Atlantis:
New Hypothesis
by
Viatcheslav Koudriavtsev
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM
THE AUTHOR
This
is the third edition of my paper. The first one was sent
as a brochure "Returning to the Enigma of Plato's Atlantis"
to Ancient History Departments of some Universities and
to Geographical Societies of a number of countries in June
1995. The magazine version of it has come out in the May
1996 issue of "Vokrug Sveta" ("Around the
World", Magazine of Travels, Adventures and SF) - a
kind of Russian "National Geographic". The second
one was published in some newsgroups and mailing lists in
February - March 1996. In the present edition I am trying
to provide answers to most of the questions I was asked
after those publications. Besides, I have since found some
materials illustrating some of my suggestions.
I would
like to apologise for some prolixity of the introduction
and maybe the slightly simplified style of setting forth
some theses, which are due to the fact that the paper is
meant not only for experts on the issue, but also for those
who are not familiar in detail with a whole range of issues
connected with the subject.
The
two translations of Plato's dialogues Timaeus and Critias
used are the Thomas Taylor translation first published in
1804 and considered to be classic (Plato. The Timaeus and
the Critias or Atlantis. The Thomas Taylor translation.
N.Y., Pantheon books, 1944) and the Desmond Lee translation,
first published in 1965 (Timaeus) and in 1971 (Critias)
(Plato. Timaeus and Critias. Penguin books, 1994).
I also
had parallel texts of the dialogues in ancient Greek and
in Latin (Platonis Opera. Graece et latine. Paris, 1877).
Where
not specified, Desmond Lee's translation of Plato is quoted,
since his language is more up-to-date.
After
quotations in round brackets, it is indicated where in Plato's
text the passage quoted belongs according to the traditionally
accepted pagination.
The
Greek words given in the explanation of quotations have
been transcribed with Latin letters by the author because
of the ASCII-codes format.
The
bold type in the quotations and the explanations in square
brackets are mine.
I would
like to express my gratitude to: •V.E.Schitz for assistance
in my work;
•M.A.Garntsev,
Ph. D., Associate Professor, Department of the History of
Foreign Philosophy, Faculty of Philosophy, Moscow State
University, for consultations on the Greek text;
•E.Y.Koudriavtseva
for help with translating the paper into English;
•M.V.Dyakonova
of the Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences
of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
INTRODUCTION
Everyone
will have heard at one time or another the name of Atlantis
mentioned, we can come across it in various contexts. Almost
any encyclopedia these days is sure to have an article on
Atlantis, which usually reads something like this: "Atlantis
- according to an ancient Greek myth recorded by Plato,
there had once existed a vast island in the Atlantic Ocean
to the west of Gibraltar, with fertile soil, and densely
populated, which sank to the bottom of the sea because of
an earthquake. Questions of whether Atlantis has ever existed,
and if so, why it vanished, today continue to arouse as
much controversy among scientists as ever."
On
The Source
Plato
speaks of Atlantis in two works - dialogues Timaeus and
Critias. Dialogue was a genre widely popular in Ancient
Greece, in which information or ideas are not narrated by
the author himself, but are presented to the reader by two
or more interlocutors addressing each other. Such a genre
is convenient for presenting differing views on the same
subject and, besides, makes it possible to render the experience
cited in support of the deliberations, concrete to the utmost.
Therefore, the genre of the ancient Greek dialogues should
not be seen merely as short-hand records of actual conversations.
In
both dialogues the story of Atlantis is told by Critias,
Plato's maternal great grandfather, narrating word for word
the conversation between Solon and an Egyptian priest. In
Timaeus the issue of Atlantis is raised along with many
others, while the unfinished Critias, in all probability,
was to be exclusively devoted to it. Critias also explains
how he himself came to hear the story. He heard it from
his grandfather whose name was also Critias, who, in his
turn, had heard it from Solon himself, who had been a close
friend of his father, Dropides.
In
his conversation with Solon, the priest, referring to the
sacred records, speaks of a powerful country, Atlantis,
lying outside the Pillars of Hercules, of the beginning
of a war between Atlanteans and the citizens of Athens and
of a catastrophe which destroyed both, and resulted in Atlantis
sinking to the bottom "in a single dreadful day and
night".
The
priest also says how many years have elapsed since - nine
thousand years. Besides, Critias contains the myth of the
origin of the rulers of Atlantis, the description of its
geography, architecture and of its social life, all of which
suggests the idea of imagination having been used to make
up for the lack of information.
It
is estimated that the dialogue took place around the year
425 B.C. (Plato himself must have been about 2 years old
at the time). Critias-grandson, Plato's great grandfather,
was probably about 80 at the time, and he had heard the
story about 70 years before (i.e. around the year 495 B.C.),
from Critias-grandfather, when the latter was about 90.
