| Website |  Facebook |  Twitter |  LinkedIn |  Google+ |  Amazon |  

Prolegomena to scientific history of Atlantis

Paleogeographic reconstruction of the Atlantis Island, according to the description of the Egyptian priests, recorded by Plato through the notes that his uncle-penta-grandfather Solon had brought from Egypt. The actual islands of the Canaries and Madeira, and the big banks and seamounts surrounding these, could have been part of the mountainous regions of Atlantis before great geological subsidence caused by a big sísmical-tsunamic and tectonic catastrophe. The mountains of the Canaries and Madeira islands today, would have been above sea-level actual, at least one thousand meters above, thus being the highest mountains of the ancient world known by the Greeks and Egyptians. This is the first hypothesis of Georgeos.Díaz-Montexano. In this picture can see the second hypothesis of author, based on the maximum dimension that may have had the island Atlantis, assuming that each region of the island was almost the same size as the main region of King Atlas. Surprisingly, the form is quite corresponds to that shown in the oldest Egyptian maps of the island of paradisiacal regions of the West, located before a strait on the Big Blue-Green Sea, with cold waters, whose width and length, did not know neither even Osiris, that is, the Atlantic Ocean.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation surrounding the history of Atlantis, as described by Plato and other ancient authors (even those not related to Plato). Much of what has been written about it has been false and it has been used by both sides of the two competing positions: Those who defend the possibility of a historical substrate and its detractors. Like everything else in life, what makes the difference between truthful information and misinformation that generates confusion is an adequate quality of information, that must be complete, well documented and, above all, verifiable. It is impossible to pontificate against any historical feasibility related to the story brought by Solon from Egypt without having studied first all the existing primary sources. Skeptical critics reject any historical possibility, they do not allow the slightest chance to the existence of an important city during the Bronze Age somewhere in the Atlantic, near the coasts of Iberia, Morocco the Canary Islands and Madeira.

But the truth is, (as it can be easily verified), that the largest study ever published about Atlantology is the study I have been conducting for about twenty years – as regards to size, quality of references and primary sources-. It is the only research where all primary sources have been included, more than five hundred (codices, papyrus, manuscripts, maps, reliefs and paintings in tombs and temples)1 . My study includes a series of volumes about historical-scientific Atlantology, an epitome of it being recently published in two volumes. Although I might sound pretentious by saying so, to be perfectly honest, I should put forward the fact that without reading the aforementioned volumes (762 pages) it is impossible to admonish against everything related to Atlantis, pontificating it is only a mere fable made up by Plato or Solon, just a tale heard by them from some drunken seamen at a port tavern, when no underwater exploration has been carried out yet around the locations specified by me after having worked with all the existing primary written sources and all the archeological and seismological evidence that I have been gathering all this time.

This fallacious argument has been refuted by me before, just proving that other authors – independent authors, of course- also consulted Egyptian sources and corroborated the same Egyptian story, and how Solon was retelling it, as it is authenticated by the well-known historian Plutarch of Chaeronea, who carried out his own inquiries among Egyptian priests, or by Crantor, the reputable Greek philosopher, who verified the existence of engravings with the same story about the Atlantis war as the one we find in The Critias. Therefore, if it was really untrue, if somebody came up with a tale about Atlantis, it would have not been Plato or Solon, but, in any case, the Egyptian priests themselves who had told the story to the Greek legislator, those same priests who had told Plutarch about it. He even revealed their names: Sonjis of Sais and Psefonis of Heliopolis, who were considered the wiser men of its time, according to Plutarch. Consequently, Solon sources were not just a few drunken seamen at a tavern, as Mr. Juan Antonio Morales, geologist from the University of Huelva, supports, as he has not taken into account historians such as Plutarch, Marcellus, nor Crantor, who confirms the existence of Egyptian stelae with reliefs and paintings depicting Atlantis story. He also fails to take into account the Egyptian priests themselves who talked to Solon, Sonjis of Sais and Psenofis of Heliopolis, whose names we know through the verification made by Plutarch with Egyptian archives, nor he acknowledge other Egyptian authorities’ names like Patheneit, Ojaapis or Eutemo as Solon sources, according to the famed Proclus. However, it is curious that we find no seamen names, drunken or not. But even if we accept the “drunken seamen” hypothesis raised by Mr. Morales, we should also assume that these same priests (or some others we have not heard from) were going to devise the same writings about Atlantis as Crantor could confirm in Egypt not long after Plato’s death. It would be equally absurd to accuse Crantor, Plato or Solon of being simply liars (without any documentary basis). Crantor’s fides atque auctoritas, his prestige, his code of ethics and his moral values were highly praised and regarded by several ancient authors who were considered as great authorities2.

There is no reason to believe that Crantor had made it up and that the epigraphic testimonies about Atlantis that come from Egyptian sources are not true, even though he himself could verify them. If you want to believe in such an aberrant speculation, based on groundless assumptions, be conscious that there will be no proof of it by no means, unless there were a time machine to be transported back to the exact moment when Crantor went to Egypt, to check if he really saw those inscriptions that served to attest the story retold in the Critias Dialogue or The Atlantic. Because, certainly, the lack of evidence wouldn’t be proof that no such evidence exists, scientifically speaking.

The only way it could be categorically stated that Atlantis was a mere tale made up by Egyptian priests would be exploring every corner under the Atlantic Ocean, specially the area I specifically indicate as the place where Atlantis was located according to the ancient sources, and finding nothing that could support this theory. But it turns out that Atlantis has been searched almost everywhere in the world except where I have been claiming it should be sought for years: Around the area of Gibraltar, Morocco, Madeira and the Canary Islands.

After this unsuccessful search that could give some kind of support to the story of Atlantis, but only after doing it, it could be it could be established that this story is not true. Only then it could be said, deemed and published everywhere, and it could be officially announced. Only then it could be said that Atlantis never existed, at least it did not exist where Plato and the ancient authors said it was located, according to Solon and the Egyptian sources. Also, it could be said that it was just a tale made up by Egyptian priests, in case someone wants further conclusions coming from these negative archeological results. But until then, everything said in favor or against the existence of Atlantis are just conjectures.

About the possible Egyptian sources of Atlantis history

The research I have been conducting for the last two decades have allowed me to determine the existence of substantial traces and growing evidence that suggests the existence of Egyptian tradition on an island located in the Occident, at the Vast bluegreen sea of cold waters (Atlantic Ocean),3 which was called the "Isle of Gods", the island of primeval gods, and according to what I have

found written about it, it would be the same island that Solon translated from Greek as “Atlantis Island”. I could also establish that all this evidence arise from a particular period, at the dawn of the so called Second Intermediate Period of Egypt.

The first eight maps were created around this period, at the end of Eleventh Dynasty until mid-Twelfth Dynasty, (one of them drawn on papyrus and the rest in sarcophagi and coffins). All of them were created by members of some sort of elite who lived at the well-known city Hermopolis, city of Hermes or Thot, god of the Writing and Science.

Apparently these persons were related between them, they even have family ties, as can be deduced by their names and by the way their tombs were placed on the same plot, coupled together or very close to each other. This elite or family group was composed of physicians, scientists, scribes, draftsmen and even a general or “army chief”, and they lived as civil servants under the reign of Mentuhotep IV (dynasty XI), Amenenhat I and II and the three pharaohs belonging to the famous lineage of Sesostris (Dynasty XII), that is, approximately between 1991 BC and 1843 BC, just when the Argaric Bronze Civilization and Atlantis Bronze was growing steadily in Iberia, and when the Minoan Civilization proliferated around the Aegean sea, namely at the so called Medium Minoan Period, the Minoan Palatial Period or Proto-palatial Period.

