Possible solution to the Richat problem

(how is it an island?) (see comment)

13 Comments
Share
Save
Hide
Report
94% Upvoted
This thread is archived
New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast
SORT BY
BEST

level 1
[deleted]
2 years ago·edited 2 years ago
This is just an armchair observation, so take it with a pinch of salt. I just think that life looks
different when it's 9,000 BC and you're paddling a canoe. Even if this theory turns out to be
garbage, I'm happy that a few more people have seen a map of the Tamanrasett river. Just
because.
Anyway...
The standard theory on the Richat structure requires it to be close to sea level in the past. It
further requires a large corner of Africa (bigger than Libya and Asia combined) to be
surrounded by water. But I don't think that either is necessary. Because islands are in the
eye of the beholder. I call this the "coast hugger" theory.
Ancient boats
Imagine you are a Greek in 9,000 BC. You just defeated some invading Atlanteans. You
decide to check out their land for yourself. Long journeys were certainly possible in 9,000
BC: neolithic traders brought valuable shells from Afghanistan almost to Britain, so a
journey of a few thousand miles is OK. But this is Greece, 9,000 BC: your boats are very
small and simple. You can only paddle up rivers or hug the coastline. But if Atlantis is
based at the Richat Structure, then hugging the coastline is all you need. So you set off.
No land on the horizon
First you hug the north African coast until the pillars of Hercules. You then continue down
along the coast, always within sight of land. Now here's the first point: in your boat, your
eyes are never more than 2 metres above sea level. So your horizon is only 5 km away. If
there is land more than 5km away, and it doesn't have mountainous coasts, you simply will
not see it! Back in Greece you have generations of experience to draw on, but far from
home? You have zero idea what is more than 5km away. Remember that, it's important.
The Tamanrasett river
The next important fact is that the Richat Structure is SOUTH of the Tamanrasett river.
That's the river that flowed west from the Sahara in the wet period, and finally dried up
around 3000 BC. Full details. The Tamanrasett river was BIG. The first clue to its existence
was a big groove in the sea bed: it used to empty out so much water at its mouth that it
created a great big under sea canyon! We don't know if it was as big as the Amazon, but it
was in that league. So think of the mouth of the Amazon - maybe a little smaller, but not by
much.
The fastest rote from Athens to the Richat Structure (before 3,000 BC) was to follow the
coast until you reach the mouth of the Tamanrasett, then travel up it until you find a suitable
tributary. No doubt some modest stream goes all the way to the Richat, and since your boat
is small you could paddle all the way. (I suspect the Atlantean boats were small as well:
after all, the Greeks defeated them. But that's another topic.) So, finally, to my point.
To get to the Richat Structure from Athens, you must cross the mouth of the Tamanrasett
at some point. The mouth is probably 50km wide or so, yet your horizon is only 5km away.
it feels like you are crossing open sea.
It looks like an island
When you crossed the river mouth you would be OUT OF SIGHT OF LAND. This would be
true even if you went upriver a few km first (depending on the tide I suppose. But the big
groove in the sea bed suggests that the fresh water was under the salt water) And you
would be crossing in salt water. Then you see land again. From your point of view you are
reaching a different island.
The graphic
Once on the other side of the river mouth (covering 30 km or so!) you would select the
mouth of a river, and continue. You would believie this river to be on the other island. This
may not be intuitive, so I made a graphic (attached). Since we don't yet know what the
Tamnarasett mouth looked like, I simply flipped the mouth of the Amazon 180 degrees.
(That's explained in the faint text on the graphic.)
To summarise: to a neolithic canoeist, whose horizon was 5km away, it looks exactly like
you have found a group of islands, and are crossing to the largest of them, then entering
one of its rivers.
So that's why he comes back saying "you find a bunch of islands, and this one is by far the
biggest." Q.E.D.
"But..."
This would not be the only time that part of a continent was mistakenly thought to be a
separate island. In the 1700s several maps showed California to be an island.
If they explored at length then they would see the truth. But this was a long journey, to
dangerous enemy lands. Our Athenian friend came to visit Atlantis, not to sight-see. He
knew enough to get there then get back. That was all he needed.
Besides, this visitor comes from Greece, a land of islands all crammed together. This is
exactly what he was expecting.
Mud
And there's more!
I mentioned that the Tamanrasett eventually dried up. So by 3,000 BC any visitors to the
group of islands would just find sediment. They would be unable to travel to those islands,
or to Atlantis, or any further along the ocean (which always meant coast hugging). Which
was exactly as Plato said.
Sinking into the sea
At some point in the drying out, the Richat structure would be abandoned. Some event
would be the final straw. Perhaps a minor earthquake, and it wasn't worth repairing the
buildings. Many years later the news would get back to Egypt. They would see this as the
gods bringing judgement at last. And if anybody did try to visit Atlantis again, the mud
would stop them. The combination of an earthquake and the mud would be enough to start
a rumour: Atlantis must have sunk into the sea!
Etc.
I could go on and on. I think everything Plato said could be explained in a minimalist way,
using minimal 9,000 BC technology and experiences. But I have written enough. I cannot
claim to be an expert, and I am no doubt wrong on many things. But I do think it is worth
mentioning the mouth of the Tamanrasett, and how to a neolithic visitor it might easily look
like a group of islands with one gigantic island on the other side.
tl;dr
When you paddle a small canoe, crossing a gigantic river mouth you lose sight of land. It
feels like you are heading out to sea and finding new islands. (If you don't make the journey
very often.)
17
Share
ReportSave
level 2
[deleted]
2 years ago·edited 2 years ago
More topics of interest[1]
Oral history
Australian oral history remembers islands that were flooded before 12000 BC. Proving that,
yes, oral history can accurately record major events from that time.
In ancient times, oral history was more reliable than written history. Because written history
might only exist in one place, so is easy to change or lose. Whereas oral history was
recorded and cross checked in multiple places. For example, last Thursday had a radio
interview with a native Canadian. (Thursday Sep 27 2018, BBC Radio 3, "Free Thinking" on
"Loss, Grief and Anger"). She mentioned her people's oral history (among other topics). In
passing she describes how oral history is constantly checked for accuracy.The women of
her tribe would sit around in the evening doing their work, and tell the stories to each other.
If one person made a mistake the others would correct them.
There were two kinds of story: histories that had to be word perfect, and folk tales that you
are encouraged to adapt to current needs, as long as the original message was retained.
For the non-histories, adapting the tales proved to the elders that you understood the core
meaning and not just the words. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0000hpj
Critias addresses the origin of history. History only starts once people settle down and have
spare time to talk about such things. History could be oral or written, but the key (according
to Critias) is the class of people with time and interest in preserving it.
Word perfect accuracy is also assured though using poetic forms: if the rhythm and rhyme
is wrong people notice. See Gilgamesh, Homer, etc., where the repetitive form is clearly
designed for memorisation.
Ancient peoples (e.g. the Celts) were known for their phenomenal memories. Once writing
became common, the wise elders warned that accuracy would decline, and they were right.
Another way that written description is inferior is that it encourages selectivity. Readers do
not memorise the entire thing, just the parts that interest them. So people focus on the
parts that sound out of place for 9,000 BC, while ignoring the context that shows it is
entirely in place.
.