Atlantis was Sardinia

[Andreas Johansson]

Or we find buildings, roads etc. on the Atlantic seabed, considering there are probably not all that many competing cultures in that particular region.

Don't say that, there's a whole menagerie of supposed or lost Atlantic lands to chose between. Johnson's Phantom Islands of the Atlantic and Babcock's Legendary islands of the Atlantic deal with partially overlapping sets of examples.

[Patrick Waterson]

Ultimately, though, all such combinations of mediaeval imagination and inept mapmaking seem to reflect a loose grasp of geography rather than drawing upon the relics of different Atlantic cultures.  'Hy Braseal' and the like, including the unmentioned Lyonesse - plus Ireland's Fomor legends - all seem to boil down to memories and extensions of legends concerning later Atlantis.  Odd islands (Demons' Isle, Emerald Isle) either do come and go, perhaps for volcanically related reasons, or have had their positions or purported existence refined by later and more accurate cartography.

As far as I can see, this still leaves just the one Atlantic culture and homeland, that of Atlantis.  Plato's descriptions in the Critias and Timaeus pretty much exclude anything in the Mediterranean and suggest an approximately tropical, though not necessarily equatorial, latitude.

The existence of megalithic rings in western Europe and northern Africa (see Mzora) are just one possible pointer to an Atlantic culture of remarkable planning and engineering capabilities.

[Andreas Johansson]

As far as I can see, this still leaves just the one Atlantic culture and homeland, that of Atlantis. 

As far as I can see, it leaves us with none.

Plato's descriptions in the Critias and Timaeus pretty much exclude anything in the Mediterranean and suggest an approximately tropical, though not necessarily equatorial, latitude.

How do you figure? Plato has it "opposite" the Pillars, which surely suggests a similar latitude, well north of the Tropic of Cancer.

The existence of megalithic rings in western Europe and northern Africa (see Mzora) are just one possible pointer to an Atlantic culture of remarkable planning and engineering capabilities.

Why'd you locate that culture anywhere else than in Europe and Africa, where the megaliths are? Explaining the ill-known by the completely unknown doesn't get us anywhere.

[Patrick Waterson]

Plato's descriptions in the Critias and Timaeus pretty much exclude anything in the Mediterranean and suggest an approximately tropical, though not necessarily equatorial, latitude.

How do you figure? Plato has it "opposite" the Pillars, which surely suggests a similar latitude, well north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Mainly the fruits and the elephants; the latter are not noted for populating temperate zones, although I freely grant that in Biblical and classical times many could be found north of the Tropic of Cancer.  Atlantis would anyway have been a substantial continent covering a fair amount of latitude, given that the Azores and Bahamas may be surviving remnants.

The existence of megalithic rings in western Europe and northern Africa (see Mzora) are just one possible pointer to an Atlantic culture of remarkable planning and engineering capabilities.

Why'd you locate that culture anywhere else than in Europe and Africa, where the megaliths are? Explaining the ill-known by the completely unknown doesn't get us anywhere.

Because the distribution of the megaliths is eccentric, suggesting a centre of gravity from beyond Western Europe and Africa.  It seems to be established nearer the seaborne fringes than the centre of either continent, and is established on not one but both continents.

[Dangun]

I'm not sure that the source can bear such a close literal reading.
Do the "real" animals that populate a fictional land tell us anything?

As an aside... I'm not familiar with this subject at all, but is the atlantis story seen as part of the catastrophic flood mythos? Or is it seen as another phenomenom?

[Erpingham]

Because the distribution of the megaliths is eccentric, suggesting a centre of gravity from beyond Western Europe and Africa.  It seems to be established nearer the seaborne fringes than the centre of either continent, and is established on not one but both continents.

Not really wanting to get drawn into this one but I think you should pin down your meaning of megalith.  Megalithic building techniques are widespread, not just found on the fringes of Europe, but you may have particular classes of monument in mind.  Also, a "fringe" distribution could be accounted for by a greater importance of seaborne movement in cultural transmission - ideas don't have to radiate from a centre.

[Patrick Waterson]

Not really wanting to get drawn into this one but I think you should pin down your meaning of megalith.  Megalithic building techniques are widespread, not just found on the fringes of Europe, but you may have particular classes of monument in mind.  Also, a "fringe" distribution could be accounted for by a greater importance of seaborne movement in cultural transmission - ideas don't have to radiate from a centre.

Specifically stone circles with solar orientation.  Implications of other megalithic constructions worldwide we can happily consider; many of these tend to make at least some people think of vanished high-tech civilisations who could move, align and fit the things.

Seaborne movement in cultural transmission can indeed account for 'fringe' distributions; the essential question being whether it is possible to pin down the origin of the culture that was transmitted.

