Tale of Solon
|
|
Preface
|
| |
While every attempt has been made to be accurate and largely complete, this subject could itself require years of careful study to uncover every line of evidence that could be explored or researched. There might well be evidence there that simply has not been identified or further archaeological or geological work that needs to be performed. The present collection of analyses has been accomplished quickly and will no doubt suffer from omissions that others might well think obvious, but aspects have been explored as far as they can be given that this is not a subject to which a luxury of investigating in any length and detail has been possible, as against the contexts of a greater historical knowledge. This analysis only involves directly evidence drawn out of Plato’s two dialogues and makes no attempt to include other sources that show vague similarities to the Atlantis story, or at every turn to accumulate pages of dubious evidence to create a sense of verification or validity. It could be viewed as an introductory analysis, which might either be expanded upon in the future or might be picked up as a research topic for anyone who might wish to venture forth into the dawns of inelastic time and the depths of the unyielding sea. It does not end with a shrug of the shoulders and a collection of possibilities, rather reading through will provide a scrupulous analysis, albeit a diminutive one, and conclusions for verification. In this no attempt has been made to argue for or against any specific view put forth about Atlantis, it is only meant to provide a clear and unhindered analysis of the evidence. If anyone ever felt the initiative to fund meaningful searching along these lines, it would certainly be nice to be invited along for the ride, even if that’s all it turns out to be.
|
|
Discovering the Past
|
| |
That the truth of the Vinland colony was eventually revealed through archaeological discovery has not made it any easier for those who today would make similar claims about different events, because the claims still require not merely evidence but proof. Sometimes one must pursue a matter and seek the facts without any academic interest supporting their endeavors. Recently speaking to a professional archaeologist Garrett Fagan, himself speaking against the dangers of pseudo-archaeology along the lines of Graham Hancock, when I asked him about the difficulties those face who exist beyond the walls of convention, said (and I paraphrase and rephrase) that ultimately for those who seek to gather real evidence, even as they are ignored by the scholarly community and when there are institutional barriers put up against it, the truth will eventually emerge, the facts will be brought to light, and this must be accepted as part of the process of discovery.
No doubt it is extremely important that archaeology be done properly, and not be undertaken with any specific find or proof in mind. Every aspect of the place excavated needs to be recorded meticulously, rather than just what happens to be significant to the person searching for the answer he seeks. This permits a proper evaluation of all remains, every artifact and regularity, since the only true facts uncovered are only those relating to the location of objects and other formations within the ground, all else arises from the assumptions and interpretations formed upon those objects and their placement, which is not always well appreciated at the time of the excavation. And as has often enough been said, archaeology is an experiment that can only be performed once.
The index case itself being the excavations at Hisarlik by Heinrich Schliemann, who was not doing archaeology but rather was digging specifically for Homer’s Troy, and as a result of his methods destroyed the very thing he was looking for, because the initial assumptions that guided him were wrong, and his notes do not permit a proper separation of the facts of the dig from the interpretations of Schliemann himself at the time. Today similar digs are taking place in Serbia relating to a specious interpretation of pyramidal hills as man-made pyramids, thus all artifacts recovered are being falsely categorized and uninteresting material is being dumped aside without regard. In addition, genuine archaeological sites such as the presumed House of St. Peter or the fortress by the Dead Sea, interpreted to be an Essene monastery in an attempt to prove that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written there. This work was done carefully by professional archaeologists, only their interpretations and conclusions were faulty.
The amateur seeking his facts must be guided by the same regard for skepticism, not jumping to conclusions, being careful and methodical in their excavations and other work as we expect from the professional archaeologist. Likewise, that not only property laws but laws relating to both the excavation and destiny of artifacts needs to be properly regarded, and this varies from state to state and country to country. There are state laws and certain national laws that restrict the excavation and sale of artifacts, even those uncovered on one’s own property and even when one gains permission from the land owner to excavate. It is not only the law that should guide one but a recognition of the role one holds in bringing to light a cultural heritage and an obligation to an essential regard for the significance of finds as they elevate all of mankind.
Likewise, one seeking the past cannot be the sort who falls so much in love with their theory as to begin to make excuses and allowances for it at every turn. Based upon other work of mine, on mythology, I have found it is not errors in the sources but the error of the interpretations and theories that should be more quickly recognized. People might wish to hold onto their theories because they can claim them as their own, giving it up means permitting someone else to reveal hidden meaning, while also feeling a loss of importance, losing a position one holds or a regard from their colleagues. All of these must be sacrificed to the ultimate truth. It is too easy to excuse conflicting content by suggesting it is due to omissions or other errors. If one is guided by the evidence and goes where it leads them, one can be led to the right conclusion, if one blends in some practical knowledge and imagination in order to secure it.
Archaeologists are notoriously financially starved, but if a significant archaeological site is uncovered eventually it should receive some professional attention. Until there is something to excavate, however, one can understand the lack of interest among professional archaeologists.
|
|
Following the Evidence
|
| |
As I approach this subject with some reservation, as it seems that addressing the notion of Atlantis is rather as precarious as addressing the notion of Jesus. One must first prove an existence in history to say anything about it. However, even with lack of evidence one can always begin by assuming that if Jesus did actually exist what could we then say about the man. This is less an issue today among archaeologists than to use Jesus to generate interest in first-century Palestine archaeology and thereby acquire funding. Be that as it may, the same might be done for Atlantis. The evidence is against the existence of Atlantis, the lack of archaeological remains and the more relevant foible that Plato was no Tacitus or Herodotus, that is he was a philosopher and not a historian, his goal was not to tell history or even pseudo-history and no other of his works purport to tell of history. But does this mean that Plato did not decide to include an interesting tale in this particular case and wish to transmit it through the only means he could?
