Sceptics *

Published June 10, 2010

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

^(f) https://web.archive.org/web/20180605101330/https://www.csicop.org/si/show/bridging_the_chasm_between_two_cultures/

^(g) https://scyllasoulspeak1.blogspot.ie/2011/06/atlantis-what-was-plato-really-up-to.html

^(h) https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/chapman-university-survey-finds-astonishing-levels-of-belief-in-ancient-astronauts-and-atlantis

⁽ⁱ⁾ Strabo, II, 102 and XII, 598. Cf. Proclus In Timaeum 61a (Diehl I, p. 197).

^(j) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF62FLucvQk

^(k) https://www.newsweek.com/could-lost-city-atlantis-exist-ocean-mapping-reveals-likelihood-legendary-city-828457

^(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) *

Tagged Antilia, Aristotle, Asia, Atalanta, Atlantic, Atlas, Chapman University, Eberhard Zangger, Edgar Cayce, Edwin Ramage, Helena Blavatsky, Ian Alex Blaise, Jason Colavito, Joe Garcia, Justin Spring, Karla McLaren, Kevin Christopher, Libya, Michael Shermer, Pat Linse, Paul Jordan, Phoenicians, Plate tectonics, Rod Martin, Rudolf Steiner, sceptics, Seth Stein, Sprague deCamp, Tartessos, Thorwald C. Franke, Troy

Abydos *

Published May 31, 2010

Abydos, known locally as Umm el-Qa’ab, is a site in Upper Egypt that contains a variety of structures including the Osirion, which is alleged to be the burial-place of Osiris, the Egyptian deity who was the father of Horus and the brother and husband of Isis. It was discovered in 1901/2 by Sir William Flinders Petrie (1853-1942) and Margaret Alice Murray (1863-1963)⁽^c⁾.

An illustrated tour of the Abydos Temple of Seti I and the Osirion is offered by Jimmy Dunn, writing as Peter Rome^(t⁾.

The Osirion (Osireion) has several unusual features that have led some, such as John Anthony West⁽^a⁾ to reasonably conclude that it is from a much earlier or at least a different period than the adjacent Temple of Seti I.

This view is based on at least three observations.

(i) The foundations of the Osirion are much lower than those of the Temple of Seti, a feature that would have been unprecedented. It is more likely that the structure was originally designed to be built at ground level in a conventional manner. However, after construction, the ground level rose over succeeding years with the deposits of silt from the annual inundation by the Nile. Consequently, when the adjacent Temple of Seti was built, a considerable number of years later, it was erected on the much higher ground beside a buried Osirion.

(ii) The Temple of Seti has an unusual unique outline being ‘L’ shaped instead of having the usual rectangular form. This would seem to suggest that during the construction of the temple, the builders discovered the buried Osirion and had to alter the original design.

(iii) For some, the most compelling reason for dating the Osirion differently to Seti’s Temple is that stylistically the structure is totally at variance with anything else from Seti’s era.

In response to the last point, conventional archaeologists have proposed that “the Osireion was purposely archaized by New Kingdom architects to make it appear to be ancient. Such a design would be appropriate for the tomb of an ancient god. Any resemblance to Khafre’s Valley Temple, then, would be purely intentional.”

A 2006 article pointed out that “the Osirion is the only temple known from Ancient Egypt to be built below ground level!^(o)

In 1995, Graham Hancock drew attention^[275] to this difference in style and a 2019 article, Freddy Silva also commented on this incongruity^(h)(k), but notes that while the Osirion at first sight, does not appear to have any obvious astronomical alignment, “only in the epoch of 10,000 BC do connections begin to emerge, for the constellation Cygnus appears in full upright ascent over the horizon in conjunction with the axis of the temple, the entrance framing its brightest star, Deneb.”

Silva added that the Osirion “represents a complete departure from standard temple design. However, a geological appraisal contradicts this opinion. In ancient times the level of the Nile was fifty feet lower than today, its course seven miles closer to and beside the Osirion. When North Africa was subjected to major flooding between 10,500-8000 BC, layers of Nile silt gradually compacted and rose inch by inch until they surrounded and covered the Osirion. In other words, the temple was originally a freestanding feature on the floodplain.”

On cue⁽ⁱ⁾, Jason Colavito attacked Silva, pointing out a bad mistake where Silva incorrectly quoted Diodorus Siculus, subtly implying that everything else that he wrote was also erroneous.

