Isaac La Peyrère (1596-1676) was a French philosopher, lawyer and diplomat. Although brought up a Calvinist, he was later forced to convert to Catholicism. His theological views created quite a stir when he put forward the theory of humans existing before Adam & Eve in an attempt to explain where Cain’s wife came from. He argued that there must have been two creations; first the creation of the gentiles and later that of Adam, as father of the Hebrews.
He published his claims in 1655 in Praeadamitae, upsetting Catholics, Protestants and Jews. Stephen P. Kershaw relates how Peyrère added the testimony of Solon and Plato to bolster his claim, arguing that if Atlantis in 9600 BC, then humans existed earlier than Genesis suggests.
Some of his ideas are widely accepted today(a).
Jean-Pierre Hallet (1927-2004) was a Belgian ethnologist who was born and grew up in Africa. During the Second World War he fought as a teenager with the Belgian Resistance. After the war he returned to the Congo and over time he developed an intimate knowledge of the local cultures, learning a variety of their languages. During an adventurous life(a) he frequently came close to death.
In his fascinating book, Pygmy Kitabu, Hallet recounts his experiences with the Efé pygmies of the Ituri Forest in what is now part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. What is quite interesting is that Hallet has identified aspects of Efé mythology that closely parallel details in the Book of Genesis. In addition, he has also found that pygmies have a place in Egyptian traditions exemplified by their god Bes. Throughout the book he refers to Plato’s Atlantis and suggests that elements of that story can also be found in the traditions of the Efé. His contention has a very tenuous basis but it does highlight how people can be tempted to build an Atlantis theory on the basis of a small number of similarities between Plato’s account and their presumed location. If Plato’s narrative is taken as accurate, all the details must match.
Pygmy Kitabu should be required reading for anyone interested in the history of man.
The Cherokee Indians of the southwestern states of America have an oral tradition which tells of ‘star people’ coming to earth from the Pleiades and settling on five islands in the Atlantic known as Elohi Mona. Following the destruction of these islands the survivors migrated to the Americas. A popular Cherokee author, Dhyani Ywahoo, is noted in an online forum(a) to have understood Elohi Mona to be a reference to Atlantis.
I occurs to me that if the survivors were migrating after a catastrophe they would in all probability head for the nearest landmass, suggesting that Elohi Mona was located in the western Atlantic and could conceivably have been the then more extensive Caribbean lands that were flooded by the rising sea levels following the end of the last Ice Age.
Charla Jean Morris, a journalist of Cherokee and Choctaw extraction has written From the First Rising Sun which deals with the traditions of the Cherokee people regarding their origins. They claim to have come to mainland America from those islands in the Atlantic off the coast of South America. Morris identifies these with Atlantis. She also discusses the Cherokee Flood Myths and compares them with the Genesis accounts.
Robert L. Gielow is a retired American aeronautical engineer and a fundamentalist Christian. In his latter capacity he has written Noah’s Flood, which is an attempt to offer a technical justification for accepting the literal reality of the biblical seven days of creation and Noah’s Ark. Not content with advocating one lost cause he devotes a chapter to Atlantis in which he jumps on the slowing bandwagon of Robert Sarmast’s ‘Atlantis off the coast Cyprus’ theory. He fails to apply any critical thinking to Sarmast’s ideas and accepts them in the same unquestioning manner with which he embraces a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Genesis, the first book of the Bible, with its account of the antediluvian world has been compared with the description of Atlantis prior to its inundation. Joseph Robert Jochmans has offered a comparison of the two accounts and concluded that their similarities suggest a common source with the usual distortions encountered when an original story is transmitted orally over long periods of time and frequently translated via a number of languages before being put in writing and so enduring the perils of transcription errors, not to mention the risk deliberate falsification.
In Atlantis: The Antediluvian World,a chapter entitled Genesis Contains a History of Atlantis, Ignatius Donnelly unconvincingly attempted to link Atlantis with Genesis.
Atlantis was named after the Titan Atlas, whose father Iapetus has been identified with Japheth (Genesis 9.25-27), the son of Noah, a subject which is investigated at length by Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre(a).Frank Joseph has suggested that Noah was an Atlantean[108.85].
