Atlantis: Plato’s geographical errors

Jaime Manuschevich

Come back

Introduction: Compared ancient geographical knowledge

Maybe the main error of all those professional and amateur investigators who have been devoted to locate this lost island through thousands of years has been considering this myth as a Greek legend, without taking into account that it has its origin and roots in the ancient Egypt. The Greeks took it from the Nile, as the legend tells: “if Solon had only, like other poets, made poetry the business of his life, and had completed the tale which he brought with him from Egypt, and had not been compelled, by reason of the factions and troubles which he found stirring in his own country when he came home, to attend to other matters, in my opinion he would have been as famous as Homer or Hesiod, or any poet. (Timaeus, 21). The purpose of his retriever- Solon- was to adapt and modify it so it could be understood by the Hellenic civilization, cultural space where they pretended to transform it in a saga at the Homeric style.

Regarding this matter the Greek legislator succeeded completely in his goal. In fact, we have almost forgotten the myth’s origin and, in practice, we do not know how much forms part of the Egyptian legend and how much has been added in the Greek adaptation realized by its remakers.

What we really know is that there are differences between both societies and, particularly, in terms of marine knowledge, which permits us through this way to separate one component from the other. From this point of view, the Helens where skilful sailors in the Mediterranean Sea. On the other side, the Egyptians never dedicated themselves to height navigation, activity that could have permitted them to effectively collect more information about this sea. All the Egyptian known commerce in the Mediterranean corresponded to the minoics at the beginning, then to the Phoenicians and later to the Greeks and Romans.

In old times, the Egyptians did only travelled through the Nile River and the Red sea, as their own historical files show us. Therefore, they had a much lower Mediterranean geographical information level than the knowledge range the Greeks had, as they had never incursed in that sea.

Starting from the point of the gap in the geographical knowledge between both cultures, it is easy to conclude that the Egyptians gave different names to Solon, with a physical or topographic description of the places (¿), and that he, in the intention to make it comprehensible to the Greeks, assigned – or translated them as his own definition – the names to the places we now know from the myth. This modification of the names given by the Greeks is expressively shown in the myth. “Yet, before proceeding further in the narrative, I ought to warn you, that you must not be surprised if you should perhaps hear Hellenic names given to foreigners. I will tell you the reason of this: Solon, who was intending to use the tale for his poem, enquired into the meaning of the names, and found that the early Egyptians in writing them down had translated them into their own language, and he recovered the meaning of the several names and when copying them out again translated them into our language.” (Critias, 113)

And, without doubt, to conserve the story’s fidelity, assigned the names comparing the descriptions given by the Egyptians and the topographical knowledge he had himself. But it must have been the philosopher, and not Solon, who established that this lost island or continent was in at the time unknown Atlantic Sea, beyond a strait, which he classified as the actual Gibraltar or the old of the Hercules Columns, as the legislator lived before that name was established.

Then, to restore the Egyptian original vision and to establish the correct island location, we have to analyze the geographical knowledge of the Greeks, compare them with what the Egyptians knew and to conclude if we are talking of the same geography.

The Atlantic Ocean and the Hercules Columns

The Atlantic ocean name to identify the sea beyond the Hercules Columns, and island location, is just used for the first time by Herodotus of Halicarnasus, one generation before Plato, and therefore the designation of this patronymic is subsequent to the same Solon: “The name of Atlantis sea, at least for some of the people who denominate the north Atlantic was used one generation before Plato was born. It appears for the first time in Herodotus in the form of ‘the so called Atlantis Sea’ and the name appears to have been developed without any reference to the Atlantis legend. Herodotus (...) knew a tribe called the atlantes that lived in an oasis in the desert [morrocan] at a great distance to the west of Egypt. Their name was derivates from a mountain called Atlas”. (Pellegrino, C. 1997)

In the same way, the sole fact of indicating that this sea was beyond the so called Hercules columns, presents also another serious geographical problem in relation to the knowledge Egyptians had about this area, as this strait has not been saw as a topographical unit that could be used as a reference till very late in the history era. “The Hercules columns were the Gibraltar’s (which in ancient times was called Calpe or Alybe) and the mount Abyla in Africa, beyond the Gibraltar strait, near Ceuta. These two landmarks dominated the path between the known world, the Mediterranean shores, and the unknown world of the Atlantic ocean”. (Evans, E., Cayse, G.; Richards, D., 1993)

It follows that the affirmation that Atlantis was beyond the Hercules columns begins to be valid only from the start of the Greek expansion and the following cultures. But it was not for the Egyptians, as that strait, if they would have known it, would have been saw as two separate geographical elements: Alybe and Abyla, not as it was seen by the other ancient civilizations.

