have some. It says the place is from around 2,000 years ago.

Again. Only a very small part (3-4%) of the ruins have been researched yet.

Plato based his tale about Atlantis on older scripts that Solon IIRC found in Egypt. They were given to him by elder egyptian scholars.
It's all there in Timaios and Kritias go read it

I read that too.


About Atlantis. I'm not a believer, though I keep an open mind. Big cluess: Old sites in Egpypt, Cambodia, Bolivia, etc all give the same astrological picture of how things were 10,000 BC. Kinda funny that all those sites have the same abnomaly.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Plato based his tale about Atlantis on older scripts that Solon IIRC found in Egypt. They were given to him by elder egyptian scholars.
It's all there in Timaios and Kritias go read it

The Trojan wars as told by Homer was also thought to be a croax, a non existant fairy tale untill Troy itself was discovered.

Care to post a link?

Plato said that. No one has any evidence to show that was any more real than anything else in the story fragment.

It is possible that Plato did have a real source. It is possible that Plato's source had a more or less garbled version of the Minoan civilization. Knosos itself was actualy conquered by Mycenean Greeks shortly before the Thera eruption.

I am not saying there wasn't some sort of actual event that was the basis of the Story that Plato told. I am saying that Tiahuanaca is not Atlantis. That it isn't 10,000 years old. That the Atlantis nonsense is now considerably enlarged from what Plato actualy wrote and that Plato at best had a garbled version of reality. The main source of modern Atlantean myth is not Plato but Edgar Cayce the Sleeping Con-Artist and fake miracle healer.

Wanna see the source of this nonsense. They even fund some of the exploration.

http://www.edgarcayce.org/

http://edgarcayce.org/am/

More on the Sphinx and the pervasive nonsense from Cayce.

chegitz guevara said:

It is believed that the old rock outcropping was also significant to the people who lived there, and they carved it and built a chamber in it. The later parts of the Sphynx are physical additions, not part of the native stone.

There is no chamber in the Sphinx. At least no one has found one yet. The Sphinx is all native rock. Nothing was added on. Things were only carved away.

Stuff has been added since it was originally built but that was all recronstruction and most of it was done in the last couple of decades.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid...on/lehner.html

That link is to show the pervasiveness of Cayce on this stuff. Lehner's education was paid for by the Cayce organization.

http://www.dromo.com/fusionanomaly/edgarcayce.html

He is now one of the leading experts on the Spinx. He dates the Sphinx to about 2500 BC. You can see that reality can overturn nonsense for the truly open minded.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Care to post a link?

Plato said that. No one has any evidence to show that was any more real than anything else in the story fragment.

It is possible that Plato did have a real source. It is possible that Plato's source had a more or less garbled version of the Minoan civilization. Knosos itself was actualy conquered by Mycenean Greeks shortly before the Thera eruption.

Sorry I don't have a link. I'm an old fashioned book worm

Well Thera (modern Santorini - beautiful island go and visit ) being ancient Atlantis is one of the two possible explanations.

The other one is that Atlantis, quite apporpriately, was situated somewhere betwwn Europe and America on the... Atlantic Ocean.

Whatever, if this true or false, I have to point out that this fragment of Timaios and Kritias does not have the same educational value as other works of Plato. It seems very closely like telling a story.

It is very interesting just to read about it.
The battle between Athens and Atlantis, well before Greek civilization was known as is know today, is entertaining and good for hypothesising.


First how can a battle happen between two city states that are not close together? That gives wait to the thoery that Atlantis, were it to exist, was situated in the Aegean.

A battle of Aegean supremacy fought between Athens and Atlantis.

This "happened" eons before the Golden Era of Pericles, it was fought by the ancestors of ancient Greeks themselves.

Athens was on the verge of defeat and then the earthquake happened and Atlantis sunk under the waves and so Athens prevailed.

Athens had lost almost all of its male population to that war IIRC.

What I do not recall precisely is wether in Timaios and Kritias it says that Atlantis was destroyed by an earthquake or a volcanic eruption.

In either case and taking word for word the writings of Plato, the Atlantians had a higher sophistication of weaponry than the Athenians.
It is also foggy wether Atlantians themselves had the same roots as the ancestors of ancient Greeks.
This is lost in the abyss of time.