Since Critias-grandfather had heard it from Solon himself,
who belonged to the same generation as his father, it can
be reasonably assumed that the conversation between Solon
and the Egyptian priest took place around 600 - 575 B.C.
Thus, it follows that, according to Plato, Atlantis vanished
in the middle of the 10th millennium B.C.
Phenomenon
Of Atlantis
Hardly
anyone in the world knows exactly how many books have been
written about Atlantis by the proponents and opponents of
the idea that it once existed. Those who have attempted
to count them, come up with widely diverging, albeit invariably
four-digit numbers. No doubt, the topic of Atlantis could
claim its place among he best-selling topics of the current
century.
The
special attention that Plato's narration about Atlantis
gets can be accounted for by the fact that the country described
in Timaeus and Critias does not fit in with our present-day
ideas of the history of humanity, and the date of its vanishing,
as recorded by Plato, goes back to unprecedentedly early
times. If we treat this narration as trustworthy, a new
and more comprehensive model of the history of mankind's
development is essential.
The
idea seems attractive to many, in view of the numerous blank
spots and contradictions in the existing concept of the
history of humanity (for instance, such as the vast span
of time between the emergence of an anatomically modern
Homo Sapiens and the development of the first civilisations),
all the more so, that the text which could bring about a
revision of the existing model is authored by Plato, who
stands with Socrates and Aristotle as one of the shapers
of the whole intellectual tradition of the West.
At
the same time, Plato's narration about Atlantis stands by
itself, it is not directly corroborated or indirectly echoed
by anything, and in itself does not give sufficient grounds
for such a revision.
Regrettably,
most of the Atlantis enthusiasts are swayed by emotions,
and this lures them away from the commitment to scientific
correctness. They have found in the epos of many peoples
of the world what they call "direct indications"
of the Atlantean descent of these peoples. Deluded by wishful
thinking, they often fall prey to perverted logic: "If
the "Belt of Pyramids" exists, it follows that
Atlantis also existed in reality."
In
the upshot, the problem has become something of a scientific
curiosity. Even if scientific data coming to light as time
goes by, are interpreted in the context of Atlantis, as
a rule, it is done in a biased way and has little in common
with a balanced scientific approach.
Viewpoints
Without
claiming to present an exhaustive survey of the existing
viewpoints on the issue, I would like to list only the ones
I believe to be the most widespread.
• Some
believe that Atlantis is Plato's invention from beginning
to end, which he needed to expound his ideas of an ideal
state.
• Others,
who do not consider Plato's narration to be an invention,
persevere in trying to interpret it in a way which would
make it possible to link it with the already explored archaeological
sites. Thus, some of them contend that none other than the
island of Crete is Plato's Atlantis, claiming also that
Greeks used the name of the Pillars of Hercules, mentioned
by Plato, not for what is now called the Strait of Gibraltar,
but for some rocks which were situated on the way from Athens
to Crete. Given such an interpretation, it becomes imperative
for them to bring the date of the vanishing of Atlantis
given by Plato, in line with the time of the decline of
the Minoan civilisation, established by archaeologists,
and link it to the explosion of Thera/Santorin. Hence, rise
is given to the hypothesis that the span of time between
the vanishing of Atlantis and the conversation between Solon
and the priest is actually 10 times shorter, and that the
mistake was made either when Egyptian priests were copying
the sacred records (it is suggested that the characters
denoting 100 and 1000 in the Egyptian hieroglyphic system
of writing are alike) or because Plato himself, like all
his contemporaries, had little sense of time and dating.
The same thesis of a mistake of multiplication by ten is
used by the proponents of the Cretan Atlantis as regards
the dimensions of the island, for the numbers Plato gives
in Critias do not quite fit in with their theory, to put
it mildly. Similar arguments are used to substantiate a
variety of hypotheses, including some according to which
Atlantis was situated not even in the Mediterranean Sea,
but in the Sea of Marmara or the Black Sea.
• Yet
others, fervently believing in the truthfulness of the information
provided by Plato, rush to search for Atlantis in the Atlantic
Ocean. They have already announced, at different times,
that the Azore, Canary and Bahama Islands, as well as some
other more or less suitable ones, are the remains of Plato's
sunken island. They also like to juggle with suggestions
of mistakes in the numerals as regards the dimensions of
Atlantis.
I will
endeavour to analyse once again Plato's narration, comparing
its basic elements and their interpretations with some fairly
credible facts, and suggest for your consideration one more
hypothesis, which, in my opinion, hardly has more weak points,
vulnerable to criticism, than the already existing ones.
INVENTION
?
First
of all, it is highly doubtful that Plato would have had
to invent Atlantis to expound his ideas of an ideal state
system, - indeed, he had previously expounded them more
than once in his other works, without any geographical hoaxes.
