Mission: Atlantis

By Rod Martin, Jr

Why would scientists ignore evidence?

Some scientists occasionally ignore evidence—and sometimes violently. Why would they do this? American journalist and bestselling author,James Gleick explained it this way: “Shallow ideas can be assimilated; ideas that require people to reorganize their picture of the world provoke hostility.”

When scientists refuse to look because they “know better,” others can swoop in to make the big discoveries. That happened when English amateur, Frank Calvert, discovered Troy at Hisarlik, Turkey (Schliemann came later).

Ironically, the same arrogance that had blinded the experts still persists today.

But Atlantis? Yes, we have evidence. Lots of it. Not yet enough to prove Plato’s lost island empire existed, but some compelling—even startling—evidence, including 3bits of scientific fact that tell us something truly earth shattering happened right when Plato said Atlantis was destroyed.

•Dramatic change in climate worldwide, 33x as fast as the UN IPCC’s feared warming of the 21st century.
•A massive volcanic eruption.
•A sudden drop in sea level worldwide of between 2 and 7.4 meters.
•All happening 9620 BC—a virtual bullseye for the tectonic collapse of Atlantis.

For decades, “Clovis First” was sacred dogma in North American anthropology. Experts warned scientists not to dig below the Clovis horizon. If a scientist dared betray Clovis, they could lose funding or even their careers. But this isn’t science. This is politics and egoism. And how can dogma in science be overturned if no one looks for evidence?

Sadly, this behavior is all too common in science. Stray too far from what is popular and you could be scrambling to learn a new career.

Proof of Atlantis?

Even first-year geology students know that mountains frequently form at tectonic plate boundaries from subduction and magmatic arcs, or from convergent compression when there are impediments to subduction, as with the continental “bone” of India colliding with the Eurasia. When such mountains form in the ocean, they sometimes become islands. And the region Plato picked for Atlantis is along a tectonic plate boundary.

In the case of the northeast Atlantic, we have the Azores underwater mesa—a huge plateau rising above the ocean bottom, upon which the entire Azores archipelago sits. We have the indistinct nature of the Azores-Gibraltar tectonic plate margins which have puzzled geologist for decades. We also have proof that the Africa plate movement with respect to the Eurasia suddenly changed 36 Mya, leading to the formation of the ultra-slow spreading center—the Terceira Ridge, right next to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. All of these facts, and more, attest to some unusual geological actions that could have been involved in the formation, the growth and the ultimate destruction of Plato’s lost island.

Taking evidence from geology, oceanography, linguistics, genetics, biology, anthropology (both physical and cultural), and paleoclimate, Rod Martin has gathered a compelling set of facts that suggests very strongly that scientists and skeptics have been too hasty in dismissing Atlantis.

The highly acclaimed work of L. Sprague de Camp on Atlantis was reexamined thoroughly and found to be riddled with logical fallacies. That his 1954 work could be held as a “monument to scholarship” only shows the shoddy state of critical thinking when it comes to a controversial topic like Atlantis.

Martin emphasizes again and again, in his book, that we still have no direct proof of Atlantis itself. Like a true scientist, he uses precision restraint from jumping to the easiest or most obvious conclusions on the facts either for or against the past reality of Plato’s lost island.

Mission: Atlantis may well be a true monument to scholarship, but more importantly, it remains a wake-up call to scientists everywhere to snap out of their self-imposed blindness when it comes to unpopu

• Language: English
• Publisher: Tharsis Highlands
• Release date: Apr 30, 2020
• ISBN: 9780463907825

Rod Martin, Jr

Rod Martin, Jr. was born in West Texas, United States. He has been a Hollywood artist, a software engineer with a degree summa cum laude, a writer, web designer and a college professor.Rod Martin's interests have ranged from astronomy to ancient history, physics to geology, and graphics arts to motion pictures.He has studied comparative religion, worked as a lay minister and spiritual counselor, and taught ethics in college.While doing graphic arts in Hollywood, he also studied electronic engineering. In 1983, as Carl Martin, he published his first novel, "Touch the Stars: Emergence," co-authored by John Dalmas (Tor Books, NY). He continues to write science fiction under that pen name.Later, switching careers to computers and information technology, Mr. Martin worked for Control Data, Ceridian Payroll, Bank of America, Global Database Marketing and IPRO Tech. He also created "Stars in the NeighborHood" 3D astronomy space software.He currently resides in the Philippines with his wife, Juvy. He has taught information technology, mathematics and professional ethics at Benedicto College, in Cebu. He continues to teach online and to write books and blogs.

Book preview

Darkness moved over the land. Mountains exploded fire, belching murky clouds of dust and poisonous fumes high into the evening sky, catching the last few rays of sunlight. The most powerful nation in the world had been attacked by nature itself. The matriarchy that could have ruled all of humanity was dying. By morning, most of the once great, island empire would be covered by water. The homeland—three times the size of Texas—was suffering a tectonic collapse like none the world had ever known and like nothing it was apt ever to see again.

Atlantis was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Formed at a tectonic plate boundary by the forces of geology, those same forces also had made the land weaker than that of the older continents. Climate also conspired against the proud empire. Melting ice had placed incredible pressure on Atlantis from two sides of the ocean. Even then, the forces of nature were not enough to destroy the homeland known as Atlan, Atala and Aztlan. From far beyond our globe, massive asteroids hurtled toward North America and the North Atlantic Ocean. The two largest chunks slammed into the ocean itself, punching holes in the crust several kilometers across, splashing huge waves into the sky. Within a few hours, the shock waves, moving through solid rock, would reach the greatly weakened island—a one-two punch that would drive it down without mercy. A few short hours later, the ruthless waves of the monstrous splash would reach the shores of the beleaguered island, ensuring its immediate destruction.

Volcanoes all across the mythic island erupted, releasing countless cubic miles of gas and magma, further weakening the land. Large chunks of the island plummeted below the surface, creating new waves of nightmarish proportions—some more than a kilometer high. With each region which collapsed, another monster was unleashed to thrash the surrounding continents, washing precious topsoil back into the ocean deep.

Several colonies were destroyed. Countless thousands killed. Precious few made it to safety. Even the victorious Hellenic enemy suffered from the upheaval. Their fertile land was washed bare, destroying any evidence of their fledgling city.

This may have happened.

We have evidence of a huge, world-changing event occurring right when Plato said Atlantis was destroyed. We have evidence that the oceans had been stirred by a massive force, changing climate virtually overnight. We have evidence that volcanoes had emptied their bowels into the air. And we have evidence that a Greenland-sized piece of land had collapsed somewhere in the oceans of the world, dropping sea level by at least two meters.

