I would like to draw the reader’s attention back to a comment quoted in a previous chapter:
Quite apart from the difficulty of fitting most places described in the Iliad and the Odyssey into the physical reality of the lands surrounding the Aegean Sea, there is also a problem with the spiritual content of Homer’s works. Plato had doubts as to their Greek origin and the great philosopher was by no means an admirer of this imaginative poet whose gods, with their jealousies and vengeances, behaved like spoilt children. Plato was particularly worried about the corrupting influence of Homer’s poems on the minds of Greek youth, above all because of their “lack of respect” for the gods. He suggested that certain passages of the Iliad and Odyssey should be corrected or even expurgated and if he had been the dictator of his “ideal state,” he would have had them burned, thus breaking the chain of transmission of these unique and extremely ancient poems. [Wilkens]
I think that there is an additional explanation for why Plato was so antagonistic to the tales of Homer: Plato’s own story of Atlantis was the story of the original exemplar of the Trojan War and he knew that many of the features of the original war were being distorted by Homer and attributed to a much later war, on a different scale, with certain elements added that would create misunderstanding in the minds of readers.
The idea of a ten year war – with massive losses on both sides – being fought over a woman exercised me for quite some time especially while I was reading Herodotus’ account of Helen. His observations are so pithy and his style of writing is so entertaining that I would like to share it with the reader:
Those of the Persians who have knowledge of history declare that the Phenicians first began the quarrel. These, they say, came from that which is called the Erythraian Sea to this of ours; and having settled in the land where they continue even now to dwell, set themselves forthwith to make long voyages by sea.
And conveying merchandise of Egypt and of Assyria they arrived at other places and also at Argos.
Now Argos was at that time in all points the first of the States within that land which is now called Hellas.
The Phenicians arrived then at this land of Argos, and began to dispose of their ship’s cargo: and on the fifth or sixth day after they had arrived, when their goods had been almost all sold, there came down to the sea a great company of women, and among them the daughter of the king; and her name, as the Hellenes also agree, was Io the daughter of Inachos.
These standing near to the stern of the ship were buying of the wares such as pleased them most, when of a sudden the Phenicians, passing the word from one to another, made a rush upon them; and the greater part of the women escaped by flight, but Io and certain others were carried off.
So they put them on board their ship, and forthwith departed, sailing away to Egypt.
In this manner the Persians report that Io came to Egypt, not agreeing therein with the Hellenes, and this they say was the first beginning of wrongs.
Then after this, they say, certain Hellenes (but the name of the people they are not able to report) put in to the city of Tyre in Phenicia and carried off the king’s daughter Europa;–these would doubtless be Cretans;–and so they were quits for the former injury.
After this however the Hellenes, they say, were the authors of the second wrong; for they sailed in to Asia of Colchis and to the river Phasis with a ship of war, and from thence, after they had done the other business for which they came, they carried off the king’s daughter Medea.
And the king of Colchis sent a herald to the land of Hellas and demanded satisfaction for the rape and to have his daughter back.
But they answered that, as the Barbarians had given them no satisfaction for the rape of Io the Argive, so neither would they give satisfaction to the Barbarians for this.
In the next generation after this, they say, Alexander the son of Priam, having heard of these things, desired to get a wife for himself by violence from Hellas, being fully assured that he would not be compelled to give any satisfaction for this wrong, inasmuch as the Hellenes gave none for theirs.
So he carried off Helen, and the Hellenes resolved to send messengers first and to demand her back with satisfaction for the rape; and when they put forth this demand, the others alleged to them the rape of Medea, saying that the Hellenes were now desiring satisfaction to be given to them by others, though they had given none themselves nor had surrendered the person when demand was made.
Up to this point, they say, nothing more happened than the carrying away of women on both sides; but after this the Hellenes were very greatly to blame; for they set the first example of war, making an expedition into Asia before the Barbarians made any into Europe.
Now they say that in their judgment, though it is an act of wrong to carry away women by force, it is a folly to set one’s heart on taking vengeance for their rape, and the wise course is to pay no regard when they have been carried away; for it is evident that they would never be carried away if they were not themselves willing to go. And the Persians say that they, namely the people of Asia, when their women were carried away by force, had made it a matter of no account, but the Hellenes on account of a woman of Lacedemon gathered together a great armament, and then came to Asia and destroyed the dominion of Priam; and that from this time forward they had always considered the Hellenic race to be their enemy: for Asia and the Barbarian races which dwell there the Persians claim as belonging to them; but Europe and the Hellenic race they consider to be parted off from them.