This period of ancient Egypt, also known as the Middle Kingdom, occurs on the verge of the Second Intermediate Period and, for me, it has become the most important period of Egyptian history; Not because of its architectural monuments, but because of the quality and novelty of its literary texts, as it is during this period that the best samples of Egyptian literature appear, in all its forms, from mythological or magical-religious texts, to poetry, fiction and even philosophy. Differences aside, this Egyptian period reminds me of the European Renaissance.

I have managed to determine not only that these were the first real Egyptian maps ever made, and consequently, when Egyptian cartography was truly born, but also that these maps already show the paradisiacal spots along the far Occident, the location of the Isle of gods directly in front of a narrow entrance (Gibraltar) in the “vast bluegreen sea of cold waters whose overall length and width was unkown even to Osiris” as we can read in the texts accompanying the description of this Isle of gods.

At any rate, these observations about the length or width of the vast blue sea of cold waters, or bluegreenish sea, pointing out that Osiris didn’t even know it, were a clear way to describe the immensity of the ocean, and allow us to disregard the Mediterranean Sea or the Red Sea (Egyptians knew the limits of those seas quite well), and even less the Nile River, as Egyptologists keep thinking, without attaching importance to its vastness, its color nor its coldness, or the fact that it is explicitly mentioned the fact that those places were in The Occident.

As I was saying, they are not only the first maps created in Ancient Egypt, but these first maps show, “coincidentally”, those remote areas in the Atlantic Ocean – as I consider it- in front of Gibraltar, and the Isle of gods with its “Water Throne City” (Spania o Spaniu) or “The city of the throne whose god makes the sky or the sun rise up”, that is, Schu,4 Atlas for the Greeks. And this isle is located in front of the mouth of this narrow entrance that would be the same as the mouth of the Mediterranean, The Pillars of Heracles (Gibraltar), where the island of Atlantis was, according to the Timaeus and The Critias.

Therefore there is no better hypothesis than this one I defend, which describes that Atlantis would be then this Isle of gods, named that way in those maps because it was where the first deities were born, the so called Primeval deities or primordial gods, including the first one, Atum (also known as Atum-Ra), who created himself on an island that had emerged, according to Egyptian tradition, as the first primal or primordial land in that Primeval Ocean (Nun). Atum came into being in that Primeval isle, the Isle of Gods, and once there, he gave birth to his first set of twins, Schu (Greek’s Atlas) and Tefnut (his sister), which reminds me of the description in The Critias: Poseidon engendered the twins Atlas (the Greek equivalent of Schu) and Gadeiros (Eumelus according to Solon’s Greek translation). After that, four more pairs of twins are named, so there are five sets of twins in all, who correspond quite well to the succession of primeval deities from the first pair of twins: Schu and Tefnut, followed by Gueb and Nut, Isis and Neftis, Osiris and Seth, and finally, Hor-Ur or Haroueris (Horus The Elder) and Horus, thus, five sets, where at least Schu and Tefnut and Isis and Neftis, and possibly both Horus (The Elder and the Younger) were twins too, hence the distinction between one Elder and another Younger.

On the other hand, I also discovered that the largest corpus of magical and religious texts since the times of the pyramids were created on the same period, when the first maps were drawn, during the V and VI Dynasty.

The Middle Empire corpus, known as Sarcophagus or Coffins Texts, incorporates many passages from the "Pyramids Texts", but it also provides numerous spells and new passages, hitherto unknown, and these include spells related to these eight primeval maps with its paradisiac regions of the Underworld in the West, and the Isle of Gods in the Vast Blue-green Sea of cold waters.

Those ancient Greek authors place the origin or cradle of the deities there - undoubtedly through Egyptian influence-. And the tradition of the fertile and paradisiacal land in the Occident –Iberia included- lasted until the times of Arab influence. In fact, the Isle of Andlus or Andlos5 (Yazirat al Andlush), as the Islamic authors used to call Spain, was reckoned a true paradise.

To cite briefly an illustrative example, here are these lines from a poem by the great Ibn Khafaja of Alcira (1058-1138) which came to be considered heretic by the Marinid sultan Abu Inan Faris (1349-1357):

¡Oh inhabitants of Hispania how fortunate you are:

Water, shade, rivers and trees.

Eternal Paradise is only in your country;

If I could choose, I would choose it.

Do not fear to enter hell, since that is not possible

After having been in Paradise!

Certainly, Iberia was known by Arabic writers as Yazirat al-Andlush, Isle of Andlus or Andlos. Other writers said that Andlus or «Andalos» was Atlas or Atlante, descendant of Japhet or Japeto. According to Attabari, within Yazirat al-Andlush there had been “a city surrounded by a golden brass wall”, which reminds of the metropolis of Atlantis, surrounded by a wall covered with the mysterious orichalcum described by Plato, conforming to the notes Solon brought from Egypt, which might well be a sort of golden brass.

About the former inhabitants of Iberia during the antediluvian times, prior to the Iron Age, called Andalish or Andlish, we have revealing testimonies. The Muslim medieval chronicler Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Razi (887 - 955 AD), conveys an important datum:

According to the so called Wise men of Spain (that is, the most learned Hispanic authors) al-Andalish, or Atlanteans themselves,6 were antediluvian magicians, fire worshippers, who dominated Iberia before the Phoenicians, and they populated Al-Andlush, Yazirat al-Andlush, Andlush or the Isle of Andlus, that is, the Isle of Atlas or Atlante, after the Great Universal Deluge7.

Ibn ʻIdhârî (al-Marrâkushî) says: “And it is known that the first people who arrived to this country (Iberia) after the flood was a people called al-Andlush, from whom it was named (Iberia) al-Andlus, and that these settlers were magicians”.8

It is more than evident that those antediluvian magicians called Andlush or Andlish, therefore, Andalus or Andales could be no other than the ones known by the Greek as Atlanteans- through Solon’s translation-, as Atlas or Atlante is also named in arabic texts as Andlas o Antlas. And it can also be inferred, as it is obvious, that those antediluvian Andales or Antales had their home fixed somewhere very near the Iberian Peninsula, as they populated Iberia (Yazirat al-Andlush) right after a big disaster or cataclysm. I think Atlantis was exactly there, in front of the Strait of Gibraltar, where we see the Isle of Gods represented in the West in the Egyptian maps. After this important digression, let’s go back to the point where we were before, when we were mentioning the first references about the Isle of Gods in the vast cold water sea.

As we were pointing out before, a text corpus with magical-religious texts written in Egyptian sarcophagus and coffins is found for the first time, (Middle Kingdom, Dynasties XI and XII), but also for the first time a series of plans and schematic maps appear, with details of the Afterlife including the same occidental regions and showing as precise details as the mouth and the entrance of that sea in the Occident, with the exact shape of the Gulf of Cadiz or Atlantic Gulf, located just in front of the Strait of Gibraltar, that is, a sort of big semicircle drawn in a dark color, which was called, precisely, “mouth, hall” (gulf) or “entrance to Darkness” (Occasus).

Because Egyptians, during the Middle Kingdom, thought the limit of the world was there, in this mouth of the Atlantic, where Darkness started, the Underworld or the Realm of Night, the Imy-Duat or the Duat itself, right where the Sun, Ra, sinks as Atum-Ra, (the Sun of the Night), to start then his night pilgrimage, (every night he travelled from West to East, as he had been doing since the origin of the world) where he was merged with the young Horus sun every morning.

We should not be surprised by any of this, as ancient Greeks and Romans still believed that the limit of the world, at the western end, was marked by the Gulf of Cadiz area. I ended up, through my research, finding papyrus with cryptographic texts, that is, secret or enigmatic writings (gr. κρυπτός, hidden, y -γραφία, 'writing'; Therefore, the art of writing with a secret code or enigmatically). This system was used by the Egyptians, as it has been confirmed by many studies conducted by Egyptologists, philogogists and cryptography experts.

