Some people speak from experience, others speak not from experience.
It may have been in 401 BC. Athens was celebrating a festival in honor of its patron goddess. Jugglers and dancers whirled through the streets, and at the foot of the Acropolis, young actors entertained the crowds with a play. Above, in the temple of Athene, the holy flame burned. The air was heavy with incense, and fattened sacrificial beasts thronged the narrow streets. At the northern edge of the city, where the small shrine of the local hero Academos stood, five men met together in the cool inner courtyard of a spacious stone house. They knew each other well, and had already spent many nights in philosophical debate. The host, probably Plato himself, invited the guests to sit down on soft cushions. Youths served cool drinks.
Did his generation take Plato seriously? Or was he regarded as an outsider? Who were the guests? Important and honorable men, whose word counted for something, or just loud-mouths? Here is a quick guide to the participants:
• Plato: Son of Ariston, from a well-to-do Athenian family. In his younger years he wrote tragedies, until he found his way to philosophy through Socrates. For eight whole years, he attended Socrates’ talks. After the latter’s death, Plato visited Euclid in Megara, and studied geometry and mathematics with him. After a short residence in his home town of Athens, he traveled to Crete, Egypt, and Sicily, and was introduced at the court of Dyonysius of Syracuse. Dyonysius, a tyrant, probably didn’t have much time for philosophy, for he had Plato arrested after some disagreement, and handed him over to the Spartan ambassador, who sold him as a slave. After various adventures, someone bought Plato his freedom, and he returned to Athens, the town of his birth, where he founded the Academy. Plato spent the last years of his life in high academic circles, and some of his pupils became famous. He is said to have died during a marriage feast.
• Socrates: Son of the sculptor Sophroniscos from Athens. He is regarded as the founder of Greek philosophy. His pupils came from the noblest Athenian circles. He was condemned to die by drinking a “poisoned chalice,” because of supposed god-lessness. He would have been able to flee, but refused to do so, because he believed the decision of the state must overrule that of the individual.
• Timaeus: Astronomer and researcher into natural phenomena from Locroi in southern Italy. According to Socrates he “showed his worth in the highest office and positions of honor in the city.” Timaeus advocated the teachings and mathematics of Pythagoras.
• Critias: An older man, a highly respected politician in Athens, and one of Athens’ “30 heads.” Critias claims several times to have heard the Atlantis story from his grandfather—also called Critias—and to have in his possession written documents about it. Critias is related to Plato on his mother’s side.
• Hermocrates: A well-known commander from Syracuse. In the Peloponnesian War, he fought on the side of Sparta. Later he was banished. (Plato experts are not in agreement about whether he is this Hermocrates or another one.)
So the drinks have been served, the participants and probably a few listeners have taken their places. Socrates opens the discussion in jovial vein:
Socrates: One, two, three—but the fourth, my dear Timaeus, of those who were yesterday the guests and today are the hosts, where has he got to?
Timaeus: He is unwell, Socrates, for if it were up to him he would never have stayed away from our gathering.
Socrates: Then it is no doubt up to you and your friends to fill his place?
Timaeus: Certainly. We others will do all we can; for it would indeed be a poor showing if we didn’t gladly return your hospitality of yesterday in a fitting and worthy manner.
Socrates: So do you still remember all that I suggested you should speak about?
Timaeus: We remember a good deal of it, and if we do not, you are anyway here to remind us. The best thing, though, if you do not mind too much, would be for you to give us a short overview once more, so that we take it in properly.1
Then the men chat about rules which ought to be adhered to in a country. Hermocrates recalls that only the day before, Critias had told of a legend, but Socrates had no longer been present. He asks Critias to repeat it, so that they can examine it more closely. Critias then begins a long monologue, the introduction to the story of Atlantis. It is important to follow this rather long-winded account, for it reveals some of the background to the origin of the Atlantis legend. I shall use a translation by Professor Otto Apelt from the year 1922.
Critias: Socrates, this is a very strange tale you will hear, which lays claim to complete truth. Solon, the greatest of the seven wise men, assured us of this in his own day. He was actually related to my great-grandfather Dropides, and a very good friend of his, as he testifies at many places in his poems. He once told my grandfather Critias—who, when very old, passed it on to me—that there were many great and wondrous achievements of our Athenian state in past ages which the passage of time and the passing of generations had allowed to be forgotten. But the greatest of all these is one which it may now be the right moment for us to tell you, not only as thanks, but also at the same time to honor the goddess on this, her feast-day, in worthy and honest manner, as though in the form of a song of praise.
Socrates: Well spoken. But 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?
