Latest News
NEWS October 2024
OCTOBER 2024 The recent cyber attack on the Internet Archive is deplorable and can be reasonably compared with the repeated burning of the Great Library of Alexandria. I have used the Wayback Machine extensively, but, until the full extent of the permanent damage is clear, I am unable to assess its effect on Atlantipedia. At […]Read More »
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 »
Edwin Ramage
Sceptics *
Sceptics regarding the existence of Atlantis have been around since the time of Plato. The first such critic was assumed to be Aristotle, a pupil of Plato’s, who apparently denounced the Atlantis tale as an invention. However, this presumed scepticism of Aristotle has now been seriously challenged by Thorwald C. Franke in a 2012 book, Aristotle and Atlantis[706] specifically dealing with the subject. Nevertheless, Aristotle does record the existence of a large island in the Atlantic known to the Phoenicians as Antilia, inadvertently supporting Plato’s story(i).
Franke has recently outlined the extensive support for the existence of Atlantis from the earliest times in his recent German-language book[1255]. He has followed that with a YouTube video(j) in which he relates how scepticism became more extensive in the 19th century.
Sprague deCamp was probably the most quoted Atlantis sceptic of the second half of the 20th century. He offered the blunt declaration that Plato concocted the whole story, basing the tale on a mixture of the wealth of Tartessos in Spain, and the destruction of the Greek island of Atalanta all intermingled with the mythology of Atlas.
One of deCamp’s most quoted extracts is that “you cannot change all the details of Plato’s story and still claim to have Plato’s story.” While I fully endorse this comment, I must point out that there is a difference between changing and interpreting details. For example, when Plato refers to Asia or Libya, even deCamp accepted that in Plato’s day ‘Asia’ was not the landmass we know, stretching from the Urals to Japan, but interpreted Plato’s ‘Asia’ as a reference to a much smaller territory [0194.27].
Many modern commentators believe that in the interests of dramatic effect Plato heavily embellished the core truth underlying the story, namely that of an ancient submerged civilisation.
A claim frequently put forward by sceptics was echoed by Ian Alex Blaise, who wrote(l) that “we can summarise the ‘Timaeus and Critias’ as a parable of good (ancient Athens) triumphing over evil (Atlantis).” This, however, would appear to run counter to Plato’s narrative that records that both vanquished and victorious armies were destroyed, which is not what you would expect from a morality tale.
Commenting on the suggestion that the story of Atlantis was intended as a morality tale Eberhard Zangger noted that “the description of the natural disasters also contradicts the occasional speculative conjecture that Plato did not mean to illustrate the ideal state with Atlantis, but with archaic Greece. After all, he says Atlantis was punished for its gradual moral decline by being destroyed (Vidal-Naquet, 1964). But if the story is supposed to be a moral parable, why is the “good” Greek side first punished with natural disasters? And why does Plato mainly describe the “barbaric” enemies instead of the old Hellenic civilisation? The traditional attempts at interpretation offer no answers to these questions.”(o)
Another critic, Joe Garcia, offers a paper attacking both the Minoan and Spanish location theories(m).
However, when we consider modern sceptics we find that they have been provided with unlimited ammunition by the poor scholarship of many Atlantis supporters and the outright ravings of the likes of Blavatsky, Steiner, Cayce, and a profusion of other authors, who claim to have channelled information regarding Atlantis.
Edwin Ramage, in his essay[522] on Atlantis, makes the interesting comment that “believers tend to overshadow the sceptics for the simple reason that a positive theory, whether it is simple or elaborate, tends to be more attractive and to make better reading than any attempt at refutation, no matter how well taken it may be.” This is probably akin to referenda questions being framed by governments in a manner that favours a Yes vote that will provide the outcome that they want. This is because most people prefer to say Yes rather than No.
However, if the Atlantis narrative has any truth in it, the legitimate criticisms of sceptics must be given due consideration. One such sceptic is Paul Jordan who has produced a highly critical work[418] on the subject. Jason Colavito is another vocal non-believer and has written a considerable amount on the subject(d). Several other websites(b)(c)(e) can also be recommended, in particular, a seven-part offering by Pat Linse(b).
I recently came across a sceptic review of Atlantis theories by Justin Spring which I thought contained some novel views and although I totally disagree with his conclusions, I feel it should be given a reading(g).
While I expect that few sceptics will be reading this entry, I would recommend to anyone a paper by Karla Mclaren, a former New Age ‘believer’ who developed into a sceptic(f).
A 2015 survey by the Chapman University of California was repeated in 2016, which suggested that nearly 40% of Americans believe that an advanced prehistoric civilisation, such as Atlantis, existed, causing consternation among sceptics(h). Why they found it so depressing is hard to understand since popular belief is no guarantee that it is supported by reality. After all, it was once commonly thought that the sun revolved around the earth!