The Persians for their part say that things happened thus; and they conclude that the beginning of their quarrel with the Hellenes was on account of the taking of Ilion: but as regards Io the Phenicians do not agree with the Persians in telling the tale thus; for they deny that they carried her off to Egypt by violent means, and they say on the other hand that when they were in Argos she was intimate with the master of their ship, and perceiving that she was with child, she was ashamed to confess it to her parents, and therefore sailed away with the Phenicians of her own will, for fear of being found out.
These are the tales told by the Persians and the Phenicians severally: and concerning these things I am not going to say that they happened thus or thus, but when I have pointed to the man who first within my own knowledge began to commit wrong against the Hellenes, I shall go forward further with the story, giving an account of the cities of men, small as well as great: for those which in old times were great have for the most part become small, while those that were in my own time great used in former times to be small: so then, since I know that human prosperity never continues steadfast, I shall make mention of both indifferently. […]
And the priests [of Egypt] told me, when I inquired, that the things concerning Helen happened thus:–Alexander having carried off Helen was sailing away from Sparta to his own land, and when he had come to the Egean Sea contrary winds drove him from his course to the Sea of Egypt; and after that, since the blasts did not cease to blow, he came to Egypt itself, and in Egypt to that which is now named the Canobic mouth of the Nile and to Taricheiai.
Now there was upon the shore, as still there is now, a temple of Heracles, in which if any man’s slave take refuge and have the sacred marks set upon him, giving himself over to the god, it is not lawful to lay hands upon him; and this custom has continued still unchanged from the beginning down to my own time.
Accordingly the attendants of Alexander, having heard of the custom which existed about the temple, ran away from him, and sitting down as suppliants of the god, accused Alexander, because they desired to do him hurt, telling the whole tale how things were about Helen and about the wrong done to Menelaos; and this accusation they made not only to the priests but also to the warden of this river-mouth, whose name was Thonis.
Thonis then having heard their tale sent forthwith a message to Proteus at Memphis, which said as follows: “There hath come a stranger, a Teucrian by race, who hath done in Hellas an unholy deed; for he hath deceived the wife of his own host, and is come hither bringing with him this woman herself and very much wealth, having been carried out of his way by winds to thy land. Shall we then allow him to sail out unharmed, or shall we first take away from him that which he brought with him?”
In reply to this Proteus sent back a messenger who said thus: “Seize this man, whosoever he may be, who has done impiety to his own host, and bring him away into my presence, that I may know what he will find to say.”
Hearing this, Thonis seized Alexander and detained his ships, and after that he brought the man himself up to Memphis and with him Helen and the wealth he had, and also in addition to them the suppliants. So when all had been conveyed up thither, Proteus began to ask Alexander who he was and from whence he was voyaging; and he both recounted to him his descent and told him the name of his native land, and moreover related of his voyage, from whence he was sailing.
After this Proteus asked him whence he had taken Helen; and when Alexander went astray in his account and did not speak the truth, those who had become suppliants convicted him of falsehood, relating in full the whole tale of the wrong done.
At length Proteus declared to them this sentence, saying, “Were it not that I count it a matter of great moment not to slay any of those strangers who being driven from their course by winds have come to my land hitherto, I should have taken vengeance on thee on behalf of the man of Hellas, seeing that thou, most base of men, having received from him hospitality, didst work against him a most impious deed. For thou didst go in to the wife of thine own host; and even this was not enough for thee, but thou didst stir her up with desire and hast gone away with her like a thief.
Moreover not even this by itself was enough for thee, but thou art come hither with plunder taken from the house of thy host. Now therefore depart, seeing that I have counted it of great moment not to be a slayer of strangers. This woman indeed and the wealth which thou hast I will not allow thee to carry away, but I shall keep them safe for the Hellene who was thy host, until he come himself and desire to carry them off to his home; to thyself however and thy fellow-voyagers I proclaim that ye depart from your anchoring within three days and go from my land to some other; and if not, that ye will be dealt with as enemies.”
This the priests said was the manner of Helen’s coming to Proteus; and I suppose that Homer also had heard this story, but since it was not so suitable to the composition of his poem as the other which he followed, he dismissed it finally, making it clear at the same time that he was acquainted with that story also: and according to the manner in which he described the wanderings of Alexander in the Iliad (nor did he elsewhere retract that which he had said) it is clear that when he brought Helen he was carried out of his course, wandering to various lands, and that he came among other places to Sidon in Phenicia. Of this the poet has made mention in the “prowess of Diomede,” and the verses run this:
“There she had robes many-coloured, the works of women of Sidon, Those whom her son himself the god-like of form Alexander Carried from Sidon, what time the broad sea-path he sailed over Bringing back Helene home, of a noble father begotten.”