Critias: I will tell you this old story, then, which I heard from a very ancient man. This was [my grandfather] Critias, who was already nearly 90, while I was at the most ten years old. He told it to me on the “Day of Youths,” the Apaturien festival. For the youths, this festival took the same course as always. The Fathers assigned prizes for the reciting of poetry. A wealth of poems were recited, by all sorts of different poets. Solon’s poems were new at that time, which is why many of us boys chose his songs to sing. Now one of the elders expressed the opinion to Critias—I’m not sure whether he really meant it, or if he was simply paying him a compliment—that Solon was not only the wisest, but also the most refined of all the poets. The old man—and I remember this as if it was yesterday—was very pleased indeed to hear this, and smiling replied: “Yes, Amynandros, and if he had not just pursued poetry simply in odd moments, but had applied effort and seriousness to it like all other poets, and if he had been able to complete what he brought with him from Egypt, instead of being forced to give it up because of all the turmoil and disarray he found here on his return, I believe that he would have surpassed Hesiod, Homer, and any other poet you care to mention.” “But what kind of story was this which he brought back?” asked the other. “A description,” replied my grandfather, “of a mighty achievement, which deserves to outstrip the fame of everything else—one which Athens performed, but which has been forgotten through the passage of time and the downfall of those who achieved it, whose descendants did not survive to our own day.” “Tell from the beginning,” the other replied, “what Solon told you, and how and from whom he heard it as a true story.”2
~~~
“In Egypt,” began Critias, “in the delta at whose end the Nile River divides, there is a region called the Saitic, whose largest city is Sais, the birth city of King Amasis. The founder of the city is said by the inhabitants to have been a god, whose Egyptian name is Neith, but which they say is Athene in Greek. They claim that they are very well disposed to Athenians, and even to some extent related to them. This is where Solon journeyed, as he told me, and was received with all honor. When he inquired of the most knowledgeable of the priests about the origin and history of the land, it was fairly apparent that, like other Hellenes, he knew next to nothing about these things. In order to encourage them to impart information about the ancient days, he began to speak about the oldest times of Greece, the stories of Phoroneus, supposedly the most ancient man, and Niobe, and how after the Great Flood Deucalion and Pyrrha remained; then he listed their descendants and tried to give a most precise account of the number of years, relating this to the history he spoke of. Then one of the priests, a very old man, exclaimed: ‘O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are still children, and there is no such thing as an ancient Greek!’ When Solon heard this, he asked, ‘What do you mean by that?’
‘As far as your souls are concerned, you are all young; for you do not bear with you any primeval thoughts based upon teachings which awaken reverence, nor any knowledge whose hair is grey with age. The reason for this is the following. Numerous and of many kinds are the destructions and catastrophes which have broken over the race of men, and which are still to come: the most violent through fire and water, and other lesser catastrophes through a thousand other causes. For what is told in your land, namely that Phaethon, the son of Helios, took the reins of his father’s team, but was unable to follow his father’s course, thus ravaging broad stretches of land with fire, and himself dying by a bolt of lightning, sounds like a folk tale, but is in fact to do with a deviation from its accustomed course of the heavenly body which encircles the earth, and with devastation of the face of the earth over long periods through massive fires. The consequence of this is that all inhabitants of mountains and high places, and all inhabitants of dry regions will be more affected by this annihilation than those who dwell beside rivers and seas. But for us the Nile, which is our savior in every way, once more protects us from such a fate, fending it off from us. When, on the other hand, the gods flood the earth with water so as to cleanse it, the inhabitants of mountainous places, the shepherds and cowherds, are spared, while the city dwellers in your lands are swept into the sea by torrents. In our country, in contrast, neither in this case nor in other ways does any water pour down from the heavens on to the fields, but everything rises up naturally from below. Therefore, and for these reasons, everything remains as it was, and so we retain memory of the most ancient days. In truth though, things are thus: in all regions where extreme cold or heat does not make it impossible, there is always a population of people, sometimes larger, sometimes smaller. Wherever it is then—whether in your country or here, or elsewhere—wherever anything magnificent or great or anything of particular interest of any kind has happened, it is recorded here in the temples in written documents, preserved against destruction from time immemorial. It is different for you and other peoples. Hardly have you developed writing and all else that civilization requires, than the heavens open their gates over you once more and pour down in torrents like a malady, only letting those escape with their lives who understand nothing of writing and have no culture or education. This is why you always become, as it were, young again, without any knowledge of what took place in ancient times, whether in your lands or ours. The course of the generations, for example as it appears in your description, Solon, is hardly different from a child’s tale. For firstly you remember only a single flooding of the earth, although there have been so many before that; secondly you do not know that the best and noblest race of men dwelt in your own land. From a small vestige of this race you yourself descend, and your whole country descends. But you are unaware of this because the survivors and their descendants passed through many generations without recording anything in writing. For there were times, my Solon, before the greatest, most destructive flood, when the community now known as Athens was the best and most splendid of all, not only in regard to warfare, but also to the way it was regulated by laws, which was unsurpassed in the world. To this state of yours was ascribed the greatest deeds and best political statutes which we have ever heard of.’
When Solon heard this, he showed his astonishment, and asked the priest to tell him everything to do with these former citizens of Athens, from start to finish. But the priest replied, ‘I will keep nothing from you Solon, I will tell you everything, as a favor to you and your city, but above all out of regard for the goddess who had a share both in your country and ours, and who advanced both of them, and brought them high culture: first yours, 1,000 years earlier, from the seed which she had received for this purpose from Mother Earth and Hephaistos, and then later ours. The founding of our state took place 8,000 years ago, according to the records of our temple documents. The people whose laws and most outstanding deeds I will briefly tell you of, were therefore citizens who lived 9,000 years ago. Afterwards we can take our time to consider all further specific details by perusing the documents themselves.’”3
In the monologue so far, Critias has mentioned the name Solon several times. Who was this man? Solon was an ancestor of Plato who was very highly regarded (often referred to as a priest). He gave the Athenians a new constitution, and in 571 BC traveled to Egypt, to Naucratis, a harbor on the Canopic stretch of the Nile. Only 10 miles (16km) away lay the temple city of Sais, where there was a translators’ school. Solon said that he heard the Atlantis story from an old temple scribe called Sonchis, and at the same time saw it written in hieroglyphics. About 650 years after Solon’s death, Plutarch wrote a book about him: The Life of Solon. In it Plutarch says that Solon himself had wanted to record the Atlantis story in writing, but had been prevented from doing so by his advanced age.