If the argument is made that Plato is not a historian, he is surely not a fiction writer either, and what is his philosophical point to telling the story of Atlantis? Given it ends abruptly it could simply have been an attempt to record the story Solon began writing that was in Plato’s possession or one of his cohorts. It is we who are inclined to limit Plato to being only a philosopher. The details and the specificity are uncannily like those that characterize a genuine account, down to the details of specific distances given, more like the Vinland voyages than fiction or fancy. Although it is more difficult to register what appears plausible to us when in the case of Vinland we are referring to events only 1,000 years ago, within historical times, but those regarding Atlantis lead us thousands of years into the past. Likewise, if we take Plato’s account literally, that the entire island was swallowed by the ocean.
There is a more relevant issue that should encourage a second look: that just as “Timaeus” and “Critias” tell of a land beyond the Pillars of Heracles in the real (Atlantic) Ocean, we in fact know that there is land not too far from there, which would have been less obvious during previous ages. We can likewise follow the descriptions and details in Plato’s account as far as they go to see whether there is enough evidence to equate Atlantis with the South American continent. This evaluation of evidence, not a proof of Atlantis, is what follows here.
Too often Atlantis is not merely used as a real location, but it is used as a basis for unsubstantiated theories about how this island was a cradle of civilization, with a highly advanced people who spawned the megalithic constructions or cultures of the world and any unexplained or eye-catching phenomenon that can be found and otherwise appears mysterious. Clearly the use or misuse of Atlantis over the past century, far from merely evaluating it according to the knowledge available, but trying to use it to explain the unexplained has turned it into something that is far more like the UFO phenomenon, which also supports its own little industry and adherents.
It should be expected that scientific interest will continue to be lacking until such time as any real physical evidence begins to emerge. This is the manner in which science operates and needs to operate in order not to promulgate belief as fact, as much as history is needed to prevent the acceptance of ideological myth as history, and a regard for accuracy and proper archaeological excavation against the driving human desire to acquire money, either by selling pilfered artifacts or hoping to attract tourism dollars to sites that receive sensationalist attention (ever heard of Loch Ness, Roswell, or the Holy Land), which stands in the way of clear analysis and investigations.
|
|
Atlantian Reality?
|
| |
Apart from the fact that no physical evidence has been identified as coming from Atlantis, what is the nature of the objection to the textural evidence within Plato’s dialogues? On the surface, with knowledge that Plato’s works and our knowledge of him as a philosopher, what is the evidence from within the two dialogues themselves, being the only testament of Atlantis in any ancient source. Is there a water-tight case against it, such that one can now and forever more say that Atlantis and its descriptions are pure fictions, made up by Plato to make a philosophical point. While it is perhaps difficult to argue against this by stating all possible alternatives, it is perhaps more difficult in arguing for this case to say more than physical evidence itself is the absolute determiner of validity. This is in fact the case, any real and genuine artifacts with references to Atlantis or entire contexts that match exactly descriptions within Plato would definitely prove its existence, but what could prove its lack of existence?
First, although clearly Plato is not acting as a historian, can he simply be accepted as a fiction writer? What other works of Plato have come down to us where Plato indulged in telling pure fantastical tales and myths? Or was Plato merely duped into accepting it as true, as all history dished out in those times was garnished with the sauces of myth and legend. Taking this then, not along the lines of using a fictional environment or situation to illustrate a point, which is clearly achieved with Plato’s cave, but passing along what he merely might have known or been aware of. We could say that if Plato possessed such as story, or through Solon and Critias it was known to him, that would he not be interested in writing about it knowing full well that it was otherwise unknown. Critias says in the dialogue: “My great-grandfather, Dropides, had the original writing, which is still in my possession, and was carefully studied by me when I was a child…The tale, which was of great length, began as follows”.
While there might be an argument as to how far Plato’s dialogues recorded actual conversations he had knowledge of, this is difficult to answer, but is not necessary to continue the discussion. Within the context of the dialogue, the telling of the Atlantis story arises upon the conclusion of a discussion of the ideal state, which then is interpreted as offering a fictional verification of the hypothetical state, specifically of that city engaging in a war. The assumption is that the story is an invention to suit the philosophy, rather than the philosophy occurring with full knowledge of an illustration that was already known, the story known about Atlantis (in the way that reality influences philosophy).
Plato’s account is spoken by Critias, whose own grandfather had heard the story from his father Dropides, who heard it from Solon, who had himself learned of it from the priests in Sais, Egypt. The introduction of the Atlantis story does not arise upon the foundation that it exists as an imaginary representation of the ideal state, but that it was an “ancient tradition” that begins with Critias speaking: “Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is certainly true, having been attested by Solon, who was the wisest of the seven sages.” The Egyptians started by saying: “Many great and wonderful deeds are recorded of your state in our histories. But one of them exceeds all the rest in greatness and valour. For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end.” In speaking of these events that this is presented as: “The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality”, that “has the very great advantage of being a fact and not a fiction”, and “they practiced all the pursuits which we yesterday described as those of our imaginary guardians”. He even states that only the names but not the deeds have come down to their time, due to the passage of time, an odd comment within a purely fictional account. There are other references to names known prior to Theseus that do not actually arise within the dialogue but are purported to be within the Egyptian account of the war. Every reference to it is that it is a tradition recorded within Egyptian histories and kept in their “sacred registers”, not as one that arose out of someone’s mind.
