An A-Z Guide To The Search For Plato's Atlantis

Latest News

  • NEWS September 2023

    NEWS September 2023

    September 2023. Hi Atlantipedes, At present I am in Sardinia for a short visit. Later we move to Sicily and Malta. The trip is purely vacational. Unfortunately, I am writing this in a dreadful apartment, sitting on a bed, with access to just one useable socket and a small Notebook. Consequently, I possibly will not […]Read More »
  • Joining The Dots

    Joining The Dots

    I have now published my new book, Joining The Dots, which offers a fresh look at the Atlantis mystery. I have addressed the critical questions of when, where and who, using Plato’s own words, tempered with some critical thinking and a modicum of common sense.Read More »

Recent Updates

Eumelos of Cyrene

Eumelos of Cyrene was named after the town, a former colony settled by the Greeks of Thera, where he toiled as an historian. Cyrene was situated in what is now Cyrenaica near today’s village of Shahat in Libya. Eumelos originally came from Thera and was contemporary with Plato. It therefore seems to me that if Eumelos had a Theran background, he would have been able to support the Minoan Hypothesis rather than locate Atlantis in the Central Mediterranean. This seldom quoted writer wrote an extensive History of Libya of which a fragment was translated into Italian by Giuseppe Perricciuoli Borzesi[589].

Anton Mifsud and his collaborators highlighted[209] Eumelos’ references to Atlantis, which place it on an island located between Sicily and Libya and where it was subsequently submerged. Eumelos also noted that Atlantis was known as Decapolis, a possible reference to the ten (city-) states of Atlantis. Understandably, this has been claimed as evidence for identifying the present day Maltese Islands as remnants of Plato’s lost civilisation.

In November 2013, Thorwald C. Franke published a claim in his newsletter  that Eumelos’ document was a forgery and that an inscribed stone, also mentioning Atlantis, which was  ‘discovered’ in Malta around the same time was another fake. While the stone is now an undisputed fake, the document has a much stronger claim to have been real. Linking the two may be seen as unfair.

Franke’s paper refers to Mifsud’s use of Eumelos’ Atlantis comments and consequently, Mifsud, at my request, has penned a preliminary rebuttal of Franke’s conclusions. Furthermore, in a throwaway remark at the end of his paper, Franke makes the unsubstantiated claim that Eumelos never even existed. I find it strange that he spent two pages questioning the provenance of Eumelos’ History, which would have been unnecessary if he could have demonstrated that Eumelos never existed. Although it is difficult to prove a negative, I think this assertion was unwarranted.

In order for readers to form an opinion, I have provided a link to Franke’s paper(a) and for ease of reference have linked this entry to a full copy of  Mifsud’s rebuttal(b) on this website.


(b) See: Archive 5145