10. Plato’s TIMAEUS
1. Introduction to the translation
Excerpt from the dialogue that contains the references to Atlantis. Here, Critias speaks about Atlantis to Socrates. Present and listening are Timaeus and Hermocrates. There is also one other member of the party of conversationalists but who is absent and does not make an appearance at all, in either of the two books.
2. TRANSLATION. Starts at 20.d.7 of the ancient text.
CRITIAS: Listen then, Socrates, to a very placeless lore, but which is however absolutely true, as once Solon the wisest of the seven (recounted it). Indeed he was a relation and very good friend of our own Dropides the great-grandfather, exactly like he says himself also on many occasions in his poetry; Indeed unto Critias, my grandfather, he told him, just as the old man recalled them in the same manner for us, that this here city (of Athens) had in the past accomplished grand and marvelous deeds, which however due to time and human calamity have disappeared, while one above all was the most outstanding, which if we are to recall it now, it would be fitting for us by which to reciprocate in gratitude (for the previous hospitality), while at the same time pay tribute to the Goddess of this festivity in a just and proper manner, exactly as when we are in prayer (1).
SOCRATES: Well said. But what is this deed, which has never been spoken of, but has indeed been accomplished by this city during the ancient age, as was recounted by Critias, just like Solon had heard it (2).
CRITIAS: I will tell you an old story I have heard, not from a young man. Because, when Critias (the grandfather) recounted at the time, he was almost close to ninety years old, whereas I was already about ten; indeed it so happened that we had the festivity of the Koureotes of the Apatourians (3).
Whereas that which is customary each time at the festivity, also then the same was done with the children; that is to say that prizes were established for us by our fathers, for the recital of poems. Indeed there were heard poems by many poets, but many of us youths recited (poems) by Solon, which were new at that time. Someone then from a fraternity (family), either because he meant it at the time, or because he wanted to honour Critias, said that also in other (matters) Solon is most wise, but also in poetry from the other poets he has the greatest candor. The old man then, I remember it very well, much appreciated this, and with a broad smile said: Truly Amynandros, if Solon did not occupy himself with poetry as a sideline, but studied it in depth, like others, and if he had completed the lore he brought from Egypt, and had not found on his return many wrongs because of revolutions and other doings and did not neglect it in my opinion, neither Hesiod nor Homer nor any other poet would have ever become more glorified than he.
(Amynandros) “And what is this lore Critias?” (Grandfather Critias) “It is by far the greatest and most renowned righteous deed that this city has accomplished, but because of time and the decimation of the people who experienced it the lore did not endure for long.” (Amynandros): “Tell us from the beginning, then, what it is exactly, how did it happen and from whom did Solon hear these as truths?” (4)
(Critias): “There is in Egypt he said, at the delta, there at the top where splits the flow of the Nile, a certain province, which is named Saitikos, while of this province the largest city is Sais, from where king Amasis is also descended.
According to them, a certain deity is head of the city, who in Egyptian is named Nieth, whereas in Greek, as they say, Athena. They say that they love the Athenians very much, and are in some way related.
So when Solon went there, he said that they regarded him to be very honorable, and when he once asked the more experienced priests on these, he realized that neither himself nor any other Greek knew about this let us call it epic (or) had found anything in relation to these things.
And at some point, because he wanted to draw them into conversation about the ancients and the ancient reports, he began to mythologize about Foroneos the first (human), as it is alleged, and Niovi, and then (to mythologise) about the cataclysm of Deucalion and of Pyrra how they happened, and which generations descended from them, and the events of the years that gone by, and to try to recall to his memory and calculate the time (5), then one of the most elder of the Priests said:
“O Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children, but no Greek is old.” As soon as Solon heard this, he said to him: “How; why do you say this?”
– “Young you are, let us say, in psyche, because you do not have inside you any hearing of ancient olden knowledge, and you have not learned of things of the past. For these, this here is the reason.
Many and in many ways catastrophes befall people and will come also in the future, some indeed maximum from heat and from waters, while others smaller from tens of thousands of causes. Because, as for example is said by you, that supposedly at one time Phaethon, the child of Helios (the sun), after hitching the chariot of his father and not having the strength to proceed by horse (unable to control the horses), like his father, scorched the earth and he himself being struck by lighting disappeared, while this you speak of as a myth, whereas indeed the truth is that those (celestial bodies) rotating around the earth over the whole expanse of sky in parallax and which has been happening for a long time, via heat bring catastrophe on Earth. Subsequently, therefore, those who dwell in the mountains and in high and arid places are utterly destroyed, more so than those who dwell by the rivers and the seas. While in our land where the Nile is also in other things our savior, then (again) from this difficulty delivers us, by flooding (6). Then again when the gods cleanse the earth with cataclysms of water, while the herdsmen and shepherds who are on the mountains survive, those who dwell in your cities, in your land, are swept away by the rivers into the sea and indeed in this country neither then nor at any time does the water run forcefully onto the fields, but instead rises from below to everywhere and spreads out in a natural way (7). Therefore for these reasons it is said that these which are here saved are of the very oldest. The truth is however that in all lands, where winter is not extreme and extreme temperature is missing, more often than not, there is always the human race.
While whatever has taken place in your country or elsewhere or at some other place which we know of through hearsay, or if somewhere else has happened something good or great or even something which is presented in a different way, all are from long ago documented and have been safeguarded in our Temples.
Whereas in your country and in others, anything that has chanced to have just been created by letters (through edification) and all that the cities need, once more in the course of time, there comes like a sickness a gust from the sky (heavenly wind) and leaves of you but the illiterate and uneducated, so that you to become from the beginning young again, without your knowing neither of this land nor of yourselves, of all that occurred in bygone years.
What therefore you said about the events in your generations, o Solon, that is to say whatever you have narrated about yourselves, even though there have preceded many events since, does not differ but slightly from children’s myths, for yes indeed you may remember first a cataclysm, but you are still not aware that your race is the finest and best of humankind, from which you and all your city originate, because a small amount of seed remained, but escaped your notice, because they of many generations who remained died without recounting them (8).
Indeed there was a time, o Solon, during the age of the big erosions due to the waters (9), then when excelled as finest the city of the Athenians, both in war and in all things most law-abiding. It is said that there were achieved the best deeds in all areas and that adopted were the best polities, of all that we have acknowledged to have heard of under the sky (heavens).” Thus did Solon on hearing these things, marvel greatly, and expressed all willingness beseeching the Priests to refer to everything in detail about the olden citizens. So the priest said: “I will not utter any bad word, o Solon, neither about you nor your city, more for the sake of the Goddess, who yours and ours by lottery acquired and developed and educated, first yours a thousand years before ours, after having taken the seed of Gaea (Earth) and Hephaestus, and afterwards for this one here. Indeed it is inscribed here precisely and documented by us in the sacred scriptures, as a number of eight thousand years (10).
As for the events I will tell you in brief, about the laws and on the excellence of the deeds which was derived from them, for nine thousand years since, when we have the opportunity, after we meticulously go through these texts, we will refer in detail again as to the accuracy of all.
Indeed examine the laws as to the ones here. Because many examples of ones existing then at yours you will find now here (11), where firstly separate from the rest is the genus of priests, after that is the genus of artisans, because it creates on its own independently without mingling with others; that of the shepherds and the hunters, and of the farmers; and of course it has come to your attention also the genus of warriors, which is separate from all these genus’s , and has been ordered unto them by law not to deal with anything else except in relation to war.
Moreover with things relevant to their weaponry, shields and spears, exactly for the reason that the Goddess revealed these to those lands first, after you, did we first of those in Asia became armed. While with regard to prudence, you see here the law of this (city), and you ascertain with how much care we instituted it from the start about everything, even as to divination and medicine that deal with health, (the law) stemming from the gods, given to humans, and how many other precepts that follow on from them, should you acquire them all (12).
With all this governance and order the Goddess, thus having arranged first your ancestors, established herself, having chosen that land as the land of your birth, after having determined that there the good combination of the hours (balance of the hours) (13), will produce people with prudence. And because truly the goddess was both warlike and wise, since she chose that land which was going to produce men who would offer unto her, she founded it first. Thus you were the first to dwell by applying such laws and in addition being very well governed, surpassing all other peoples in virtue, as was natural besides, being born and bred of gods.
Numerous, grand and wondrous were the deeds of your city which are documented here, but of them all there is one outstanding in greatness and virtue; because the writings refer to how mighty was the force, that marched in arrogance at the same time against all of Europe and Asia, that campaigned out of the Atlantic Pelagos (14), (which) your city did once thwart.
Because at that time the there-Pelagos was navigable (15); thus it had an island (continent) (16) before the mouth, which is called, as you maintain, the Pillars of Heracles (17), while the island (continent) was larger than both Libya and Asia together (18), via which (continent) it was possible for those travelers of the time to embark on to the other islands (19), and from those islands towards the entire continent (20) which was found katantikri (downward, opposite and across) (21), which was around (somewhat curved around) (22) the true-there-pontos (23). Because to these here, whichever (places) within the mouth of which we speak (24), it seems like a harbour that has a narrow navigable entrance (25); whereas the landmass (26) which completely enclosed (27) the that-pelagos (28), could quite rightly be called a continent (29).
In Atlantis, therefore, this island (island) (30), there assembled a large and prodigious force of Kings, which was dominant over indeed the whole island (continent) (31), as well as over many other islands and lands that were part of the Continent (32); whereas apart from these, they also ruled the interior of this here Libya up to Egypt, while Europe as far as Tyrrhenia (33). Thus this force all gathered as one, attempted to enslave at one time plus yours plus ours plus those inside the mouth every land
(34). So then, o Solon, the power of your city shone for all peoples, both in virtue and in courage; because, certainly, it was superior to all in magnanimity and in the arts that are relevant to war, while as to these (martial arts) it was left on its own perforce, after the desertion of the others, having ended up in extreme dangers, and having indeed defeated them who attacked set up a trophy (monument), while those who had not been enslaved thus far prevented not to be enslaved, whereas to the others whoever of us dwell within the boundaries of Heracles it granted us absolute freedom (35). While after some time (36) due to the materialization of exceeding earthquakes and cataclysms, with the passing of a wretched day and night (37), all your military corps was covered by the earth (38), while the island of Atlantis (island) (39) likewise inundated by the sea disappeared (40); this is why even to this day it still lacks a poros (narrow navigable waterway connecting two seas) (41), and unsearchable became the there-pelagos (42), because a small quantity of clay (43) greatly obstructed (the poros), which (clay) was given by the island (the continent) (44) at the moment of its settling (45).
These, therefore, which were spoken, o Socrates, by the elder Critias who heard them from Solon, in brief shall we say you have heard them. So all the while you were speaking yesterday about polities and men, to whom you referred, I marveled, bringing back to my mind once more the things of which I speak now, realizing that ostensibly by fate of spirit (by amazing coincidence) and not by intention, you identified with most of what Solon had said. But I did not want to say so immediately; because on account of time I could not remember enough; I realized therefore that I owed it to myself, once I initially defined everything to an adequate degree, to speak in this way. For this reason, I readily accepted what were stipulated in words by you yesterday, because I believe that what is more important in such circumstances, namely that we must first define the topic of the discussion we wish to have, will not concern you to any great extent.
And so as he too likewise said, yesterday and immediately on my leaving here, to them of these things I spoke re-remembering, and after taking my leave of leaving them, almost every single thing I recalled thinking through the night. So as they say, the things one learns at a young age, one keeps them in memory to a remarkable degree. For I , of things I heard yesterday, I would not be sure, if I would be able to recall them to my memory; whereas of things that I have heard from very long ago, I would generally be surprised, if something of these has escaped me.
They were therefore very pleasantly listenable to and with delight, and as the old man did with willingness teach them to me, for I would really ask for repetitions many times, so they were imprinted on me like marks of indelible writing.