And when you were speaking yesterday about your city and citizens, the tale which I have just been repeating to you came into my mind, and I remarked with astonishment how, by some mysterious coincidence, you agreed in almost every particular with the narrative of Solon.
|
|
Setting the Stage
|
| |
In terms of the matter of years, the Egyptians say that “She [Athene/Neith] founded your city a thousand years before ours”. The event of the war occurred 9,000 years before the time of Solon, Plato existed around 400 BC, Critias was 10 when his grandfather was 90, and the time of Solon (640–560 BC) can be taken as 600 BC [2]. The presumed year of the Athens-Atlantis war is 9,600 BC, assuming solar years, which would take us back not only into the Stone Age but also to the end of the last Ice Age. This is an interesting timeframe, but it is not the only possible one. The years given were either reckoned by the Egyptians, or as the Egyptian names translated into Greek so perhaps were their years. So it could be based upon either the ancient reckoning of Egyptian years, or current (Solon’s time) reckoning of Greek years. Since arguments might unfold to support any interpretation, it seems best to investigate the outcome assuming solar years, seasons, or months, or potentially anything in-between. If the reckoning was in seasons, recognizing three Egyptian seasons per year, this would mean 9,000 divided by 3 or 3,000 years, so this would place it at 3600 BC [3], or if months, then about 700 years or 1300 BC. Conservatively, when looking for the Athens-Atlantis conflict within the strata of time, it could be anywhere from 3,000 to 12,000 years ago. With this in mind further evidence must be allowed to help narrow down the range of time, specifically do events occur within the Stone Age, the Copper Age or the late Bronze Age?
Consider the complexity of such a writing, not unlike an account that combines elements of myth and tradition that characterizes much of Greek legend, from the Iliad to the Argonautica. These two are presumed to be traceable to historical events, though exist largely as poetic and dramatic fiction. The first is at least verified somewhat by the presence of the archaeological site at Hisarlik, the second rather based upon the ease with which the route can be traced through the Black Sea. However, the tale of Solon exists within this tradition, perhaps neither purely mythical nor purely historical. What is being proven within the Atlantis story is not the details of the origin myth of Atlantis or evidence for the war, but existence of the island itself. Though there might be a back-door to proving the story of Atlantis from archaeological evidence of a war or details relating to Athens included within the story or traces of the empire of Atlantis. For example, Plato’s dialogue states that in primitive Athens:
[I]ts mountains were high hills covered with soil, and the plains, as they are termed by us, of Phelleus were full of rich earth, and there was abundance of wood in the mountains.
[T]he hill of the Acropolis [where there was a fountain later blocked by an earthquake] extended to the Eridanus and Ilissus, and included the Pnyx on one side, and the Lycabettus as a boundary on the opposite side to the Pnyx, and was all well covered with soil, and level at the top, except in one or two places.
Evidence of these could also provide verification even if the island of Atlantis is never found, since after all, it was to have been lost beneath the ocean, where archaeological methods are difficult to render. [Addition: The following paragraph details the Aegean situation arising out of archaeological investigation:
Archaeologically, the Aegean region appears to be a picture of fairly good ecological balance for a time, but around 1450 B.C. we begin to see the good times run out, and fortified cities and warfare become the dominant form of social organization. During this long history, the Aegean Sea region became ecologically devastated. The once green islands and mainland Greece and Turkey were turned into barren rocks, and vegetation was cut down or eaten away by sheep and goats. Finally, over a period of about fifty years, between 1250 and 1200 B.C., fortifications were improved, but the palaces were soon all destroyed, some by catastrophic fires, and the entire Aegean was plunged into a “dark age.” While scholars have proposed many different explanations for these events, from this distance it looks like a classic case of overexploitation of the region coupled with considerable population growth, followed by an increase in warfare, then system collapse. (LeBlanc 2003: 174)
Thus the description in Plato recalls knowledge of the region prior to 1450 BC, already 1,000 years before his own time. The ecological situation he would have been familiar with would have developed after 1450 and thus the description also favors a Copper Age over a Bronze Age timeframe.]
Beyond this there are descriptions of the island of Atlantis itself, which might well be taken as entirely accurate, but is more likely only partially accurate or open to interpretation. Where it is entirely accurate, no other evidence is required. When one pulls the descriptions this way and that to match a theory, then this needs to be matched by evidence to support it. That is, if textural evidence correspondingly matches wherever is sought, then no further proof is required (i.e. if a text suggests there is a certain city at a certain location and having dug, one finds a city there), but if one expects to find proof but it is lacking, or contrasts significantly in details, one must then support one’s explanation for its absence or variance, beyond offering a plausible theory to explain why the text means something different than it says, or the reason something went missing. Without this an investigation can dissolve into increasingly wild speculations that grow to rely upon flimsy, non-existent, or discredited evidence. No doubt a lack of physical evidence can be compensated for by accurate and corroborating textural evidence within a certain circumstantial framework, but how far can this be accepted if there is no valid way of verifying textural evidence when it comes from a single source (or derives from a single source). This is especially at play within the paste & paper walls of Biblical archaeology. Many would like to accept accounts in the Bible to supplement sparse and impersonal physical findings from the field, but what occurs when the evidence seems to be at odds with what would be expected from literal readings of non-literal or politico-spiritual texts? Once one studies and digs and is unable to find the evidence one expects, one must reevaluate the text or throw it out as historically invalid. A reevaluation might include the attempt towards a developed method to parse out genuine information from later embellishments, myths, parables, and doctrinal illustrations.
This must be clear, that there might be sure and fundamental reasons why archaeologists would reject the existence of Atlantis: the lack of a site to excavate. Others might make interpretations of what Plato must have been doing, what purpose his dialogues served, but this only arises from attempts to prove that Atlantis does not exist to corroborate the lack of forthcoming physical evidence. If the arguments and proofs are artificially and crudely constructed they only serve to provide an easy rather than a reliable response that archaeologists can proffer whenever the topic arises in public.
It is not unusual for weak or slim evidence to lead to grand and extensive theories that must be entirely rethought upon the uncovering of new evidence, this among professional archaeologists and anthropologists which is merely how an entire field evolves through time. It causes none to imagine that if one has to entirely rethink their theories when a new hominid skull, for example, is uncovered that perhaps the thing most lacking within scientific theory is not new evidence but the wisdom to know how evidence should be interpreted. It shows how much trouble science encounters when evidence exists, but is too small to yet be meaningful, and leads to dominant theories that are quite wrong, but supported until other evidence forces their rejection or modification. The alternative is to not force a simple theory but to open one’s imagination up to a realm of possibilities, which might very well lack evidence, but might reveal a development of wisdom within the scientific field, that there is an acceptance that the knowledge we currently possess is not the full extent of that which can ever be known. However, it is not those who are willing to wait who get the attention and funding, but those who propose sure and definite theories, write papers, and get headlines who are going to define the field in the short term.