As noted above, it is argued^(d). that the apparently archaic architecture of the Osirion is just an example of how “the Egyptians had a recurring tendency to build in a ‘pseudo-archaic’ style”, noting that the style of the temple of Khafre in Giza resembles the Osirion. If so, which was copying which? While Khafre’s temple is adorned with hieroglyphics the apparent absence of any contemporary hieroglyphics in the Osirion seems to suggest a preliterate period for its construction!

The Valley Temple and the Sphinx Temple at Giza show similar construction techniques and are also devoid of inscriptions. As I see it, there is no unequivocal evidence on offer to demonstrate that the Osirion could not be much earlier than the nearby Seti Temple. Therefore, I would urge caution before hastily dismissing Hancock, Silva and others regarding this matter.

The conventional view that Seti I was responsible for the building of both the Temple and the Osireion is expressed in a well-illustrated paper by Keith Hamilton on the Academia.edu website⁽^j⁾.

This suggestion of an earlier date, such as in Ralph Ellis’ Thoth, the Architect of the Universe ^[⁰⁵¹⁷^], has added weight to the more general claim that other Egyptian monuments such as the Sphinx and some of the lower courses of the Great Pyramid are also from a predynastic era. This is interpreted by some as evidence of an early civilisation that might be more in keeping with the 9600 BC date in the story of Atlantis told to Solon by the Egyptian priests at Sais. Brien Foerester has also advocated an early date for the Osirion⁽ⁿ⁾.

Another feature that appears to be unique to the Osirion is drawings of the ‘Flower of Life’ (FoL) on one of its pillars! Gary Fletcher touched on this in a 2009 paper^(s). However, it is impossible to say when they were placed there. David Furlong has posted an article on the (FoL), noting particularly that some Greek letters have been identified inscribed beside the FoL design. This may suggest that the badly worn lettering was added long ofter the construction of the Osirion^(u). Also on Furlong’s site we have an article by Malcolm Stewart describing the circle clusters and Greek writing as graffiti, possibly dating to the 3rd or 2nd centuries BC^(v)!

A sceptic’s view of the claimed early date for the Osirion can be read online^(d).

It is worth noting that Abydos was also the site of a remarkable discovery of 14 buried boats that have been dated to at least 3000BC and again possibly even pre-dynastic.

Klaus H. Aschenbrenner has produced an Internet article, Giza and Abydos: The Keys to Atlantis, unfortunately in German only, which bravely promotes the idea of an 11^th millennium BC date for parts of both Giza and Abydos.

Hieroglyphics in the Temple of Seti at Abydos have also been seized upon by proponents of ancient technology existing in prehistoric times and possible links to a hi-tech Atlantis. These carvings suggest the outline of a helicopter and a submarine! A refutation of this interpretation, by Margaret Morris^(b) and others^(e)(f), has demonstrated that the carvings have been reworked and that some of the plaster infills had deteriorated. This helicopter claim has been successfully debunked on a number of sites^(q), including a December 2022 posting on The Archaeologist website^(r), which is particularly graphic. Furthermore, there is clear evidence that images of the hieroglyphics circulating on the internet were digitally ‘tidied up’.

Wayne James Howson offers some radical ideas concerning the Osireion in a 400-page book available on the Academia.edu website⁽^l⁾. Howson was influenced by the work of Jim Westerman⁽^m⁾.

In November 2016, it was announced that a city was unearthed not far from the Abydos temples, where “it is believed the city was home to important officials and tomb builders and would have flourished during early-era ancient Egyptian times.^(g)“

⁽^a⁾http://www.jawest.net/hall_of_maat.htm

^(b)See Archive 2727

⁽^c⁾ https://ascendingpassage.com/Osirion-at-Abydos.htm

^(d)https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Osireion,

^(e) https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abydos_helicopter

^(f) http://www.catchpenny.org/abydos.html

^(g) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38084391

^(h) https://grahamhancock.com/silvaf4/

⁽ⁱ⁾ https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/the-antediluvian-osirion-at-abydos-a-century-of-deceptively-copied-claims

⁽^j⁾ https://www.academia.edu/37568156/The_Osireion_A_Laymans_Guide

⁽^k⁾ https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/osirion-abydos-0012397

⁽^l⁾ (PDF) Osireion – One night’s thoughts, four years work..pdf | Wayne J A M E S Howson – Academia.edu (archive.org) *