David Hershiser is the author of Beyond the Pillars of Hercules: Atlantis and Tyrus in Plato’s Writings, Biblical Verses, and the Works of Helena Blavatsky, Edgar Cayce, and Ruth Montgomery. In it he adopts the idea of J. D. Brady that Ezekiel’s Tyrus was not the Phoenician city of Tyre, but it can be identified as Atlantis. In a 2015 article in Atlantis Rising magazine(a) Hershiser discusses the core of this theory. Unlike Brady, who proposed that Tyrus/Atlantis was to be identified with Troy, Hershiser places his Tyrus/Atlantis in the Atlantic just outside the Strait of Gibraltar.
Gennaro Anziano is the Italian author of Atlantide – Scoperta la Terra degli dèi , in which he claims to solve the mysteries of Atlantis, the Tower of Babel, Pole Shift and the Pyramids(a). He believes that an impact with an extraterrestrial body destroyed Atlantis, which had been situated in Greenland!
Atlantis not in the Atlantic that we know
Although I accept that a prima facie case to be made for an Atlantic location, it is dependent on a combination of defective translations along with outdated interpretations of three elements in Plato’s Atlantis narrative. However, closer scrutiny of the text tells a different story and reveals that the reasoning behind the Atlantic Hypothesis is flawed. The elements referred to are;
- Plato’s references to the Atlantic
- The location of the Pillars of Heracles
- The apparent size of Atlantis
- [Timaeus 24e] The Atlantic Ocean
The most frequently encountered English translation of Plato’s text is the 1871 version from Benjamin Jowett, in which he rendered the above passage as follows:
For these histories tell of a mighty power which, unprovoked, made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end. This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable;
Similar 20th century translations are offered by others, such as Bury (1929) and Lee (1965), all of which refer to the Atlantic ‘Ocean‘.
George Sarantitis has pointed out that the ancient Greeks, a seafaring people, ascribed terms to seas according to their different characteristics including Thalassa, Okeanos, Pelagos and Pontos. These terms are still used, although the newer generations of Greeks no longer remember their earlier connotations. Even today, Greek maps and charts refer to the Mesogaeos Thalassa, Aegean Pelagos and Euxinos Pontos which in English are known respectively as the Mediterranean, Aegean and Black Seas(13).
Georgeos Diaz-Montexano makes a similar point when he comments that the classical writers had three words for bodies of salt water; pontos (small), pelagos (medium) and okeanos (large) and that Plato always referred to Atlantis being in a pelagos.
Okeanos was used exclusively to describe a circular body of water, which surrounded Africa, Asia and Europe, the only landmasses known to the Greeks(2). However, Plato never used ‘okeanos’ in relation to the home of Atlantis, instead he referred to it as a ‘pelagos’. This is where doubts should begin to arise that all is not well with some of our translations. Then our suspicions should deepen further when we find that Thomas Taylor who gave us the first English translation of the entire works of Plato and Aristotle, in Timaeus 24e used the term ‘Atlantic Sea‘ (1793). More recently a modern Greek, George Sarantitis has drawn attention to the English mistranslation of pelagos and his view has been confirmed by the American scholar Joseph Warren Wells.
The word ‘ocean’ in particular, is a serious mistranslation given that Plato does not use the word ‘ocean’ (gr: okeanos) in either Timaeus or Critias! He was very well acquainted with what an ocean was. He had defined it in his earlier work of Phaedo and makes references to it in Cratylus and in Theaetetus. Therefore, there is no room for misinterpretation; when Plato wrote ‘pelagos’ and ‘pontos’, he meant precisely those types of sea. He did not write ‘okeanos’ because he did not mean the ocean. The Atlantic ocean is an ocean and the Atlantic pelagos, is a pelagos!”
We can conclude therefore that since Plato never used the term ‘ocean’ in connection with Atlantis, the claim that he was referring to our present-day Atlantic is highly questionable.
This is confirmed by Plato’s comment that his Atlantic had been navigable ”in those days”, clearly implying that at the time of Solon this was no longer the case. Obviously, such a statement could not be applied to the Atlantic Ocean that we know. So it begs the question as to what body of water Solon/Plato were referring to.
Additionally, It is worth mentioning that Aristotle referrred(3) to a shallow sea just outside the Pillars of Heracles, of which he notes that “the shallows are the result of mud, is calm and lies in a hollow“, a description that could not be attributed to the Atlantic Ocean that we know today, if he was alluding to Pillars at Gibraltar.
I feel confident that this brief look at Plato’s ‘Atlantic’ reference should stand alone as sufficient evidence to convince you that he was not referring to our Atlantic Ocean.
However, it is not unreasonable that researchers have opted for an Atlantic location for Atlantis as the traditional understanding of two other elements in Plato’s Atlantis narrative have forced this conclusion on them. One is the location of the Pillars of Heracles and the other is the generally accepted size of Atlantis. I hope to demonstrate that the conventional interpretation regarding both are probably wrong.
- [Timaeus 24e] The Pillars of Heracles
Plato refers to the ‘Pillars’ on five occasions (Tim. 24e & 25c, Crit. 108e, 114b &114c).
The location of the ‘Pillars’ has been one of the most debated details in Plato’s Atlantis story. There is little doubt that since the 3rd century BC the term has been applied almost exclusively to the Strait of Gibraltar. The online encyclopaedia Wikipedia notes that Pillars were, in earlier times, identified with the Strait of Sicily, but from the time of Eratosthenes (c. 250 BC) the term was used to refer to the Strait of Gibraltar. The view that it always referred to Gibraltar is hotly disputed. However, Pindar (522-443), who was possibly the earliest to mention the Pillars of Heracles(7) and would appear to have considered that the Pillars were a metaphor for the limit of established Greek geographical knowledge, a boundary that was never static. I am not aware of any classical writer specifying Gibraltar as the location of the ‘Pillars’ prior to Eratosthenes.
Many other locations have been identified as being referred to in ancient times as the Pillars of Heracles. Robert Schoch(6) writes “This distinctive name, taken from the most powerful hero of Greek mythology, was given to a number of ancient sites known in modern times by quite different appellations”. The Greeks, however, used the name Pillars of Heracles to mark other sites besides Gibraltar, some outside the Mediterranean – namely, the Canary Islands in the Atlantic and the Strait of Kerch dividing the Black Sea from the Sea of Azov – and even more inside the Mediterranean – among which were, the Strait of Bonafaccio between Corsica and Sardinia, the Strait of Messina between mainland Italy and Sicily, the Greek Peleponnese, the mountainous coast of Tunisia, and the Nile Delta. Tacitus, in his Germania (chap.34), clearly states that it was believed that the Pillars of Hercules were located near the Rhine in the territory of the Frisians.
Tacitus, the renowned Latin historian, located the Pillars of Hercules in the Baltic. Pliny the Elder noted that in Sogdiana in modern Uzbekistan there was reputed to be an altar and ‘Pillars of Heracles’. Aristotle in de Mundo describes the north coast of Europe on the edge of a vast sea, beyond the Celts and the Scythians up to Sinus Gallicus and the Pillars of Heracles!
In his Periplus (a guide to the Mediterranean) Scylax of Caryanda describes, the Maltese Islands as lying to the east of the Pillars of Heracles, implying some degree of proximity. Ulrich Hofmann combines the Periplus of Scylax with the writings of Herodotus to build a credible argument for placing Atlantis in North Africa in Lake Tritonis, now occupied by the chotts of modern Algeria and Tunisia. He places the Pillars at the Gulf of Gabés, which would put Malta to the east of them. Ulrich Hofmann also argues that the Pillars were part of Atlantis rather than separate from it(12).
Perhaps the first ‘modern’ writer to propose the Eastern Mediterranean as the location for the ‘Pillars’ was the Russian, Avraam Norov. Drawing on both Greek and Arabic sources for his ideas he considered them to have been shrines.
- Galanopoulos and E. Bacon suggest(8) that the Pillars of Heracles were possibly associated with Melos, one of the Cyclades or Cape Maleas, the eastern promontory of the Gulf of Laconia. Both James Mavor and Rodney Castleden supported this view.
Anton Mifsud, Malta’s leading atlantologist, points out that the 1st century BC writer, Apollonius Rhodius and Lucanus both located the Strait of Heracles in ancient Syrtis Minor(4), now the Tunisian Gulf of Gabés. George Sarantitis, the Greek researcher, subscribes to the same idea(5). For my part, I favour the secondary meaning of ‘boundary marker’ as it would seem to better suit the context.
Eberhard Zangger quotes(9) the 4th century AD. Roman writer Servius, “Columnas Herculis legimus et in Ponto et in Hispania. (through the Columns of Herakles we go within the Black Sea as well as in Spain)”. This is clear evidence that more than one location had been considered concurrently as the ‘Pillars’.
Sergio Frau in his recent book, Le Collone de Ercole: Un’inchiesta(10), insists that the Pillars were in fact located in the Strait of Sicily. He sees this location agreeing with the writings of Homer and Hesiod. He discusses in detail the reference by Herodotus to an island to the west of the Pillars, suggesting that the word ‘ocean’ had a different meaning than to-day and pointing out that elsewhere Herodotus refers to Sardinia as the largest island in the world. Following this lead Frau concluded that Atlantis was in fact located in Sardinia. Frau comments that Eratosthenes, circa 200 BC, was the first geographer to place the Pillars of Heracles at Gibraltar. He also quotes the earlier geographer Dicaearchus whose comments appear to also support a location near Malta. Antonio Usai has also opted for the Strait of Sicily in his critique of Frau’s book.
In the Late Bronze Age the Bosphorus in the east and probably the Strait of Sicily in the west confined the Greeks. Their boundaries were extended further and further as their maritime capabilities improved, meeting the needs of trade and colonisation. It was only shortly before Solon’s trip to Egypt that the Greek colony of Massilia (modern Marseilles) was founded and so, at last, the western limit of the Mediterranean was brought within the reach of Greek ships. Obviously as their range extended so too did the location of new Pillars and possibly led to the decline in the usage of the title at former boundaries, leaving us today with only the Strait of Gibraltar to carry the name.
In 1913, Nicolae Densusianu proposed a location for the Pillars, on the Danube in ancient Dacia, modern Romania. Even more exotic locations such as Chott-el-Djerid in Tunisia, Bab-el-Mandeb at the mouth of the Red Sea, the Strait of Hormuz as well as the Palk Strait between Sri Lanka and India have all been suggested at some stage as the ‘Pillars’.
Sometimes, in ancient Greek literature, the Pillars are a reference to the Strait of Messina between Sicily and the southern tip of Italy (a place which the Greeks did know well, having established colonies in Sicily and Southern Italy).
Finally, my own conclusion regarding the location of the ‘Pillars’ is that a careful reading of Plato’s text shows clearly that they were located in the Central Mediterranean region. I base this view on (i) Critias 108 which states that the Atlantean war was between those that lived outside the Pillars of Heracles and those that lived within them and (ii) Critias 114 which declares that Atlantis held sway over the Western Mediterranean as far as Tyrrhenia in the north and the borders of Egypt in the south. Consequently, we can assume that west of Tyrrhenia and of Egypt were beyond the Pillars of Heracles. This opens up the possibility of Malta, Sicily or Sardinia as prime candidates for the location of Atlantis. My personal preference is to locate the Pillars at the Strait of Messina!