In his introduction, Critias mentions a conversation which Solon had in Sais. It would seem very strange to accuse Critias of tall-storytelling; he is speaking of an experience his ancestor had, and Critias himself is one of the “30 heads of Athens,” highly respected politicians. Why should he want to tell fibs to this circle of men? They were all old and wise enough to see through lies. Around the men sat pupils, and everything he said was being written down. We’re not talking about the rambling introduction to a hypothesis, nor talk about an ideal republic, as is often assumed. Plato after all had described such a state in his books Laws, The Republic and Politics. He had already said everything, so why should he need an additional pack of lies about some Atlantis?
In addition, Critias seems to know exactly what he is talking about. He lists geographical details, such as the place where the River Nile divides, the great city of Sais, the birth town of King Amasis, and so on. And he confirms that documents and texts about Atlantis were to be found in Sais. Solon, we will later learn, also wrote down the Atlantis text from an inscription on a statue or pillar. Stories on pillars must have been particularly important ones, otherwise people would never have considered it worthwhile to immortalize them there.
Then Critias conveys to the others the words of the old priest, as he knows them from Solon. This priest assures him that the Egyptians had recorded it all in writing. In one of these texts it was reported that once, before the great flood, Athens had waged war on a power which had its base in the “Atlantic sea,” for in those days this sea is said to have been navigable but was now—in Solon’s time—no longer so. Why not?
Because then “behind the pillars of Heracles” there was an island, from which one could cross to the further islands behind it, and also to the “mainland on the other side.” Then had come a time of “mighty earthquakes and floods,” and “a day and night full of appalling terrors.” The island of Atlantis had vanished, and the sea there was therefore no longer navigable, because of the “enormous masses of mud which gathered about the sinking island.” Critias closes this first Atlantis story with the words: “So, my Socrates, you have now heard a very brief version of the story my grandfather Critias told me, which he had from Solon.”
Almost apologetically, Critias adds that he spent the night before recalling everything, for, he says, what one learns as a youth stays in the memory. Then the men discuss matters of astronomy, geometry, and the creation of the world. Nowadays our astrophysicists talk about the “creation of time,” and in Plato’s Timaeus dialogue a similar view is expressed: “Time arose together with the universe, so that both, created simultaneously, would also be undone at the same time… “
Our own science isn’t one whit sharper.
Is that all that antiquity tells us about Atlantis? No, that’s only the beginning! The following day the same circle of men meets once more. In the meantime, Critias seems to have gotten his papers in order. Timaeus opens the conversation and urges Critias to continue the story of Atlantis. Critias does this, but first asks his conversation partners for understanding of the difficulties involved in recalling an old story from memory. He compares his undertaking with that of a painter, who conjures a wonderful picture onto the canvas. The picture, he says, ought to be a faithful reproduction of the original, and the same applies to oral description. He hopes to do justice to this difficult task.
I only mention this introduction to show how seriously these men viewed the Atlantis story. Each one there was aware that Critias had to relate from memory (and with the help of a few notes) a story he had learned by heart when a boy. Critias for his part was striving to recreate the picture in a way faithful to his memory of it:
Critias: Above all let us first recall that 9,000 years had passed since the war, which I will describe, was said to have broken out between those who lived beyond the pillars of Heracles and those dwelling within them. It has already been mentioned that our city of Athens was the greatest among the latter, and pursued the war to its end, while the former, the people of the island of Atlantis, were ruled by its kings. This island was, as we saw, once larger than Libya and Asia, but now had sunk into the sea as a consequence of earthquakes, and presented to those who wanted to sail to the further sea an insuperable obstacle in the form of a mass of mud…. 4
This conversation took place about 400 BC. Working back from today, the event of which Critias speaks must have occurred about 11,500 years ago. I have already written of the “impossible dates” which the traditions and legends of ancient peoples confront us with. At present, there is nothing else to be done but let them stand as they are. The equation that Troy equals Atlantis receives its first major setback at this point. According to Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, the siege of Troy lasted 10 years. Archaeological findings speak of a devastation which occurred about 1200 BC. So in this case only one of two things is possible:
1. Homer’s and Schliemann’s Troy was once called Atlantis, and was destroyed around 1200 BC. In this case there would only be a couple of hundred years between the destruction of Troy (or Atlantis) and Homer’s account of it. So why would he not mention the name of Atlantis? (The same applies to other Greek historians.) The former names of Troy are known, right back to mythical times, yet the word Atlantis does not appear anywhere.
2. Homer’s and Schliemann’s Troy once had the name of Atlantis in a past that is lost in the mists of time. That Atlantis was not however identical with the “Troy” of archaeology, because it would have been much more ancient than Troy at the time of its destruction. Such an assumption would render the archaeological finds from Schliemann’s Troy useless as part of an “Atlantis model.” Added to this, the myth is a folk-memory. Such a mighty city as Atlantis does not vanish from folk-memory and suddenly change its name to Troy, Tros, or Ilion.
And what about the 9,000 years which Critias speaks of? Eberhard Zangger thinks the Egyptians had been using a national sun calendar and two religiously-inspired moon calendars since 2500 BC. It is likely that the dates on the temple pillars in Sais, from which Solon wrote down his Atlantis story, should be reckoned in moon cycles. A calculation based on this would produce a date of 1207 BC, and at that time the Greeks were indeed entangled in great wars, as part of which Troy was destroyed. This would mean that Troy/Atlantis would have had to exist up to 1207 BC. Why then does Critias (quoting Solon) emphasize that Atlantis was situated in the Atlantic Ocean? And I don’t just mean the reference to the “Pillars of Heracles.” Troy neither lies in the Atlantic Ocean, nor is it an island. And if I place the destruction of Troy/Atlantis in 1207 BC, the same problems arise as under point 1. It gets worse: if Atlantis/Troy existed around 1200 BC and previously held sway over a great realm, why do the Egyptians and Babylonians, who would have been close neighbors of this mighty power, know nothing about it?
