4. Atlantis' background

This chapter speculates about the possible existence of Atlantis in a period which seems fading in the myths described by ancients

The fact that Atlantis is actually South America has been deducted by verifying the accuracy of the geographical details provided by Plato, once established the truthfulness of his dialogues. Besides, the fact that they have found a thorough confirmation in the geography of South America could be deemed as a further evidence of their authenticity.  It is a simple logical reasoning in line with Galileo’s model: collection of experimental data (in this case Plato’s dialogues), construction of a theoretical model (in this case the interpretation of the dialogues and the deduction of their intrinsic meaning) and finally the verification of the theoretical model (in this case the comparison with South America).

What Plato wrote has been amply verified and it has found a rather concrete basis in the reality. However, there are some doubts concerning the origin of the dialogues and the identification of Atlantis with South America. It may be difficult to understand at first glance how Plato could describe South America if he was not aware of its existence and how such a description could exist in the ancient world and subsequently come to us. This fact erroneously leads many people to reject the South America theory. This is a mistake of logic nature. We only have to verify that Plato said the truth and therefore it has no importance knowing where from or how he got the tale. Likewise the fact that he did not know South America does not deny that Atlantis has the same geographical features of that continent. The Greek philosopher, as he explains himself, confined himself to collect the tale of Egyptian origin and transcribe it, as it seemed to him a very interesting story. He was surely interested in it because ancient Greek populations were involved and the idea of a continent beyond the Pillars of Hercules was extraordinary news and as a matter of fact it immediately raised a fuss amongst his contemporaries.

The problem of Atlantis in any case is only one: to verify that Plato’s dialogues refer to something concrete. This has been accomplished in this work. Once we have read Plato’s dialogues there are only two possibilities: we either accept them in their entirety or we classify them as fruit of imagination. In the first instance we have to employ the correct instruments for research and analysis to identify Atlantis: in this case they are geographical means because Critia constitutes a rather accurate geographical report. In the latter case the whole discussion would be clearly purposeless and a new chapter would be added to Greek mythology.

There is also a third way, very poor from a theoretical point of view, that is widely employed in practice: changing Plato’s dialogues at one’s discretion in order to make them fit a particular geographical area of the world. The result of this is that hundreds of theories on Atlantis have taken shape throughout the centuries. It has been identified in every corner of the world, but obviously nobody ever saw it.

Besides all types of adjustment and interpretation of Plato’s dialogue, such as dividing by 10 the measurements of Atlantis, locate the Pillars of Hercules somewhere else or modifying the date of its destruction, are illegitimate and devoid of any rational basis. The only reason for Plato’s dialogue to be contradicted is an internal contradiction or a blatant misinterpretation (in this case the impossibility for a large area like Atlantis to vanish, swallowed by the ocean). Finding Atlantis means verifying what Plato said: the contents of his works. It is obvious then that the discovery of a submarine wall in the Bahamas or an under-water construction in Japan does not necessarily imply the existence of Atlantis. It rather implies the existence of ancient civilizations unknown to us that may have prospered alongside Atlantis. But Atlantis had precise features. Four steps at the bottom of the Atlantic (as apparently somebody claims to have discovered) are irrelevant to the study of Atlantis and less to the study of possible glacial civilizations. On the contrary, the discovery of the same continental island with the rectangular plain in the middle (and all its details) as Plato described is clearly a different issue and proof of the possible identification of Atlantis. The evidence in fact could not be more concrete than it is! A fourth technique employed by many researchers consists of ignoring the only source of Atlantis (the dialogues obviously) and derive its existence and location from the observation of ancient civilizations and what current scholars are still unable to explain about them. It seems then natural that many reckon that if Maya and Egyptians built pyramids then there must have been a civilization geographically located in between: Atlantis. Pity that likewise one could say that it is possible that a long time ago the old world colonized the new world or vice versa and in the same way we will explain the alleged coincidences (if at all there is anything to be explained.) If somebody were so shrewd to read Plato this would be the first hypothesis to be formed as the Greek author said clearly that Atlantis had a good dominion within the Mediterranean. The fifth technique (even more inconsistent) is perhaps the most absurd: absolute rejection of the possible existence of Atlantis without even reading the dialogues. In this case the usual supposition, devoid of any supporting argumentation, is: “This is surely an invention. No trace of Atlantis has ever been found and that’s the evidence of that”. Obviously we do not care at all about the Great Pyramids of Gizeh and how they were built. Although they could indicate the presence of a civilization superior to the Egyptian (or perhaps an age or stage before the Egyptian culture that is still unknown) they will never tell us the location of Atlantis or if their paternity is to be ascribed to Atlantis or to other hypothetical, contemporary colonies or civilizations. Unfortunately some people nowadays base their studies on Atlantis upon these facts. The alleged paternity of Atlantis in respect of the famous ancient constructions is a fact that is currently out of our reach. More documents would be needed, as they are currently insufficient to solve this kind of problem. In a few words it is wrong to base the study of Atlantis on other mysteries because we are taking as a basis other sources devoid of solid concepts and that may be manipulated at a rational level.

