Originally posted by Geticus
WHERE ARE THE COLUMNS OF HERCULES?
The chapter about the Pilars of Hercules is no. 16. and starts at page 229.
There are a lot of coutations from the greek and the roman autors of antiquty.
The main point of the cheapter is that the Gibraltar striat did not mutch the descriptions of the ancient autors and that the Pillars are somewere
The link is at www.dacia.org/densusianu/pd.pdf
Okay, I can address this.
The problem with this book is that the author wasn't entirely honest. He took only the evidences that proved his points and ignored other evidence.
It's also several hundred years old and we've found a lot of material since then.
But in the main, the author started with an idea he wanted to prove and was not interested in having it disproven... that Dacia is the sole source for
all the Greek mythology and that Pelegasians are the founders of Rome. He is staunchly Romanian and sees Romania as the cradle and founder of all
There's several problems with this view (and a lot of problems with his material, including the idea that neolithic man was around and watched the
mountains being formed.)
Frau's book (moving Atlantis to still ANOTHER location) suffers from the same problem. He is convinced that Atlantis is in his beloved Sardinia and
looked for evidence that he must be right... ignoring all other evidence.
However -- on to Gibraltar.
Yes, the ancient Greeks did not know what the world they lived in looked like. They believed that Europe and Africa (at least along the Nile) and the
Middle East was pretty much The World and that there was a huge river that ran around the world. They also believed (until the time of Eratosthenes)
that the Earth was flat.
Culturally, these accounts have several problems:
* they assume that nobody ever looked at landscape and made up tales about "how that mountain got there" (as in "see that jagged streak on the
mountain? That's where Thor's hammer hit after he swung at an ice giant and missed!")
* they assume that no other civilization appropriated myths for their own use (as in "St Peter is actually buried HERE and the fingerbone you have of
St. Peter is a fraud!")
* they assume that all the descriptions are accurate (go ask six people to describe a city. Do all the descriptions match?)
* they assume that texts which simply name the structure supports their contention.
The way we see the Pillars today is not the way they were. We think of the Earth as unchanging. It is not. There were forests and grasslands where
we see houses and cities and there were no roads through many places. There were small farms and tiny villages and rivers have moved many times since
that ancient time.
Polybius certainly thought that the Pillars were at the mouth of the Mediterranean when he wrote about his journeys in 146 BC:
I think I'd trust the books more if they were not so nationalistic... if they were not written to change our views that a nation or people hitherto
unknown was the source of great ideas/great civilizations. Both interlink myths without making a good case for them being linked. Densusianu, for
example, says that a Romanian folk hero "Iovan Iorgovan" is unquestionably Hercules... without giving any real evidence and then links selected
Iovan tales (but not all of them) with Hercules to extend the story of this Greek hero.
To do a good study, you must start by knowing the culture and history as it's written. How did they describe things... known things (like Rome and
how to get there and famous landmarks along the way) in the ancient world? How did they name mountains and so forth and did those locations vary
according to where they lived? What references exist and what are the oldest written references (plays, etc)? What other cultures used the same name
and at what era? What archaeological evidence is around (temples and artifacts and so forth)?
And finally, what does the mundane say about it... in other words, are there shipping manifestos and other records of commerce that mention it
We're seeing a lot of rewriting of history and geography by those who are disappointed that Atlantis hasn't been found (in spite of every bit of
evidence pointing to it being made up by Plato, as Narnia was made up by C.S. Lewis.) I've even seen them repositioned to try and prove that
Antarctica was Atlantis.
I think the case should be examined if only for curiosity's sake. But I don't think that the writings of nationalistic authors should be used to
prop up the argument.