All later pre-Christian poets and historians of note mention Atlantis somewhere or other, including such people as Proclos, Plutarch, Poseidonius, Longinus, Strabo, Thucydides, Timagenes, Pliny, and even Diodorus Siculus. But none of them have anything to add, they all just refer to Plato. So before we go any further we have to ask whether Plato just offloaded a literary fairy tale onto the world.
The school of philosophy surrounding Plato was dedicated to truth. All his dialogues have the same aim: to get at the truth. Anyone reading Plato’s works meets this search for truth at every turn. The participants analyze, compare, contradict, assume, define, and go round and round their subjects until they have been done to death. And on occasions when the conversation takes a more imaginary turn, speaking for instance of things which “might” be possible, or which one “could” imagine, then the subjunctive is used. Why would Plato diverge from this clear framework in the case of the Atlantis story? He and the other participants must have known if the story was only a fabrication, something merely invented by the Egyptians, and would surely have mentioned it. But the opposite is the case. Critias begins the dialogue by expressly stating that although the story is strange it has a “claim to be wholly true.” And Socrates then asks “What sort of achievement was this, which Critias heard from Solon as one actually performed by our Athenian state, for it is not mentioned elsewhere in history?” A little later, to make absolutely sure, it is asked from whom Solon heard all this “as a true story.”
The ancient Egyptian priest, who told Solon the story, emphasized that it was set down in writing in the long-distant past. And he insists that they should afterwards examine the full details with the help of the original documents. Would Plato have made up all these lies to create a more credible story?
There were also young men attending the dialogues, and perhaps other members of the public. On the second day, this worthy gentleman Critias claims to have spent the previous night recalling everything as clearly as he can. If this is a lie it is brazen. And then he insists that the written account of the Atlantis story was in his grandfather’s possession, and is now in his. If these were not all Critias’ own words, then Plato must have invented them. Unthinkable of someone like Plato, whose life was dedicated to the pursuit of truth.
The same Plato would then also have had to falsely attribute the Atlantis story to Solon, one of the most outstanding personalities of Athens, who was also known as a law-maker! And would Critias have stood by quietly and let Plato take the name of his grandfather in vain to back up a pack of lies? And if Critias himself had attributed a wholly false story to his grandfather, then the other participants in the dialogue would surely have contradicted him. The only other possibility is that Plato invented the whole dialogue, together with its participants. But this could hardly have been carried out, for the people mentioned in it were all alive, and every one of them had enough personality and courage to prevent their name being used in such a tissue of lies.
None of this fits with the Platonic search for truth. The same applies to the story itself. It mentions a type of metal, “orichalcum,” which later no longer existed. Why invent something like that? In Atlantis there is said to have been a region “protected from the north winds.” Such details are superfluous in a false story about a supposed “ideal state.” Who would care which direction the wind blew from? In the center of Atlantis is said to have stood a pillar or statue, on which were engraved the laws of Poseidon. Just another perfidious lie? On this pillar there was also supposed to be inscribed an oath with dreadful curses. Why should such a thing figure in an imaginary “ideal state”? The kings of Atlantis are said a to have met to pass judgment on themselves, and to have inscribed the judgment on a golden tablet. And in the case of war, “the race of Atlas” should have the last word. What use, what moral function could it have had for the Athenians to hear about such things?
The whole story is told in the past tense, just as if it all actually happened. If it is not true this does not fit with the Platonic school’s approach. Why should this school (or Plato on his own) try to sell a web of deceit to the intellectual elite of Athens? Why should he put words into the mouth of Critias, one of the most highly regarded men of his day?
I can go on—and I will for a bit longer! Critias also has the cheek to claim that the “divine” element of the descendants of Poseidon increasingly vanished because it was diluted through unions with mortals, so that eventually a “human” way of thinking got the upper hand. Who needs to know that? If it was an invention, people of those days might well have regarded it as an insult to the gods. The Atlantis story simply cannot be seen as so much poppycock invented by Plato, even if we want to assume that he used the name of living people under false pretences.