And in the Odyssey also he has made mention of it in these verses:
“Such had the daughter of Zeus, such drugs of exquisite cunning, Good, which to her the wife of Thon, Polydamna, had given, Dwelling in Egypt, the land where the bountiful meadow produces Drugs more than all lands else, many good being mixed, many evil.”
And thus too Menelaos says to Telemachos:
“Still the gods stayed me in Egypt, to come back hither desiring, Stayed me from voyaging home, since sacrifice was due I performed not.”
In these lines he makes it clear that he knew of the wandering of Alexander to Egypt, for Syria borders upon Egypt and the Phenicians, of whom is Sidon, dwell in Syria.
By these lines and by this passage it is also most clearly shown that the “Cyprian Epic” was not written by Homer but by some other man: for in this it is said that on the third day after leaving Sparta Alexander came to Ilion bringing with him Helen, having had a “gently-blowing wind and a smooth sea,” whereas in the Iliad it says that he wandered from his course when he brought her.
Let us now leave Homer and the “Cyprian” Epic; but this I will say, namely that I asked the priests whether it is but an idle tale which the Hellenes tell of that which they say happened about Ilion; and they answered me thus, saying that they had their knowledge by inquiries from Menelaos himself.
After the rape of Helen there came indeed, they said, to the Teucrian land a large army of Hellenes to help Menelaos; and when the army had come out of the ships to land and had pitched its camp there, they sent messengers to Ilion, with whom went also Menelaos himself; and when these entered within the wall they demanded back Helen and the wealth which Alexander had stolen from Menelaos and had taken away; and moreover they demanded satisfaction for the wrongs done: and the Teucrians told the same tale then and afterwards, both with oath and without oath, namely that in deed and in truth they had not Helen nor the wealth for which demand was made, but that both were in Egypt; and that they could not justly be compelled to give satisfaction for that which Proteus the king of Egypt had.
The Hellenes however thought that they were being mocked by them and besieged the city, until at last they took it; and when they had taken the wall and did not find Helen, but heard the same tale as before, then they believed the former tale and sent Menelaos himself to Proteus.
And Menelaos having come to Egypt and having sailed up to Memphis, told the truth of these matters, and not only found great entertainment, but also received Helen unhurt, and all his own wealth besides.
Then however, after he had been thus dealt with, Menelaos showed himself ungrateful to the Egyptians; for when he set forth to sail away, contrary winds detained him, and as this condition of things lasted long, he devised an impious deed; for he took two children of natives and made sacrifice of them. After this, when it was known that he had done so, he became abhorred, and being pursued he escaped and got away in his ships to Libya; but whither he went besides after this, the Egyptians were not able to tell. Of these things they said that they found out part by inquiries, and the rest, namely that which happened in their own land, they related from sure and certain knowledge.
Thus the priests of the Egyptians told me; and I myself also agree with the story which was told of Helen, adding this consideration, namely that if Helen had been in Ilion she would have been given up to the Hellenes, whether Alexander consented or no; for Priam assuredly was not so mad, nor yet the others of his house, that they were desirous to run risk of ruin for themselves and their children and their city, in order that Alexander might have Helen as his wife: and even supposing that during the first part of the time they had been so inclined, yet when many others of the Trojans besides were losing their lives as often as they fought with the Hellenes, and of the sons of Priam himself always two or three or even more were slain when a battle took place (if one may trust at all to the Epic poets),– when, I say, things were coming thus to pass, I consider that even if Priam himself had had Helen as his wife, he would have given her back to the Achaians, if at least by so doing he might be freed from the evils which oppressed him. […]
In truth however they lacked the power to give Helen back; and the Hellenes did not believe them, though they spoke the truth… [Herodotus, The Histories, selected excerpts]
We will come back to this story later because even though it seems confused and improbable, it holds the key to our problem. One thing that ought to be clear is that I don’t think that it was a woman they were fighting over; no indeed, it was the “treasure.” What was that treasure? Well, let me suggest that the main thing we notice about this story is that it sounds a bit like George Bush demanding Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. Just such a situation as we see developing in our own time between the United States and the rest of the world may have developed between Atlantis and Europe and Asia around 12,000 years ago, and then again later, between the Trojans and Achaeans in Europe. This might give us a clue as to what sort of “treasure” the Trojan War was really being fought over.
Tracking this problem has led me down many interesting pathways and the most useful clues have come from the alchemist Fulcanelli. One his oft-reiterated themes is that the ancient Greeks not the Egyptians were the source of the Hermetic science and all esoteric knowledge. However, in a particular passage, he seems to contradict himself in the following remarks:
Atlantis. Did this mysterious island, of which Plato left the enigmatic description, ever exist? A question difficult to solve, give the weakness of the means which science possesses to penetrate the secret of the abysses. Nevertheless, some observations seem to support the partisans of the existence of Atlantis. 