However, some delicate pieces of ancient Greek technology still survive today and are pretty impressive.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Adalbertus

Wasn't it that Archaeologists found large layers of mud in several sites in Mesopotamia? So there should have been an extraordinary flood. I could imagine that during the warming after the glaciale sometime a barrier has been formed behind which lots of water were trapped. When this breaks down, an extraordinary flood might have happened (Imagine, Hoover Dam breaks and New York were in the way of the water). The rest is usual exaggeration.

Most stories in the Bible which are dated before Abraham are of Mesopotamian origin.

The Tigris and Euphrates flood out the surounding area upon occasion. The area is drier than it used to be so most likely it flooded more often in the ancient era.

The most likely source I know of for the flood stories in the Middle East and Greece at moment can be found here:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/bl.../ax/frame.html

I have had that link in my favorites for nearly as long as it has existed. This fits nicely into what you said about glacial floodwaters.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus




The whole site is covered in writing! Though only a small part has been uncovered and decyfered yet.

Ideographs anyway. None of it from 10,000 years ago. I can't tell yet if its actual writing. Its ideographs. They may or may not be real writing. From what I can tell browsing around the net its a calender system and not a full fledged method of writing.

Again. Only a very small part (3-4%) of the ruins have been researched yet.

So far it all fits an Andean civilization from around 2000 years ago and ended before the Incas got going.

About Atlantis. I'm not a believer, though I keep an open mind. Big cluess: Old sites in Egpypt, Cambodia, Bolivia, etc all give the same astrological picture of how things were 10,000 BC. Kinda funny that all those sites have the same abnomaly.

After massive force fitting of round pegs into square holes and completely ignoring dating and just asserting it was 10,000 years yes I guess it can be jammed enough to fit that claim.

There ARE NO 10,000 years old signs of Egyptian civilization. Or in Bolivia or in Cambodia. That date is one the Atleanan believers NEED to claim not one they have a shred of evidence for.

They do all have the same anomaly. Atleanists from the present trying to invent a non-existant past. Not surprisingly they see evidence where no one else does.

I am sticking with Jericho as the oldest. Its real and has C-14 dating to go with it. It really is 10,000 years old.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by paiktis22
It is very interesting just to read about it.
The battle between Athens and Atlantis, well before Greek civilization was known as is know today, is entertaining and good for hypothesising.

Well as to how, the Mycenean Greeks aparently laid seige to Troy after the Thera eruption. So before that they should been able to do it to Knossos. Maybe they caught them unaware. There is some evidence that they did so in any case.

Greek civilization was different then but it did exist. So did Athens.

First how can a battle happen between two city states that are not close together? That gives wait to the thoery that Atlantis, were it to exist, was situated in the Aegean.

A battle of Aegean supremacy fought between Athens and Atlantis.

Between the Minoans and Greeks. That is real. A name change is possible though. After all no one can read what the Minoans wrote so who knows what they called themselves.

This "happened" eons before the Golden Era of Pericles, it was fought by the ancestors of ancient Greeks themselves.

Actually the Ancient Greeks themselves. Myceneans were Greek. Pericles isn't acient. Thats Classical. The Mycenean writing from the time is in the same script as the Minoan but it can be read and its Greek. Older but Greek.

In either case and taking word for word the writings of Plato, the Atlantians had a higher sophistication of weaponry than the Athenians.

Its possible. How much higher is higher? Especially if the source is Egyptian. The Egyptians were still using copper when everyone else around there was using bronze. The Egyptians were not exactly cutting edge in 1470 BC. A short while later the Sea Peoples from the Agean ripped the heck out of them.

http://www.personal.kent.edu/~jlarson/images/686.jpg

It is also foggy wether Atlantians themselves had the same roots as the ancestors of ancient Greeks.
This is lost in the abyss of time.

They had a different language anyway. Then the real Minoans that is. The Greeks were probably of a different origin based on the complete obtuseness of Minoan Linear A.

However, some delicate pieces of ancient Greek technology still survive today and are pretty impressive.

Well there is a suit of bronze plate from that period. Pretty darn heavy looking.

http://www.personal.kent.edu/~jlarson/images/686.jpg

Impressive but not exactly delicate.

Yes, some nice stuff found by Schliemann at Mycenae anyway. That was a bit later than the Thera eruption but it seems likely that the tech was similar still then.

[Saint Marcus]

They do all have the same anomaly.

and what is the reason for that?

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Well as to how, the Mycenean Greeks aparently laid seige to Troy after the Thera eruption. So before that they should been able to do it to Knossos. Maybe they caught them unaware. There is some evidence that they did so in any case.

Of course you must be talking about the era before the Achaioi who ultimately conquered Troy.