The point is, according to these studies, the oldest examples- clearly demonstrable- of the use of cryptography by the Egyptians date from the same period, the Middle Kingdom,9 which means that we find not only the first maps and plans, that is, the first evidences of cartography and topography (even though the places represented then were fictitious, mythological or legendary, according to the Egyptologists), but also the first evidence of cryptography, the ancient art of secret messages, and some literary genres never used before. Most likely an important event happened in this period of time, between the end of Dynasty XI and the mid of Dynasty XII, at the dawn of the Second Intermediate Period of ancient Egypt.

I do not think it is a coincidence that this period overlaps in time with the war between Atlantic people (united in alliance with the Hyksso-Minoans, as I believe they were)10 and the Greeks (Mycenaean) allied with those Egyptians from the Delta area and Sais. My hypothesis is that all these new issues introduced over this period of time, these first maps and plans, and the art of cryptography, even the practice of writing hieratic, cursive or semi-cursive, from left to right, is largely due to the influence of this Atlantic and Hyksso-Minoan confederation, who had brought such issues with them in former times, before the Egyptian Empire and those final wars, where they ended up being defeated and expelled from Egypt.

Therefore, it is not a coincidence that the first maps made in Egypt represent such area, nor that it is located in the remote Occident, in the vast bluegreen sea of cold waters, nor that the Isle of Gods, the primeval isle, the first place of the primeval Egyptian deities, is just in front of a strait (which obviously corresponds to Gibraltar).

I cannot believe they are just “fortuitous coincidences” (although Egyptologists probably will not agree). On the contrary, what I see is an echo of this elite or family settled in Hermopolis between the end of the XIth Dynasty and mid Twelfth Dynasty, who had it written and drawn in their sarcophagus and coffins following their particular Egyptian beliefs, but adapted to a geographical reality: The place where they had come from, that is, the Atlantic Coast.

I do not have the slightest doubt: If a DNA test on the remains of these buried bodies in their sarcophagus was performed, the result would be that they had come from the remote Occident, and most probably from the Atlantic area, that is to say, they would probably have DNA from the people of Iberia and British Islands, Morocco and the Canary Islands, as it has already happened with the Minoan themselves before, and with the ancestors of the well- known Tutankhamun (twt-anx-imn). 11

At any rate, such tests would serve to confirm or refute this hypothesis, because in the absence of western DNA we would have no other choice but thinking that they had not been the authors of the maps, that the real authors were others whom we don’t know yet or whose evidence has not been correctly elucidated.

More recently, during the past two years, a series of very relevant discoveries for this research have occurred, discoveries that confirm some of my hypotheses. I must confess I never expected this would happen. I was convinced that it would take years, more than I could keep alive, to be able to see such precise details of my hypothesis confirmed.

I am talking about the close link between the ancient Cretans, (specially the Minoans), and Neolithic and Bronze Age population, together with some other Atlantic and Occidental regions of Europe, which was confirmed by a mitochondrial DNA test. It confirms the hypothesis I have been defending for years: That Minoans and Hykssos would be part of the Atlantic Confederation.

I must confess that even though I suspected there was a genetic linkage with Occidental people, especially with the Atlantic coasts inhabitants, I wasn’t expecting it to be positively verified, at least for many years, so I was content to defend the hypothesis of the Confederation with the Atlantics, or the Atlanteans themselves, and that they would become a part of the colonizing armies in the Eastern Mediterranean. I expose this hypothesis in my book, “Historical-Scientific Atlantis Epitome. A thalasocratic federation: Iberian, Libycus, Mauritanian and Hyksso-Minoan”, Tome II. This are some conclusions:

  1. In Tome II, Epitome of the Historical-scientific Atlantis, I show more than two hundred papyrus with the main points about the Atlantis story, which I list below: An isle whithin a “Vast sea of cold waters whose overall length and breadth was not even known by Osiris”, which was known as “The Isle of Gods” (jw nTr.w). According to Solon, it would be The Isle of Atlantis in the Vast Pontus Sea or Atlantic Pelagos.

  2. The largest city in The Isle of Gods is represented with a long water entrance that connects the city to the sea, (as Solon’s Atlantis), and this city is called “The water city with a Throne of he who rises up”, which is a clear epithet of Schu or Shu, who was described in many texts as: “He who raises the sky and also as "he who makes the sun raise”. Therefore, this water city, connected by a long channel (as Atlantis acropolis) to that "Vast bluegreen cold sea, whose overall extension was not even known by Osiris” is definitely the city of that god that raises the sky or the sun; As this deity could only be Schu himself, consequently, this would be Schu’s city of water, connected to the sea by a long channel, as Solon’s Atlantis. We already know that a Greek man like Solon would translate Schu as Atlas, due to phonetic and symbolic equivalence, being guided by the value and meaning of (ὀνομάτων δύναμιν), such as it is explained in Critias 113a-b.

  3. There are other indications in those papyri that have also been used in Solon’s story, -within the island or next to it- such as "Powerful Island" or "Isle of Battles or Wars”. We must remember that Atlantis led to a war against other nations out of their military spirit, as they were imperialist and warrior people.

  4. We also read: "Isle of the God of Water”, which would be interpreted by Solon as “Isle of the god Poseidon”.

  5. It is also read: "Isle of delicious and plentiful foods, (and the food of the gods, like Greek ambrosia), which might be read as a place where there were plenty of delicious foods, as it is described in many passages of the Critias 115a-b.

  6. Such an island is not only located in the blue-green cold sea, but in front of a narrow channel, the Pillars of Heracles, that is, Gibraltar, according to Solon or what the priests themselves told him.

  7. The island is also located in the remote Occident, in the Amenti, the realm of the dead.

  8. It is also described as the “The island of the great city of water” or "isle of the Great City of Water or between Waters”.

  9. It is also described as "Destruction Island” or “Destroyed Island", "Isle in hazardous waters”, “island in the flood” or “flooded island”, among other descriptions that match with Atlantis.

Well, there is more evidence, some of it so revealing that I would suggest it should be thoroughly analysed and considered as a primary Egyptian source of the story of Atlantis that Solon carried from Egypt to the Ancient Athens.

At any rate, such as I explain in my previous books – even in my introduction- all the paleographic and epigraphic evidence, all the references in texts and maps, could, no doubt, be part of the information pool that Solon used to draft his exordium about Atlantis, even if such sources had been simply made up by the Egyptians, without real geographical grounds.

It is not my aim to prove that Atlantis was a real island located in the Atlantic Ocean, or a powerful island with a city among waters and a great channel devoted to Schu descendants (the equivalent to Atlas) like Osiris himself, whose Sacred Throne was in the Isle of Gods, as most maps and papyri show, and as it can be deduced from these Egyptian sources, (I explain it in Tome II, Epitome of Historical-scientific Atlantis).

