Checklists have been published by a number of authors that compare the features of Plato’s Atlantis with that of their preferred location and that of other writers. While such lists can appear impressive they suffer from a number of defects. First the lists are drawn up arbitrarily^(a) and frequently omit headings that may not suit the theory of the particular compiler, but might support a competing view. Secondly, since Plato’s text contains various ambiguities and contradictions, some list headings are capable of more than one interpretation, for example, the location of the Pillars of Heracles or the date of Atlantis’ destruction.

Finally, if the Atlantis narrative is accepted as a mixture of detail from more than one source, possibly separated by thousands of years, it is meaningless to include everything in a single list. An example of this might be where the clues to the location of the Atlantean capital might be based on a very ancient source but the description of its architecture may have been inspired by structures from a different location, possibly from Plato’s own experience. In such a case the two will never be discovered together.

The Atlantis Conference of 2005 concluded with the drafting of a list of 24 criteria, which must be met to qualify as Plato’s lost city. Jim Allen initially expanded this list to 34 points^(a) and in December 2010 added a further 16 , bringing his new total up to 50 criteria^(d), chosen with an obvious bias towards his own Bolivian theory.

^(a) Bolivia – http://www.atlantisbolivia.org/atlantistheories.htm  

^(b) Indonesia – http://www.atlan.org/articles/checklist/ 

^(c) Minoan – http://www.atlantisrevealed.com/pages/section3/page1.asp?language_=en&pageid=3

^(d) http://www.atlantisbolivia.org/beyond24points.htm