Atlantis the Lost Continent Finally Found

by Arysio Santos

  [This entry from the Suda is highly enlightening. This Byzantine lexicon summarized the whole of the ancient Greek culture, standardizing it. First of all, we note that the Greek names of the ocean were both Atlantika pelagê and Atlantis thalatta (“Atlantic seas” and “Atlantis Sea”).

  Note the plural used here. Hence the two “Atlantics” of the next entry. One entry actually complements the other. The Greeks hence had two “Atlantic Oceans”, one in the west (the present one) and one in the east (the modern Pacific Ocean). Please note the Atlantic’s identity with the Ocean.

  We also note that the Greeks included as “Atlantic Sea” any innavigable sea such as the Sea of Atlantis described by Plato. And this sea seems to be the South China Sea and the Java Sea, both extremely dangerous due to the many shoals and reefs, not to mention the terrible Malay pirates who infested the region, helping in rendering it innavigable. See also the next entry.]

  “Headword: Aplôta pelagê – Translated headword: “Unsailed seas”

  Greek Original: ta Atlantika kai hesperios ôkeanos kai eôos. Aplôton gar to apleuston. – Translation: “The Atlantics [are] both western ocean and eastern. For aploton [means] un-navigated.”

  [This enigmatic reference to the two “Atlantic Oceans” (in the plural) was already glossed in the previous entry, also from the Suda. The ancient Mediterraneans normally called the modern Atlantic by the name of Western Ocean (Hesperios Okeanos). And they likewise normally called the Pacific by the name of Eastern Ocean (Eôos Okeanos). In fact, the word eôos means not only “oriental”, but also “Orient”. As such, this name applied, as it does even today, to the Far Orient. In particular, Indonesia was itself called Eôos, and so was its sea or ocean. Hence, the two “Atlantics” of this gloss here actually refer to the Atlantic proper and the Pacific Ocean, considered its westernmost extension.

  The ancients also considered the Pacific Ocean to be the True Ocean (Alethinos Pontos or Okeanos), with the modern Atlantic Ocean deemed its eastern extension or “arm”. This arm departed eastward from the Far East, and the Indian Ocean was its western extension considered from there. Accordingly, the Pacific Ocean then becomes the “Atlantic Ocean” of the ancient Greeks, being divided into its two modern moieties, the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans. The South Pacific was also known as South Sea, Prasion Pelagos (“Sea of Sargassos”), etc.. Hence the use of the plural here. The foolish attempts on the part of certain modern Atlantologists to identify the Atlantic Ocean of the ancients with the Mediterranean Sea are just that: sheer folly, as this entry as well as innumerous others unequivocally demonstrate.

  The ancients usually thought – down to the end of the Age of Navigation when they finally learnt otherwise – that the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean were coterminous, since they generally ignored the existence of the interposed Americas. It is for this reason that they sought in the (modern) Atlantic Ocean the so-called “Atlantic Islands”. This is how they called the insular remains of sunken Atlantis they knew to be located in the Far East. Columbus was no exception to this rule, and also attempted to reach those islands, which he deemed, like all other conquistadors, the actual precursors of the East Indies: Cipango, Ys Brazil, Kattigara, Satanaxio, Sanbrandan, etc..

  We note that the term used by the illustrious translator: “unsailed seas” is somewhat misleading. It implies that these seas are not sailed, and not that they are “innavigable”, as actually affirmed by Pindar, Plato and several other ancient authorities. Though seemingly slight, this difference is crucial. The [modern] Atlantic Ocean, in contrast to the ancient version, may have been “unsailed” in antiquity for a series of reasons. But it was not “innavigable” in any sense of the word. Once more we observe the fact that translators very often betray the authors they translate.]

  Chapter 11 - The True Pillars of Hercules

  Science is one thing, wisdom is another. Science is an edged tool, with which men play like children, and cut their own fingers.

  Sir Arthur Eddington (1882–1944)

  In what follows, we describe a very simple method that we have devised in order to allow the direct intercomparison of Atlantis’ proposed localizations with its main features given in the passage of Timaeus 24e-25a. This passage is perhaps the most crucial in the whole work of the great philosopher, at least in what concerns the subject of Atlantis.

  And this feature is really the main connecting thread of Plato’s whole work. Our device acts as some sort of a mandala or yantra which forces us to keep the mind fixed in the essential features, avoiding the many slips and pitfalls normally encountered by most researchers investigating the slippery enigma of Atlantis.

  We have, after a very long study, reached the conclusion that the “Pillars of Hercules” mentioned by Plato in his dialogues on Atlantis could never be those in Gibraltar. In fact, these pillars there seem to be phony, and were never accepted as true by any specialists.

  Moreover, there were a host of “Pillars of Hercules” posted both in the region of Gibraltar, as well as in other straits: the Bosporus, the Syrtis, the Bab-el-Mandeb, the Cimmerian Bosphorus, and so on. So much so, that innumerous experts have reached the conclusion that Atlantis could never have been located just outside Gibraltar, and have sought the elusive sunken continent somewhere else.