Plato’s comments make little sense, if he was describing an attack by people outside the Pillars on those inside the Pillars and referring to Gibraltar as the location of those Pillars, since half of the coastal territory east of Gibraltar was already conquered. However, if the Pillars were located somewhere much further east, such as the Central Mediterranean, his comments make perfect sense.
The Strait of Gibraltar as the location of the Pillars at the time of the Atlantean invasion is clearly untenable. Further confirmation could be produced if time and space permitted a discussion of the ‘shoals’ (Timaeus 25d) which resulted from the submergence of Atlantis and appeared to have continued as a navigational hazard until at least Plato’s time, as such a feature would have been incompatible with the Atlantic beyond Gibraltar.
3 The Size of Atlantis
Timaeus 24e has been translated by some to imply that Atlantis was greater in size than Libya and Asia combined! This translation, taken at face value, has provided the principal foundation for the claim that Atlantis was a huge island in the Atlantic, as it would have been too extensive to fit anywhere in the Mediterranean. Some have used this to refer to Atlantis as a continent, although Plato never used that term in relation to Atlantis.
The debate here centres on the meaning on the Greek word meizon, translated as ‘greater’.
in the respected Greek Lexicon of Liddell & Scott Meizon (??????) is given the sole meaning of ‘greater’. Furthermore, in Bury’s translation of sections Timaeus 20e -26a there are eleven instances of Plato using megas (great) meizon (greater) or megistos (greatest). In all cases great or greatest is employed except just one, 24e, which uses the comparative meizon, which Bury translated as ‘larger’! J.Warren * concluded that Bury’s translation in this single instance is inconsistent with his other treatments of the word and it does not fit comfortably with the context(11).
This inconsistency is difficult to accept, because, although meizon can have a secondary meaning of ‘larger’, it is quite reasonable to assume that the primary meaning of ‘greater’ was intended. I note that the 1856 German translation of Hieronymus Müller also clearly accepted ‘meizon’ to refer to power rather than size.
Thorwald C. Franke offered the 2008 Atlantis Conference the most persuasive explanation for the use of this phrase, which was that “for Egyptians the world of their ‘traditional’ enemies was divided in two: To the west there were the Libyans, to the east there were the Asians. If an Egyptian scribe wanted to say, that an enemy was more dangerous than the ‘usual’ enemies, which was the case with the Sea Peoples’ invasion, then he would have most probably said, that this enemy was “more powerful than Libya and Asia put together”.
I consider this suggestion to be the most natural and elegant offered to date. This idea is also supported by Stavros Papamarinopoulos
The Plain of Atlantis is one of the principal features reported by Solon in great detail. He describes it being “3,000 stades in length and at its midpoint 2,000 stades in breath from the coast” (Crit.118a, trans. Lee). Those dimensions would translate into 370 x 555km (230 x 345 Miles). Even Plato found the figures ‘incredible’ (Critias 118c), but in deference to Solon accepted them. When added to the mountains that surrounded the plain it would have constituted such a large landmass that it could not have been destroyed by an earthquake, which any seismologist will confirm,
I have already submitted another chapter to ROIPA for inclusion in their Cronos magazine. In it, I was forced to conclude that all of Plato’s numbers in the Atlantis narrative were exaggerated by a factor of ten and if applied to the size of the Plain of Atlantis reported by Plato it would translate into a piece of land 37 x 55km, somewhat bigger than the Greek island of Rhodes.
From all this we can conclude that:
- When Plato was referring to the Atlantic he was not speaking of the ocean that we know today by that name.
- The Pillars of Heracles were situated east of Gibraltar in the Central Mediterranean.
- The claim that Atlantis was greater in size than Libya and Asia combined does not stand up to scrutiny. The dimensions of the Plain of Atlantis provided by Solon are exaggerations, confirmed by Plato’s own increduility.
My contention is that the evidence presented above demonstrates that “the balance of probabilities” favours a Central Mediterranean rather than an Atlantic location for Atlantis.
While most of this paper has been rather negative in so far as it was concerned with endeavoring to demonstrate where Atlantis did not exist, I feel obliged to offer at least a short defence of my preferred location for Atlantis by simply quoting Plato;
“Now in this island of Atlantis there existed a confederation of kings, of great and marvellous power, which held sway over all the island, and over many other islands also and parts of the continent; and, moreover, of the lands here within the Straits they ruled over Libya as far as Egypt, and over Europe as far as Tuscany.” Bury
For me, this could not be clearer: there is absolutely no reference to the Atlantic, but instead he describes an alliance that stretched from North Africa across the Mediterranean to Italy, including most of the larger islands, such as Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica and many others such as Malta.
(2) Herodotus, The Histories (4.42)
(4) Anton Mifsud, Malta: Echoes of Plato’s Island (The Prehistoric Society of Malta, 2001) p.48
(6) Robert Schoch, Voices of the Rocks (Harmony, New York, 2000) p.87
(8) Galanopoulos & Bacon, Atlantis: The Truth behind the Legend (Bobbs-Merrill, New Orleans, 1969) p.97
(9) Eberhard Zangger, The Flood From Heaven (Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1992) p.109
(10) Sergio Frau, ] Le Collone de Ercole: Un’inchiesta (The Pillars of Hercules) (Nur Neon, 2002)
(11) J. Warren Wells, Atlantis in Context (CreateSpace, 2011)
This piece has been partially cleaned up, but some errors may still remain (T O’C)
This is the html version of the file http://www.jamesoberg.com/94-foxTV-astro-UFO.PDF. Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
FOX-TV “Encounters” collides with reality of “Astronauts & UFOS” /J. Oberg nea 5,’94
When I first started my assessment of title December 4, 1994 FOX-TV “Encounters” program segment on ‘Astronauts and UFOS”, my text was full of angry words about “a new low in tabloid television sleaze”, or a “travesty on investigative ethics”, or “bald lies”.
Then I calmed down and decided to let facts rather than rhetoric make the damning indictment. Here’s a partial listing of what I see are the factual atrocities and blunders committed by the program producer:
The interviewee named Maurice Chatelain is falsely identified as an “ex-employee” of NASA’S who spent years within the program learning UFO secrets. Chatelain actually only briefly worked for North American Aviation (the NASA contactor for the Apollo command module) in Los Angeles in the mid-1960s (he sometimes claims he was “Chief of Communications” for Apollo, but he wasn’t). He never worked for NASA and all the things he refers to were learned from outside sources (or just imagined himself), not from within any NAAA-related organization.
Chatelain claims Jim McDivitt on Gemini-4 in 1965 saw a “silvery cylinder” which rapidly approached his spacecraft and missed it only by a few meters. ENCOUNTERS then ominously claims that “McDivitt kept silent” about this event. This is pure ignorance: McDivitt time and time again has patiently explained to UFO buffs and others about the beer-can shaped object (not “silver”) he spotted on his flight, hanging outside his window at an unknown range — and not in any way “approaching” him. He lost sight of it when sunlight glared across his window. He thinks it was another man-made satellite, while a good case can be made it was his own beer-can shaped second stage on a returning orbit.
Meanwhile, McDivitt has never “kept silent” on this interesting but hardly extraordinary flight event, which has been widely discussed in the literature and even in the Air Force’s Condon Report in 1968.
Chatelain refers to the Apollo- 11 moon landing and asserts that after landing, Armstrong and Aldrin saw UFOS on the edge of a crater. A film of dancing lights over the lunar horizon is then shown. The program claims that “What they saw on the moon has never been explained”, but this is blatantly untrue since that film, taken from orbit the day before the landing, shows only window reflections of LM interior lights, as anyone at the photo library at NASA could have told l}le investigators. This case – and Chatelain’s other claims, which date back to the mid-1970s — wa6 explained in detail in my 1982 book,
“UFOS and Outer Space Mysteries”, a[d the chapter on Apollo-l1 has been in the America Online OMM Antimatler Files since last July. No serious UFO researcher has ever thought the original story was anything but a tabloid concoction, either.
Chatelain has made other claims, including that Apollo-13 was carrying a small nuclear bomb to set off on the moon as a seismic experiment, which is why UFOS zapped the mission in self defense. ENCOUNTERS omitted this crazy story, for good reason.
The program mentions astronaut Gordon Cooper’s letter to the UN (about 1973, after he had left NASA) encouraging studies of UFOS, and claims falsely that “Cooper’s letter was swept under the official carpet” — a bizarre assertion that has no basis in reality. Cooper referred to a l95l encounter he had in Germany, but when serious investigators checked up on that case, none of his fellow pilots from the Neubiberg Air Base, none of the local German news media or L’FO groups, nothing in Blue Book files, nobody even in Cooper’s own family could recall the incident. Whatever Cooper was remembering somehow slipped the minds of dozens of other witnesses. Naturally this research remains unpublished in the pro-UFO media.
The program quotes extensively from tack Kasher about STS-48 dancing blips – alleging five proofs they can’t be ice and therefore by elimination (groan!) must be alien spacecraft. But Kasher’s illogic seeps through with his claim that since STS-48, all NASA space TV became screened (an incorrect claim, in any case) to “plug leaks” and hide UFOS. But then he points to 5T5-61 (Hubble Repair) flight video of other streaking dots as further proof of UFOs – even though he claimed NASA was screening all such video to prevent people from ever seeing such UFOS! You can’t have it both ways – and remain rational.
Kasher made a claim that the STS-48 “Main Object” stopped for a full half second during the “flash” (the jet firing), which he said ice couldn’t do. People watching the video ncver saw it “stop”, but on Kasher’s pdnted report (not shown on TV) there is a flat area in the graph of object motion. But Kasher doesn’t seem to realize that since there is no standard frame of reference for motion in space, the “stopping” could have shown up on the TV screen as motion in ANY direction. It did not, and that’s the overlooked clue – it stopped ONLY in reference to the TV’s field of view, which suggests the “stopping” was an artifact of the TV scan, not of the object’s actual motion. This is borne out by Kasher’s technical paper: since the TV image is digitized (i.e., in discrete pixels, not in analog continuous form), every position is “rounded off’ to the nearest whole pixel. A proper chart should have included “error bals” which show the entire span of the view which is mapped into each specific digital position. When that is done, the curved change of course of the panicle fits entirely and smoothly into the elror-bar covered region. There is NO “stop” — it is an illusion of naive data processing by Kasher.
The alleged NASA spokesman, identified as “Paul Lowman” seems to have been deliberately chosen for his ignorance of “UFO lore” and his unfamiliarity with earlier investigations done by NASA and others into the cases brought up. He couldn’t have been a better patsy if he had been paid to read a script. And so far, I’ve been unsuccessful in finding anyone at NASA who’s ever heard of him…. [Stand by for updates].
This episode is a sad piece of television so-called-journalism. You really have to wonder what the show’s producers thought of the intelligence and credulity of the target audience.
People who can be expected to swallow these kinds of stories can probably be expected to swallow (and pay for) anything – which is probably why the whole show was interspersed with promotions for the Fox sister show “The X-Files”. CAVEAT EMPTOR ! !
ATLANTIDE IN SARDEGNA?
di Diego Silvio Novo per Edicolaweb
preleva l’inserto stampabile: Appunti, ipotesi e suggerimenti per una ricerca storica sul mito di Atlantide. È plausibile collocare l’isola di Atlantide nel Mediterraneo invece che nell’Oceano Atlantico? Come e cosa potrebbero aver fatto scomparire l’isola e la sua mitica civiltà? Il Diluvio, la fine di Atlantide, l’era glaciale e l’Età dell’Oro mitologica potrebbero essere eventi e circostanze collegabili? Queste alcune delle domande a cui tenterò di fornire un’ipotetica risposta.