Can we say that Atlantis exists until it is disproven?, clearly not, anymore than one can claim the Bible is true history until someone proves it false, or anything else that was at one time accepted and needs then to be replaced. In order for the Bible to be accepted as history, one must manage to extract the parochial from the mythical aspects, then seek to prove that the parochial elements are actually historical with corroborating evidence of some kind. It is, however, much easier to prove the existence of a location but almost never of specific events without the intervention of other written histories. Archaeology “tells” us a great deal, if we have the knowledge and imagination to divine it, but needs always to be aware of our assumptions going in.
Requisite initial proof in this case is going to be geographical: to identify an island should not be difficult. Then there are all the circumstantial details which can either verify if found or not unverify if not found. Evidence that cannot be proven might only reveal a lack in our own knowledge, meaning that there is a limit to the extent of our knowledge from archaeology and history, and that absences can be filled in from other evidence. Not having it does not negate it, but this is where scientific fact requires the philosopher, who needs to be able to know how the facts might or might not be interpreted by as thorough an analysis as possible. To know what the facts include and what they exclude, rather than to presume it must lead us to a single theoretical choice or dominant theory. Imagination and intelligence provide us a way to break through our assumptions, with wisdom as a means to evaluate the value of our knowledge. Thus the scientific discipline is incomplete unless it is interpreted and evaluated by the philosopher – but who is willing to put up with him, apart from perhaps other philosophers?
Besides evidence of the Atlantian empire and the war with Atlantis, and descriptions of pre-Classic Athens, there is the island of Atlantis itself. What are the manner of the descriptions, and do any of them tally with real locations or suggest regions where it might have been located? This is obviously not a new question, and not all the options can be assessed here.
|
|
Analysis of the Evidence
|
| |
So how far does the evidence we have regarding Atlantis take us now? Is there anything that helps to corroborate the details apart from the specific identification of the site itself that at least would lend it some measure of credence to it? As for the primary thrust of argumentation, I can only defer on the main points to Jim Allen, whose theories concerning the presence of Atlantis upon the South American continent have led to all the subsequent argumentation here. His website www.atlantisbolivia.org is a good first start, and his books present a fuller report. (Not to imply that I endorse every piece of evidence presented by him as a proof of Atlantis, only that the sum total of his evidence provides a convincing case deserving serious consideration and is soley the product of his own tireless efforts.)
South America is clearly on the continental scale of Libya and Asia, and Mr. Allen has revealed that the name Atlantis arises from the combination of two South and Central American Indian words: atl for water and antis (the same as Andes) meaning copper. It is perhaps a meaningful indication that the wealth of Atlantis arose from its wealth of copper: that copper was required especially during the copper and later the Bronze Age in growing amounts, while it is unclear that such deposits existed in suitable quantities in the Old World. The root atl also figures into the name of its first king Atlas and the Atlantic Ocean.
Now for the description:
This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable, and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean
Then going on to describe how the sea is small with a narrow harbor to the real ocean beyond which they believed to be an enormous continent.
Evaluating each of these, the existence of the Mediterranean Sea is clear, the narrow Pillars of Heracles are clearly the Straits of Gibraltar of today, the Atlantic Ocean is also there. Is there an island larger than Libya and Asia put together? The understanding of the appreciated extent of both Libya (northern Africa) and Asia (Asia Minor) to the Egyptians (or Greeks) is unknown, however, the implication incorporating an understanding of the vastness of the Atlantic, is that they knew the Mediterranean as just a “harbor”, and that the island the size of a half or whole portion of Africa and Asia Minor and perhaps further extensions of it is truly a continent. So looking for a continent beyond the straits there is one that exists, that of South America. This was the way to other islands, which could mean the Caribbean islands.
Continuing on it describes their empire as extending over the entire island of Atlantis including many others and even into the Mediterranean of Africa as far as Egypt and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia (Italy). Attempting to gain Greece and Egypt to occupy the entire Mediterranean, Athens led the Hellenes at first and then alone vanquished the invaders and freed all the areas within the Pillars from their rule.
There also is preserved a mythical origin myth for the island (with names translated by Solon from Egyptian into Greek) where the whole earth was divided amongst the gods and Poseidon’s share was the island of Atlantis. Within this is a description of the island itself:
Looking towards the sea, but in the center of the whole island, there was a plain which is said to have been the fairest of all plains and very fertile. Near the plain again, and also in the centre of the island at a distance of about fifty stadia, there was a mountain not very high on any side.
Returning to Poseidon, among the primitive men, Poseidon took the daughter of the couple who lived on the mountain there. Putting her in a hill he created alternate zones of land and sea around it, and here produced springs of hot and cold water. Had had ten male children, each a set of twins, for which the island wad divided. The eldest received the canal-surrounded hill and the largest allotment of land surrounding it. This king was Atlas from whom the names Atlantis and Atlantic arose. The next pair received: “the extremity of the island towards the Pillars of Heracles, facing the country which is now called the region of Gades in that part of the world”. Significantly, this region given to the second kings, what is now Brazil was considered to be the second most desirable location of the island. This second king was known among the Greeks as Eumelus and in the language of his own country was Gaderius, from whom the region of Gades received its name.
The other kings inherited various portions and other islands in the sea, as well as the empire that extended into the Mediterranean. Then it goes on to describe the region surrounding the major city on the island:
The whole country was said by him to be very lofty and precipitous on the side of the sea, but the country immediately about and surrounding the city was a level plain, itself surrounded by mountains which descended towards the sea; it was smooth and even, and of an oblong shape, extending in one direct three thousand stadia, but across the centre inland it was two thousand stadia. This part of the island looked towards the south, and was sheltered from the north. The surrounding mountains were celebrated for their number and size and beauty, far beyond any which still exist, having in them also many wealthy villages of country folk, and rivers, and lakes, and meadows supplying food enough for every animal, wild and tame, and much wood of various sorts, abundant for each and every kind of work.