Another suggested link with Genesis has been to identify Atlantis with the Garden of Eden. However, most of the wide range of proposed locations for Eden are on land and rarely coincide with any of the equally varied proposed locations for Atlantis. One exception was the late Professor Arysio dos Santos who located Eden in the South China Sea.
John Nichols wrote a long article(b) identifying Atlantis with the Garden of Eden and placing it on the Celtic Shelf about a hundred miles off the coast of France west of Brest.
Enoch is considered the grandfather, sometimes the great grandfather, of Noah. He was the seventh patriarch in the book of Genesis. However there appears to be two Enochs in the Bible(d), one fathered by Cain, the other by Jared! He is also regarded as the inventor of astrology, while Eusebius considered Atlas its originator, suggesting that the two were the same person. Lewis Spence in The Occult Sciences in Atlantis frequently touched on the subject of Enoch, equating him with Atlas and telling us that in Arabic and Welsh, Enoch is known as Edris.
One of the many odd details regarding Enoch is that while the patriarchs that preceded and succeeded him are recorded as having lived eight and nine hundred years, he was only given 365 years before being ‘taken by god’ without dying. He has been cited by many as the inventor of alchemy. Enoch is also identified with Atlas by Pseudo-Eupolemus, attributed to a Samaritan source around 300 BC. This suggestion is comparable with the idea of equating the Egyptian god Shu with Atlas.
Eusebius the 4th century bishop of Caesarea wrote that Enoch was Atlas, king of Atlantis (Praep. Ev., ix, 17).
*David Montaigne has proposed that Enoch lived in Atlantis(b) based on the Book of Enoch. In a rather convoluted theory he links Book of Enoch, Pole Shift and Atlantis in Antarctica in order to explain why Enoch wrote that, in his day, at the summer solstice the day had 16 hours of light and 8 of night, which is incompatible with the latitude of Jerusalem. I must point out that Montaigne also prophesised(e) that a pole shift was due in December 2019, followed by Judgement Day!*
Rather oddly, Philip Ochieng, an African writer, contends that Cain was in fact Enoch(a). Equally bizarre is the claim by Zia Abbas in Chapter 8 of his magnum opus that Enoch established Atlantis! Of course, he offers no evidence to support this notion.
In Genesis 4:16-17 it is recorded that Cain was building a city and that he named it after his son Enoch. Thorwald C. Franke has listed(f) a number of reasons why the biblical city of Enoch cannot be identified as the city of Atlantis.
It is quite clear that the interesting but mysterious Enoch has done little but generate wide-ranging speculation including a completely unsubstantiated link with Plato’s Atlantis(b).
The Book of Enoch, also known as 1 Enoch, is a 2nd century BC Jewish religious document whose content is traditionally attributed to Enoch, the great grandfather of Noah. It was lost for centuries but rediscovered in the 19th century and brought from Ethiopia, then known as Abyssinia and translated into English by Archbishop Richard Laurence. This can now be read on or downloaded from the Internet(c).
Sumeria was unknown until the middle of the 19th century. With the discovery and the decipherment of the Sumerian cuneiform tablets the sophistication of their culture prompted the idea that Sumer had been ‘the cradle of civilisation.’ Subsequent discoveries, such as the those in the Indus Valley and more recently Göbekli Tepe have now somewhat diluted that idea.
The origin of the Sumerians is still something of a mystery as is their language which seems to be an ‘isolate’, unrelated to any known language group. Ronnie Gallagher has suggested that migrants from the Caucasus had provided the impetus that led to the development of the Sumerian civilisation. Gallagher’s theory is supported by Jerald Jack Starr on his Sumerian Shakespeare website, who emphatically attributes a Caucasian origin to the Sumerians(l).