And so to them here, when it was dawning, I was saying these same things, in order for them to discuss them with me. So now I say unto you, o Socrates, because I am ready to tell you everything, all that have been said not just in general, but exactly as I heard about each separately.
The citizens and the city which yesterday you described to us as a myth which, if we were to transfer them to actuality, we will assume that (city) to be this one here, and the citizens you meant, we shall mean them to be our actual ancestors, those whom the priest meant.
In any case we shall equate them and we will not doubt, saying that they are the ones who lived then. While us all together, if we are to examine the subject matter, we shall endeavour to discuss it as is proper, so that we can reciprocate on the things you defined for us in words (46). We must therefore examine, o Socrates, if it is proper for us to test out logically this logos (spoken word i.e. the narrative) or some other in its stead.
SOCRATES: And with what other topic would we replace it, o Critias, so that it would be more appropriate re the present sacrifice to the goddess, especially since it is true logos and not fabricated myth (47) …
…the conversation continues on to other matters.
11. Analyses re the Translation.
1. Plato, here, for the first time, makes reference to very ancient Athens and then to Atlantis of that same time. Before Plato, only the historian Herodotus and the very olden have given some scant information on Atlantis. Critias wished to reciprocate Socrates’ hospitality, as was customary each time they would meet to discuss and exchange significant information or theories. Socrates had the previous day hosted the conversationalists and now it was required that they return the favour of whatever new information or edification he had offered by responding in kind. Thus, in the light of Socrates’ importance, Critias needed to come up with a notable subject and present it in precise detail. So he remembered a very important topic which spoke of very ancient Athens and Atlantis and on which he happened to have exclusive knowledge. But it was such a momentous subject for discussion that it seemed somewhat out of place. For that reason, he needed to convince his listeners that it was not a fabricated myth but a true account. Another factor evidencing the truthfulness of his words was the appropriateness of the day which was in homage to the goddess Athena, the founding deity of Athens, the city where this conversation was taking place.
2. Socrates readily acknowledges the integrity of Critias and of the original carriers of this story and asks to know what Solon said.
3. Critias continues to vouch as to the veracity of what is about to follow by saying that he heard the story from an elder, given that young persons would probably not convey it as faithfully or dispassionately. The festivity of the Koureotes of the Apatourian was a coming of age confirmation, whereby teenagers were acknowledged by the fraternities or in other words, the families, as their genuine descendents.
4. a) Sais was a very ancient city which, according to Plato, was situated at the top of the Nile delta. It is known that king Amasis was particularly friendlily disposed to the Greeks of that time. According to lore, the city was built by Athenian colonists who brought with them the worship of Athena. Herodotus too visited Sais and marveled at the temple dedicated there to Athena. The moniker Sais was also given to the goddess at Argolis (Peloponnese, Greece) and there was a temple in her name on mount Pontinos, which is the extension of mount Crios in Southern Argolis. There was also the homonymous river whose source is on its east side and joins up with the lakes of Alkyonis and Lerni. It flows into the bay of Argolis at the settlement of Myli. According to the Egyptian priest, the residents of Sais claimed that they were in some way related to the Athenians. This is also reported by Diodorus. In addition, Plato informs that it was the seed of Gaea and Hephaestus from which were created the Greeks and later on the Egyptians. It is quite possible therefore, that Sais was indeed founded by Athenian colonists and for there to have been a blood relationship. The city became the royal residence from 635 to 525 BC, mostly during the 24th, 26th, 28th – 30th dynasties and was the centre of Egyptian civilization in a period of cultural revival. Art took on surrealistic characteristics. In the Louvre there is exhibited, from that age, the head of an alder and a cat crafted in bronze. There were sphinxes with masculine facial features, in contrast however to the Greeks who gave them feminine ones. With the founding of Alexandria (331 BC) the city lost its luster (Encyclopedia Domi). The fist time Solon visited Egypt and specifically Sais, must have been in 610 BC.
b) The old man, grandfather Critias, despite his advanced years was probably wary of compromising Solons memory in case anyone listening would not believe this story. Unless, of course, it would have been told by Solon. So the old man had never divulged it until that moment. In Amynandros he found a willing listener who not only acknowledged the unquestionable supremacy of Solon but who also respected him, the old man. So, grandfather Critias decided to divulge the story. His broad smile shows his delight at the opportunity to at last be able to demonstrate the preeminence of Solon by publicising the story that the sage had brought back from Egypt.
5. a) Solon attempted and succeeded in drawing the priests into conversation whereupon, after he, as was customary, had first recounted a Greek myth to them, they in return of favour, disclosed one to him. Furthermore, here for the first time this story is not referred to as a myth but as an epos.
b) Certain researchers have hypothesized that, when Solon heard the dates mentioned by the Egyptian priest, he either did not make the conversion from the Egyptian calendar into the Greek or he made a mistake when converting. Further on in the text, the priest says that 9.000 years had elapsed, a number that some consider being an overstatement. However, that last sentence “to try to recall to his memory and calculate the time” shows that Solon not only knew of the difference in the way Egypt and Athens measured time, but also makes it plainly clear that he had made the relevant conversion. If Solon had accurately managed to convert Greek dates to Egyptian, then why would he not be as accurate the other way round? Besides, it is Plato who is actually speaking via Critias. In his time, and even a lot earlier, the precise duration of a year was perfectly well known. Furthermore in Critias, apart from references to ancient Athens which are again measured in thousands of years, there is also important evidence in support of this very olden chronology. In addition, the priest who appears to have a better knowledge of olden Greek history did not refute the calculated time. He did, however, doubt Solons’ approach to the myth of Phaethon as to the interpretation of the event, as will be shown in due course.
Moreover, some consider that for the Egyptians a year corresponded to one Greek month. Evidently this confusion has arisen because of a peculiar reference which is in the transcript of the texts of the Egyptian Manethon made by Eusebius (260-340 AD – Time Canons – taken from the Armenian Translation). Therein is mentioned this analogy but many researchers consider that somewhere, someone has transferred this information erroneously. Besides, this is not the only mistake with regard to time in these reports. Furthermore, it is known what Solon knew about calculating the Greek year. This information is provided by Herodotus who in his stories tells of the famous meeting between Solon and King Croesus, in which the former questioned the complacency of the latter.
Herodotus – Histories – 1.32.7-21 (Solon speaking to Croesus)
“Over a long period of time one can see many things that that one will not desire. Thus, I set as limit of human life the seventy years. These seventy years have twenty five thousand two hundred days, without one taking into account the added months; if indeed one should wish to add an additional month to every two years, for the seasons to comply appropriately, the months added as intercalary to the seventy years, are thirty five in number, while the days of these months are a thousand and fifty. Of all these twenty six thousand two hundred and fifty days which make up the seventy years, not one brings that which brings the next. Thus, Croesus, all things are consequential to humans”.
The above shows that Solon defines the year as:
25.200 days by 70 years = 360 days and 360/12 = 30 days per month. So he is here referring to human years, with a variation of 5, 25 days per year. In which case, it seems that he calculates a human year to be 360 days. However, so as not to ‘deregulate’ the seasons, every second year he adds a month i.e. another 30 days. Thus, every two years there are (360+390)/2 or 375 days per year. He therefore calculates the seasons according to a year of 375 days. This deviation of one month every three years is excessive and unrealistic in the age of Solon. It would not be possible for the economy and civilization to develop with such a large deviation of seasons in such a short time. Moreover, as per Herodotus, Solon does make reference to other intermediate adjustments, such as of the lunar years of 354.3 days. With the major constellations already charted from very olden times, as far back as the Orphic Poets and Homer at least, it is not possible that it would not have been observed that in the short period of a few years, the stars and especially the seasons would not be in their projected position. Because there is no such report to substantiate that in 600 BC the seasons in Greece were ‘out of sync’ and because Herodotus’ report does not mention other adjustments, until proof to the contrary is found, it will herein be assumed that Solon made his conversions as per the Greek calendar, with the correct duration of a year as 365.25 days. However, one cannot rule out the possibility that there may be ‘hidden’ some unknown, thus far, semeiological significance to these years. The author has present a part from MOM explaining an adventure from ODYSSEY where is hidden the most ancient recording reference proving that from the ages of HOMER much older than this of Plato, (some) Greeks were using a precise calendar almost same accurate as the today!
Also, according to Diogenes Laertius (3rd cent. AD) (Vitae philosophorum), it was Thales (A’ half of the 7th to the B’ half of the 6th cent. ΒC) who first calculated the number of hours in a year and that its duration is 365 days.
There were reports by the Romans with regard to the ‘loss’ of the seasons until, at the summons of Julius Caesar, the Greek astronomer Sosigenes drew up a calendar (in 46 AD) with but minor deviation from the one in current use. He presented the Romans with a calendar of 365.25 days in replacement of their lunar calendar of 354 days and today’s 365.2422 days. In other words, in comparison to today’s precise measurements, his calendar deviated by about 11.4 minutes per year (see: The Odyssey of the Calendars – Volume A), which is a loss of approximately 8 days, every 1.000 years. But in this way, a Greek astronomer, Sosigenes, simplified it for the Romans (for Julius Caesar) and for centuries afterwards, so as not to need to adjust the years by adding an extra day to the 365 every 4th year; as it is done today. Surely he could never have imagined that 1.500 years after his creation, there would not have been the knowledge to precisely calculate the length of a year so as to make the required adjustments. Today, this calendar is called “Julian Calendar”.
6. a) The word ‘parallax’ the priest uses, is indicative of his own knowledge and also that of Solon. Even today this word is used in astronomy and elsewhere. However, its concept has slightly changed. In astronomy, where this term is still used, it has a different meaning. But in navigation, even today, at least by Greek seamen, it is understood as it is used by the priest. Namely, a point of reference is in parallax when an observer on board a vessel measures having covered an equal distance (or has taken the same time traveling at a steady speed or is at the same angle of observation) before and after the point of reference, which is in parallax.
b) The views and manner of the priest clearly show his excellent command of astronomy and physics. He elucidates that when the celestial bodies are in a different position in the firmament, that position is at times associated with natural phenomena on earth which could sometimes give rise to increases in temperature and sometimes floods. These phenomena occur due to the gravitational pull of the celestial bodies and the way in which these forces affect the orbital elements of earth. Indeed, these interrelationships have been closely observed over thousands of years and scientifically substantiated fairly recently in current history. (Milankovitch Cycles).
c) One of the questions troubling the Greek wise men of the time was why the Nile flooded in summer, the season when all the known rivers either had reduced capacity or dried up completely. Even though they knew that the sources of the Nile were very far away, they were not in agreement as to what extent this phenomenon was the result of melting glaciers (referred to as petrified ice by the ancients) or snow or rainfall which kept the Nile abundantly supplied with water at the same time that in the corresponding season in Greece was one of drought. As will be seen from a historical perspective, it is possible that there was riverine connection between the Euthymenean Pontos and the Nile. Obviously, also before the age of Atlantis, the same phenomenon would occur and to a greater extent even. Agatharchides (117 BC) stated in a report that it would rain heavily in Ethiopia during the summer (also, Diodorus). Anaxagoras (450 BC), amongst others, had identified another reason, which was the snow on the mountains to the south of Ethiopia. Similar references were made by Democritus (460 BC), Aeschylus (484 BC), Sophocles (468 BC), Euripides (441 BC), Apollonius Rodius (295 BC) and especially noteworthy is the reference by Euthymenes of Marseilles (6th century BC), who had traveled as far as there and so knew more. This important issue will be duly looked at.
