Geology of Greece (eBook)

INTRODUCTION

AS STATED IN THE SERIES INTRODUCTION, THESE first two volumes focus on matters pertaining in any way to the legend of Atlantis. In this second volume, we focus on the other region the Egyptian priest gives us some geological information about, i.e., Greece and the Aegean, which he describes in the context of Atlantis and its destruction. We are, of course, interested to see if the recent geological history of the Greek/Aegean region reflects incremental uniformitarianism, as we’re led to believe, or the old priest’s rather more dramatic narrative of events.

Having taken a close look at Plato’s Atlantis legend itself in volume 1, and from as many angles as could possibly have something to offer, including the geological and astronomical, we should, by now, have a good idea of what it actually says, at least about everything except Greece and the Aegean. We have heard from many of the parties involved, both ancient and modern, including those with one or another axe to grind, most of whom hail from academia, and most of whom condemn the legend as fiction, and its author as an imaginative poet, or worse.

At the same time, we saw that there are still some well-established academics who hesitate to dismiss the legend out of hand, and feel that there may be an historical fact or two lurking in the background. While they are certainly a small minority, these few academics do signify that not all scholars studiously toe the line of orthodoxy. This gives us some modicum of hope, at least.

We spent a good deal of time on the newly created subdiscipline of geomythology and its treatment of Atlantis and other myths. We saw that the approach taken by these academics was little different from any academic anywhere. Most demonstrated disinterest, or perhaps evasion, when it came to giving any myth a proper scientific treatment. This was unsurprising, considering the reluctance of academic geologists to challenge any of the dearly held theories of the uniformitarian establishment, as Berger, for example, made clear. As he suggested, perhaps it’s time for some Chinese scientists or physicists to get involved.

In this volume, we will have no hesitation at all in challenging the theories of uniformitarianism, and we will often use physics to do so, while we may meet the odd Chinese scientist also. Since the priest gives us a good deal of geological information about ancient Greece (Athens) we will now use that to conduct a geological “test,” shall we say, of Plato’s legend, which we could also call his “geological theory.” As we saw from Dorothy Vitaliano, in chapter 8 of volume 1, there is little difference between a geological theory and an etiological myth, and hence, Plato’s legend is, in essence, an etiological myth concerning the formation of the present-day world.

The priest describes the country in both a general way, as regards its overall size, shape and topography, and also in a more detailed way, pertaining to its soils, sediments, plants, and climate. More importantly, the priest also presents a description of the catastrophe’s effects on Greece, simultaneous with the destruction of Atlantis out in the Atlantic.

We have, therefore, quite a lot to work with, especially as compared to some of the legends we examined in volume 1. Still, our examination of those legends showed that some do provide quite a lot of information—much of it unaddressed by academic geomythologists, who clearly hadn’t much interest in “elucidating” the nature of the geological events that gave rise to those legends. However, we saw that a simple comparison of one or two legends with the geological evidence suggested that those legends were quite likely valid reports of actual events. This volume is essentially a massively expanded version of that comparison process.

The reader will, of course, understand that much of what I say in this book contradicts the uniformitarian explanation, and much else is considered complete heresy. However, the whole point is to test uniformitarianism, so it can’t be helped if the results of the experiment are not to academia’s liking—I’m just following the science, as academics themselves say, and I can’t help where it leads, as they also say.

We begin with a look at the structure of Greece and the Aegean, both being a single landmass, in reality; it is just that some of it, the Aegean area, is now underwater. We know that the region experiences occasional earthquakes and volcanic eruptions in the present day, and hence is still somewhat active. And here, the first issue arises.

The question is whether this is an actual ongoing process, which has always been occurring at the present rate, or is it merely a newly-initiated process, or, indeed, perhaps it is the fading effect of a much more violent event in the past. This is the first conflict with uniformitarianism, which claims simple and always ongoing continuity. We will see, however, that the Greek evidence indicates past events of a much more violent nature, occurring widely and rapidly, and, indeed, quite recently.

As we move on, we see that past and present geologists interpreted each category of evidence according to the prevailing dogma of the day. Hence, we have an excellent opportunity here to test the evidence against both uniformitarianism and what the priest said of the catastrophe that overwhelmed Greece, as well as Atlantis. This means that everything geologists say about Greece should be reflected in the evidence, and all that evidence should be easily and directly explainable by reference to one or another uniformitarian process currently operating on, or in, Greece, or known, with certainty, to have operated there in the past.

The Great Ice Age is the prime example, and we’ll examine that evidence in particular. I must remind the reader here that the Ice Age is not a uniformitarian process; no ice age is ongoing today. And the polar ice caps of today do not represent an ongoing “ice age” at the poles, as some geologists have claimed. Those ice caps merely represent normality.

Rivers, river valleys, and wave action at the coasts are other major subjects of our study, as these are heavily involved in shaping the surface and topography of the country from an erosional point of view. This erosion naturally results in deposition in various other places, filling up hollows, valleys and basins, etc., as well as comprising near-shore deposits such as beaches and estuarine/delta infill.

There are also some rather widespread deposits that are hard to account for. The mountains and valleys, the rivers and lakes, and the soils and sediments of Greece can tell us much about its recent history. Examining all this evidence, we can compare it with what the priest says, and here we also have an early opportunity to examine and assess certain geological theories and principles, to see how they hold up under some critical analysis and field testing.

Greece is particularly famous for its fossil deposits, considered to have accumulated in the last 5 or 10 million years (my), or so. These fossil deposits are mostly composed of the types of fauna that went extinct at the end of the Ice Age, as well as long before it, according to orthodoxy. This will be our first meeting with the megafauna of Greece, and we can be certain that hordes of American Indians at no time swept down from Siberia to run amok among the elephants.

Nevertheless, that Greek megafauna is just as dead as the American one. Furthermore, just as problematic to explain is all the fossil plant life found on Greece, mostly in the form of lignites (brown coal) composed of shredded trees and other detritus, and, indeed, what looks like the remains of entire forests.

The old Egyptian priest discusses Athens and the Acropolis, and the damage suffered during the catastrophe. Here we have the opportunity to directly compare the priest’s tale with the evidence on the ground, and we’ll find uniformitarianism seriously wanting. The evidence clearly indicates catastrophe and violent flooding, and that evidence is all lying scattered about the vicinity of Athens, in the basins and on the plains and hills surrounding the city.

We can tie much of this evidence directly to the Acropolis and its present condition, noting that this evidence is the same as that found all over Greece. Moreover, the same evidence is found on the islands of the Aegean, including Crete, and we’ll see that the same essential cause was also responsible for the evidence found in the basins of the Aegean.

Considering the subject and aim of this series, and not to mention volume 1, it will probably not be a surprise to the reader to find that an analysis of this evidence will leave me with little option but to conclude that major flooding was involved. Having presented my sound scientific reasons why, we’ll then see if we can trace the origin and direction of these floods, from the patterns, deposits, and landforms that evidence has impressed, or left, on the landscape. We will also get an idea of the floods’ approximate magnitude.

It may, however, actually be a surprise to the reader to hear that orthodox geology agrees that the Greek region has suffered from a number of major flood events, very much in apparent contradiction of their own uniformitarianism. They even have names for some of them.

We then briefly examine the nature of ancient Greek legends of floods to the extent that we are able,...