Faith in the truthfulness of Plato’s works results in believing the reality of the periodical upheavals of which the Mosaic Flood , we said it, remains the written symbol and the sacred prototype. To those who negate what the priests of Egypt entrusted to Solon, we would only ask to explain to us what Aristotle’s master wanted to reveal by this fiction of a sinister nature. For we indeed believe that beyond doubt, Plato became the propagator of very ancient truths, and that consequently his books contain a set, a body of hidden knowledge. His Geometric Number, and Cave have their signification; why should the myth of Atlantis not have its own?
Atlantis must have undergone the same fate as the others, and the catastrophe, which submerged it, falls obviously into the same cause as that which buried, forty-eight centuries later, under a profound sheet of water, Egypt, the Sahara, and the countries of Northern Africa. But more favored than the land of the Atlantean, Egypt gained from a raising of the bottom of the ocean and came back to the light of day, after a certain time of immersion. For Algeria and Tunisia with their dry “chotts” covered with a thick layer of salt, the Sahara and Egypt with their soils constituted for a large part of sea sand show that the waters invaded and covered vast expanses of the African continent. The columns of the Pharaohs’ temples bear on them undeniable traces of immersion; in the hypostyle chambers, the slabs, still extant, which form the ceilings have been raised and moved by the oscillating motion of the waves; the disappearance of the outer coating of the pyramids and in general that of the stone joins (the Colosses of Memnon who used to sing) the evident traces of corrosion by water that can be noticed on the sphinx of Giza, as well as on many other works of Egyptian statuary have no other origin. [Fulcanelli, Dwellings of the Philosophers, pp. 511-512.]
Notice that he said: “To those who negate what the priests of Egypt entrusted to Solon, we would only ask to explain to us what Aristotle’s master wanted to reveal by this fiction of a sinister nature.” Fulcanelli then goes on a long series of remarks that actually DO negate what the priests of Egypt told Solon, namely, that Egypt had never been inundated. Now, why did Fulcanelli first say to “have faith in the truthfulness of Plato’s words,” and then turn around and negate them?
Another item of curiosity here is his remark about the “Mosaic Flood.” Everybody knows that Noah was associated with the Flood and Moses was associated with the Exodus. Certainly, there was a sort of “flood” in the story of Moses where the Red Sea drowned the Pharaoh, but that story doesn’t seem to have much to do with a real Flood; or does it?
Timaeus and Critias, written by Plato some time around 360 BC are the only existing ancient written records which specifically refer to Atlantis. The dialogues are conversations between Socrates, Hermocrates, Timaeus, and Critias. Apparently in response to a prior talk by Socrates about ideal societies, Timaeus and Critias agree to entertain Socrates with a tale that is not a fiction but a true story.
The story is about the conflict between the ancient Athenians and the Atlanteans 9000 years before Platos time. Knowledge of the ancient times was apparently forgotten by the Athenians of Platos day, and the form the story of Atlantis took in Platos account was that Egyptian priests conveyed it to Solon. Solon passed the tale to Dropides, the great-grandfather of Critias. Critias learned of it from his grandfather also named Critias, son of Dropides.
Lets take a careful look at the main section of the story, omitting the introduction that describes Solon going to Egypt and chatting up the priests.
Thereupon one of the priests, who was of a very great age, said: O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you. Solon in return asked him what he meant. I mean to say, he replied, that in mind you are all young; there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition, nor any science, which is hoary with age. And I will tell you why.
There have been, and will be again, many destructions of mankind arising out of many causes; the greatest have been brought about by the agencies of fire and water, and other lesser ones by innumerable other causes. There is a story, which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Phaeton, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his fathers chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long intervals; at such times those who live upon the mountains and in dry and lofty places are more liable to destruction than those who dwell by rivers or on the seashore. And from this calamity the Nile, who is our never-failing saviour, delivers and preserves us.
When, on the other hand, the gods purge the earth with a deluge of water, the survivors in your country are herdsmen and shepherds who dwell on the mountains, but those who, like you, live in cities are carried by the rivers into the sea. Whereas in this land, neither then nor at any other time, does the water come down from above on the fields, having always a tendency to come up from below; for which reason the traditions preserved here are the most ancient.
The fact is, that wherever the extremity of winter frost or of summer does not prevent, mankind exist, sometimes in greater, sometimes in lesser numbers. And whatever happened either in your country or in ours, or in any other region of which we are informed – if there were any actions noble or great or in any other way remarkable, they have all been written down by us of old, and are preserved in our temples.