There are times when I regret that I have not had a university education and then along comes a qualified academic who manages to remove any such feeling. One of those is Seth Stein, a professor at Northwestern University, who specialises in plate tectonics, who was reported in early 2018(k) to have proposed that “one of the strongest reasons to dispel Atlantis as a true ancient civilization is the fact that we haven’t found it.” This asinine comment shows a total abandonment of critical thinking because he seems to think that because something has not been found, proves that it does not exist. For example, before Heinrich Schliemann, Troy did exist but had yet to be located. Professor Stein’s stupid statement is also built on a flawed understanding of what Plato said or more correctly, did not say. Plato never described Atlantis as a continent, as assumed by Stein and it can be reasonably argued that our Atlantic Ocean where he sought Atlantis was not the Atlantic ‘Sea’ referred to by Plato. I suggest that Stein sticks to earth sciences and leave Atlantis to others.
In October 2021, Franke published an essay on what he calls the ‘dark side’ of Atlantis scepticism, which offers an interesting overview of anti-Platonism since the time of the philosopher(n).
Earlier this year (2024) Franke also drew attention to an instance of Plato being seriously misquoted that had its origin in 2001 in the Skeptic Junior article “The Search for Atlantis”, in the Skeptic magazine Vol. 8 No. 4 (Winter 2001), page 96, authored by a certain Pat Linse (mentioned above). “The wrong quote is this: ‘We may liken the false to the true for the purpose of moral instruction.’
Plato never said this. And the meaning of this sentence runs counter to all of Plato’s intentions. It sounds, as if something false would be depicted as true, in order to teach a moral lesson. – The basis of this wrong quote may be the following real quote from The Republic II 382d: ‘owing to our ignorance of the truth about antiquity, we liken the false to the true as far as we may and so make it edifying.’ (Translation Paul Shorey)
The meaning of this real quote is the opposite of the wrong quote: In case we do not know the truth itself, we have to approach with our partially false knowledge towards the truth as much as we only can, and work with this hypothesis until we know better. This is of course a basic principle of rational thinking and science, until today.”(q)
I would not suggest that the original distortion was deliberate but it is disappointing that it was so widely adopted by other sceptics without question. Of course, I am fully aware that some overenthusiastic Atlantis fan have also tried to manipulate texts to accommodate their beliefs.
Some years Rod Martin wrote a short paper(p) in which he grades the arguments of a number of the better known Atlantis sceptics, such as, Kevin Christopher and Michael Shermer.
(b) Skeptic » Junior Skeptic » The Search for Atlantis (issue #10)
(c) The Wild Side of Geoarchaeology Page (archive.org)
(d) https://searchatlantis.blogspot.com/2007/08/atlantis-mu-and-maya.html
(e) https://web.archive.org/web/20190530104546/https://www.skepticssa.org.au/html/atlantis.html
(g) https://scyllasoulspeak1.blogspot.ie/2011/06/atlantis-what-was-plato-really-up-to.html
(i) Strabo, II, 102 and XII, 598. Cf. Proclus In Timaeum 61a (Diehl I, p. 197).
(j) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF62FLucvQk
(l) https://www.oocities.org/debunkinglc/atlantis.html (link broken)
(m) https://www.academia.edu/8064249/Did_Atlantis_Exist
(n) The Dark Side of Atlantis Scepticism – Atlantis-Scout
(o) Wayback Machine (archive.org)
(p) Mission: Atlantis, by Rod Martin, Jr. — Grading the Skeptics (archive.org)
(q) https://www.atlantis-scout.de/atlantis_newsl_archive.htm (Newsletter 217) *
Pre-Platonic References
Pre–Platonic References to Atlantis are rare but this should not be surprising. First of all Atlantis is probably a Hellenised version of another name given to Solon by the priests of Sais. It is perfectly understandable for an individual state and its people would have a number of unrelated names, some of which can have a colloquial or even derogatory origin.
A good example of this today is the land where ’Dutch’ people come from has been known variously as ‘The Low Countries’, ’Holland’ or ’The Netherlands’. My own country has been known as ‘Ireland‘, ‘Erin‘, and ‘Hibernia’ and its people are often referred to as ’Celtic’, ’Irish’ ’Paddys’ in Britain or ’Micks’ in America.
Consequently, we should consider the name ’Atlantis’ as a possible invention of Plato’s and seek out pre-Platonic references through the descriptions used rather than by any name utilised by Plato.
Furthermore, Atlantis is probably just a ‘name of convenience’, applied to the alliance of a number of independent states, many of which were individually known previously by other names to the Greeks through trade. After all, if the Atlanteans were situated close enough to trade, they were close enough to invade.