INTRODUZIONE La mitica isola di Atlantide, sommersa dalle acque 9000 anni prima che venisse raccontata da Platone (427-347 a.C.), nel Crizia e nel Timeo, è stata di volta in volta collocata un po’ ovunque. Il mare indicato da Platone, per bocca del vecchio sacerdote egizio di Sais che riferisce la leggenda a Solone (630-560 a.C.), amico di Dropite, bisnonno di Crizia, è l’Oceano Atlantico, così definito dal nome dell’isola stessa. In effetti potrebbe essere l’isola a prendere il nome dall’Oceano, ma la sensazione che il nome Atlantide sia nato prima rimane molto forte. Su questa collocazione, non dovrebbero esserci dei dubbi. Platone, per rendere più sicura la localizzazione, ci dice che l’isola si trovava di fronte alle Colonne d’Ercole. Quindi non dovrebbero esserci dei dubbi circa la sua antica posizione nell’Oceano Atlantico, di fronte allo stretto di Gibilterra. Eppure forse è possibile che le cose non stessero proprio così. Con questa dissertazione sul mito atlantideo, non cercherò di travisare le parole di Platone, ma se mai di darne un’interpretazione diversa e verificare la rispondenza con quanto supposto dal giornalista di Repubblica Sergio Frau. Per completezza, cercherò di valutare i pro e i contro della collocazione di Atlantide anche in altri siti storici, e su di essi cercherò di fare delle ipotesi plausibili. Questi sono ormai diventati molti nel corso di anni di speculazioni più o meno feconde: Santorini, isola effettivamente distrutta da un cataclisma assieme alla sua civiltà (di cui parlerò anche in merito alla Sardegna); le isole Azzorre e le Canarie che appartengono ad una vasta regione sottomarina vulcanica (le Canarie erano anche abitate da misteriosi nativi di pelle chiara, i Guanci, pur essendo prossime all’Africa); il Mar dei Carabi e le civiltà precolombiane (gli Aztechi nei loro miti provenivano da Aztlan); il Pacifico con la leggenda di Mu e lo strano caso dell’isola di Pasqua; l’Antartide, ritenuta recentemente idonea ad ospitare una civiltà in un’epoca in cui era parzialmente sgombra dai ghiacci. L’elenco potrebbe essere quasi completo (Lemuria appartiene ad un’altra epoca del mondo), anche se questo tende ad allungarsi con il passar del tempo poiché sempre nuove ipotesi più o meno logiche vengono formulate. Più avanti analizzerò solo alcune di queste possibili localizzazioni, rapportandole con quella coincidente con la Sardegna. Oltre allo studio della localizzazione dell’isola mitica tenterò anche di formulare ipotesi che potrebbero essere spunti da approfondire, per giustificare i miti dell’Età dell’Oro, dei diluvi, in rapporto alle glaciazioni preistoriche.
PRECISAZIONE. Abbiamo ricevuto da Rosario Vieni e pubblichiamo: Desidero precisare quanto segue: Già prima di Frau io avevo scritto e pubblicato, sulla rivista “Episteme” dell’Università di Perugia, un pezzo in cui “collocavo” le Colonne d’Ercole nel Canale di Sicilia. Tale pezzo peraltro era circolato presso illustri personaggi della cultura internazionale e questa è cosa che posso documentare. Il pezzo si può ancora leggere (basta fare una ricerca sul mio nome su Google) su Episteme. Il signor Diego Silvio Novo deve ben sapere queste cose, visto che nel suo pezzo cita un passo di tale mio scritto su Atlantide. Io sono stato defraudato della paternit&afrave; dell’idea, ma la comunità scientifica internazionale ha rimediato in parte allo scippo visto che nel luglio 2005 ha invitato me, e non il signor Frau, a partecipare alla prima Conferenza Internazionale su Atlantide che si è tenuta a Milos nelle Cicladi.
KIV Books published a short overview of Atlantis theories in June 2017 with the title of Atlantis; Myths, Legends and History. The name of the author is not revealed. Anyway, this offering is lightweight in every sense and not worth reading.
The State of Our Knowledge About Ancient Copper Mining in Michigan
The Michigan Archaeologist 41(2-3):119-138.
Susan R. Martin 1995
Popular literature contributes to the persistence of fantasy and mythology surrounding ancient copper mining in Michigan. This paper points out some of the major elements of mis-statement and myth revealed in current popular books, and suggests why they are fallacious, using current archaeological data about copper mining as counterpoint. Michigan’s prehistoric mining data are unique in the world. Their discovery, description and explanation make an exciting story, one of which the citizens of this region can be rightfully proud and of which they should all be aware. Professional archaeologists need to build a public support base through accessible and competently written accounts of the facts about Michigan prehistory. Our efforts have improved in the past ten years, but our publications still lag behind those of non-specialist authors.
My topic today is the world-famous ancient copper industry of the Lake Superior Basin. Since 1961 and Griffin’s seminal publication of Lake Superior Copper and the Indians we have learned a lot, archaeologically, about prehistoric copper use (Griffin 1961) and its persistence through prehistory. Today I also want to talk about the persistence of fantasy and mythology surrounding ancient copper mining. Walk into any bookstore up north these days and you’ll see what I mean. Mysterious books with lurid symbols and tales of trans-oceanic contact fill people’s minds with archaeo- illogical constructs (Sodders 1990; Sodders 1991). I’d like to chide the professional ranks, myself included, for failing to promote real archaeology as successfully! Competently written accounts of our passion, the study of prehistory, should be out there for public consumption! The professional ranks fail to present an effective public counterpoint to archaeo-illogic. Our efforts have improved in the past ten years, but our publications still lag behind those of non-specialist authors. Some of this is due to the nature of our data; they are fragile and require careful analysis and documentation, something that casual authors clearly can put aside, along with meeting standards of scientific evidence. Some of this is due to the reward structure of academic life, which tends to stress preaching to other specialists rather than expanding our public support base. But some of this is due to having our heads, in addition to our trowels, in the sand; this we are trying to change. I hope to help correct this shortcoming vis a vis copper in the next year or so, with accessible publications for an interested and literate readership. The Society for American Archaeology’s Public Education Committee has made great strides in organizing a national campaign for archaeological literacy. There is now a growing nationwide network of archaeological information so that interested schoolchildren and others can readily find factual data (MacDonald 1994). Educational materials are available for primary and secondary students and many people, amateurs and professionals alike, are working hard to disseminate these materials to interested people in our state. Plus our state museum system and funding systems are trying hard to do their parts.
Here at home however, popular books which are widely available and by all accounts financial successes, help to perpetuate the myths that stand for the truth about Michigan prehistory. These myths are dangerous for the following reasons:
1) They detract from the pressing need to preserve archaeological sites. Some of these publications announce that the sites are already destroyed (Sodders 1990:27-28), which is absolutely false. The trouble here is that the public may be persuaded to disregard important site protection issues based on wrong information.
2) They put people’s energies into false hopes of splendid and snazzy discoveries (which encourages site looting) rather than into productive activity, such as training in excavation, analysis of artifacts, and site preservation and protection.
3) They’re so sensational that people are liable to devalue the facts in favor of the fantasy. Archaeology gets a bad name when it takes away people’s pet myths, even if they’re irrational!
4) These authors overlook the requirements of science, particularly those about testing hypotheses objectively, yet offer speculations as though they were scientific fact. This failure to distinguish fact from fiction disadvantages people in a culture such as ours that prides itself in generating literacy but also succeeds in the generation of misinformation! Telling truth from myth is an important skill for citizenship, no matter what the subject.
Most of the myths take their ‘truth’ from mantra-like repetition rather than empirical evidence. In fact try as I have, it’s often impossible to find the original sources of some of the ideas accepted as fact in these volumes! For example, when I read about the area in which I’ve lived and done fieldwork for twenty years, that being Houghton County, Michigan, I’m simply amazed! According to these books, there is evidence, everywhere, of Phoenicians, Bronze Age Europeans, and others sailing copper-laden flotillas from the Keweenaw home to the Old World! And I’ve apparently been asleep at the switch the whole time because I sure never found any such evidence!
I’d like today to point out some of the major elements of mis-statement and myth revealed in these books, and to suggest why they are fallacious, using current archaeological data about copper mining as counterpoint. The copper myths include two major themes that have plagued archaeological thinking since the nineteenth century: who were the miners and where is all the copper? These themes are part of a general widespread myth that began several centuries ago, about the origins of North American indigenous people, a myth which is also responsible for racist judgments about the sophistication of indigenous American technologies (Williams 1991:23-24). The tenacity of this myth in the face of archaeological evidence is rather difficult to explain. Williams suggests that its appeal is in part based on nationalism, on ethnic pride, and on a deep-felt pan-human trait in which “strength of belief is paramount over strength of evidence” (Williams 1991:24). I recommend that you take a look at the Williams book for a very complete and entertaining account of the histories of marginal hypotheses and fantasies in archaeological inquiry.
The Enigmatic and Inscrutable Copper Culture People
MYTH: Turning now to the question of who the copper culture people were, a primary misstatement is that the copper was worked by a “virtually unknown race of people” (Sodders 1990:12).
FACT: Who, indeed, is this unknown race? Martians following Dr. Spock and the crew of the starship Enterprise? The race, if you are willing to use such a misapplied term, that is responsible for the prehistoric copper exploitation of Michigan, is none other than the race that discovered the continent, the indigenous American Indians. There are no discontinuities in biological variation in the Upper Great Lakes or in the rest of the Americas for that matter. There is unbroken continuity in populations, based on skeletal and artifact evidence, in the Upper Great Lakes, and there is absolutely no evidence that there is anything unusual or biologically separate about the populations that lived in the Upper Great Lakes during prehistory. To conclude otherwise is clearly a part of someone’s separate reality. The trouble with this mystifying statement is that it also suggests that there is some scientific basis for drawing discrete racial boundaries based on archaeological information. This conclusion is absolutely false.
Actual studies of the archaeological record in Michigan tell a completely different story. Archaeological research on the national forests of the Upper Peninsula, at the region’s national parks, by the Michigan Archaeological Society, and by Michigan’s universities during the past few years expanded our understanding of prehistoric site locations, both of mining and camp sites, of the many prehistoric copper-using cultures in our region. The National Park Service supported five years of historic and prehistoric research on Isle Royale from 1985-1990, expanded the site location data base, tested many sites, and monitored conditions at others. Major research reports, journal articles, paper presentations and one dissertation are the collective result. This systematic and extensive research program expanded our knowledge about prehistoric pottery-using people, and turned up no evidence, anywhere, of non-native exploitation of prehistoric copper (Clark 1988; Clark 1990; Clark 1991; Martin 1988a; Martin 1988b; Martin 1990; Martin, Martin and Gregory 1994).
MYTH: The second misstatement has to do with the duration of the prehistoric mining era, which is quoted to last from 3000 B.C. to 900 A.D. (Sodders 1990:12).
