Researcher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John,
>
> I do not understand what is wrong with my
> sources.
>
> Besides the modern interpreters, the ancient texts
> once say the Sea Peoples came from islands,
> another time from coastlands. Clearly, they were
> interchangeable. You have never answered this
> point, because it is correct, and you do not want
> to admit defeat.
>
> Moreover, even if the Egyptians had distinct words
> for island and coastland (which they did not),


A. You just contradicted yourself. First you say there was a differentiation between people from islands and those not. How can this be known if there was no distinct word for 'island'/'coastland'?

B. The fact is, the AEs did have a word for 'island'/'coastland' which was differentiated depending on the context of such-and-such a report. The actual term ('iw') refers to a general notion of sequestered land, which could be read as an island or even mainland promontory. The specific glyhp associated with this is (Gardinder) N18. I was a bit taken aback by your somewhat authoritative position when you did not present this information when asked a dozen times.

C. In effect, Alessandro Nibbi is incorrect in saying Egyptological students are taugth there is no word in AE for 'island'.



> the
> mistake could have been made in the Greek texts,
> where we know that the meaning of "nesos" changed
> from Solon's time to Plato's time.


If we could come back to the matter at hand (as this discussion of 'island' and its sub-relevance are purely tangentious) the 'Sea People' came from the eastern Mediterranean. Note that the generalization of the description for such people - sans specificity of root homeland or local identification - means we do not know who they were talking about, only that they were refereing to people from the Mediterranean Sea. Widening this yet again into how it favors (or doesn't favor) an argument for a group that attacked / came to Egypt which spuriously 'supports' a loose interpretation of Plato we find it to be an empty line of reasoning.

There are already numerous responses in this thread pointing out that Plato created his tale to teach a certain aspect of the times in which he lived. In fact, the very act of dialogue was a teaching tool/style alone and not meant to re-enact an actual conversation. This is the art of rhetoric, of which Plato was a proliferate genius. In true form he amalgamated a stew of local legends into one in order to teach the pitfalls of society when set upon by power and greed. Doug Weller kindly and adroitly pointed out a proto element seen within the accounts of Timaeus and Critias - in other words, remnants and hintings of external myths (and even truths) brought into one story.

To this day we still use fables to teach lessons for life to young children - to instill certain values relevant to whichever society we live in. Plato merely did the same thing 2400 years ago. Even the tale of Khufu's search for sacred tablets falls within the genre.

The reason we see contradiction for the location of an actual Atlantis is due to the grouping of separate tales, poeple, geogrpahy, etc. Also note that the whole modern phenomena of answering the 'Atlantis' question was initially stirred in the mind of someone searching for 'lost civilizations' and other associative fanciful notions. That a modern student of Plato find themselves seeking the answer is testimony to having fallen prey to the early misconceptions and applications of Plato's dialogues. Once realized for what it is, an investigator can relieve him/herself of the bonds of misunderstanding. You appear well read and intelligent, Researcher - traits commonly known to do well elsewhere. Your intuitions and opinions on Atlantis have been received and reviewed, and been found wanting. In time, perhaps you will appreciate our endeavors in trying to remove the proverbial veil from your studies.

Best Regards,
R. Avry Wilson