There are even passages in some of the papyri where this "isle of Gods” is described as “plunged” into “the waters of the flood” waters described and represented as troubled and hazardous waters in that Vast blue-green sea where the gods placed cold waters” ... My aim showing all these references is to prove that this written and cartographic evidence could have been some of the sources known by Solon that helped him to create the exordium that Plato inherited, which was a mere introduction to a more ambitious project Solon had taken upon himself: An epic work about the Atlantics against the Athenians and the Sais people, among others, as it is a little known fact, even amongst Atlantis researchers, that all we know about it –through Plato- is a simple outline, the exordium of a major Project, that Solon could not finish because he was too old and died before he could finish it, and after Plato had “embellished and redecorated it with sumptuous temples and walls”, such as Plutarch states, who was able to verify it with Egyptian sources.12

Solon’s aim was to create an epic story that could compete for greatness with Homer’s Iliad and The Odyssey, and with Hesiod’s poems, as stated in the opening of The Timoeus. “If (Solon) had finished the story he brought form Egypt, neither Hesiod, Homer nor any other poet would have been more celebrated – in my opinion- than him”.13

The notes Solon took to Athens -that exordium or introduction that served as a base to Plato – were already literary work in itself, where Solon himself would have added much of his own imagination so as to create an epic poem dedicated specially to the Athenians, and therefore, adapted to Greek literature, customs and traditions. But nevertheless, such a poem would be created from data and Egyptian sources provided by the Sais priests, and such data and references would have been shown to Solon as tradition or true story. So, basing on the foregoing (which is well explained by classical sources) I began searching, looking through Egyptian sources, those data which could have served Solon as sources for his epic literary project, and I think I had that goal more than achieved, because in the last twenty years I could bring together hundreds of pieces of evidence, more than I could have ever imagined, that point out that Solon could have known may of those references or Egyptian traditions, and how he could have been inspired by them to write his epic poem about the story of the war of the Atlanteans against the ancient Romans and Greeks, who would be the same people as the ones we nowadays know as Mycenaean.

All this regardless of the existence of a true narration based on the story outlined by Solon, which would be kept at the Egyptian priests sacred archives, as it is stated in The Timaeus, established by Plutarch in his writing about Solon, and confirmed by Crantor – according to Proclus- who affirms that certain Egyptian priests showed him inscriptions with the same story about the war against the Atlantics, and of course, there are no compelling reasons to suppose that all these reputable authors were shamelessly lying.

Finally, I believe it is more than possible that the story told to Solon in Sais by the priests as a true story based on ancient traditions – as it is stated- was really a para-historical legend of the same type as the ones in the Bible. I have no problem in accepting this possibility or hypothesis. At least, in the absence of archeological evidence indicating otherwise, I mean, until the remains of Atlantis are found under the sea, and it is demonstrated that it was not a simple legend or para-history but an authentic true story.

As for Plutarch, the mere fact that his writings are subsequent to Plato’s should not diminish his credibility and -for that reason- be regarded as a liar.I want to stress this point because it is one of the unfair fallacies employed by some “skeptics” who boast of being scientists. Plutarch of Chaeronea (46-125 BC) is an independent source, although philosopher and politician, was better known as biographer and historian, - let’s not forget that! - He is not the Greek founder of the Neoplatonic School of Athens, Plutarch of Athens (350-432 BC). The former Plutarch, the historian born in Chaeronea, even gives us the names of the priests who talked to Solon: Sonjis of Sais and Psenofis of Heliopolis, who, he said, were considered the wisest and most instructed priests at the time14 It is known that Plutarch was in Egypt and he consulted Egyptian sources directly form Egyptian archives and priests, henceforth, there is no reason to doubt his statements and words in this respect.

Regarding Crantor’s quote, it is true that it is referred in the work of Proclus15, the Greek philosopher. So what? Is there, perchance, anybody even suggesting that Proclus was lying too, that he made it up, or that he devised such an important and quoted work in ancient times as the well-known “Comments on Timaeus” by Crantor? And, hence, did he also cheat about the reference where Crantor himself bears witness and gives evidence of the existence of Egyptian Texts telling the same story narrated in the Atlantis dialogue by Plato?

Well, believe it or not, I have been “put up against the ropes” resorting to this fallacy. But the truth is I don’t really know of any expert in Platonic tradition –recognized at International level- or in Crantor’s Fragmenta, or in Proclus writings who believes in such a thing. The truthfulness of this comment on the Timaeus by Crantor where this passage appears attested as true by Proclus and other authors has not been questioned by any real academic expert in those texts. In fact, there are many authors we know today, and many authors’ quotes (accepted as true) through Proclus references; Being Proclus the only one who mentions some of them, whose complete work, sadly, has not come down to us, as as in the case of the aforementioned comment on Timaeus by Crantor, who was a highly reputed autor in ancient times for his extreme integrity, ethics and morality.

The Fragmenta (term coming from latin), that is, a compilation of numerous extracts from lost ancient writings, includes what remains of the commento on the Timaeus by Crantor, and, of course, the same extract quoted by Proclus, where Crantor confirms the existence of Egyptian inscriptions with the same story as the story told in Plato’s dialogue about The Atlantic.

Thus, the very fact that both Plutarch and Crantor, and Proclus himself, were subsequent authors to Plato and knew his work should not diminish the importance of what they relate as supplementary data about Atlantis, of the confirmation by them of the story told by the priests of Sais, or the fact that by Crantor’s times there were also texts in Egypt with the same narration about Atlantis, according to what it is set out by Crantor himself in his Comments on Timaeus, as it is referenced in every essay related to the mentioned author and his works made by modern specialists, who show no doubts at all about the existence of such comment by Crantor , considered the first exegete or interpreter of Plato’s work.

I hope you understand that assuming that what these authors say is not reliable just because they are subsequent to Plato, is just a ridiculous fallacy, even more ridiculous than assuming that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.

Another fallacy that goes without saying, because if academics accept this faulty reasoning then the majority of ancient authors (from whom we know almost nothing) and their writings would have to vanish immediately from the university books and encyclopedias, authors whom we know as sources, or who have been quoted by another authors, like Crantor, whom we know thanks to Proclous, Plutarch, Sextus Empiricus and Cicero’s references, amongst other ancient renowned authors.

Would anybody really believe that Crantor would dare to make a passage up in the Comment on Timaeus, a renowned ancient work quoted by many reputed authors before Proclus –even contemporary authors? Besides, it would be absurd to jeopardize his prestige through a lie which was easy to expose.

Proclus was a renowned philosopher, considered to be an honest person, with a great fides atque auctoritas. It is known that Proclus never distorted or changed any of the hundreds of other authors’ quotes he had used in his works, and this is well known because he used hundreds of missing quotes and extracts, and when later on some of them appeared, or other authors gathered fragments of them, they were exactly the same, as it could be checked. Would he lie, distort or modify only Proclus’ text? Why would he do that, if he himself did not quite agree with the story of Atlantis as a true story, as he thought it was just an allegory?

Consequently, it is an authentic fallacy to try to diminish or question the references I provide to support my research on this basis, an invalid reasoning within true scientific thought. I insist on it because I assume that many people agree with this view, simply reechoing a certain trend of thought which is against any historical possibility about Atlantis, and this line of thought (I happen to know it quite well) is followed by many official and academic Egyptologists, archaeologists, or even geologists.

But such “skeptical” line of thought is fraught with fallacies as the aforementioned ones, and even worse ones. I know well this kind of fallacies, as I have been fighting, debunking and dismantling them. I have argued not only against the fallacies of the “very skeptical” and orthodox people who don’t believe at all in the veracity of the Egyptian origin of the story about Atlantis, who don’t even believe that those priests really told Solon any story at all, who believe Plato just made it up, with complete disregard for Plutarch, Crantor or Proclus’s accounts, amongst others…

I have also argued against many other fallacies coming from the opposing side, the side of the “quasi-religious” believers, who hardly need any evidence about Atlantis historical accuracy, assuming it is a true story even though it was supposed to be a super civilization which controlled high crystal energy technology, who was able to reverse willingly the axis of rotation of the earth and who disappeared more than eleven or twelve thousand years ago.

I may be criticized for many arguments or mistakes I have made, but I have always tried to be impartial, neutral and as objective and rigorous as possible in my research about primary sources of the Atlantis story.

Plutarch, drawing by Monik Perz, 2009.

I take it for granted that the story told to Solon by the Egyptians priests, at least essentially, is true, that is, an island that sank into the sea (not an entire civilization), firstly because Plato deserves all my credibility, secondly because Plutarch also attests that the story was told to Solon, and he even gives us the priests names (Sonjis and Psenofis), and thirdly because of the reference to the Comment on Timaeus, by Crantor, where it is stated that there were certain stelae in Egypt that showed the same story about the Atlantean war.