7. The earthquake generated tsunamis, which at times manifested in the Mediterranean, probably did not impact seriously on Egypt. Many cities such as Thebes lay much further inland. Even if assuming that the elevation of Egypt was lower at that time, so was the level of the sea. Moreover, Egypt is not mountainous like Greece, so torrents and destructive floods were unusual. As for a possible natural catastrophe having taken place in Egypt, this must have been long before its systematic colonization by the Greeks. This colonization of Egypt’s coastline was more vigorous in the classical age and the cities founded by the ancient Greeks were near the coast. Discovered fairly recently (2000) off the coast in Egypt, is the city of Heraclea (Herakleum as per the Roman). It is in a very good state and the recovery of statues and monuments continues to this day. It is undoubtedly expected that a wealth of important information will be obtained from the engraved inscriptions which have thus far been found and in excellent condition.
8. Here one can observe not only a priest but also a scientist. It must be remembered that the priests of those times were truly scientists who safeguarded knowledge which they regarded as a gift from the divine. If the things that the Egyptian priest speaks of here had been said by a scientist of the 17th century, they would have gone unnoticed. Today, with knowledge from the considerable and harmful environmental changes, the words of the priest echo more than wise. For even today, Earth is in an age of ‘heat’, not only because of atmospheric pollution and the greenhouse effect, but also because of ‘parallax’ to the sun, as the priest rightly stated. The comments that the priest makes further on are even more compelling and substantial. What is more, it is made clear that the priest has extensive historical knowledge when he declares that many events had occurred in the distant past, preceding even the ones to which Solon referred to as having happened a very long time ago. Furthermore, when the priest points out that for 8.000 years archives have been kept in record of all the historical events they were informed of, he confirms the dawn of a new civilization in Egypt begun by the arrival of the deities Athena and Hephaestus. This date coincides with the start of the final war between the Athenians and Atlantians. Also, the priest declares that the cataclysms were many more and prior to the one referred to by Solon.
9. The age of erosion, as defined by the priest, is the time between that when the goddess Athena assumed the benefaction of Athens and before she went to the Egyptians i.e. from 9.600 to 8.600 BC. In this way, Plato gives another characteristic of the climate of that time, that is to say, a time of an overabundance of water causing large scale erosion. When widespread erosion occurs, there tends to follow in its wake catastrophes on land due to liquefaction. If this takes place along coastal areas, whether on land or in the sea, the dissolution of land which is generated by earthquakes and/or from gravitational collapse or landslides, will simultaneously give tsunamis and sedimentation.
10. It is pointed out (in CRITIAS) that Athens and Egypt befell on Athena and Hephaestus by luck of the draw. Also, that the goddess undertook to organize their armies as prerequisite for their defense and dominance at that time and also their legislative system so that they could function effectively. Thus, the following conclusion is drawn: Even though Greek peoples preexisted and specifically the Athenians who are characterized as native peoples, Athena first manifested herself to them at Kekropia (Athens) in 9.600 BC which is 9.000 years before Solon visited Sais at ~610 BC. After the deity instructed and developed the Athenians, a thousand years later -at the start of hostilities with the Atlantians- she went to Egypt to do the same there. Subsequent to their edification and with the advent of writing which, according to the priest, happened in 8.600 BC, a record of events began to be kept which the priests safeguarded in their temples where, obviously, the conversation is taking place. As for the interesting comment of the priest whereby Athena initially took the seed of Gaea and Hephaestus in order to create humans in Athens and Egypt, this corresponds to the Greek myth of the origins of Erechtheas and the Athenians. Noted in conclusion:
Appearance of Athena and Hephaestus in Athens: 9.600 BC.
Appearance of both deities in Egypt: 8.600 BC.
11. And so it was that Solon came to be regarded as a reformer and a man of justice. Both Solon and Critias (Plato) confirm this in their accounts. Plato clarifies that it was the very old original laws of Athens that were passed on to Egypt a thousand years after the advancement of Athens and which, in the aftermath of the catastrophes that befell the Athenians, were lost to memory. Knowledge of these laws was revived when Solon brought them back to Athens in 610 BC. Solon was elected archon of Athens in 594 BC and reelected in 592 BC. It was then that he instituted his laws.
12. There doesn’t seem to be too much dissimilarity in the way today’s societies are organized. Plato makes no reference to rulers, who were nonetheless present, but he obviously implies them. Also, not just medicine but also divination were part of the health practice of that time. The same applies today, albeit with different terminology and levels of importance.
13. A detail, but of significant importance, is this reference to the good mix of hours. It indicates that it was recognized that Athens was advantageously situated in terms of climate and geography. The priest is aware that Athens lies in the temperate zone, whereas Egypt does not. Also, that Athens is not in central or northern Europe where the harsh climatic conditions prevailing at that time (9.600 BC) and where the hours were not well balanced (this issue will be examined further on), did not allow for the development of correspondingly advanced civilizations. Furthermore, here is seen the willingness of Solon and the consent of the priest for all this knowledge to be transferred.
14. The word “pelagos” denotes a sea with particular characteristics and is analyzed in the chapter on key words. It is this particular word which triggered off this entire research and it therefore merits close consideration.
(Translators note: At this point, it is useful for the reader to know that the English interpretation of all of the key words to follow was made in close collaboration with the author, very much in the way the author closely collaborated with Ancient Greek philologists during his translating the Ancient into Current Greek. This challenging and industrious work has been documented in a separate paper of mainly academic interest which deals with ancient Greek grammar and syntax and which is evidently of little or no relevance to the casual or less than casual English reader. Even so, some excerpts of relevance have been included in this edition while the full analyses is in the Greek edition of this book where there is also the Ancient Greek text laid out in juxtaposition to the Current Greek translation. In other words, this translator and the author wish to once more reassure the reader that the English rendition of all the crucial key words is not arbitrary but the result of painstaking and exacting research, collaboration and cross reference)
The Atlantic Pelagos, in most of the translations in whichever language, is erroneously rendered as Atlantic Ocean or Sea or Open Sea. One of the most characteristic mistakes arising from mistranslations is the misleading association of Atlantis with the Atlantic Ocean! But Plato never mentions Ocean, neither in Timaeus nor in Critias! To claim that he was ignorant of this word or its connotation is tenuous because he, like most of the learned men of his time and even earlier, was very well aware of the terminology used to define different types of marine waters, such as ‘sea’ , ‘open sea’, ‘ocean’, ‘pelagos’ and ‘pontos’. In most translations tracts of saline water of particular characteristics or properties are in general reduced to being translated as either ‘ocean’ or simply ‘sea’. Plato refers to two Pelagos’; the Atlantic Pelagos and the There-Pelagos. He also refers to a “true-there-pontos”. The explanation as to the nature of all these seas follows after the notes to the translation. Unfortunately, many researchers did not pay the necessary attention to these defining words. Even today, modern Greeks refer to the Aegean as a Pelagos instead of a Sea. In the same way, they say The Libyan Pelagos instead of The Libyan Sea. Also, they do not refer to the Black Sea but to the Euxinos Pontos. Seas termed as Pelagos or Pontos have specific characteristics. If these words are collectively replaced with the general word Sea, their uniquely defining characteristics will in time fade in perception of what differentiates one type of sea from another. This is one of the main reasons why the riddle of Atlantis remained unsolved for such a long time. On this issue, it was refreshing to hear the Italian researcher R. Vieni at the 2008 Athens convention ‘Atlantis: Searching for the Lost Land’, when he wondered as to where everybody finds the word Ocean when reading the various ancient texts and uses it in replacement of other words. Evidently, because he lives in Greece and knows the language, he hears the Greeks constantly using the terms ‘pelagos’, ‘pontos’, ‘okeanos’ and ‘thalassa’ when referring to seas…
15. Following after the reference to an Atlantic Pelagos and the full stop, is a “there-pelagos”. Further on in the ancient text, this sea is referred to as “that” and after that as the “thereat” pelagos. All three turns of expression have exactly the same meaning. Plato just wrote “there-pelagos” in three different ways. The reader is reminded that Plato often uses brainteasers to ‘alert’ the reader. It is the point at which he begins to relay his first messages. This “pelagos” is not the Atlantic Pelagos referred to before the full stop of the previous sentence. If it was, Plato would have written ‘the pelagos’ or ‘this’ or ‘it’ or would have finished the sentence under a grammar rule and by omitting the word, would have implied it to be the Atlantic Pelagos. So, the “there-pelagos” is not the Atlantic Pelagos. In Critias it is even more apparent. There, however, Plato employs a different contrivance. His descriptions ‘guide’ his reader from the edge of the Continent of Atlantis (Timaeus), towards the small Island of Atlantis (Critias). The reader arrives at the vicinity of the “there-pelagos” and so has a different geographical perspective. The reader is now there at the “pelagos” that was previously the distant “there-pelagos” and so the designation of the sea in question changes. Now because the “there-pelagos” in Timaeus is surrounded “pan-telos” or completely by the Continent, Plato in Critias designates it as the “pan-pelagos”, mentioning it only once. Again in Critias, the same applies in reference to a vast plain which Plato refers to as a “pan-pedion” so as to associate it with the continent of which it is a part, and which Continent “pan-telos” i.e. completely surrounds the “pan-pelagos”; but more on this ‘convolution’ in the section on Critias.
Therefore, there existed another “pelagos”, different from the Atlantic Pelagos, which Plato refers to as the “there-pelagos” and which ceased to be navigable at some stage (what stage, will be explained in due course). Plato employs key words or expressions in order to ‘alert’ his reader to heighten concentration. Accordingly, key terms in Timaeus are “there-pelagos” (which is also found as “that” or “thereat”) and in Critias, “pan-telos” or “pan”.
16. The word “island” here denotes the continent. Correspondingly, wherever the term “island of Atlantis” is found, the island-kingdom of Atlas is signified. The expression “entire island” means both the island and the continent. Once this rule of thumb is applied, the meaning of all sentences containing the word ‘island’ will demonstrate an indisputably logical and syntactical coherence. This rule has not been set arbitrarily. Through the syntax, it is defined that this island (the continent), was longer than Libya and Asia together and then there follows a long sentence in which Plato states that the continent is all that landmass that one comes to after taking a certain route. It is an exceedingly clever contrivance by Plato who at the same time differentiates the two islands, namely, the Continent and the Island of Atlantis. This contrivance is seen again in &30, &31 and &32 as well as in Critias, where, for other justifiable reasons, the meanings of these words are ‘reversed’. Indeed, changes in meaning occur regularly in both books. So the terms “island of Atlantis” and “island” are of key significance. In addition, through the syntax, words such as “islands (pl.)” are isolated and identified as referring to other islands.
17. Here, there is the characteristic and interesting reference to a “mouth” at the Pillars of Heracles. This signifies more than simply an ‘opening’, as is usually translated, because it is used to describe a natural feature that resembles the spatial characteristics of a human mouth. Thus, the image is one of a large aperture in front, then a narrowing inside the entrance in front of the teeth, followed by a smaller aperture at the back, inside the cranial cavity. With a single representative word, Plato perfectly describes the topography of the site and logically defines where the Pillars and the channel are. They concur at the narrowest point.
The term “mouth” in description of the Pillars is found also in texts by other ancient authors and has at times been variously translated as ‘a narrow opening or passage of sea’. Of course, this can also apply to a “poros”, so to render it in this way, without further qualification, could cause one to lose the image of the waterways alternatively ascribed the designations “mouth” and “poros”.
Accordingly, the ancient word is kept as “mouth” in this book and not translated as ‘opening’ or ‘channel’ or ‘passage’ or as the Straits of Gibraltar, as has been sometimes arbitrarily and completely misleadingly rendered. Thus, in one word that describes a large aperture on the outside tapering to a narrow opening that leads to a smaller aperture on the inside, Plato gives the physiognomy of the Pillars of Heracles.
Furthermore, the Egyptian priest says to Solon “as you maintain”. Clearly, others had referred to this “mouth” by a different term. There are many historical and mythological references to the Pillars of Heracles. The most ancient name on record is Pillars of Kronos and later, Vriareo. It is known to many writers of which, indicatively, Aristotle is one. Isychius translates Vriareo as “man of a hundred hands”, while ‘Vriaros’ is one who is ‘forceful, formidable and/or awesome’. In the present book, the site of the Pillars of Heracles is considered to be at the cove of the Gulf of Gabes in Tunisia, where there is also an ancient riverbed and not at Gibraltar where it is dogmatically purported to have been.