Risking My Reputation?

Why would I risk writing a book like this? There are a number of reasons. For one, I don’t have a career in jeopardy. But this raises a different kind of question. If I don’t have a piece of paper that says I’m an expert, how can I be taken seriously about such a controversial topic? Therein lies the complication. What is an expert? Is such a status conferred only by centers of great authority, or can anyone achieve sufficient knowledge and intelligent understanding? What kind of expert is needed? And isn’t the appeal to expert status a logical fallacy? Too often facts are disregarded because they don’t have a pedigree or a fancy ribbon tied around them. It’s a bit like saying to a crowded room, We need to evacuate calmly. There is a fire and we need to leave quickly. Then someone replies, Oh, but you’re not a fireman.

The source of the information does not make the facts any more or less true.

This book contains many hypotheses with varying degrees of speculation. But all of these speculations are based on hard, cold facts. More evidence is required to prove these hypotheses, but they are not purely imagination—they are built on very real data, very real possibilities and a dash of imagination in an attempt to make sense of all of the pieces. This is how Einstein formulated Relativity. He had to look beyond the body of current knowledge in order to explore the possibilities of what lay outside that which was known at the time. So long as we can clearly distinguish between reality and hypothesis, we remain on solid footing. Some hypotheses are stronger than others, but not necessarily any more valuable than our wildest speculations. Some of Einstein’s speculations while he explored the Unknown were pretty wild. After his excursions, he was able to build a cohesive understanding that was ultimately proven to match reality.

The topic of Atlantis is one involving, out of necessity, an interdisciplinary study requiring many types of expertise—geology, anthropology (physical and cultural), archaeology, linguistics, oceanography, climatology and biology. Such a requirement may well prove to be impossible for any one person, especially if we require a PhD in each. How can any one person become an expert in so many different fields? Is such a polyglot of knowledge really required? If so, how much is required in each? What if one individual merely had sufficient knowledge of the methods of science and critical thinking to gain a well-rounded education in each of these fields?

There have been many innovators of the past who have, through their own intelligence and fascination with all of nature, proven themselves worthy of the label polymath—someone who contributes to civilization in a number of varying fields. They trained themselves by careful observation and analysis, many times before a field of study officially existed.

Also, there is great value in self-trained experts presenting hypotheses which use such knowledge and skillful reasoning. As in all of science, such hypotheses give us something to test against experiments, in the case of laboratory phenomena, or chains of rigorous reasoning, in the case of observations in the world-at-large.

My first introduction to the subject of Atlantis was rather fanciful. Some scientists and self-proclaimed skeptics would likely refer to the source as fringe—a derogatory term implying that such is not worthy of consideration. My second introduction was even more fanciful, in the form of a motion picture—arguably one of George Pal’s worst productions. This all occurred in the late 1950s—a time when real science had already cracked the atom and stood on the verge of sending men into space.

I’ve never liked the idea of someone telling me that I couldn’t do something, or that something was impossible. This was especially loathsome if the person making the claim could not back up such an assertion with facts and a believable train of solid logic. I grew to admire the plucky rebel who got busy doing what others said was impossible. I grew to detest the spiteful control freak who used logical fallacies to condemn certain ways of looking at facts and possibilities. Though they might have an IQ far higher than my own, I could immediately see flaws in their thinking. I came to realize that attitude had a great deal to do with effective intelligence, and that a very smart person with an attitude of know-it-all arrogance can lose significant IQ points by that attitude. I came to realize that arrogance was equivalent to blindness and that it must be avoided at all costs.

In my own life, I have been arrogant numerous times and, all too often, came to regret my own hubris. Could someone study the topic of Atlantis without becoming arrogant? Could anyone take the viewpoint of a true scientist on the topic?

No doubt, this book will find its share of critics. My enthusiasm and creative speculations will likely be seen as evidence of bias. So be it. But my intent is always toward truth. Did Atlantis exist? What does the evidence tell us? And what are some of the likeliest realities given the whole body of evidence?

In the physical realm, truth is never a destination but a direction. Science always strives toward a perfection it will never attain. Some scientists lose sight of this. Part of the problem resides in the paradigm so many scientists use as their primary tool for discovery—the heavily biased attitude of skepticism.

How can I say that this paradigm is biased? The definition makes it abundantly clear—skepticism is tainted with the potent bias of doubt. While negative doubt works well as a counterbalance against the positive bias of youthful enthusiasm or even the crotchety arrogance of some seasoned researchers, it remains a bias that frequently gets in the way of new discoveries. There are many compelling examples of this, including the Clovis First dogma, and the dismissal of the Valsequillo dates despite the use of the same techniques which had dated the celebrated Lucy bones of East Africa.

In my own years of research and analysis of culture and science, I have come to realize that the better paradigm for science is that of restraint and humility. These remain unbiased and serve to resolve the positive bias of youthful enthusiasm found in the fresh university graduate. They also act to eliminate the potent bias of the seasoned scientist, set in their ways, arrogantly dismissing uncomfortable ideas with all manner of logical fallacies.

Science has been betrayed by those who cling to this flawed paradigm. Clovis First is only one of countless examples. This kind of travesty happens far more often than most scientists realize. And it occurs on a wide scale of behaviors—not looking into controversial evidence, not publishing controversial evidence, destroying the careers of those who do publish controversial evidence, bending the numbers to fit the current narrative, falsifying records and even outright lying to keep the sources of research funding happy.

When scientists refuse to tow the line implied by their sources of funding, they can run afoul of the corporate machine and find their careers being ruined by an active conspiracy against them. Such was the case with Dr. Tyrone Hayes and his discovery that Syngenta’s atrazine was destroying the biology of frogs (Aviv).

A similar problem occurred when Dr. Gilles-Éric Séralini discovered that if Monsanto’s study on its BT corn, a genetically modified organism (GMO), had only been extended another month, they would have had irrefutable evidence of deadly problems. As it was, the problems that showed up at 3 months were dismissed as statistically insignificant. Such corporate bias smacks of public endangerment and fraud. The government agency in charge of approving GMOs for use in the wilds of the world-at-large had long been staffed with former Monsanto executives. To say that there was no conflict of interest would be to stretch incredulity beyond the breaking point (GMO Seralini).

When the Séralini study and one other critical of Monsanto were later retracted for flimsy, ad hoc reasons, the action by the publisher, Elsevier, seemed highly suspect. Later, it was discovered that one Richard Goodman, formerly of Monsanto, had been hired by the publisher a few months before the retractions, and later resigned his position at Elsevier (Corbett Report). Not quite proof of dirty dealing, but close enough to raise major concerns about corporate and big money influence in science.