This in every way describes, as Jim Allen has shown, the region of Alti Plano within the Andes in Bolivia: in terms of its location in the center of the island, the size, as well as looking towards the south and sheltered from the north, right where it is situated where a crook in the continent bends inwards.
The specifics of the city and of the meticulously described alternating zones of sea and land are not specifically important here, through intriguing for the detail in specifying their measurements so carefully.
And beginning from the sea they bored a canal of three hundred feet in width and one hundred feet in depth and fifty stadia in length, which they carried through to the outermost zone, making a passage from the sea up to this, which became a harbour, and leaving an opening sufficient to enable the largest vessels to find ingress.
This passage is especially important, because it indicates that there was a waterway from the sea into the alternating zones of land and sea, which needs to be explained.
Civilization
Not dwelling upon the details, which are there to be seen should one wish to corroborate with any purported archaeological site for Atlantis, what is known of the society in which they lived: the king Atlas and his descendants (based on primogeniture) had great wealth, such that it exceeded any wealth known elsewhere. They had 1,200 ships in their navy, built temples, palaces, harbors and docks and the stone used was to have been quarried under the island zones, of the color white, black, or red.
Each of the ten kings too had a city over-which he ruled, guided by the laws that were said to be handed down from Poseidon (i.e. their sea god) and were incised upon a pillar made of orichalcum in the temple of Poseidon on the middle island. Orichalcum is a metal of reddish color used in various constructions, dug out of the earth and considered to be worth more than anything except gold. Most of this could never be proven, even for a known city, but orichalcum could be equated with an alloy of gold and copper called tumbaga, which is known to have been used at various locations around South America at the time of Spanish conquest circa 1500 AD. The site where the tumbaga mining took place was Urukilla or Uruquilla, which is itself linguistically related to the very name of orichalcum: the same word root uruquil/orichal.[5] Other materials used within the art and constructions of Atlantis were brass, tin, ivory, gold and silver.
Is there any evidence of such an empire? This can only be known if such an empire might have existed during the specified time-spread, but its absence might arise from the fact that archaeologists have never been looking for it, or that there is no means to identify such an empire. What would archaeologists expect to find to prove an empire? If we make the wrong assumptions as to what we should find, then we might believe we have proven an absence while staring directly at it. Even so, even more unusual is the claim both that the warrior men of Athens sank into the earth and that Atlantis went beneath the sea.
Flora and Fauna
(Sumerian war carts ca.3200 BC, source: wikipedia.com, "wheel")
The island itself is described as having great quantities of wood, many tame and wild animals, and those suited to various habitats including lakes, marshes, rivers, mountains and plains. Here were a great number of elephants as well as horses, paired for the 10,000 chariots of the army, with another number of horses managed without chariots. Along with the baths for the kings, men and women there were baths for cattle; also mentioned are bulls used in sacrifices. These things might be explained or explained away, but to do so would really require the offering of further evidence, such as a genuine archaeological discovery of horse, cattle, and elephant bones.
Did elephants ever exist on the South American continent? They are known to us as mastodons:
They had carried the evolutionary trend to a point where the lower tusks were completely lost and the skull and jaws were markedly shortened. This, in connection with their large, evenly curved upper tusks, must have given the wonderful stegomastodon a very elephantlike appearance in the flesh, although it was somewhat more stockily built than a modern elephant. With a shoulder height of about eight feet, this animal was close to a living Indian elephant in size. The American mastodon, largest of the zygodonts, may have stood one or two feet taller. (Kurten 1988 :27)
This animal is known to have lived in South America and believed to have survived until the end of the Pleistocene, about 9000 BC. (Kurten 1988: 28) Also in the Americas was the southern mammoth (Mammuthus meridionalis), which is not the woolly sort often known from northern climes. The tusks of the southern mammoths were straighter than those of the later forms, and in the flesh it would probably have resembled a modern Indian elephant, lacking the peaked head and sloping back so typical of advanced mammoths (Kurten 1988: 43) Although this animal is only known to have ranged as far south as the southern United States (Kurten 1988).
There is evidence that the mastadon survived much later than is typically accepted. There are some radicarbon dates which have suggested the tribe [mastadons] may have survived long after the end of the Ice Age, perhaps as late as 5,000 years ago. (Kurten 1988: 121) However, and perhaps because these are outliers have been readily discounted by experts, that this was the result of a contaminated sample.[7] However, there is more in artistic depictions, one which is still open to interpretation, the discovery of a Pre-Columbian stele, found by Preuss in Columbia shown in Figure 1 surely appears to show the form of an elephant-like creature, with tusks and proboscis, but while it is not difinitively so it is difficult to figure what else it might be. (Unfortunately, this is the only depiction I have been able to locate of it.)
Figure 1.
Pre-Columbian Stele showing what could be a mastadon
(from Kurten 1988, after Stromer)
As for horses, they too would have existed, although both of these animals became extinct in the Americas, although the precise time of extinction is uncertain (see Appendix 1) it appears to be some time around 5000 BC. The likelihood of a species existing really depends upon the timeframe of the events; currently it is certainly more plausible at the oldest time, least plausible at the most recent time. But how could the ancient South Americans have had horses, unless they learned to ride wild horses from the Americas (such as Hippidion)? This would fit the Neolithic, but it might also permit an extension into the Copper Age, unless horses were kept on the plain there longer when they otherwise had gone extinct elsewhere. Or perhaps they were referring to llamas. However there is another explanation, that the reference in Plato that the Atlantians brought things from all over their empire to their own island: “For because of the greatness of their empire many things were brought to them from foreign countries, and the island itself provided most of what was required by them for the use of life.” This could have included the horse and chariot (which first appeared in Asia around 3000 BC). Certainly it would have proven to be of significant interest to them, enough to bring it back with them in their own country. Merely a collection of a couple dozen horses brought back and bred there on the plain would have meant little to their long-term presence and survival on the continent.