Coming back to the origin of the tale on Atlantis, if we really want to formulate any hypothesis the best idea once again seems to be relying on Plato, who says that that tale had been kept for a very long time by the Egyptians together with other ones referring to very ancient times prior to the Flood. So the Egyptians “knew” South America? How is it possible? In order to grasp this fact we have to state at the onset that they certainly did not see Atlantis as we see South America today. The only handed down a tale, which they trusted but had never cared to verify in those times. Egypt was rich of history and traditions but many of these were lost and therefore modern scholars have not been able to grasp them. These losses, such as that of the great library of Alexandria, are very serious. One has to consider that the translation of hieroglyphics is entirely due to one find: the Rosetta Stone, a small monolith containing a text in Greek, hieroglyphics and Aramaic! Egypt concealed advanced knowledge of astronomy, medicine and other disciplines. For instance, Eratosthenes calculated with good approximation the circumference of the Earth. Hence there existed the notion of a spherical rather than flat. Many claim that the Egyptians had a limited geographical knowledge, but the aforementioned fact does not seem to substantiate this assertion. Eratosthenes used to study in the great library of Alexandria e surely he acquired there the idea of a spherical Earth. Hence the fact that a tale on Atlantis should also exist is not so absurd. We simply do not have sufficient information as to how, when and where from it came to Egypt. The fact that the American continent was unknown until 1492 is just a fairy tale today. We know that the Normans got there around the year 1000 AD and that even the Carthaginians (whereas the Phoenicians arrived until Azores) reached the American coasts. The fact is proven by the discovery of Carthaginians coins in American soil.   

 All these links constitute in a certain way the assumption that history started much earlier than the Sumerians in 3800 AC. Besides is also of public domain that as time elapses archaeologists tend to date back the start of our civilization more and more (think of the cities of Jerico and Harapp.) For many people myths are historical testimony of what is still considered prehistory (and Atlantis is part of it.) The tale of Atlantis itself is considered myth and therefore is not considered historical evidence of that civilization. Myths have always a truthful foundation of different magnitude. Technically they may be considered partly as truthful, oral tales passed on from generation to generation and thus blurred by time and partly as allegorical stories conceived to account for real facts or concepts. In the Old Continent the myths of the great civilizations are inheritance of Mesopotamian civilizations, which seem to retain the original stories. Strangely enough even in the Americas there are myths very similar to the Mesopotamian ones, suggesting again a contact between the old and the new world (that contact that would explain why a tale containing a description of South America was found in Egypt). The knowledge of the ancients should not be underestimated and it always conceals many surprises for us. Along with Atlantis it seems that they were in possession of maps of continents not yet explored such as Antarctica and the Americas. Antarctica was clearly represented in the XVI century in Fineo’s and Mercator’s maps of the world, which were based on old maps stolen from the dusty archives of libraries and in 1737 in the map of Bauche which showed it divided in two islands (and in the XX century we ascertained that under the ice cap there is a continent formed by two islands.) In any case the official discovery of Antarctica only took place in the XIX century. Somebody knew already… In a similar fashion in 1559 Hadji Ahmed had a map of North America that marked clearly its profile and proportions and furthermore was attached to the Asian continent via the Bering Straits. It is obvious that this representation does not relate to the European explorations that took place at that time because it was far too early and it is not conceivable that Bering could be depicted as a stretch of land since it was already a strait.

In 1513 Admiral Piri R’eis had a map that marked with good approximation the eastern profile of South America, indicating also the mouth of the Rio of Amazon. He claimed that it was drawn in accordance with an original from the Bysantium library. Then the hypothetical, remote cultural relation between the old the new world should not surprise us and the same applies to the existence of the tale of Atlantis in Egypt. There were probably other documents on Atlantis, particularly in Sais, where Plato claims that Solon acquired the story in the first place. Unfortunately Sais was destroyed by the Arabs, the same executioners of the library of Alexandria. 

The myths and many of the crude, megalithic stone architectures that have survived seem to suggest a past of human civilization deleted by the might of a natural disaster, a past in which also Plato’s civilization seems to find temporarily its place. If it is true that the date of Atlantis’ destruction coincides with the Flood, i.e. with the geological upheaval that brought about the extinction of several animal species and the progressive elevation of sea levels 12,000 years ago, it is also true that the Sumerians knew well that time and seem to have recounted its deeds before and after its occurrence. We should remember that Plato’s dialogue ends with Zeus, chief of the gods, irate because of the misconduct of the inhabitants of Atlantis and intentioned to punish them. At this point the dialogue stops abruptly by concluding as follows:

“Zeus, the god of gods, who rules according to law, and is able to see into such things, perceiving that an honourable race was in a woeful plight, and wanting to inflict punishment on them, that they might be chastened and improve, collected all the gods into their most holy habitation, which, being placed in the centre of the world, beholds all created things. And when he had called them together, he spake as follows..."