Actually the Ancient Greeks themselves. Myceneans were Greek. Pericles isn't acient. Thats Classical. The Mycenean writing from the time is in the same script as the Minoan but it can be read and its Greek. Older but Greek.

Plato talked about times long before Pericles. So long ago that even the Greeks themselves had no written account of.
It was destroyed in the so called cataclysms whereas egyptians did keep records in their libraries.
According to the egyptians the greeks existed long before any recolation of them was accounted for by their scriptures. They "destroyed" - scattered after each cataclysm and then they "reborn". The battle between Athens and Atlantis was done betwwen two such cataclysms thus no written account by the Greeks.

Its possible. How much higher is higher? Especially if the source is Egyptian. The Egyptians were still using copper when everyone else around there was using bronze. The Egyptians were not exactly cutting edge in 1470 BC. A short while later the Sea Peoples from the Agean ripped the heck out of them.

There are some pieces of high delicate design. Such as ancient precision clocks etc. They are in the museum of Athens IIRC.

They had a different language anyway. Then the real Minoans that is. The Greeks were probably of a different origin based on the complete obtuseness of Minoan Linear A.

Noone has been able to decipher Lineaer A untill now. But it does have some resemblance with Linear B which is explained.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


and what is the reason for that?

You claimed it not me. I showed what it was. You only quoted the sentence where I agreed with you that there was an anomaly.

The full paragraph:

They do all have the same anomaly. Atleanists from the present trying to invent a non-existant past. Not surprisingly they see evidence where no one else does.

Since that was unclear in some manner to you. Here is another way of putting it.

The anomaly is the people that are claiming there is an anomaly where none exists.

There is no actual civilization 10,000 years ago at Tiahuanco. So claiming there is one is an anomaly.

Strange and anomalous behaviour is normal for those that push the idea Atlantis was a civilization 10,000 years ago. So maybe you didn't understand what I was saying.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by paiktis22


Of course you must be talking about the era before the Achaioi who ultimately conquered Troy.

Same people. Just as Troy is also called Illium and maybe Wilusa. Assuming that anyone did actually conquer Troy. Agamemnon was the King of Mycenae.

Plato talked about times long before Pericles. So long ago that even the Greeks themselves had no written account of.

Yes. I never was talking about Pericles. He came much later.

It was destroyed in the so called cataclysms whereas egyptians did keep records in their libraries.

Got a link? I have only seen mention by the Egyptians themselves of the Sea People and that was later. Maybe there is a mention of the cataclysm and I just haven't seen it anywhere. I would be delighted to see one as it is annoying that I haven't. There really should be something as it was a pretty nasty eruption.

According to the egyptians the greeks existed long before any recolation of them was accounted for by their scriptures. They "destroyed" - scattered after each cataclysm and then they "reborn". The battle between Athens and Atlantis was done betwwen two such cataclysms thus no written account by the Greeks.

There is ample archeological evidence of the Minoans and the Greeks. There is no actual Egyptian record of Atlantis. There is only Plato's claim of such a record. A record that someone else saw and not him.

Plato is the whole entire source available to us at present. The claim of Egyptian records is his. There may have been some. We don't know of any though.

There are some pieces of high delicate design. Such as ancient precision clocks etc. They are in the museum of Athens IIRC.

I suspect they are not what we think of as clocks. Perhaps a water clock. There were some clock like machines with gears in the Classical period anyway. Archimedes made some.

Noone has been able to decipher Lineaer A untill now. But it does have some resemblance with Linear B which is explained.

Hit the submit button too quick?

A different language is a pretty good reason though. The same alphabet can be used for many different languages. Its just that is going to be very hard to figure out a long dead language. Maybe if there are ever enough bits and pieces of Linear A it will become managable. Its not Greek anyway.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Same people. Just as Troy is also called Illium and maybe Wilusa. Assuming that anyone did actually conquer Troy. Agamemnon was the King of Mycenae.

So you say that the Minoans were the ancestors of the Achaeans?

There is ample archeological evidence of the Minoans and the Greeks. There is no actual Egyptian record of Atlantis. There is only Plato's claim of such a record. A record that someone else saw and not him.

Yes.

I suspect they are not what we think of as clocks. Perhaps a water clock. There were some clock like machines with gears in the Classical period anyway. Archimedes made some.

That's the ones. And it was clocks, as we think of them. With precision down to the mili second

A different language is a pretty good reason though. The same alphabet can be used for many different languages. Its just that is going to be very hard to figure out a long dead language. Maybe if there are ever enough bits and pieces of Linear A it will become managable. Its not Greek anyway.

