I may as well state at the outset that I do not believe there ever was any such place as "Atlantis," per se. There really is no archaeological or historical evidence proving its existence. The only real source of information about it comes from two of Plato's dialogs, Timaeus and Critias. While Plato is certainly a source for a lot of good information, the passages he cites are extremely thin "evidence" for the existence of Atlantis, and by themselves are not proof it existed. Unfortunately, these brief mentions in Plato's dialogs have become the core of a lot of speculation. Much of that speculation is based on erroneous assumptions about what Plato said about Atlantis.

What Plato Really Said

Think about this. We know this story passed through many hands, even before Plato wrote it down, quoting Critias. Its veracity is in doubt, therefore, right from the start.

Of critical importance in these passages is the following (from Timaeus; the Egyptian priest is speaking to Solon the sage):

Note, the Egyptian priest is speaking of an "empire" which was contemporary with his own realm, just a few centuries before. He also claims that Athens halted the Atlanteans' conquest, even though the Greeks had only been in that region for a few centuries at that time. It's likely that the Egyptian priest is confusing the Athenians of his own time with the predecessors of the Greeks (Hellenes), the Mycenaean civilization.

Whichever is the case — note that this Atlantis is not a civilization which preceded that of Egypt. It was an empire contemporary with Egypt! Atlantis is commonly said to date back to 9,000 BCE — but clearly, such a great age is not indicated by this tale!

Also, take note of how Plato recounts the tale. He elaborated, within his dialog, on the number of "jumps" this story had to take, before it reached his ears. For him to include this detail within the dialog, tells us something — Plato is clearly implying that the story is hearsay, and only to be taken as such. He doesn't come right out and say it, but he definitely implies that he wasn't certain of its veracity.

Further, we have a great deal of documentation from ancient Greece, including a lot of actual historical narratives and annals (courtesy of people like Herodotus, & traveling sages like Solon who — unlike him — left journals behind of the knowledge they came across). But, significantly, the Atlantis story is found nowhere else! There is not one speck of other mention of Atlantis, in any other ancient Greek text. Nor have we ever found any Egyptian documents supporting what the Egyptian priest told Solon — & again, in the case of Egypt, we have extensive historical documentation.

If indeed there had been an Atlantis, which indeed had gone to war with Egypt and the predecessors of the Athenians, why have we not found any other mention of them? And even when we do find mention of Atlantis, why does the person chronicling the story — in this case Plato — make certain we know the hurdles it went through before he heard it?

Quite obviously, the veracity of Critias's tale, as related by Plato, is in doubt, right from the start. Still, there may be something to it, which we can find, if we decide not to take it at full face value.

The Thera/Santorini Hypothesis

This fits the tale pretty neatly. We know that Egypt periodically fought, and was conquered by, people known as "Hyksos" or "the Sea Peoples," who have — for a number of reasons — been identified as possibly being Minoans. Additionally, the Minoan civilization were indeed rivals of the Mycenaean civilization of the Grecian mainland. Lastly, we know that the Minoans reached as far as Tyrrhenia (the ancient Greek name for Etruria, or the land of the Etruscans, in northwestern Italy).

We also know, from the historical record, about when the Thera disaster occurred, and there is archaeological evidence — on that island & several others — of a civilization there which was wiped out by the explosion of Thera. (Just as we can see the wreckage of Pompeii & the nearby town of Herculaneum, buried under ash & mud spewed by Mt. Vesuvius erupting.) While the name "Atlantis" is missing from these known historical accounts & from the archaeological evidence, the story — in almost every other way — matches this scenario.

The only point on which this theory and the passages in Plato's dialogs differ, is the location of Atlantis itself. The dialogs place it in the Atlantic Ocean, while the Minoan culture was in the Aegean Sea. However, neither the Greeks nor the Egyptians had a very good idea of the geography of the western Mediterranean Sea. Moreover, the meaning of the term "the Pillars of Hercules" is in some doubt. Sometimes, in ancient Greek literature, this phrase refers to the strait between Sicily and the southern tip of Italy (a place which the Greeks did know well, having established colonies in Sicily and southern Italy). Furthermore, some ancient maps & texts mark the region past this point "the Atlantic Ocean" & even state that Tyrrhenia is in the Atlantic!

It doesn't take a stretch of imagination to see that the placement of Atlantis in the Atlantic Ocean could very well have been in error, based on the ancients' distorted geography.

In ancient times, the "parable technique" was often used to make a point. That is, a fictional tale was told which illustrates some point. A great deal of ancient literature — from many European and Near Eastern cultures — was fiction, and was designed to be so, from the start. We cannot take every ancient tale and assume it to be absolutely historical. To do so is simply foolish.

