Deluge of Atlantis

Deluge of Atlantis
Deluge of Atlantis

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Atlantean Warfare At The End of the Pleistocene

I discovered a small book by A. Feril in 1985, when it was still new. Its name was The Origins of War and as soon as I saw it, I started telling people "There is direct confirmation of the Atlantis war described by Plato and this book tells of it"

A couple of decades later and other people are starting to learn about it, too. Here are a couple of quotes from it (and some of the other source material) posted on the Atlantis Rising message board under "Plato as Prehistorian"

After 25 years of not getting anybody to notice much, it is good that some people are beginning to find out about it. Quoting the poster at Atlantis Rising, "Helios":

This next article is rather lengthy, but seems to make the point nicely about the weapons and fortifications available to the people of that time. Again, it is my contention that the war between Athens and Alantis may have happened in this time, that Plato may have gave the technologies used some enhancements, but that the essential story is "true."

One popular misconception about prehistoric warfare is that populations were so small that warfare on a modern, historic scale is simply out of the question. In fact, that is entirely wrong. Too many writers today tend to think of war as involving armies of millions of men, but only in the twentieth century has this been the general rule. At Waterloo both Wellington and Napoleon had armies of less than 100,000 men, and a half century later at the Battle of Gettysburg neither army had that many. At the Battle of New Orleans there were 9000 British and 4000 Americans on the field. Actually throughout much of modern history armies have been far smaller than most people realize. In 1567 the Duke of Alba marched to suppress a revolt in the Netherlands with only about 10,000 men. In the French Huguenot wars armies numbered about 10,000 to 15,000 strong. In 1643 at Rocroi a French army of 22,000 defeated Imperial Spain. Suffice it to say that armies of 5,000 to 15,000 men are large enough to represent major military striking forces in most periods of history.
Population figures for prehistoric times in the Mediterranean region are notoriously difficult to determine, but there are some reasonably reliable estimates, as we shall see. Also estimates of New World native populations before contact with the Europeans are impressive for such places as the Hawaiian Islands where prehistoric armies were large. Even some of the Northwest Coast Indian tribes, such as the Tlingit and the Kwakiutl, had populations of about 10,000. In the Eastern Mediterranean as early as the seventh millennium BC 5,000 to 6000 people may have lived at Çatal Höyük in modern Turkey, and the population of Jericho at about 8,000 BC has been estimated at 2,000 with a possible defending force of 500 to 600 men. At the beginning of the Neolithic period in the Near East some armies may have numbered up to 1000 or so, and by the end of the period somewhere between 5,000 to 10,000 men. Armies of that size compare with full scale historic armies of a much later period. If size alone is a consideration, prehistoric armies were capable of practicing warfare in a highly sophisticated fashion. In fact men can be organized effectively for war in groups of less than 500.

There is no evidence for the practice of war before the late Paleolithic Age (35,000 to 12,000 BC). A few weapons are known to have been used much earlier. Stones and clubs, man-made pebble choppers, and the spear were available hundreds of thousands of years ago, perhaps millions. They were definitely used in hunting game and probably in attacks by man on man, but there is no clear evidence. The famous Paleolithic cave paintings of France and Spain, dating from the period of 30,000 to 20,000 years ago, show no certain scenes of man killed by man. Mainly they depict animals, several thousand of them. Only about 130 of the figures have been identified as possibly men, and many of them are dubious, simply as men. Even so, the vast majority of the 130 are shown in peaceful scenes. A tiny number appear to be pictures of men dying from wounds inflicted by spears or arrows, but they are so badly drawn that not a single one can be certainly identified as a wounded or dead man.

It is possible that the bow and arrow and the sling go back into the Paleolithic Age, perhaps as far back as 50,000 years ago, but again there is no definite proof of their use that early. Stone darts, sometimes called "arrow heads," were made during the Paleolithic Age, but they were not necessarily attached to arrows fired from a bow. They may simply have been points inserted in spearheads or throwing darts. No one knows where the bow and arrow were invented, but it appears most likely that they first came into use at the end of the Paleolithic Age (12,000 to 10,000 BC), after the period of the cave paintings.

The new weapon spread quickly around the Mediterranean, more slowly perhaps even around the world, from one prehistoric culture to another. It is uncertain whether the New World bow reached America as a result of cultural diffusion from Africa, Europe and Asia, or whether the bow was spontaneously invented in several different locations. Most forms of the bow appeared in the Neolithic period, even the composite bow. One authority on early bows has speculated that the flat short bow had a northern and north eastern origin, that the simple long bow was western and that the composite bow came from the east.