This first comparison show us that it is impossible that the Egyptians could have shown Solon that the position of this island or continent could have been located on the Atlantic, a totally unknown ocean for the Egyptians, farther than a strait that did not exist for them and at a distance which was very remote. In fact, Crete island, located at only 450 kilometres from Nile’s delta, was a very distant reality, as the “papyri Ipuwer uses the phrase ‘as far as Keftiu [Crete]’” (Pellegrino, C. 1997).

The Greeks did not know about the Red Sea

The next failure of the classical analysis is to leave out the fact that the Greeks, on making the geographical study to locate the continent, did not consider the Red Sea, as they did not have any knowledge of its existence. This can be confirmed in the World map made by Anaximandrus of Miletus, an important Greek philosopher from the VI century. It is assigned to this thinker, who is supposed to be born circa 610/609 and to have died the 545 B.C., the authorship, among other four books –On the nature, Earth Perimeter, on the fixed stars and Celestial Sphere- of a mapa-mundi. Diogenes Laercius (II, 2) tell us that Anaximandrus was the first one on tracing the earth perimeter and the sea and he also constructed a celestial sphere that is a ceiling map. Agatemerus (I, 1) and Estrabon (I, 7) also inform that Anaximandrus draw a map of the inhabited land, later perfectioned by Hecateus of Miletus. His mapa-mundi is a circular design, in which the known regions (Asia and Europe) formed approximately similar segments and all this surrounded by the Okeano Sea, which included what we know today as the Atlantic Ocean. In there no mention was done to the red Sea, between Arabia and Egypt. (Herodotus, IV, 36). These Anaximandrus geographical kwnowledges were based on the sailor’s news, which were abundant and varied in Miletus, commercial and colonization centre

Solon, who was born in 639 B.C. and who died in 560 B.C., a very near period to Anaximadrus, could only dispose of this information existent at the time. This brought him to locate the island in a place to the west of the Mediterranean, as that land was “beyond the straits”, and, for him, the only straits were the Messina (Sicily) and the Heracles (actual Gibraltar) straits. As he had no knowledge of the Red sea, he didn’t know about the straits of Bab el-Mandeb, Eilat or Tiran and Suez, as it can be observed in a real map of the region.

This brought him to another key error.

An other way round map or mistaken seas

Solon, having only knowledge of the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, on making the names changes already said, gives as a fact that the Red Sea is the Mediterranean, without considering that this sea was completely unknown by the Egyptians.

The sea they knew was the Red Sea, which was at the same time, unknown by the Greeks. For the ancient Egyptians this last sea was familiar, as they knew it from top to bottom. This was the sea they had in front of the whole Nile, their main navigation route.

If one observes the evolution form of the Egyptian culture, in the Nile valley, one will see the more modern settlements are each time nearer the Mediterranean. As a fact, Avaris headquarter of the hics pharaohs of the XV and XVI Dynasty is at no more than 20 kilometres from the Mediterranean. From Memphis, political centre of the VI to VIII dynasties, there are 200 kilometres to the Mediterranean coast and 150 kilometres to the Suez Channel coast, establishing a similar distance between both seas; Tinis, centre of the pretinite period and the first three dynasties of the Egyptian civilization recognized by the historians, is at 300 kilometres from the Red Sea, and more than 500 kilometres from Gizeh and at 700 kilometres from Ombo Mediterranean, important centre in the predynastic period, previous to the pretinite, is at 300 kilometres of the red Sea and at 1.100 kilometres from the Mediterranean. It is obvious that in the Egyptian culture a slow movement of the importante of red Sea occurs in benefit of the Mediterranean, as new commercial focus are generated in this sea, the delta is colonized and an emergent political power is moved to the north.