Secondly,
in Timaeus itself there already exists - and is actively
used by Plato - an object only too suitable for setting
forth utopian concepts - the pre-historic Athens, so the
supposition that Plato needed to invent specifically for
the purpose a second, let alone such an exotic one as Atlantis,
seems rather far-fetched.
Thirdly,
the explanation of how the information of Atlantis came
to Plato's notice, does not seem to contain logical contradictions,
which in itself enhances its credibility. It also sounds
convincing that events of such ancient history are narrated
to Solon by none other than an Egyptian priest, and the
way he explains why Greeks had lost their historical memory.
"You
are all [Greeks] young in mind," came the reply: "you
have no belief rooted in old tradition and no knowledge
hoary with age. And the reason is this. There have been
and will be many different calamities to destroy mankind,
the greatest of them by fire and water, lesser ones by countless
other means...
But
in our temples we have preserved from earliest times a written
record of any great or splendid achievement or notable event
which has come to our ears whether it occurred in your part
of the world or here or anywhere else; whereas with you
and others, writing and the other necessities of civilisation
have only just been developed when the periodic scourge
of the deluge descends, and spares none but the unlettered
and uncultured, so that you have to begin again like children,
in complete ignorance of what happened in our part of the
world or in yours in early times...
You
remember only one deluge, though there have been many, and
you do not know that the finest and best race of men that
ever existed lived in your country; you and your fellow
citizens are descended from the few survivors that remained,
but you know nothing about it because so many succeeding
generations left no record in writing". (Tim. 22d-23c)
Of
course, the archaeological data on which modern ideas of
the past of humanity are based, is vast. But the history
of Earth has seen a lot of natural cataclysms of enormous
proportions, and we cannot completely discard the possibility
that the historical memory of humanity has indeed been curtailed,
due to the destruction of material evidence by a catastrophe
more violent than the ones we know of in the so-called "historical
time". (Just imagine what the picture of life on Earth
in the 19th century would have looked like a thousand years
later, if both Europe and North America had been erased
from the face of Earth by some catastrophe.)
WHEN
?
Assertions
that Plato had a vague idea of time and chronology do not
seem well-substantiated. Besides, there is such a natural
approximate measure for assessing large spans of time as
a generation, and it does not seem likely that Plato did
not perceive the distinction between a period covering the
lifespans of several tens of generations and that encompassing
several hundreds of generations. (Hardly anyone would assert
that Plato had a vague idea of the distinction between tens
and hundreds.)
Any
assumption that Solon made a mistake in reading the Egyptian
hieroglyphs he did not know sufficiently well, should be
discarded as Plato explicitly says that he did not read
the sacred records himself, but was told of their contents
by the priest.
Another
reason for the mistake of multiplication by 10 might have
been the misunderstanding by Solon of the numerals in the
Egyptian priest's story, which is highly improbable, since,
firstly, there are several numerals in the story, and, secondly,
the spans of time which these numerals describe are interrelated
in the priest's story.
"Solon
was astonished at what he heard and eagerly begged the priests
to describe to him in detail the doings of these citizens
of the past. "I will gladly do so, Solon," replied
the priest, "both for your sake and your city's, but
chiefly in gratitude to the Goddess to whom it has fallen
to bring up and educate both your country and ours - yours
first, when she took over your seed from Earth and Hephaestus,
ours a thousand years later. The age of our institutions
is given in our sacred records as eight thousand years,
and the citizens whose laws and whose finest achievement
I will now briefly describe to you therefore lived nine
thousand years ago; we will go through their history in
detail later on at leisure, when we can consult the records."
(Tim. 23d-24a)
However,
if we do assume that Solon misunderstood the priest, it
would be difficult to imagine an Egyptian priest who, around
the year 600 B.C. gives the age of civilisation in the Nile
Valley as 800 years. And it would be an outright impossibility
to assume that sacred records could have contained such
nonsense, and that "nine thousand years" only
appeared in the story in the process of copying, as a result
of an accidental substitution of the character denoting
thousands for another one, denoting hundreds.
Yet
another argument against the alleged mistake of multiplication
by ten is the fact that none of the sources dealing with
the second millennium B.C., contains any reference to what
is described by Plato in his narrative about Atlantis, and
consequently, either his narrative, after all, is a hoax,
or it is really a case of information lost and accidentally
retrieved - information going back to a much earlier period.
DIMENSIONS
In
Critias it is said that the capital city of Atlanteans is
surrounded by a plain 2,000 x 3,000 stades (approximately
385 x 580 km). As we have already said, proponents of various
hypotheses requiring some adjustment of Plato's data to
suit the existing convenient sites, are fond of using the
assertion of a numerical mistake consisting in the multiplication
of numerals by ten, not only as regards the time, but also
the dimensions of the plain. That is why everything we said
above about such a method of interpreting Plato being unable
to stand up to criticism from the viewpoint of logic, is
applicable to these figures, too.