The island, it is said, also provided them with every kind of food, root, herbage, the essences of fruits and flowers.
also the fruit which admits of cultivation, both the dry sort, which is given us for nourishment and any other which we use for food – we call them all by the common name of pulse [beans], and the fruits having a hard rind, affording drinks and meats and ointments, and good store of chestnuts and the like, which furnish both pleasure and amusement, and are fruits which spoil with keeping, and the pleasant kinds of dessert, with which we console ourselves after dinner, when we are tired of eating – all these the sacred island which then beheld the light of the sun, brought forth fair and wondrous and in infinite abundance.
None of these aspects contradict a location in South America.
Twilight of Atlantis
But then afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.
What might explain the extraordinary end to the island itself, the island sinking? If this can be taken as literally true, then everything that has proceeded must be false it seems. Since the island of Atlantis is almost certainly South America from the descriptions taken at face value, what then explains the sinking of the continent? The claim that an entire continent submerged without a trace can be put forth as a sure and definite proof that the story is fantasy only, making it easy to disregard any other evidence put forth. It can, of course, be explained in numerous ways, such as to presume that the story was combined with a flood story of some sort; this and other assumptions provide only speculations that cannot be proven in any way. Is there any explanation that relates specifically to South America? The description is that with an earthquake and floods came the sinking, leaving behind a muddy shoal that prevented navigation of the sea at this location. So if it can be taken for what it says, something sunk and produced such a submerged bank.
Figure 2.
The Amazon River and Delta
There could be an explanation that might also be verified, that just as with the Nile River in Egypt, that any large river produces a correspondingly large delta. The Amazon River would have played a significant role in the commerce and transportation across the continent at that time, since its tributaries spread everywhere (Figure 2). Although the Nile Delta has been preserved due to its location within the Mediterranean, the great Amazon River may have also produced a massive alluvial delta at its conclusion, extending out several miles, as an accumulation of sediments, but would have been especially vulnerable to heavy seismic activity. That this may have built up over tens of thousands of years and then submerged in a single day, perhaps many times through the past. Or even, rather than a proper delta, that the effective impact of the river upon the land mass at its outlet was such as to soften it and make it vulnerable to earthquakes and inundations pouring out from the river over millennia. This would not then have been the entire continent, but perhaps the most significant part of it: the port that led to the rest of the continent, through the Amazon.
The current currents from the straits send ships straight to the outlet of the river, as seen in Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Ocean Currents
European or African seafarers who arrived there expecting to find the edge of the continent only found an impassible barrier of mud and if not so willing as to continue their search too far might well have concluded and brought back the tale of an entire submerged continent, and would have been totally accurate according to what they had concluded, the accuracy dependent upon how it is perceived by those who tell of it (a common enough issue arising from lack of omniscience). This, without ever needing to suspect that the submergence of this one location was then confused with and applied to the entire continent through transmission of the story, which is also, of course, a possibility. A possible appearance of the South American coast before the submergence is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Postulated Prehistoric Amazon River Delta
(existing before c. 4000 BC)
The likely presence of an extra land segment here prior to the formation of the Amazon River is revealed in how the South American and African tectonic plates fit, as shown in Figure 5. Geological evidence suggests that the Amazon only started flowing east about 10 million years ago, rather than into the Pacific. It is unknown whether this created increased sedimentation along the outlet of the river, but accumulations might have occurred while at the same time the river softened the underlying soils at its outlet to produce geologically unstable strata that collapsed during early historic times, perhaps exacerbated in some way by the warming climate subsequent to the Ice Age. (The resultant mud bank mentioned in Plato was temporary and, of course, would have eventually subsided or been washed away creating the configuration around the Amazon delta that exists today, but in the meantime the entire Atlantian civilization would have collapsed.)
Figure 5.
Evidence for land present at Amazon River delta
At this location, the way to other islands may have indicated the subsequent path from this Atlantian port back to Europe via the trade winds, to the Caribbean islands and past North America (see Figure 3). This would mean, though, that it would be impossible to excavate anything like what is described in Plato as it would all have disintegrated into the sea.
[7] It is now well known that a species of dwarf mammoth continued to exist upon Wrangel Island within the Arctic Sea until at least 2000 BC.
|
|
Summary and Conclusion
|
| |
Here Figure 6 summarizes the material evidence where a 1 indicates that there is actual proof for it, a 0 indicates that proof is lacking, and a -1 indicates that there is contrary proof for it (that is proof exists that verifies such a thing could never have been). (Those number in parenthases contain evidence that is lacking but show the timeframe it might be expected.)
Figure 6.