FACT: The duration of prehistoric mining is really much longer than this rough estimate. The dates and ranges of time for prehistoric copper use are really from about seven thousand years ago to protohistoric times. Suites of dates from the Upper Peninsula and nearby areas make it clear that the age of the use of copper lasts longer and extends farther than Sodders suggests. It does NOT extend as far as Phoenicia or the European Bronze Age, however! There is a growing cluster of sites with dates in the range of 7 thousand years ago, found at South Fowl Lake, MN; Lac LaBelle, MI and Oconto, WI (Beukens 1992; Martin 1993; (Mason 1981). There are at least three sites with typologically old lithics in the company of copper: at Itasca, MN; at sites in the Deer Lake, MI area; and at sites in the North Lakes region, WI (Clark 1991; Salzer 1974; Shay 1971). While certainly provisional at present, it is possible that copper-working is associated with sites of PaleoIndian and/or Early Archaic technology northwest of the Superior basin as well (Steinbring 1991).
MYTH: The third misstatement has to do with repeated suggestions of Old World contact, such as in the following two segments: “This new wave of “open-mindedness” brought additional scientific theories regarding the Copper Culture people. It was further believed that a Norse King named Woden-lithi left his mark near Toronto in the year 1700 B.C. He left behind petroglyphs and writings to indicate his visit was a trading mission for a well-established copper trade that was known to have existed in the Lake Superior Region some 1000 years before his visit. Evidently the Keweenaw copper industry was well established when the Norse King paid North America a visit!” (Sodders 1990:13) and “it appears entire flotillas of Norse, Baltic and Celtic ships crossed the Atlantic to enter into trade wars with the Algonquians for rich mineral deposits” (Sodders 1990:14).
FACT: There is absolutely no archaeological evidence that anyone but indigenous Americans and subsequent French, British and Euro-American miners took copper from the Keweenaw. In contrast to speculative stuff and nonsense, here’s an actual archaeological fact to consider: all cultures make garbage! Show me some Norse garbage reliably dated to 1700 B.C. in the Toronto area in pristine context and I’ll sign on readily in support of these hypotheses! What does it take to support them? Archaeological data! It’s not much to ask, given the firm conclusions that have been reached by some authors. If these conclusions are to be accepted by science, scientific standards of skeptical inquiry must be upheld. Otherwise it’s archaeo-illogic, not archaeology. Large-scale migrations leave evidence: witness the global evidence of the expansion of European technologies during the fifteenth-sixteenth century A.D. If Bronze Age folks transported themselves to North America there’d be something left behind as material evidence. Anyone who’s ever been on a prehistoric archaeological site in the Upper Great Lakes knows what levels of trash can be generated by low-level-consumer cultures such as those of American prehistory. Why, in contrast to everyone else in world history, are these alleged Bronze Age people so neat, tidy, and garbage-free?
The competent excavation of many prehistoric archaeological sites in the Lake Superior basin reveals the continuous use of copper throughout the prehistoric time range, in association with all of the other items of material culture (projectile points, pottery and the like) that are without a doubt the products of native technologies. Many of these sites have been dated reliably by radiocarbon means (Table 1). Clearly, copper-working continues up until the years of aboriginal contact with seventeenth-century Europeans. The speculators could at least acknowledge these facts rather than pretend that the association of copper with indigenous people doesn’t exist. The fact is, the campsites of indigenous peoples of the Upper Great Lakes contain everything consistent with a long-lived continuous regional hunting/gathering/fishing adaptation, and contain nothing attributable to European cultures until the seventeenth century A.D.
MYTH: The fourth misstatement: a quiet racism extolling the abilities of the Old World peoples and implicitly denigrating the accomplishments of New World indigenous peoples.
“At a much later period many of these early visitors eventually settled permanently in the Americas. Some, it has been said, mingled with local native tribes…From a realistic point of view, the Bronze Age produced races of people that were definitely not only literate, but also well educated. Here in the New World they left behind a lasting legacy containing rock inscriptions …”(Sodders 1990:14).
FACT: The implication here is that intellectual achievement, writing and education are allegedly related to biological mixtures of European genes. This reasoning is false and so are its implications. In addition, the alleged inscriptions and their ‘translations’ are without evidence (Williams 1991:285). In fact, indigenous metal-working technologies are incredibly sophisticated, and this sophistication has been repeatedly documented over the past century, beginning at least with F. H. Cushing (Cushing 1894). More recently, experimental studies have provided much information on the formation of prehistoric copper artifacts. Studies of copper materials through scanning electron microscopy and other metallographic studies are informing more and more about the sequential physical changes that hammering, cold working and annealing bring about in copper artifacts, and the sophistication of the varied technologies involved. There is a vast body of accessible data about these processes (Childs 1994; Leader 1988; Vernon 1986).
MYTH: Fifth, a misunderstanding of Ojibwa folk tales and world view, as revealed in the following quote. “Let me add quickly that these fables more or less afford positive proof against the possibility that early Indian races were the original ancient copper mining people”(Sodders 1990:15).
FACT: Fortunately there is an extensive body of scholarship about Ojibwa myth and world view related to copper (Bourgeois 1994; Hamell 1987, Vecsey 1983). This information is easy to come by; in a recent quick count I found at least seventeen authors who deal with the general mythology of the Lake Superior Ojibwa. Scholars conclude that Ojibwa myths demonstrate that the indigenous peoples of this region are the copper users, which of course is supported by archaeological evidence of worked copper in virtually all of their prehistoric camp sites in the Lake Superior basin. Everywhere around the world, cultures record myths about their environmental surroundings and imbue them with power. In the case of the Lake Superior basin, powerful mythic underwater creatures or manitous were believed to control copper and other resources, including animals used for food, good weather for fishing, etc., which were dispensed or held back depending on immediate circumstances, those being the negotiated terms of exchange with humans. Power, after all, is double-edged and can be used for good or for bad; sometimes these underwater creatures tipped over canoes and drowned their occupants, and other times calmed the waters after receiving appropriate tokens of appreciation from humans, such as sacrificed dogs, tobacco, cloth and the like. Sodders apparently connects the down-side of this double-edged power with Ojibwa stories about avoiding copper localities, and concludes that the indigenous people of the region couldn’t be the copper users. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is, the manitous and their powers according to Ojibwa myth are seen as an extension of the human social world. Humans and not-so-humans strive to influence each other through ritual exchange (Hamell 1987:68-70) in which copper was one medium among many. Power was also believed to reside in copper itself, according to Ojibwa myth ( (Kohl 1956). Copper was considered by some to contain powerful medicine, a great medium for ritual exchange, that brought wealth, health and well-being (Barnouw 1977:133). This is probably why it was worn by and buried with children (Heckenberger 1990;, Hruska 1967). In addition, contact-era Ojibwa people had every reason to dissemble about the locations of copper deposits and their significance. After all, powerful strangers were trying to gain access to Ojibwa lands, primarily to extract culturally-valued resources. Why aid and abet this attempted seizure by revealing everything about copper? There is nothing inconsistent about the myths regarding copper and native use of it; in fact copper use is completely consistent with the Ojibwa world view and with the archaeological record of the basin.
MYTH: The language used betrays a misunderstanding of geology and geological processes. For example, the Ontonagon Boulder is referred to as “that freak mass of pure copper” (Sodders 1990:17). Later on, another trumped-up mystery is presented: “even hidden copper veins that did not directly surface as mineral outcroppings were previously tapped by these people from the past…one can but speculate as to this early race’s inscrutable method of ore detection” (1990:28).
FACT: Native copper deposits come in may forms, from filling linear fissures, to conglomerate deposits, to amygdaloid deposits. Each is useful, but requires differing extraction and treatment routines to make it so. Mass copper is not unusual at all; Sodders herself documents many other mass occurrences as do other early chroniclers. It’s also well-known that geological copper appears in systematic patterns with indicator rock and typical land forms nearby; there is no cause to prescribe ‘inscrutability’ to this fact of geology. It’s quite possible that native cultures were better at finding copper than Europeans were, seeing as how the indigenous peoples had been adapting to their home region for 6000 years or more!
There is also an extensive body of materials science literature which documents the expansion of our knowledge base about local sources of copper, by relating the elemental composition of beds of copper to regional trace element profiles, as well as by linking the trace elements in individual artifacts to geological sources of similar elemental content. These methods are very successful in distinguishing European from native copper, alloys of copper from the metal in its native state, and smelted copper from cold hammered materials (Childs 1994; Hancock 1991; Rapp 1984). By these means, it’s relatively easy to demonstrate the eventual shift to European metals and technology which, sadly for the Atlantic neo-diffusionists, occurs in the first quarter of the seventeenth century in the Upper Great Lakes rather than during anyone’s Bronze Age.
MYTH: Attributing strangeness, or “other-ness,” to the copper miners is an essential element in the copper myth, as we have seen earlier. One colleague refers to this as the “pygmy Phoenician” phenomenon (Mark Hill, personal communication, 1994). Other standard elements in the copper mythology are fantastic accounts of the alleged laborious feats of copper extraction: “What gang of primitive workers labored so diligently to raise this ponderous weight some five feet plus off the floor of that early mining pit? Better yet, one cannot help but marvel at the standards by which they accomplished this super-incredible feat” (Sodders 1990:22), and “Who were the common people who performed this almost impossible feat of labor? Once more, was slave labor employed?” (1990:30).
FACT: They were very ordinary people indeed! That’s because they were not pygmy Phoenician voyageur slaves but indigenous Americans. I know that this is a shocking statement for a lot of people but some were probably women. Turning away from obsessions with mining feats, and looking at copper-working in situ, gives insight into the social framework of copper fabrication technologies. If one considers the manufacture and manipulation of the most numerous and long-lived copper artifact type, the bead, some rather interesting possibilities arise. For example, the contents of the excavated copper cache at 20KE20 (Martin 1993) suggest a woman’s tool kit for copper bead fabrication as well as other probable gender-specific tasks such as food preparation and skin-working. The artifacts of interest are awls and an ulu, both of which are regularly connected with women’s subsistenceactivities (Penman 1977); Thomas Pleger, personal communication 1995). The beads of the cache represent a range of sizes and manufacturing techniques, and were probably prepared for a variety of wearers, including children. Archaeologists, after all, try to connect real materials, recovered archaeologically, with real human social behavior, rather than with feats of imaginary brute strength by imaginary invaders.
MYTH: The mythmakers now approach their major challenge. How do they explain away the fact that there’s absolutely no material evidence to support their speculations about Bronze Age exploitation, about Old World import/export trade in copper, about flotillas of Phoenicians? This is a snap for these inventive people! You simply turn logic on its head, and use the lack of evidence itself as explanation! There are three avenues of alleged explanation offered: one, nineteenth century mining destroyed the ancient evidence; two, the enigmatic miners were so inscrutable that they never left anything behind to begin with; and three, a _subsequent_ mystery race scavenged everything of use! “Additionally, these ancient people left no dead, no household goods, no pottery…no apparent cultural evidence was discovered to provide clues to this timeworn puzzle. Remember….workers just seemed to walk right off their jobs!” (Sodders 1990:32-33). “It is indeed evident that these mysterious people came to the Copper Country, worked thousands of these copper pits, over an undetermined number of years, took out vast hoards of copper, then as baffling as it may seem, mysteriously just disappeared, leaving their tools exactly where they lay” (1990:18). And “Sadly to say, early prospectors and subsequent mine workers literally destroyed most of these ancient pits and primitive tools” (1990:27). Finally, “Why have the temporary camp sites at least, never been located? Were these itinerant villages perhaps looted by a later race of people who in turn removed anything and everything they deemed of value, leaving behind just the cumbersome stone hammers, mauls and other mining equipment?” (1990:37-38).