In this environment of sloppy and potentially corrupt science, I guardedly welcome constructive criticism of the facts and reasoning in this book, but those who criticize had better come with equally solid facts and reasoning and had better leave all logical fallacies behind.

This topic has already endured too much ridicule and shoddy thinking. Some Atlantologists have justly deserved strong criticism, but ridicule has no place in science, despite what some lofty egos may say to the contrary. Too many conflate reasoned criticism with ridicule; they are not the same thing.

We can always learn from even the simplest of errors, if we don’t first trip on our own egos. The individual who ridicules everything that doesn’t fit their worldview will miss many of the choicest opportunities in life. The person who places high value on everything around them will be rewarded with seeing things that few others ever considered. By high value, I’m referring to the attitude of gratitude and the shrewd assessment of one wise man long ago who said, For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath (Matthew 13:12).

This book contains facts, evidence and a righteous quantity of hypotheses (speculation) based on facts. The speculation included should not be cause for alarm, even to the most stringent of academics; speculation, like Einstein’s imagination, is here to hold open the door to a number of ideas that may or may not lead to new discoveries. But being aware of certain possibilities—perhaps even bizarre ideas—we will not remain blind to them if evidence to support them is there. Too many researchers in the past have dismissed weak hypotheses so that evidence to support them would otherwise never have been found. Such academics and researchers may be well-meaning, but they prove to be stumbling blocks to science.

Too often, an individual would put blinders on, deciding that large swaths of knowledge are worthless. So, they never look again. But the wise man looks at all knowledge and experience as a treasure trove of possibilities. Not all ideas are equally valuable, but even the worst ideas can act as a springboard to great ones, if we give all such things the attitudes of gratitude and abundance. Only such a wise man will see the patterns of the universe around him and will see within those patterns the answers to his deepest questions.

Rod Martin, Jr.

May 1, 2020

Cebu, Philippines

~~~<>~~~

List of Illustrations and Tables

Figure 1.1—The School of Athens, with Plato and Aristotle.

Figure 1.2—A hypothetical map of Atlantis and the North Atlantic.

Figure 1.3—Comparison of Greek words meson and mezon.

Figure 4.1—Egyptian god, Nu, carrying Solar Boat across sky, above flood waters.

Figure 5.1—Graph of temperature and CO2 proxies throughout the Holocene.

Figure 7.1—Field of Dryas octopetala flowers, after which the Younger Dryas, 1,300-year Big Freeze was named.

Figure 7.2—Map of ancient Lake Agassiz, the flooding from which may have initiated the Younger Dryas.

Figure 7.3—Satellite photo of the Canary Islands and northwest Africa.

Figure 7.4—Map of hypothetical mega-tsunami from collapse of Cumbre Vieja.

Figure 9.1—Archimedes.

Figure 9.2—Diagram of void left by sunken Atlantis.

Figure 9.3—Graph of 17,000 years of sea level rise from proxies.

Figure 9.4—Map of Mediterranean and North Africa, estimating size of Atlantis.

Figure 13.1—The three main types of tectonic plate boundaries.

Figure 13.2—Hypothetical Euler poles for Africa plate, relative to Eurasia, before 36 Mya.

Figure 13.3—Euler poles, today, of Africa, relative to Eurasia.

Figure 17.1—Photograph of Hoggar National Park, Algeria, North Africa.

Figure 17.2—Map of Algeria with location of Hoggar Mountains.

Figure 19.1—Baalbek, Lebanon and Trilithon megalithic stones.

Figure 20.1—Ancient characters found at La Coruña, Galicia, Spain.

Figure 21.1—Map of Old World distribution of Y-DNA haplogroup G.

Figure 21.2—Map of Europe, North Africa and Middle East distribution of mtDNA haplogroup X.

Figure 22.1—Diagram of one method of interpreting myth.

Figure 22.2—Diagram of another possibility of the relationship between myth and meaning.

Figure 22.3—Diagram of our new method of myth interpretation.

Figure 22.4—Sculpture of Mesoamerican feathered serpent surrounding a human figure.

Figure 22.5—Six forms of feathered serpent from ancient art.

Figure 29.1—Map of sea level 9620 BC for Caribbean, southeast North America and northern South America.

Figure 29.2—Map of sea level 9620 BC for North Africa, Mediterranean and most of Europe.

Figure 30.1—Bathymetric chart of northeast Atlantic Ocean and the region of Plato’s mythical Atlantis.

Figure 31.1—Geological timeline.

Figure 31.2—Life timeline.

Figure 31.3—Current Ice Age timeline.

Figure 31.4—Eemian timeline.

Figure 31.5—Holocene timeline.

Figure 31.6—Map of northeast Atlantic Ocean with rectangular constraints for minimum and nominal size of Atlantis (Appendix, Methodologies).

Figure 31.7—Hypothetical map of Atlantis at our nominal size estimate.

Tables

Table 1.1—Comparison of proposed Atlantis locations.

Table 8.1—Part of GISP2 record showing Atlantis event eruption proxy record.

Table 9.1—Sizes of various oceans and large seas.

Alternate Copies of Illustrations

For full-color, full-size versions of the illustrations in this book, please refer to the following website page:

https://tharsishighlands.wordpress.com/2020/04/23/illustrations-used-in-mission-atlantis/

Also Note: Some formats of the ebook version contain some symbols which may not display properly in the software used. The above link also provides the text in question with the symbols displayed properly. If the reader discovers any erroneous characters not corrected on the above web page, please contact the publisher at https://tharsishighlands.wordpress.com/contact/

~~~<>~~~

Introduction: Why Atlantis?

Either Atlantis existed or it didn’t. If it did exist, then Plato gives us its location with great clarity. If Atlantis did not exist, then there was no Atlantis; there may have been an inspiration for the fiction of Atlantis, but it would not have been Atlantis, by Plato’s definition.

Why do we hold such a fascination for Atlantis? If it were merely fiction, it would be no more than a 2,300-year-old story with lots of exposition and description, but very little narration—very little action.

If Atlantis were fact, its story would provide us with a glimpse across a 6,000-year Dark Ages to a time when civilization thrived and then died a most rare and unusual death—a death from tectonic collapse.

Imagine this for a moment: Our own history is perhaps a little over 5,000 years old. Some 6,000 years before our history began, another history ended. That is what Plato’s story tells us. But how long did that island of history persist before it died? Was it several thousand years like our own? And were there other islands of history before that one?

Plato’s story provides us with sufficient clues to locate Atlantis, if it truly existed. Every other location chosen by other researchers is not Atlantis by definition. Those other locations might be as fascinating as Atlantis, in their own right, but they are not Atlantis. Those other researchers either did not read Plato’s details very carefully, if at all, or they decided to cherry pick the details they would use. That’s like a baker deciding not to use flour in their cake; not much of a cake, if we can even call it that.