We want to here make note of the fact that present day evidence suggests that Egypt has been inundated and that it also experienced a rainy climate as evidenced by the water erosion on the sphinx. Fulcanelli even commented upon the inundation of Egypt. And so we see that Fulcanelli has given us a hint, a clue. This leads us to question whether or not this story actually came from the mouth of an Egyptian priest in terms of Egypt as we now know it. If so, such a priest would have known of the period of heavy rain and shallow seas in Egypt, by which the Sphinx and other monuments were eroded, and which deposited a layer of salt on the interior of the pyramids and other structures that Fulcanelli mentioned. And so we suggest, to reconcile this difficulty, not that the story is false because Fulcanelli has told us to have faith in the account of Plato but rather that this was a deliberate exoteric blind.
Whereas just when you and other nations are beginning to be provided with letters and the other requisites of civilized life, after the usual interval, the stream from heaven, like a pestilence, comes pouring down, and leaves only those of you who are destitute of letters and education; and so you have to begin all over again like children, and know nothing of what happened in ancient times, either among us or among yourselves. As for those genealogies of yours which you just now recounted to us, Solon, they are no better than the tales of children.
In the first place you remember a single deluge only, but there were many previous ones; in the next place, you do not know that there formerly dwelt in your land the fairest and noblest race of men which ever lived, and that you and your whole city are descended from a small seed or remnant of them which survived. And this was unknown to you, because, for many generations, the survivors of that destruction died, leaving no written word. For there was a time, Solon, before the great deluge of all, when the city which now is Athens was first in war and in every way the best governed of all cities, is said to have performed the noblest deeds and to have had the fairest constitution of any of which tradition tells, under the face of heaven.
Again, lets interrupt the dialogue to point out that it is hardly likely that a priest of the Egypt we know would have declared the Athenians to be the fairest and noblest race of men, nor that they performed the noblest deeds and had the fairest constitution under the face of heaven! Another clue that the speaker is giving us that it is NOT Egypt as we know Egypt that is the source of this information.
Solon marveled at his words, and earnestly requested the priests to inform him exactly and in order about these former citizens. You are welcome to hear about them, Solon, said the priest, both for your own sake and for that of your city, and above all, for the sake of the goddess who is the common patron and parent and educator of both our cities. She founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours, of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old.
Yet again, the Egyptian priest is giving greater antiquity to the Greeks than to the Egyptians! Another clue for the reader to understand that this is not an Egyptian story of Egypt as we now know it!
As touching your citizens of nine thousand years ago, I will briefly inform you of their laws and of their most famous action; the exact particulars of the whole we will hereafter go through at our leisure in the sacred registers themselves. If you compare these very laws with ours you will find that many of ours are the counterpart of yours as they were in the olden time.
Here, of course, we come to the idea that there was an ancient connection and communication between the “real Egyptians and the “real Athenians.” Georges Gurdjieff once remarked that Christianity was taken from Egypt, a statement that might suggest that he agreed with the Pan-Egyptian school. But no: Christianity, he hastened to explain, was not taken from the Egypt of history, but from a far older Egypt which is unrecorded.”
In the first place, there is the caste of priests, which is separated from all the others; next, there are the artificers, who ply their several crafts by themselves and do not intermix; and also there is the class of shepherds and of hunters, as well as that of husbandmen; and you will observe, too, that the warriors in Egypt are distinct from all the other classes, and are commanded by the law to devote themselves solely to military pursuits; moreover, the weapons which they carry are shields and spears, a style of equipment which the goddess taught of Asiatics first to us, as in your part of the world first to you.
The remark that the right function of society was first taught to the Asiatics is most interesting. The reference to Asiatics in this context from an historical Egyptian Priest is extremely questionable because, in the many Egyptian inscriptions unearthed by archaeology, the Asiatics are always referred to as Vile. It is true that in historical times the Egyptians borrowed their military equipment and war strategies from the Asiatics, but that was a much later development than the above story would suggest. The issue of who the vile Asiatics were is an ongoing debate, but it seems to devolve on such as the Hittites, Hyksos, and other Indo-European tribes that came down from the Steppes in various waves.
Then as to wisdom, do you observe how our law from the very first made a study of the whole order of things, extending even to prophecy and medicine which gives health, out of these divine elements deriving what was needful for human life, and adding every sort of knowledge which was akin to them. All this order and arrangement the goddess first imparted to you when establishing your city; and she chose the spot of earth in which you were born, because she saw that the happy temperament of the seasons in that land would produce the wisest of men. Wherefore the goddess, who was a lover both of war and of wisdom, selected and first of all settled that spot which was the most likely to produce men likest herself. And there you dwelt, having such laws as these and still better ones, and excelled all mankind in all virtue, as became the children and disciples of the gods.
