The Size of Atlantis has been a source of dispute for many years and continues unabated. Plato’s text states that Atlantis was greater than ‘Libya and Asia’ (Tim.24e and Crit.108e). Obviously, in order to understand this phrase, we must discard our present-day understanding of Libya or Asia. It might be worth considering that it is more conventional when describing the size of a country it usual to compare it with another country of similar size or a combination of two or more contiguous or associated countries. If Atlantis had been as large as Libya and Asia as we understand them today, it is geologically impossible for it to have been destroyed by an earthquake. No matter how devastating an earthquake may be, serious effects are usually limited to within 100 miles of its epicentre.
{14.04.11}We must also take account of the context of the quotes from Timaeus 24e and Critias 108e where it clear that Plato is referring to the physical location of the island of Atlantis as a stepping-stone to other islands (not to Libya and Asia) and the shoals it created when submerged. There is no suggestion of a comparison with the military or commercial power of Libya and Asia. Furthermore, my reading of Tim.24e is that the island of Atlantis was comparable with the neighbouring islands as there is no hint that the neighbouring islands were inferior in size or power.
The meaning of ‘Asia’ in ancient times quite probably had a variety of meanings. Edward Gibbon, who wrote a monumental work on the Roman Empire, stated that when the ancient Greek and Latin writers referred to ’Asia’ they meant Turkey. Another historian, Michael Grant, is of the opinion that ‘Asia’ could have been applied to the ancient kingdom of Lydia, which only occupied a small region of eastern Turkey.
Plato describes the principal plain of Atlantis (Crit. 118a) as being the equivalent of 550×370 Km and surrounded by mountains, so that the entire country would have been quite considerable in size. However, bear in mind that Plato’s numbers relating to dimensions in the Atlantis story are highly suspect.
Nevertheless, Jonas Bergman, a Swedish researcher has highlighted the fact that Plato never used the term continent (Gk. Epiros) in reference to Atlantis. However, Strabo, quoting Poseidonius in his Geography (2.3.6) did use epiros when describing Plato’s island.
A more radical explanation for Plato’s description comes from the historian P.B.S. Andrews, who has suggested that the quotation has been the result of a misreading of Solon’s notes. He maintains that the text should be read as ’midway between Libya and Asia’ since in the original Greek there is only a difference of one letter between the words for midway and larger than. This interpretation is quite interesting, particularly if the Lydian explanation of ‘Asia’ mentioned above is correct. Viewed from either Athens or Egypt we find that Crete is located ‘midway’ between Lydia and Libya. To add to the confusion, the Greek word mezon can mean not only greater in size but also greater in authority or power. This interpretation is firmly supported by Jürgen Spanuth.
Perhaps the most interesting contribution to this debate has been from Felice Vinci who recently wrote[019] that ancient seafarers measured territory by its coastal perimeter rather than by its area, as we do today. He refers to this coastal measurement method being used by Christopher Columbus. Acceptance of this contention would require a total review of the ‘Atlantis greater than Asia and Libya together’ controversy. In this regard it is worth noting that Herodotus (Bk IV.45) refers to Europe being in length “equal to Asia and Libya combined” – eerily like Plato’s phrase. In a similar vein Strabo (Bk Chap 4.1) recounts how Pytheas reported that the coast-line of Britain was more than forty thousand stadia.
We can therefore conclude that the question of the extent of Atlantis is still open. Plato’s remarks have now been interpreted as referring to the area, coastal length, location or power of the country.
Finally, if Atlantis was greater than Libya and Asia combined, irrespective of the criterion used, it cannot have been located in either of these extensive territories since ‘a part cannot be greater than the whole’. This would appear to mean that Atlantis could not have been located along the North African coast (Libya) or the eastern Mediterranean shores (Asia).