And
in general, if it is suggested that almost all the numerical
data are erroneous and should be revised, then, in my opinion,
the whole thing becomes somewhat absurd: would it not be
easier to cross out Plato's narrative of Atlantis and write
their own instead, the parameters of which would be acceptable
for them.
There
is yet another argument testifying to the fact that there
had never been any mistake of multiplication by ten as regards
the dimensions. Plato said that Atlantis was "larger
than Asia and Libya combined" (Tim. 24e). Even if we
presume that Asia here stands for what is now called the
Near East - just a small part of the Asian continent, and
Libya - for a small part of North Africa, it is difficult
to believe that Plato would describe a territory several
dozens kilometres wide, as larger in size than the two of
them.
THE
PILLARS OF HERCULES (HERACLES)
It
would also seem expedient now to dot all the i's and cross
all the t's concerning what Plato calls the Pillars of Hercules.
Let us read the passage on the parts of territory allotted
to Poseidon's sons:
"His
twin, to whom was allocated the furthest part of the island
towards the Pillars of Heracles and facing the district
now called Gadira, was called in Greek Eumelus but in his
own language Gadirus..." (Critias. 114b)
In
Plato's time, ancient Greeks used the name of Gadirus for
the city which was situated where modern Cadiz stands now,
on the Atlantic coast of the Pyrenean Peninsula. How much
must the proponents of the Cretan hypothesis want to adjust
Plato's narrative to that hypothesis, to find on the way
from Athens to Crete some rocks which allegedly were called
the Pillars of Hercules.
Had
such rocks really existed, and had the Island of Crete really
been Atlantis, then for the Egyptian priest its inhabitants
would have been those who lived "inside the Pillars",
while the inhabitants of Athens would have been those who
lived "outside the Pillars".
WHERE
?
If
we accept as trustworthy Plato's data concerning the time
when Atlantis existed, and its dimensions, and if we resist
the temptation of placing this enigmatic land somewhere
in the Mediterranean Sea, a question arises of where in
the Atlantic it was situated and where it is possible to
find some evidence of its existence there in the past.
According
to geological data, there had been no rising or sinking
of the earth-crust in the Atlantic Ocean area not only in
the last dozens of thousands, but even in millions of years,
that would be commensurate with the sinking of a big island
or a small continent. The map of the Atlantic itself bears
it out graphically: the outlines of the continental platforms
of Africa and South America fit in ideally; similarly, North
America, Greenland, Scandinavia and Europe make up a perfectly
fitting mosaic, in which there simply is no room for an
allegedly lost fragment (particularly of such dimensions
as Plato described). All the edges of the continental shelf
facing the ocean also coincide with the bends of the Mid-Atlantic
Ridge, and the earth-crust rift zone itself, from which
continents are "sliding apart" (See map of Northern
Atlantic).
On
the other hand, the time when Atlantis vanished, as given
by Plato, precisely coincides with the end of the last Ice
Age (I would like to remind the readers that Plato speaks
of the 10th millennium B.C.). Meanwhile, it has been ascertained
that during the last Ice Age the level of the world Ocean
was considerably lower than at present - according to different
estimates, as a rule, by 70 to almost 200 m (See Relative
Sea Level Database). Considerable discrepancies in the paleooceanographic
data on the sea level fluctuations (mostly glacio-eustatic
for this period), obtained by dating the ancient coastal
formations, arise from
• firstly,
the imprecision of the dating techniques themselves (both
C-14 and others);
• secondly,
the impossibility of reliably taking into account the changes
of the absolute altitude of an area, caused by the geological
risings and sinkings (though for these datings test samples
from relatively stable platform zones are used).
The
200 metres isodepth line on the map of the Atlantic Ocean
gives an approximate idea of how the coastline must have
looked at that time.
It
can be seen that in the area of the present Azores and Canaries,
which are most often pointed out as the remains of the sunken
Atlantis, there had been no sizeable land area (See again
map of Northern Atlantic).
It
can also be seen that in the west of Europe, where now the
North Sea is situated, and around the British Isles, during
the last Ice Age there had existed a vast area of land,
large enough, without any stretch, for a plain two by three
thousand stades (See map of the Celtic Shelf).
ISLAND
?
But
the Greek nesos quite unambiguously is translated as "island",
and I have no reasons whatsoever to assume that once upon
a time it could have had another meaning as well. In the
same vein, the Latin insula does not seem to allow other
interpretations. So, is it possible to equate that area
of land in the west of Europe with Plato's Atlantis? I believe,
it is, and there are two possible explanations of why the
word which means "island" is used for something
that was actually not one:
1.What
gives grounds for this is what Critias says in the dialogue
of the same title about the distortion of names due to their
translation from language to language as the story was transmitted:
"Before
I begin, a brief word of explanation, in case you are surprised
at hearing foreigners so often referred to by Greek names.