A great deal of emotion has surrounded this topic. On one side, we find immense enthusiasm and certainty. On the other side, we find a great deal of dismissiveness and ridicule. On both sides, we find facts, evidence, interpretation, analysis and lots of logical fallacies.

The quality of arguments go from poor, like many of those presented by American congressman, Ignatius Donnelly (1882), and self-proclaimed skeptic, Michael Shermer (2004), to mixed, like those of science fiction writer, L. Sprague de Camp (1954), and Scottish journalist, Lewis Spence (1926), to largely strong and well-reasoned, like those of American anthropologist, R. Cedric Leonard (1979), German physicist and engineer, Otto Muck (1954), and Russian chemist, Dr. N.F. Zhirov (1970).

This book includes evidence not available to many of those earlier researchers. It also includes a fresh new viewpoint on the evidence—a viewpoint that attempts to remain scientifically restrained against jumping to any unfounded conclusions, while maintaining humility toward the truth, whatever that truth turns out to be. Despite this restraint, the author remains unafraid to explore interesting possibilities—speculation that has the potential to reveal more secrets of the past. Yet, such speculation is kept at arm’s length—used only as a tool to aid in further, possible exploration.

Holding this balance is no easy task, even for seasoned researchers. Too many scientists fail at times, abusing even their biased paradigm of skepticism (explained in Chapter 12, Multiple Problems with Skepticism).

We each have our own biases. There is no escaping that. For anyone to remain dedicated enough to a topic to write one or more books, and dozens of articles, requires a great deal of interest in that topic. Interest plus restraint are essential in being thorough and in maintaining integrity. The reader may notice in this book the frequent use of a phrase like if Atlantis existed. This helps to keep us grounded in the current reality, based on what we actually know. We don’t yet have proof of Atlantis, despite all of the evidence in support of its past existence.

If the author’s interest and enthusiasm breaks past restraint at any time, please keep in mind the concurrent intent to hold these ideas and speculations with the proper level of moderation.

One of the more fascinating aspects of the Atlantis problem involves how Plato got so much of his story scientifically consistent with our modern knowledge of geology, paleoclimatology, oceanography and more. These are things Plato got right, but could not have known as we now know them today. One of Plato’s details correlating with modern scientific knowledge would seem an interesting, but accidental coincidence—like Jonathan Swift guessing the number of Martian moons years before the discovery of Phobos and Deimos. Several of Plato’s details agree with modern science about which he could not have known. This suggests that these multiple correlations are a cause-and-effect coincidence—not accidental. In other words, with a great deal of likelihood, there was nothing accidental about Plato’s inclusion of those details. He didn’t merely make them up, as the naysayers suggest. This might lead us to conclude that Plato’s story was based on an actual event, here in the real universe. We will look at several examples of this in Chapter 23, How Plato Got it Right.

As compelling as is the accumulated evidence, we still require more verification to prove Atlantis existed. Part of the intent of this book is to provide a laundry list of required items for our Mission: Atlantis.

With the right combination of enthusiasm, restraint and resources, the mission might ultimately be accomplished—to settle, once and for all, the question of whether or not Atlantis actually existed as Plato described it.

If Plato’s lost island empire did not exist, then, hopefully, we will have provided the world with a better example of how science needs to be done on such controversial topics—methodical, with restraint and humility, and a passion for homing in on truth, while avoiding all the logical fallacies that have so often plagued virtually every field of mainstream science.

If Atlantis did exist, then we will have opened up a broad new book of human history, the pages of which will need to be filled with equal care from the evidence we discover.

Proof of Atlantis? Impossible?

According to Plato’s Timaeus and Critias dialogues, Atlantis was a large island in the northeast Atlantic Ocean, harboring a thriving and advanced civilization. According to the same tale, Atlantis attacked the eastern Mediterranean—both prehistoric Greece and Egypt—about 9,000 years before Athenian lawgiver, Solon, had heard the story, in about 600 BC. That would date the war at approximately 9600 BC. Both Atlantis and the prehistoric Greek homeland were destroyed some time after that, when the entire island was swallowed whole by the sea, and all evidence of the Greek homeland had been washed away. The prehistoric civilization of Egypt was able to recover some thousand years later, about 8600 BC, and enjoyed eight millennia of social continuity up to the time of the conversation with Solon.

We have a great deal of evidence supporting the possible past existence of Atlantis. We even have what may be proof of an Atlantis-like event occurring right when Plato said the island was destroyed. But we still don’t have direct proof of Atlantis itself. In this book, we will explore what we know for certain and what would constitute the needed proof of Plato’s lost island empire, if indeed it ever existed. We will also look at what constitutes adequate falsification of the Atlantis story—in effect, proof that it didn’t exist.

The evidence we do have comes from a multitude of scientific disciplines, including,

Geology

Archaeology

Oceanography

Paleoclimate

Anthropology

Linguistics

Genetics

Biology (blood types)

Cultural Anthropology (mythology and matriarchy)

Again, none of the evidence so far discovered in these fields directly proves Atlantis, but the body of evidence holds open the door to the possibility of proof. Though some of the evidence strongly supports the past existence of Atlantis, it needs to be said that there are other possible explanations for each piece of evidence.

Some skeptics have complained that past researchers have piled on too many anomalies claiming that they all derive from Atlantis. They reject the glut of assignments to Atlantis simply because they are uncomfortable with the notion that a majority, or totality, of evidence could derive from one source.

Naturally, if Atlantis did exist, and if it were the advanced civilization suggested by Plato, we would be remiss in not considering all evidence from near prehistory to have been clues to that legendary lost island. Indeed, an advanced civilization in the midst of a primitive world would, out of necessity, have left indelible clues throughout that part of the world and possibly farther afield. To dismiss the body of clues because of such a convergence is the height of naive blindness and shoddy critical thinking. By the same token, it bears reiterating that none of this proves Atlantis. We need to exercise restraint both for and against the thesis of its existence.

We will look at Plato’s story and the facts presented to us by the Greek philosopher. We will also look at the nature of the literary license he took and why that license should not distract us from the facts (Chapter 2). We will look at the various viewpoints held by different skeptics of Plato’s story and how their opinions have some merit. In addition, we will look at some of the other possible sources of the Atlantis story (Chapter 4).