How can you say so?
Linear B has definite Greek characters in their primary state.
It is also the basis of a theory that says the Greeks did not inherit their language from the Phoenicians.

Doesn;t Linear A includes such characters?

[Keygen]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus

Eastern Mediterranean is part of the middle east.

True and false.

Greece and Cyprus are also part of the Eastern Mediterranean but not part of the Middle East.
Egypt is also part of the Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa but not part of the Middle East.

Originally posted by Saint Marcus

east med means israel and neighbours.

No. That's Levante.

Originally posted by Saint Marcus

and cyprus is considered to be part of asia, and not europe.

No. Cyprus in geographical books is always refered as part Europe.

Originally posted by Saint Marcus

anyway, I don't think you could possible claim greece (incl. crete) to be the first civilization on earth.

The oldest settlement found in Greece is dated on 7th millenium BC.
Not the oldest but surely one of the oldest.
But Greece is poorly researched so there are many things to be found yet, perhaps even older.

Originally posted by Saint Marcus

That's cause I haven't heard of any (semi)valid theories that there are east asian civilizations predating indian or middle eastern civilizations. If you know of any, please post them here.

There are several theories that samples of civilizations existed in Far East from the 7000 BC, even earlier.
Besides, the American "theories" are as valid as other "theories" that claim the existance of civilizations in the old world before 10000 BC.
You should had included Far East...
North Africa (Egypt) is also out of your options.

[Keygen]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Generally by civilization we mean cities

True. Civilization is bound by the existance of a city/cities despite the fact that some times earlier, paleolithic cultures are also refered as civilizations too.

Jerico is indeed considered as the oldest city on earth but newer researches support that there are other cities as old as Jerico or even older.

But nothing is 100% certified, not even Jerico.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

The oldest group of politically connected cities, as far as we know, are the Sumerian cities, so again, the first civilization started in the Middle East.

Newer archeologist tend to refer to this type of civilization as high level civilization, including also samples of writing systems. Summerians are regarded as the first high level civilization on earth but this is not final as theories refering to Egypt, India and China consider that those areas might have developed a high level civilization earlier.

Originally posted by Adalbertus

An interesting note: Stone circles like Stonehenge (very roughly 7000BC) were all shown to be constructed with the same basic unit of length.

Very unlikely that Stonehenge was built in 7000 BC.

Originally posted by Saint Marcus

Anyway, what do you all think of the connection between new world and old world civilizations (tabaco and cocaine found in egyptian mummies)?

There are many theories that ancient civilization from the old world had visited the new world and they are very convincing in my opinion.

[Saint Marcus]

There are many theories that ancient civilization from the old world had visited the new world and they are very convincing in my opinion.

Or the other way around. Wasn't there a norwegian researcher that used a reed ship as traditionally made by the andes people, to sail to easter island and further on across the pacific?


And what do you all think of the 15th century turkish map (based on older maps), that shows not only parts of America, but of Antartica as well. The biggest mystery is that it shows antartica as it is without the ice.

[Keygen]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus

Or the other way around. Wasn't there a norwegian researcher that used a reed ship as traditionally made by the andes people, to sail to easter island and further on across the pacific?

Saint Marcus, it is well known that poeple from Asia built sea vessels and inhabitted the Pacific islands so it is natural that from the islands they could go back in Asia.

What I say is that ancient civilizations from the old world and not some Pacific tribes might have visited America long before the Vikings and Colombus.

There are several evidences about it. I had read an article that ancient Chinese and Greek anchors were found in American seas.

An ancient copper mined was discovered in the north part of South America. It was abandoned before it get depleted on the same period as the Minoans or Myceneans (don't remember which) were destroyed. If I remember correctly, Pre-Colombian civilizations never possed copper (can't remember correctly though so my appologies if I am wrong).

A sculpture was found in Central America and had a weel incised and I am not talking about a circle. But Pre-Colombian Americans didn't had the knowledge of weel.

Some sculptures discovered in America were of the same style of some Chinese preceded.

The Central American temples were aslo like pyramids but pyramids first constructed in Egypt.

A Olmec giant stone head representing a face clearly of negroic orientation but the were no blacks in America back then.

And some other stuff that I don't remeber right now.

Each one on its own might not be an evidence but all together can't be a coincidence.