Again and again, this very strange Egyptian priest is saying things that completely contradict the more “historical” Egyptian view that they are the most ancient and noble race. In the above remarks, he has said that the goddess imparted to the Greeks first all of the laws of health and those things needed to preserve and prolong life. The Greeks are pronounced to have been the wisest of men, and those most like the goddess herself. And again excelled all mankind in all virtue, which is not very likely to have been said by an Egyptian priest from the Egypt we know.
Here comes the story of the war, so pay close attention:
Many great and wonderful deeds are recorded of your state in our histories. But one of them exceeds all the rest in greatness and valour. 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; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent.
Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire, which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europeas far as Tyrrhenia.
This vast power, gathered into one, endeavoured to subdue at a blow our country and yours and the whole of the region within the straits; and then, Solon, your country shone forth, in the excellence of her virtue and strength, among all mankind. She was pre-eminent in courage and military skill, and was the leader of the Hellenes. And when the rest fell off from her, being compelled to stand alone, after having undergone the very extremity of danger, she defeated and triumphed over the invaders, and preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated, and generously liberated all the rest of us who dwell within the pillars.
Of all the things the Egyptian priest has said, the above is the most astonishing and the most telling. Again he is giving pre-eminence to the Greeks, that they performed the most heroic deed of all times, which was to defeat the Atlantean Empire!
This is the point that is so often just simply overlooked by all the Egypt and Atlantis lovers! Atlantis was the original evil empire of the Borg! And what is more, in this passage, the clue is given that the ancient Egyptian civilization the pyramidsand other monumental architecture upon which so much of the current Egyptian craze is based, stemming from the work of Schwaller de Lubicz, and which is declared to be the offspring of Atlantis – the ancient Egypt that is so admired by the current day flock of Egyptophiles– was very likely an attempt to re-construct the EVIL EMPIRE OF ATLANTIS! In other words, the priestly science of the Egyptians, referred to by Fulcanelli, not only antedated the material so diligently studied and propagated by Schwaller and others for clues to alchemical secrets and esoterica, it was very likely an Egypt that is no longer even known as Egypt!
But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.
I have told you briefly, Socrates, what the aged Critias heard from Solon and related to us. And when you were speaking yesterday about your city and citizens, the tale which I have just been repeating to you came into my mind, and I remarked with astonishment how, by some mysterious coincidence, you agreed in almost every particular with the narrative of Solon; but I did not like to speak at the moment. For a long time had elapsed, and I had forgotten too much; I thought that I must first of all run over the narrative in my own mind, and then I would speak.
Here we find another interesting clue. Critias has just told us that Socrates was discussing the very things that are included in this story that everything Socrates had been saying the previous day agreed in almost every particular with the narrative of Solon. Apparently, this story had been handed down via another line of transmission.
And so I readily assented to your request yesterday, considering that in all such cases the chief difficulty is to find a tale suitable to our purpose, and that with such a tale we should be fairly well provided. And therefore, as Hermocrateshas told you, on my way home yesterday I at once communicated the tale to my companions as I remembered it; and after I left them, during the night by thinking I recovered nearly the whole it. Truly, as is often said, the lessons of our childhood make wonderful impression on our memories; for I am not sure that I could remember all the discourse of yesterday, but I should be much surprised if I forgot any of these things which I have heard very long ago. I listened at the time with childlike interest to the old mans narrative; he was very ready to teach me, and I asked him again and again to repeat his words, so that like an indelible picture they were branded into my mind.
As soon as the day broke, I rehearsed them as he spoke them to my companions, that they, as well as myself, might have something to say. And now, Socrates, to make an end my preface, I am ready to tell you the whole tale. I will give you not only the general heads, but the particulars, as they were told to me.
The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. Let us divide the subject among us, and all endeavour according to our ability gracefully to execute the task which you have imposed upon us. Consider then, Socrates, if this narrative is suited to the purpose, or whether we should seek for some other instead. [Plato, Timaeus, translated by B. Jowett]
And we come to the final understanding that conveys to us the secret of the story of Atlantis: that it did not actually come from an Egyptian priest as we would now think of an Egyptian priest, but that this was a story that was created to execute the task which you [Socrates] have imposed upon us, which was to provide the clues that the “Egyptian priest” was in no way related to the land we now know as Egypt.