Summary and Evaluation of Evidence
|
Plato |
Correlation |
c. 9500 BC
Stone Age |
c. 3500 BC
Copper Age |
c. 1300 BC
Bronze Age |
Notes |
|
Geographical evidence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atlantic Ocean |
Atlantic Ocean |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
island larger than Asia and Libya |
South America |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
oblong plain in middle of island |
Alti Plano |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
other side of island, close to the Pillars |
Brazil |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
rivers, marches, mountains, plains |
South America |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
Anthropological evidence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atlantian kings |
written records |
0 |
0 |
0 |
No mention outside of Plato |
|
Atlantian empire |
artifacts |
0 |
0 |
0 |
No remains thus far identified |
|
Atlantian "cities" |
artifacts |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Some evidence at Alti Plano |
|
written laws on pillar of orichalcum |
written laws |
0 |
(1) |
(1) |
Sumerian writing arose ca. 3500 BC |
|
Linguistic evidence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atlantis |
Atl-Andes |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Atl is Aztec, Andes is Inca |
|
Orichalcum |
Urukill-a
(Orichal-a)
Orichana |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Urukilla is the source of mined “orichalcum” |
|
Zoological evidence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
wild animals |
abundant |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
tame animals |
llama, alpaca, etc. |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
elephants |
mastadon, southern mammoths |
1 |
1 |
0 |
Mastadons might have survived after 3000 BC |
|
tame horses |
horses |
1 |
1 |
0 |
Hippidion perhaps went extinct about 5000 BC |
|
cattle |
unknown species, llama |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Botanical evidence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
wood |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
fruit and flowers |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
food |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
Archaeological evidence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
buildings |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
canals and ships |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
Canals on Alti Plano of unknown date |
|
chariots |
chariots or carts |
0 |
(1) |
(1) |
Wheel arose in 5th Mill. BC |
|
chariot track |
|
0 |
(1) |
(1) |
|
|
Greek ecology |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
Geological evidence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
orichalcum |
tumbaga (copper-gold) |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
metals |
metals |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
hot and cold water |
springs |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Hot springs are present on Alti Plano |
|
earthquakes and floods |
earthquakes and floods |
1 |
1 |
1 |
No specific earthquake or floods known |
|
island sinking |
Amazon delta |
0 |
0 |
0 |
No direct evidence yet uncovered |
|
Proportions |
|
55% |
72% |
62% |
|
The Copper Age date seems to be the most likely, given that it exists within the range of the formation of the Egyptian community around the Nile River and, in addition, there is specific reference to a metal that appears to be either copper or gold mixed with copper. It is also an age in which there would have been significant developments in seagoing craft. Thus it all points to changes in the world due to the arising of the Copper Age, at least as they existed along the coastal areas of the world, which could well have led to new empires based upon technology coming out of the use of copper. This is also a timeframe that is very little understood but perhaps one of the most fascinating times in human history, since it led humans into a sequence of events that we know as the historic age.
These numbers are not as precise as they appear to be and there is a great deal that can be said in argument on various sides; this is only intended to be a preliminary comparison rather than a full assessment. The positive aspect of this analysis, is that it does not emerge with any “-1” ratings, meaning that none of the material evidence has been decisively disproven, it either has been proven, is well suggested, or is awaiting (perhaps unattainable) direct physical evidence through excavation, imaging, and geological survey.[2]
Where there are remaining inconsistencies, how can these be explained? One for example is that the island with canal zones around it was to have been connected to the sea offering ingress to many vessels from all over, but can this be accurate for Alti Plano? Plato’s dialogue itself seems to be internally contradictory in this regard, saying on the one hand that a canal that surrounded the plain drained out into the sea, rather than being connected and used as a port. The ports and canals might have actually been located on the east coast rather than the west coast of the continent, which would have been at the end of the Amazon, or if concentric canals were a preferred construction method that both locations contained near-identical structures,and thus were easily conflated.
Secondly, and perhaps of equal significance, is the description of the location of the muddy shoal that is said to have made the entire Atlantic Ocean unnavigable, since it says that “The power came froth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable” and that after the submergence of the island that it “became an impassible barrier of mud to voyagers sailing from hence to any part of the ocean.” Does this mean that one could not sail out of the Mediterranean in Socrates’ day? Or is the implication here merely as it says, “For this reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island”, that this means it is only those who try to sail into its prior location that encounter it, that it need not be immediately outside of the Straits of Heracles. So the lack of needing to place Atlantis at a definite location just short of the pillars could conceivably place it anywhere in the Atlantic. Plato's rather puzzling statement is likely to be a confusion between the details of the Atlantis story and later knowledge of the Sargasso Sea. The poet Avienus related a voyage into the Atlantic Ocean by the Carthaginian admiral Himilco in 500 BC:
“…No breeze drives the ship, so dead is the sluggish wind of this idle sea…there is much seaweed among the waves, it holds back the ship like bushes…the sea has no great depth, the surface of the earth is barely covered by a little water…the monsters of the sea move continuously to and fro and fierce monsters swim among the sluggish and slowly creeping ships….” (Berlitz 1969: 52)
It is quite certain that the nature of the Sargasso Sea would vary over different eras, that it might expand or retract to some extent with the changing of currents, temperature, the nature and concentration of growth of bacteria and weed and so on.
This could clear up this matter concerning the persistence of the muddy banks in the Atlantic, presumably from the "sinking continent" into Plato’s own time. It might also present a further solution to the issue of how an entire continent might have been thought to have submerged: since the existence of the Sargasso Sea itself might well have led to theories, just as they entrapped Spence in more recent times, that it must be the remnants from a landmass that must have existed there at some time in the past. This is rather how ancient people hypothesized about how dinosaur or mammoth bones came to be where they were.
Regarding the identification of Atlantis with South America, and the correspondence with Plato's dialogues, the only genuinely convincing evidence is the character of Alti Plano itself, and how closely this matches the descriptions in Plato. All the accompanying evidence only acts to support this correspondence, or prevents a quick and easy dismissal of this fundamental evidence through the arising of contrary or contradictory evidence.
How might one excavate Atlantis when no archaeologist has properly located the likely location? If one could be steered to a very sure spot (for example, just outside the Straits of Gibraltar), that this is where Atlantis is to be and finding nothing there, it would be easier to prove that Atlantis was fiction. Merely to gainsay “believers” by challenging them to produce evidence cannot be confused with a clear and definite proof that Atlantis does not and never did exist, and the tale is a pure fiction; the evidence offered here is not against its existence. In fact, there is enough that corresponds to the descriptions within Plato’s dialogues to suggest that the actual city itself, buildings, and artifacts are yet to be discovered. However, the search for proof to support theory upon theory has turned up nothing for the intrepid seeker than disappointment. This might perhaps hint at a mixture of actual knowledge about the South American continent and its civilization, with some embellishments in terms of the actual events of empire and war, but then we do not even possess the full narrative out of Egypt, so the evidence we do have must be stretched to the limit, which has never been fully achieved it seems; we simply haven’t enough accumulated knowledge to fill in the missing requisite pieces.
