GREECE AND WORLD: archaeology

By Stella Tsolakidou on November 22, 2012 In Featured, History, News

The first researcher, who questioned the prevailing theory that Ulysses wandered the Mediterranean Sea for years before the gods allowed him to set foot once again on his beloved Ithaca, was an American historian from Chicago, Henriette Mertz.

In 1964, Mertz suggested with conviction in her book The Wine Dark Sea: Homer’s Heroic Epic of the North Atlantic that Ulysses, in many of the adventures described in Homer’s epic The Odyssey went outside the Mediterranean.

Based on her research and explorations in North America, Mertz proposed that Ulysses had reached the shores of North America with the help of the sea currents.

Mertz studied the speed of sea currents in conjunction with the time it took Ulysses to travel from one place to the other, reading carefully through Homer’s original descriptions and observations. She said she identified the exact locations Ulysses visited in the then unknown part of the world, which have lately revealed archaeological treasures dating back to the ancient Greek hero’s time.

Mertz took her research one step further and designed a detailed chart containing all of Ulysses’ journey stations after the fall of Troy and on his way back home. The map points out the island of the Sirens, the exact point on the American coastline that harbored the sea monsters Scylla and Charybdis, and the actual sea route Ulysses took to get back to Ithaca (assisted all the way by the powerful and swift current of the Gulf Stream).

The study of Siegfried Petrides in 1994, Odyssey – a Naval Epic of the Greeks in America, came to strengthen Mertz’s findings and proposals. According to Petrides, the Greeks have a naval history that starts from at least 7250 B.C. as proved by the findings in Frachthi cave in Argolida.

“… The uniqueness of the Greek geographical area, namely its location in the relatively small Aegean Sea with its hundreds of islands, allowed the prehistoric Greek inhabitants to develop the technology of sea communications very early. Over the years and with the accumulated experience of sea voyages, sailors from the Aegean became more brave and started sailing off to the North and the Black Sea, to the South in Egypt and Phoenicia, and to the West to Italy and the Iberian Peninsula.

“They discovered that the sea they had been sailing was everywhere surrounded by land and had only one exit. They did not hesitate to leave the familiar waters and travel to the North in order to get precious metals, and they did the same westwards as well” he wrote.

The importance of the Greeks (Hellenes)

Part from the article

GERMANY, the DISGRACE of Europe

Authored by PANAGIOTIS TRAIANOU

Let’s take things up from the beginning to make clear to our readers what we have been meaning to say. We are starting by looking at a distant “map” of the European history …Distant enough to see its whole course but at the same time close enough to not lose track of its “leading roles”. So, we are starting from finding out which event is a really important historic event for Europe and which is not. We are starting from an elementary “clearing up” of the useless historic “floatsam and jetsam” that we are bearing in our heads and which has no importance. Out of the supposedly complex European history only a few dates are really important. What is described by the history science as “important”, it is usually an unimportant repetition that interests only those who are implicated in it and no one else.

For example, an important event for the European history was when Leonidas decided to raise his defence in Thermopylae against the Persian “storm” that was threatening Europe. An important event was when Alexander the Great “galloped” all over Asia. Charlemagne, Napoleon or Peter the Great were unimportant, as impressive as their accompanying phenomena were. Why is that? Because importance lays in the “course” of Europe and not in its interior “layout” that depended on the “galloping” of unimportant men in Europe. No matter how much blood was mixed with mud, the “unimportant” kings of the important Europe remain at the same level …The level defined by Europe itself and its position in the World.

This is the same logic used to judge not only the men but also the great events that were supposed to mark the history of Europe. The Battle of the Granicus River was important for Europe because it had set the grounds for its domination for over a millennium. The fall of Constantinople was unimportant because it just caused a change in the internal correlations of Europe. The battle at Waterloo was unimportant for the same reasons. Trafalgar sea battle was also unimportant. This means that a significant event for Europe and its history is considered to be whatever affects its position in the World and not its internal correlations.