Once past the Mouth and after crossing the Atlantic Pelagos, one would reach the leading edge of the continent of Atlantis where was the region of Gadeiriki; nowhere else (references in both Critias and Timaeus). As will be shown in due course, the distance from the Pillars of Heracles to the region of Gadeiriki was, according to Eratosthenes (as reported by Strabo), equal to five days voyage.
18. The size and location of Atlantis is one of the most controversial issues, because, as will duly be proven, there could not have been such a landmass in the Atlantic Ocean. Of course, it must here be clarified that one would not get to the continent via the Atlantic Ocean -even though one could, seeing that it is indeed washed by the Ocean on one side- but via the Atlantic Pelagos, which was inside and part of today’s Africa. In other words, access to Atlantis from the oceanic side was perhaps impossible or difficult; it was simply washed on its west side by the Atlantic Ocean. Plato clearly states, that the edge of the continent sighted first, lay in a sea called the Atlantic Pelagos. No mention of the Atlantic Ocean. He inductively borrows from Herodotus’ descriptions of geographical dimensions, to state that Europe is as long as Libya and Asia together. Therefore, the Continent of Atlantis must be longer than Europe of 4.300 km, and as will duly be shown, it was approximately 5.100 km long.
19. One can validly ask why Plato does not write that one can travel directly to other places via the Atlantic Pelagos but instead writes “via which (continent) it was possible for those travelers of the time to embark (proceed) on to the other islands” i.e. to get to other places after landing on the continent. The Continent of Atlantis is an island which, by definition, is surrounded by water as are the other islands. However, instead of stating that one can circumvent the continent, he writes that one could first go to the continent and from there on to other islands. There are two explanations. Firstly, he states that “…it was possible…” i.e. one could, which means one has an option on how to go and it’s not the only way. The rest he writes for one to picture the environment in which the voyage takes place. Secondly, although one has the option to take a direct sea route to the islands, it was probably not practical or perhaps safe to make the journey this way. In other words, it was probably more convenient to land first on the continent and from there get to the islands. That this was indeed so, will be shown in due course, from the descriptions of the three currently known reports as to the circumnavigation of Libya (Section 2). It is very important to note that the ancient Greeks called any piece of land surrounded by water, an Island. It could be that interceding between the “mouth” and the islands, there were either rapids and rough waters (Section 2 – Pelagos of Persephone) or swamps, marshlands, possibly shoals and generally shallow waters that would not facilitate navigation. Therefore, the wiser choice to get to the islands would be to circumvent the treacherous waters and to take the sea passage to the continent first and from there enter navigable waters for the islands.
20. So there were some islands further down the route as one progressed inwards from the “mouth” across this sea (Atlantic Pelagos) towards the edge of the continent to where there was a place that facilitated the crossing over to these islands. In due course it will be shown which were the main islands since, impressively, there exist historical references as to their names and also their dimensions! In addition, because some have erroneously translated this sentence as saying that from this place on the continent ‘one can go to another continent’ such as, presumably, America, they must stop to consider that according to Plato, once past the mouth at the Pillars of Heracles and by following the route described, one would be on course for the Continent and Island of Atlantis. Atlantis! Why would Plato guide one to some other continent? All Plato wants to do is to define the Continent of Atlantis and how to get there. And in case his reader did not get his meaning the first time, he qualifies it by adding the word “entire” in front of “island”(Timaeus) thereby signifying both the continent and the island together. This contrivance is seen once again in Critias as “pan-pelagos”. The words “pan”, “all”, “entire” and other similar words used as prefixes, are key-words in Critias. It certainly is not easy to make immediate sense of Plato’s unique way of thinking.
21. In the ancient Greek text, there is the compound word transliterated as “katantikrí” which means ‘downward and opposite’ or ‘downward, straight ahead and opposite’ or ‘downward and across’ or ‘downward and facing’ or ‘downward and in front of’ which have all essentially the same meaning. In most translations it is rendered as ‘opposite’, which is a simplified or partial interpretation based mainly on the second part of the word, ‘antikri’. Perhaps in modern renditions the interpretation as just “opposite” can be passably acceptable even though incorrect. The word can be divided into three (kata+anti+akri) or more simply and probably more correctly, into two (kata+antikri). The prefix ‘kata’, when combined with other words usually means ‘downwards’ or ‘all the way down’ (e.g. catastrophe = kata+strophe = all the way downward/degenerative turn). In some cases it may also mean ‘opposite’. In any case, the Greek adjective ‘antikri’ on its own, usually means ‘opposite’. Therefore, it is not accurate to simply translate “katantikri” as ‘opposite’, since there is redundancy involved when forming compound words made up of different words with the same meaning. And, as mentioned, Plato does not repeat himself and certainly does not engage in redundancies.
He does, however, borrow terms and expressions such as the one in question, usually from Homer, Herodotus, and Thucydides but also from his own earlier manuscripts. From there, can be seen the various fine distinctions of the word. A list of relevant examples is in the Greek version of this book which, as has been pointed out, is practically of no use to the English reader if included here. Nonetheless, one example is from lexicon of Liddell & Scott: Straight forward, downright (although the latter in archaic means directed or pointing straight down, it may be interpretatively misleading for the English speaker). Whatever the case may be, the simple translation of “katantikri” as ‘opposite’ does not seriously change the general directional or spatial concept that the word signifies, but its connotation is certainly more accurate when also with the meaning of ‘downward’ and ‘across’.
So, by taking the prescribed route, as depicted above, when voyaging from the edge of this continent which is curved around a “pontos” (sea), one will again meet the continent. In other words, since the continent has the shape of an arc (akin to the letter C as in… Curved Continent), should one embark from its one tip and travel ‘across’ the “pontos” in a ‘downward’ direction, one will disembark on the continent’s ‘opposite’ tip. The ‘downward’ implies southwards, so one can safely assume that the bearing of the continent is from north to south… which it is! Evidently, meaning-wise, “katantikri” is importantly defining. Thus, to simply translate it as ‘across’, as often happens, is to lose the nuances of “katantikri”. For that reason, a more comprehensively accurate rendition and the one which is used herein, is ‘downward, opposite and across’.
22. The word here translated as ‘around’ is of the word “peri” in the ancient text and which has several meanings. In this case, it does not mean ‘all around’ denoting encirclement. Neither does it mean ‘surround’ nor ‘to that sea there’ (as has often misleadingly been translated) when seen in the context of the rest of the sentence. In fact, it means round-about as ‘somewhat about’ or ‘in some way curved’ as in the sense of an embrace. The most apt definition in this case, is the one given by Liddel & Scott: ‘Of place, properly referring to the object around which motion takes place’. Indeed and in effect, this definition suggests that the continent is curved around the “pontos” in the shape of an arc (or bow, as in bow & arrow or the letter C, as mentioned in &21), which is of unspecified length and adjacent to the “true-there-pontos”. The continent does not surround the Pontos but curves around it partially in a circular fashion because if this was not so, the continent would not be an island (as Plato also refers to it) surrounded by water and which required a journey by sea in order to be reached. With similar reasoning if the continent completely encircled, thereby enclosing the “pontos” within it, the “pontos” would then be a landlocked lake and not a sea, as Plato states. Therefore, the continent is shaped like an open arc around the Pontos and is, at present, of an unknown length.
Most translations render this expression as ‘around’ without qualification. This can be misleading because it suggests encirclement. So although the word “peri” is here too, in this translation, rendered as ‘around’, it is additionally interpreted, in accordance with the above explication, as ‘somewhat curved around’. Evidently, this word is of meaningful importance in Timaeus and must be comprehended properly.
23. The “pontos” which spread out after the edge of the continent and contained islands, is a particular sea, which is the reason why Plato refers to it as the “true-there-pontos”. The word “true” defines the properties of that sea. In other words, it was much the same as the very well known “pontos” of that time, the Euxinos Pontos (the Black Sea), which will duly be analyzed to show that it had strong currents and contained fresh or brackish water, as it has today. So, by association, the “true-there-pontos” contained fresh or brackish water and had many currents due to a number of rivers discharging into it. Also, the word ‘there’ for the “pontos”, associates to the ‘there’ of the “there pelagos”. So, there is a connection between the “there-pontos” and the “there-pelagos” because they are both … there! If one also considers the “poros” (narrow navigable waterway that joins two seas; also to be duly explained) that was at the “there-pontos”, then one can readily deduce that there was literally a connection between the “there-pelagos” and the “there-pontos” via the “poros” that was also there. In plain English, two types of sea were joined by a narrow passage. This matter will be revisited in due course, where it will be shown that the “poros” did in fact link the two seas. Another of Plato’s contrivances…
Thus, the words interpreted as ‘downwards, opposite and across’ and ‘curved-around’ in combination with the designation that Plato gives as the “true-there-pontos”, helped to delineate the continent and the Atlantic Pontos that was there and together with information given in Critias, helped locate the “there-pelagos” and the “poros” that was also there. Henceforth, for the purposes of this book, the designation of the sea round-about which the continent is ‘somewhat curved around’, will be kept as Plato gives it, namely, as “pontos”; the Atlantic Pontos. Evidently, all these terms, “pelagos”, “there-pelagos”, “pontos”, “poros”, “mouth”, have importantly defining meanings that must be rendered accurately. Complicated? Yes. Indeed, this is Plato’s style of teaching. He challenges the reader’s mind and intelligence. It was not easy to comprehend Plato and this is just the start.
24. Plato is referring to everything that he described in the previous sentence and that was inside the “mouth” of the Pillars of Heracles”, namely a) the edge of the continent from where one could go over to the other islands b) the other islands c) the ‘downwards and opposite’ edge of the continent and d) the Atlantic Pontos.
2
5. a) Plato states that this place that “seems like a harbour” can be ‘seen’ from all the other previously mentioned places. Surely, one must not expect this harbour to
Image 4. Diagram according Platonic descriptions. A specific point of the rings around the tiny island (Atlantis No1) of Atlas (point D) is named the centre of all. i.e. of the Atlantis Island (Atlantis No2) and of the Atlantis Continent-Island (Atlantis No3). The Port is in the middle of the Continent. Therefore the Atlantis Island is also in the middle of the Continent. The Canal or Poros, as well as, is in the middle of the Continent. There are two Atlantic Pelagos and the Atlantic Pontos. The outer sea is the Mediterranean Sea.
have been literally within eye sight. The distances between all these places were huge. Plato is simply indicating that this harbour could be accessed from all these places, by (Image 4) traveling in an uninterrupted straight line. In other words, the harbour is located in the centre of this area and obviously, at the continent. That this was indeed a place central to the others, will be shown in Critias. Thus, Plato calls upon the mind’s eye to design an area in which there is a ‘focus’ that is in direct ‘eyeshot’ from all the previously mentioned places.
b) The “… narrow navigable entrance…” which was, obviously, also an exit, enabled the Atlantians to navigate out into the “there pelagos” mentioned previously at &15. However, in Critias, Plato reports that in the wake of the catastrophe the ensuing quantity of clay blocked the waterway which thus became a ‘non poros’. In other words, it was no longer possible to navigate the narrow waterway and go through to the “there pelagos” which, in Critias, Plato terms the “pan pelagos”. It will duly be shown that these two terms both refer to the same sea and explained why Plato designates it differently in his two books. So, the “poros” (or, else, the “…narrow navigable entrance…”) was also shut by clay. In this way, Plato indicates that the “poros” and the “narrow…entrance” are one and the same. Besides, as a concept, a “narrow…entrance” is in actuality a “poros”, since both are a narrow water passage allowing communication between two seas (definitions are given in due course). So, since the harbour is in the middle of the continent and this “poros” is at that harbour, then it too is in the middle of the continent. The term “narrow navigable entrance” is definitely of key importance.