As I have already explained before, there is no scientific evidence to assume that Plutarch, Crantor or Proclus were little less than pathological liars. Maybe the ancient authors fides atque auctoritas doesn’t mean much to many skeptical people, but it means a lot to me. I insist that I am convinced that their assertions are not fiction, for this reason I take for granted that some Egyptian priests told Solon the story.

Consequently, if there was any misleading information, it would be provided by the Egyptian priests, but not by Solon, even less from Plato, who simply writes out the Critias or Atlantis dialogues, basing on his penta-grandfather’s notes, Solon, which had been kept in his family legacy.

Some skeptical persons have asked me if there are epigraphic records (inscriptions) or paleographic records (papyrus) showing any belief or tradition in Sais about an important island, which could have served Solon to write about Atlantis.

Well, according to the existing classical sources regarding this question, it was simply a story kept in the Archives of The Neith Temple at Sais. Be as it may, the answer is that there is no epigraphic nor paleographic record in what is supposed to be the remains of the Temple of Neith at Sais.

However, we must keep in mind that there are hardly a few archeological pieces of evidence and there are no papyri at all. As regard as inscriptions, there are only small fragments of normal texts. We are uncertain whether we will find more evidence related to Solon’s story in the future – after digging thoroughly around the whole area with no results related to the finding of papyrus or inscriptions of any kind -.

At any rate, the fact of such priests telling Solon the story cannot be denied just because there are no papyri or inscriptions about it. The absence of evidence can’t even be argued as a justification here. This could only be made after excavating all the area surrounding the Temple of Neith at Sais, and after finding many papyrus and inscriptions with all kind of literary forms used by the Egyptians, and even so, there was nothing related to Atlantis in that evidence. Only then it could be argued (although never saying it for certain) that it is possible that such priests deceived Solon, as it is a necessary condition that the Temple of Neith and its surroundings were excavated and many inscriptions and papyrus appeared, none of them supporting the story or tradition that appear in Solon’s notes about Atlantis, in order to be able to resort to the argument of the absence of evidence, or the absence of evidence as a negative evidence. Absence of evidence cannot be argued as there is not enough evidence so as to reach a credible conclusion.

Another argument used to refute my conclusions is that, presumably, the myths of the creation and Osiris (The Amenti and the Vast blue-green sea etc) were created in the pre-dynastic period, but that being the case, how could they speak about such an event as the sinking of Atlantis involving the Athenians – according to what Egyptian priests told Solon- when came after?

This question is easy to answer: Firstly, there are no accounts of “the Vast Green”, or more appropriately of “Vast green-blue or bluegreenish sea” (the Egyptian word wAD was used to describe a colour between blue and green, similar to pale turquoise in colour). I would like to see that alleged pre-dynastic epigraphic evidence that talks about the “vast blue-greenish sea”.Try as I might, I could not find anybody who could show me a single one. The oldest reference I have verified about the Term wAD-wr “Vast blue-green(sea)” dates back to the VI Dynasty and it is placed within the Pyramid Texts of Teti, that is, between 2322 and 2312 BC, within the timeframe of the war described by Solon, (according to my sources), pursuant to the data transmitted to the Athenian legislator by the Egyptian priests, such as it is shown in Plato’s Critias or Atlantis, that is, between 2322 and 2312 BC, within the oldest timeframe where I place the war described in Solon’s story, according to the sources available.

Although – to be clear- there is another “Vast Green” or “Vast blue-greenish Sea whose length and width was not even known by Osiris” appearing in the paleographic and epigraphic evidence I have found, and which I identify as the same Egyptian sources as the Egyptian priests had. The name wAD-wr, “Vast Green” or “Vast bluegreenish (sea)” was also used in later times, in the New Kingdom, to name the Mediterranean, but in the Middle Kingdom is used as a generic term for “sea”, especially in the Sarcophagus and Coffin Texts (henceforth SCT), between the end of the XI dynasty and Mid XII dynasty. But the Egyptian spell 466, that relates to the paradise in the fields of offerings or of Of Blessings in the Occasus (Hetep’s fields and marshes), describes a sea in the West, “The Vast Blue-green Cold Waters Sea whose length and width was not even known by Osiris”, where the Isle of Gods was,(iw nTr.w), in front of a narrow channel which I identify as the straif of the Pillars of Hercules.

The same applies to the first references of the Amenti as Osiris realm or residence. There is no reference as such until later times, after the pyramid times. Even terms such as wsir-xnt.i-imn.tiw, (Osiris-Jenti-Amentiu), “Osiris, the chief (or the foremost) of the Amenti”, are not recorded until the final of XI and XII dynasties, thus at the height of the war between Atlantic and Mediterranean people, according to what it is deduced from the primary sources.

Furthermore, even the name of Osiris, in Egyptian, wsir, was not known until the end of mid Old Kingdom. The more I seek (I have been doing it for years) the less I find clear written references where Osiris is represented as chief or foremost of the Amenti, or where it is clearly stated that Osiris is the king or governor of the Amenti until the end of the Middle Kingdom. Only a few references prior to this period respond to the word imn.t in its simple meaning, the land of the West, that is, as a cardinal point or as the western bank of the Nile where the necropolis were, but not as the Amenti, Osiris Realm.

Therefore, the epigraphic and paleographic evidence I have been able to verify (after analysing every database and publications related to it) are perfectly in line with my research and my interpretive hypothesis, because it remains within the timeframe I have reconstructed after analysing such references, data and hints in the Timaeus, Critias, and other written primary sources analysed by me. Apparently, almost everything I have found as possible Egyptian sources (coming from the same ones as the Egyptian priests handled) come from the “Pyramid Texts”, although most of the references are subsequent to the Middle Kingdom, more specifically, within the great epigraphic corpus of the SAT, that is, at the peak of the war between Atlanteans against Greek Atheneans (Mycenaens) and Egyptians (at least those from Sais and the Nile Delta regions), according to Solon’s story.

Therefore there is no anachronism, such as many skeptics believed –and probably still do. According to Egyptian epigraphic and paleographic records, all these concepts about the Vast Blue-green Sea, The Amenti as Osiris Realm and Residence, Isle of Gods in that Vast blue-green Sea of Cold Waters, placed in front of a strait and with a city between water or City of the Water Throne, with a channel connecting it to the sea, and many other hints that match with Atlantis story, all of them appear in Egypt right after the “Pyramid Texts”, although most signs and hints develop between XI and XII dynasties, that is, between 1900 and 1800 BC, when Minoans propagate through the Mediterranean sea, and shortly before Atlantics (probably allied with Hyksso-Minoans) started their military actions against Greeks (Mycenaeans) and Egyptians themselves.

As regards as the evidence that should appear at Sais as a confirmation of the story told to Solon by the Egyptian priests, it must be made clear that the only possible evidence would be an epigraphic or paleographic piece of evidence, it could not be otherwise, as a piece of ceramic or stone from a pillar, or a building block could not possibly demonstrate that there was a real text with such a story in the Temple of Sais.

As I have already said, there are no references or hints of that text somewhere else than at Sais Archives, which was supposed to be a library in the Temple of Neith. But due to the fact that Sais has not been excavated yet, and nothing has been found at the remains of the Temple of Neith, not even a papyrus (there are hardly a few fragments with inscriptions in formal texts), those Egyptian priests cannot be prejudged nor be considered as liars.

We should wait until the whole area surrounding the Temple of Neith has been excavated, to see if there is more epigraphic or paleographic evidence that sheds light on the matter.