A proof of the knowledge`s level Egyptians had of the Red Sea is an expedition to the Punt, in the actual Somalia, in the horn of Africa, made under Pharaoh Pepi II, of the VI Dynasty, circa 2.300 B.C. Some historians say that it was done by earth, although others maintain that it was done by sea, exactly as the own Egyptians note. “Pepi II decided to send a ship to the land of Punt, that is, to a place in the coast of Somalia. The loading port should be found over the Asiatic coast of the Red Sea”. (Drioton, E., Vandier, J., 1964)

From these facts it exist the story of a famous dwarf who brought the expedition to the Pharaoh, who ask the chief of the expedition to extreme caring: “When he climbs aboard with you, choose two men of your confidence to be constantly at his side and don’t let him fall into the water”, (Grinberg, C., 1985) application that confirms the maritime character, impossible to realize on the Nile.

The Punt, key name

This African territory is directly connected to the Phoenicians, as they were also called Punics or Tyrrhenians, taken their original name from the extreme south of the Red Sea, in Somalia. According to the historic tradition, circa 3.500 B.C., Phoenicia zone “was invaded by a Semitic origin nation coming from Punait (actual Somalia, in the southern part of the Red Sea), and because of this Phoenicians were known also with the name of poeni or puni”. (Podesta, L.A., 1946)

This fact, unknown by Solon, moved him probably to redact this phrase: “the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia” (Timaeus, 25). In this redaction it is obvious that there is a separation between one territory and the other, one inside and one outside, which reflects certain geographical confusion, as all the real territories are “inside” the Hercules columns.

It is probable that when the Egyptians transmitted the information to Solon, they noted that Egypt and Libya were inside one or several straits that can be the actual Suez channel or the Tiran strait, as well as the Bab el Mandeb, which connects the Red Sea with the Arabic Sea. This strait was unknown to the Greeks, which is assumed by Solon as the Hercules columns, while that mysterious Tyrrhenia was not there.

Today we do not know for sure which zone the Egyptians considered as the “coast facade” of their country. It could be the actual Mediterranean coast, the delta zone, as well as the Red Sea coasts, their known sea. But most probable of all, considering the cultural expansion process, is that the ancient Egyptians considered the Rea Sea coast their coast facade, but at the moment when they transmitted the myth it was already the Mediterranean, which is expressed in this strange redaction.

Therefore, in what to this mysterious second territory is referred, most probably the Egyptians were referring to the Punt, that effectively is outside any strait, which moves Solon to separate it as a paragraph, because it does no coincide with his geographical knowledges, but expressly omits this exclusion.

Punics or Tyrrhenians?

This mix-up conducts Solon or Plato to change the name of Punt for Tyrrhenia, name Greeks gave the region that formed part of the south of the actual Italy, Sicily, and the part of the north of Africa which is in front, where Kart-Haddatch, or Carthago was, being these important zones colonized by the Punics or Phoenicians, so called cananeans. With all legitimacy he surely considered that the Egyptians should have given the name of Punt to that zone, associated with the same Phoenicians or punics, also known as tirrians” by the Greeks, because they became from Tyro, Phoenician city in the coast of Canaan.

All this translation should have been, at Solon’s judgement, a correct interpretation according the geographical records at the Greeks disposal at the time. In fact, the sea, which runs between Sicily and Africa, is still called Tyrrhenian Sea.

No doubt that this great displacement of the cananeans, Phoenicians, punics or tirrians, took the Greeks to another confusion.

Arabia or Europe?

The text tell us that “in this island of Atlantis there was a great and marvellous empire that reigned the whole island and several others, and governed the parts of the continent, and, extending its government, Atlantis men has subjugated the parts of Libya inside the Hercules columns till Egypt, and Europe till Tyrrhenia” (Timaeus, 25).

Without doubt, when it is established that the Plato’s Tyrrhenia is in fact the Punt, it becomes apparent that the other territory is not Europe, but the region which is just in front of the actual Somalia: the Arabic peninsula.

If we assume that Canaan, the actual Israel, was the mythical island (Manuschevich, J., 2002), the Atlantis myth is very clear regarding this relationship with the territory that constitutes the actual Arabian peninsula: “the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent.” (Timaeus, 24-25).