J. Warren Wells[783.13] 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. The earliest suggestion of Hellanicus offering a possible pre-Platonic mention of Atlantis was voiced by J.V. Luce in his contribution to Edwin Ramage’s Atlantis : Fact or Fiction[0522.72]
A collection of pre-Platonic references to Atlantis which do not directly use its name has been compiled by R.Cedric Leonard(a).
(a) See Archive 2055)
Also See: Hellanicus of Lesbos
Critias (Narrator)
Critias is the name of at least two and possibly as many as four people connected with Plato’s Atlantis story, a detail that has led to some confusion and persistent debate among scholars(c). First of all there is Critias1 who actually takes part in the dialogues and relates the Atlantis story to Socrates. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an extensive article on the historical Critias(b).
Critias2 was the grandfather of the Critias1 in the dialogues, who is supposedly one of the Thirty Tyrants who controlled Athens in 404 BC. This elder Critias conveyed the tale of Atlantis to his grandson, Critias1, who in turn told it to Socrates in the Dialogues. Critias2 was also Plato’s maternal great grandfather.
Bernard Suzanne discusses the question of the identity of Critias in detail on his website(a) as does Phyllis Young Forsyth[266.42-44]
>In his contribution to Edwin Ramage‘s Atlantis: Fact or Fiction? [522] J. V. Luce, the Irish classical scholar, added an appendix in which he briefly reviewed the controversy surrounding the identity of the narrator of Critias. He had previously considered Critias IV, the Tyrant (c.460-403 BC) to have been the narrator, but then (1978) he was convinced that it was Critias III, grandfather of the ‘tyrant’ and great-grandfather of Plato. Now, nearly half a century later this debate rumbles on as can be seen on the relevant Wikipedia page(d).<
(a) https://www.plato-dialogues.org
(b) https://www.iep.utm.edu/critias/
Atlantis: Fact or Fiction?
Atlantis: Fact or Fiction? [522] (E.S. Ramage – editor). This documents a panel discussion that included a number of renowned scholars. The majority dismissed Atlantis as fiction. However, one of the contributors, Professor John V. Luce, of Trinity College, Dublin and author of a separate book [120] on Atlantis, expounded his view that Plato’s account was a mixture of fiction and fact.
Luce, John Victor
John Victor Luce (1920-2011)(b) was born in Dublin and educated at Cheltenham College, England and Trinity College, Dublin, where he graduated with First Class Honours in Classics and Philosophy in 1942. Among other academic honours, he was a lecturer in Greek at Glasgow University, visiting professor in classics at Trinity College, Hartford, 
Connecticut and was emeritus professor of classics at Trinity College, Dublin.
>In 1968, Luce was a guest lecturer on a cruise ship in the Mediterranean. As they were heading for Crete and Santorini he addressed the subject of the Minoans and their possible association with the story of Atlantis. In the audience was the well-known archaeologist Sir Mortimer Wheeler, who commissioned Luce to expand on the details of his lecture, which led to the publication of The End of Atlantis a year later.<This was published under slightly different titles, in the UK, The End of Atlantis[120] and in the USA, Lost Atlantis: New Light on an Old Legend [121]. During a panel discussion [122] hosted by Indiana University in 1975, Professor Luce presented his view that Plato’s story was a mixture of fact and fiction.
In his book, The End of Atlantis, highlighted[0120.14] how various Greek myths and legends have been proven to contain historical elements and that consequently Plato’s Atlantis story should be studied with this in mind.
He was of the view that the description of Atlantis closely matched that of the 16th century BC Minoan empire.
Nevertheless, Peter James in The Sunken Kingdom [047] suggested that Luce’s enthusiastic support for the Minoan Hypothesis had ‘cooled’ when he subsequently wrote ln Edwin Ramage’s Atlantis: Fact or Fiction? [522.67]. “To go further (as I did in The End of Atlantis), and to hypothesise that Plato acquired some garbled information about Minoan Crete from Egyptian sources, is to venture on less firm ground…..A reviewer of my book wrote that there is a ‘sporting chance’ that the Minoan hypothesis is correct. I myself have never put it higher than that.”
Luce encapsulates[120.24] the Atlantis narrative in the following terms; “ I have in mind what Aristotle would call the ‘essential plot’: a great and highly civilised island empire aims at universal domination and is defeated by the early Greeks, especially the Athenians, and later succumbs to a natural cataclysm. On this framework Plato embroiders a large number of remarkable details.” In 1994 Luce wrote a brief paper [123](a) reviewing the Thera evidence in the light of contemporary scientific discoveries. Luce also suggested that the eruption of Thera was the inspiration behind details in Hesiod’s Theogony[0120.128].
(a) https://web.archive.org/web/20150728042644/https://www.ucd.ie/cai/classics-ireland/1994/Luce94.html See {Archive 2061}
(b) https://web.archive.org/web/20181125154702/https://www.tcd.ie/Classics/jvl/ See {Archive 2060}