Plato’s Atlantis in the Central Mediterranean
Tony O’Connell – March 2021
Around two years, I published, Joining the Dots: Plato’s Atlantis in the Central Mediterranean as a Kindle e-book. Sometime later Professor Heinz-Günther Nesselrath of Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen published a review in the highly respected Bryn Mawr Classical Review and then, later and most unexpectedly, he published an extended critique  of my book. When I was made aware of the Bryn Mawr paper, I decided, when time permitted, to draft a response. By the time the extended review came to my attention I had already begun my rebuttal of the first paper, but decided to continue with it, which has finished as this document. It contains Nesselrath’s full text divided into 14 sections labelled A-N. The white text here is Nesselrath’s, the black text is mine.
Nesselrath titled his paper “How Not to Join the Dots”, but I suggest that “Nitpicking for Dummies” would have been more appropriate
The author of this e-book is a major voice within the international community of Atlantologists: since 2009, Tony O’Connell has run the website atlantipedia.ie, which he wants to be “the most comprehensive source of information regarding the development of Atlantis theories”, and this book may be considered a kind of summa of O’Connell’s own thinking on Atlantis.
After a “Foreword” by the Maltese atlantologist Anton Mifsud, O’Connell’s own “Preface”—which already gives away his central conclusion that Atlantis was “a historical reality, based in the Central Mediterranean in the latter half of the 2ndmillennium BC” [pos. 339])—and an “Introduction” (pos. 342–411), the first substantial chapter (“Background”, pos. 412–439) emphasizes O’Connell’s belief that the transmission of the Atlantis story as outlined by Plato’s Critias is no invention. In support, O’Connell adduces “the late Professor Antonis Kontaratos” who “identified 22 instances…where Plato claimed the story to be true” (pos. 439).
As an amateur researcher with no academic background, I was flattered that someone of the stature of Professor Nesselrath chose or was chosen to review my book. However, it did seem strange to me as an aging pensioner that my retirement project required the academic scalpel of someone as eminent as Nesselrath. This ‘sledgehammer to kill a fly’ approach left me wondering if there was something in my book that was perceived as a threat to Nesselrath’s scepticism! Even more peculiar is the fact that he later published a second extended critique, which is also, undoubtedly unusual!
To be fair, he has pointed out some errors in my work, for which I am genuinely grateful. In all cases, I have traced these blunders to some of my notes, made well over ten years ago, which, at the time were quotes from other researchers that I considered reliable, but naively failed to verify (see K, P & S below) I offer this by way of explanation, not excuse. Mea culpa.
In spite of such shortcomings, I contend that Nesselrath has failed to undermine my basic thesis, which places Atlantis in the Central Mediterranean, instead, I find much of what he wrote to be an exercise in nitpicking. In my opinion, he has failed to demonstrate that Plato’s Atlantis narrative is just an invention, ignoring the fact the clues provided by Plato hold together coherently, not what you would expect from a concoction. Nesselrath’s nitpicking obscures the cumulative value of the ‘dots’ (bullet points) listed over three pages (see V). Questioning one or two does not weaken the overall case for accepting the reality of Plato’s Atlantis – the Balance of Probabilities demands it.
The mystery of Plato’s Atlantis is far more complex than I initially expected and its solution requires the application of more ‘ologies’ than any one person could fully master in a life. Nevertheless, in spite of any academic shortcomings, I have endeavoured to make the case for the balance of probabilities favouring the reality of Plato’s Atlantis located in the Central Mediterranean, where he unambiguously placed it (Tim.25a-b).
There is a fundamental misconception here: as Plato never speaks in his own name in the dialogues Timaeus and Critias, he also nowhere utters any claim about the truthfulness of the Atlantis story. Nobody will ever conflate or confuse the statements of Hamlet with the convictions of Shakespeare—so why should we take the claims made by Critias as representing the convictions of Plato?
There is no comparison to made between the Socratic dialogues of Plato and the plays of Shakespeare. Plato never made any statement in his own name in any of his many dialogues, yet the ideas uttered by the participants in those dialogues are universally accepted as expressions of the philosophical views of Plato (and Socrates) and are the basis of his enduring reputation.
Nesselrath, apparently in desperation, asks “why should we take the claims made by Critias as representing the convictions of Plato?” The answer is simply because Plato wrote the text.