It would be difficult to exaggerate the significance of the bow for prehistoric warfare. It provided a revolutionary increase in range and volume of firepower. Before the introduction of the bow long range firepower was provided by the thrown spear (sometimes with the help of an atlatl, a spearthrower that extended man's forearm and gave the spear more range, accuracy, and power). But the bow more than doubled the range of the spear, and since the arrow was so much smaller and easier to carry, it was possible to deliver a much greater volume of fire against the enemy. In some cases it could have been done from concealment. When Neolithic man took position in a line and fired on command, he unleashed a powerful barrage of arrows.

Almost simultaneously other new and important weapons appeared in the late Paleolithic or Neolithic periods. The dagger, the sling, and the mace were found at Çatal Höyük in Anatolia dating from about 7000 BC. The sling is an especially important weapon, deadlier and with greater range and accuracy than the early simple bow. Everyone knows the famous biblical story of David and Goliath, but few people realize how widespread the sling was throughout the world and how devastating a weapon it could be. The ancient Greek writer, Xenophon, tells us that as he led a group of Greeks out of Persia back to the Aegean his slingers from the island of Rhodes fired slingstones farther than the Persian arrows and that their accuracy was greater. Projectiles for slings can vary dramatically in size from pebbles to lead shot to fist-sized stones. The larger missiles can smash skulls and break bones, even against armor.

Some authorities believe that the sling was not often used because slingers took up too much space in line. That is wrong on both scores. The sling was a common weapon in ancient war, and slingers could fight in relatively close formation. Slings need not be slung overhead, nor need they be long. Short slings slung underhanded like a softball pitcher with only one swing of the hand became the standard, at least by Roman times, and probably much earlier. Another misconception is that it takes nearly a lifetime to learn the use of the sling and that only men who used it as boys in their native land could be recruited as slingers. Nothing could be further from the truth, even though there were some regions in antiquity, such as Rhodes and the Balearic Islands, famous for their slingers. Still, one of my own students in military history became reasonably adept with the sling during Spring vacation a few years ago, and all Roman legionnaires received regular training in it. The weapon was important and widely used, particularly in a siege.

At least by the Neolithic Age man also learned how to put bashing weapons made of stone onto wooden handles. The Indian tomahawk is the classic example, but around the ancient Mediterranean the mace was more common although battle-axes were known too. To modern readers the panoply of prehistoric weapons seems quaint and antiquated--there are no intercontinental ballistic missiles, no hydrogen bombs, no tanks or aircraft carriers, no gunpowder in any form. But prehistoric warfare was savage. There were also no Geneva Conventions, and a captive who gave his captor name, rank, and serial number would have had his skull broken (assuming captives were taken at all) or even more likely would simply have been reduced to permanent slavery. Captive women were taken as slaves and concubines, and modern distinctions between the treatment of the civilian and military population were often nonexistent.

Perhaps the most impressive evidence of prehistoric preoccupation with warfare are the archaeological ruins of massive fortifications constructed by early man. In Paleolithic times men used natural shelters for protection against animals and enemies. Caves, forests, rivers, and deserts all serve as defensive barriers, but with the introduction of long range missiles in the form of arrows and slingstones, accompanied by the need to produce food in an agricultural settlement, man had to build artificial barriers, usually high walls, for defense. Neolithic fortifications were sometimes massive. The walls of Jericho were ten feet thick and thirteen or more feet high. A twenty-eight foot tower that was thirty-three feet in diameter with a central stairway and an entrance at the bottom was attached to the wall. Although the entire wall remains unexcavated, it probably extended about 765 yards and enclosed an area of approximately ten acres.

Although Jericho eventually became a settled agricultural community, it first attracted residents as a hunting site. To protect themselves against invaders the inhabitants built the wall. Evidence now indicates that the wall went up before the cultivation of plants. Elsewhere I have suggested that the military need for fortified defense against the new projectile weapons forced man to settle down and led to the discovery of agriculture. Behind his new walls Neolithic man could store surpluses of food, and because he could fall back behind the walls for protection, he could work the land outside them with some sense of security.