The reason is this. Solon intended to use the story in his
own poem. And when, on inquiring about the significance
of the names, he learned that the Egyptians had translated
the originals into their own language, he went through the
reverse process, and as he learned the meaning of a name
wrote it down in Greek. My father had his manuscript, which
is now in my possession, and I studied it often as a child.
So if you hear names like those we use here, don't be surprised;
I have given you the reason." (Critias. 113a-b)
It
would seem appropriate to assume that, in being retold and
passed so many times over, and in being translated from
language to language, and in attempts to grasp the information
through the prism of geographic realities which had already
changed, a reduction of such notions as "land, territory,
country - island" might have taken place.
After
I have criticised unwarranted assumptions in the Mediterranean
hypotheses, and assertions that mistakes had been made in
the numerals, the readers may now reproach me for considerably
stretching a point in interpreting Plato's narrative. That
is why I would like to quote several passages, which, I
believe, substantiate the legitimacy of my assumption, if
in reading them we abstract ourselves from the word "island"
(which I for convenience shall write in slash marks), focusing
instead on the context in which it is used.
Of
great interest is what Critias says after concluding the
description of the capital city of Atlanteans:
"I
have given you a pretty complete account of what was told
me about the city and its original buildings; I must now
try to recall the nature and organisation of the rest of
the country. To begin with the region as a whole was said
to be high above the level of the sea, from which it rose
precipitously; the city was surrounded by a uniformly flat
plain, which was in turn enclosed by mountains which came
right down to the sea. The plain was rectangular in shape,
measuring three thousand stades in length and at its midpoint
two thousand stades in breadth from the coast. This whole
area of the /island/ faced south, and was sheltered from
the north winds." (Critias. 117e-118a)
As
we see, the description is rather contradictory. The thing
is that in the Greek text, after Critias says that having
described the city, he will proceed to the narration of
the nature of the rest of the territory tes d allas khoras
os e phusis, he actually returns to the description of the
city as the place topos situated high above the sea level,
from which it rises precipitously, after which he contrasts
it de with the flat plain surrounding the city. Such an
interpretation of the logic of the passage is borne out
by the use in the same passage of two words - khoras and
topos, which semantically must refer to different notions,
hence, it was only the city that was situated high above
the sea level, but not the plain. And again there is no
indication whatsoever of land surrounded by the sea on all
sides. The only image evoked by this description is that
of a city on a hill rising precipitously from the sea, and
the flat plain surrounding it, enclosed on three sides by
mountains. This description suits in every detail, the land
that once existed in the west of Europe: the mountains are
the present Ireland, Great Britain and, possibly, the north-western
part of France; the plain itself, which now constitutes
the shelf to the south of the British Isles (sometimes called
the Celtic Shelf) fits the dimensions specified by Plato,
and the edge of the continental platform faces south-southwest.
At about 48 d 25-30' N and 8 d 45-51' W, not far from this
edge, there is a remarkable underwater hill called the Little
Sole Bank marked on sufficiently minute maps. The top of
the hill is 57 metres below the sea level, while the average
depth around it is 130 - 160 metres. The hill is located
approximately in the middle of the greater length of the
plain in question (See again map of the Celtic Shelf).
Of
course, the coastline of any island should form a closed
circuit, and its length can be roughly estimated, as well
as the width of the island. Plato's Critias, however, while
giving in minute detail the dimensions of the plain adjoining
the city, and giving the length of the canal encircling
it, says nothing of the dimensions of the island as such,
except that it was "larger than Asia and Libya combined".
Besides,
it is not quite clear to what we owe the emergence of the
stereotype, according to which Atlantis was situated "to
the west" of Gibraltar, or "facing" it.
Thomas
Taylor's translation reads:
"For
at that time the Atlantic sea was navigable, and had an
/island/ before that mouth which is called by you the Pillars
of Hercules."
Desmond
Lee in his translation uses the English word "opposite"
to describe the location of Atlantis in relation to the
strait, but we must take into account that he changed the
logic of the description (Plato mentioned Atlantis in the
Atlantic Ocean context, but Lee describes it from the Mediterranean-centric
viewpoint):
"For
in those days the Atlantic was navigable. There was an /island/
opposite the strait which you call (so you say) the Pillars
of Heracles..." (Tim. 24e)
The
Greek preposition pro used by Plato in this passage means
only that the island was situated "before" the
strait, i.e. outside the Mediterranean, which means that
the logical extension of its meaning towards denoting "immediately
beyond", "right before" or "facing"
(which gave rise to the traditional "to the west of")
- is nothing but the second-guessing zeal of Plato's translators.