Events and persons who change these correlations are of secondary significance and they are significant just for the peoples that benefit or are affected from them without this causing any change in the general European interests. The battle at Waterloo has without a doubt a great significance for the French and the British people, so does Trafalgar sea battle. But, on the European level these two historic events have no importance. They have no importance, because they haven’t affected the rank of Europe and its peoples in the global hierarchy. Europe would continue to rule the World whichever country had won at the mud of Waterloo or on the waters of Trafalgar.

However, to be able to understand and assess all these facts as they deserve, one should know the position of Europe throughout the human history ...One should know the changes in this position in connection with history ...should know the great key events of the human history and not the unimportant “stops” in between ...in the example in the beginning of the text one should know where "Athens" is and finally where "Beijing" is and he/she should not be affected by the in-betweens ...should not conceive a “blocking” outside “Ankara” as a “stop”. One should not be interested if a “train” got lost in the “Teheran” station or if a “bridge” collapsed on the road towards the end. All the in-between events are unimportant. They are unimportant because they do not affect the general situation. They could have taken place or not without bearing no affect at all to the development of things.

Through this “prism”, Europe is a great “station” in the human history …The “station” immediately after Asia where the great human power systems began. This is why Greeks were the absolutely important people for Europe. This is the reason why, Greeks were for centuries the model for the rest of the European people to compare with. It was the people who had the intelligence, the bravery and also the ability not only to resist the Asian attack, but also to strike back and take from Asia its world ruling position …to bring down its power and transfer it in Europe. It was the absolutely successful model for Europe …The “father” of Europe. Therefore this is why Greeks were also the “godfathers” of Europe. No one else could “baptize” Europe if not they who gave to Europe its global role.

It was them who protected Europe when there was a need and who put it on the top of the world when they could. Simple things like that. The Greeks, as a European people, managed to “defend” Europe all alone and it was them who attacked Asia looking for victory ...The Greek victory that was at the same time a European victory as well. These acts were important because the world –and therefore Europe- would have been different today, if the Greeks had lost the “war” to the Persians ...the world would have also been different if they had not won outside Babylon ...it would have been different, because Rome would not have existed and so would not have existed its affect to the human and the European history.

So 480 BC is an important year for Europe. Why is that? Just because the Asian world leadership could not get into Europe. It is a milestone because up to that point the battles between the “Titans” of that era had been set. The two leading empires of the ancient world have collided and they have “ended up” in a situation. Asian Babylon had imposed absolutely on the African Egypt and it was at last free to claim Europe as well. Its king was considered at that time as a living “God”. It was at the same time the king of Babylon and the Pharaoh of Egypt …The absolute ruler of the Afro-Asian world. He attacked Greece aiming at Europe. Greeks as the European defenders of the borderland resisted this almighty “God” and saved Europe.

323 BC, the year Alexander the Great died, was also important. Why is that? Because his death “locked” the new era. A European man gad “seized” the greatest empire of the World and the history of the human kind moved on to the next “chapter”. From the era of Asia we passed to the era of Europe. Europe up to that point had been threatened by Asia or African Egypt and now it became the absolute ruler. There was a transfer of the European human resources to the Asian territory and the “banks” for Europe’s subsequent ruling were created. European Greeks who moved to Asia and Africa as overlords were the ones who gave the time, the knowledge and the power for Rome to “build” the Europe we all know today. Rome “built” the Europe we know, because the Greeks have “blocked” the giants of the East. It is not pure luck that the Romans considered Alexander to be the thirteenth god.

This is the reason why the Greek awesome kid was a very important factor in the European history. This is why all the European legends and myths had Alexander as their reference point. The Greek and therefore the European ruler of the world was he, who led Europe to the “top” of the world. For more than two thousand years, Europe has been the absolute ruling power in the world. The power “moved” from one capital to another, but it always remained within the “walls” of Europe and its omnipotence was solid. Power moved from Rome to New Rome and from there it got to the rest of the capitals. The last holder of the European ruling was London …the Roman Londinium.