Emilio Spedicato has controversially suggested that the Sumerians came from the Tibetan region!(m)>Equally provocative were the views of Catherine Acholonu-Olumba, who as the author of Eden in Sumer on the Niger , claimed that her book, “provides multidisciplinary evidence of the actual geographical location in West Africa of the Garden of Eden, Atlantis and the original homeland of the Sumerian people before their migration to the “Middle East”. By translating hitherto unknown pre-cuneiform inscriptions of the Sumerians, Catherine Acholonu and Sidney Davis have uncovered thousands of years of Africa’s lost pre-history and evidences of the West African origins of the earliest Pharaohs and Kings of Egypt and Sumer such as Menes and Sargon the Great.”(p)<
Sumeria has now been proposed as a possible source of the Atlantis story. Dr. Ashok Malhotra, a professor of Engineering, has suggested(a) that that ‘the likelihood of the Atlantis stories being of Sumerian origin is strengthened by the fact that the submergence of ancient cities was a strong part of the Sumerian mythology. It dominates their historical tradition. The destruction of the ancient city as a result of sin was also part of their beliefs.’ Malhotra then proposes that these Sumerian stories reflected actual flooding events in the Indus Valley region that were brought first to Sumeria and then were later transferred to Egypt and from thence via Solon to Plato to us.
George Michanowsky went much further and claimed that the Sumerians had known Atlantis under the name of NI-DUK-KI, known today as Dilmun[282.66]. The renowned Henry Rawlinson interpreted this name to mean ‘blessed hill’ or ‘blessed isle’. While Michanowsky’s suggestion is highly speculative, if correct, it would be the earliest known reference to Atlantis.
The Sumerian king list(e) from Larsa records eight kings (some versions note ten) before the Deluge, which may have been reflected, in a distorted fashion, in the ten patriarchs of Genesis and/or the ten kings of Atlantis! Another suggested link is with the eight generations between Adam and Noah recorded in Genesis chapter 5.
John Sassoon would seem to support Malhotra’s thesis in his book, which proposes a Sumerian origin for the Jews with possible earlier links with the Indus valley. He is not concerned with Atlantis, just the ancestry of the Jewish people of whom Abraham was born in Sumeria around 2000-1800 BC. Sassoon’s views offer a possible transmission route for Eastern traditions and myths to have reached Egypt and subsequently through Solon to Athens.
More recently, Dr. Willem McLoud, a South African researcher, commented that “we have good reason to think that Atlantis was not located beyond the pillars of Heracles in the Atlantic Ocean, as is so often propagated, but that it was actually none other than the ancient land of Sumer itself.” Mcloud is primarily concerned with the Sumerians and Akkadians, which he will expand on in a forthcoming book(n).
In 2001, a book by Radek Brychta was published in the Czech Republic in which he also advocates a Sumerian connection. He identifies Atlantis with the legendary Dilmun of Sumerian legend and locates it on the Indus civilisation island of Dholavira. Excerpts from this fascinating book are available on the Internet and worth a read.
However, the most extreme claims came from Zechariah Sitchin who proposed that the Sumerians had been ‘influenced’ by ancient astronauts from the planet Nibiru, which information is to be found in their cuneiform tablets if Sitchin’s translation is to be believed. Similar daft ideas(g) have been put forward by Hermann Burgard but so far have only been foisted on a German-reading public.
As if that was not bad enough, we now (Oct 2016) have the Iraqi Transport Minister claiming, among other matters, that the Sumerians launched spaceships 8,000 years ago(h)!
Jim Allen, the leading advocate of ‘Atlantis in the Andes’ has also claimed(b) a Sumerian connection with South America citing Ruth & Alpheus Hyatt Verrill, who include in their book[838.293] three pages of Sumerian words compared with the language of ancient Peru as well as other cultural aspects there. They also believed that Sargon (2369-2314 BC) was known in Peru as the deity Viracocha! Their fanciful idea stems from an account of Sargon sailing to the west and spending three years there! Zhirov supported this claim[458.23] describing it as ”a seemingly semi-fantastic theory”. My reason for considering this claim to be nonsensical, is simply that Sargon was continually engaged in expanding his empire and constantly dealing with rebellions in the various city states that he ruled over. The idea that he took three years out to visit America, 14,000 km away, is in no way credible.
Nevertheless, the idea of Sargon in South America persists with James Bailey repeating it in Sailing to Paradise[0150.66] and more recently by the Afrocentrist, Clyde Winters in an article on the Ancient Origins website(f) in which he quotes Bailey and the Verrills as supporting Lake Titicaca as the Lake Manu of Sumerian tradition. A further article(j) on the same website begins with the forceful claim that “it is becoming increasingly clear that the Sumerians had established a colony in South America called Kuga-Ki.” The paper is based on a series of questionable artifacts, the Fuente Magna Bowl, the Crespi Collection and the Pokoyia monument!
