New paleographical data questions the great size of Atlantis.
Added: (Sun Aug 14 2005)
Pressbox (Press Release) -
New paleographical data questions the great size of Atlantis.
Scientific Atlantology International Society (SAIS) Madrid. 08-12-2005 http://DiscoveryAtlantis.sytes.net
Paleography is one of the most powerful tools of those than an investigator can be worth of the past. Its importance is in which the translators and revisionists can deepen in old texts of direct way, without happening through the translations to modern languages, that as a rule usually are more interpretations adapted to the modern times and the mentality that a faithful translation, metaphrastical or literal.
A good example of the importance of the use of the paleographical methods applied to the investigation of the historical past we found it in the studies that have been coming making for years Hispanic-Cuban investigator Georgeos Diaz-Montexano about the Platůs texts and the narration of Atlantis of the dialogues of the Timaeus and the Critias.
The paleographical methods has allowed Diaz-Montexano to discover serious committed errors of translation in the last centuries that - by misfortune still it follows without being corrected. Most of these errors of translation and interpretation they have been the main causes of which Atlantis have been see during long time with great skepticism on the part of the scientists and of which many authors have looked for Atlantis until in the most remote corners of the planet.
One of the points that more incredulity has always caused between the experts has been relative to the size of the island or the peninsula (NÍsos) of Atlantis, because from the first interpretations and translations to the Latin, made in the medieval time, the error was committed to interpret two fragments that spoke of the location of Atlantis next to the Straits of Gibraltar, between Iberia and Libya (Morocco) with a comparison of their size with respect to the Libya and to Asia, nevertheless, the scriptologist and Hispano-Cuban Georgeos Diaz-Montexano has discovered paleographical proofs that these two passages (one in the Timaeus and other in the Critias) could have translated of two very different forms that the first interpreter or cotrack of the Critias did not consider and the Timaeus, by which all the remaining medieval cotracks were guided later, that in its mechanical work to copy the most faithful possible codices, errors repeated such (and sometimes until they added new errors).
The classic Greek one was written with all the letters in capitals, without accents nor separations; therefore, if a cotrack divided bad some words, an erroneous version took place then that later all would repeat. Many examples of this type of errors exist that have existed during hundreds of years and that in very recent dates the experts in paleography are only discovering.
Diaz-Montexano puts some examples like these: [i]"... if you wrote in Greek old KAIASIASMEIZ‘N, a medieval monk when making the trascripciůn to medieval Greek characters could divide the sequence like KAI ASIA MEIZ‘N, "... and as great as Asia... "; also he could have divided the sequence of letters like KAI ASI AS MEIZ‘N, "... and the more mudly..." or "...but more mudly..." (the one that he has more amount of mud or the slime), or also like KAI AS IAS ME IZ‘N, "...and until my moan is seated...". Then, how to know as of these sequences was the one that the author really it wrote? In cases as these resort to the context.
The context is the one that finally determines as it is the sequence of correct division, but also, often the context is ambiguous and allows more than a possibility. When this happens, the professional and ethical obligation of the modern publisher is to propose all the possible sequences with its respective translations. Nevertheless, in the cases of the Timaeus and the Critias, this was never made. All the modern publishers gave by valid the sequences already divided by the first cotrack, to which we will call Monk I, and of whom also divided to all the copies of manuscripts and all the more important translations and Latin interpretations from Calcidio to Ficino and Cornario, which they have been the fundamental bases by which all the translators of Plato of the modern times have guided themselves. The study of the Manuscript tradition of the Critias and the Timaeus, allow to demonstrate these affirmations.
Diaz-Montexano has found codices where in some points of the Critias, instead of the NÍsos word (island or peninsula) she appears written NOSOS or NOSOU, whose meaning is "to be sick, to ail", that does not have anything to do with an island or peninsula. Nevertheless, by the context, the correct translation would be the one of NOSOS, because this only appears once, in a fragment where it is spoken of the natural resources of the island and of how "... it had all the necessary one for the health or for the life it heals... " The logical era to accept that later the NOSOS word would come, that is, "and for (to cure) the diseases", nevertheless, the modern translators did not take into account the codices where it appeared the NOSOS form and preferred to only use the codices where it appeared the NHSOS form. Like consequence, the oration is interrupted and it skips almost of abrupt way towards the part of the mining resources and of metals, although this happens almost inadvertent stops most of the readers, mainly because the majority does not know to read Greek old nor has Codex Greek texts at sight to discover these jumps.