In Plato’s dialogue, the men continue to give ear to Critias. He mentions, as an aside—and it might almost have been something I wrote—that the gods had once divided the earth amongst themselves, into various regions. Each god had owned a particular realm, and regarded us human beings as their property, whom they could nurture and educate. Then Critias speaks about Greece before the Flood, that is, before the destruction of Atlantis. But he does not think of mentioning that Atlantis was part of the geographical region of Greece, and that it was more or less just next door. Troy is only 186 miles (300 km) from Athens, on a sea route which was much travelled in 1200 BC. It is also north-east of Athens. The Atlantic Ocean, of course, is in the opposite direction.
The wise Solon, who wrote down the Atlantis story in Sais, lived between 640 and 560 BC. The destruction of Atlantis/Troy would have taken place a mere 600 years before his time. In Egypt, Solon learned that the sea in the region of the former Atlantis was now unnavigable because of the great masses of mud there which had formed when Atlantis sank. Now the sea around Troy, together with the passage through the Dardanelles, certainly is navigable. It is actually because of its position by the sea that Troy/Atlantis is said to have blossomed and flourished. The Dardanelles were still navigable after the destruction of Troy. And if one assumes that after the destruction of Troy/Atlantis the Greeks somehow dredged the unnavigable area and made it navigable again, then the Greeks would surely know about this—for it only happened 600 short years before Solon!
Critias (or Solon) says nothing about any of that. On the contrary, he makes it quite clear that those with “Hellenic” (that is Greek) names are also from a “foreign race.” And then he gives such an incredible wealth of precise details that it is only with great difficulty that one could view them as the products of fantasy:
Critias: Yet I must first preface my account with a short observation, so that you are not surprised when you hear Greek names in a story concerning men of a foreign race. You will hear the reason for this. Solon, who had the intention of using these names in his poems, searched for their original meanings and found that the Egyptians—I mean those most ancient ones who had first written down these records—had translated them into their own language. Solon then pondered about each name and wrote them down, translating them once more into our language. And this written account was in the possession of my grandfather, and is now in mine, and I studied it carefully in the days of my youth. So when you hear names which are the same as ones in use in our country, you should not be surprised, for now you know the reason. The beginning of this long account goes as follows…. 5
There follows a confirmation of the truth of the written version of the Atlantis legend, to which Critias adds once more that it belonged to his grandfather and now to him.
Critias: As already mentioned, when the whole earth was divided amongst the gods, some received a larger and others a smaller portion, in which to set up shrines and places of sacrifice to themselves. Poseidon received the island of Atlantis, where he gave abode to those who were descended from his union with a mortal woman, and at a place which was of the following nature. From the sea to the middle of the whole island stretched a plain, which could not have been surpassed for beauty and fertility of its soil. Besides this plain, again towards the middle of the island, about 50 stadia distant from the sea, was a mountain low on all sides. It was inhabited by one of the original earthborn men, by the name of Evenor, with his wife Leucippe. The fruit of their union was an only daughter, Cleito. When the girl reached the age of maturity, her father and mother died. But Poseidon, who had fallen in love with her, united with her, and smoothing the sides of the hill on which she lived, surrounded it with strong defenses. He placed in alternation larger and smaller rings, of earth and sea water, around each other: two of earth and three of sea water, starting from the middle of the island as though drawn with a compass, always with the same distance from each other, so that the hill became inaccessible to human beings—for there were as yet no ships or sailors. It was however perfectly easy for him, a god, to furnish the island with all that was necessary; making two springs, one warm, the other cold, pour from the earth, and nurturing manifold and abundant fruits from the soil. They had five sets of twin sons, and raised them, dividing the whole Atlantic island into ten parts. To the firstborn of the eldest pair, he gave his mother’s dwelling place, with its surrounding region, the largest and best, and made him a king over the others. Yet he also made the others into rulers, giving each one dominion over many people and much land. He also gave them names. To the oldest one, the king, he gave the name from which the whole island and also the Atlantic sea takes its name: Atlas. To the second-born of the eldest pair of twins, who received the outermost part of the island, from the pillars of Heracles to the land of Gades, as it is still known in that region, he gave the name which in Greek is Eumelus, and in the native language of the country named after him, Gadeiros. Of the second pair of twins he called one Ampheres, the other Evaimon; of the third pair he named the older Mneseus, and the younger Autocthon. The elder of the fourth pair was called Elasippos, the younger Estor; the elder of the fifth pair, finally, he called Azaes, and the younger Diaprepes. These and their descendants lived there for many generations, not only as rulers over many other islands in the ocean, but also, as already mentioned, as masters over those living within the pillars of Heracles, as far as Egypt and Tyrrhenia. Atlas, then, brought forth a numerous and highly favored race. The kingship always passed down from eldest to eldest, and was perpetuated through many generations. At the same time, they amassed great wealth and riches, such as were probably never seen before, nor will be again in future times, and provided everything which the city or the rest of the land might need. Much was brought to them from other lands subject to their dominion, but the island supplied most of their needs. Firstly, everything which is produced by mining the earth, in the way of minerals and workable metals, including a type of metal which we now only know by name, but which was then more than a mere name, orichalcum or gold-copper ore. This was obtained from the earth at many places, and next to gold was most prized by this ancient race.6
Even though Critias makes it clear that the names in this story have been translated into Greek, there is not a single one here that is familiar to us from the Troy legend. Next Critias explains that in this land of Atlantis all trees and fruits, as well as all vegetables, grew wonderfully well. Why? “Because its climate in those days united the sun’s warmth with moisture.” That does not fit with the climate of Troy, where it is unpleasantly cold in winter; tropical fruits and trees would not survive there. They did in Atlantis, though, the whole year through. Finally Critias begins to talk about the architecture and buildings of Atlantis.