The Fuente Magna Bowl is frequently offered as evidence of a pre-Columbian link with the Sumerians(c), although its provenance is unclear and there are suggestions of a hoax. A sceptical view of the ‘Bowl’ by Carl Feagans(k) is available.
The very existence of Sumerians has recently been attacked in an appendix to The Three Ages of Atlantis by Marin, Minella & Schievenin. They maintain that the Sumerian ‘language’ “could be an artificial construct created by Akkadian priests” to be used for liturgical purposes. These ideas were first expressed at the end of the 19th century by the respected Orientalist, Joseph Halévy. Andi Zeneli has expressed comparable ideas(d) regarding the Sumerian language.
Uwe Topper’s son Ilya has also put forward the idea that the Sumerians did not exist(o). His paper is in Spanish and was influenced by the work of Gunnar Heinsohn, another chronology revisionist.
Noah the hero of the Flood story in Genesis and reportedly the first to plant a vineyard has been suggested by Frank Joseph[108 .85] to have been an Atlantean. However, he is not the first to offer this idea. Cosmas Indicopleustes a 6th century AD theologian and geographer from Alexandria wrote of Atlantis as a large island in the western ocean. He also added a twist to the tale by recording an ancient tradition that Noah had resided on Atlantis!
Another identification, by Robert Bowie Johnson Jr., is that Noah is Nereus in Greek mythology and widely depicted in Greek art(c). Confusingly, it has also been suggested(a)(t) that Enoch usually accepted as the grandfather of Noah were in fact one and the same person.
Nevertheless, Plato’s Atlantis was destroyed by the gods as a punishment for their wickedness, while the same reason is given in the Bible for the obliteration of Noah’s people. Coincidentally, both Atlantis and Noah’s homeland, which was probably located in Mesopotamia, were destroyed by water leading to the obvious suggestion that the two stories are related.
While the biblical account of the Deluge does not stand up to detailed scrutiny(j), the global ubiquity of Flood stories is seldom adequately explained. Some possibilities that occur to me are related to the ending of the last Ice Age, which had watery consequences around the world. While the rising sea level took place in fits and starts, there were more dramatic events during this period such as the huge melt water lake discharges and Heinrich Events that occurred across North America and Eurasia. The effect in the southern hemisphere was less spectacular. Survivors would have been forced to migrate in all directions, bringing their account of these floods with them. Another explanation, but in my view, a less likely cause of global floods would have been a close encounter with a large extraterrestrial body such a promoted by Emilio Spedicato.
Apart from the story of the actual flood, global or otherwise, the detailed biblical account of the building of the Ark along with the gathering of the animals and the voyage itself does not hold water (sorry)(y). Some decades ago, Roger A. Moore offered a forensic study of the account, which, is still impressive(x).
Some years ago, Pastor Bertrand L. Comparet (1901-1983), a staunch racist(w), denied that the Flood of Noah had been a global event(v).
The Flood of Noah has been dated as 3161 BC by Stuart L. Harris(s). >Similarly, Gérard Gertoux places the Deluge circa 3200 BC in a lengthy paper(z). in which he also controversially touches on subjects such as radiocarbon dating, the age of the Patriarchs, the Ice Ages, evolution and more.<
A further development in the Flood story came on January 1st 2010 when it was revealed(b) that a 3,700-year-old Babylonian tablet disclosed that the ark was circular in design and made of reeds!
This claim was made by Irving Finkel, a cuneiform specialist at the British Museum, in his recent book The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood. Jason Colavito offers an interesting review of the book(d).
There is an unexpectedly large number of books written over the last century on the subject of Noah’s Ark that are listed on a specialist website(e).
One such offering, resurrected by Jason Colavito(f), provides some comic relief with the claim in 1922 by C. E. Getsinger, who wrote that Noah’s Ark was in fact the Great Pyramid(g)! Even earlier, John Taylor (1781-1864) claimed that Noah had built the Great Pyramid! Nevertheless, a recently deciphered fragment of the Dead Sea Scrolls has suggested that the Ark was shaped like a pyramid!(h)(i)
Barry Warmkessel also entered the fray with the suggestion that aliens had been involved in the design and construction of the Ark(r)!