Only with this view of the situation it is possible to understand this otherwise so complex paragraph, that has taken so many to assume that the island itself could be a continent or an island-continent, but the author is openly speaking of a sea and an ocean, and he is referring to two territories, to an isle –“inside the straits of Hercules”- and to an unlimited frontier continent which was surrounded by an ocean, as it is the situation of the Arabic peninsula, partly surrounded by the Red Sea, then by the Arabic sea and finally by the Persian Gulf.

Analysing this territory, it calls deeply your attention that the city of La Mekka is seated in an equidistant point between the two extremes of the Rea Sea. More to it, it is very near the coast, only few kilometres from the modern port of Jidaa and curiously almost in front of Port Sudan, in the occidental coast of the Red Sea. This placement characteristics point us to the fact that it was founded consciously as an intermediate point of the maritime journey made by the ancient atlantes in their expansion process through the Red Sea, thousands of years before Christ, in plain prehistory, playing a key role in the commercial routes between Kem (the Low Egypt), Kush (the High Egypt), Mineo-Saba (actual Arabia-Yemen), and maybe with the emerging Dravidian culture of the Indo, in the Puntjab, contributing to close a Neolithic commercial circle which was extended in the north through all the northern Mesopotamia, Palestine, Anatolia and Crete.

Another additional proof of the early great influence Atlantides had in the zone it is found southern, in the actual Yemen, where in a remote period, between 2.500 B.C. until 700 B.C., the very antique Minean kingdom that “was famous not only by its richness coming from the exportation of local fragrances and from the traffic of precious goods with India and Africa – which took Greeks to qualify this zone as the ‘Happy Arabia’, for its fabulous wealthy – but also for the dam one of its soverains ordered to construct in Ma´rib”. (Grinberg, C., 1985).

This kingdom was located in the north part of actual Yemen and it is mentioned in old scripts “until the XII century B.C. Scripts of the IX century B.C. gives us count from his southern neighbour, the state of the sabeans.”. (Grinberg, C., 1985) Touching this kingdom coexisted the mythical kingdom of Saba, kingdom with strong and old cultural ties with Ethiopia in Africa, just the Punt. “Recent archaeological discoveries have been revealing the rests of monumental palaces, statues and epigraphic texts which tell us the greatness reached by those kingdoms”. (Grinberg, C., 1985) Nevertheless, the archaeology – that initiated its excavations only for a short period of time in 1928 – has not been able to deeply study those places due to political difficulties or different kind as investigators had to run for their lives in several opportunities. Until now either the history nor the archaeology have been able to give an answer to the origin of these kingdoms contemporary to Summer and Egypt, which competed with them in splendour in the old past.

Conclusions

· The first clear conclusion of this compared analysis of the geographical between Greeks and Egyptians, is that the location of the mythical island in the Atlantic Ocean was not posted by the Egyptians, but a conclusion Plato arrived after analysing Solon story.

· The second conclusion is that the Greeks rotated the seas, confounding the Red and the Mediterranean, by one part, and this last one with the Atlantic Ocean.

· The third conclusion is that the cardinal reorientation of these deductions takes us in defectively to locate the Atlantis in the eastern Mediterranean.

· The fourth conclusion is the limited geographical knowledge the Greeks had about Middle East region, contributed to the location of the mythical island.

References

Pellegrino, C. (1997) El Misterio de la Atlántida. Buenos Aires. Javier Vergara Editor S.A.(pp. 64)

Evans, E., Cayse, G.; Richards, D. (1993), Misterios de la Atlántida. Madrid. Editorial EDAF S.A. (pp. 28)

Drioton, E., Vandier, J., (1964), Historia de Egipto, Buenos Aires, Editorial Universitaria de Buenos Aires (pp. 178).

Grinberg, C., (1985). Historia Universal, Tomo II, Santiago de Chile, Editorial Ercilla S.A. (pp. 152)

Podesta, L.A., (1946). El Antiguo Oriente. Buenos Aires. Editorial Guillermo Kraft. (pp. 146)

Manuschevich, J. (2002) La Atlántida: el mito descifrado. Santiago de Chile, Autoedición. (pp. 51-74)