 The Critias ends here. We assume that it was Zeus who subsequently triggered the calamity that punished the inhabitants of Atlantis (the Flood.) The continuation of this tale exists in a certain way and can be traced in the Mesopotamian myths. There the protagonists are Enlil (supreme god of the Earth) and Enki (supreme god of seas, equivalent to Poseidon.) Enlil is tired of the human behaviour and sees it as a menace and therefore decides to punish it. It was then that he summoned the council of gods:

 ‘Enlil opened his mouth and spoke addressing the gods’ assembly: “Let us all take an oath for the deadly flood”. Anu swore first followed by Enlil with all his sons.’

The oath was nothing else than keeping secret from the humans that an impending catastrophe was about to befall the Earth for physical reasons that nobody could avoid it. They, the gods, would have found safety by leaving the Earth. Enki too swore, but later he would reveal this menace to Ziusudra and advise him to build an ark to save himself from the Flood (it is obvious that the tale of Noah springs from this source). Pity that Plato did not write a single line more… even if this leaves us the hope of finding some other reference to Atlantis or, better, to South America and its glacial civilizations. As to the venue where Zeus held the meeting we have an interesting parallel in Sumerian myth:

"I ordered that Adad watched over the upper regions in the Bird of the Sky; that Sin and Nergal guarded the central region of the Earth…"

 The dominant position of the council’s venue over the other regions  of the Earth is evident also from this passage. In a few words, the gods were those who dominated the world in what allegedly were Atlantis’ times. In fact the same Egyptians, before the beginning of the historical dynasties with Menes in 3100 BC, possessed some documents, dating back much earlier than the time of the Flood, that described the previous royal successions and referred to a so-called “Age of the Gods”.

The term “gods” should not scare us. They were nothing more than men in flesh and bones, but they were superior entities (or so they appeared) to the eyes of the submitted population. In fact their behaviour is purely human in the myths which are teemed with fights, quarrels, love affaires, political confrontation, deceptions, families and so on. Theoretically they are the former heads of state, the commanders-in-chief of the ancient “political states”. Obviously the tales of their deeds have come to us in a mythical fashion because after a disaster such as the Flood mankind could only revert to primitive forms of life (and Plato too was aware of this fact.) In fact if such a calamity were to wreck havoc today all communication systems would collapse as well as production and consumption systems. It is then easy to conjecture that we would go back to writing on stones and inhabiting mud huts, since nobody would be able to provide us with pens, paper or properties. In this way the tales on pre-glacial civilizations would have been handed down orally and only partially in writing during that troubled age. Or at least that is what has come to us in our time. It is then evident that for the generations that had followed that reality which was destroyed by the disaster would become more and more abstract and accepted only as testimony of their ancestors. Since these generations did not live through those times they would not be able to picture and understand it properly and would dismiss it as some kind of fairy tale. Initially Atlantis too was governed by a god, Poseidon, followed by descendents of divine origin. As in all myths Plato as well recounts that at the beginning the gods divided among themselves the dominions on the Earth and while Poseidon received Atlantis, Athena got Greece and the surrounding territories. As usual the gods waged war to each other and the same war between Atlantis and Athens was nothing else than a war between gods, one of the numerous wars narrated in the Mesopotamian myths, but for that devoid of a truthful foundation. It is sufficient to remember that also the war of Troy, in which also the gods took active part, was ascertained to be a historical fact by Schielmann. The gods used to mingle with simple humans according to the myths of Mesopotamia and Plato’s tale is no exception as Poseidon joined forces with Cleito in order to conceive his royal descent. So the time when presumably Atlantis developed seems to be remembered as the “Age of the Gods”, also called “Age of the Giants” in the Bible and Ice Age for us. Plato did not tell us anything else about that period except for Atlantis. He confined himself to recount this tale that obviously had not been narrated from his point of view but from that of those who actually knew what the world looked, i.e. with South America beyond Gibraltar.

 There is something that characterises the “Age of the Gods” and that is the megalithic architecture. Many great stone constructions spread around the world seem to belong to an age unknown to us and only myths can tell us something about it. The same Egyptians maintain that the pyramids of Gizeh where already there before their time and that had been built by “gods” as in the case of Tiahuanaco. For these constructions blocks of stone weighing hundreds of tons and perfectly cut and squared were employed. Nobody knows how it was possible to lift them since even modern cranes cannot cope with such weights. Tiahuanaco has buildings made of enormous blocks of stone (the same “Gateway to the Sun” is a monolith weighing about 10 tons) with a particular construction technique: the stones are laid next to each other in a jigsaw-like manner and some are supported by huge metal staples. In this last case. Also Machu Picchu and Sacausman used this “jigsaw” technique. In the latter case an Incas chronicle that reveals how the monarch wanted to reinforce the already mighty walls of the fortress by adding more blocks. The project failed as 20,000 Incas were employed and they did not manage to transport the block, which fell tragically killing at least 3,000 people. In Egypt as well a similar construction technique was adopted including the use of metal staples. This may be another clue of a common link between the old and the new world in very ancient times. A link that explains how there could be in Egypt a tale on South America and its populations.