  In the figures section earlier in this book we reproduced a map, due to José Imbelloni, the great Argentinean anthropologist, showing several dozens of “Pillars of Hercules” and “Pillars of Atlas” located just about everywhere in the Old World region.

  Moreover, it is quite possible that Plato really used the word “opposite; facing” in the sense of “antipodal” rather than “in front” or “just ahead”. The Greek word he used (pro) in fact bears the two senses, so that it is quite possible that Plato was deliberately playing on words here, in order to preserve the secret of Atlantis. Other ancient authorities also did the same, for reasons we now adduce.

  In the present chapter we will be discussing in detail the various locations which have so far been proposed for Atlantis. And we will show – we hope to anyone’s satisfaction – that Plato in fact referred to the opposite side of the world, the antipodes, in Taprobane. Here is the passage of Plato we just mentioned, here in Benjamin Jowett’s translation, one of the best available:

  Plato’s Tim. 24e–25a – Many great and wonderful deeds are recorded of your state in our histories. But one of them exceeds all the rest in greatness and valor. For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end. This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean – for in those days the Atlantic was navigable – and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles. This island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean. For this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbor, having a narrow entrance. But that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. ↑075

  The above passage of the genial philosopher is somewhat dense and difficult. But it is perhaps the single most important and the most controversial in both of Plato’s dialogues on Atlantis. Please follow, if you so want, the links given above in order to access another translation, as well as the Greek original with detailed glosses by erudite commentators to every word in Plato’s remarkable text on Atlantis.

  Taken verbatim, this remarkable passage of Plato fails to make any geographical sense whatsoever. So, anyone wanting to interpret this passage literally – as so many experts have attempted in the past – is doomed to failure from the start.

  That fact becomes clearer when we compare the geographical data included here with the geographical reality. This intercomparison – which is so simple that the readers can do it for themselves for any site thus far proposed for Atlantis or any other they
may choose – is perhaps the most important of all analyses that can be made while attempting to locate Atlantis as a geographical reality that exists or existed somewhere on the physical earth.

  This intercomparison can be done by anyone who takes the trouble to peruse a globe of the earth or a world map such as the one we showed above. In what follows next, we will also discuss the real meaning of the actual terms used by Plato in his Greek original.

  The following discussion is somewhat erudite and may seem obscure to the average reader. We suggest that those of our readers who find this commentary difficult to follow, just skip it and go directly to Table III.1 next, and to the discussions which follow it.

  These readers may return later to the arguments given here whenever they feel it is necessary. But, please, do try to follow the main trend of the argument, as it is in fact quite simple and easy to understand in its essence. Just skip the difficult words and arguments.

  Actually, this intercomparison may be done far more easily than it may seem at first sight. These formidable Greek and Latin and Sanskrit and Dravidian words are all referred back to familiar everyday English words. We have done most of the dirty work of deciphering Plato’s obscurities such as the ones pointed out above and below.

  We have puzzled over and over again on the above enigmatic passage of Plato, and believe to have at last solved the puzzle posed by the philosopher to all the many experts who have earlier attempted to crack this difficult enigma. So, the rest is relatively easy to follow.

  First of all, one has to keep in mind that such initiatic texts are posed by the hierophant precisely as some sort of charade or riddle to be deciphered by the audience, both initiated and profane. In other words, Plato is appealing to one’s cunningness in solving the enigma of Atlantis. The solution of the riddle is absolutely fascinating, as it teaches us to reason clearly and to gain insight in the matter.

  Second, for the present purpose, we must forget the usual placenames and hold to the actual geography alone. In other words, we should forget the usual interpretations of toponyms such as “Pillars of Hercules” or “Atlantic Ocean” or “Island”, and stick to the actual geographical features given by Plato and by Diodorus, etc..

  This, regardless of the name they may have in their own time or in ours, in Greek or in English, etc.. Above all, keep in mind that names such as “Pillars of Hercules”, “Hesperia”, “Libya”, “Phoenicia” and so forth had a double identity: the usual one and the secret, antipodal one. Moreover, several of these had multiple identities, and were used over and over again.

  Once a place that fits Plato’s description – or Diodorus’, etc. – is discovered, we then work backwards to try to find whether Plato could really have had it in mind when he affirmed what he did.

  One must keep in mind the inescapable fact that sacred toponyms and theonyms are applied over and over again to different places and different gods and heroes. Hence, they seldom if ever mean anything at all by themselves. We now comment several instances of this dualism or pluralism at work in antiquity.

  One is not allowed to believe that Plato meant, by the above geographical features and by the place-names (Greek toponyms) he actually used, the same that we do nowadays. In fact, it is quite obvious that he did not, for his data fails to make any sense at all in this hypothesis.

  Plato was very obviously far from stupid. And he was also far from ignorant on the initiatic matters he was disclosing to those of us who are open-minded and open-hearted enough to profit by them.

  There were simply too many “Pillars of Hercules” and /or “Pillars of Atlas” in antiquity to allow us to conclude that Plato specifically meant Gibraltar. Instead, it is obvious that he did not. Gibraltar is just one of the several dozens of such instances of the widespread toponym. In myths, as in symbolism, the obvious solution is never the solution of the riddle, whose role is precisely one of titillating our intelligence and our powers of reasoning to seek further.