Plato shared with his teacher, Socrates, a belief that ideas were best developed through conversation, hence the Dialogues. Dr. Mark Vernon wrote “Something else that is key, though routinely forgotten by professional philosophers: Plato wrote dialogues, and no work of philosophy that is indisputably his own contains a single word written in his own voice. He always speaks through the mouths of others. It’s a literary strategy with far-reaching implications for what we make of him, not least that it allows him to be his own best critic.” 
Plato wrote his dialogues to educate, while Shakespeare wrote primarily to entertain and, apparently, Nesselrath to obfuscate!
In the subsection on “Plato” himself (pos. 466–479), O’Connell likewise stresses the philosopher’s “integrity” and “credibility” (pos. 475), and he repeats this claim several times (see, e.g., pos. 987).
This is certainly something that I don’t need to apologise for.
In the next chapter (“Plato’s Atlantis Narrative”, pos. 533–782) O’Connell first focuses on the story’s “Hellenised Content” (pos. 546). From the mention of Athens’ first king Cecrops and his successors in Criti. 110a,b and from the date 1582 BC given for Cecrops on the Parian Marble, he concludes that “the war with the Atlanteans must have taken place sometime after 1582 BC.” (pos. 595). There is, however, at least one major flaw in this argument: Plato’s Critias does not really say that the war against the Atlanteans was fought in Cecrops’ time—all he says is that “as for the names of Cecrops…and the others…the priests are said to have transferred the greatest part onto those [i.e. the ancient Athenians living nine thousand years before Solon’s time] and thus have described the war of that time”. Thus the war did not take place in the times of Cecrops or his successors but in the times of some older namesakes of them, which renders O’Connell’s dating meaningless.
I never suggested that the Atlantean War, which Nesselrath now seems to accept as real, occurred in Cecrops’ time, but some time later. In fact, further on, I proposed a date of around 1200 BC as a most likely period for the conflict. It is interesting that Nesselrath, in an effort to muddy the waters, has invented a number of Athenian kings as predecessors of Cecrops & Co., but with the same names, without offering any evidence! My point here was to demonstrate that the early rulers of Athens mentioned by Plato appear to have been real historical figures according to the Parian Marble.
After briefly considering the “Mythological Content” of the story (pos. 631–668), O’Connell turns his attention to “Translation Difficulties” (pos. 669–684). These he has to assume, of course, because he considers the transmission of the Atlantis story from Egypt to Athens as real.
The only alternative is to treat Plato as a liar!
His statement, however, about the allegedly different meanings of “different words for various bodies of salt water; pontos (small), pelagos (medium) and okeanos (large)” (pos. 682) betrays his poor knowledge of Ancient Greek: there is no real difference in meaning between pontos and pelagos—both mean “wide, open sea”.
The use of small, medium and large is, I agree, rather crude differentiation. It is a quote from Georgeos Diaz-Montexano’s work, but as I no longer have the relevant hyperlink, I’ll let it sit. I make no claim to have any knowledge of Ancient Greek, but I will disagree with Nesselrath that the words ‘pelagos’ and ‘pontos’ meant the same.
Henry J. Walker equates pelagos with ‘familiar’ and pontos with ‘unknown’ and references the work of Detienne & Vernant as highlighting the importance of the distinction between the two words to the Greeks. Agnieszka Adamowicz-Pospiech also suggested that the words were used to distinguish “between the familiar and the foreign”.George Sarantitis suggests that ‘Pelagos’ “usually denotes a small sea in the shape of an embrace and contains islands, bays, peninsulas”, while ‘Pontos’ “denotes a sea with strong currents that require extra effort to navigate.” 
However, this whole matter is just a ‘red herring’ raised by Nesselrath in an attempt to metaphorically “shoot the messenger”. Nevertheless, although I may be very slightly scratched, my message is intact.
In the subsection “Plato Believed the Atlantis Story to be true” (pos. 685–733), O’Connell, discussing the passage Criti. 113b, gives a wrong account of its content (besides once again confusing Plato and Critias): Critias does not refer to any “verses of Solon’s incomplete epic poem” here, but only to some written notes about some names Solon allegedly wanted to use in his poem.
In the previous verse 113a, it clearly states that “it was the intention of Solon to insert this narration into his verses.“ (trans. T. Taylor)
The following chapter (on “Modern Atlantis Theories”, pos. 782–936) does not really further O’Connell’s argument. The next chapter surveys modern Atlantis “Sceptics” (pos. 937–1055), whose basic arguments O’Connell then tries to refute (pos. 993–1055), but his counterarguments are not very convincing. He rejects the interpretation that “the Atlantis story is a parable or a morality tale” by arguing, that the Athenians (i.e. the “good guys”) were also wiped out (pos. 1005)—but according to Plato’s Critias, this happened long after the Athenians’ resounding victory and by purely natural causes.