As for Wilkens location of Troy in England, the reader might want to recall the passages from Diodorus Siculus quoted in a previous chapter of this present series. There is something more from Diodorus regarding the Hyperboreans:
And there is also on the island both a magnificent sacred precinct of Apollo and a notable temple, which is adorned with many votive offerings and is spherical in shape. Furthermore, a city is there which is sacred to this god, and the majority of its inhabitants are players on the cithara; and these continually play on this instrument in the temple and sing hymns of praise to the god, glorifying his deeds
They say also that the moon, as viewed from this island, appears to be but a little distance from the earth and to have upon it prominences, like those of the earth, which are visible to the eye. The account is also given that the god visits the island every nineteen years, the period in which the return of the stars to the same place in the heavens is accomplished, and for this reason the Greeks call the nineteen-year period the year of Meton. At the time of this appearance of the god he both plays on the cithara and dances continuously the night through from the vernal equinox until the rising of the Pleiades, expressing in this manner his delight in his successes.
And the kings of this city and the supervisors of the sacred precinct are called Boreades, since they are descendants of Boreas, and the succession to these positions is always kept in their family. [ Diodorus of Sicily, English translation by C. H. Oldfather, Loeb Classical Library, Volumes II and III. London, William Heinemann, and Cambridge, Mass., USA, Harvard University Press, 1935 and 1939.]
What did it mean that every nineteen years a god dances from the vernal equinox until the rising of the Pleiades? This suggests to us a very specific date is being recorded in this myth. The heliacal rising of the Pleiades does not happen every 19 years. So, aside from telling us about a regular event that occurred every nineteen years, the myth has recorded something else very significant, the date of which is internal to the myth. When did the Pleiades rise just before the sun on the vernal equinox?
There are many who assume that a heliacal rising means that a star or constellation is in conjunction with the sun. But this is probably not correct. The ancients were practicing observational astronomy. Otto Neugebauer, in his many studies regarding what the ancients did or did not know about science and mathematics, noted the following:
When we watch the stars rise over the eastern horizon, we see them appear night after night at the same spot on the horizon. But when we extend our observation into the period of twilight, fewer and fewer stars will be recognizable when they cross the horizon, and near sunrise all stars will have faded out altogether. Let us suppose that a certain star S was seen just rising at the beginning of dawn but vanished from sight within a very short time because of the rapid approach of daylight. We call this phenomenon the heliacal rising of S, using a term of Greek astronomy. Let us assume that we use this phenomenon as the indication of the end of night and consider S as the star of the last hour of night. 
We may continue in the same way for several days, but during this time a definite change takes place. 
Obviously, after some lapse of time, it no longer makes sense to take S as the indicator of the last hour of night. But there are new stars that can take the place of S. Thus year after year S may serve for some days as the star of the last hour, to be replaced in regular order by other stars. [Neugebauer, Otto, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, (New York: Dover 1969)]
In order to observe a heliacal rising of a star or group of stars, they must rise long enough before the sun to be observed, because as soon as the sun rises, the stars can no longer be seen. The heliacal rising of the Pleiades would have to occur at least 36 minutes before the sun comes up, in order to be seen. So, the real question seems to be: when did the Pleiades rise around half an hour before the sun, at the time of the equinox? When were the Pleiades the stars of the last hour of the night, and what might have been the significance of this event?
Certain standard texts, written by individuals who have not taken into account the observational nature of a heliacal rising, have given 2300 BC as the date, because this was when the Pleiades were conjunct the Sun on the Vernal equinox. However, after careful calculations of our own, as well as assistance by expert astronomers, the date of the actual heliacal rising of the Pleiades, in the terms that Neugebauer has given us, occurred on April 16, 3100 BC.
April 16, 3100 BC where the God danced all night on the equinox until the rising of the Pleiades:
[A] “Dark Age”, meaning a period from which little is known despite much information before and after that period, occurred about 3100 BC to 3000 BC. For example in Mesopotamia this period is called Jemdet Nasr.
About 3100 BC there was suddenly a change to more primitive ages compared to the preceding Uruk period. For example the numerical token system dwindled.
In 3000 BC however there was a sudden recovery. This is called the Early Dynasty, which can be described as the first known culture, that began to have some kind of a centralized system. And the tokens were not only numerated again, the basis for writing was born.
What happened 3100 BC, maybe right in 3114 BC? That’s the year 0 in Mayan calendar.
There are many stories around the world of great floods. There are two small craters from about this time, but what seems more probable, is a huge meteorite swarm that both caused much damage on land, brought up tsunamis and blanketed with dust the atmosphere. It may have been a break-up of a great comet in the inner parts of the solar system. People were panic-stricken.
The beginnings of civilizations, however, got despite of the immediate damage, a first great rise, after about a hundred years had gone. There was a great boomtime that eventually led to the rise of the first great civilizations in the beginning of the third millennium BC. The prime example is the unification of southern and northern Egypt.