Originally posted by Saint Marcus

And what do you all think of the 15th century turkish map (based on older maps), that shows not only parts of America, but of Antartica as well. The biggest mystery is that it shows antartica as it is without the ice.

You must be refering to Piri Reis' maps.

[Keygen]

Originally posted by Ethelred

As you say there is a flood story in Gilgamesh. The Israelites lived in the same area last I heard. They were not unrelated. Neither were the Greeks who also had a flood story. Everyone has a flood story. Its because every one has floods. However I do suspect the Greek, Sumerian, and Israelite stories were related. The Greek version is very different. The Hebrew version is obviously closely related. Some of the Greeks originaly came from Anatolia now Turkey. It is possible the Black Sea flood was the source of the stories.

The Gilgamesh version is the most believable of the three. Possibly because its the oldest and closer to the source. It doesn't claim a world wide flood.

I will have to disagree. A world wide flood had occured according to scientific researches but not in the size the myths are refering. When the last Ice Age ended around 10000 and the ices melted the sea level rised and thousands of square killometers submerged. That event passed from generation to generation and inevitable was magnified to what the mithology called the great flood That is what I believe.

[Ethelred]

So you say that the Minoans were the ancestors of the Achaeans?

Is my leg being pulled just because its April first.

I said the Achaen Greeks and the Myceneans Greeks are the Greeks. Not counting an invasion or two mixing up the gene pool during the following Dark Age.

After a bit of a search(my excuse to myself for spending time on this stuff - I am learning):

From http://www.usd.edu/~clehmann/pir/ach_info.htm

.

The word "Achaea" was derived from Achaioi, which was used in the Iliad to mean "Greeks," especially the followers of Achilles and Agamemnon.

The Mycenean Greeks conquered the Minoans and based on the language the Minoans weren't Greek. At least Linear A can't be read and Linear B can. Linear B is Greek.

That's the ones. And it was clocks, as we think of them. With precision down to the mili second

That wasn't actually a clock for the time of day was it? Archimedes made a model of the planets. I doubt that its accurate to the millisecond. In any case Archimedes lived long after the time period we were discussing.

He didn't live in Athens or even the Agean. He lived in Syracuse, Sicily and was killed by a Roman soldier.

I did say the Greeks got around didn't I? ICS and all that.

How can you say so?
Linear B has definite Greek characters in their primary state.
It is also the basis of a theory that says the Greeks did not inherit their language from the Phoenicians.

Doesn;t Linear A includes such characters?

Linear B IS ancient Greek. Linear B was adapted from Linear A to fit Greek needs. Not very well adapted aparently as can be seen in the links.

I was going to put a couple of other links on linear b in but when I looked at this one that was in my Favorites I came to the conclusion the other two links were more than just a bit suspect. IE plagarized. It doesn't take a carefull analysis to figure it out either. Whole paragraphs were lifted for both papers.

http://tenaya.cs.dartmouth.edu/histo...essons/25.html

Linear A generates a lot of noise on Google. Witchcraft even. Linear Accelerators. That link above mentions it though.

Well here is something anyway:
http://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/script/linea.html

Not surprising there isn't much readily available on it since it can't be translated.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Is my leg being pulled just because its April first.

I said the Achaen Greeks and the Myceneans Greeks are the Greeks. Not counting an invasion or two mixing up the gene pool during the following Dark Age.

Excuse me but what you said was that before the Achaeans the Minoans attacked and that they were the descentants of the Achaeans...

The Mycenean Greeks conquered the Minoans and based on the language the Minoans weren't Greek. At least Linear A can't be read and Linear B can. Linear B is Greek.

Proto Greek, I'd say.

Again I ask for I don;t know, doesn't Linear A have a LOT of common aspects with Linear B?

That wasn't actually a clock for the time of day was it? Archimedes made a model of the planets. I doubt that its accurate to the millisecond. In any case Archimedes lived long after the time period we were discussing.

Yes you are 100% correct. It was a perfect rep[roduction of the solar system, With precise rotations and times of rotations.

Linear B IS ancient Greek. Linear B was adapted from Linear A to fit Greek needs. Not very well adapted aparently as can be seen in the links.

I was going to put a couple of other links on linear b in but when I looked at this one that was in my Favorites I came to the conclusion the other two links were more than just a bit suspect. IE plagarized. It doesn't take a carefull analysis to figure it out either. Whole paragraphs were lifted for both papers.

http://tenaya.cs.dartmouth.edu/histo...essons/25.html

Linear A generates a lot of noise on Google. Witchcraft even. Linear Accelerators. That link above mentions it though.