Nowhere
does Plato call Atlanteans "islanders" - as a
rule, the only specific point he makes is to emphasise the
same contrast - that they did not live on the shores of
the Mediterranean Sea:
"We
must first remind ourselves that in all nine thousand years
have elapsed since the declaration of war between those
who lived outside and all those who lived inside the Pillars
of Heracles." (Critias. 108e)
And
this is how he describes the territories controlled by Atlanteans:
"They
and their descendants for many generations governed their
own territories and many other islands in the ocean and,
as has already been said, also controlled the populations
this side of the straits as far as Egypt and Tyrrhenia."
(Critias. 114c)
Let
us also note that nowhere does he speak of the territories
controlled by Atlanteans in terms of areas, describing only
the length of the coastline. In all probability, it is connected
with the geographical outlook of the time, shaped by the
fact that people travelled mainly by sea, and maybe also
by the specific features of population distribution in conditions
of the Ice Age.
Let
us now once again return to the already quoted passage about
the distribution of allocations between Poseidon's sons.
In
Desmond Lee's translation:
"His
twin, to whom was allocated the furthest part of the /island/
towards the Pillars of Heracles and facing the district
now called Gadira, was called in Greek Eumelus but in his
own language Gadirus..." (Critias. 114b)
In
Thomas Taylor's translation:
"But
the twin son that was born immediately after Atlas, and
who was allotted the extreme parts of the /island/, towards
the pillars of Hercules, as far as to the region which at
present from that place is called Gadiric, he denominated
according to his native tongue Gadirus, but which we call
in Greek Eumelus."
Taylor's
translation in this case is closer to the original, since
the Greek epi to, like the Latin pars ad, almost always
means "as far as to", "right up to",
"bordering on". The reader will probably agree
that but for the word "island" the description
would accurately suit the district in the south of modern
Portugal which is the part of Atlantic coast closest to
Gibraltar (See map of Western Europe).
2.The
narration of Atlantis in Plato's Critias begins with the
myth of its origins (about Evenor and Leucippe, Poseidon
and Cleito), which includes a description that baffles most
of the translators and interpreters. Not only is it contradictory
in itself, indeed, it contradicts most of the subsequent
descriptions of Atlantis, which we have already discussed
(as regards the dimensions of the plain and the size of
the hill):
"At
the centre of the island, near the sea, was a plain, said
to be the most beautiful and fertile of all plains, and
near the middle of this plain about fifty stades [9.65 km]
inland a hill of no great size," (Critias. 113b)
- Lee
translates, and makes a footnote that by saying "at
the centre of the island" Plato meant "midway
along its greatest length".
Taylor
translates the passage as follows:
"Towards
the sea, but in the middle of the island, there was a plain..."
In
the Latin translation the word media is used here, which
means "middle". In Plato's original the phrase
kata de meson is used, which means "around the middle",
"approximately in the middle", with the word meson
from mesos usually implying the middle of a linear segment,
while for the notion of "centre" another word
exists. Besides, a long island, whose length considerably
exceeds its width, must have two longer sides, and if it
were really the description of an island, then an indication
should have been given, the middle of which side is meant.
So, without a stretch, this description could only be understood
as the middle of a certain segment of the coastline.
On
the other hand, the myth cannot but go back to the time
preceding the time of the catastrophe by several thousand
years, when the sea level had not yet gone down to its lowest
mark, so that this place became a hill on the coast of the
sea, but was still an island (See again map of the Celtic
Shelf), which,
• firstly,
eliminates all the contradictions, i.e. it becomes clear,
why "near the middle of this plain about fifty stades
inland", while the plain measured "three thousand
stades in length and at its midpoint two thousand stades
in breadth from the coast" and was "larger than
Asia and Libya combined", and why the hill was "of
no great size" while "the region [of the city]
as a whole was said to be high above the level of the sea,
from which it rose precipitously";
• secondly,
makes it possible to assume that in relation to Atlantis
the word "island" is used, because the central
part of the city, surrounded by a canal (water ring) and
situated on the top of the hill which used to be an island,
historically continued to be called "King's Island"
or "Poseidon's Island". Hence, possibly, the use
of the word "island" in relation to the whole
city and country by all who transmitted the narration, including
Plato.
CLIMATE
Paleoclimatology
gives a fairly clear picture of the climate during the Ice
Age, based mainly on the paleobotanic data. Without describing
in detail the distribution of climatic zones in the regions
of Europe, I would like to note only that the temperature
decreased with distance from the sea and with altitude above
the sea level much more dramatically than in the present
conditions, since climate on the whole was much more continental,
and the climatic zones most suitable for habitation, i.e.
zones with a moderate sea climate, were located in the not-too-wide
strip of land along the seacoast. (The climatic conditions
of all the other territories were so harsh, that they ruled
out the development of civilisation there, that is why the
palaeolithic settlements discovered by archaeologists, dating
to the same period, in no way contradict this hypothesis.)