Something world changing happened about 9600 BC. Climate worldwide abruptly changed, warming as much as +10°C in some places and in as little as 10 years. A moderately large volcanic eruption or group of eruptions occurred at the same time, dwindling down over the next two years. And there is evidence which suggests that sea level abruptly dropped worldwide by about two meters or more at, or around, the same time. More evidence is needed, but we know with a certainty that something uniquely big happened right when Plato’s Atlantis was supposed to have been swallowed whole by the sea. We will discuss each of these pieces of evidence in greater detail within Part 2, Chapters 5–10.

Many skeptics are on record declaring that Atlantis was never real. How they can make such a bald claim is indeed surprising for there is nothing in their arguments to prove their claim. Yet, they act as though the science in the matter is already settled. As we will see later, every one of their claims are supported only by logical fallacies. In other words, their arguments are suggestive, but far from conclusive. Their arguments remain sloppy and weak in the extreme. We will examine their logical failures briefly in Chapter 3 and more closely in Chapter 11.

With this discussion of skeptical failures, we will take a short detour, in Chapter 12, to examine with greater clarity the very nature of science’s primary, but flawed, paradigm. That such a paradigm can remain flawed for as long as it has, reveals a tragic weakness in the critical thinking of all of humanity. Intelligence alone cannot solve such problems.

In Part 4, we dig into the geology of Atlantis, looking first at how plate tectonics works, and then what likely led up to the formation of Atlantis, as Africa collided with Eurasia, 40–55 million years ago. We look at how Atlantis may have grown in size, ultimately choking off the opening to the Mediterranean, creating the Messinian Salinity Crisis nearly 6 million years ago. And then, we look in detail at the nature of the final destruction of Plato’s Atlantis. In the process, we discover that climate change may have played a major role in that destruction. Finally, we look at the actual science, in Chapter 17, to see if there is any evidence of the events contained in this geological hypothesis.

In Part 5, we dive into the evidence found in other fields which supports the thesis that Atlantis was a real place. This part includes warnings about evidence, and then data from archaeology, linguistics, physical anthropology, cultural anthropology and how Plato ironically got so much right that is presently supported by modern science—things about which he could never have known.

The hypothetical children of Atlantis provide us with the topic of Part 6, looking first at Plato’s description of the Atlantean colonies, then discussing the possible refugees of that lost island. Finally, we look at the notion of prehistoric technology and the primitive awe it would inevitably have caused.

And in Part 7, we present the Mission in its 3 phases—various levels of investigation with the objective to prove or disprove Atlantis once and for all.

In an Afterword, we offer a warning to science about its many failures and how it can mature further as a civilizing force. No longer should science suffer the ignominy of Clovis-First-like dogma. No longer should science suffer the outrageously political oxymorons of settled science and scientific consensus found these days parading as climate science.

Throughout this work, the author has struggled to remain objective about the topic. Again, every author has their own biases, but part of the writer’s job is to neutralize those biases as much as possible with restraint and humility. All constructive criticism is welcome. Facts and not emotion will improve the arguments made in this work. Logic and critical thinking will help us fulfill our Mission: Atlantis—to prove the existence of Plato’s lost island empire, or to settle once and for all that it never existed. Either way, this mission will exercise our creative and critical thinking abilities toward greater maturity. For if Atlantis ever did exist, its people and their dreams must never be forgotten. We should hope that some future civilization would do as much for us.

Note: Throughout this book, references to Plato’s Timaeus and Critias frequently come with parenthetical or bracketed numbers. The parenthetical numbers are the page numbers of the Stephanus edition, 1578. Most quotations are from the Jowett translation (see Appendix for a copy of the Atlantis portions of both dialogues).

~~~<>~~~

Part 1: Plato’s Lost Island Empire

CRITIAS: [speaking of the old priest’s words to Solon] ... ‘Our records tell how your city checked a great power which arrogantly advanced from its base in the Atlantic ocean to attack the cities of Europe and Asia.’

Timaeus [24], Plato, translation by Sir Desmond Lee

~~~<>~~~

Chapter 1—Plato’s Facts

We don’t have an exact date for Plato’s writing on the subject, but some experts have pegged both Timaeus and the incomplete dialogue, Critias, to approximately 360–350 BC. Translator, Sir Desmond Lee places the event of the dialogue itself, if it really took place at all, at about 425 BC. Some have even placed the event of the dialogue at about 417 BC, when Plato (427–347 BC) was only 10 years of age, and old enough to have overheard the conversation.

The dialogue supposedly took place between Socrates, Timaeus of Locri (southern Italy), Critias (Plato’s maternal great grandfather) and Hermocrates (Syracusan soldier and statesman).

Figure 1.1—Part of the fresco known as The School of Athens. Plato holds Timaeus, while Aristotle, his most famous student, holds his own Nicomachean Ethics. Painting (1511, detail): Italian artist, Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino, also known as Raphael (1483–1520).

In Timaeus, Critias describes the great lawgiver, Solon, as a relation and close friend of Dropides, great-grandfather of the speaker. Solon told the story of Atlantis to Dropides, who later told it to his son, also named Critias. And Critias, the grandfather, late in his life, told the story to Critias the younger. The required timeline for this to have happened is at least plausible—spanning close to two centuries of ancient Greek history.

After a bit of preamble, wherein the four men discuss the nature of their upcoming discussion, Critias is coaxed to repeat a story he had mentioned the day before so that Socrates may know of it. Critias tells them, 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.

This is a tale which had passed into oblivion through the lapse of time and the destruction of mankind, about a former version of Athens.

Socrates is most intrigued and wants to know more about this tale which is not a mere legend, but an actual fact.

When Critias, our speaker was only about ten, he heard from the elder Critias, age nearly ninety, that Solon would have been every bit as famous as the poets Homer or Hesiod had he only completed the tale which he brought with him from Egypt.

The elder Critias had described the tale as the greatest action which the Athenians ever did.

Saïs was the name of the city and district of Egypt, in the Nile Delta from which the tale originated. This had been a capital of Egypt from which King Amasis came—a time during the 26th Dynasty. The legendary founder of that city was the goddess Neith—according to them, the same as the Greek goddess Athena. Because of this, the people of Saïs were great lovers of the Athenians.

The people warmly received Solon, who had been on vacation from his home in Athens. The Greek statesman had issued some unpopular laws and he did not want to give his fellow citizens the opportunity to argue against him and his decision to issue those laws.

Solon asked the priests of Saïs to tell him of antiquity. To help coax them, Solon mentioned the oldest known traditions of the Athenians—Phoroneus, Niobe, and the survival of Deucalion and Pyrrha. From these, he attempted to derive a timeline of Greek ancestry.