One might note in passing that while the stone circles, and indeed other megaliths such as isolated menhirs or constructions involving massive stone slabs, are indeed stone and thus conceptually suited to a mesolithic or neolithic era, they are rather larger and more sophisticated in their grouping than the kind of stones we would expect to be in use.

Do the "real" animals that populate a fictional land tell us anything?

That begs a very important question.

As an aside... I'm not familiar with this subject at all, but is the Atlantis story seen as part of the catastrophic flood mythos? Or is it seen as another phenomenon?

If Sir means, does Plato present it as a catastrophic flood mythos, the answer is no.  He presents it as history, or at least a tradition of history.

For a resume of catastrophic flood traditions plus a soupcon of etymology, feel free to drop in here (and never mind the site label).

[Sharur]

I hardly dare mention this, but:

https://ospreypublishing.com/the-wars-of-atlantis .

[Dangun]

I find the origin of the story more interesting than the unlikely reality of what the Atlantis story has become.

For example, I wonder if the Atlantis story share a genetic literary history with the closely related flood myths/pseudo-history - Utnapishtim, Atrahasis, and Noah etc.
Or alternatively is it just an unrelated and different cultural memory of some poor littoral community being wiped out by deglaciation, a river flooding, tsunami or other seismic event?

Its clearly not a Namazu-like explanatory myth.

[Patrick Waterson]

... I wonder if the Atlantis story share a genetic literary history with the closely related flood myths/pseudo-history - Utnapishtim, Atrahasis, and Noah etc.

If this were the case, would it not require a good deal of cultural imagination by peoples noted for a very down-to-earth general attitude?  I cannot help thinking that the origin of flood myths tends to be floods.

Or alternatively is it just an unrelated and different cultural memory of some poor littoral community being wiped out by deglaciation, a river flooding, tsunami or other seismic event?

Here we could have an extensive discussion about natural catastrophe and folk memory.  Major historical floods (pick any few along the Yangtze or Yellow River in historical times) tend to leave a bare record in the archives but no 'universal deluge' myth.  While a peasant's village is pretty much his world, and a flood obliterating his village might subjectively be deemed a world-destroying flood, it is not peasants who write literature, but kings and the scribes of kings.  Ergo, a flood that is deemed to affect the world would presumably as a minimum need to affect the entirety of a literate kingdom and its neighbours in order to qualify for incorporation among the august ranks of flood legends.

Its clearly not a Namazu-like explanatory myth.

True: the end of Atlantis was not perceived as anything like quakes resulting from the raging of a gargantuan catfish, and interestingly deals with the submergence of a continent as opposed to a flood per se.  Floods, even world-spanning ones, eventually subside, whereas sunken continents apparently take rather longer to re-emerge than the Holocene period timeframe.

[Dangun]

Major historical floods (pick any few along the Yangtze or Yellow River in historical times) tend to leave a bare record in the archives but no 'universal deluge' myth.  While a peasant's village is pretty much his world, and a flood obliterating his village might subjectively be deemed a world-destroying flood, it is not peasants who write literature, but kings and the scribes of kings.  Ergo, a flood that is deemed to affect the world would presumably as a minimum need to affect the entirety of a literate kingdom and its neighbours in order to qualify for incorporation among the august ranks of flood legends.

But impressiveness scales with civilization...

...the earlier in history an event occurred, the less impressive it will need to be in reality to effect recorded history.
I think its quite conceivable that the (at least) 4000 year old Sumerian flood/deluge myth, might have been inspired by a rather modest town being unexpectedly destroyed by a flooding river.

(Religions are also good examples of this.)

True: the end of Atlantis was not perceived as anything like quakes resulting from the raging of a gargantuan catfish, and interestingly deals with the submergence of a continent as opposed to a flood per se.  Floods, even world-spanning ones, eventually subside, whereas sunken continents apparently take rather longer to re-emerge than the Holocene period time frame.

That might again be investing the source with more literal truth than it can bear.
Why should we ascribe the claim that the city sank, with precision, especially when the whole story is so dubious?

There have been hundreds of volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and earthquakes around the Mediterranean that have wiped out towns, and I am not sure I would trust any author of this period to differentiate one disaster from another, when clearly their information regarding location, geography etc. is so weak.

Its possible that something precise is being described, but this robust cultural meme has probably mutated so far from the historical event that we'll never be able to tell.

(A complete tangent... This reminds me of why I like Lord of the Rings. Its not like a Greek myth which to me often seems arbitrary and inelegant. But Atlantis is an eerily compelling  mix of possible history and myth.)

[Patrick Waterson]

But impressiveness scales with civilization...

...the earlier in history an event occurred, the less impressive it will need to be in reality to effect recorded history.