A quite different form of military defense is seen in the architecture of Catal Huyu?k. There were no massive outside walls, but the houses were all interconnected, sharing contiguous inner walls. Entry into the rooms was through holes in the roofs reached by ladder. As a result the line of the outside walls of the rooms around the settlement formed a kind of fortification. When attackers approached, the inhabitants could simply scamper up their ladders, retrieve them, and if an invader broke through a wall, he simply found himself in a single room. Many other Neolithic settlements in the Near East were protected by fortifications of one kind or another.

It should be obvious that war was a very important part of the life of prehistoric man in the Neolithic Age. What remains is to determine whether it was true organized warfare comparable to that practiced in civilized societies. That requires some assessment of Neolithic strategy and tactics, which may sound somewhat highblown, but if Neolithic man did not apply strategy and tactics to his fighting, then it was not organized warfare. The elementary, basic requirement for true war is the ability to form troops in column and line. If a body of warriors cannot march in column and fight in line, it is not an army. Forming a column and holding a line requires teamwork, training and discipline. The natural instinct in a clash of arms is to run, an act that jeopardizes everyone, but there is safety in the line. If the enemy cannot break through your line, or come around behind it, you will win. If your line is penetrated, you are finished, and your life is in grave danger.

In The Face of Battle John Keegan wrote:

Inside every army is a crowd struggling to get out, and the strongest fear with which every commander lives--stronger than his fear of defeat or even of mutiny--is that of his army reverting to a crowd through some error of his making...Many armies, beginning as crowds, remain crowdlike throughout their existence.... Tactically quite un- articulated, they were vulnerable to the attack of any drilled, determined, homogeneous force...The replacement of crowd armies by nuclear professional armies was one of the most important, if complex, processes in European history.

There is every reason to believe that even in Neolithic times man learned to fight in an organized fashion. The fortifications themselves suggest teamwork and leadership, discipline and order. Fortunately, however, we are not limited simply to fortifications. Neolithic cave paintings show warriors forming a line, firing on command, and marching in column behind a leader who was wearing a distinctive uniform that distinguished him from the rest of his troops. One painting may possibly even show Neolithic warriors executing a double envelopment. Because there are no written documents for prehistoric times we do not know about the great wars that must occasionally have broken out, and obviously we cannot know for certain about the tactics of individual battles. There are not even paintings or drawings that are as detailed as the ones from Bronze Age Egypt or the Minoan Aegean.

Anthropologists have identified some common strategies in prehistoric warfare. One of them is to interdict use of unoccupied territory to prevent exploitation of its resources by others. Associated with that is the maintenance of the no man's lands between prehistoric communities. Tactics in such a strategy often did not involve full scale battles and consisted mainly of raids and terrorism. Another strategy was to plunder the settlement or territory of a neighbor much as the Galls did against Rome when they sacked the city in 390 BC. For a relatively large and mobile force with a rich but weak neighbor a raid was a better way of acquiring resources than working for them. Finally there was the strategy of unconditional surrender: the defeat of the enemy and seizure of his territory. This often involved larger battles and considerable violence. Unfortunately we cannot often reconstruct the details of prehistoric battles.

But there are some tantalizing hints about the nature of Neolithic warfare. One of them comes from the very earliest stages of the Neolithic, probably even from the end of the Paleolithic Age. There is an ancient Egyptian cemetery, actually at the northern edge of modern Sudan, discovered during the intensive excavations that were sponsored as the Aswan damn was under construction, when everyone knew that much archaeologically rich land would soon be under water. The excavators called it "Cemetery 117" and identified it as Epipaleolithic (12,000-4500 BC) from the so-called Qadan culture. This particular cemetery is of special interest because nearly half of the fifty-nine skeletons show signs of violent deaths inflicted by small flake points (microliths), probably arrowheads. Some of the dead suffered from multiple wounds, and points were discovered in the sphenoid bones in two skulls, suggesting that the victims were shot under the lower jaw, probably as they writhed in pain on their backs. A young adult female had twenty-one stone artifacts in her body. Another, an adult male, had nineteen wounds. It is possible that some of the others, whose skeletons now show no sign of injury, were killed too, since not all deadly wounds leave a mark on the skeleton.