And his account is so precise that architects of our own day have been able to make accurate, scale drawings from them.7
Critias: Firstly they made bridges over the rings of water which surrounded the original ancient city, in order to make a path to and from the king’s palace. And the king’s palace itself they built at the dwelling place of the god and their ancestors. Each succeeding king received it from his predecessor, and added to and adorned it more richly than it had been before—until, through the greatness and beauty of their works, they had made their dwelling a marvel to behold. Then, beginning from the sea, they dug a canal 3 plethra wide, 100 feet deep, and 50 stadia long, as far as the outermost ring, so that ships could sail in as into a harbor, and they made the entrance large enough for the largest vessels to enter. Thus they broke through the rings of earth too, which separated the rings of water from each other, so that one could sail from one to another in a trireme. But they constructed bridges over these openings, so that the vessels passed under the bridges, for the banks of the earth-rings were raised high enough above the water to allow this. The largest of the rings, into which the sea flowed, had a breadth of 3 stadia, and the next earth-ring had the same dimensions. The water-ring of the second pair was 2 stadia wide, as was the dry ring also. The water-ring closest to the middle of the island was 1 stadium wide. But the island on which the king’s palace stood was 5 stadia in diameter. They surrounded this with a stone wall, and the earth-rings likewise, from one side of a 1-plethron-wide bridge to the other, placing towers and bridges on the passages to the sea. The stones they used, some white, some black, and some red, they quarried from the under edges of the island in the middle, and from both the inside and outside edges of the rings. At the same time as quarrying, they also hollowed out shelters and docks for ships, on both sides of the rings, which were roofed by the overhanging rocks that remained. Some of the buildings which they constructed were of a single color; others were built of varicolored stones, to please the eye, in compositions which had a natural charm. Then they overlaid the entire outermost wall with bronze, spreading it in a similar way to anointing oil. The next wall they coated with tin and the innermost wall which surrounded the palace they plated with gold-copper ore, or orichalcum, which had a burnished and fiery sheen.8
Things get more complicated. What are we meant to make of “3 plethra” or “l stadium”?
Assuming Critias is not just repeating some fantasy of his grandfather, Atlantis must be of amazing proportions. We need to remember several salient points:
• The gods divide the world between them. Poseidon gets Atlantis.
• About 50 stadia (5.5 miles or 9 km) from the shore there rises a low mountain which is accessible from all sides.
• Its first inhabitants are the earth-born Evenor and Leucippe. Their only daughter, Cleito, loses her parents.
• Poseidon gets Cleito pregnant.
• Poseidon surrounds the “low” mountain with strong defenses composed of alternating rings of water and earth, which are “inaccessible to human beings.”
• Poseidon and Cleito have five pairs of male twins. The oldest son is called Atlas. It is from him that the Atlantic Ocean gets its name.
• The island is rich in metals.
• The climate is subtropical (“sun-warmth and moisture”).
• Atlas and his descendants build a king’s palace or castle in the center of the island.
• From the sea is built a canal 50 stadia (5.5 miles/9 km) long, and 3 plethra (98 yards/90 m) wide, as far as the first ring.
• The largest ring is 3 stadia broad (590 yards/5401m).
• The diameter of the centre of the island is 5 stadia (985 yards/900m).
• This center is surrounded by a stone wall, which is covered in metal.
• Towers, gateways, and houses are built in different colors: (white, black, red).
• Docks are built to shelter ships, with overhanging cliff roofs.
• The wall around the central palace is coated in “gold-copper ore.”
There are already a few problems in reconciling Atlantis with Troy, but it is still not impossible. Everything ultimately depends on whether Critias is telling a pretty tale from his grandfather’s time, or a true story, and I will come back to this. If Atlantis and Troy were the same, there would have to be a defensive wall around Troy I composed of “rings of water and earth,” which were “inaccessible to human beings.” The archaeological excavations did indeed expose a defensive wall around Troy I, but not one worthy of the god Poseidon. No ring of water was found close to the center, and such a ring would not suit the type of hill it is anyway.
Once again, Atlantis ought to lie in the Atlantic Ocean, to which it gave the name. As we know, Troy is in a quite different location. The climate of Troy is not subtropical, and so far no 5.5-mile (9km) long canal has been found leading to the center of the inner ring. However, extensive excavations and measurement have not yet been undertaken on Troy’s environs.
The center of Atlantis is meant to have been 985 yards (900m) in diameter—that part could fit with Troy, though not the bit about the walls being covered entirely in metal (ore). It is possible, though, that over years metals might have been stolen or melted down, or could have been destroyed by fire. Traces would be present in the soil, which could be tested by taking samples. Schliemann claims that at a depth of about 30 feet (9m) he came across a slag layer of melted lead and copper ore, but this was never confirmed by current excavations.