I would respectfully disagree about this linear relationship between impressiveness and temporal distance BC.  Impressiveness is largely a matter of impressionability, which may be a function of culture but does not seem to be a function of age: classical historians BC were happy to consider a storm which blew into the faces of the enemy an act of nature, while Christian authors AD would readily ascribe it to an Act of God; miracle rather than meterology.

Why should we ascribe the claim that the city sank, with precision, especially when the whole story is so dubious?

Not least because Atlantis as described by Plato or remembered by Mesoamerican peoples was a continent and not a city. 

There have been hundreds of volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and earthquakes around the Mediterranean that have wiped out towns, and I am not sure I would trust any author of this period to differentiate one disaster from another, when clearly their information regarding location, geography etc. is so weak.

But is it weak?  How do we judge this?

Regarding geography and catastrophes, let us consider a classic classical account, namely Pliny's description of the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum by Vesuvius.  His geography was spot on, and he correctly differentiated which towns were wiped out.  (It would of course be surprising if things were otherwise, as he was an eyewitness. )

Taking a broader example, in 373 BC the city of Helike was wiped out in a single night; an earthquake caused subsidence and a tsunami eliminated the population and submerged the city.  Diodorus seems to be our main source for the account, and he identifies the city and as far as we can judge the cause of destruction with complete accuracy (see this article).  The site was subsequently visited, not least for verification, by Eratosthenes, Pausanias, Strabo, Ovid and Pliny.  The congruence and accuracy of their information enabled researchers to rediscover the city.

I trust classical authors to get their catastrophe-related geography sufficiently correct to tell us where to look.

(A complete tangent... This reminds me of why I like Lord of the Rings. Its not like a Greek myth which to me often seems arbitrary and inelegant. But Atlantis is an eerily compelling  mix of possible history and myth.)

The Akallabeth, or Downfall of Numenor, in the Silmarillion has some remarkable Atlantean overtones.  But I do agree about certain Greek myths ...

[Erpingham]

I trust classical authors to get their catastrophe-related geography sufficiently correct to tell us where to look.

Perhaps the transmission route is important?  Plato is, I think, reporting a story told about Solon (who was a revered figure from the past) who had got chatting to some Egyptians who told him a story which they claimed they had a record of about Athens and their war with Atlantis 9,000 years before.  Looks somewhat tenuous even if you suspend belief. 

[Patrick Waterson]

Looks somewhat tenuous even if you suspend belief. 

Not quite as tenuous as it may seem, in that the Egyptian priesthood do seem to have had reliable records about most things, and it really comes down to what they had with regard to Atlantis.  Egyptian culture did go back a fair bit, well into the 'predynastic' period, so extended back into the right kind of timeframe.  And Atlantis would be the kind of realm that made a lasting impression.

There would be the possibility of a little bit of adaptation between Solon and Plato; there is an excellent yardstick for what happens when Greeks get hold of Egyptian source material, and that is the Oedipus story.  The identities of the principal characters were concealed by the adoption of stage names (Laius = 'left-footer'; Oedipus = 'swollen legs/feet'; Polyneices = 'many quarrels'; Eteocles = 'dutiful'; etc.) but the story, although transferred from Egyptian Thebes to Greek Thebes, is recognisably that of the Amarna period (Akhenaten etc.) towards the end of the 18th Dynasty.  Despite the 'laundering' of the basic account the amount of detail that is preserved is incredible, even to where Tutankhamun was wounded in his final duel (this matches the evidence from the 2004 computer tomography scan).

On balance I would consider the Egyptian records about Atlantis to be good, if by 'good' we mean likely to get correct the approximate geographical placement and the question of existence, with useful details as an optional extra.  I would also expect a little bit of Grecian flavour to have crept in between Solon and Plato along with the Grecised versions of the names, albeit not enough to distort the essentials of the story.

[Dangun]

Not quite as tenuous as it may seem, in that the Egyptian priesthood do seem to have had reliable records about most things, and it really comes down to what they had with regard to Atlantis. 

Again, this might be ascribing the source with precision it cannot bear.
Since we have no evidence for Plato's Atlantis, Plato's "I met this guy in bar who had just got back from a holiday in Egypt, and he'd met a priest in a bar..." is less than compelling.

Taking a broader example, in 373 BC the city of Helike was wiped out in a single night; an earthquake caused subsidence and a tsunami eliminated the population and submerged the city.  Diodorus seems to be our main source for the account, and he identifies the city and as far as we can judge the cause of destruction with complete accuracy (see this article).  The site was subsequently visited, not least for verification, by Eratosthenes, Pausanias, Strabo, Ovid and Pliny.  The congruence and accuracy of their information enabled researchers to rediscover the city.

There is a difference between the two examples.
A tsunami in 373BC is far more knowable for us, than an Atlantian war in 9000BC.
And as you suggest, 373BC was very knowable for contempories, whereas Plato had little hope of knowing anything about 9000BC.