And now along comes Eberhard Zangger and identifies Atlantis as Troy. The prerequisite for that, of course, is that Zangger take Plato seriously—in other words, believes in the Atlantis story. Umm…not altogether. Plato refers to Atlantis as an island; but Troy, of course, is not on an island. Zangger has a good explanation ready.13 He believes that the Egyptians regarded all strangers as coming from “islands.” The word “island” he suggests, had a different meaning in the Bronze Age than it does today. Because there weren’t really any islands in Egypt there was no hieroglyph to represent the word; the hieroglyph used for “island” meant only a foreign, non-Egyptian coast or shore.
That may be true. But the Egyptians did know that Greece, with which they actively traded, had many small islands as well as a mainland. And the thing that really sticks in my gullet about the Atlantis/Troy equation is the power, greatness, and size of Plato’s Atlantis. It is described as a thoroughly organized state, a huge region with enormous forces, far and away outstripping anything that little Troy, on the opposite coast to Egypt, could have mustered, even in its heyday.
Herodotus, for example, learns an enormous amount on his Egyptian travels. He notes down the names of the kings and dynasties, writes up periods, gods, and legends. But none of the Egyptian historians or priests inform their guest from Greece about the Atlantis that is supposed to have been just opposite them. Herodotus was hungry for knowledge; he could never learn enough, never ask enough questions. But at no point was he tempted to ask about Atlantis, because there was never an Atlantis in the geographical region of Greece, even if it later changed its name to Troy, Tros, or Ilion. The word “Atlantis” is meant to come from “Atlas,” and to have given the Atlantic Ocean its name. How could it have done this if it was called Troy, Tros or Ilion? And if, as Homer tells us, a great war was waged around Troy, into which the Greeks heroically threw themselves, in which more than 1,000 ships were involved, then they would surely have known that they were destroying Atlantis and the descendants of Poseidon, and not just some barbarians.
Eberhard Zangger found various swamps, harbors, and even canals in the plain in front of Troy, and he shows in a sketch that Plato’s Atlantis could easily be transposed onto it. But the same could be said of many other places. Even if excavations around Troy bring to light some ring-shaped canals, we would still have no proof that it is Plato’s Atlantis. There were many cities with ring-shaped canals and defensive walls. Herodotus describes how the king of the Medeans, Deioces, had a similar site built (Book I, Chapter 98):
He built a great, strong citadel, which is today called Agbatana, in which walls stand within each other. This citadel is arranged in such a way that each succeeding ring is always higher than the previous one…the town has seven ring-walls altogether. In the innermost stands the king’s palace and the treasure houses the pinnacles of the first wall are white, those of the second black, of the third purplish-red, of the fourth blue, of the fifth bright red….14
Is this Atlantis? Or Troy? No, it is Agbatana!
Their temple has the following appearance: it lies upon an island from the Nile two channels lead there…the forecourt of the temple is 10 fathoms high and adorned with remarkable images…around the temple runs a
wall decorated with reliefs.15
Is this Atlantis? Troy? No. Herodotus was here describing the temple of Bubastis in Egypt. I could go on. Many temples stood on islands and were surrounded by channels. This at least tells us that the Egyptians knew what an island was!
The same Herodotus converses with Egyptian priests about the theft of Helen from Troy/Ilion (Book II, Chapters 13 onward). Even the names Homer and Iliad are expressly mentioned. But nowhere does it occur to Herodotus or the priests he is talking with to mention Atlantis and Troy in the same breath, or to say that Troy was once called Atlantis millennia ago.