26. Plato, at times refers to the continent alternatively as “landmass”; this is verified in &29 and also in Critias.
27. Plato states that the landmass which is the continent “enclosed completely” (“pan-telos” in transliteration from the ancient text = completely) the “that pelagos” (&28, which is the “there pelagos”). Here it becomes apparent why in Critias he renames the “there pelagos” to “pan pelagos”. He does so, because the continent “pan-telos” (completely) enclosed the “pan pelagos” (in Critias) which is the “there pelagos” (in Timaeus). The word “pan” either on its own or as a prefix, is a key word that will be seen again elsewhere. Therefore, this is the way by which the Atlantians ventured forth from inside the continent.
28. The “there pelagos” is the same as the “that pelagos” from where the Atlantian force set out. Further on, it will appear as the “thereat pelagos”. All three terms in fact mean ‘there’ so, evidently, they do not denote three separate seas but are simply three different ways of referring to the same sea.
29. a) The landmass which “enclosed completely” (“pan-telos”) the “there pelagos”, is the continent. Plato states this categorically (Images 4 & 5). For one to comprehend his marvelously intricate wordplay, it is worth conducting the journey in reverse, that is to say, by starting from Atlantis and heading towards the Pillars of Heracles. Accordingly, by reading from this paragraph backwards to the previous ones and by reading the first two sentences of each paragraph, the journey is as follows: It begins from a mass of land which is the continent that contains the “there pelagos” which is a sea. Departing from the “there pelagos”, one navigates a narrow waterway or “poros” and exits at a place resembling a harbour which is in the middle of the continent. From this harbour, on the right hand side is the edge of the continent which is “downwards, opposite and across” from the edge on the left hand side. Ahead and to the left and right, as far as the ends of the continent, is the “pontos”, a sea in which there are a number of islands. In order to travel to either the left or to the right edge of the continent, an arced route is followed that runs parallel to the curve of the coast, given that the continent is ‘curved around’ the “pontos”. Choosing to go left, one reaches that edge of the continent. Once there, one can disembark and travel overland to the other side, to the region of Gadeiriki (Critias) and the “pelagos”, another sea. However, seeing as the continent is also an island, one can choose not to cross over to Gadeiriki and subsequently the “pelagos” by land, but instead to circumnavigate the tip of the continent and in this way, get to the “pelagos” by sea. Whichever way one does it, one will arrive at the mouth of the Pillars of Heracles and from there, out into the Mediterranean Sea.
30. In this sentence wherein Plato refers to Atlantis the island at the beginning and to the continent at the end, he syntactically and once and for all, shows how he differentiates between the islands and thereby confirms what is maintained by the present author, namely, that whenever Plato makes reference to the “island of Atlantis” he means the Island-Kingdom of Atlas and whenever to “island”, on its own, he means the Continent. Many researchers have considered these to be one and the same.
31. The term “entire island” (see qualification in &20), is another of Plato’s contrivances by which to declare that he is simultaneously referring to the Continent of Atlantis and the Island-Kingdom of Atlas together.
32. It appears that there is more land to the continent than just the mainland.
33. Apart from these lands, the dominion of Atlantis also extended over Libya up to a certain point in the direction of Egypt and as far as Tyrrhenia in Europe (note: for better understanding, in the English translation the term ‘up to’ denotes reaching a limit and going no further, whereas ‘as far as’ includes the place mentioned). If Plato was referring to another time in central and northern Italy and simply mentions the name of the region of Tyrrhenia, there would not be an issue. However, the narrator is the Egyptian priest. So if there were Tyrrhenians in Italy in 8.600 BC, this indeed raises a new issue. As known, the Tyrrhenian were the Tyrsynians of Lycia who immigrated at some time -unknown exactly when- to parts of Italy. This new information could initiate serious chronological and historical reassessments or put in another way, it would help explain certain events which took place at times which so far remain undated! The Tyrsynians were of Pelasgic origin, as were probably the Athenians (Ionians of Pelasgic descent). Herodotus says in his writings that in his time, there were still Pelasgians in Croton and below them were Tyrsynians who had also preserved their mother tongue. Their descendants were the Etruscans. Later, the Tyrsynians colonized central and northern Italy.
34. So Atlantis was attempting to subjugate all the nations of the Mediterranean as well as those that were after the Pillars of Heracles that is, inside Africa. Further on it will be proven historically that the Pillars of Heracles were never at Gibraltar.
35. It seems that apart from the enslaved peoples of “…the interior of Libya up to Egypt, whereas in Europe as far as Tyrrhenia…” others too were subjugated or in a state of dependency on Atlantis and were subsequently liberated by the Athenians.
36. The phrase “…after some time…” is important in determining when the catastrophe occurred. Plato has borrowed this expression from one of his three favorite authors, namely, the historian Herodotus, who, like Thucydides and many others, uses various expressions when determining lengths of time. If they know a length of time exactly, they usually say so or define it in reference to another specific happening. But when they wish to express an approximation of time, they employ certain expressions which however, it seems they maintain in their manuscripts! The phrase in the ancient text rendered in English as “…after some time…” depends on the dative case and could refer to a very short time span but also hundreds of years. So, Herodotus in one of his reports uses this expression by which to define the length of time of a certain historical event he knew of.
Thus, as per Herodotus: “As for Aryandes, it was he who was the governor of Egypt during the regime of Cambyses, who after some time was killed, because he was trying to measure himself up to Darius”.
Determining time spans is important, as will be seen immediately afterwards and again, after some time, in explaining what befell the Atlantians and the Athenian army and when.
37. Plato clearly reports that many terrible earthquakes and floods preceded the 24 hours in which all were lost. This indicates continual seismic activity over 24 hours, with repeated cataclysms by tsunamis which can manifest either from an underwater earthquake or other natural causes. It may have been an earthquake of biblical proportions, followed by many powerful and destructive aftershocks. Plato reports “exceeding” earthquakes. This will be duly examined.
38. Although the Atlantians and Athenians were destroyed simultaneously, Plato at this point disassociates the way in which each met their demise. It could be that the Athenian army was buried due to disintegration of the ground or liquefaction or even landslide -the most probable as indicated by his use of the word ‘covered’- or by a sandstorm or by ash or lava or other volcanic matter or by any number of other causes resulting from intense volcanic and seismic activity. There are two relative historical records of similar catastrophes, both reported by Herodotus. The first refers to the ancient Libyan tribe of the Psylle, who were covered by the desert and were lost. The second and more disastrous befell an army of 50,000 men who were dispatched by Cambyses, king of the Medes and the Persians, in order to destroy the Ammonites and the oracle of Zeus. Halfway after setting out, they were lost, buried by the desert. Interestingly, a mythological description about Typhoon gives one cause to wonder. According to one version, his name means the hot Sirocco (south wind) which blows from Africa towards Greece and often smelled of volcanic activity. (Robert Gates – The Greek Myths)
39. Here again, the “island of Atlantis” means the Island of Atlas and not the Continent.
40. The word “dysa”, transliterated from the ancient Greek, has given rise to one of the most systematically made and totally misleading mistakes; that Atlantis sank and disappeared into the sea. The correct interpretation is ‘inundated’ or ‘covered’ or ‘sunken’ in the sense that it is below a surrounding level. The island did not sink as per the ‘classic’ explanation. Instead, it was covered by the sea! Here is a classic example of the absence of what in Greek translates as the ‘poetic cause’ and in English linguistics is the ‘grammatical agent’. If there was an agent causing the event, then possibly the ancient word usually translated as ‘sunk’, might have meant ‘submerged into’ rather than ‘covered by’. In this case however, the ancient verb denotes covering rather than sinking and so the most apt noun to describe this process of Atlantis disappearing under water, is that of ‘inundation’. In other words, there are two ways an object can end up underwater. Either actively, by its physical sinking to a level below the surface or passively, by water rising to cover it. The latter is what happened to Atlantis! To be precise, to the Island of Atlantis, not the Continent! Thus does the story reflect the reality.
Interestingly enough, prior to this, the same verb (different tense) is used to describe the fate of the Athenian army and yet, in most translations it is rendered correctly as the army being covered by earth, not sinking into it. After that, continuing the sentence, Plato writes that the island of Atlantis had a ‘likewise’ sinking.
Of defining importance, is the meaning of the ancient word transliterated as “osautos” and herein translated as ‘likewise’. It has the meaning of ‘alike’ or ‘equally’ or ‘the same’ and generally, the sense of being ‘identical’ or ‘matching’ or ‘similar to that previously mentioned’ (the Athenian army). Thus, just as the army was covered and did not sink, so too, Atlantis was covered and did not sink, as has been repeatedly and erroneously interpreted and generally believed.
Therefore, one should not look for a sunken island in the sense of its physical displacement to a level below its original (at least not at the time when the priest spoke of this event to Solon and thus, ‘geo-logically’, to the present time). At the same time as the Athenian army was buried, a massive tsunami wiped out the Atlantian civilization. Thus, it seems that even “… after some time…” following the defeat of the Atlantians, the Athenians may have had a significant military presence somewhere, either in Africa or Libya or Atlantis.
Taking &10 into consideration we note that:
a) In 9.600 BC, Athena and Hephaestos undertake the advancement of Athens.
b) In 8.600 BC, the same deities take charge of Egypt for that same reason.
c) The second and last war between the Athenians and Atlantians broke out in 8.600 BC. This is deduced from the Egyptian priest who states “…because the writings refer to the mighty force, which was marching in arrogance against all of Europe and Asia …” This means that war broke out at least at the time at which the Egyptians began to keep records on various events. To put it another way, a war started at least 1.000 years after the goddess Athena had appeared in Athens. So, the goddess undertook to edify Egypt at the same time as the outbreak of war between Atlantis and Athens!
Therefore, the last war started in 8.600 BC and not in 9.600 BC, as many mistakenly believe. In Critias, it is clear that there had been another war earlier, in 9.600 BC because the Atlantians had not yet conquered Tyrrhenia. Plato states in Critias: “…from the time when war was actually declared on those who live outside the Pillars of Heracles and on all those who were inside…” According to this statement, the Atlantians were not yet at Tyrrhenia (which is ‘outside’ the Pillars). Thus is confirmed the conclusion of two wars having taken place.
d) Following the defeat of the Atlantians and “after some time”, came the obliteration of all which, according to the priest, came about “…due to the realization of exceeding earthquakes and cataclysms, …” Going back to &36, Plato, by ‘borrowing’ Herodotus’ expression, identifies the years by making the following association: Aryandes had remained in his position as Governor of Egypt from the time of its conquest by Cambyses, king of the Medes and Persians (reigned 529-522 BC). He took over after Cambyses accidentally wounded himself in the leg with his own sword; a fateful death because he stabbed himself in the same place he had sacrilegiously stabbed the sacred Bull of the Egyptians. Aryandes held this office also during the time of Darius A the Great (550-486 BC) who reigned after Cambyses from 522 to 486 BC. Aryandes was self-conceited and would copy Darius’ great deeds and vie with him until he was finally executed by the latter. The death of Aryandes is estimated, by the present author, to have been after the razing of Varke by his general Amasses, during the reign of Darius and logically, before the latter’s invasion of Thrace and Macedonia of Amyntas, in 513 BC. Therefore, the length of time referred to by Plato, as said by Herodotus, must be about 12-15 years. Consequently, if the war between Athens and Atlantis lasted 12-15 years, it culminated with the obliteration of all between 8.588 and 8.585 BC.