The matter of modern Atlantis theories was included to provide some background information. Why Nesselrath bothered to mention it, eludes me.
Now the demise of the Athenian army is claimed by Nesselrath to have occurred long after the war, in fact the text simply says “at a later time there occurred portentous earthquakes and floods, and one grievous day and night befell them, when the whole body of your warriors was swallowed up by the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner was swallowed up by the sea and vanished.” (Tim.25d – Bury) For me, with the submergence of Atlantis and the destruction of the Athenian military being mentioned in the same sentence, seems to imply some degree of concurrence!
Trying to counter the argument that Plato is the only ancient author speaking about Atlantis, O’Connell claims that “there are a few possible pre-Platonic references to Atlantis” (pos. 1023), but does not care to name any.
J. Warren Wells  has pointed out that the word Atlantis was used by Hesiod in line 938 of his Theogony, centuries before both Plato and Solon, while Hellanicus of Lesbos certainly used the term before Plato. Apart from which, it is highly likely that the name ‘Atlantis’ was part of the Hellenising of the Egyptian story, while Atlantis and the constituent members of the alliance were probably well known by a number of other names to the Greeks, so references are possibly more numerous than generally believed. Professor Marinopoulos also cites Homer, Hesiod, Hellanicus and Pindar. 
Next, he tries to reject the thesis that “Plato was merely using the Atlantis story to advance his own views of an ideal Greek state” by rather weakly pointing out that “Plato later invented an ideal state, Magnesia, in the Laws to promote his political philosophy” and asking the sceptics “to explain why Plato would have found it necessary to invent a second ‘ideal city’” (pos. 1048–53). Well, why not?
Because, I would expect that a person of Plato’s experience and standing would be consistent and so avoid confusing his pupils/audience.
At the beginning of the following chapter (“Evidence”, pos. 1056–1318), O’Connell makes a truly bewildering statement: “The original Greek text [of Plato] is no longer available to us, so we are limited to 15th century Latin translations produced nearly two millennia after Plato’s death”—but, of course, we do have the Greek text; why O’Connell thinks otherwise is a major mystery.
I fully accept that I may have been misled here by a source lost many years ago, but I must point out that while it reflects poorly on me, it has no direct bearing on the strength of my Atlantis theories and in that regard can be considered another irrelevant ‘red herring’.
There follows an extensive chapter on “Plato’s Numbers” (pos. 1319–2075), which in general are too high for O’Connell’s taste, and so he looks for a way to dispense with them. After considering various proposals (e.g. replacing solar ‘years’ by lunar cycles = months, or by ‘seasons’ of which the Egyptians had three in a year) he then adopts—without giving reasons for his choice – the two most popular theories (the lunar cycle and the reduction-by-factor-10 theory) to suggest that the war between Atlantis and Athens “took place between 1540 and 1298 BC” (pos. 1431). As additional elements to preclude the dating of Atlantis 9.000 years before Solon, O’Connell adduces the mention of horses (pos. 1433), chariots (pos. 1443), the ceremonial “Azure Vestments” (pos. 1545–1559) worn by the Atlanteans Kings according to Criti. 120a and “Bathymetric Evidence” (1560–1586) concerning the drowning of Atlantis. But all these objections are valid only if one feels compelled to take Plato’s story as a real, historical account.
I must point out that many academics, such as Professor Kontaratos, have questioned the exaggerated numbers provided by Plato/Solon . Nesselrath is wrong again to say that I did not give reasons for my choice of the factor-ten solution, which I did in great detail (over thirty pages),
I am compelled by ‘the balance of probabilities’ to consider Plato’s Atlantis story to contain elements of historical truth.
After re-dating Atlantis, O’Connell turns to re-sizing it. In the subsections “Land Measurement” (pos. 1624–1648) and “The Size of Atlantis” (pos. 1649–1759) he expresses his conviction that the numbers given by Plato are massively overblown; so he feels free “to consider a smaller island, such as Sardinia or Sicily as more credible Atlantis candidates” (1660). For “The Plain of Atlantis” (1760–1796), he arbitrarily reduces all measurements (given in Criti. 118a) by a factor of ten.