So either the Atlantis story is a pure invention by Plato, which is very hard to believe, or Plato’s Atlantis cannot have been called Troy. What Eberhard Zangger claimed for Troy has also been claimed by others for the islands of Crete and Santorini. The Greek seismologist Angelos Galanopoulos and his colleague Edward Bacon produced good arguments to suggest that the volcanic island of Santorini could correspond with Plato’s descriptions of Atlantis,16 and that it was simply destroyed by a volcanic eruption. Unfortunately, Plato’s measurements do not fit Santorini. The authors get around this by saying that Solon got his figures wrong, and read the hundreds as thousands. As Jorg Dendl comments in an excellent Atlantis critique, however, this assumption cannot be correct:
Plato describes the division of the “great plain” very precisely. The whole country [Atlantis] was separated into portions or plots. The size of each was 10 square stadia, and there were 60,000 of these. These 60,000 plots, each one 10 × 10 stadia, can only fit into an area of 2,000 × 3,000 stadia. If Solon had read his numbers wrong, this sum would not work.17
And the Irish professor John Luce, who is an expert in Greek literature, placed Atlantis very plausibly on the island of Crete in Minoan times.18, 19 The stimulus for this was the description of the bull-hunt on Atlantis “with only sticks and cords” and the sacrifice to the god Poseidon. Where was there a bull-cult in ancient times? On Crete of course! You remember, no doubt, that Zeus swam to Crete in the form of a bull with Europa on his back, and that Daedalus built a labyrinth to hold the human-headed Minotaur bull. So Atlantis must be Crete. At both places there were “mystical kings,” and in both places a culture flourished which held sway over the rest of the world for long ages. In both places, too, there were splendid palaces and also of course man-made canals.
Troy/Atlantis, Santorini/Atlantis, Crete/Atlantis. Why not throw Malta in as well? But all the Mediterranean islands which are thought to be Atlantis have one disadvantage: they do not lie in the Atlantic Ocean. And Plato’s dates—9,000 years old—naturally do not fit in with any of these Atlantis illusions. The Minoan palaces of Crete were destroyed around 1450 BC. Either we accept Plato as he is, or we start filtering out from his account everything which doesn’t fit in with our own favorite theory.
The same Professor John Luce, the ancient Greek expert who places Atlantis in Crete, draws attention to the fact that Plato never referred to the story as “muthos” or “legend,” but always as “logos” or “true word.”20 The story of the bull-hunt on Atlantis and the sacrifice of the bull on a giant pillar, incidentally, is very hard to reconcile with the idea that Plato invented it all to conjure up an “ideal state.”
Most of the men whom we call “historians of antiquity” travelled through Egypt; not only Herodotus was there, but also his colleagues Diodorus, Pliny and Strabo, among others. Why did they hear nothing about Atlantis? They all gave extensive accounts of Egyptian history, and each of them was surprised by the “impossible dates” of the Egyptian dynasties. Does this not speak against Atlantis? Wouldn’t at least one of these historians have brought an Atlantis story home with him?
This objection can be used both for and against Atlantis. If the Atlantis story had been common knowledge in Egypt, then others besides Solon would have heard about it. Perhaps they did hear of it, and didn’t believe it. Or those 9,000 years were the reason that hardly anyone in Egypt remembered the story. That would make the old priest in Sais an exception, the one who told Solon the story and supported it with documents and an inscription. These must have been documents which were only easily available in Sais—which doesn’t mean that they didn’t exist elsewhere at some point. I don’t really want to go over old ground again, but whole ancient libraries were destroyed—or otherwise never located. I am still hoping for the miracle that will allow one of them to turn up some day.
A few years ago, an exciting proof that Atlantis really existed was presented in a TV program (I am still waiting for the book to be published). The geologists William Ryan and Walter Pittmann say that they examined the seafloor off the northern coast of the Black Sea, and the coastline itself, by drilling and analyzing samples. Astonished, they came to the conclusion that the sea-level had risen by 492 feet (150 m), both at the coast north of the Crimean peninsula and on the coast of western Ukraine. This rise is said to have taken place in a sudden, dramatic, apocalyptic fashion, about 7,500 years ago, and was probably caused by a meteorite hitting the earth, melting millions of tons of ice and sending huge masses of water washing over the world. This apocalyptic flood had first poured through the Bosphorus and then formed the Black Sea, which had previously been an inland lake.
I cannot judge whether these two experts are right, and it is not up to me to assess whether their data are correct. What I do know is that other geologists and glacier researchers are convinced that the exact opposite is true. Professor Herbert E Wright of the University of Minnesota says: “The Atlanteans will have to search elsewhere for their catastrophes,”21 for, he claims, it can be clearly proven that no such disaster occurred in the last 12,000 years. This is not to dispute that the sea-level really has risen—but this occurred gradually throughout the course of human history. It would be helpful if the glaciologists and oceanographers would put all their data on the table. Atlantis in the depths of the Black Sea? But the Black Sea does not lie “beyond the pillars of Heracles,” as Plato claims Atlantis does, nor does it have a subtropical climate.