Finally, there should be buildings in three different colors—which have so far not been found - and the central palace ought to be coated with a gold-copper alloy—orichalcum. There was no sign of this. All that is certain is that Homer does not mention any such thing in his epic. But Critias has not yet finished his tale:
Critias: The royal dwelling place within the citadel was arranged as follows. In the middle there was a temple dedicated to Cleito and Poseidon, closed to public view, which was surrounded with a golden wall. This was where the race of 10 princes had once been begotten and born. There, each year, from all 10 zones of the island, were brought the firstborn as offerings to each of the 10 families of descendants. The temple of Poseidon was 1 stadium long, 3 plethra broad, and a height pleasing to the eye, yet its whole form could not conceal a certain affinity with barbarism. They covered the whole exterior of the temple with silver, apart from the pinnacles which were of gold. As far as the interior is concerned, the ivory ceiling was adorned all over with gold, silver and orichal-cum, and the rest—walls, pillars, and floor—was coated in orichal-cum too. They also raised golden statues, of the god himself on a chariot, driving a team of six winged horses, and of such a size that his head touched the ceiling; and around about him 100 Nereids on dolphins, for that is the number which the people of that time believed there to be. There were also numerous statues which had been given as offerings by private individuals. Around the temple stood many other golden images—of the women and all others who were descended from the 10 kings, and many other great offerings, both from kings and private individuals, some from the town itself, some from those living beyond its borders, who were under its dominion. The altar also corresponded in size and kind to the rest of this magnificence, and the king’s quarters likewise reflected the grandeur of the kingdom. The springs, one of hot and one of cold water, provided an inexhaustible supply, and each in its own manner was of very fine taste and goodness. These waters were used in the most efficient way. In their close proximity buildings were raised, and suitable trees planted. They also constructed water containers or cisterns, some in the open air, others in enclosed rooms for taking warm baths in the winter. The bathing rooms for the king and his subjects were separate from one another, as were the rooms for women and those for horses, and those for cattle, each type of room adorned in the way which suited its purpose. The water which ran off was channeled into the grove of Poseidon, whose soil was full of goodness, and whose trees of the most varied kind grew wonderfully high. All remaining water was diverted through aqueducts over the bridges to the outer earth-rings. In the area of these water channels were numerous shrines for many gods, as well as gardens and wrestling courts, both for the gymnastic exercises of the men themselves and for exercises with teams of horses, separate ones on each of the two earth rings. In the middle of the larger island there was also an excellent racecourse, 1 stadium broad, and its length extending around the whole island to allow full scope for horse-teams to race. Around this, on both sides, were the living quarters for the majority of subjects. The most trustworthy were given guard duties on the smaller earth-ring, closer to the citadel. And those who were loyal above all others had their dwellings in the citadel itself, in the immediate proximity of the king. The docks were full of triremes and all that is necessary for equipping them. Now leaving the king’s palace and citadel behind, and passing the three outer harbors, one came to a wall which began at the sea and encircled everything, being everywhere 50 stadia distant from the largest ring and harbor, and meeting itself again where it began, at the mouth of the canal which led to the sea. This whole area was full of dwellings, and the largest harbor was chockablock with ships and traders, who arrived there from many different places, and whose shouts, din and clatter kept going day and night. I have described the town and the ancient citadel more or less as it was told to me, and now I must turn to the rest of the country and its character, and the way it was governed. The whole region was described to me as high and with steep cliffs sloping to the sea, with only the area around the town being a level plain. This plain surrounding the city was surrounded by mountains, which descended to the sea. It formed a smooth and even area, of a longish, rectangular shape, 3,000 stadia in length and 2,000 stadia in breadth across the middle. This part of the island faced south, protected from the north winds. But the mountains which surrounded it, if we are to believe the inhabitants’ hymns of praise, were greater in number, size, and beauty than any that we know now. These mountainous regions contained many places where people lived in large numbers, as well as rivers, lakes, and meadows offering nourishment to tame and wild animals of all kinds, and wooded areas whose rich variety of trees provided an inexhaustible supply of raw materials for all craftsmen. The natural formation of the plain, which many kings had improved over long periods, was as follows. Its shape was that of a regular, longish rectangle, and what was lacking in nature had been supplied by the hand of man in the form of a ditch dug all around it. The depth, width, and length of this sound incredible and impossible for the work of human beings to accomplish, but I must tell you what I heard, namely that it was 1 plethron deep, and everywhere 1 stadium wide. The length of the ditch, running all around the plain, was 10,000 stadia. It collected the waters streaming down from the mountains, which, encircling the plain and touching the town on two sides, ran into the sea in the following way. Straight canals were dug, most of them 100 foot broad, which joined to the main ditch and carried the water down to the sea. Each of these channels was 100 stadia distant from the next. These were used to transport wood from the mountains to the city, and also to bring other produce of the country to the ships, through connecting channels which they laid diagonally to run between the main channels, and into the city. They had a twice-yearly harvest, which was made possible in winter by the rain which Zeus provided, and in summer by the irrigation water which they diverted from the channels…. The following arrangements were made from the very beginning for governing. Each of the 10 kings ruled in his own region, and from his own city, over the inhabitants there, and made most of the laws in that region, so that he could punish and execute whom he liked. They arranged their joint ruling in the way ordained by Poseidon, as had been passed down to them by law and through the inscriptions which the primeval fathers had engraved on a pillar cast in orichalcum. This stood in the middle of the island, in the shrine to Poseidon. It was there that the 10 gathered, alternating between every fifth and every sixth year so as not to favor an odd number above an even, and talked together and took council with one another about the affairs of each region. They also looked into whether any of them had transgressed in any way, and passed judgment if this were so. If they decided to pass judgment, though, they gave each other a solemn pledge in the following way. In the holy area of Poseidon there were bulls which roamed freely. The 10, after praying to the god that he should let them catch a sacrificial offering, took part in a hunt, but