This cemetery on the Egyptian-Sudanese border is not the only prehistoric burial site that contains evidence of human violence. Neolithic cemeteries near the Dnieper rapids in the Soviet Union and at Schela Cladovei in Rumania also reveal the signs of warfare. They too date to sometime before 4000 BC. All three settlements have one thing in common. They were on rivers where the fishing was no doubt good, and where there may have been reasonably rich agricultural land. CSR, Competition for Scarce Resources, undoubtedly had much to do with prehistoric warfare. Some of the examples mentioned above are quite famous--Jericho, Çatal Höyük, and Cemetery 117, but they are not unique. Just last year a two- volume book was published entitled Enclosures and Defences in the Neolithic of Western Europe (Oxford, 1988). In fact Neolithic sites all over the world reveal the signs of planning and building against outside attackers. Warfare in prehistoric times was the rule--not the exception.

Quite recent research has shown that the Neolithic world was dotted with fortifications. As early as the fourth millennium they appear in settlements all over Northern Europe. A good example is the Neolithic enclosure at Compiagne on the Oise in modern France. As one authority has recently said, "Such sites proliferated in Western Europe during the fourth-third millennia BC and are the oldest monumental structures found so far in the central Paris Basin." Normally a timber palisade surrounded by shallow ditches formed a perimeter around the settlement. The one discovered in 1978 at Compiagne, during the extension of an industrial park, was only partially excavated, but aerial photographs reveal that it was about 750 meters long in the form of a rectangular bow with a straight palisade trench as the string of the bow. Altogether the enclosure included about 14 or 15 hectares, and the circumference of the timber palisade was 1800 meters. This is roughly three times larger than the enclosure at Jericho. The quantity of earth removal for the trench is staggering. As the illustration shows, the ditches were wide and deep. The palisade was made of posts, an average of 14 posts for every 10 meters, lined with clay for protection against moisture, and the gaps filled with wickerwork. Oyster shells and pottery sherds were placed in the palisade trench as a foundation for the posts. Comparison with several similar sites in La BassCAe and in Picardy (six separate sites altogether) shows that they were defended with structures built in about the same fashion.

At Crickley Hill in county Gloucester, four miles south of Cheltenham, there is a small (4 acre) prehistoric fortification. It had a causewayed enclosure of two rings of ditches with banks made of horizontal layers of stone and earth on the inner rings. There were at least three outer and inner ring entrances with gates into the settlement. Fenced roads led from the outer gates into the interior camp. When that camp was abandoned, the inner ditch silted up and, later, new occupants rebuilt the fortifications with a single outer ring There was a post palisade somewhat less than two meters high directly behind a stone bank on the inner edge of the ring. The three entrances corresponded roughly to the previous ones. What is striking about this phase of the settlement is that there is clear evidence that it was attacked and destroyed. Flint arrowheads cover the roadways from the eastern entrances into the inner camp, and over 400 were found in the eastern entrances themselves. Obviously the defenders were overwhelmed, because the site was destroyed by fire and abandoned. Clearly the ditches were designed to slow the invaders while the defenders fired at them from the palisades. Actually the earlier double walls would have been a more effective defense in depth. An author writing recently for Scientific American has suggested that the increase in warfare and fortifications in the Middle Neolithic in Europe may have been caused by a colder and wetter climate and the competition for scarce resources. Much of the best land had already been claimed and there was no longer an outlet for population pressure. But there was also an intensification of warfare in North Africa and the Middle East, and there a deteriorating climate cannot be the explanation.

As prehistory came to an end with the emergence of civilization in Mesopotamia and along the Nile, warfare played a critical role in the formation of the new states. Actually all over the world when primitive societies became emergent states, military institutions were critical and sometimes even determinative. Early Egyptian history testifies to the importance of armies. Even before the unification of the two kingdoms, in the predynastic period, the Palette of the Fortresses shows fortified towns under siege and the booty of war on the other. The famous Palette of Narmer, first of the Egyptian pharaohs, depicts the new ruler on one side in the act of slaying an opponent and on the other he is reviewing the headless bodies of his enemies under the standards of his army. At the bottom the bull of Narmer is destroying a fortified site. In the upper right one can see Narmer's ship, and it is possible that his invasion force moved down the Nile into Lower Egypt by flotilla.

In Mesopotamia the war chariot was used as early as 3000-2500 BC, and in both Egypt and Mesopotamia the weapons arsenal was highly developed with new arms and armor made of bronze. Whereas the bow and arrow were used extensively in Egypt, in Mesopotamia Sumerian infantrymen were armed with javelins, spears, daggers and swords. In both regions other prehistoric weapons, such as maces and battle-axes, were widely used. In Mesopotamia, especially, siege warfare and fortification were highly developed. By the second millennium, in the Battles of Megiddo and Kadesh, armies of 20,000 men marched distances of hundreds of miles with the logistical support system that entailed. Warfare had emerged from prehistory.