Here Nesselrath conveniently ignores the fact that Plato also considered that the dimensions of the ditch surrounding the plain of Atlantis to be “incredible” (Crit. 118c-d). I outlined in great detail why I also found Plato’s numbers unbelievable.
My reference to the Central Mediterranean islands was based on Plato’s unambiguous statement that Atlantis controlled southern Italy, part of North Africa and some islands. There are no islands in the Gibraltar region apart from the rocky islet of Perejil off the coast of Morocco.
Tackling “The Ditch” in the next subsection (pos. 1797–1856), he discusses proposals by modern Atlantologists to reduce them (pos. 1811–1822). In the subsection on “ Military Manpower” (pos. 1857–1898), O’Connell inversely criticizes Plato for putting the number of Athenian warriors at only 20,000 (pos. 1862). But that is just the point: that the 20,000 ideal Athenians mentioned in (Criti.112e) can actually defeat a million-man army! The “micro-Atlantis” O’Connell envisions would never have offered the redoubtable enemy whom Plato’s Socrates needs to prove the excellence of the guardians of his ideal state.
Plato never suggested that 20,000 could defeat 1,00,000 and if Nesselrath thinks it possible, it is fortunate that nobody is depending on him as a military strategist.
The professor has missed the point that I made, namely that Atlantis was a military alliance that had territorial control over part of southern Italy and some of North Africa, with at least some of the many islands that lay in the region. Not exactly a ‘micro’ federation, as it was large enough to encompass the later Carthaginian Empire.
In the following chapter (“The Location of Atlantis”, pos. 2076–2392), O’Connell starts by arguing that “Atlantean territory…must have been within a reasonable striking distance from Athens” (pos. 2082)—like, e.g., Southern Italy (pos. 2125). He does not take into account that Xerxes for his invasion of Greece moved large troop contingents across thousands of miles.
Some of the Persian troops of Darius and Xerxes did indeed travel many miles to invade Greece but did so all the way through territory already controlled by them, until they reached the Dardanelles Strait, which at its narrowest separated Persian territory from Europe by less than a mile, which is an easy striking distance. At the same time the Persian navy had just to cross the Aegean, which is less than 300 km from Izmir to Athens with islands on the way to break the journey.
Things really get interesting with the next chapter (“The Pillars of Herakles”, pos. 2393–2721): O’Connell rightly considers “the question of the location of the Pillars of Herakles…to be a critical detail in Plato’s account to be resolved in any research for Atlantis” (pos. 2442). The subsection “Which Pillars of Herakles?” (pos. 2441–2500), however, uncovers a central weakness of his argument: he claims that only since 250 BC were the Pillars of Herakles identified with the Strait of Gibraltar and “that no writer prior to Eratosthenes had referred to the Pillars of Herakles being located at Gibraltar” (pos. 2455)— but Herodotus, and before him Hecataeus and Pindar, had already located the Pillars at Gibraltar! O’Connell apparently knows nothing about the activities of the Greeks in the far west of the Mediterranean and even beyond the Strait of Gibraltar already in the 6th century BC.
While I accept that I have been hasty in accepting some of the dates attributed by others to some of the ancient authors, I must totally reject the idea that such a slip on my part ‘uncovers any central weakness’ in my argument. If it is accepted that according to Plato, Atlantis lay beyond the Pillars of Heracles and Plato clearly identifies southern Italy along with North Africa and some of the Central Mediterranean islands as Atlantean territory, none of which are beyond the Strait of Gibraltar, then we are forced to conclude that the Pillars at the time of Atlantis were situated further east – perhaps the Strait of Messina as I suggested. Furthermore, an attack on Athens from beyond Gibraltar involves a point-to-point journey of over 2,500 kilometers and very much more if coastal hugging was involved. Such an undertaking that makes no military sense.
Although I admittedly know little about the Western Mediterranean in the 6th century BC, my contention is that Atlantis met its end some six hundred years earlier, a period when Greeks generally did not know much about the western basin either. In fact it was not until around 600 BC, that they founded Massalia (Marseilles), which is about the time that Solon was in Egypt.
In the subsection (“The Pillars of Herakles—Modern Theories”, pos. 2537–2625), O’Connell (being no professional researcher of Classical Antiquity) again demonstrates how easily he gets things wrong: in pos. 2556, a sentence from Servius (“Columnas Herculis legimus et in Ponto et in Hispania”) is wrongly translated as “through the Columns of Herakles we go within the Black Sea as well as in Spain”.