When many reputed ancient authors attest the story told to Solon was a true story, and when one of them, Crantor, confirms that certain Egyptian texts related to the war against Atlantics existed, it cannot be considered just as a hypothesis, but as events and data described as true, and a worthy historian must show innocence, honesty and good faith in those ancient authors, that is, a good historian should give them the benefit of presumption of innocence and intellectual honesty, especially because they had great fides atque auctoritas without the priory assumption that they were just pathological liars.

As I previously said, if someone lied here, possibly were the Egyptian priests, and not Solon or Plato. Actually, we cannot even know for certain if the priests were lying, unless Sais is excavated from beginning to end, an after finding a large amount of papyri and texts of all kind, there is no way to justify such a story. Only then it could be argued on scientific basis that it was a fictional narration.

Another fallacy brandished by the skeptics is assuming that there would be written evidence everywhere if all the priests in Egypt knew the story about a sunken island. This is another faulty thought, as it ignores that recording or not a fact would depend on many factors, for example that had some sort of interest for Egyptian history.

Let’s analyse the data: The priests clarified to Solon that the story was kept in the Archive of Sacred Texts, because Sais inhabitants were involved in that war and Greeks (Micenaean) had been helping them. For this reason, the story has been kept in Sais, as it had no significance for the rest of Egyptians. But the biggest evidence this “skeptical” or radical doctrine uses is what I comment on my study on Herodotus and Atlantis:

"By the end of the Third Intermediate Period of Egypt (circa 1070-650 BC) Egyptians were invaded by Assyrians. Asarhaddon, the Assyrian king (681BC-669 BC), son of Sennacherib and the West Semitic queen Naq’ia (Zatutu) led an army against Egypt and took the capital, Memphis. From there, he controlled lower Egypt. Essahaddon established local governors there and went back to Assyria. But Memphis was reconquered by the Egyptians after a revolt during his absence. After the death of Essahaddon, the new Assyrian king, Assurbanipal, reconquered Memphis again and practically the whole country, that came under his control. There were further revolts shortly afterwards, this time against a coalition of local Assyrian governors imposed by the king at the Delta, but this rebellion was stifled. Egypt is not reconquered by Egyptians until Psammetichus I time. But Herodotus does not mention the Assyrian conquer of Egypt. A typical misleading argument is: If it was true that Egypt was conquered by the Assyrian army in the Third Intermediate Period, Herodotus would have mentioned it. It follows therefore, that the rest of authors who attest this event – the same as Plato and those who mentioned Atlantis after Herodotus- were making it up, and all the epigraphic and archeological evidence is just a fake. But do you know the explanation given by a renowned academic, Mr. Carlos Schrader, translator of the prestigious Gredos edition of the “Histories by Herodotus” about this omission? Well, he says that Herodotus did not say a word about the Assyrian conquer of Egypt because-simply- it was silenced in the Egyptian sources”16

Now it is I who is asking: Shouldn’t exist records in Egyptian texts about such events? According to such a faulty reasoning, there should be many writings attesting such events, otherwise is because everything is pure speculation, and those events never happened.

Let’s look at it from a different perspective: If, as Dr. Schrader says, such an important war as Assyria against Egypt was stifled by Egyptian themselves, why couldn’t have happened the same to the war of Sais and Mycenae against Atlantis, being this war a local war that did not affect the rest of Egypt? Ultimately, if the war between Assyria and Egypt, larger and more extensive than the war of Atlantics against Sais people and Athenians (Mycenaean) was silenced or removed from Egyptian records, nothing prevents us from assuming that it happened the same to the war of Atlantis against Sais. Other great fallacy assumed by anti-Atlantis skeptics is what it is usually called “word to mouth” argument. That is, we cannot give credibility to a rumor that was passed on to Plato through The Younger Critias, (who was Plato direct source), to Younger Critias through The Elder Critias, to The Elder Chritias through Dropides, to Dropides through Solon, and to Solon through the priests. Actually, Plato could have access to Solon’s original texts because he was his pentagrandfather, and those texts were kept at his granduncle Critias Minor house, such as it is stated in Critias 113b. Thus, they were part of Plato’s family legacy, and Plato had Access to Solon’s original notes, according to Plutarch too, who was in Egypt and consulted direct Egyptian sources as we already know.

So, everything said by the skeptics about the “Word of mouth” argument is just guesswork. It is not a rumor nor an oral tradition, but real data transmitted by persons who consulted Solon’s original writings or notes, who in turn had Egyptian references provided by at least two priests, as Sonis of Sais and Psefonis of Heliopolis as direct sources, according to the renowned historian Plutarch of Chaeronea; Although it is obvious that nothing will ever be enough for some skeptical people. Even if they had a full copy of Crantor’s treaty, they would not be satisfied, as they would say that means nothing, that Crantor had made it up himself.

This sort of people, who should not be called skeptical, but fundskeptical, make clear their position as practitioners of a radical and fundamentalist orthodoxy, as they only believe in archeological evidence like pottery pieces or stones, and for them ancient texts are worth nothing, being most ancient authors just liars and truth manipulators.

At any rate, (such as I have clarified in many public debates), I don’t believe Atlantis was real just because it is mentioned by ancient authors; I do believe what all these quoted authors affirm about a story told to Solon by Egyptian priests, and, consequently, that neither Solon nor Plato were lying.

No matter how many times I have explained it in my numerous articles, these fundskeptic persons remain stubbornly keeping that same attitude, trying to make me look like a credulous and naïve person who believes that Atlantis existed only because it has been referred to in such ancient testimonies. Even If it was the case, it is nothing to be ashamed of, but the truth is that I have always said that I have the feeling that part of this could be true due to the circumstantial evidence that I have been able to gather throughout twenty years of research, I mean, not only due to what the written primary sources say, but also to the archeological and seismic evidence.

At any rate, I have always made clear my absolute conviction that only archeology has the final say.

About the seismic-tsunami evidence and Atlantis Story

There is another highly revealing evidence: In the mid 2011 a team of scientists specialized in seismology and tsunamis published a surprising research finding; They could determine, with scientific data, the existence of several seismic-tsunami events that happened before Roman Times, and which had serious consequences in the Southwest coast of Iberia, and it turns out that one of such events fits almost exactly within the timeframe I had calculated for Atlantis catastrophic end, according to the data I could gather after two decades of research. It should happen sometime between 2000 and 1500 BC.

This new survey has determined such a seismic-tsunami event exactly between 1900 and 1600 BC. I recommend the readers to have a look at the news published in El Pais17. Only one of the four tsunamis that occurred in the Atlantic affecting the Gulf of Cadiz before Roman Times can be qualified as a good candidate to fix the date of Atlantis destruction, according to written primary sources, the only one that conforms to the dates estimated by me almost a decade ago.

Such seismic-tsunami event has been dated by radiocarbon dating between 1900 and 1500 BC. Let’s see this period, according to what I had been reconstructing and publishing following my written primary sources. The timeframe between 1900 and 1500 BC corresponds to the Atlantic and Argaric Bronze Age at the Iberian Peninsula. Those are Hyksso-Minoan times in the Mediterranean sea, and also when the first eight maps of the afterworld were drawn, located in the Vast blue-green cold sea, and where an Isle of Gods was represented, which seems to be the same translated by Solon to Greek as Atlantis. Such Isle of Gods appears in those Egyptian maps in front of a narrow channel that might be Gibraltar, and those maps were copied systematically from then on - with some modifications- until the end of Egyptian civilization. This period coincides with the final times of Atlantis, at a time when the Cecropids, kings of ancient Micenaean Athens, fought the Atlanteans and defeated them, also coincides with the Minoians defeat by the same primitive Micenaean Greeks, and with the Hykoussos or Hykssos defeat by the Egyptians. Minoans and Hykssos would be part of the same confederation with the Atlantic people.