one which used no iron, only sticks and cords. The bull which they caught, though, they took to the pillar and slaughtered on the top of it, above the inscription. Upon the pillar there was, apart from the inscription, also an oath which invoked terrible curses on anyone who did not abide by the laws. After sacrificing all parts of the bull to the god, they cast into the wine in a mixing bowl prepared for this purpose one drop of blood for each of them, and consigned the rest to the fire, after washing and cleansing the pillar and the area around it. Then they dipped golden ladles into the bowl, and, pouring a libation onto the fire, swore they would judge in accordance with the laws inscribed on the pillar, and pass sentence if any of them was guilty of transgression. They also swore that they would not intentionally overstep the mark in future, would rule only lawfully, and would not obey another ruler who did not follow the laws of their father Poseidon. After each of them had sworn this for himself and his descendants, he drank and dedicated the drinking ladle to the shrine of the god. Then they ate and washed. But the moment it grew dark, and the sacrificial fire had burned low, each dressed himself in a dark blue robe of wondrous beauty, then sitting by the embers from the sacrifice, and extinguishing all fires around the shrine, they received and gave judgment if any one of them was accused of misdemeanor. The judgment they passed was inscribed at dawn upon a golden tablet, which they raised as memorial there, together with their robes. There were various other laws about the rights and duties of the separate kings, but the most important were that they must never wage war upon each other, and must always be ready to give aid to each other if someone should try to destroy the race of kings. They also had to take council together, as did their forefathers, about war and other undertakings, and leave the final decision to the descendants of Atlas. But the king should not have the right to condemn one of his relatives to death, unless at least six of the 10 rulers gave their consent. This mighty and magnificent power, which held sway in those regions at that time, was later directed against our own regions in warfare, and, we have been told, for the following reason. For many generations, as long as divine nature still made itself felt within them, they remained obedient to the laws and did not deny their divine origin. For their spirits were lofty, truthful, and generous. They bore strokes of destiny with composure, and related to one another with kindness and interest. They regarded virtue alone as being of true worth, and therefore did not overvalue their goods and possessions, did not prize too highly the masses of gold and other treasures, which seemed to them more of a burden than anything else. They were thus far from being power-crazy or out of control. They had a clear, sober understanding that all this outer wealth could only be sustained when underpinned by friendship and virtue, and would disappear if all attention and value were focused on riches alone. Because of this attitude and the continuing influence of the divine nature within them, everything thrived in the way I have already described. But as the divine part of their nature increasingly vanished, diluted by frequent unions with mortals, so that a human type of thinking prevailed, they began to be uneasy with their lot. They grew degenerate and debased themselves in the eyes of all who were capable of true judgment. To those, however, who had no clear power of insight into a life based on true happiness, they appeared more and more magnificent and praiseworthy, since they began to dedicate themselves to avarice and lust for power. The god of the gods, however, Zeus, who rules according to laws, and who has a sharp eye for such things, decided to rein their excesses by punishing them, for he grieved to see such a worthy race falling so low, and hoped that they might still be brought to their senses and change their ways. So he called all the gods together into their holy of holies, which is situated in the center of the whole world, and allows the gods to see into everything which is happening everywhere, and directed to those assembled there the following words.9
What a place to end! What words did Zeus speak to them? We’d all like to know of course, not only us but also the last 2,400 years’ worth of philosophers, philologists, and Atlantis researchers. But Plato’s Atlantis dialogue ends abruptly at this point; hard to understand really, for Plato wrote other things after this dialogue. Why is the end of the Atlantis story missing? Isn’t there any alternative version from antiquity? Didn’t any other authors tell of Atlantis?
The first reference to Atlantis which I found outside of Plato was, of all places, in the Argonautica by Apollonius of Rhodes:
In the evening they came ashore on the Atlantides Island. Orpheus begged them not to spurn the solemnities of the island, nor the secrets, the laws, customs, the religious rites and works. If they observed these they would be assured of the love of heaven on their further voyage over the dangerous ocean. But to speak further of these things I do not dare.10
Unmistakable news of an island with the name “Atlantides,” where there are particular customs, and also secrets. Whereas Apollonius is usually glad of an opportunity to describe geographical and topographical features, here he falls strangely silent, not “daring” to speak more. Strange. Perhaps we should recall the fact that Atlantis was the island of the god Poseidon, and that two of his sons were on board the Argo.
Herodotus (490–425 BC) has nothing to say about Atlantis, but in Book IV of his Histories (Chapters 184 and 185) he writes about a salt area that borders on a mountain region by the name of “Atlas”:
It is narrow and circular and is said to be so high that one cannot see its summits. Clouds always wreathe it, both in summer and winter. The natives say that these mountains are the pillars of heaven. The people dwelling here are called “Atlantens” after these mountains….11
Shortly after Plato’s death, Aristotle (384–322 BC) who was one of his pupils, published a book in which he cast doubt on the truth of the Atlantis story.12 Already then! Yet the same Aristotle also mentioned an unknown island in the Atlantic, which he called “Antilia.” Another pupil of Plato was called Crantor of Soloi (330–275 BC). He is supposed to have travelled to Egypt, to Sais, and likewise seen there the written version of the Atlantis story. Grantor was the first to publish Plato’s dialogues.
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 Dardanelles 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?
Critias describes the terrain of Atlantis as generally high, and plunging down sharply to the sea. Only the area around the city was flat. “This plain surrounding the city was itself surrounded by mountains, which descended to the sea.” There is no such landscape in the vicinity of Troy. The temple in the center of Atlantis was said to be 1 stadium long and 3 plethra wide, which is equal to an area of 197 × 98 yards (180m × 90m). There is no structure in the whole of Troy that is anything like this. Excavated Troy is a muddle of rooms of no particular size, certainly not of monumental dimensions, and without any wall that one could possibly call “Cyclopic” in stature. Troy’s walls—from whatever layer—bear no comparison at all to the 20-foot (6 m) thick Cyclopic wall of Mycenae, or the massive domed “treasure house of Atreus.” They are nothing like the phenomenal stone slabs under the temple of Apollo at Delphi, or the megalithic wall of Delos.