I’m sure that Nesselrath is quite aware that this translation was not mine but was published by a professional researcher, Eberhard Zangger in The Flood from Heaven. I have recently updated the ‘Pillars’ entry in Atlantipedia, in which I offer a number of other translations that all confirm the existence of Pillars, both in Spain and the Black Sea. The Stockton University website , offers what Nesselrath may find a more acceptable translation –“We read of pillars of Hercules both in the Black Sea and in Spain”. However, this translation does not alter the thrust of the passage and would seem to be just Nesselrath nit-picking again.
A few lines later (pos. 2570), O’Connell adopts Mifsud’s mistaken dating of the Greek epic writer Apollonius Rhodius (“1st century BC”)
This was obviously ‘just a slip of the pen’ on Mifsud’s part, which copied and pasted by me. However my Atlantipedia entry for Apollonius correctly places him in the 3rd century BC. On top of that, it has little bearing on my core thesis regarding a Central Mediterranean location for Plato’s Atlantis and can be seen as just more nit-picking by Nesselrath.
For his statement that “sometimes, in Ancient Greek Literature, the Pillars refer to the narrow Strait of Messina between Sicily and the southern tip of Italy” (pos. 2621), he provides not the slightest shred of evidence. His final argument against Gibraltar is the “shoals” alleged to have come into existence after the submersion of Atlantis and which cannot be found in the Atlantic (pos. 2646)–but the Greeks of Plato’s time believed that they were there…
As explained earlier this is an unreferenced comment by a third party. However, I am still happy to consider the Strait of Messina as a very likely location for the Pillars at some point in the Greek westward expansion. Confusing the matter is the question posed by Philo of Alexandria “Are you ignorant of the celebrated account which is given of that most sacred Sicilian strait, which in old times joined Sicily to the continent of Italy?”.[20.v.139] The Strait of Messina was known as Fretum Siculum – The Sicilian Strait, so what was the current Strait of Sicily called in ancient times?
Plato never described Atlantis as located in the Atlantic Ocean. Tim. 24e clearly states that it was situated in the Atlantic SEA, Although some, such as Jowett, have erroneously translated ‘pelagos’ as Ocean, Others, such as Thomas Taylor, who gave us the earliest English translation have more accurately always used the word SEA. The question is, what did the ‘Atlantic Sea’ meant in Solon’s or Plato’s time to the Greeks or the Egyptians?
In the chapter “Further Corroboration” (pos. 2722–3156), O’Connell adduces additional geographical details in favor of his Atlantis location. He identifies the mountains mentioned in Criti. 118b with the “Atlas Mountains of North West Africa” (pos. 2857), the north winds mentioned in Criti. 118b with the winter winds assailing the northern coast of Tunisia (pos. 2867) and the phenomenon of “two Annual Crops” (Criti. 118e) as another North African feature (pos. 2946). The “Elephants” (Criti. 114e–115a), “a critical identifier of the location of Atlantis” (pos. 2999), are connected by him with Tunisia (pos. 3038–40, 3060).
The chapter on further corroboration is intended to highlight how the location clues provided by Plato pointed consistently and coherently to the Central Mediterranean. Is it not remarkable that if the Atlantis story was an invention that Plato managed to provide such a cohesive number of details of enemy territory situated over 700 km distant? Incidentally, I did not refer to the ‘two annual crops’ as a phenomenon.
In the penultimate chapter (“Who Were The Atlanteans?”, pos. 3157–3272), O’Connell discusses the possible (and by no means new) identification of the Atlanteans with the famous “Sea Peoples” (pos. 3215). He stresses the alleged parallels between the attack of the Sea Peoples and those of the Atlanteans, but is “not entirely convinced”, considering the Sea Peoples only “a useful working hypothesis” (pos. 3263).
I did not suggest that the idea of linking the Sea Peoples with Atlantis was new, dating as it does back to Wilhelm Christ in 1886. However, Nesselrath’s reference to ‘alleged’ parallels is inaccurate, as demonstrated by Rainer Kühne. Whether the parallels are sufficient in number or quality is another matter,  hence, my reticence. I have seldom been afraid to express uncertainty, hopefully Nesselrath will try it some time.
The last chapter (“The Destruction of Atlantis”, pos. 3273–3293) gives a survey of Atlantologist theories and then “settle[s] for an earthquake producing liquefaction and the ‘sinking’ of the capital of Atlantis” (pos. 3293). The contents of the following summarizing chapter (“The Dots”, pos. 3294–3388) need not be repeated here.