Nevertheless, 2017 finished with renewed interest in Noah’s Ark being generated by media reports(k) of statements emanating from The Geoscience Research Institute, which is sponsored by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which claims that a 2010 expedition to Mount Ararat in Turkey, carbon dated timbers found there to 4,800 years ago.
The late David Allen Deal was another investigator to propose the Ararat region as the landing place of the ark, with Mt. Judi as the specific location(o). A more recent article supports his ideas(p). The precise location of the biblical Ararat is a matter of continuing and intense debate(q).
The UK’s Daily Mail added, that talking after the initial claims in 2010, Mike Pitt, a British archaeologist, said the evangelical explorers had yet to produce compelling evidence. He said: ‘If there had been a flood capable of lifting a huge ship 2.5 miles [4km] up the side of a mountain 4,800 years ago, I think there would be substantial geological evidence for this flood around the world. And there isn’t.’
2018 began with matters really hitting rock-bottom when an English language newspaper offered the following headline(l) “Turkish academic claims Prophet Noah used cell phone to call his son before flood.” Unsurprisingly, Jason Colavito has covered this story with an interesting blog(m).>Nevertheless, that idea is certainly trumped by the suggestion of Xavier Séguin that the ‘Ark’ of Noah had been a satellite(aa)!<
A light-hearted look at the story of Noah is worth a read(n).
>However, a more valuable offering was a paper(ab) delivered in 2008 to the Sixth International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh, PA by Anne Habermehl. She finished her contribution, a Review of the Search for Noah’s Ark, with the following conclusions;
“(1) It would appear that the Ark cannot have landed on Mount Ararat, because scientists have shown that this mountain did not exist until some time after the Flood had ended. (Also, the area that Mount Ararat occupies was probably not yet included in Urartu at that time.)
(2) In light of historical and geographical considerations, Mount Cudi near Cizre, Turkey, is the most likely place where the Ark landed.
(3) It seems doubtful that anyone has actually seen the Ark anywhere in modern times. The alleged sightings all seem to evaporate on careful examination.
(4) It is unlikely that very much of the Ark exists today; it is probable that over the millennia it has decayed, and various scavengers have taken most of it away.
(5) Because of 14C dating problems, it may not be possible to prove that any given samples are or are not the right age to have come from the Ark.
(6) More archaeological work needs to be done if we are ever to reasonably prove the Ark’s landing spot anywhere.
(7) It is probable that no matter what is found in any location, there are those who will remain unconvinced.
(8) Interest in finding the Ark is unabated, and the Ark search will go on.
At the end of the day, we have to face the reality that it may be difficult, or even impossible, ever to prove where the Ark landed. This author would have liked to end on an optimistic note for soon recovery of a largely intact, proven Ark, but this seems unlikely; and this paper therefore ends, in the words of T. S. Eliot (1925): “Not with a bang but a whimper.”<
In March 2019, a paper by Roger M. Pearlman put forward another radical idea, namely, that Göbekli Tepe had been founded by Noah (Noach) and his sons(u).
(g) The Thomson Review, Thomson, Illinois, July 19th, 1922 – p.3
I note that a Joey R. Jochmans is credited as the researcher for Rene Noorbergen’s 1977 book Secrets of the Lost Races  and that a number of books have been published under that name.
On his extensive website (now closed) he covers a number of New Age subjects and also offers five well-written articles on Atlantis. He locates it in the Atlantic and gives his comments on many of the popular location theories.
Some of his work can be found on other websites including an interesting paper on the Saqqara ‘Model’(c).
Jochmans has also written a paper(d) in which he discusses the possibility that the Antikythera Mechanism may date back to the 6th century BC.>Another of his papers outlined between the Atlantean and Genesis histories.<
Jochmans wrote an extensive article debunking the 2012 Doomsday hype(b).
D(onald) Bridgman–Metchim had a book published at the beginning of the last century, in which he gave what has been described as an Atlantean interpretation of the Book of Genesis. It is written in the form of a novel and has little to do with either Genesis or Atlantis. It was reprinted in 2004 and quite frankly; I don’t know why they bothered. For those with nothing better to do, the full text is available on-line(a).
Little is recorded of the author’s life, except that he wrote a second book about the First World War and also appears to have laboured as an artist.