This attempt at specifying the years in which the war took place may seem too much of an exercise but it is important because, when further research is done, there should be signs of the catastrophe found around these dates. Apart from any other usefulness, the duration of the war is reminiscent of that of the Trojan War. For indeed, as will be shown in due course, there is relationship in aspects of the saga of The Odyssey and the story of Atlantis.
e) Thus, time-wise, the catastrophe took place after the end of the second war, around 8.588 – 8.585 BC. However, some chronological allowances must be made. Of these, one is for a few years as to the end of the war, between 8.588 and 8.585 BC. This allowance is for the intervening time until Aryandes’ death, with the later date being the more probable. A small allowance must also be made as to Solon’s visit to Egypt. It is generally considered to have taken place circa 600 BC. The present author considers this to have been in 610 BC, in which case, an allowance of +10 years should be taken into consideration. Apart from these, because Solons calculations are considered to be correct, based on a year of 365.25 days duration, no further time allowances are suggested.
Therefore, the date of the catastrophe is between 8.598 and 8.585 BC. It is around these years that concerted research must be concentrated in order to find signs of destruction, due to natural causes.
In consideration of the allowances therefore, the beginning of the story: The deities Athena and Hephaestos undertake to edify Athens between 9.600 and 9.610 BC. The date is rounded off to 9.600 BC and will thus be referred to. Start of the first war. The deities undertake the same for Egypt and the second war breaks out between 8.600 to 8.610 BC. This date is rounded off also, to be considered as beginning in 8.600 BC. Obliteration of the Atlantians and the Greeks: 8.595 to 8.585 BC. The year of the catastrophe is specified as 8.585 BC or 10.539 BP.
41. In the ancient text is the word “aporon”. The negative prefix ‘a-’ (as in apathy, anomaly, anonymity etc) denotes a ‘non-poros’ or that it ‘lacks a poros’ and is in this way rendered in the English translation of the Current Greek translation of the Ancient Greek text. A good alternative way to put it, would be as an ‘ex-poros’ (The reader will remember that it has been suggested that in order to easily remember and understand the word “poros”, to associate it with ‘pore’, a small duct for inflow-outflow. Consequently, the word “aporon” can be thought of and its concept well comprehended as ‘pore-less’). In one translation, it has been rendered as a “pelagos” (sea) that cannot, for some reason, be navigated. In other renditions, it is usually translated as an inability to navigate or as the absence of a channel or opening. As a result, a researcher will equate the word “mouth” (if translated as ‘passage’), with whichever ‘opening’ or ‘narrow channel’ (if these too have been translated as ‘passage’), as well as with the “poros” (which, if translated as ‘passage’, the word “aporon” will be translated as a ‘closed passage’). The end result is to understand these geographical locations as being all, one and the same; which inevitably lead to utter confusion! A “poros” is indeed a narrow waterway or channel joining two seas but it is not necessarily a “mouth”. Therefore the negative prefix ‘a-’ in “aporon” denotes the non existence or the lack of a former “poros” or, alternatively, an ‘ex-poros’. In other words, a now closed, no longer navigable waterway that had once led, from one sea to another. In conclusion, the “aporon” place is a different place to the “mouth”. They are not the same place as have confusedly been rendered in a certain translation. The same differentiation applies in Critias.
Thus, the “poros” (narrow water passage joining two seas) referred to here, is not like the one at the beginning of the text which is in reference to the “mouth” before the Continent of Atlantis at the Pillars of Heracles”. However, as was previously seen, here it is determined as being adjacent to that place “like a harbour” at the continent (&25). That is to say, that from that harbour-like place in the “there pontos”, there began a narrow waterway to the “there-pelagos” which, inductively, led to the “there pontos” and via which “poros” the Atlantians could navigate outwards from the “there-pelagos” to the “there-pontos”. In other words, looking at the sequence in reverse, from the “there-pelagos” there ran a “poros” (narrow waterway) to the place that “seems like a harbour” which opened up to the “pontos” which is open sea. To repeat this in plain English and starting from the Atlantian ‘stronghold’ heading outwards, the Atlantian ships would, from a sea inside the continent, navigate a narrow channel leading to a quasi harbour that opened up to another, this time open, sea.
In 8.585 BC (the set date of the ultimate catastrophe), the “there-pelagos” which was behind the “poros” was ‘sealed’, trapping the metropolis of Atlas (Poseidonia) in the gathering and rising waters. What exactly took place will be seen in due course and duly explained. For information’s sake, the “there pelagos” became unsearchable from this time and gradually, over a very long time, mainly because of climatic and to a lesser degree geological changes, the waters drained away, leaving the vast expanse of desert and savanna there is there today.
42. Plato again, for the third time, refers to the “there pelagos”. Clearly seen here, is what was analyzed previously. Namely, that he is referring to another “pelagos” to which he doesn’t designate a name and simply gives its approximate location with the word “there”. It is also clear, that the “there pelagos” itself is navigable but access to it is problematic since there is no longer the navigable waterway leading to it (it is “aporon” = there is not poros or passage).
43. Plato declares that with just a small quantity of clay the “poros” essentially became blocked. The sequence of events must be kept in mind. At first, the Athenian army was covered by earth. Then the sea inundated the island (not the continent). After that, clay choked the “poros”. Plato does not describe events in random sequence in a sentence. There is always followed a chronological progression (and not just by Plato). In combination with &44 below, is given a very good notion as to the cause of the catastrophe that befell Atlantis and which also caused the burial of the soldiers. This issue will be duly examined.
44. The clay that blocked the “poros” was produced by the continent of Atlantis, which is to say that it came from the continental landmass. For this to happen, one geological phenomenon seems the most likely; liquefaction. As reported (&37), there were repeated earthquakes and cataclysms in the course of 24 hours. In which case:
a) The first incident was the burial of the soldiers. It will be assumed, logically, to have been caused by liquefaction which ‘covered’ the army with earth.
b) Immediately afterwards, the island was covered by the sea. From the slip of liquefied ground and/or landslides into the sea, it is probable that one or more tsunamis were generated (and possibly a mega-tsunami for the ultimate destruction), because Plato reports continual flooding and deluges (cataclysms). These floods could also have been from lesser tsunamis generated by earthquakes and after shocks. In Critias however, Plato says that even on the day the priest spoke to Solon, which was about 8,000 years after the event, the sacred isle (Poseidonia) continued to be covered by water. This gives two items of news. Firstly, whereas in Timaeus he reports that the Island of Atlantis was inundated and disappeared (at the time of the catastrophe) it appears here as if only the Sacred Isle was left covered in water! Therefore, it to a great degree substantiates that the Island was struck by a tsunami and covered with water, without any logical reason to expect these waters to remain on the island and not recede. Secondly, there is the matter of the interconnecting “poros” (narrow waterway between the two seas). Since it was blocked by clay, thus becoming “aporos”, the excess waters could not drain away and so Poseidonia, the sacred isle in the centre of the wheel formation (to be seen later), was trapped behind the natural dam and remained covered in water!
c) Then there is the shutting off of the “poros”, to become “aporos”, by a small quantity of clay. This indicates that the clay produced by the continent, might not only have been responsible for burying the soldiers, but it also generated a tsunami and also blocked the “poros”. In Critias, the meaning of the landmass of the continent is associated with an extensive, level area of land or vast plain which surrounded both the Island–Kingdom of Atlas and the “there pelagos” and from which plain the clay probably originated.
d) As previously shown, the “poros” connected the Atlantic Pontos with the “there pelagos”.
For massive and widespread liquefaction to happen, enough to bury an army and immediately afterwards generate a tsunami to inundate Atlantis (the sacred Island), it means that this geological phenomenon occurred in the interior of the continent in the vicinity where, according to Plato, was the “there pelagos”! If such liquefaction and consequent landslip occurred on the “pontos” side, the resulting tsunami would not have been able to reach Atlantis with any destructive force through the narrow “poros” (waterway) which, as will be seen later in Critias, was possibly hundreds of kilometres long. Furthermore, because the “poros” (narrow channel) was blocked, this leads to the conclusion that liquefaction not only took place in the interior of the continent in the vicinity of the “there pelagos” but specifically, nearby or even at the “poros” itself. As for the clay, according to Plato, it was given by the continent or from the landmass of the continent. Either way it is the same, because he has equated it elsewhere in the text.
e) In Critias, is stated the existence of a vast “pan-plain” which contained the “pan-pelagos” which, as has already been mentioned, will duly be proven to be the “there or that-pelagos” in Timaeus. This “pan-plain”, which also contained the Island of Atlantis, was part of the continent or as Plato specifically puts it, part of the “landmass” that “could quite rightly be called a continent”.
f) So, liquefaction occurred in the interior of the landmass of the continent (and as per Critias, at the “pan-plain”), in the vicinity of the “there pelagos” and more specifically, at some place near or at the “poros”. Somewhere also in that area, was the army which was covered by earth. There followed a tsunami that struck the Island–Kingdom and then the “poros” was blocked. It must be considered certain that the severe shaking by the “exceeding” earthquakes led to considerable and widespread liquefaction. The next paragraph confirms this.
45. a) This sentence is of definitive importance because it explains the mechanics of the natural disaster which led to the disappearance of the Island of Atlantis and clearly illustrates how the catastrophe came about! Therefore, it merits in depth analysis.
To begin with, Plato has in another sentence equated the words “landmass” and “continent”. Thus, the clay came from the continent or, alternatively, the landmass of the continent produced this clay. Therefore, he signifies that somewhere the ground disintegrated. But even if this is not so, the concept of his phrase remains. The participle “izomene” in the ancient text and written exactly in this form, is used once by Plato and is found twice used by Herodotus. It derives from an Ancient Greek word which translates alternatively as sits, sinks, subsides, on the ground, takes position, settles, etc (Dictionary definitions from the Ancient into later Greek language, are in the Greek version of this book). All authoritative interpretations in their choice of words come more or less close to the correct definition. The present author has concluded that in this case, the closest rendition into English of the ancient text is “…at the moment it was settling” as in sediment (in this case, in matter transported and deposited by water). The rendition “…at the moment…” is derived from the tense of the participle. Thus, Plato is describing soil liquefaction, possibly quick clay as well as land subsidence and whatever other earthquake related geomorphic changes (landslides or mudflows etc) in parts of the landmass of the continent. A rapid displacement of landmass (mass wasting) can generate tsunamis. It can also ‘give’ large or lesser quantities of clay which would have blocked the “poros”. Therefore, a major geological phenomenon giving rise to widespread liquefaction took place somewhere along the coast of the vast plain which, as will be shown in Critias, contained the Island of Atlantis and the “there-pelagos”, which will duly be proven to be the same as the “pan pelagos” because both these seas had the same “poros” which was blocked by clay and thus became “aporos” (a conclusion derived from associating references that Plato provides in both Timaeus and Critias).
b) So in this way is explained how the Island of Atlantis was flooded and why the sacred isle of Poseidonia remained under water. As will be shown in Critias, the “poros” as well as canals in the vast plain were part of the drainage system and outlets for the runoff from the mountains of the Continent and the Island of Atlantis. This water supplied the wheel arrangement and from there flowed to the “there/pan pelagos”) and via the “poros”, out, into the “pontos” sea. The various cataclysms mentioned, can be explained as the result of land dissolution caused by lesser tsunamis or triggered off by earthquakes in the vicinity of the “there/pan pelagos” , all these phenomena generating additional tsunamis.
c) Furthermore, there does not appear to have been a simultaneous catastrophe wreaked on Athens or Greece. It will duly be shown, how in fact massive was a liquefaction process (one of many) that has already been detected in the Atlantic Ocean and, indeed, relatively close to those regions of Atlantis.
d) Excluded is the possibility of that part of the continent subsiding or sinking to a lower level because, in such an event, the “poros” would have been flooded. Put it another way, in the event of the region in question having subsided or sunk permanently, the “poros” and/or the vast plain would have been permanently awash. However, it must be noted that in Critias, Plato reports that in the aftermath of the catastrophe, a small isle, which he names “sacred isle”, remained unseen by the sun, obviously in reference to its being permanently covered by water. But only the “sacred isle”… nothing else! The reader must remember that this “sacred isle” is not the Island of Atlantis. It is the hub of the concentric wheel formation contained by the Island of Atlantis. This is elucidated in Critias! Besides, it has already been shown that the Island of Atlantis was struck by a tsunami and covered by water, in other words, it was inundated temporarily and the waters receded.