And while I am on the subject of ice-melting, let me mention its opposite: refrigeration. The authors Fritz Nestke and Thomas Riemer place Atlantis slap bang on the continent of Antarctica.22 Naturally they have good reasons to support their ideas. But who doesn’t? Almost anything is possible where Atlantis is concerned.
Only Eberhard’s assumption that Atlantis was nothing other than Troy is hard to sustain. Whether Atlantis or Troy, both places must have been founded by someone at some time. The founder of Atlantis was called Poseidon, and he was a son of Zeus. Why did he found Atlantis? At the very beginning of the Atlantis story Poseidon is said to have fallen in love with an earthly woman Cleito, who lived on a hill, which Poseidon then surrounded with “strong defenses” which were “inaccessible to human beings” (Critias). If the founding of Atlantis was identical with the founding of Troy, then Troy I, built round 3000 BC, ought to have a strong defensive wall. But it doesn’t. Certainly nothing like the Atlantis story makes out, with its rings of seawater and earth encircling one another, at equal intervals as though drawn with a compass. Such constructions would be quite impossible in the region surrounding present-day Troy. The hill of Hissarlik, on which the (supposed) Troy stands, slopes down gently to the sea on one side, and on the other side gets lost in the flat terrain, which is about 50 feet (15m) above sea-level. Poseidon’s circles would have to exist on the side facing the sea, but there is nothing of the kind there. Unless, of course, the ingenious son of the gods constructed a system to pump up seawater to a higher level. If so, evidence of the rings of water ought to be clearly visible in the terrain.
Why did Poseidon construct his “strong defenses inaccessible to human beings” and his ring ditches? To found for his wife and descendants of divine blood a kingdom where they could live well and securely in the future. In that case, there ought to be traces at Troy of this mighty kingdom of Atlantis, but there aren’t. Did Poseidon want to control ship traffic through the D
ardanelles from the very beginning? No, for there were as yet “no ships or sailors” (Critias).
And those who see only the ruins of Troy on the hill of Hissarlik seek reasons for its founding at this spot too. Why here? Supposedly because this place had strategic importance, enabling watch to be kept on the entrance to the Dardanelles. But I’m afraid this is nonsense. Around 3000 BC, Troy I was nothing more than an insignificant little settlement, which couldn’t possibly have controlled traffic into the Dardanelles. The hill of Hissarlik does not actually lie at the strategic point but some miles distant from it. In the third millennium BC, there were neither cannons nor other such weapons to prevent ships entering the Dardanelles.
There is, after all, a reason why contemporary fortifications for controlling the Dardanelles were located directly beside the entry channel, or as near as makes no difference. It would have been a joke for the town community of Troy I to try halting potential blockade-busters with small ships sent out from the hill of Hissarlik or the coast. The reason for the Troy I settlement cannot possibly have been to control the Dardanelles, for it would have to have been in a quite different place!
And Atlantis certainly doesn’t fit with Troy I, as we have seen. According to the archaeological excavations, Troy is said to have been founded around 3000 BC. In the following centuries and millennia, the settlement became an increasingly fortified site. At the same time, on the other side of the Mediterranean, a phenomenal Egyptian civilization was taking shape. The Egyptians built their great pyramid 500 years after the founding of Troy. And soon the Phoenicians were dominating sea travel in the Mediterranean. If Eberhard Zangger is right about Troy and Atlantis, and this Atlantis was destroyed in the Trojan War around 1207 BC, then all Mediterranean ships must have continually sailed past it up until that time. Or, still more absurd, if Atlantis had been an island in the Mediterranean, then these seafaring peoples would continually have circumnavigated one coast or another of this mysterious Atlantis. The whole Mediterranean and its hinterland would have been involved in trading with the place. Strange, isn’t it, that no one had heard of it?
Odyssey of the Gods Page 16