Why not give summary? These are three pages of 25 points that offer a convergence of evidence, which supports the idea of Atlantis in the Central Mediterranean. Only one has been seriously challenged and it is not vital for my thesis. In isolation each dot has limited value, but their cumulative worth offers impressive support for my thesis. In addition, Nesselrath seems to have forgotten that from the outset, my objective was to demonstrate that the existence of Atlantis was a reality based on ‘the balance of probabilities’ provided by the weight of the wide-ranging evidence I have offered. This standard of proof is quite sufficient in civil law and I believe perfectly adequate for demonstrating that the existence of Atlantis was highly probable.
In the concluding “Epilogue”, O’Connell expects that his construct of a Late Bronze Age Atlantis somewhere in the Central Mediterranean will be confirmed “when the current interglacial period ends”, because then “sea levels will again drop, exposing much of the floor of the Mediterranean” (pos. 3407). Global warming with rising sea levels will probably prevent this scenario from becoming true in the foreseeable future.
I did not suggest in the ‘foreseeable’ future, but based my comment on two facts (a) the Earth has been warmer in the past  and subsequently cooled again (b) our planet experienced a dozen or so major glaciations of the northern hemisphere over the last million years  with glaciation the norm rather than the exception. As interglacials and glacials apparently coincide with cyclical changes in the Earth’s orbit, it is not unreasonable to anticipate another Ice Age. Apart from which, the subject is moot and as it has no direct bearing on the reality of Atlantis it can be considered just another example of Nesselrath’s use of ‘red herrings’.
All in all, the author has amassed an impressive number of “facts” and theories concerning almost any detail of the Atlantis story. All his efforts, however, cannot conceal the fact that too many stones of his building are simply not solid enough to sustain the edifice: all too often, O’Connell gets facts from Antiquity wrong or ignores others that undermine his suppositions. This, then, is not the way to join the dots to find the “real” Atlantis, which owes its existence only to Plato’s remarkable powers of imagination.
Nesselrath has shown himself to have all the skill of a stage magician who knows well the value of misdirection, which he employs through the generous use of ‘red herrings’ and nitpicking. In spite of this my ‘edifice’ is still standing with the mortar intact.
 As the e-book has no pagination, I quote the “positions” (i.e. line numbers, here abbreviated as “pos.”) given in the bar in the bottom margin.
 He means Antonis Kontaratos, Atlantis: Fact or Fiction, in: St. Papamarinopoulos (ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on “The Atlantis Hypothesis: Searching for a Lost Land”, Athens 2007, 79–80.
 For a detailed explanation of this passage, see H.-G. Nesselrath, Platon, Kritias, Übersetzung und Kommentar, Göttingen 2006, 153–164.
 He constantly misspells the name “Cleito” as “Clieto” (also later on: see pos. 2204). Nitpicking
 In Hom. Il. 1.350, e.g., pontos is called “limitless“ (???????? ??????), which is surely the opposite of small!
 He repeats this, with a slight variation, at pos. 1115: “the oldest text available to us now is a translation of Plato’s Greek made 800 years after it was first written” – he apparently refers to Calcidius’ late antique Latin translation of the Timaeus. But why draw attention to this when we still have Plato’s Greek text?
 This is just a summary of the mistaken theory of Sergio Frau, on which see H.-G. Nesselrath, Le colonne d’Ercole: un confine mitologico e il suo significato nell’ antichità classica, in: Eikasmos 22, 2011, 131-149.
 For this, see Nesselrath 2011 (as in n. 7), 133–5.
 On these activities, see Herodotus 1.163 and 4.152.
 On this, see H.-G. Nesselrath, Platon und die Erfindung von Atlantis, München / Leipzig 2002, 25–6.
 The Book on Atlantis (CreateSpace, 2011) p.13
 The Atlantis Hypothesis (1st Conference) (Heliotopos, Athens, 2007) p.575
 Theseus & Athens (Oxford University Press, 1995) p.85
 Review of the Sea of Discourses in Conrad’s Texts, Marek Pacukiewicz, Dyskurs Antropologiczny w Pisarstwie Josepha Conrada. KRAKÓW: UNIVERSITAS, 2008
 The Atlantis Hypothesis (2nd Conference)(Heliotopos, Athens, 2010) p.400