Recently, another scientific discovery, a genetic survey of mitochondrial DNA, has confirmed -partly- this other hypothesis I have been defending for the last ten years. Such genetic survey has allowed the identification of Minoan people with a clear West European origin, most likely Atlantic and Iberian.

Thus the final of Atlantis would be in those times, as it happened after the Atlanteans lost their war against the Myceanean Egyptians, before the Deucalion disaster, such as it is stated in the Critias dialogue or The Atlantic. Both the Cecropids and Deucalion –quoted in the Critias- are placed chronologically by Greek primary sources between 1600 and 1500 BC. Just around 1600 BC a high energy seismic event occurred on the coast of Huelva, next to Doñana, determined by turbidities and tsunamites found in that area, a clear register of a tsunami found recently in the estuary of River Tinto, dated by radiocarbon between 1850 and 1125 BC18

It is believed it would be the same as the tsunami dated by turbidites around 1600 BC. Experts believe that the tsunami responsible for these registers in Doñana and the Tinto River might have occurred at some time between 1800 and 1600 BC, and the seism intensity wouldn’t exceed the maximum intensity known, which is 8.0.

This evidence is a good indication of a catastrophic event occurred relatively close to the coast of Huelva and Cadiz, that should have its epicenter under the sea, somewhere in front of the Gulf of Cadiz, because there are no registers of that sort of event somewhere farther, as it does happen with the other two registered tsunamis. At any rate, the date of this seismic-tsunamic event corresponds exactly to the timeframe proposed by me more than a decade ago, coinciding too with the description in The Timaeus, where it can be read "seismwn exaisiwn",19 translated in English as “excessive quake”, that is, “high intensity quakes”.

These high intensity earthquakes, which were more than one, according to Plato, ended up “causing a cataclysm” (kataklusmwn genomenwn).20 Ancient Greeks used the Word 'kataklusmos' to denominate any kind of large scale flood; the term refers mainly to floods produced by steady and heavy rain or by rivers or sea water.

Atlantis catastrophe was the consequence of earthquakes first and then cataclysms or floods, which corresponds to the description of a typical tsunami process "...all seismologists and oceanographers will recognize now in these Greek words by Plato a more than accurate description of the process of most tsunamis origins, where, as a general rule, firstly considerably intense earthquakes occur, which, depending on their nature and position, end up generating a tsunami ...".21

Graphic of the turbidites layers scientifically dated, related to the tsunami registers occurred during the Holocene.Underlined in green, the highest turbidites layers, corresponding to two seismic-tsunamic events: One which occurred at the Bronze Age, between 3000 and 1500 BC, and the othr around the Second Century AD.

By this time there are some cities in Iberia, mainly in Andalusia, with a concentric circular pattern, using concentric layouts which were flooded with water alternating with land, exactly the same as those in the Atlantis metropolis. And two cultures highlight in those times: Atlantic Bronze and Argaric, with great parallelism to the Minoan and Mycenaean world, signs of a close relation tween them, which now have been strengthened by the last discoveries about mitochondrial DNA of the Minoan and its high affinity to the Neolithic and Bronze population at the Iberian Peninsula.

But these are not the only scientific proof that support my hypothesis about the date and the geographic area where the catastrophe that caused the end of Atlantis might have occurred. Other surveys have confirmed some of these seismic-tsunamic events, specially the one that occurred between 1900 and 1800 BC. These surveys were conducted to determine the changes in sea levels since Holocene started, that is, 11.000 years ago, and they have given clear proof of a high and almost sudden sea level rise (most than 10 meters!), that quite agree with the same seismic-tsunami events that happened in the Morocco-Iberian area of the Atlantic, before Roman Times.

In this respect, the revealing study by Jose Manuel Gutierrez-Mas, University of Cádiz,22 makes clearly evident how the average sea level rises to its top level within the same period of time that the Bronze Age tsunami was dated, between 1900 and 1500 BC (3900 and 3500 Before Present, BP). There was a sea level rise of 10 meters, rising from 5 meters, which was the average sea level at the Gulf of Cadiz then, thus being 5 meters above actual sea level (0).

This graph compares 5 studies about the changes in the average sea level, the four most recent tones match with a considerable rise in the sea level corresponding quite approximately to the four seismic-tsunamic events before Roman Colonization: 7000-6800 BP (yr BP- Years Before Present). The effects of the probably catastrophic event were shorter as regards as the time it took for the sea level to drop) than the two previous ones.

The area where this catastrophe took place matches with the area where Atlantis island was located, or where it started, as it is clearly indicated in Timaeus 24e, where it is said: “In front of the mouth that you (Greeks) call Pillars of Heracles (Gibraltar)”, such as I prove by an extensive lexicologist study of the voices in this story.

Whenever the Greeks used the expression “pro tou” (before or in front of) related to a place, location or position, they were indicating something that was “on view”, very close, “on the threshold of “in the presence of”, that is, “in front of a person or thing”, always in visual contact, never used to describe something which was far away, out of view. So it ended up being more tan clear, in my opinion, that Atlantis started at the Gulf of Cadiz, such as it is shown in the Timaeus, that is, “in front of the mouth” (pro tou stomatos) (The Pillars of Hercules), as we can also see in the oldest latin translations of Plato’s dialogues and in some other ancient authors’ work. Therefore Atlantis would be perfectly visible to any seafarer who went sailing through the Strait of de Gibraltar, towards the Atlantic, that is, the Eastern side of Atlantis, which is described as Gadiera, Gadeiro’s Kingdom. However, its size towards South and Occident, is rather vague, and it can only be estimated approximately, according to the hints founded in The Timaeus and the Critias.23 This point about Atlantis paleographical reconstruction will be handled in later chapters of this book with some illustrative maps.

It is clear to me that the seismic-tsunami event happened between 1900 and 1500 BC is the only one that matches more precisely with the date I had deduced years before- according to the data offered in Critias -for the sinking of Atlantis acropolis, which was an island surrounded by three round channels flooded with sea water, that is why Plato used the same voice nêsos (island), to refer to the whole Atlantis island, including the acropolis and the concentric rings of soil alternating with water channels surrounding such acropolis..

To close this introduction, I’d like the reader to know that I have found no compelling reasons nor scientific evidence to let me take as false what serious and reputed authors stated as a fact about Atlantis and the Egyptian origin of the story.

On the contrary, I have found enough evidence pointing to the fact that it wasn’t a story made up by some Egyptian priests of Heliopolis. In fact, in Tome II, Epitome of Historical-scientific Atlantis I show a catalogue of almost 200 papyri with many references, and I also show many Egyptian and Carthaginian maps.24 I show in this book a revealing map found in Iberia by some academic archeologists, luckily for me, because if I had found it, no fundskeptical nor anti-atlantean person believe it was authentic.

All the pictorial representation in the cave art mural where it was found has been dated – approximately- by the end of the Bronze Age, and it can be clearly seen there is something that looks like an island in front of what might be the Strait of Gibraltar, a narrow channel right between Iberia and Morocco, with a symbol similar to a city surrounded by several concentric rings, as described in the Critias ,and also some ships entering through that same channel, with some other elements such as bulls and horses drawn around, being the big ships quite similar to those represented in Egyptian maps that showed the Isle of Gods (Atlantis?) right in front of the channel that connects the center of the island to the sea. Those ships in the cave map from South Badajoz, almost bordering on Huelva, are also similar to the sea peoples’ ships in Ramses II Temple at Medinet Habu, being these Tartessian depictions the only ones of that kind in the whole West.

I also show to support my hypotheses and research Iberian cities, hamlets or makro-villages dated from the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age with the same urban pattern as described for Atlantis metropolis.