Recommended Readings

Bogucki, Peter, Forest Farmers and Stockherders (Cambridge, 1988).
Burgess, Colin, et al., Enclosures and Defences in the Neolithic of Western Europe, 2 parts (Oxford, 1988).
Divale, William T., Warfare in Primitive Societies: A Bibliography (Santa Barbara, 1973).
Ferguson, R. Brian, Warfare, Culture, and Environment (Orlando, 1984).
Ferrill, Arthur, The Origins of War (New York, 1985)[Primary Source for the Above-Quoted Text-DD].
Keegan, John, The Mask of Command (New York, 1987).
Manzanilla, Linda, ed., Studies in the Neolithic and Urban Revolutions, 2 parts (Oxford, 1987).
Mellaart, James, The Neolithic of the Near East (London, 1975).
Rausing, Gad, The Bow (Lund, 1967).
Telegin, D. Ya., and Potekhina, I.D., Neolithic Cemeteries and Populations in the Dnieper Basin (Oxford, 1987).
Turney-High, H.H., Primitive War: Its Practice and Concepts, 2nd ed. (Columbia, S.C., 1971).
Whittle, Alasdair, Neolithic Europe: A Survey (Cambridge, 1985).

This next passage concerns the sort of technology that has been found in Egypt, circa the era where Plato sets the Athens/Atlantis war.

Complicating everything, however, is the discovery of a coexisting industry now labeled Silsillian (c. 13,000 BC) which effectively puts the early Egyptians back at the forefront of prehistoric technological development. Sisillian was a highly-developed microblade industry that included truncated blades, blades of unusual shapes made specifically for one task, and most significant of all, a wide variety of bladelets for mounting onto spears, darts, and arrows. There is almost no trace of earlier techniques such as Levalloisian, and Silsillian blades in some cases are thousands of years ahead of anything found in Europe from this period. The Silsillian Industry also premiered the creation of microliths. Microliths are small, fine blades used in advanced tools such as arrows, harpoons, and sickles, and since they are smaller, use less material. This latter development may have been due to the fact that in the Kom Ombo area, high-quality stone was in short supply. Additionally, the fact that these blades were used for agricultural tools such as sickles shows that by this time basic farming had begun, and earlier than had been previously thought.
Unlike their European "contemporaries" who had to deal with the changing post-ice age climate and the disappearance of several food species, the early Egyptians were still able to engage in hunting large game animals, and since many of the animal herds were now concentrated near the Nile, more stable settlements could be made. The Halfan Industry, or rather, the Halfan people, for it was much more than just a way of making tools, flourished between 18,000 and 15,000 BC (though one site has been found dating to before 24,000 BC) on a diet of large herd animals and the Khormusan tradition of fishing. Although there are only a few Halfan sites and they are small in size, there is a greater concentration of artifacts, indicating that this was not a people bound to seasonal wandering, but one that had settled, at least for a time [Halfans are thought to have been ancestral to the Ibero-Maurusian, Mechta-Alafou CroMagnon peoples of Northwest Africa-DD].

Another group that did rather well during this time (17,000 - 15,000 BP) was the Fakhurian, an industry based entirely on microlithic tools. Indeed, they are the only industry discovered so far that is solely microlithic. Some Fakhurian blades are less than 3 cm long! At the same time, the two Idfuan industries were retaining a culture based on nomadic hunting, trapping, and snaring. During this time, at least in Upper Egypt, there is a trend for industries, as they become more advanced, to become more localized. No doubt this is due to the fact that the people were ceasing to be nomadic, settling in various areas, and then developing separately from everyone else depending on the environment in which they made their home, whether it was on the banks of the Nile, on the savannas, or in one of the outlying oases not yet claimed by the desert. Perhaps it should be mentioned that the Nile of the Paleolithic was much different than the Nile of today. Although dry, the desert areas were not completely hostile, as the annual flooding of the Nile was much higher than today, which resulted in a greater groundwater table and in turn, oases, floodpools, and waterholes.