Such discovery is still a possibility, but given the timescale it could be that only the remotest fragments and traces remain. If it did exist within the Copper Age it was probably less grand and advanced than that portrayed from the vantage of Iron Age Greece at the time of Plato. Upon the Amazon delta, if there were buildings or other artifacts, these too would potentially be buried beneath miles of sea bed, although new imaging technologies might be permitted to play a role here. If it turns out that evidence for Atlantis is never found at the most likely locations, and it is in fact a mere story or convoluted tale, against the indications within Plato and the evidence above, it is not anything that should be cause for concern, loss of sleep, or mourning.
|
|
Afterword
|
| |
From reading J.M. Allen's initial book I have assembled my evidence independently and where I offer alternate theories it has not been an attempt to contradict or supersede his own. I am dedicated to accumulating evidence from any reliable sources I find rather than merely restating his own evidence here. Some significant areas of disagreement is between my own emphasis on the eastern side of the continent and his own emphasis on the western side. His own approach does not require an explanation arising from a submerging Amazon delta (but Plato's account might well require one). For Mr. Allen the way to further islands would mean the Pacific Islands and the opposite continent meaning Asia, while an Amazon port would favor the Caribbean islands and the opposite continent meaning Central America; he favors an era around 1250 BC, equating the Sea People with the Atlanteans (which conventional evidence appears to disfavor), while I have rather settled on the era around 3500 BC, which corresponds with the Copper Age and the founding of Sais. Merely because these are contradictory does not imply that I am imaging they compete with Mr. Allen's. The greater amassing of evidence for Atlantis has arisen around the locus of Alti Plano, while the Amazon delta will remain only peripheral or irrelevant. It does seem odd if Plato wasn't able to associate the Atlantis story with that of the Trojan War, if they were in fact related or from the same era. However, it does no good to amass evidence some of which corresponds to 9500 BC and some of which corresponds to 1250 BC, and what evidence is presented must be clear, unambiguous, and not equated superficially.
As the evidence accumulates it has shown itself to be more convincing than ever, but seen within the context of prior attempts to locate or prove Atlantis, more skepticism than ever must be overcome. The most important future pursuit would be to attempt to identify what specific evidence is lacking amongst the more general evidence assembled, and to see if various supposition evidence can really be turned into hard evidence (which would include the establishment of clear dating of finds). However, the timeframe of the Copper Age is so long ago, and in the absence of any written records, it will take time for the archaeological knowledge to amass and for the generation of wide-ranging theories. Until it is known well enough it would be scientific folly to rule out entirely the existence of a South American copper-age empire. What remains most troubling is that anyone who might hope to gain from proving that Alti Plano housed the Atlantian civilization, esepcially to attract tourism dollars, would fake objects or plant evidence thinking they might help the proving process along. For the sake of preserving the value of our past anyone thinking along such lines should put them to rest.
|
|
Sources
|
| |
Hutchins, Robert Maynard, editor in chief. Great Books of the Western World vol. 7: Plato. Jowett, Benjamin trans. Encyclopedia Britannica: Chicago 1952.
Kurten, Bjorn. Before the Indians. Columbia: NewYork 1988.
LeBlanc Steven A. Constant Battles. St. Martin's Press: New York 2003.
|
|
J. M. Allen's Response (see www.atlantisbolivia.com)
|
| |
The wealth of Atlantis was not only the copper, but the vast quantities of gold, silver, tin and orichalcum. All of these exist in mines just there around the edge of lake Poopo and within easy distance of the Atlantis site at Pampa Aullagas.
I don’t think it is necessary to look for a “choked up Amazon” because it is still navigable for quite a long way into the interior. It is lake Poopo which is choked up and no longer navigable, and there was a time, even in living memory when boats could still arrive at Pampa Aullagas by sea i.e. via the lake. However, I have recently been studying the “river routes” from the Altiplano to the Ocean. I was previously interested mostly in the route via the Pilcomayo river, since this also led to the mountain of silver at Potosi, but using the satellite imagery I found another route which in fact leads from the Amazon via the rio Grande all the way up to the tin mines at Huanuni, on the edge of the lake.
The islands beyond Atlantis I always assumed to be the Pacific islands which led to “the great continent surrounding the ocean” meaning Asia.
Personally, I always thought that the simple test as to whether South America was Atlantis could be determined by two statements – was there a rectangular-shaped level plain in the centre of the island continent – yes, the Altiplano, and was there an island “low on all sides and comprising a central island surrounded by alternating concentric channels” – yes, at Pampa Aullagas.
Indeed, as you mention, it has received little attention from archaeologists, the difficulty being to find acceptable artefacts but as you say, how would they know what they were looking for, and things they have actually found are often ascribed to other cultures or simply put in a corner of the museums and forgotten about eg, the Fuente Magna dish with CUNEIFORM writing now in the museum in La Paz, a Cretan style AMPHORA now in the museum in Oruro, and Egyptian style storage vases now in the museum in Tarija.
The dates as you say, is also another problem, with good candidates being 1220BC, 3600BC and 9600BC at which latter period the water of the lake was actually at the correct level to enter the volcano and flood the rings making circular canals or channels.
I wonder why people always say the Egyptians were capable of sailing to South America instead of considering it may have been the South Americans (Atlanteans) who sailed to Egypt??!!
There are so many parallels with South America and Plato’s description that it is impossible to merely dismiss them as co-incidences, such as the specific details like the first people being born in pairs etc. so I think all of the geographic description belongs to South America and the Altiplano, but the later details such as the system of government and details of the army and chariots etc may be borrowed form other legends such as Sea Peoples etc or part invention, impossible to say, but the description of the sacrifice of “bulls” still continues today except the animals are llamas (they even sacrificed some on the Pampa Aullagas site itself at the summer solstice ceremonies last year!) and they also do indeed, as Plato said, “pour libations onto the fire!"
|
|
|
|