The
climate of the territory in question for a number of reasons
was extremely favourable.
• Firstly,
the vast territory in close proximity of the ocean was only
slightly elevated above the ocean level.
• Secondly,
the plain was protected from northern winds and the cold
influence of the ice sheet covering Scandinavia, exactly
as in Plato's narrative, by the mountains, albeit not high,
which encircled it.
• Thirdly,
there are reasons to believe that a warm current, now known
as Gulf Stream - North Atlantic Drift, washing the shores
of western and northern Europe, used to wash the shores
of the territory in point.
TRAVELLING
TO THE OPPOSITE CONTINENT
For
finding the answer to the question of where Atlantis was
situated, the passage describing its whereabouts in relation
to landmarks other than the Pillars of Hercules is of particular
interest:
"...from
it [Atlantis] travellers could in those days reach the other
islands, and from them the whole opposite continent which
surrounds what can truly be called the ocean." (Tim.
24e-25a)
In
Thomas Taylor's translation it reads as follows:
"...and
afforded an easy passage to other neighbouring islands;
as it was likewise easy to pass from those islands to all
the continent which borders on this Atlantic sea. For the
waters which are beheld within the mouth which we just now
mentioned, have the form of a bay with a narrow entrance;
but the mouth itself is a true sea. And lastly, the earth
which surrounds it is in every respect truly denominated
the continent."
The
argument about whether America is implied in this passage
or not, can be veritably endless. But such a vision of the
ocean surrounded by land, is strange, to say the least,
for Plato of Greece or even for his imagination. Indeed,
Greeks themselves did not know of America. So, this is a
serious argument in support of the idea that Plato really
possessed some information which had been lost long before
his time, and that thanks to him, we have received uniquely
ancient recorded information.
The
phased character of sailing to the "opposite continent"
in itself suggests the idea of the not-too-high level of
navigation skills. The manner of action described would
be appropriate for the Vikings' voyage to the island of
Newfoundland, rather than for Columbus's search of a westward
route to India. It is well known that both ancient Egyptians
and the ancient Greeks we know of, sailed the seas on their
ships, keeping to the coast and never losing sight of it.
The very look of ancient maps testifies to this. So does
the fact that no evidence has been found, that either Greeks
or even Egyptians were familiar with the principles of navigation
used in sailing the open seas. There are no grounds to believe
that matters were different as regards Plato's Atlanteans
and ancient Athenians.
Taking
into account these considerations, we can see that in Timaeus
a very accurate description is given of the route from the
west of Europe to the above-mentioned island of Newfoundland
via Iceland, Greenland and smaller islands, which, given
a lower level of the ocean, must have been more numerous
on the way.
CATASTROPHE
Attempts
to link the vanishing of Atlantis to the rise of the world
ocean level following the end of the last Ice Age have always
met with serious objections. It is believed that the ocean
level had been rising with different speed for over two
thousand years, and critics asserted that the process did
not correspond to the catastrophic character of what Plato
described - the vanishing of Atlantis "in a single
dreadful day and night". There may be two possible
explanations of this discrepancy:
1.The
first explanation is rather traditional: a tidal wave (tsunami)
following some natural calamity destroyed the city and killed
the armies, and then all the artifacts had been slowly (over
thousands of years) swallowed by the ocean.
2.The
second explanation is a little more complex. It is possible
that the rising of the sea level may have been much faster
than is commonly believed. Let us try to clarify where the
idea of the long duration of the process originated from
in the first place. Conclusions about it are arrived at
on the basis of
• paleoclimatic
data on the rise in temperatures. But we must be aware of
the extent to which these data are circumstantial for assessing
the speed of the given process, and of the fact that the
correlation between the mean temperature and the ocean level
must be non-linear. (Let us recall an experiment from the
school course of physics, when a vessel with ice is being
heated, but the temperature of the water only starts rising
after all the ice has melted.)
• data
on the glacio-eustatic fluctuations of the ocean level,
the shortcomings of which we have already discussed in section
"WHERE?"
Meanwhile,
up to now, very little is known about the reasons for the
beginning and the end of the Ice Ages. The only thing that
is evident is that for the mean temperature on the planet
to rise, a vast amount of energy is required. In considering
the temperature charts for various regions, we can observe
that the warming that marked the end of the last Ice Age
was more pronounced, dramatic and durable than all the previous
ones (See graphs of climate change).