One old priest told him that the Greeks were only children without a truly old history. He said that there have been many destructions of mankind arising out of many causes; the greatest have been brought about by the agencies of fire and water, and other lesser ones by innumerable other causes. He told Solon that the Egyptians have the oldest traditions. The Greek had recounted only one deluge; the priest said that there had been many earlier deluges. The greatest of those floods had destroyed another city which resided where Athens is today. In fact, the citizens of present Athens are descended from the few survivors of that great flood. Because of the destruction, no one there had the skills to record what had happened.

The goddess Athena had founded the older Athens a thousand years before she founded the Egyptian city of Saïs, and the Nile Delta capital was at the time 8,000 years old.

Greater than any other deed, the prehistoric Athens had fought bravely against an invader from the West. That invader was Atlantis. That belligerent nation was determined to take all of Europe and Asia. Prehistoric Athens put an end to their conquest.

The forces of Atlantis came out of the Atlantic Ocean, from an island in front of the Pillars of Heracles (Strait of Gibraltar).

Larger than Libya and Asia put together, Atlantis was on the way to other islands set before the opposite continent. He called the Atlantic the true ocean, and the Mediterranean Sea merely a harbour having a narrow entrance.

Atlantis island contained a great and wonderful empire which ruled over the entire island and several others, as well as parts of the Eurasian continent as well as Libya (coastal North Africa). From Gibraltar, Atlantis ruled up to Egypt in Africa and up to Tyrrhenia (the sea west of Italy) in Europe.

After the Athenians had repulsed the forces of Atlantis, there were violent earthquakes and floods. In a single day and night, Athens sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea.

In Plato’s dialogue, Critias, Critias refreshes his tale of Atlantis, reminding us that by Solon’s hearing of the tale, 9,000 years had elapsed from the war between Atlantis and the prior incarnation of Athens. Atlantis was an island greater in extent than Libya (coastal North Africa, or sometimes all of Africa, except Egypt) and Asia (Anatolia, or most of modern Turkey) which later sank by an earthquake, becoming an impassable barrier of mud.

Hephaestus (Roman Vulcan) and Athena (Roman Minerva), brother and sister, god and goddess, governed the lands of ancient Greece during the time of Atlantis. Only the men of the mountains survived the destruction, and they lacked the art of writing.

Critias informed his audience that the lands of Greece in his time are remaining only the bones of the wasted body. He also stated that, before the destruction, abundant rains had been captured by the rich soil.

In a single night of excessive rain, the rich soil of the ancient Greek homeland had been washed away and laid bare the rock. A great flood swept over the land which Critias described as the third before the great destruction of Deucalion.

Critias told his listeners that his tale uses Greek names for the foreigners of the story. This is merely the translation of Atlantean names into Egyptian and finally into Greek, based on their meanings.

Poseidon ruled over Atlantis. The sea god fell in love with Cleito, daughter of Evenor and Leucippe. Around the hill where she lived, Poseidon created three circles of sea and two of land. With his godly powers, the central island was given a warm spring and one of cold water. The couple had five pairs of twin male children. The first-born of the eldest pair was made king over the entire land with his capital on the island within the concentric rings, plus the surrounding fertile plain. The other nine children were made princes to rule over the rest of the island.

The first king was named Atlas. From him, the island and the surrounding ocean were named Atlantic. Atlas’s twin brother was given the portion of Atlantis nearest to the great continent, close to the Pillars of Heracles and facing the region of what is now Spain which was called, in the day of Plato, Gades or Gadira.

King Atlas and his descendents were far wealthier than any other king or emperor to follow, with riches not only from their homeland, but also from around the world.

The land was rich with minerals, including gold and something called orichalcum. It was also rich with wood, wild and tame animals—including elephants—all manner of plants for food, drink and medicine.

Early on, the kings built bridges across the concentric waters, joining the palace island with the rest of the surrounding land. They also built a canal, 300 feet wide, and 100 feet deep, and 50 stadia in length—to connect the rings of water with the outer ocean. Please note that the Ancient Greek measurement, stadion (or stadium) was equivalent to 184.9 meters or 202.2 yards.

Concerning the concentric rings of land and water, the outer ring of water and first ring of land were three stadia in breadth. The next two rings—one of water and one of land—were two stadia in breadth. The final circle of water was one stadion in width, while the central, palace island was five stadia in diameter.

The bridges were one-sixth of a stadion wide, with towers and gates. Three kinds of stone were used—white, red and black.

The wall surrounding the outermost zone was covered in brass. The next wall was covered with tin. Finally, the third zone, which surrounded the palace citadel, was said to have flashed with the red light of orichalcum. Only one metallic element has a reddish color—copper. The Greeks knew about copper. But there may have been some copper alloys which were also of a reddish color.

Throughout most of the land, tall mountains came down to the sea. Surrounding the capital city stood a level plain which was itself surrounded by mountains on three sides. The plain was oblong in shape, 3,000 by 2,000 stadia, on the south-facing side of the island.

The surrounding mountains were tall and numerous, sheltering many wealthy and country folk. Numerous rivers and lakes gave the land an abundance of water.

A ditch, 100 feet deep and one stadion wide surrounded the fertile plain, fed by the streams which came down from the mountains. Canals crossed the plain 100 stadia apart, each 100 feet wide. These canals were used for transport of wood and produce.

Early in the history of Atlantis, the rulers and their subjects were full of virtue and cared little for material things. But as the ages progressed, the people began to lose their virtue. Zeus, seeing their growing wickedness, sought to punish them so that they could become humbled and improved.

Plato doesn’t tell us anything about the people of Atlantis after the destruction, but we can guess (create a hypothesis) that a few were able to escape the destruction, becoming refugees either in Europe, America or both.

Atlantis: Location

The list of locations people have chosen for Atlantis is longer than most shopping lists. This is what happens when people take a few clues and ignore the rest. This is called cherry picking—a common logical fallacy. If we were to take the detail of circular land amongst water ways and the fact that Atlantis sank into the Atlantic Ocean, then, while standing on the Atlantic coast of Europe, we might claim that the Moon is Atlantis, for it has circular craters surrounded by lunar mare (seas), and once every day, the Moon sinks into the Atlantic from that vantage point.

No, the Moon is not Atlantis. And neither are any of the dozens of other locations others have chosen for Plato’s lost island empire. If Atlantis existed, then we have to take Plato at his word. If Atlantis did not exist as Plato described it, then there may be other locations that inspired the Atlantis story, but they would still not be Atlantis. They would merely and only be inspiration for Atlantis. We have a very specific definition for the term Atlantis and it came from Plato. Anything that does not follow that definition may be similar in some ways, but dissimilar in other ways—much as a dog is not a human, but they’re both mammals.