Well here is something anyway:
http://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/script/linea.html

Not surprising there isn't much readily available on it since it can't be translated.

I'll check the links later when I can. Thanks!

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Keygen


I will have to disagree. A world wide flood had occured according to scientific researches but not in the size the myths are refering. When the last Ice Age ended around 10000 and the ices melted the sea level rised and thousands of square killometers submerged. That event passed from generation to generation and inevitable was magnified to what the mithology called the great flood That is what I believe.

Well we do agree its not exactly what is described in the Bible and it was long before the Black Sea Flood. Most of the myths you will see claimed in Fundamentalist writings are actually new stories based on christian teachings. Others could very well be totaly independent. However considering that 100 year floods do come about once per hundred years and few ever experience two of them I think they are sufficient to cover most of the stories.

The end of the Ice Age did cause the sea levels to rise of course but that occured over a long period of time. Most humans were still pretty nomadic and they would never notice at all. As for the others I think 10,000 years is a very long time for such a thing to be handed down. Over that time the people would have experienced many severe floods.

In fact if you look at the Black Sea flood you will see that the sea levels still had reached there present level 5000 years after the end of the Ice Age. It took all that time for sea levels to rise high enough to overtop the Bospurus and the seas have only rose about 200 feet total from the Ice Age to now.

I suppose it could be that the Bosporus actually dropped though. It is a geologicly active region. A dozen feet or less could have made the final difference. Living in Southern California I notice things like that. The mountains are higher then they were when I was born. I can't see the difference of course.

I strongly suspect that the Black Sea flood is what is remembered in Gilgamesh although it could have been something that happened in Sumeria considering the 2000 year gap. It is a massive but localized flood in Gilgamesh. The biblical flood pretty clearly came from the Sumerian story. 3 day became 40 because different cultures have different magic numbers.

[Ethelred]

Excuse me but what you said was that before the Achaeans the Minoans attacked and that they were the descentants of the Achaeans...

Actually I don't think you can find me saying that anywhere.

I didn't even mention Acheans. Its barely in my vocabulary.

I had to look it up to be sure I had a clue. This stuff is hazy in my mind. I plead the fifth.

To quote what I actually said:

Same people. Just as Troy is also called Illium and maybe Wilusa. Assuming that anyone did actually conquer Troy. Agamemnon was the King of Mycenae.

Myceneans aren't Minoan.

Minoans aren't Mycenean.

Myceneans were Greeks.

It is actually a time period named after the Greek city of Mycenae. A city which Agamemnon ruled before his wife gave him the slice and dice treatment. Which he deserved really if the Illiead has it right that he sacrificed his own daughter.

Agamemenon who led the Greeks at Troy was the king of Mycenae. The Greeks are also called Acheans but I didn't use the word cause I never do except now.

Proto Greek, I'd say.

Again I ask for I don;t know, doesn't Linear A have a LOT of common aspects with Linear B?

Yes I said it did. Not the language but the alphabet. Since Linear B is derived from Linear A it must therefor have common aspects or no one would have ever thought that B was derived from A.

[Bereta_Eder]

it's foggy in mymind too I think you said that someone attacked Troy and before their descentants attacked it...

[Saint Marcus]

You must be refering to Piri Reis' maps.

Yes. Late 15th, early 16th century I believe. It included parts of America, and Antartica (just the continent, not the ice). It was remarkably accurate for it's time, and included parts of the world that weren't discovered yet. Plus, it showed antartica as it is under the ice. Is that mystery yet explained/clarified?

[Rasputin]

it appeared it syds mind !!! then came civ 2 then then Civ 3 !!

[Saint Marcus]

it appeared it syds mind !!! then came civ 2 then then Civ 3 !!

sorry lad, someone beat you to it.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by paiktis22
it's foggy in mymind too I think you said that someone attacked Troy and before their descentants attacked it...

Gee after I quoted it and you quoted it.

Troy as in the Illiad. Attacked by Mycenean Greeks led by Agamemnon.

It would be real hard for decendents to attack Troy before their anscestors did. Definitly foggy but then I have come to the conclusion you think in another language. Which explains things. English hard enough for native speakers.

I thought I saw you make a remark about living in Greece. You are supposed to more about this than I do.

Well I suppose there are people living in other countries that know more about Disneyland than I do living so close I can hear the fireworks. But I do know where all the bathrooms are. Well most of them. I refuse to go to the Bear Country Jamboree area ever again.