It is not easy for the reader to perceive the complexities in Plato’s writings. Once one finishes reading Timaeus and goes on to read Critias, one will probably, if not definitely, need to reread Timaeus so as to tie up loose ends, reconcile open-ended issues and round the picture off. Should one choose to begin exploring Atlantis by first reading Critias, inevitably, one will be subjected to greater confusion.
46. At first, Critias expresses amazement at the diabolical, one could say, coincidence of how Socrates had the previous day portrayed an ideal polity, almost as if he knew about Atlantis. He then proceeds to explain how he was able to recall the story without errors or omissions.
47. Through Socrates, unreservedly and decisively, the account is categorically accepted to be true and not a fabricated myth.
A uthor’s note: The book of Timaeus was relatively ‘easy’ to interpret but it took a lot longer to ‘decode’ than did Critias. For the reader, the opposite will prove to be the case because Critias is much more challenging in comprehension.
Image 5. Representation of all the shapes as portrayed by Plato in Timaeus (The delineation and bearing of the Island-Continent of Atlantis as well as of the location of Gadeiriki are depicted in Critias). The total length of the continent is that of arc AC. The “poros” (that became “aporos” or ‘pore-less’ or an ‘ex-poros’, is the narrow navigable entrance. The “there-pelagos” is surrounded by the landmass of the continent which in Critias is shown to be a vast plain. The harbour is in the middle of the continent.
12. Nautical Words and Terms
1. As has already been mentioned, the first big interpretational ‘mistake’ that was spotted easily in Timaeus, was the equating of the word “pelagos” with the word ‘ocean’. It so happens that the present author has occupied himself with the sea for about 40 years, initially with motorboats in his youth and later and even today, mostly with sailboats.
Through the decades in yachting circles and especially at the leading club of which he is a member, he was fortunate to be acquainted with individuals who each, in their own way, enriched Greek latter-day nautical history through their passion for the sea and love of adventure. Indicatively and certainly not exclusively, mentioned below are some of these intrepid mariners such as the late Savvas Georgiou, an eternal romantic and seafaring explorer who in 1956, was the first , together with his American companion Sue, to cross the Atlantic Ocean on the smallest ever sailboat (27 footer) to have crossed the Atlantic until then. He was the present author’s first instructor. Also, the late Lakis Kyriakides, Athanasios Anninos with his endless discourses, the late Panos Sgouros and George Gritses, with his fervent zeal for long voyages and who with his homemade 7-meter sailer twice circumnavigated the globe, once in each direction. Also, Manolis Pantelis, who took part in the KIELER WOCHE (Kiel Week) regatta with the late Lakis Kyriakides as crewmember and who, when the latter gave him an order to tack at the final -probably- buoy and go for win, insisted on him repeating the order in ancient Greek or else he would not change course. By the time the frantic and hopelessly pleading Lakis found the apt expression, they had long overrun the buoy and lost the race. In addition, the late Alexandros Lagadas who wrote several interesting books with subjects on antiquity and who built a small dinghy to navigate the route from Frachthi (Peloponnese – opposite Hydra island) to Milos (a Cycladic island in the Aegean Pelagos) in order to revive and demonstrate the millennia old means of transportation of obsidian from Milos to Frachthi ( indeed this connection had been substantiated through detailed analysis of rock stratums/ findings and olden tools). As well as other close friends, such as the Bonas brothers. All these individuals, in one way or another, shaped and broadened their own horizons and directly or indirectly added to the author’s overall knowledge and his nautical individuality … amongst other things.
2. Some years ago, as devout member of the Piraeus Yacht Club, he would voluntarily take aboard his sailer “Karsana” (the term given to a woman who is from the village of Karya on the verdant island of Lefkas in the Ionian Pelagos, just off and linked by bridge to the eastern mainland of Greece) newly certificated yachters so they could obtain hands-on experience in pleasure cruising, gain confidence and become more competent and at ease with open sea navigation before finally deciding to venture out on their own, alone with their knowledge.
Thus it was, that there were days which were humorously called ‘squall hunts’ because they had to be taught that even if they happened to be caught in a sudden and furious squall, there are ways to get pleasure from the sea without seriously jeopardizing safety or equipment. On calm days and nights, a range of philological, astronomical or… existential questions would be discussed, such conversations almost invariably ending up as wine and song induced bouts of merrymaking. On one such outing, a young crew member enquired as to the differentiations of the terms Ocean, Thalassa (sea), Pelagos, Pontos, Poros and how for example, did the island of Poros (in the Saronic Gulf) came to be named thus.
In the Greek language, nouns are gender or neutrally defined (very often alternating). Thus, for example, the sea is female, the rock is male and the child is neutral (unlike English where nouns are of neutral gender or French, for example, where they are either male or female). Accordingly, because the word ‘island’ in Greek is of female gender, the majority of Greek islands are designated names of female gender. The island of Poros, even though in Greek sounding as if of male gender, contrary to what most Greeks believe, is actually no exception. The island’s ancient name was female as “Kalavria” (Demosthenes – Hecataeus) which translates as Good Aura or Breeze. Its even earlier name was female also as “Eirini” (Antikleides) which means Peace. Both these names are of female gender. Thus the island was designated a name by which to describe it having mild winds blowing and in general, peaceful waters. As indeed it has. A similar association took place in the naming of the old Greek colony in the area of Calabria in Italy, which to the contrary, and before its systematic Greek colonization in the 8th century, was named Vrettia. The only sheltered anchorage at Poros is between it and the mainland and from where the exit to the outer sea (the Saronic Gulf), is via a short and narrow channel. It is this characteristic ‘pore’ which in recent years gave its name to the island of Poros. So, even in those moments of intoxicated cheeriness, other similar bits of… valuable information would be conveyed, such as, for example, that ‘wine’ (innos-male gender) is that which is pure, whereas ‘vino’ (krasi-neutral) when watered down (Translators note: best possible rendition).
Accordingly and following diligent research, the present writer has concluded on the following representative nautical terms that would be recognizable to the seafarers of that time and which are decidedly useful in defining the ‘nautical’ terminology of Atlantis, together of course, with the latest information. For the present, the definitions used circa the 4th century BC are those considered apt.
Translators note: The explication of the terms that follow is the result of thorough research by the present author. A collection of Ancient Greek language dictionaries were employed, both interpretational and etymological, as well as thesauruses and glossaries. In addition, these terms were cross-referenced as to their connotation through the examination of historical reports by other ancient writers while in some cases, they were verified by on site investigation by the author himself! Evidently, to list all these Greek definitions here, is meaningless for the English reader. For Grecophones however, all are listed in the Greek edition of this book. Many of these terms have already been presented in the analysis of the translation of Timaeus so here act to refresh the memory. Others are met in the translation of Critias and here act as advance information. Thus:
3. a) DIORYCHA (Critias -Canal): Does not refer to a natural waterway or channel in the ancient text. It is a man made canal or artificial hollowed out water passageway excavated on land. It may also be a natural watercourse that is artificially improved so as to allow navigation. Many wrongly maintain that the “diorycha” pertains only to canal for marine waters.
b) The accurate depiction of this waterway depends on the accompanying verb or adjective! Thus, one “diorycha” may have different properties to another. This will be analyzed and shown clearly in Critias. In the present translation, the term “diorycha” will be kept.
4. a) THALASSA (sea): A compound word, from THAL + ALS (abundance + salt). In general, it means a body of salt water. In conception, it is larger than the “pelagos” (sea) it contains. For example, in English, the Mediterranean Sea contains the Aegean Sea, the Libyan Sea etc whereas in Greek, in differentiation as to the types of sea, the Mediterranean Thalassa contains the Aegean Pelagos, the Libyan Pelagos etc.
This interjection aside, the word “thalassa” denotes plenty of salt water. Analyzing it in reference to very many ancient reports, the conclusion is, that it is generally applies to large bodies of water which are not lakes (which are landlocked and supplied by rivers) and are, in effect, a part and continuation of all marine waters.
b) The expression “THALASSA SYNETETRITTE” is found in the book of Critias and is of prime importance because it precisely defines the characteristics of the Greater (5th) Wheel of the relevant formation at Atlantis. The Greeks, a race of people intrinsically bound to the sea from very olden times, had formulated words for each situation one might face at sea. The above phrase describes where there are “two diametrically opposed flowing bays that leave an opening between them through which the sea passes with difficulty”. It is an anatomical term for the point at which lesser arteries join a major one. (All this in definition of a single ancient Greek verb!) This subtle and elaborate connotation has escaped the notice of translators. Interestingly and worthy of note, is that a few lines before the verb “synetetritte”, Plato coins the phrase “diorycha synetrissan”. Although the two verbs seem to have a common root in that they sound so alike, they in fact have different meanings. Plato purposely uses a variety of such or similar contrivances in Timaeus and especially in Critias.
5. NESSOS or Nissos (island): This word represent the picture of a floating NESSA or Nissa (duck) with water around it. This word has been used by subsequent poets in reference to peninsulas. Herodotus however, clearly defines a peninsula as a landmass of which one part, however small, is connected to the mainland. Besides, the word itself is defining. The word peninsula in Greek is Chersonessos (Cherso + Nessos = of land + island). Therefore, it is clear that an island is a body of land that is completely surrounded by water of any description; as was Atlantis. If an island is very big, it can also be referred to as a continent; as was Atlantis.
6. PELAGOS (sea): This word is somewhat more intricate to explain because there is more than one interpretation, but in all save one, “pelagos” generally describes a tract of sea smaller than that defined by the word OKEANOS (ocean). Many translators have time after time equated the words “pelagos” and ‘ocean’. They are partly correct only if in reference to Homeric and pre-Homeric times where indeed the two words were used alternatively to indicate the sea. The wrong interpretation of the word “pelagos” gives a wrong representation, thereby misleading the researcher. The word “pelagos” (4th cent. AD) denotes a relatively small compact sea which contains bays, peninsulas and islands; not a large THALASSA (&4).
a) Definition 1: “pelagos” is a very ancient compound word which, in breakdown, denotes ‘a sea at a short distance’ or a ‘sea that is nearby’. Furthermore, the second half of the word can also denote a type of curvature such as a bent elbow. Invariably, a “pelagos” is sometimes named either after an individual, as is the Aegean Pelagos for example, or more often, from the land it washes on such as for example, the Kritiko Pelagos (Crete) or the Libyan Pelagos or, in this case, the Atlantic Pelagos.
In support of the present extrapolation, which considers the Atlantic Pelagos to have been where the Tunisian desert is now, is the existence of Chott El Jerid (or Djerid), a vast salt pan which is considered to have been part of the Mediterranean Sea at some time. Today it is seasonally transformed into a “pelagos” and indeed, saline. This phenomenon is not due to an inflow of seawater but because there are still immense deposits of salt in the area, which crystallize in the summer when the “pelagos” evaporates and the desert reappears. When it rains again in winter, the waters come back. In its heyday, it must have been very similar in appearance to the Aegean Pelagos. This seasonally recurring sea at Chott El Jerid, along with others like it in the general vicinity, is herein considered to have once constituted the Atlantic Pelagos.
b) Definition 2: (which does not rescind the previous definition and may even complement it) A nearby sea that contains islands within easy reach of each other. Accordingly is derived the word ‘archipelago’.
So when Plato gives the designation “pelagos”, the word ‘Okeanos’ (ocean), must be discounted and specifically, reference to the Atlantic Ocean. Quite possibly, at a time many millennia ago, a “pelagos” did indeed wash the shores of the continent and the island of Atlantis and thereby received the name Atlantic Pelagos. In the same way, the Atlantic Ocean was so named because it washed the oceanic side of the continent of Atlantis.