There are numerous geological anomalies right where Atlantis supposedly stood. These anomalies suggest atypical damage to the tectonic plate boundary between the Africa, to the south, and the Eurasia, to the north. The type of damage is what interests us. The pattern and placement of the damage may tell us a sequential story of island building, enlargement, weakening and eventual collapse.

This location is ripe for the Atlantis story—a nightmare story of the ground falling out from under a civilization that had thought itself to be indestructible. From this location, equally nightmarish waves rose into the sky—a mega-tsunami the likes of which Earth had not seen in more than 65 million years, when the non-avian dinosaurs found a hole punched through their reality, ending their 135-million-year reign.

If Atlantis existed and it had some kind of technology, then it would have had a profound effect on the surrounding peoples and cultures. If, as Plato claims, Atlantis had colonies within the Mediterranean, or as we might surmise, across the Great Ocean of Atlantis in the Caribbean and continents of America, then we may find evidence of either those colonies or clues that the children of Atlantis had left nearby as sea levels continued to rise from post-glacial melt. Some of these colonial locations are inextricably connected to Atlantis. So, while other researchers claim that Atlantis was in the Bahamas, at Sardinia, Santorini or Malta, they may not be entirely wrong. The homeland wasn’t there, but the children and grandchildren of Atlantis may well have lived there. So, Malta, Sardinia, the North African coast and other locations around the western Mediterranean, may well contain many exciting secrets yet to be uncovered.

Continental shelves may contain numerous archaeological treasure troves. The fact that they are covered by water, now, does not make them Atlantis. They were covered very slowly—not in one day and a night as Plato had described. Each continental shelf location, from Ireland to Indonesia may contain many fascinating discoveries, but they are not Atlantis, despite the claims of enthusiastic researchers.

Nearly a decade ago, I created a video for YouTube on why the Philippines will not become the next Atlantis. I found it incredible the number of people who misunderstood the meaning of the video’s title, but in two completely opposite ways. For some, I was supposedly saying that the Philippines is Atlantis. It isn’t. Others thought I was predicting that the Philippines would suffer a tragic inundation. For several visitors I had to calm down their sudden panic. Both groups of people missed critical details in a simple one-line statement and video title. My video was comparing the Philippines with Atlantis. I was showing how the Philippines is safe, because the geological conditions which sank Atlantis do not exist in the Philippines.

The location Plato chose for the lost island has plenty of evidence in support of the Atlantis story. We will dig into these details in Part 4, The Geology of Atlantis. We will also discover how Plato was incredibly right about a great many things that we have only recently corroborated. We will discuss these facts in Chapter 23, How Plato Got it Right.

So, Where was Atlantis?

Atlantis was not Malta, Thera, Crete, Cyprus, Scandinavia, Peru, Antarctica, Indonesia, or any one of more than a dozen other proposed locations for the fabled lost island. So where was it?

Plato described the location of Atlantis several times in his dialogues. He said that Atlantis lay beyond the Pillars of Hercules (Strait of Gibraltar). This would seem to exclude Malta, Crete, Thera (Santorini) and Cyprus. This description, by itself, is nebulous enough to include most of the world. However, Plato offers other clues that constrain the definition of the island’s location.

Plato said that Atlantis was in the Atlantic Ocean, not the small lake known as the Mediterranean. This would exclude Peru, Indonesia, Antarctica and all other locations not in the Atlantic Ocean.

Atlantis is described as an island, so this excludes Scandinavia, the Sahara, the continental shelf south of Ireland and the North Sea (Doggerland).

In his dialogue, Critias, Plato states that the nearest portion of Atlantis faced a region known as Gadira (from Phoenician, Gadir). This is a region in southwestern Spain known by the modern name, Cádiz.

Gadir was a Phoenician name, meaning wall, compound or walled stronghold. The Carthaginian Phoenicians ruled this territory at the time of Plato. The town founded there was called, Gadir, and was started somewhere between 1100 BC and 700 BC. Later, as a part of Roman territory, the city was called Gades, and as a Moorish city, it was Qādis. Today, Cádiz, Spain is said to be the oldest European city on the Atlantic coast.

Facing Gadira is not a very precise phrase, but it suggests that a portion of Atlantis was relatively close to southern Spain (see Appendix, Notes, Facing Gadira).

So, Atlantis stretched from near Cádiz into the Atlantic Ocean. But how far? To get an idea of this, we need to know the size of Atlantis.

The Size of Atlantis

Plato’s size for Atlantis is less clear—the size of Libya and Asia combined. To Plato, Libya meant all that was known of Africa, excluding Egypt. Asia meant Asia Minor—most of the modern country of Turkey—what the ancients also called Anatolia.

How far from the North African coast did Plato’s Libya extend? Certainly there was no specific boundary. Likely, it did not include much of the empty Sahara Desert, though some uses of Libya included all of non-Egyptian Africa to approximately the equator. For our discussion, we will use the more conservative size of Libya. At a rough estimate, it would seem Atlantis was between one and three times the size of Texas (the largest state of the contiguous United States)—perhaps the size of Greenland.

Combining this estimate of size with the details of location, Atlantis could have stretched from near the Strait of Gibraltar to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The fictional map, below, shows one possibility that fits the criteria mentioned in Plato’s dialogues. Also, refer to the Appendix, Notes for a different version of what might have been. And, for details on how we arrived at our nominal size for Atlantis (the size of Greenland), see Appendix, Methodologies.

Figure 1.2—An artist’s hypothetical map of Atlantis, eastern North America and western Europe. Even if Atlantis existed, this map is largely speculation, but based on Plato’s description and the underlying geology of the region. The size shown here is close to our minimum estimate for the island’s extent (see Appendix, Methodologies, for details). Copyright © Rod Martin, Jr.

Location: Overview

Before we dig deeper into the details of specific locations, let us consider a list of the criteria by which we will judge each location.

Again, either we follow Plato’s definition of Atlantis, or we consider Atlantis to have been entirely fictitious, or that a location and event later inspired Plato’s story. For this exercise, we will take the details of the Greek philosopher’s dialogues as literal, except for those items of fact that are subject to a fair degree of literary license—a license which we will discuss in the next chapter.

The popular locations we will consider are in the following list, ordered by the estimated probability based on the criteria we will discuss in a moment.

Plate Boundary—Africa-Eurasia Tectonic Plate Boundary in NE Atlantic. From near Gibraltar to the Azores

MAR—Mid-Atlantic Ridge and Azores

Ireland—Continental Shelf

America

Bahamas

Spartel Island

Indonesia

Doggerland—North Sea, Continental Shelf

Richat Structure—Sahara, Mauritania

Sardinia

Malta

Minoan—Santorini (Thera) and Crete (Minoan Hypothesis).