The great mystery is how did the fusion happen? There is not any clear indication of one part conquering the other. It seems like the northern culture won over the southern, but that the new kings came from the south. The artifacts hint that the first King of the unified Egypt was called Menes and that the unification took place between 3150 and 3110 BC.
3100 BC has been traditionally held as the watermark between the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Period in Egypt. It took still 400 years before it was transformed in the so called Old Kingdom in about 2700 BC. These timestamps have oddly enough a great resemblance to the Mayan year 0.
The Mesopotamians had the great variations in their pre-writings that finally led to the first marks that really can be called as writing. Also the wheel was introduced. The great city-states Ur and Uruk were built, and around 2600 BC they had began to be part of a larger political union.
Gilgamesh, the great flood-king, lived during this period. Pre-Minoan culture was rising in Crete. Neolithic settlements, Stonehenge, Newgrange, Skara Brae in the Scottish Orkney island were built. The coastal menhirs (great stones) began to be built in Brittany.
( For info on dating Stonehenge, see my article Pincknett and Prince and the Cassiopaeans.)
Dick Meehan adds to this list flood marks in paleoclimatic data, methane peak in Greenland ice and a cold time according to bristlecone pines in Britain. Although any one of these in itself would not be of any great concern, the timing of them in a frame of only 100 years, is the thing that makes us suspect that something unusual was going on. And actually, the next 1000 years or so were a very restless time globally.
The aftermath of this may have been a 2807 BC ocean impact described by Bruce Masse in Peiser et al.: Natural Catastrophes (Oxford, 1998). If this is the great Flood Comet, as Masse seems to indicate, this explains why the Sumerian story of Flood, on which basis the Genesis Noachian Flood story is built, is combined with the story of Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh reigned in the 27 Th. century, 300-450 years before the two great cataclysms in late third millennium BC. Or were the comet or comets swarming and breaking up during the whole period of 3114 BC to 2807 BC with diminishing frequency and damage ending temporarily in a great splash in the Atlantic? [Timo Niroma, Helsinki, Finland]
From Rogue Asteroids and Doomsday Comets by Duncan Steel:
The outrageous suggestion that I am going to make is that the Taurid Complex was producing phenomenal meteor storms between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago, accompanied by multiple Tunguska-class atmospheric detonations, and that Stonehenge I was designed to allow the (awestruck, terrified) culture of southern England to make observations of the Phenomena and to perhaps predict their recurrence.
Peter Lancaster Brown, in his book on megalithic sites, wrote that “Eclipses, comets and meteorites were astronomical phenomena widely observed by the ancients. But probably only eclipses were predictable.” (Steel means to imply that Stonehenge I was needed to make observations because meteorite falls are far more unpredictable, but and at the same time may be long-lasting and recurring. – TN.)
Let me suggest that survivors and descendants of the global cataclysm that occurred at the time of the war between Atlantis and “Athens” were reduced to little more than a Stone Age existence for a very long time except, perhaps, for small enclaves here and there which later gave rise to “civilizing” impulses at various locations around the planet. And just as some of the “good guys” survived, so were there survivors of the Evil Empire of Atlantis. Again I note the polarities between the “circle people” and the “pyramid people”.
Later, there was again a battle, a great betrayal at the Cloisters of Ambrius followed by another global disruption, fixing the event in the minds of the people as being “like the destruction of Atlantis” so that the stories were joined together.
Such events would embrace the myths of the Daughters of Danaeus and the Sons of Aegyptus, as well as the story of Orpheus – the “massacre at the Cloisters of Ambrius” – a war between ancient peoples inhabiting Britain and those inhabiting continental Europe where the place names so strongly reflect the descriptions given by Homer as described by Wilkens. Refugees fled to the higher lands, to Eastern Europe, to Eurasia, to Egypt and beyond. Of course, just who is “on first” and who came from where is extremely difficult to determine without long and careful analysis.
It is in the most recent of these events – at the time of the fall of the Bronze Age civilization around 1600 BC – where the final pieces of the drama took place. This last episode is where we will finally find Helen.
In fact, when you think about it, the stories in the Bible are remarkably similar to the Greek myths with most of the fantastic elements removed, names changed, and genealogies inserted to give the impression of a long history. One could say that the “history” of the Old Testament is merely “historicized myth.” And of course, the myths that it was historicized from may have belonged to an entirely different people.
Again we remember that the winners (or the survivors) write the history, and we have a very strange story to tell… about Helen and the Exodus Conspiracy: the face that launched a Thousand Wars.
But we have much ground to cover before we face Helen.