In
view of this, it cannot be ruled out that the warming had
been caused by some event (or events) of seismic, volcanic
or atmospheric nature:
"At
a later time [after beginning of war between Atlanteans
and Athenians] there were earthquakes and floods of extraordinary
violence, and in a single dreadful day and night all your
fighting men were swallowed up by the earth, and the island
of Atlantis was similarly swallowed up by the sea and vanished..."
(Tim. 25c-d)
This
cataclysm could have been connected with the release of
a vast amount of energy. In that case, the speed of the
glacier melting and the rise of the ocean level could have
been considerably higher than is widely believed now.
Another
argument to back the thesis that none other than the rising
of the ocean level was the catastrophe that Plato described,
is that the relief of the plain in point in the west of
Europe was of such character, that the rising of the ocean
level by one metre could often have meant the retreat of
the coastline by kilometres. I am sure that even if the
submerging lasted several years, the eye-witnesses (and
victims), who were on a flat plain, must have perceived
it as a very fast sinking of all the land they could see,
from horizon to horizon (See again map of the Celtic Shelf).
RESUME
To
sum up briefly all the above-said, the hypothesis can be
formulated as follows:
At
the time when the last Ice Age ended, the rising level of
the world ocean resulted in the submerging of a sizeable
territory in the west of Europe (which is now known as the
Celtic Shelf) and where the centre of a highly developed
civilisation and of a powerful state was situated. This
state (or a commonwealth of states) controlled the whole
Atlantic coast of Europe (and maybe North Africa), a considerable
part of the Mediterranean coast of Europe and Africa and,
possibly, could also sail the territories along the Atlantic
coasts of North Africa, North and Central America. Along
with this state, there existed other states in areas with
a mild climate, in particular, "Ancient Athens",
which entered into a coalition with other peoples of the
Mediterranean to jointly resist the expansion of Atlantis.
All the artifacts of these civilisations have either been
irretrievably lost or are now on the bottom of the sea,
that is why they have never come to the notice of the modern
archaeological science. Neither have written records of
that period been preserved, and the earliest written recording
of the events of that period was made at least a thousand
years later, in Egypt, on the basis of the still remaining
folk memory, but it was already very general in character
and imprecise. It was pure chance that it came to the notice
of Plato and was recorded by him in the dialogues Timaeus
and Critias. Throughout the whole chain of the passing down
of this narrative, distortions and inaccuracies have accumulated,
which, coupled with lack of corroborating evidence from
other sources and archaeological finds, has determined its
present ambiguous status.
POSSIBILITIES
The
hypothesis we are putting forward, like any other hypothesis,
is only a concept, and needs to be corroborated by facts.
Since so far no such facts, recognised as trustworthy, have
been found, it is evident that this is where the main problem
lies. But it seems to me that there are fairly wide possibilities
for solving it, even without resorting to the analysis of
legends and myths, or looking for cultural parallels, which
in itself is very interesting, but can hardly bring forward
irrefutable proofs.
Certain
conclusions can probably be drawn on the basis of analysing
the data of such scientific disciplines as comparative linguistics
and anthropometry, though in order to obtain acceptably
reliable findings a gigantic volume of work will have to
be done and a vast amount of information processed.
And,
last but not least, since the hypothesis deals with the
submerging of Plato's Atlantis as the ocean level rose,
the most convincing evidence (if it exists at all) can be
found underwater at depths from 50 to 160 metres. As far
as I know, no systematic archaeological survey of the shelf
at these depths has ever been undertaken by anyone. Neither
is high resolution bathymetry of the area in question available
(I contacted many oceanographic centres including UK Hydrographic
Office, British Oceanographic Data Centre, Plymouth Marine
Laboratory, IFREMER, NOAA, Defence Mapping Agency of the
USA).
I intend
to organise an expedition to the above-mentioned region,
which could consist of two stages:
1.A
sweep bathymetry survey of the area in question, using sonar
and satellite navigation system, for the purpose of charting
a very high resolution map. Analysis of the data thus obtained,
using different methods, including computer techniques,
to identify objects that could be of artificial nature.
2.If
objects of this kind are identified in the area, organisation
of underwater exploration and photographing them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any
suggestions and comments are welcome to explor@glas.apc.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
©
1996 Viatcheslav Y. Koudriavtsev
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronology
and Catastrophism Review
Proceedings
of The 1995 Braziers College Conference
Velikovsky
100th Birthday Memorial Meeting
Journal
of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies
1995
Special Issue (Volume XVII). ISSN 0953 0053
Atlantis:
New Hypothesis
Modified
11 June 1996 @ 17:25 GMT
From
explor@glas.apc.org Tue Jun 11 18:05:24 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:
Mon, 3 Jun 96 17:21:16 +0400 (GMT+0400)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
Vyatcheslav Koudriavtsev