And the walls of Troy I are absolutely unworthy of a god such as Poseidon. The legend says that Apollo had a hand in building the wall of Troy. Just compare pictures of the megalithic wall at Delos with the humble excuse of a wall at Troy, and you will see the difference. Delos was also dedicated to Troy, and is part of the geometrical network that stretches across Greece, whereas Troy is not. Wherever these sons of the gods were active—Poseidon in Atlantis or his brother Apollo in Troy—the place which has been called Troy since the days of Heinrich Schliemann shows no sign of their activity.
As I have mentioned several times, Troy lies a few miles away from the entrance to the Dardanelles. At the Dardanelles begins the narrow seaway from the Mediterranean (the Aegean part of it) to the Sea of Marmara, on whose coast lies Istanbul. From there the Bosphorus connects to the Black Sea. This is certainly an important seaway. If Poseidon’s Atlantis had been established there, then Critias or Solon would have known about it. In the Atlantis story, all other important geographical and topographical details are recorded. It is unthinkable that such an important location as this would have meant nothing for Atlantis and would therefore have been omitted from the tale. Yet Critias or Solon know nothing about it being there. Atlantis was neither founded beside a narrow seaway, nor did this once powerful realm rule over such a channel in later times.
Of course, the hinterland of Atlantis must have profited from the wealth of this legendary country. In relation to Troy this hinterland would have consisted of Ezine in the south, Cumcale in the north (right beside the channel to the Dardanelles) or Bayramic in the east. We ought to be able to find any number of relics from antiquity in an extensive circle around Troy/Atlantis. One has to remember that Troy was destroyed in 1207 BC, so the hinterland civilizations of Troy would have existed at that time. According to Homer only, Troy was destroyed in the Trojan War. So where are these splendid places which thrived on the wealth of Atlantis? There is nothing to be found in the hinterland of the “Troy” of today. And anyone who argues that Atlantis was located at the same place as Troy occupied much later on, cannot then link Homer’s Trojan War with the downfall of Atlantis. The further back we go into the past, the less likely the possibility that Troy could have been Atlantis. The excavated layers of the hill of Hissarlik show this clearly.
And one thing more: if Troy was Atlantis, wouldn’t the Argonauts have passed by it? In the Argonautica there are endless geographical details: the land of Colchis, with the mouth of the river Phasis, beside the town of Aia, where the Golden Fleece lay, is supposed to have been situated at the further end of the Black Sea. The Argonauts would therefore have had to sail right through the Dardanelles, for there is no other way to get there, and so would have come into contact with great Atlantis! But the only passage in the Argonautica in which any mention is made of “Atlandides” is definitely about an island and not the coast near Troy. (“In the evening they came ashore on the Atlantides Island. Orpheus begged them not to spurn the solemnities of the island, nor the secrets, the laws, customs, the religious rites and works…”).
The contradictions between the story of Atlantis and that of Troy simply cannot be reconciled. As much as I value other works of Eberhard Zangger, in this instance he is chasing a phantom. In Plato’s Atlantis account, mention is also made of a very special type of metal, that could only be found on Atlantis: “gold-copper ore” or orichalcum, which was “second only to gold” (Critias). Why then is there no mention of this unique alloy in Homer’s descriptions? Or in Pliny? In Strabo? In Herodotus and the other historians? Because it did not exist in ancient Greece, neither in Troy nor elsewhere. Troy was not Atlantis. I know of only one country where such an alloy was found: in Peru, long before the Incas. The Indian cultures of Peru and Ecuador had mastered refined methods for making metal alloys and compounds, which were later forgotten. Their layering techniques were of such perfection that experts today shake their heads in wonder. The finest layers of copper, silver and gold have been discovered which, according to their composition, look like brighter or darker gold. Even acid tests on their surfaces do not reveal the composition of the mixtures. The goldsmiths of these Indian peoples must have known of a very ancient technology, by means of which they could “endow non-precious metals with the appearance of precious ones.”23 How did it go in the Atlantis story? “It was called orichalcum or “gold-copper ore” and next to gold was most prized by this ancient race.”
In Plato’s Atlantis story there is a staggering passage, which has been either overlooked or hardly mentioned by countless researchers. Assuming that Plato was right and this strange Atlantis island was situated in the Atlantic Ocean, then beyond this Atlantis (seen from Europe) would lie another country: America. What does Plato say?
The travellers of those days could pass from this island to other islands, and from there reach the whole continent which lay on the other side of this sea…this realm [Atlantis] held sway over all the islands and many others, and a part of the mainland beyond.
If Plato had invented the whole dialogue, how would he have known about another mainland and continent that lay further west from Atlantis? In addition he clearly distinguishes here between “islands” and “mainland.” So let’s not waste time worrying about whether the Egyptians thought all foreigners came from “islands,” and the theory that the dialogue is simply based on Plato’s wish for an “ideal state.” What we have here, as lawyers might say, are solid facts. But if Plato did not invent the whole thing, and the story came from Egypt, how did the Egyptians know about the American continent? They themselves say how: for more than 10,000 years they had kept careful written records, and in comparison to them the Greeks, who could only remember back to the most recent devastation, were like children. Since Columbus we too know about the continent beyond Atlantis. But Plato could not have known about it.
In the end I am less concerned with joining in the literary speculations about where Atlantis was, than in asking when it was, and how an island kingdom of such power and greatness could simply disappear from the face of the earth. (For those readers who are interested in further theories about Atlantis and where it might have been located, please see the section in the back of this book.)