The original texts of the Critias and the Timaeus, were written in Greek classic, only with capital letters, without spaces and on papyrus. The first cotrack, or Monk I, that worked with these texts and copied them in Greek medieval on parchment codices has been without a doubt the maximum person in charge of most of sequences and divisions of the words, because from this later first copy (according to they demonstrate to the paleographical studies) would divide all remaining copies medieval.
This first cotrack established sequences KAIASIASMEIZ‘N (Timaeus 24e), and KAIASIASMEIZ‘ (Critias 108e) like KAI ASIAS MEIZ‘/N, "... and as great as Asia... " The Monk I interpreted that this was the correct sequence when he thinking that had been a comparison between the size of Atlantis with respect to the Libya and to Asia.
In the complete sequence we see the following thing: HDENHSOSAMALIBUESKAIASIASMEIZ‘N. Monk I, divided to this sequence of Greek characters like "... hÍ de nÍsos hama Libues kai Asias meizŰn...", and discarded other possible divisions like "... hÍ de nÍsos hama Libues kai asi as meizŰn... ". The first sequence, of Monk I, is due to translate like: "...the island (Atlantis) partly is from Libya, and as great as Asia... " (although most of the modern translators influenced by deficient Latin interpretations) has preferred to translate like "...the Atlantis island was greater than Libya and Asia simultaneously...", but this translation is incorrect; in fact, it not even respects some basic principles of the Greek grammar, as it demonstrates to Diaz-Montexano in his paleographical studies.
On the other hand, the second sequence, "... hÍ de nÍsos hama Libues kai asi as meizŰn...", it allows a quite logical and coherent translation with the context, because it is possible to be translated like: "... the island (Atlantis) partly is from Libya, but more mudly... ". This division of the sequence of characters, propose by Diaz-Montexano, is as valid as the proposal by Monk I, because they fits to context, mainly so that an island or peninsula, is being spoken, in Greek NÍsos, word that in most of the times was associated to islands in the deltas of the rivers and marshy places or salt marshes, but more important is than the new sequence proposal, allows to solve one of the problems greater than it presented the interpretation of Atlantis, the enormous size of the Island that was deduced of the interpretation based on the propose division by Monk I.
Is completely incompatible the idea of an island or peninsula that was, just in front of the mouth of the Straits of Gibraltar, next to Gadeira (Cadiz, Spain), where as soon as there is space, with an enormous and giant island or peninsula greater than all the together Libya and all Asia (by very small that were the dimensions of both old continents for the Greeks); whereas on the other hand, Plato never used no word that has been translated like continent to talk about to Atlantis. Plato always used the word NHSOS, that never was used by the old Greeks to give name to a continent nor a island that outside more great that the peninsula of Arabia, that to intention, always has been more small that combined Asia and Libya. The Egyptians either did not know an island greater size than the islands of the Mediterranean.
The common sense forces to deduce that if Atlantis were so enormous, until the point of being greater than Libya and Asia, no Greek author would never have used the NHSOS term to talk about to the same one, would have used other words, like HPEIROS, "continent" or "Mainland", or at least it would have used phrases composed like Megalo-nhsos, Stigmiaio-nhsos, Gigas-nhsos, Makro-nhsos, or Hepeiro-nhsos (continent island), but nor a single one of these combinations appears in the Timaeus and the Critias to talk about to the island or peninsula of Atlantis, which demonstrates that a serious error of interpretation has existed.
The new sequence proposal by Diaz-Montexano allows to rectify these great contradictions.
In summary: Atlantis were not greater than combined Libya and Asia, were an island or peninsula that was, next to the Pillars of Hercules (Gibraltar), next to Gadeira (Cadiz, Spain) and were - partly - from Libya, that is to say, almost united to Libya (in Greek AM¬), being as well "mudly", that is to say, the island or peninsula with greater muddly, humid earth surface or with the slime.
The western South end of Iberia, where exactly it is the region of Gadeira and the own Pillars of Hercules, presents the greater mudly earth extension and the greatest deltas of all the Atlantic, near the Pillars of Hercules. In fact, an enormous earth extension in form of island or peninsula was emerged to a large extent during the Age from the Bronze, ahead to the present Trafalgar Cape, and its end almost arrived until the coasts of Libya by the Straits of Hercules. In this area it is where Diaz-Montexano locates their hypothesis number one to locate the concentric Acropolis of Atlantis.