For two thousand years, Europeans collected unlimited profits from the “galloping” of Alexander the Great …from the “galloping” of the Greek “bull” who took beautiful Europe onto his back and raised her on the “Olympus” of glory and power. Latin, French, Spanish, British and Russian people saw the world from a “higher” position due to the Greek achievement. Even the Finnish people today, who are supposed to “reproach” the Greeks, we don’t know what type of igloo would they be in today, if it wasn’t for the Greeks.

All Europeans benefited from the Greeks. All European peoples collected profits from the Greek triumph. They had the whole world on their “sting” because the Greeks offered it to them. For as long as Europe remained on the “top” of the world due to the victory of the Greeks, its internal state had no importance. The inland wars –and therefore the battles between the kings of Europe- were battles among the heirs and these battles have a secondary importance when they do not affect the “throne” itself.

By looking at the current position of Europe in the global “chessboard” one could comprehend that this “throne” has been long gone. Europe is today the “shadow” of its former self. It has nearly ended up to be a “supporting actor” in the human history play. So what’s the conclusion? Something important and extremely tragic has happened at the expense of Europe and we just have not realized it yet. Something happened in between and we did not realize it. In the oversupply of unimportant historic data we lost what really matters. Human kind changed “station” and we did not even realized it. The global power has changed continent and we, the Europeans, never realized when was it that we lost the battle.

It is therefore a sure thing that something important has happened and the power of the planet moved to another continent. At some point Europe has to have lost the war so that American Washington decides for the future of the World. After the important Greek triumph there should also have been an important debacle for Europe. It is impossible to lose the world supremacy without a corresponding colossal defeat. There should have been a great mistake and we did not realize it. Somewhere between the unimportant wars, we lost the important one. One obviously stupid European offspring in his/her effort to change the internal correlations spoiled the “family” fortune. There is no other explanation. One of the many internal European battles should have consequences to the whole European presence in the world affairs.

Now you can understand the meaning of what we said before which might have seemed exaggerating ...what we said above that it is in the interest of some people to control suffocatingly the history "science". Some powerful factors of history are interested in mixing the important with the unimportant facts so that peoples don’t understand what is really going on. They have interest in making history appear as a totally complicated “science” that is only for the “scientists” and not for the common people. You can see that it is only reasonable for some people to have misinterpreted the historic facts because otherwise some leaders would have been executed in squares all over Europe.

Within the frameworks of this intentional historic wrong information we seek the reasons of the current historic ignorance of the European people. Within the needs of the new powerful people we seek the reasons for the “falsification” of historic details. It has resulted to the situation we are facing today. Europeans lost the battle of world leadership and did not even realize it. It is phenomenal and unheard not only for the modern people in the years of information but even unacceptable for the primitive people. It is as if an Asian man did not know what meant the seizing of Babylon by the European Alexander.

Where can we seek such a colossal defeat? But in a colossal war. The world leadership is not lost in a conflict at a random outpost at the border. A war of the same proportions is required for such a loss and that could be only a World War. Who does not know the World Wars that started in Europe? Even though one knows them, one cannot assess them. Why is that? Because there is a huge difference between them. The First World War was a completely unimportant interior European war, since it did not affect Europe’s “course”. On the contrary, the Second World War was the most important because it ruined Europe. What the Greeks had achieved in “Thermopylae” by stopping the attack from the East that the Europe had sustained from the Asians, the Europeans did not manage to do with the attack from the West that Europe sustained from the Americans

The Second World War was the “end” of the Europe’s world leadership and the “beginning” of the America’s world leadership. The Second World War meant for the European empire what the attack of Alexander the Great had meant for the Asian empire. It was the beginning of the end. If you understand the importance of this war, you can start seeing some things that many people unfortunately do not pay attention to. So, based on the new “point of view” –due to the “distance” taken- you can start detecting those responsible for the European “defeat”. Have the Americans ever attacked Europe? Of course not! Therefore who were those whose stupidity opened the “door” to the Americans and handed over the “sceptre” of Europe?