FACT: I agree that prehistory has disappeared from our immediate view. All that is left of prehistory is its irreplaceable artifact evidence and the contexts in which that evidence is found. These are all the data archaeologists have to go on; they are extremely fragile and admittedly incomplete. But all known archaeological deposits in Michigan are consistent with long-lived adaptations of indigenous American people. The native people of the Upper Great Lakes did leave burials, villages, and pottery, which constitute the prehistoric archaeological record of this state. No number of invented inscrutable mythic races can undo this archaeological fact. Contrary to what is suggested in the preceding paragraph, the remains of the prehistoric copper cultures are not all destroyed, at least not yet. However they are very threatened by shoreline development, by construction plans of all kinds, and mostly by thoughtless and selfish metal-detecting and illegal collecting of copper artifacts.
A Mathematical Mystery Tour, or the Prehistoric Numbers Game
Now we turn to the second major theme in the copper culture myth, that of the dogma of the missing copper. Where did all the copper go? This theme is formulated on a calculus of mythic arithmetic, a prehistoric numbers game! The mythic calculations involve the numbers and depths of copper extraction pits, the numbers and weights of stone hammers, the percentage volume of copper per mining pit, the numbers of miners, and the years of mining duration. Ultimately, the mix of these numbers yields the alleged total amount of extracted prehistoric copper, that being in the range of 1 to 1.5 billion pounds. It’s difficult to attribute this branch of mathematics to any one individual, but if there’s credit to be given, it should be given first to Drier and Du Temple (Drier and Du Temple 1961) and then to a Chicago-area writer named Henrietta Mertz, who lays out her numerology proposals in a book entitled Atlantis: Dwelling Place of the Gods (Mertz 1967). In contrast, I propose that none of these numbers, save those related to the weight of the hammers, are actually knowable in an empirical sense. We’ll start then on our firmest ground, the weights of the hammers.
MYTH: A primary aspect of the mathematical mystery tour is the use of numbers, most unreferenced as to source, to present what is supposed to pass as scientific substance to claims of prehistoric mining feats. The following account of the myth also includes the doctrine of the grooved versus the ungrooved hammers. “Rudimentary mining activities existed with the use of crude 20-pound stone hammers. Oddly enough, the hammers found on the mainland were grooved, to be held in place by perhaps a thong of sorts, while those discovered in the Isle Royale pits, were nongrooved…perhaps handheld” (Sodders 1990:17-18). “….the hammers averaged from 6 to 8 pounds and measured approximately 8 inches in length. On one occasion, a maul was recorded to have weighed a hefty 39 1/2 pounds and subsequently was fitted with two grooves instead of the normal one” (1990:27). “On one occasion at the Island’s Minong Mine location, over 1000 tons of stone hammers were found, representing a staggering tool count of some 200,000 to 300,000 items” (1990:27).
FACT: Until recently only Tyler Bastian and Burton Straw had ever, to my knowledge, counted, weighed and measured large collections of hammerstones from the mainland and the island and documented hammerstone characteristics (Bastian 1963; Straw 1962). Looking at a collection of 193 hammers from Isle Royale, Bastian reported that ca. 5% were grooved, such as the one illustrated in Figure 3[omitted], collected from an archaeological deposit at the Siskowit Mine on Isle Royale. In a related study, two-thirds of hammers measured from the mainland were found to be grooved (Straw 1962). According to Bastian, it is very difficult to “distinguish slightly modified, or heavily weathered, hammerstones, from ordinary cobbles and boulders…” (Bastian 1963:288). Bastian states that it is possible that reports of very heavy hammerstones are a result of mis-identifying ordinary beach cobbles as hammers; he also states that there may be two size classes of hammerstones on Isle Royale (1963:289-290). Weights in Bastian’s study ranged from 1 1/2 to 26 pounds. Additional work on hammerstones was carried out this year at Michigan Tech (Sieders 1995) on a collection of hammerstones (n = 82) taken from the Mass City, Michigan area. In this collection, the weights of the hammers ranged from 11 ounces to 17 pounds, and greater than 80% of the collection weighed less than 4 pounds. Sieders also suggests that there may be two kinds of hammerstones, to accomplish two different mining functions. What’s important to learn is this: not only are the actual weights much reduced from the estimated ones, but also the measurements taken from these hammerstone studies are replicable and verifiable, as opposed to estimated and repeated as gospel. In addition, the unsubstantiated grooved/ungrooved dogma falls, and it’s about time.
MYTH: Other elements that are found in many copper culture myths are mantra-like repetitions of numbers that combine the head count of miners, a time duration of mining, and mining pit counts into an algorithm of total exploited copper. “Furthermore it is believed that as many as 10,000 miners, labored some 1000-plus years, in an estimated 10,000 Copper Range pits” (Sodders 1990:30). Essentially the same mathematical alchemy is reported by Drier and Du Temple, who add that the total amount of removed copper approaches 1 to 1.5 billion pounds:
“If one assumes that an average pit is 20 feet in diameter and 30 feet deep, then it appears that something like 1000 to 1200 tons of ore were removed per pit. If the ore averaged five percent, or 100 pounds per ton then approximately 100,000 pounds of copper were removed per pit. If 5000 pits existed, as earlier estimates indicated (and all pits are copper bearing), then 100,000 pounds per pit in 5000 pits means that 500,000,000 pounds of copper were mined in prehistoric times – all of it without anything more than fire, stone hammers, and manpower. If the ore sampled 15 percent, and if more than 5000 pits existed, then over 1.5 billion pounds of copper were mined (Drier and Du Temple 1961:17).
Henriette Mertz tells it more plainly and lays culpability at the toes of the archaeological profession: “This incredible amount of copper has not been accounted for by American archaeologists ….. the sum total according to archaeological findings here in the States amounts to a mere handful of copper beads and trinkets…..float copper. Five hundred thousand tons of pure copper does not disintegrate into thin air. It cannot be sneezed away……it must be somewhere, and to date, it has not been located in the United States,” and “99.9% is still to be accounted for” (Mertz 1976:18). Mertz concludes, of course, that the copper was disappeared by Old World Bronze Age metal mongers.
FACT: The figures are made up out of thin air and can be sneezed away. That’s because no one has a means to measure any of these variables accurately or with any precision. All of these figures are built on ill-constructed estimates. Let’s examine the variable “percentage of copper in the trap rock” as an example. Clearly, the actual percentage of copper in rock varies from none (plain old rock) to one hundred percent (Ontonagon Boulder). Additionally, while the course of copper in trap rock is somewhat predictable, the amount of copper isn’t necessarily constant or even regular. Many failed mining concerns of the nineteenth century found out this fact of geology the hard way! The counts of copper pits, the sizes of pits, and the weight of removed trap are 1) either arbitrarily-chosen numbers, or 2) variable in reality; despite this they are used as constants in the algorithm. Drier and Du Temple used a constant for copper percentage (error) and then multiply it by an estimated number of pits (error inherent) of a constant size (error), counting some and extrapolating to unknown areas (another error). Because we know that pits are not randomly but systematically located, excavated and followed, it makes no sense to extend their probable locations to unknown areas unless one is willing to accomodate enormous errors. In these algorithms, error compounds error compounds error. The resultant sums are a statement of faith, not fact; the numerologists may as well be counting angels dancing on heads of pins.
Can We Agree with the Mythmakers on Anything?
After all this complaining, can we agree at all with the generators and perpetrators of these myths? Why, yes, as a matter of fact. There are two statements Sodders makes that I’d go to the wall for as a professional archaeologist. One is this: There are a good number of things scientists know (and admittedly, don’t know)…” (1990:12). This is absolutely the fact; in fact it’s the key to differentiating science from non-science. Scientists subject their pet hypotheses to rigorous testing, and proclaim all conclusions to be provisional: that is, temporary, always subject to disproof by new discoveries. Our knowledge of prehistory is incomplete, and everybody I know in this endeavor would jump to acknowledge that fact. While I am so far confident that no evidence to date undermines the conclusion that indigenous Americans mined copper, we must, as scientists, hold to the principle that we will change our tunes when presented with novel and compelling data, such as reliably dated Norse (or Bronze Age or Phoenician) garbage in pristine context! Those data, of course, will also be subjected to rigorous skeptical scrutiny, and so on forever. All scientific conclusions are temporary and contingent. It’s as simple as that. Mistakes are made when pet conclusions are upheld despite the power of contradictory data. This is the sort of error that is being perpetuated by archaeo-illogical books.
Now on to the second statement with which Sodders will find wide agreement amongst archaeologists: “The ancient prehistory copper pits found along the 120-mile Copper Range of the Keweenaw Peninsula represent one of the most unique aspects of prehistoric remains found in Michigan today” (1990:21). I’d actually go beyond this to state that Michigan’s prehistoric mining data are unique in the world. Their discovery, description and explanation make an exciting story, one of which the citizens of this region can be rightfully proud and of which they should all be aware. There is no need to cloak this story in mystery to make it interesting; all that mythic silly chatter does is generate misinformation. Sadly in that pursuit, the true value of the archaeological record, to inform us about our unique past, is forgotten and ignored. In my opinion, it is the duty of the professional archaeological corps to make accessible their collective findings about the past and thereby to build public support for the study of archaeology and the conservation of the archaeological record. This is a task too important to leave to casual authors.
Given its global significance, it is particularly important that the archaeological record be carefully preserved in our state. Archaeological fieldwork and data collection, as other forms of scholarship, can be slow, unrewarding, lonely and somewhat tedious processes and are not pastimes for the fainthearted, nor for the untrained. Thoughtless searching for artifacts, or excavation without training, can ruin the unique and fragile record of the past. But many interesting discoveries continue to be made about prehistory in our unique region. Some of these discoveries forever change our way of thinking about the past; others are rather mundane and predictable. Most archaeologists, professional and avocational alike, only take part in the latter kind of discovery. But all valid archaeological discoveries and scientific conclusions about them are based on material evidence, first and foremost. The Michigan Archaeological Society plays a critical role in the discovery and documentation of the story of Michigan’s past, a role that we can continue if we expand our base of support while replacing a frivolous story with one full of the richness of scientific inquiry, and disseminating that story to the public.
Acknowledgments. This paper is a revision of an address presented to the 1995 Annual Meeting of the Michigan Archaeological Society, East Lansing, Michigan, April 23, 1995. I’d like to thank Scott Beld for encouraging me to submit these thoughts to The Michigan Archaeologist for publication. Thanks to Mark Hill for introducing the pgymy Phoenicians to Michigan archaeology.
Department of Social Sciences/Archaeology Lab Michigan Technological University Houghton MI 49931
Barnouw, Victor 1977 Wisconsin Chippewa myths and stories. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
Bastian, Tyler J. 1963 Prehistoric copper mining in Isle Royale National Park, Michigan. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Beukens, R.P., L.A. Pavlish, R.G.V. Hancock, R.M. Farquhar, G.C. Wilson, P.J. Julig and W. Ross 1992 Radiocarbon dating of copper-preserved organics. Radiocarbon 34 (3):890-897.
Bourgeois, Arthur P. 1994 Ojibwa Narratives of Charles and Charlotte Kawbawgam and Jacques LePique, 1893-1895, recorded with notes by Homer H. Kidder. Wayne State University Press, Detroit.
