Norway Scientific Institutions recognize paleographical hypothesis of Spanish investigator.
The National Library and the The Norwegian Institute of Palaeography and Historical Philology (PHI), assigned to the Academy of Sciences and Lettering and to the University of Oslo, Norway, have decided to consider the hypothesis of a Cuban investigator of Spanish origin on an epigraphical interpretation of one of the most ancient inscriptions of the world.
Georgeos DÃaz-Montexano studious of the past recognized by some scientists as an authority in paleography and ancient epigraphy – especially in Plato’s Greek and Latin manuscripts and the history of the Atlantis – realized a study of identification and interpretation of an enigmatic inscription recorded on an animal bone that appeared at the beginning of last century in Bench-cover of the Coruña, Galicia, in an archaeological context with an antiquity dated in approximately 6000 years.
The piece in question it was studied by some out-standing specialists in paleography immediately after (as a result of) his publication on a global scale that was in the year 2003, by means of the work of Michel Bouvier, edited in Paris, L’Art de l’Ècriture; nevertheless, it was not up the last year that the signs of writing that appear on the bone were recognized and identified like belonging to a signario Iberian-Tartessian by DÃÂaz-Montexano.
Perhaps the most interesting of the fact is that not only has been accepted the epigraphical identification of the signs of writing realized by the Hispanic specialist as the most probable but also his peculiar grammatical and semantic interpretation ha s been included – without any fear -, that is to say, the possible reading and meaning that DÃÂaz-Montexano proposes and that points directly at two names of the antiquity which alone mention provokes all kinds of reactions found between the specialists: Tartessos and Atlantis. Two names associated more with the legend than to the history. The case is that in the last times is evident like the scientists come closer increasingly the study of the past with an a little more open mentality. Many old myths and legends are being reconsidered from an optical interpretive piece of news that tries to conciliate history and myth, science and legend.
Georgeos DÃÂaz-Montexano has managed to claim to a great extent the level of verisimilitude and credibility that really there was deserving the history reported in the Plato’s Timaeus and Critias on the Atlantis, rescuing it of the stomach of the falsification and the manipulation to which it has been submitted in the last two centuries, fundamentally since it turned into a big commercial claim for many writers and masters of certain philosophical and religious associations.
New interpretations of symbols, myths, ancient manuscripts and codes, and archaeological submarine finds have served to DÃaz-Montexano to argue his theories on the Atlantis and the most remote origins of the western European and African civilizations, exactly in Iberia and Morocco. “Ex Occidentis Lux” theorie.
More than fifteen years dedicated to the study and investigation of the past have allowed him to contribute numerous discoveries of big interest – some truly developers – that fortunately, begin to be considered by some scientists and experts of the academic university world.
Source: Antiquos
Was this article in English or Spanish? I could understand few words here and there. This was probably written by the author himself.
However, isn’t this theory presented by others prior to this guy? I can name like 4 “real” scientists that have made the same claim way before this guy Montexano. Isn’t this considered Plagiarism?
http://www.crystalinks.com/atlantisasher.html
She is the legal owner of this theory. Even if Atlantis is ever found in Spain she is to get the credit.
Montexano is plagiarizing her work!
I do not see any case of plagiarism. This news speaks about a few signs of writing in a prehistoric bone, which the investigator DÃaz-Montexano reads as Atal-Tarte. The page on the Dra. Asher that Mr John recommends, only speaks about a theory that identifies the Atlantis with Cadiz, and that is very previous to the Dra. Asher, already has been defended by many Spanish, and German authors, and also she speaks about a few supposed ruins found under the sea, on the coast of Cadiz, which only she has seen. Up to today anybody knows them, not even the Spanish archaeologists.
Already some time ago that a denunciation was published in Internet, against the Dra. Asher, on the part of a member of the society that she created, AMRA, which was for many years contributing money, and did not receive nor even one photo or video of the supposed ruins, or of the supposed finds of atlanteans artefacts, ever, that she was affirming that he had found in the 80′s. The only thing that this person was receiving were discounts to buy the fantastic and esoteric novels of the Dra. Asher, and in one of these novels a few photos, with very bad quality, that only were allowing to see a few possible fences, very small and to very little depth, and some ceramics, which without any doubt are Phoenician.
The theory of the Dra. Asher is almost identical those that it has already defended other previous, Spanish, German, and English authors, and nobody has said that should be plagiarism. Nevertheless, the general theory of Georgeos DÃaz-Montexano, is quite original and different, in many aspects, and it has presented the biggest heap of the unique and original evidences, inside the theories that Atlantis identifies with some place near to Gibraltar, between the coasts of Iberia and Morocco. All this is known by any person who has continued his trajectory for many years, and who has been to so much of his advances in the investigation.
By chance (from what I have seen) another such a John is a personage who publishes, for almost the whole Internet network (in any place that he finds news or articles about Georgeos Dïaz-Montexano), very similar messages, trying always to discredit the investigator DÃaz-Montexano, with all the classes of calumnies, defamations, and attacks ‘ ad hominem ‘, but never with real scientific arguments. Such a personage, who signs as John, never attacks the arguments of DÃaz-Montexano with other arguments. This personage only attacks the person of the investigator, but it never tries to refute the arguments with other arguments. Without doubts, it looks like a personal matter, more than scientist…
Russel
Russell you sound the same as the writer of this essay. I believe you’re montexano himself. Anyway, I don’t know who this other John is but calm down. I just said that your work is not original. She was the first one to come up with it. That’s all. She is the legal owner of that idea. No matter what you do she gets it. She has legalized her work in 1973. Nevertheless, I did a search with your name and I found your resume stating that you have basic knowledge of Ancient languages. In here you claim you’re authority in paleography and ancient epigraphy. What does that even mean? Can you explain please? Are you recognized by the board of archeology or any credible scientific society? I would like to see credible proof that you’re who you claim to be.
I don’t know you, I was wondering if what you’re stating is true.
P.S And yes Mr. Montexano, it is a plagiarism if someone has come up with an idea, even if it presented in a different way and someone else claims that the second one is an original. You can say that your idea is supplementary but not original. And I can name 4 other researchers prior to you who claim the same thing.