To sum up, plenty of circumstantial proof that many archeologists would call evidence, which are not just opinions or speculations but verifiable data, definitely tangible evidence that can be verified.

1 Although my interest in Atlantis started when I was 14, my first publications and research about it did not start until 1994, when I first came across with Plato’s writings.

2See Chapter about Crantor. Volume I, Tome II, Historical-scientific Atlantis Epitome.

3All the arguments, data, and trace evidence that have led me to formulate and defend the theory of the location of such paradisiacal spots in the Occident, next to the Atlantic Coast –as represented on primeval maps of the Middle Empire- is widely documented in my previous work: Atlantis – Aegyptius Codex.Clavis.Primary Egyptian sources about Atlantis. Tome II, Historical-scientific Atlantis Epitome, 2013. ISBN-13: 978-1481244503 ISBN-10: 1481244507. It analyses fully the Primary Sources (both written and archeological) that I have found from Egyptian sources, after more than fifteen years or research travels around Egypt, Sicily, Crete, Greece and many other countries in Europe, chasing information in libraries, museums, private collections. I now believe that these trace evidence will prove, indeed, that it was true that Solon drafted his preamble or exordium about Atlantis according to the Egyptian sources he examined in Sais, sometime between 580 and 560 AC. I have gathered more than two hundred documents (texts, maps, papyrus, reliefs, stelae, paintings, tombs and temples) to be used as evidence. (Some of them are really strong evidence) to present a grounded theory of the Atlantis story, that it was passed on to Solon as a “True Story”, and that “it was no myth or a fiction story” (as we can read at The Timaeus), based on ancient oral traditions (ek palaias akoês)", according to their “Sacred Scriptures”, indeed it could be like this, as it is explained in this Tome II, in the epitome summarizing a series of Atlantology in six volumes.

4Schu, as transcribed by the Germans transcribe it, or Shu, transcribed by the British and also by Castilians, although the pronunciation differs from the original, that would be Schu or Chu, like the andalusian sound ch in 'muchacho'.

5Andlosh/Andlush was considered by some islamic authors , like Attabari, the

son of Japhetus (Jápeto).Therefore the name Yazirat al Andlush, “Isle of Andlus”, which could be read as “Atlas Island”, that is, Atlantis Island.

6The term Andalish or Andlish refers to the Atlantean, according to Dr. Vallvé –outstanding arabist, member of the Royal Spanish Academy- in accordance with all the islamic documentation he has been able to gather and study for decades (Royal Academy of History Newsletter, TOME CXCII. NUMBER I. YEAR 1995, p. 85). But the thesis about Andalus (Andlush) being the same as Atlas or Atlante (Antlsh), that is, the island of Atlantis, was firstly put forward by another great Spanish Arabist at the end of the XIX century, Mr.Francisco Fernández y González (Fernández y González, Francisco, Primeros pobladores históricos de la península Ibérica, El Progreso, 1891, pp. 156, 157, 159, 160, 237, 349).

7It refers to Noah’s Flood, which was synchronized to the great Ogygian flood,when the ancient Athens and Atlantis itself were destroyed, as it is stated in the Critias 112b, where it is determined that it happened before the Deucalion disaster. Ogygian disaster was dated between 1786 and 1800 BC, at the same time (Middle Kingdom) as the first Egyptian maps with its vast sea in the West and the Isle of Gods in front of a narrow entrance.

8Ibn ʻIdhârî (al-Marrâkushî.), al-Andalus Stories.

9 Khnumhotep tomb, who was a nobleman living around 1900 BC, a simple code of hieroglyph replacement is used, swapping one symbol for a less known one. However, the scribe’s aim wasn’t to encrypt the text in such a way that it would be impossible to decipher it, but making it legible only for the most trained in Egyptian hieroglyphs. Almost as a symbol of erudition.

10Highly documented thesis that I broadly develop in the two Tomes of the Epitome about Atlantis published between September and December 2012. For additional information: http://libros.georgeosdiazmontexano.com.

11DNA studies confirm the Atlantologist hypothesis about Atlanteans and Minoans: http://www.cronicauniversal.com/2013/08/investigaciones-recientes-de-adn.html

12See the whole study about Plutarch references in the corresponding chapter, Volume I, Tome II, Historical scientific Atlantis, 2012.


14 Plutarch, Parallel lifes, Solon, 26

15Proclus, (410-485 BC), Greek Neoplatonic philosopher. The most important representative of the Academy of Athens, together with Plutarch from Athens and Sirianus. The greatest exegete or commentator on Plato’s work of Antiquity.

16See chapter about Herodotus.

17Radiocarbon dating sustains hypothesis of the end of Atlantis, ,ArieL Díaz(Sais), 28 Sep. 2013: http://lacomunidad.elpais.com/Atlantis-tartessos/2013/9/28/dataciones-radiocarbono-apoyan-hipotesis-sobre-final-de

18Ruiz, F, M. L. González-Regalado, M. Abad, J. Borrego, B. Carro, J. Rodríguez Vidal, L. M. Cáceres, M. Pozo, M. I. Carretero, F. Gomez y A. Toscano,the geological register of Holocene Tsunamis in Rio Tinto’s estuary (SW Spain) VIII Congreso Geológico de España, 2012, Oviedo.

19Tim. 25c.


21A tsunami ended with Plato’s Atlantis, claims a researcher, and similar disaster might occur again, Noticias.info, Enero, 2005: http://Atlantisscientific.blogspot.com.es/2005/02/riesgo-de-tsunami-en-espaa-un-tsunami.html

22Gutierrez-Mas, José Manuel, Glycymeris shell accumulations as indicators of recent sea-level changes and high-energy events in Cadiz Bay (SW Spain), Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, Volume 92, Issue 4, 20 May 2011, Pages 546–554.

23Díaz-Montexano, Scientific Atlantology International Society (Sais), Atlantis kingdoms paleogeographic reconstruction, Looking for historical Atlantis : http://georgeosdiazmontexano.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/georgeos-diaz-montexano-reconstruccion-paleogeografica-de-los-reinos-de-la-atlantida/ Also,the issue of Atlantis, Georgeos Díaz-Montexano, Scientific Atlantology International Society (Sais): http://georgeosdiazmontexano.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/Atlantismeizongeorgeosdiazmontexano.pdf

24In Volume I of Epitome, I show these maps created in Carthage, although Egyptian tradition.

See the Book "ATLANTIS / NG. National Geographic and the Scientific Search for Atlantis. Localization and antiquity of the legendary Atlantis civilization from classical, egyptian, tartessian and chalcolitical sources" in http://author.to/GeorgeosDiazMontexano (Release book in December 2016 with the premiere of National Geographic documentary about Atlantis).


Todas las obras de este Portal (WebSite) están bajo licencia de Creative Commons
Creative Commons License

Usted es libre de: compartircopiardistribuir y comunicar públicamente (pero sin lucro ni fin comercial alguno) lo aquí publicado bajo las condiciones que establece esta licencia


http://www.atlantisng.com/en/English-books/ Atlantis . NG National Geographic and the Scientific Search for Atlantis, by Georgeos Daz-Montexano


http://www.atlantisng.com/en/English-books/ Atlantis . NG National Geographic and the Scientific Search for Atlantis, by Georgeos Daz-Montexano


http://www.atlantisng.com/en/English-books/ Atlantis . NG National Geographic and the Scientific Search for Atlantis, by Georgeos Daz-Montexano


http://www.atlantisng.com/en/English-books/ Atlantis . NG National Geographic and the Scientific Search for Atlantis, by Georgeos Daz-Montexano


http://www.atlantisng.com/en/English-books/ Atlantis . NG National Geographic and the Scientific Search for Atlantis, by Georgeos Daz-Montexano
Created with Atlantisng.com - by cortesy of Atlantisais.org.

do not click here