Childs, S. Terry 1994 Native copper technology and society in eastern North America, in Archaeometry of Pre-Columbian sites and artifacts: proceedings of a symposium organized by the UCLA Institute of Archaeology and the Getty Conservation Institute, edited by David A. Scott and Pieter Meyers, pp. 229-253. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
Clark, Caven P. 1988 Survey and testing at Isle Royale National Park, 1987 season. Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, Lincoln, NE. 1990 Archeological survey and testing at Isle Royale National Park, 1986-1990 Seasons. Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, Lincoln, NE. 1991 Group composition and the role of unique raw materials in the Terminal Woodland substage of the Lake Superior basin. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Cushing, Frank H. 1894 Primitive copper working: an experimental study. American Anthropologist 7:93-117.
Drier, Roy W. and Octave J. Du Temple 1961 Prehistoric copper mining in the Lake Superior region: a collection of reference articles. Published privately, Calumet, MI and Hinsdale, IL.
Griffin, James B. 1961 Lake Superior copper and the Indians: miscellaneous studies of Great Lakes prehistory. Anthropological Papers 17. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Hamell, George R. 1987 Mythical realities and European contact in the Northeast during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Man in the Northeast 33:63-87.
Hancock, R.G.V., L.A. Pavlish, R.M. Farquhar, R. Salloum, W.A. Fox, and G.C. Wilson 1991 Distinguishing European trade copper and northeastern North American native copper. Archaeometry 33(1): 69-86.
Heckenberger, Michael, James Peterson, Louise Basa, Ellen Cowie, Arthur Spiess, and Robert Stuckenrath 1990 Early Woodland period mortuary ceremonialism in the far northeast: a view from the Boucher cemetery. Archaeology of Eastern North America 18:109-144.
Hruska, Robert 1967 The Riverside site: A Late Archaic manifestation in Michigan. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 48 (3):145- 260.
Kohl, Johann G. 1956 Kitchi-Gami: wanderings round Lake Superior. Ross and Haines, Inc., Minneapolis, MN.
Leader, Jonathan M 1988 Technological continuities and specialization in prehistoric metalwork in the eastern United States. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
MacDonald, Cathy 1994 Kids ‘n’ digs: programs that target all grades. Archaeology and Public Education 5 (2):5-7.
Martin, Patrick E. 1988a Historic sites investigations, 1987. Michigan Technological University, submitted to MWAC, National Park Service, Lincoln, NE. 1988b Technical report on archaeological survey and evaluation, Isle Royale National Park, 1986. Archaeology Laboratory, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI. 1990 Mining on Minong: copper mining on Isle Royale. Michigan History 74 (3) (May/June):19-25.
Martin, Patrick E., Susan R. Martin, and Michael Gregory 1994 Technical report: 1987-1988, Isle Royale archaeology. Report of Investigations 16. Michigan Technological University Archaeology Laboratory, Houghton, MI.
Martin, Susan R., ed. 1993 20KE20: excavations at a prehistoric copper workshop. The Michigan Archaeologist 39 (3- 4):127-193.
Mason, Ronald J. 1981 Great Lakes archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Mertz, Henriette 1967 Atlantis: dwelling place of the gods. Privately published, Chicago.
Penman, John 1977 The Old Copper culture: an analysis of Old Copper artifacts. The Wisconsin Archeologist 58 (1):3-23.
Rapp, G., E. Henrickson and J. Allert 1984 Trace element discrimination of discrete sources of native copper, in Archaeological Chemistry III, edited by J. Lambert, pp. 273-294. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.
Salzer, Robert J. 1974 The Wisconsin North Lakes project: a preliminary report, in Aspects of Upper Great Lakes prehistory: papers in honor of Lloyd A. Wilford, edited by Elden Johnson, pp. 40-54. Minnesota Prehistoric Archaeology Series 11. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, MN.
Shay, C. Thomas 1971 The Itasca bison kill site: an ecological analysis. Minnesota Prehistoric Archaeology Series 6. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, MN.
Sieders, Barbara 1995 Aboriginal copper mining: stone hammers. Ms. on file at the Archaeology Laboratory, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI.
Sodders, Betty 1990 Michigan prehistory mysteries. Avery Color Studios, Au Train. Michigan.
Sodders, Betty 1991 Michigan prehistory mysteries II. Avery Color Studios, Au Train, Michigan.
Steinbring, Jack 1991 Early copper artifacts in western Manitoba. Manitoba Archaeological Quarterly 1 (1):25-61.
Straw, Burton 1962 Copper mining hammerstones from Upper Michigan. The Wisconsin Archeologist 43 (3):76.
Vecsey, Christopher 1983 Traditional Ojibwa religion and its historical changes. The American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.
Vernon, W.W. 1986 New perspectives on the archaeometallurgy of the Old Copper industry. MASCA Journal 3 (5):154-163.
Williams, Stephen 1991 Fantastic archaeology: the wild side of North American prehistory. The University of Pennsylvania Press, Phildelphia.
Dr. Susan R. Martin Program in Industrial History and Archaeology Michigan Technological University Houghton MI 49931-1295 US of A
Return to Doug’s archaeology site
Katharine E. Wilkie (1904-1980) was the author of Atlantis, a general overview of theories relating to Plato’s lost ‘island’.
The historicity of Ramayana
by Neil Kiriella
While studying Ramayana to find proof of its historicity I was taken aback to find that Valmiki had recorded that a huge part of Rawana’s Kingdom; Lankapura, submerged overnight after his death. Some theories helped me in my study of Valmiki’s Lankapura and Plato’s writings; Timaeus and Critias in which he presents, a portrayal of perfect society that lived millenniums before the traditional Greek times.
|Valmiki, The author of Ramayana.|
The word by which Plato described Atlantis is ‘Nesos’; it’s the Greek word for ‘island’. As such Atlantis is not a continent but an island.
Some western scholars who explore on lost civilisations hide facts of India and surface Egypt and Sumeria. These scholars instead of placing the Veddhas above or equal to the Egyptian Pyramids reduced them to the ratings of ignorant Nomads of Central Asia. It has to be accepted that it is India which preserved ancient human legacy; both material and spiritual. The Indian archaeological relics are among the largest and oldest in the world.
For nearly five generations the majority of the Mid Western and Asian nations were colonies of the British Empire.
The empire faced severe management uncertainty and needed a specific device to control. After much effort in 1824 ‘The royal Asiatic Society’ was formed and regulated all cultures under their control and misconstrued the authentic history of Mid Western and Asian countries.
Plato, in 2373 BCE wrote Timaeus and Critias relevant to Atlantis. Since then references on Atlantis was based on Plato’s writings. The word Atlantis was more a household word to western scholars than Lankapura. Yet, millenniums before Plato, Valmiki, the biographer of Rama in 7612 BCE recorded in his compilation Ramayana, that Rawana’s kingdom, Lankapura partly submerged due to a geological calamity overnight after Rawana’s death. Plato described this in his script Timaeus and Critias in 360 BCE.
The western scholars having known of Valmiki’s Ramayana; and its contents called it a myth and highlighted Plato’s scripts which described the identical event. Whenever a study for a submerged land surfaced they referred to Plato’s scripts and searched for Atlantis in the Atlantic Ocean; though there was much valid pre-historical evidence in Valmiki’s Ramayana, I leave this particular point to the readers to come to an unbiased conclusion.
Why did Plato call Greece, Athens and its populace Athenians instead of calling them Greeks? The followers of the Buddha and Christ are called Buddhists and Christians, respectively, irrespective of their ethnicity.
As such it is correct to call the followers of Goddess Athena, Athenians. She was the Goddess whom they revered while living near Saraswathi River before it dried up. The Greeks treasured her so much so that the capital of Greece is named in her honour, as Athens.
Plato’ believed that Egyptians got the information from Hindus. Valmiki recorded in Ramayana the sinking of a massive island in a night and identified it as Lankapura. He stated that its populace was greatly skilled in irrigation and engineering.
Plato too described all these skills. In other words whatever Valmiki detailed in Ramayana, Plato too had detailed it in his scripts.
When studying Ramayana a mystery arises. It’s whether Plato had a copy of Ramayana or whether he heard it orally or as a philosopher whether he had clairvoyance. Or else, how did he detail all what was found in Ramayana in his Timaeus and Critias.
Rig Veda refers to Lankapura as Rutas and depicts its people as Asuras; sun-worshippers, teetotallers, vegetarians and agriculturists who worked with nature. Rawana their Emperor was a great monarch but had two deadly weaknesses, arrogance and women. Due to them Rawana became evil and cruel.
Plato called this submerged island Atlantis, and Homer called it Troy. Plato and Homer were Greeks and they were unaware of their beginnings. What is Plato’s account? Atlantis was a great island and its control extended beyond the ‘Pillars of Hercules’. He recalls the superior culture that existed 10,000 years ago that had a powerful navy that dominated Africa and Western Europe but their kingdom partly submerged overnight. Plato’s Atlantis was close to where his ancestors lived 10,000 years ago. According to surfaced facts they are a group of Indo-Europeans that migrated to Greece.
Sanskrit grammarian Panini confirms that Greeks were in India and helped him to compile grammar but grammatical traditions do not exist in Greece.
The Greek historian Megasthenes identified Hercules, as the Hindu God Krishna. Is it a twist of fate or Indian authority on Greeks? Hercules (Krishna) as such it can be argued, talks of India. By the word pillar did Plato indicate the island in the south east of India, Sri Lanka?
The name Lemuria was first used in 1864 by zoologist Phillip L. Sclater who took hold of the word from Lemur (monkey) from Madagascar. None knew how the animal got to India.
Thus in honour of Lemurs it was named Lemuria by zoologist Phillip L. Sclater for reasons known to him.
Though some call Ramayana a legend, yet, there are many academics, literary pundits and historians who declare that Ramayana is historical. They base their claim on the rock inscriptions and places of historical and legendary importance in Sri Lanka pertaining to Rama – Seetha and Rawana. Rawana’s kingdom is accepted, as Sri Lanka.
The pre-Mahavamsa kingdom of Emperor Rawana in the deep-southeast of Sri Lanka in closeness to Arugambay was sunken by a tragic earthquake, volcanic eruption or tsunami and was destroyed overnight and was detailed by Valmiki who lived long enough to record Rama’s life to its end.
This geological disaster surfaces evidence that the ‘Rawana Kingdom’ existed. The light houses in the deep south east of Sri Lanka were built on its leftovers. Is Sri Lanka the remaining part of the sunken island? There is realistic evidence that the present Sri Lanka as the remainder of the submerged island, as illustrated by Ramayana and Plato’s Timaeus and Critias.
Danish marine archaeologists discovered a large submerged (475,000 sq kms) landmass in the deep south east of Sri Lanka at Godawaya, on March 14, 2009.
It is the celebrated lost island of Lankapura called Irisiyawa in Lankan legends closely linked to the culture and history of Sri Lankans. This proves the location of the much explored Lankapura – Atlantis – Lemuria.
The world was started in the 1930s by the claim of a Hungarian scientist, who lived in Paris. Easter island’s Rongo-rongo has derived from the Indus Valley script of 2082 BCE, or even prior to it. A script similar to the Indus-script has been found on Easter island.
The Indians had a vast amount of influence and power in the pre-history. A remarkable Easter island legend says; ‘The first race that invented the Rongo-rongo writing, wrote on stone. Four parts of the world at one time were occupied by them and this race still exists in Asia. Interestingly, Mohenjo Daro and Easter island lie almost exactly 180 degrees.
Evidence strongly suggests that the origins of Greeks and Indo Europeans were in India.
The spread of Indo-European culture around the world can be explained as, “The spreading of the Vedic culture throughout the world due to the widespread sea trade links the Indus Valley civilisation had globally”.