  As we said above, by “island” the great philosopher normally meant what we nowadays improperly call “continent”. This word is really a misnomer, which in antiquity was confined to the “true continent”, the one said to “contain” the ocean on the outside, and which the experts unanimously identify as America.

  By “Atlantic Ocean” the sage clearly meant the “Ocean of the Atlantis”, as he himself explains; the place where it actually foundered, in the South Seas. And this ocean or sea is clearly the one where the Lost Continent is actually located, rather than the one we now so name.

  This accounts for the fact that Atlantis could not be found in the Atlantic Ocean up to now, despite the insistent efforts of a great many explorers, mariners and skilled geographers. Their error lay in not realizing that Plato’s words should not and cannot be taken literally, for his idea was precisely to confound the profanes, that is, the public in general, including the experts themselves.

  In myths, as in sacred disclosures of all sorts, the evident is never what is really intended, and the truth is always mystical and secluded, and reserved for the initiates alone. Consider, for instance, the obvious internal contradictions of Plato’s text when taken literally.

  ● First, there was never any large “island” of continental size in front of Gibraltar Strait. This region has been carefully charted and literally combed for Atlantis or otherwise both in antiquity and today, when we enjoy the help of outer space spy satellites of all sorts. And only puny islands such as Espartel and the Azores have ever been found there by the many thousands of explorers of the wide region.

  ● Second, the Atlantic Ocean was never “innavigable” in the region of Gibraltar or indeed almost anywhere that really matters, the Sargasso Sea and the Caribbean Sea themselves included.

  ● Third, it is obvious that neither Egypt nor Greece existed as nations at the distant Pleistocenic date in which Plato’s Atlantis is said to have flourished, according to the words of the philosopher himself. This epoch was the Ice Age, when no known civilization whatsoever has been discovered yet. But Agriculture already existed then, so that the possibility is there.

  ● Fourth, there were – or, even less, are – no islands great or not on the way to the “opposite continent”, which most people identify with the Americas. So, Plato was very obviously referring to another region, unless he were talking idly, like a fool.

  ● Fifth, the “real ocean” is obviously not the Mediterranean and clearly not even the Atlantic Ocean, but the Pacific Ocean. This fact will become more clear next, when we comment Plato’s text in its connection with actual geographical reality and with ancient beliefs on this issue, which is of utmost importance in understanding the myth of Atlantis.

  The Tabular Comparison

  After the above explanatory preamble, we now finally turn to the comparison of Plato’s data with the actual geographical reality mentioned above. For the purpose of this comparison we must forget, at least for the time being, the geographical place-names that the philosopher actually used, and concentrate on the geographical features themselves. Otherwise, we will be utterly misled and stray from the correct route leading to Atlantis.

  Besides, who can guarantee that Plato was not allegorizing or playing on words in order to confound the profanes, as he so often does in several of his texts? Hence, forget the names, and concentrate on the actual geographical features alone, as we already recommended above.

  For the purpose of performing those comparisons, we have devised and present below Table III.1, where the main geographical data given by Plato in the above quoted passage are summarized. When we do a tabular comparison, it immediatly becomes evident that none of the many sites previously proposed for Atlantis in reality “fits the bill”.

  The only exception to this rule seems to be the one I discovered over twenty years ago: Indonesia and the Sunda Shelf located beneath its seas.

  We will leave this comparison for the end, as some sort of dessert for the magnificent banquet offered us all by Plato, the grea
t philosopher.

  We leave this intercomparison for the end purposefully. We hope that, after these preliminary comparisons, the reader will have got the hang of the procedure’s power when this important collation is finally done. After this, the reader can always return to his favorite choice at any time, to try to redo it all over again with the tricks of the trade learnt along the way.

  In our other books and articles, we comment these crucial matters in far more detail than is possible here, given the time and space we have allowed ourselves. The telltale geographical data given by Plato in the above quoted passage of his Timaeus are summarized in Table III.1 below. We left these features unnamed in order to avoid introducing any biases whatsoever, either pro or con.

  We leave it up to the readers to decide for themselves whether the sitings in question or some others they may propose are acceptable, both geographically and toponymically. And we ask the dear readers to keep in mind the fact that toponyms such as “Pillars of Hercules” or “Gades”, etc. were used over and over again in many different parts of the world, and hence mean very little on their own.

  In what follows, these geographical data will be applied to all or most sites so far proposed by myself and by the other researchers and authorities. These results will be shown in the other tables that follow. It will be demonstrated, we hope, that all these sites, with the sole exception of my own proposal of true Taprobane, grossly misfit Plato’s data.

  The readers are encouraged to verify and check my conclusions and arguments to avoid being deceived or misled, for such is not our intention at all.

  And we will be glad to stand corrected and amend our conclusions if they are found to be specious or false. After all, this is the correct procedure in Science. Science is sheer guesswork. In doing Science, we scientists arbitrarily frame hypotheses – sometimes quite absurd – and then test them out against reality.