Antarctica

The Criteria

Each of the above locations will be measured against the following decisive criteria:

An island—This is such a simple fact, but so many ignore it, claiming that Atlantis is a continent (America, Antarctica, or was a continent between North America and Europe) or is a part of an existing continent (southwest Spain, Sweden, Irish continental shelf, Doggerland, Indonesia, Richat structure or others). (Timaeus [24–25], Critias [108])

Large, comparable to the magnitude in size of Greenland—Ancient Libya and Asia Minor, combined (Timaeus [24], Critias [108]). So many ignore this one, too, perhaps thinking of the inspiration-of-Atlantis angle, rather than the actual Atlantis. Thank goodness large areas don’t often collapse into the sea as Atlantis supposedly did, but its rarity does not make it an impossibility. Our nominal estimate for the size of Atlantis is that of Greenland—2,166,000 square kilometers.

In the Atlantic Ocean(Timaeus [24]). There are several places in Plato’s dialogues where his statements strongly imply that Atlantis was in the Atlantic, but in Timaeus (24) he states it explicitly.

Opposite the Pillars of Herakles (Strait of Gibraltar) (Timaeus [24]). The Pillars of Herakles at the western end of the Mediterranean were widely known, and today they are called the Strait of Gibraltar. Any other hypothetical location for these pillars are known only in their hypothesis (and in the minds of some theorists)—absolutely no known supporting evidence. It is highly unlikely that Plato would refer to an obscure or fictitious Pillars of Herakles at some other location, when the one widely known location would come to mind without the proper qualification to correct an inevitable misunderstanding. This would be like someone asking that their friend meet them in New York, without telling them that they meant New York, Texas, population 20.

Not in the Mediterranean(Timaeus [25]). There are several passages that strongly imply that Atlantis was not in the sea most familiar to western civilization of the ancient world. In fact, to disabuse others of any misunderstanding, Plato’s Egyptian priest went to extra effort to clarify that the Mediterranean is like a small lake, bay or harbor with a narrow entrance (Strait of Gibraltar) and that Atlantis once existed in that far larger body of water which stands between the Old World continents and the unnamed continent (America) on the other side.

On the way to the opposite continent(Timaeus [25]). Plato makes it clear that Atlantis is in the Atlantic Ocean, and that, when you are on that island, you are closer to the continent on the opposite side of the Great Ocean—the Atlantic. Places like Indonesia cannot fit this criterion because it is not between Europe and North America. Indonesia is not close enough to manage colonies in the western Mediterranean and in islands of the opposing continent.

Controlled within the strait (Gibraltar), Europe, up to Tyrrhenia, and in Africa, up to the borders of Egypt, and controlled islands on the other side of the Atlantis Ocean. This control radiated from somewhere beyond the strait so that it included all of the western Mediterranean and only a portion of the eastern Mediterranean (Timaeus [25], Critias [114]). The pattern of colonial control radiates from the western Mediterranean or from someplace beyond that region, thus locations like Sardinia, Malta and Thera contradict this pattern to various degrees. This argument especially condemns Thera, because it resides outside of the range of colonies—not within them. The northeast Atlantic, plate boundary location is squarely between the Mediterranean and American colonies.

An island which sank(Timaeus [25]). When anyone mentions the name Atlantis, it conjures up one popular image. The name is a metaphor for lands sunken into the sea. So, why is it that so many people include lands which did not sink? Some who point out that the Azores have not sunk (referring to the Plate Boundary and MAR hypotheses) forget that the Azores archipelago is only a tiny fraction of the island that would have been Atlantis—less than 1%. Anyone who might claim that Atlantis did not sink because the Azores did not, are making an error in relative size. It’s like if the contiguous (48) states of America suddenly sank, all except tiny Connecticut, and then someone said America did not sink, because Connecticut still persists above water. But while Connecticut would have had useful real estate before such an inundation, the tops of tall mountain peaks which became the Azores would not have been so valuable. When a ship sinks and all that remains above water are the tops of its masts, we cannot say that the ship did not sink. This should be painfully obvious, but some people can’t see the simple reality.

9,000 years elapsed(Timaeus [25], Critias [108, 111]). Roughly 9,000 years elapsed between the inundation of Atlantis and Solon’s conversation with the Egyptian priest. For those lands which have not sunk, this would not apply. This would also not apply to most lands which did sink more slowly from rising sea levels (Irish continental shelf, Doggerland, Indonesian continental shelf).

Facing Gades (Jowett trans.) or Gadira (Lee trans.) (modern Cádiz, Spain) (Critias [114]). This is one of the more specific details that is not up for variable interpretation. This forces Atlantis to have been in the Atlantic, close to southwest Spain and outside the widely known Pillars of Herakles.

Fertile plain (555 km by 370 km), surrounded by very tall mountains on the West, North and East (Critias [118]). This means that during the Younger Dryas (10,900–9620 BC), the land was fed by streams from tall, nearby mountains so that agricultural output was abundant. Malta, Thera and Sardinia are not large enough to have a plain this size with countless miles of large mountains nearby, feeding it life-affirming water. This plain was roughly 9.5% of Atlantean land area, based on our nominal estimate for the size of Atlantis (see Appendix, Methodologies, Size of Atlantis).

Mountains—...more numerous, higher and more beautiful than any which exist today (Critias [118]). This statement likely does not include the Himalayas or the Andes, but it is also possible that, if Atlantis existed, its mountains were taller and more beautiful than even the peaks at those exotic locations (see Appendix, Methodologies, Rate of Tectonic Growth).

Fruit and drink—(Critias [115]). Some have guessed that the fruits described were tropical, like bananas and coconuts.

Elephants.—Said by Plato to have been numerous (Critias [114]). This has always been a problem for me. How did such large beasts get to Atlantis—an island. In Chapter 15, we will learn of one possibility that occurred over 5 million years ago, that could have allowed dozens of large species direct access to Atlantis. This access may have persisted for the better part of 600,000 years.

Some of the criteria are mutually supportive. For instance, the size of the fertile plain surrounded on three sides by large mountains suggests that the size criterion, comparable to Greenland, is accurate. The fact that Atlantis faced Gadira (Gades), plus the nature of the Azores underwater plateau, also support this magnitude of island size. The fact that Atlantis completely controlled the western Mediterranean and only part of the eastern Mediterranean also suggests that the homeland was near the Strait of Gibraltar at the far western end of the Mediterranean. This kind of cross-confirmation eliminates many of the attempts by others to suggest that Plato meant something else. Adherents of the Minoan Hypothesis (to be discussed in detail, shortly)