With the sites from these periods archaeologists begin to see the signs of "true" cultures emerging. The Qadan (13,000 - 9,000 BC) sites, stretching from the Second Cataract of the Nile to Tushka (about 250 km upriver from Aswan), actually have cemeteries and evidence of ritual burial. It is also during this time that the first great experiments in ordered agriculture began. Grinding stones and blades have been found in great numbers with a glossy film of silica on them, possibly the result of cut grass stems. Sadly, as stone preserves better than straw baskets or satchels, the extent of agriculture from this period can not be determined. It may not have been true agriculture as we know it, but rather a sort of systematic "caring for" the local plant life (watering and harvesting, but as yet no planting in ordered rows and the like). Yet even this would put the Paleolithic Egyptians on almost the same technological level as the early Neolithic peoples in Europe. Some of the sites also give evidence that fishing was abandoned by the people living there, possibly because farmed grains (barley, most likely), together with the large herd animals still hunted, created a diet that was more than adequate.

Oddly though, almost as soon as this protoagriculture was developed, it appears to have been abandoned. Beginning around 10,500 BP, the stone sickles that were so predominant seem to simply fade out of the picture and there is a return to the hunter-gatherer-fisher culture that came before. Invasion by another people is a possible explanation, though a series of natural disasters that devastated the fledgling crops is more logical, as we are dealing with abandonment by not one, but many prehistoric societies over a widespread area. At first it would seem that the growing aridity of the environment was the cause. Certainly, given the present state of the Sahara and the surrounding area, this is a logical conclusion, but new evidence shows that this period was marked by a series of rather severe and violent Nile floods which could have destroyed the "farmlands" and discouraged the people from continuing to rely on crops as a dietary index.

It was about this time that the demise of the various Paleolithic peoples in Egypt began. It may very well be that the abandonment of protoagriculture contributed to this, but the discovery of the Jebel Sahaba cemetery sheds some new light on the end of many Paleolithic cultures. In all, three Qadan cemeteries are known: one at Tushka, and two at Jebel Sahaba, one on each side of the river. Although many of the remains unearthed at these sites are the usual cross-section of elderly and young, chieftains and commoners, there are quite a disturbing number of bodies from the final 5,000 years of the Upper Paleolithic that appear to have died by violence. Stone points found with the remains were almost all located in areas of the body that suggests penetration as spear points or similar weapons. Most were located in the chest and back area, with others in the lower abdomen, and even a few entering the skull through the lower jaw or neck area! Additionally, the lack of bony calluses as a result of healing near these points shows that in many of these cases the wound was fatal (bone tissue repairs itself rather quickly, preliminary healing often begins before even that of soft tissues). A statistical analysis of the main cemetery at Jebel Sahaba gives a figure of 40 percent of the people buried there died from wounds due to thrown projectiles; spears, darts, and arrows.

Why then was a hunter-gatherer culture so prone to violence? One explanation is diminishing resources, caused by the growing aridity and the failure of the protoagriculture experiments. The Jebel Sahaba cemeteries must only have been used for a few generations and for that many violent deaths to occur within that time supports an explanation based on massive intertribal warfare. Also, since the victims were of all ages (except infants; only one infant is buried in each of the Jebel Sahaba cemeteries), this could indicate that the majority of the skirmishes were actually based on raiding and ambush, as "normal" warfare usually only involves young to middle-aged males. And we should not dismiss the possibility of invasion by a more advanced, or at least more powerful, people from outside, especially if Jebel Sahaba and similar sites date to as late as 7000 BC, as by then the people would have been in competition with larger and more advanced Epipaleolithic cultures.

In summary, there seems to have been a Neolithic conflict over something at the same time as Plato sets Atlantis [Posted by Helios on the Island of Rhodes, 01-06-2005]

-In addition I might also point out that the Quadan cemetaries indicate that the culture was being raided by more sophisticated and more powerful outsiders, although quite possibly using recruits from local peoples as allied mercenary units. The more developed outsiders would most likely be the Atlanteans: and both they and the Egyptians they raided were basically Mechtoid Cro-Magnons and branches of the same people originally.

Best Wishes, Dale D.


  1. and new zealand portugal uk ireland india

  2. Drusin-UNDER NO MEANS do I think that you are hogging posts or that I would want you to stop posting.

    My email is or I had no idea you could not see it, lots of people write to me from the blogs.


This blog does NOT allow anonymous comments. All comments are moderated to filter out abusive and vulgar language and any posts indulging in abusive and insulting language shall be deleted without any further discussion.