Greeks and Indians are linked by their deities, philosophy, medical systems and social structure. Greeks originated in India and their distant memories were Indian.
The Indian philosophy is much older than the Greek philosophy. How did it appear in Greece abruptly? The answer is that the Greeks were in India and migrated out of India after the drying up of the Saraswathi River around 2200 BCE.
Present Geological researchers confirm that there was a severe drought for three centuries around 2200 BCE, which severely affected civilisations in India, West Asia, and North Africa. With all this new persuasive historical findings the historians have pushed the Vedic era to the Indus Valley civilisation. The data prove that the Indo-Eruopeans including the Greeks were in India and migrated around 2200 BCE.
Rama – Rawana war
The Greeks who were living in India were less-urban and more agrarian in the Mahabharata age around 3000 BCE.
If 7612 BCE is the correct timing of Ramayana, this is when the war between India and Lanka took place. Ramayana refers to it as Rama-Rawana war. Plato held that Atlantis (Lanka) attacked Athens (India), which name derived from Goddess Athena.
Though Plato is certain that Atlantis (Lanka) attacked Athens (India) we have to accept Valmiki’s recording in Ramayana as Athens (India) attacked Atlantis (Lanka) as he recorded all events as it happened.
The war erupted between these two countries as Rawana abducted Seetha, Rama’s wife as hostage in revenge of Lakshamana; Seetha’s brother-in-Law attacking his sister Suparnika who was the governess in Dandaka-Aranya.
Astronomical dating places Ramayana to 9612 years.
It confirms that these happenings took place around 7612 BCE and is further confirmed by the dates quoted by Plato ‘when the war between Atlantis and Athens took place’.
The astronomical dating of Ramayana and other Vedic scriptures are honest, as the early Indians genuinely recorded them to date special events in their history, especially the birth of major kings.
Dr. Vartak confirms that Ramayana was written 9612 years ago, which is roughly 7612 BCE. The astronomical data given in Ramayana can be used positively to date the birth of King Rama.
The mystery of the history of Valmiki’s Lankapura, Rig Veda’s ruta, Plato’s Atlantis, what zoologist Phillip L. Sclater’s Lemuria come to an end with the discovery of 475,000 sq kms of landmass in the deep south-east of Sri Lanka by marine archaeologists. Historians have identified Valmiki’s Lankapura later called Atlantis or the submerged island in one night, as the present Sri Lanka of which a small portion remains. The following points are important to consider;
* The sinking of Lankapura (Atlantis) and Rama’s life history are detailed in Ramayana.
Valmiki recorded this island in the life history of Rama; the Ramayana. Valmiki is accurate because he recorded the incident as it happened. Plato referred to Atlantis very much later than Valmiki. As such we have accepted Valmiki’s version as more authentic.
Max Mueller’s made-up ‘Aryan Theory’ can be totally rejected. Indians originated in India.
The information collected from the excavations of the Indus Valley reveals that Vedic literature and the Indus Valley civilisation match. It confirms that the Indi-Europeans originated in India and migrated out of India. Therefore Greeks originated in India and their distant memories and legends are Indian.
The migration took place probably during the declining phase of the Indus Valley civilisation, when the Saraswathi River began to dry. It is now accepted geologically. During this phase we can find Indo-European cultures appearing in Central Asia and Europe.
The only record of Atlantis we have is from Plato. Its location is portrayed west of the Straits of Hercules. Plato himself did not visit Altantis. According to Megasthenes Hercules is Krishna.
Astronomical evidence confirms that the incident took place around 9612 BCE. It positively matches with Plato’s account of Atlantis and submerged on the date he assigns to it.
Thus, there stands very strong proof to accept that Atlantis is Sri Lanka. Thus, Plato did not make it up; it really existed.
Ramayan is the life history of Rama and it details many more incidents of Rama even after the submerging of Lankapura. As such it’s a historical chronicle.
In accordance with the evidence and facts surfaced, it can be considered Sri Lanka, as the much sought after location of Lankapura or Atlantis named Irisiyawa by the Lankans in pre-historical times and also referred to in Lankan epistle poems.
The evidence will compel the western scholars to admit that they are of a recent culture compared to the Asians and that the Asians dominated the primeval of the world.
The exact astronomical dating compiled by Valmiki, the writings of Greek Philosopher Plato and many others from the beginning of the 19th century provided guidance to locate it.
With the recent discovery of a submerged land in the deep-south east Lanka many credible theories have surfaced.
Accordingly, Sri Lanka is part of the submerged island. The submerged huge landmass is identified, on the meticulous leads given first by Valmiki and then by Plato.
Historians, archaeologists and scholars from the east and the west called Valmiki’s Ramayana an epic, a myth, a spiritual text but they completely overlooked the validity that it contained events of 9612 BCE recorded by Valmiki.
Tale or legend as a rule, shoots from some historical facts and so it is with Atlantis; identified in the deep south east of Sri Lanka and with it the Ramayana prophesy is evident. The truth is evident. Ramayana is the historical biography of Rama.
The writer is the Chairman, Sri Lanka Heritages Foundation. He participated in the Ramayana Festival and Conference held in Chennai, India recently.
A Chronology of Atlantis Location Theories and their Proponents
Apart from a few exceptions, I have arbitrarily excluded occultists, psychics and theosophists, as I believe that they generally have little of value to offer.
|Tertullian (160-220 AD)||Atlantic|
|Honorius Augustodunensis (Fl.1107-1140)
|Tomasso Garzoni (1549-1589)||Atlantic|
|1527||Bartolomé de las Casas||America|
|1530||Girolamo Fracastoro||West Indies|
|1553||Francisco Lopez de Gomara||America|
|1557/64||Francisco Cervantes de Salazar||America?|
|1561||Guillaume Postel||North America|
|1572||Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa||America|
|1578||Jean deSerres||The Holy Land|
|1580||Johannes Goropius Becanus||Andalusia|
|1592||Juan de Mariana||Spain|
|1595||Abraham Ortelius||North America|
|1600||Richard Hakluyt||West Indies|
|Johannes Bureus (1568-1652)||Sweden|
|François de laMothe laVayer (1588-1672)||Greenland|
|Isaac Vossius (1618-1689)||The Holy Land|
|1650||Gerardus Johannis Vossius||The Holy Land|
|1670||Johann C. Becmann||Atlantic|
|1673||José Pellicer de Ossau Salas||Andalusia|
|1679||Pierre Daniel Huet||The Holy Land|
|1685||G. K. Kirchmaier & Johann C.Bock||North Africa|
|1707||Johann Albert Fabricius||Holy Land|
|1715||Peter Van Eys||Holy Land|
|1717||J. Pitton de Tournefort||Atlantic|
|1726||Claude-Mathieu Olivier||Holy Land|
|1729||Charles César Baudelot de Dairval||Atlantic|
|1731||Heinrich Scharbau||Holy Land|
|1745||Hafer||Baltic Sea (Rugen)|
|1749||Nicolas Fréret||Syrtis Major (Libya)|
|1751||Johannes Jacobi Eurenius||Holy Land|
|1762||Carl Fredrich Baër||Holy Land|
|1768||Corneille DePauw||Central America|
|1769||Robert de Vaugondy||North America|
|1772/3||José Viera y Clavijo||Canaries, Azores etc.|
|1777||Charles de Brosses||Atlantic|
|1780||Guillaume T. F. Raynal||Atlantic|
|1778||Georges-Louis L. Buffon||Atlantic|
|1779||Delisle de Sales||The Caucasus|
|1781?||Court de Géblin||Corsica & Sardinia|
|1786||Jacques-Julien Bonnard||Holy Land|
|1788||Giovanni Rinaldo Carli||Atlantic|
|1796||Paul Felix Cabrera||Hispaniola|
|1801||Antoine Fabre d’Olivet||Mediterranean|
|1802||S. M. X. de Golbéry||Atlantic|
|1803||J.B. Bory de Saint Vincent||Canaries|
|1806||Charles Joseph deGrave||Netherlands/Belgium|
|1814||Ali Bey El Abassi||North Africa|
|1816||George Stanley Faber||Atlantic|
|1819||Pierre Andre Latreille||Attica|
|1829||J. H. McCulloh||Atlantic|
|1830||Heinrich-Julius von Klaproth||West. Mediterranean|
|1836||Constantine Samuel Rafinesque||America|
|1841||John Ramsay McCulloch||Central America|
|1847||Eugene Bodichon||North Africa|
|1848||Marie-Armand Pascal d’Avezac||Atlantic|
|1850||Brasseur de Bourbourg||Hispaniola|
|1854||Giorgio Grongnet deVasse||Malta|
|1854||Avraam Sirgeivitch Norov||Mediterranean|
|1858||Robert Eduard Prutz||America|
|1860||Franz Joseph Unger||Atlantic|
|1863||Edward Taylor Fletcher||Atlantic|
|1866||Charles Frédéric Martin||Azores, Ireland & Spain|
|1867||Patrick Neison Lynch||America|
|1868||D.A. Godron||North Africa|
|1872||Edward Fontaine||Central America|
|1873||Alexandre-César Moreau de Jonnés||Sea of Azov|
|1874||Etienne Felix Berlioux||Algeria|
|1876||Leon de Rosny||Central America|
|1880||John Thomas Short||Mid Atlantic Ridge|
|1884||A. E. D’Albertis||Atlantic|
|1884||W. S. Blackett||Atlantic|
|1888||Alexander Winchell||Atlantic (Canaries)|
|1889||Enrique Onffroy de Thoron||America|
|1890||Ernest Theodore Hamy||Atlantic|
|1896||M. De Lopateki||Mexico/ Cent. America|