From descriptions by Herodotus and Thucydides, it derives that a “pelagos” was considered to be a relatively small sea. As exceptional cases of a large “pelagos”, Thucydides makes reference to the Tyrsynian Pelagos (or Tyrrynian in NW Italy-Sicily-Sardinia-Corsica) and to the Sicilian Pelagos. It must be pointed out however, that also here, in renditions of these authors’ works, similar mistakes have been made by a number of translators who have persistently and incorrectly substituted the words “pelagos” and “pontos” with the word “thalassa” (sea). Inadvertently, this has resulted in equally incorrect interpretations. As a general definition, a “pelagos” is a relatively compact sea containing a scattered number of islands, coves, bays and other land features, while the distances from one place to another within it are relatively short. In a few exceptional cases, it is of bigger size.
7. PORTHMOS (strait): In Plato’s texts, there is a unique strait which he refers to as “mouth”, obviously because this image best portrays the topography of the location. Namely, a large aperture in front, then a narrowing which opens to a smaller aperture, such as is inside the head. In general, a “porthmus” is a strait in the shape of a narrowing between landmasses that forms a channel of unspecified width. Therefore “porthmus” is the narrowest point of the “mouth”.
8. PONTOS (sea): a) This word needs special consideration. During the Classical age of Greece but also during Homer’s time, the term “pontos” generally meant ‘sea’ as has widely been acknowledged. There are however some alternative interpretations, as for example in Aeschylus, where the word, if not preceded by the article, has the meaning of ‘passage’. Hesiod uses this term in reference to all the Mediterranean Sea while the Orphic Poets use it generally in reference to the sea. It is evident that Plato ascribes to “pontos” special characteristics that differentiate it from other types of sea. A “pontos” in olden pre-classical ancient times and at some time before Homer, must have referred to a deep sea but more than this and more specifically, the term was used in designation of a large sea which was characterized by freshwater currents. This is the conclusion one arrives at when correlating a sea such as the Euxeinos (Euxeine) Pontos (the name by which, still today, Greeks call the Black Sea), which was formed by the discharge of rivers into a basin and where there was always an outflow into another sea, the way the Euxinos Pontos flows into the Aegean Pelagos. In other words, there was constant flow accompanying strong currents. Originally, the Euxeinos Pontos (Black Sea) was a freshwater lake (substantiated) formed by the discharge of a number of rivers into it. At some stage, as sea levels rose, the Aegean Pelagos also began to pour into it. However, it is also possible that if the water level in the Euxenos Pontos rose faster than that of the Aegean Pelagos, because of the increased volume of fluvial water received from glacial meltwater and increased precipitation, as a result of rising temperatures between the Pleistocene and Holocene ages, it subsequently overflowed into the Aegean Pelagos which had also risen to such a level as to create a water link between the two seas. That the waters of the Aegean Pelagos mingled with those of the Euxeinos Pontos (Black Sea) at some point in time has also been verified. That natural event of the two bodies of water joining, took place around 7.600 BC. Furthermore, relatively recently, the ancient water level of the Euxeinos Pontos was identified at almost 91 metres lower than it is today. This indicates that the level in the Euxeinos Pontos was possibly already higher in relation to the Aegean Pelagos at that time whose level had risen by 130 metres. In parallel, a river was formed towards the Bosporus.
The ancients were familiar with this theory. Strabo (1st century AD) conveys the knowledge of earlier Greek scientists such as Eratosthenes (3rd BC) who makes reference to Straton (4th century BC), who made, amongst other things, a perfect approach to explaining how the Euxeinos Pontos came to be. He described the origins of the Euxeinos Pontos (Black Sea), in exactly the same way as it has been explained by scientists only as recently as the last decade. Likewise, he in the same way may have defined the union of the Atlantic Pelagos with the Mediterranean Sea at the Pillars of Heracles (or the joining of two areas of the Mediterranean Sea – to be examined in due course) Fairly recently, traces of buildings and tools were found in the deep of the Euxeinos Pontos, there where once used to be dry land. (Dr. Fredrik Hiebert – Head of Archaeology of the 2000 mission, Professor at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology). The findings were made in the course of the mission under marine researcher, Bob Ballard. Furthermore, there are theories by geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman of the University of Columbia that the Aegean Pelagos flowed invasively into the Euxinos Pontos as a result of the rising sea levels that followed the rapidly increasing large scale melting of glaciers, especially after 12.000 BP.
They calculated that with the breach of the land divide between the two bodies of water, the level of the Euxeinos Pontos (Black Sea) rose at a daily rate of 15 cm. Before all others, Straton had first expounded this theory 2.300 years ago. This issue will be revisited. If the above hypothesis is valid, then the time during which the Aegean Pelagos began flowing into the Euxeinos Pontos (and/or the reverse), can approximately be identified, which could perhaps provide explanation for the flood of Dardanos (Dardanelles Strait).
As far as Atlantis is concerned, it could be that there was a comparable occurrence at the Atlantic Pontos, which discharged into the Atlantic Pelagos and/or into the Niger river, at least, during an earlier time when heavy rainfalls replenished the water loss of these seas. Later on, the rains very much diminished and whichever glaciers existed in the Atlas range and other African mountains began to melt rapidly. In such a case, there is very little to no likelihood of there being salt deposits in the tract defined as the Euthymenian Pontos (as in the case of the Euxeinos Pontos, which was a freshwater lake before its waters mingled with the saltwater of the Aegean Pelagos) or, if there are salt deposits of any significant quantity, they will be remnants from a much earlier geological period of time. As for the Atlantic Pontos, it may have contained fresh or also brackish water due to previous salt deposits remaining from earlier ice ages. Indeed, if this hypothesis is seen in correlation with a historical report made of the journey of the Carthaginian Anon, who when exploring the Altantian seas and rivers saw crocodiles and hippopotami, or with the report of the seafarer Euthymenes of Marseilles who came into freshwater below (south of) Libya, then the present theory re Atlantis greatly ties in with these accounts. All will be referred to in greater detail in due course.
b) According to Greek mythology, the area of Axeinos Pontos was inhabited by the deity “Pontos”, son of Ethera (Wind) and Gaea (Earth). Note: The most well known “pontos” is the Axeinos (Euxeinos) Pontos (known, as already mentioned, as the Black Sea to non-Greeks). The term Axeinos or Axenos (inhospitable) was its very olden designation but was changed in the course its systematic colonization. This happened especially after the founding of Sinope by Miletus and after 750 BC with the founding of Trapezounda (Trabzon) and other settlements. Because of the proliferation of Greek cities along the northern coast of today’s Turkey, it was renamed as Euxinos (hospitable) Pontos (the prefix ‘eu-’ denotes good, favorable). The Axeinos (Euxeinos) is also referred to in Orphic poetry as a “pontos”. Thus, it carries this designation from way back in the past. Etymologically, the word “pontos” also stems from ‘ponos + antios’ (ache + anti = strive against). For example, the Hellespont (known to non-Greeks as the Dardanelles) has a surface current contrary to its entrance from the Aegean. Thus, the name indicates a certain difficulty in navigation, because in the absence of a tail wind, in order to pass from the Aegean to the Black Sea, seafarers would be obliged to row against the current. Thus is derived the analogy of the Euxeinos Pontos (Black Sea) with the Aegean Pelagos and the Euthymenean Pontos and the Atlantic Pontos with the Atlantic Pelagos.
In general, the descriptive term “pontos” applies primarily to the Euxinos Pontos (Black Sea) and to a lesser (possibly confusing) degree to the much smaller Hellespont (the Dardanelles). Any other sea that is described as a “pontos” must have associated properties. In most cases, the word signifies a sea. In summation, a “pontos” has relatively large dimensions and is characterized by fluvial currents caused by the discharge of rivers that makes its navigation somewhat challenging, at least in some parts (“pontos” = ponos+antios = strive against). At the same time and taking into account the various known references and olden definitions of a “pontos”, the present author proposes an additional definition, whereby a “pontos” is a sea whose waters are fresh or of different salinity in comparison to other seas. However, the designation “pontos” does not etymologically support this latter definition with the known explanations we have available so far.
9. POROS (pore): In Greek medical terminology (from the ancient to the present) the word “poros” denotes a ‘pore’, a tiny opening in skin or on a plant leaf, through which liquids may pass. This gives a simply perfect image of the geographical connotation. Thus, a “poros” is variously defined as a passage to open sea, outlet to open sea, narrow navigable channel, narrow stretch of sea, a belt of sea which is narrower than a strait and fairly extensive in length that joins two minor bays etc. In general, as already defined and interpreted throughout the present work, a “poros” is a very narrow navigable waterway that connects two bays or seas.
10. OKEANOS (ocean): The largest of the seas. An ancient compound word made up from okis + anio (rapid + traverse). A couple of definitions, amongst others, are ‘waters flowing rapidly in circular motion’ and ‘the largest river washing around the entire sphere of the world, whose waters…extend up to its very ends, not having any source or outlet’. Certain ancient authors, mainly the much earlier ones, used the term “okeanos” in reference to seas which were later redefined as “pelagos”. Thus, an “okeanos” is the sea whose waters perpetually traverse great distances swiftly.
11. CHERSONESSOS (peninsula): the reader will notice the word “Nessos” (island) in the second part of this compound word. The first half is derived from the word ‘land’. Therefore, as already mentioned, it defines a landmass that is almost surrounded by water and joined to mainland at one point. Herodotus refers to a peninsula as land whose shores are in the same sea except for the part which is conjunct to the mainland. Moreover, he refers to ‘bi-faceted (or tri-faceted) coastlines’, when the peninsula is very big and where the two (or three) largest sides of the peninsula are washed by different large seas (thus was Libya given this designation at some time, as will be seen in due course). In general, a “Chersonessos” is an island which joins somewhere with the mainland and so, not surrounded by water.
12. Commentary: It is truly remarkable how the Greek language, has so precisely defined and given names to people, cities, objects, characteristics and qualities and how, despite the hardships suffered by the Greeks, has managed to withstand repeated blows in the course of history. Indeed, it is so prevalent, that non-Greeks especially, but also many contemporary Greeks, do not realize the base of the words as they recount them. For example, when Greeks referred -and still do- to ‘Arktiki’ (the Arctic), they are referring to the land of the “arktos” or the territory of the bear. In many ancient texts, Arktos is associated with Boreas (not the god of the north wind, as some English dictionaries say. Actually, the ancients did have a god of the wind, Aeolus, but he was the god of all winds in general). The ancient Greeks usually called Boreas the north-northeasterly wind and generally the wind blowing from the north). The name “Antarctica” was coined by the Scottish cartographer J. G. Bartholomew in 1890 as being in antithesis, that is, as being opposite the Arctic. However, the term Antarktiki was used in ancient times and is found in the texts of many philosophers and writers of that era. (Anaxagoras Phil. Testimonia, 5-6 BC, Proclus and by tens of others). (anti + arktos + iki = opposite + bear + suffix denoting place). Hence, it was the land on the other side from that of the bear. To non-Greeks, these regions are simply the North Pole which is covered in ice and the South Pole which is also covered in ice.
Another example, is that of a latter day researcher who defines the word ‘hippopotamus’ as deriving from words of Hebrew origin. He was not aware that ‘hippo + potamos’ = horse + river (river-horse) in Greek and was given by the ancient Greeks when they found for first time an Hippopotamus and tried to give a name according its image and nature. There is no lack of examples of words derived from Greek. Without doubt, the lack of semantic awareness and specifically, the inadequate knowledge of the Greek language inevitably deprive researchers of a key instrument in their investigation of the past history of many civilizations seeing that the majority of relevant references are in texts written originally in ancient Greek.
English 
Greek