|1897||Aleksandr Nikolaevich Karnozhitsky||Eastern Mediterranean|
|1897||Theodore L. Urban||America|
|1900?||V. B. Cushing||Atlantic|
|1906||Hans-Peny Hirmenech||North Sea|
|1907||Jean Léopold Courcelle-Seneuil||France|
|1907||Edwin J. Houston||Atlantic|
|1910||John Borg||Strait of Sicily|
|1911||André de Paniagua||Sea of Azov|
|1911||James H. Anderson||Atlantic|
|1911||Albert Gruhn||W. Mediterranean|
|1911||Marion McMurrough Mulhall||Atlantic|
|1911||Walter Yeeling Evans-Wentz||Atlantic|
|1912||Domingos Leite de Castro||Britain|
|1914||José Maria Pereira de Lima||Atlantic|
|1915||Francisco Luís Pereira de Sousa||Atlantic|
|1915||Arvid Högbom||North Sea|
|1916||Lucas Fernandez Navarro||Canaries|
|1916||William Richard Harris||Atlantic|
|1917||Edwin Swift Balch||Crete|
|1918||Onésime Reclus||N. W. Africa|
|1919||Juan Fernandez Amador de los Rios||Andalusia|
|1919||John Henry Vignaud||Atlantic|
|1920||Aimé Louis Rutot||Morocco|
|1920||Karl Georg Zschaetzsch||Atlantic|
|1921||George H. Cooper||Britain|
|1921||Louis Emile Gentil||Morocco|
|1923||Antonio Blázquez y Delgado-Aguilera||Andalusia|
|1923||Marcel Pollet||Holland & Belgium|
|1923||Donald A. Mackenzie||Crete|
|1925||William Comyns Beaumont||Britain|
|1925||A. Selwyn Brown||Atlantic|
|1925||Byron Kuhn de Prorok||North Africa|
|1926||Claudius Roux||North Africa|
|1926||Ludwig Borchardt||Chott el-Jerid|
|1927||Edgar Dacque||Cape Verde|
|1928||E. M. Whishaw||Andalusia|
|1929||Victor Bérard||North Africa|
|1929||Ralph van Deman Magoffin||Crete|
|1930||Paul Le Cour||Canaries|
|1931||Josef Karst||N.Africa & Arabian Sea|
|1932||Jean Gattefossé||North Africa|
|1932||J. Fitzgerald Lee||Atlantic|
|1933||Herbert Edward Forrest||Atlantic|
|1933||João de Almeida||Atlantic|
|1933||Bernard Marque||North Africa|
|1935||F. Gidon||Celtic Shelf|
|1936||Louis de Launay||Mexico|
|1937||Evelino Leonardi||Italy, Monte Circeo,|
|1938||John Foster Forbes||Atlantic|
|1939||Spyridon Marinatos||Minoan Crete|
|1939||Charles Panzetta Chatwin||Atlantic|
|1940||Kurt Bilau||Mid-Atlantic Ridge|
|1940||George Isaac Bryant||Atlantic|
|1946||Harold Tom Wilkins||Sth. America|
|1946||Harold Augustin Calahan||Atlantic|
|1948||Hans Schindler Bellamy||Atlantic?|
|1948||Hans Pettersson||Mid-Atlantic Ridge|
|1948||C. C. Hardy||Aegean?|
|1949||Egerton Sykes||Mid-Atlantic Ridge|
|1949||Robert Lorentz Scranton||Lake Copaïs, Greece|
|1951||Rachael Carson||Dogger Bank|
|1953||Jürgen Spanuth||North Sea|
|1954||Émile Mir Chaouat||Libya|
|1955||E. F. Hagemeister||Azores|
|1958||Charles Hapgood||Mid- Atlantic|
|1960||José Álvarez López||Atlantic|
|1963||J. G. Bennett||Thera|
|1965||Alf Bajocco||North Africa|
|1965||President Sukarno (Indonesia)||Atlantic|
|1967||P. B.S. Andrews||Thera|
|1968||William R. Fix||Atlantic|
|1969||L. Taylor Hansen||Atlantic|
|1969||J. V. Luce||Minoan|
|1969||James W. Mavor||Thera|
|1970||Livio Catullo Stecchini||Saõ Tomé|
|1970||Margaret Joan Anstee||America|
|1971||Henry M. Eichner||Minoan|
|1971||Jean Mazel||North Africa?|
|1971||Pauwels & Bergier||Andes|
|1971||Prince Michael of Greece||Crete|
|1971||Nils Olof Bergquist||Dogger Bank|
|1971||Brinsley Le Poer Trench||Azores|
|1972||T. C. Lethbridge||Cape Trafalgar|
|1972||Nicholas William Tschoegl||Minoan Crete|
|1975||Philippe Aziz||South America|
|1975||Karl A. Frank||Sahara|
|1976||Juan G. Atienza||Atlantic|
|1976||Rupert Furneaux||Minoan Crete|
|1976||Gerhard Herm see 1975||North Sea|
|1977||Uwe Topper||Cádiz (Spain)|
|1977||Robert Scrutton||North Sea|
|1977||Ralph Franklin Walworth||Atlantic|
|1978||Gerd von Hassler||Atlantic|
|1979||R. Cedric Leonard||Atlantic|
|1979||Eduardo Robles y Guiterrez||Mexico|
Pabhat Rainjan Sarkar
|1980||Phyllis Young Forsyth||Sicily|
|1982||Kirsten Bang||Wadden Sea(Nth Sea)|
|1982||H. R. Stahel||Atlantic|
|1982||Paolo Valente Poddighe||Sardinia|
|1983||Hans Steuerwald||Celtic Shelf|
|1984||Katherine A. Folliot||Iberia|
|1984||Manuel Gómez Márquez||Canaries|
|1986||Andrzej Marks||Atlantic ?|
|1986||Helmut Tributsch||Megalithic Brittany|
|1988||Joseph S. Ellul||Malta|
|1989||Jorge Maria Ribero-Meneses||Nth. Spain|
|1989||Stan Deyo||Aden (Yemen)|
|1989||Winfried Huf||Lipari Islands|
|1989||Diamantis Pastras||Cyclades + Astipalea|
|1990||Jean Deruelle||North Sea|
|1992||Paul Dunbavin||British Isles|
|1992||Marcos Martinez Hernandez||Canaries|
|1992||Enrico Clemente Mattievich Kucich||Troy (in America)|
|1992||Michio Kushi & Edward Esko||Atlantic|
|1993||Roger Mermet||North Sea|
|1993||Jackson Judge||America (Ohio)|
|1994||Henry B. Ambrose||England|
|1994||Vlaceslav Jurikov||Lipari Islands|
|1995||Rand & Rose Flem-Ath||Antarctica|
|1995||V. Koudriavtsev||Celtic Shelf|
|1995||Adrian Gilbert & Maurice Cotterell||Caribbean|
|1996||June Power Chaplin||Maine|
|1996||William Lauritzen||Sth China Sea|
|1996||Colin Wilson||Antarctica,see 2005|
|1997||Roland M. Horn||Atlantic|
|1997||Shirley Andrews||Atlantic Ridge|
|1997||Paul A. LaViolette||Metaphor|
|1997||Henriette Mertz||S. E. USA|
|1997||Arysio Nunes dos Santos||Sth. China Sea|
|1998||Alison Moroney||Lake Victoria|
|1998||Zapp & Erikson||Meso-America|
|1999||Thorwald C. Franke||Sicily|
|2000||David Hatcher Childress||Mid-Atlantic|
|2000||Erich von Däniken||Troy?|
|2000||Robert Paul Ishoy||Sardinia|
|2000||Jim Alison||Cape Verde|
|2001||Geryl & Ratinckx||Antarctica|
|2002||Zia Abbas||Sth China Sea|
|2002||Ralph Ellis||Aegean Sea|
|2002||A.I. Zolotukhin||Black Sea|
|2002||Rainer W. Kühne||Andalusia|
|2003||Jeff Allan Danelek||The Tropics|
|2003||Georg Lohle||North Sea|
|2003||Dan Crisp||Celtic Shelf|
|2003||Alfred E. Schmeck||Sicily|
|2003||Paulo Riven||Josephine Seamount|
|2004||Karl Jürgen Hepke||Andalusia|
|2004||N. R. James||Egypt|
|2004||Guy Gervis||North Sea|
|2004||Diego Silvio Novo||Sardinia|
|2004||Christian & Siegfried Schoppe||Black Sea|
|2004||Alexander Voronin||North Atlantic|
|2004||Flying Eagle & Whispering Wind||Sea of Azov|
|2005||Greg Alexander||Mt. Kilimanjaro|
|2005||Gregory L. Walker||America|
|2005||Thomas K. Dietrich||America|
|2005||Christian C. Karam||Atlantic|
|2005||Gernot L. Geise & Reinhard Prahl||Antarctica|
|2005||Kurt L. Lambeck||Aegean|
|2005||K. L. Margiani||Azores|
|2005||Clyde A. Winters||Mexico|
|2006||Ashok Malhotra||Indus Culture|
|2006||Yashwant Koak||Indus Culture|
|2006||Marco Guido Corsini||North Atlantic|
|2006||Werner E. Friedrich||Black Sea|
|2006||Hossam Aboulfotouh||Nile Delta|
|2007||Kurt Bangert||Black Sea|
|2007||Marcello Cosci||Sherbro Island|
|2007||Carl Festin||East Mediterranean|
|2007||Robert S. Fritzius||Sweden|
|2007||Albert Spyro Nikas||Malta|
|2007||John Michael Greer||Bahamas?|
|2008||David Antelo||Beni (Bolivia)|
|2008||Elena P. Mitropetrou||Iberian Peninsula|
|2008||Ticleanu, Constantin & Nicolescu||Pannonian Plain|
|2008||Ellis Peterson||North Atlantic|
|2008||Michael Hübner||Sth. Morocco|
|2008||Walter Baucum||North Sea|
|2008||Antonis N. Kontaratos||Poverty Point (USA)|
|2008||Jesse Neel||Yucatan Peninsula|
|2008||Theodoros V. Paschos||Atlantic|
|2008||George Sarantitis||North W. Africa|
|2008||Gerald Wells||W. Algeria|
|2009||Harry Dale Huffman||Greenland|
|2009||Edward Alexander||South America|
|2009||Pier Paolo Saba||Atlantic|
|2009||F. X. Aloisio||Malta|
|2009||Joseph Robert Jochmans||Atlantic|
|2009||J. D. Brady||Bay of Troy|
|2009||Donald Ingram||Britain (Wessex II)|
|2009||Richard W. Welch||Atlantic|
|2009||Robert L. Gielow||Cyprus|
|2009||Charles D. Pfund||Atlantic|
|2010||Izabol Apulia||Aegean Sea|
|2010||Fiancy Torres||Dominican Republic|
|2010||Ward & Ward||Ireland|
|2010||Walter Schilling||S.W. Europe|
|2010||Marco Francesco Bulloni||N.W. Russia|
|2010||Eckart Kahlhofer||North-West Europe|
|2011||Héctor Gonzalez||Guyana Highlands|
|2011||Charla Jean Morris||Atlantic|
|2011||Wolfgang Haverkamp||Mid-Atlantic Ridge|
|2011||George S. Alexander & Natalis Rosen||Mauritania|
|2011||Lee R. Kerr||Thera|
|2012||Michael A. Cahill||Black Sea (mouth of)|
|2012||John Esse Larsen||North Sea|
|2012||Daniel P. Buckley||Minoan Crete|
|2012||Hristo Smolenov||Black Sea|
|2012||Morten Alexander Joramo||Helgoland|
|2012||Jay Yoon||Caribbean Basin|
|2012||Poonsab Wongsasukoipak||Chiang Mai|
|2012||Manuel Vega||Atlantic (see 2017)|
|2012||Robert J. Tuttle||Balearics?|
|2012||Giuseppe Palermo||Acri, Italy|
|2013||Oliver D. Smith||Sesklo, Greece|
|2013||Danny Hilman Natawidjaja||Indonesia|
|2013||Jose D.C. Hernandez||Richat Structure|
|2013||Robert John Langdon||Doggerland|
|2013||Christos A.Djonis||Aegean Sea|
|2013||Arno Behrends||North Sea|
|2013||Qusai Ayman Naser||India|
|2013||Antonio Moro||Iberia, France & Italy|
|2013||Marin, Minella & Schievenin||Antarctica ++|
|2014||Mary Sutherland||Appalacia (USA)|
|2014||Javier Recuenco Andrés||Canaries (Acropolis)|
|2014||Michael MacRae||Gulf of Cádiz|
|2014||Thomas Krupa||Strait of Sicily|
|2014||Antonio Moreno Checa||Greenland|
|2014||“book of thoth||Tasmania|
|2015||“John Lock” (J.Spanuth)||Helgoland|
|2015||Sandra Fernandez||Almería, Spain|
|2015||Alessio Toscano||North East Italy|
|2015||Morven Robertson||Po Valley, Italy|
|2015||Britt Du Fournet||Antarctica ?|
|2016||Giovanni Ugas||Northwest Africa|
|2016||Philip Runggaldier||Celtic Shelf|
|2016||J.P. Rambling||Aegean Sea|
P. P. Flambas
Rockall (Nth. Atlantic)
|2017||Manuel Vega||Madrid, Spain|