In this case, the context of the dialogs tells us that Critias might be using a parable. The discussion is ideal societies, how they come into existence, and what happens to them. Note, I am not saying that Critias made up the story just to make a point. I am saying that just because he cited it, doesn't mean it's true. It may very well have been — to him — a genuine tale his grandfather told him, to make the same point.

Other So-Called Evidence for Atlantis

"The Bimini Road"

Off the coast of the island of Bimini, in the Caribbean, is a long stretch of sea-bed which appears to be square-cut rock. Many people have taken this to be an ancient paved road, or perhaps, the top of an ancient wall, long since buried by the ocean. This is erroneous, however. The sea-bed at that point is limestone, which tends to fracture and erode in a cubic fashion. That this formation looks like a paved road is simply an accident of nature — and nothing more.

Pyramids

Another point of "evidence" for Atlantis are certain similarities between cultures on both sides of the Atlantic. The most obvious of these are the pyramids of Egypt, the ziggurats of Mesopotamia, and the pyramids in Central and South America. They are indeed similar, at least on the outside. However, construction and design techniques differed greatly. The ziggurats were built from mud-bricks; the pyramids were made of limestone and were completely solid; and the pyramids of the Americas have large chambers inside them. Claiming that some culture predated all of these and transmitted the idea of building pyramids to these lands, fails to recognize the fact that all of these cultures worshipped the heavens and celestial bodies. Naturally, the closer one got to heaven, the closer one got to the gods. Hence, the construction of tall structures resembling mountains, meant to reach the gods. This heaven-centric religion was not transmitted from a common ancestor, but was the result of these cultures' dependence on seasonal changes for agricultural purposes.

Hieroglyphs & Writing

One more piece of "evidence" for Atlantis are the hieroglyphs that one finds in the Near East and in the Americas. There are numerous reasons why these cannot be connected, however. For one, writing began in Sumer as marks on clay, in Egypt as drawing on papyrus, and in the Americas as carving on stone. If writing came from some common source — a hypothetical Atlantis — one would think they would all use the same medium. For another matter, in all instances we can see how writing progressed from pictographic scripts (a picture of a bull's head meant "cattle," for instance) to more complex systems which accurately reflected the sounds and grammar of the languages in question. These languages, moreover, have nothing whatsoever in common! If the idea of writing came from a common source, one would think that there would also be at least a few similarities in language — but there are none. Finally, writing developed at different times in these places. It came first in Sumer, in the middle of the 4th millennium BCE, in Egypt in the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE, and in the Americas in the middle of the 1st millennium BCE. If they had come from a common source, why didn't writing appear all at once, in all locations?

Ancient Maps

Some Atlantis-promoters point to ancient maps as proof that there had been an Atlantic civilization several millennia BCE. These maps purport to show coastlines as they'd have appeared before, or during, the Ice Age. In particular, the Piri Reis map, some claim, shows the coastline of Antarctica without its glacial cap. This is a hoax, however, as this has not been proven, and in any event, lifting the weight of the ice on Antarctica would change its coastline in ways that can only be speculated on. In short — no cartographer could make this claim, by any scientific means! Here is an article explaining the problems with the Piri Reis map, and the hoax involved.

Atlantis in the Middle Ages

Generally, Atlantis was taken to be a decadent, antedeluvian nation, and its destruction, as Plato's tale described it, resulted from the Great Flood (which was survived only by Noah & his family). A few suggested that the Atlanteans were the "Nephilim" mentioned in the Old Testament (this Hebrew term has been variously translated as "giants" or "fallen people"). This was the extent of medieval thought about the Atlantis myth.

Atlantis in the “New Age”

Refugees from Atlantis, they go on, managed to reach the shores of Africa, the Americas, and even the Pacific. They kept alive as much of their knowledge as they could. This accounts for the aforementioned coincidental similarities among diverse cultures.

Mainly, such tales suggest that we are now doing the same thing. We are destroying the earth in the same way the Atlanteans did, and now invite another calamity such as what destroyed that lost civilization. They are supposedly an object lesson in avarice, greed, environmental destruction, and carelessness.

Note, however, that none of this is in any way suggested by Plato's passages about Atlantis. Much of this information was actually inspired by the so-called "sleeping prophet," Edgar Cayce, who claimed that the Atlanteans had this sort of advanced technology; in his prophetic dreams, he literally went back in time, and learned about them.

This view of an "enlightened" people who went astray, however, is completely contradicted by Plato (see preceding quote from Timaeus). Plato's Atlantis is an arrogant, militant nation of ruthless conquerors, who subdued and enslaved whole nations, and who were halted only by the scrappy Athenians (or their predecessors). If the Atlanteans were so enlightened, why would they wage warfare over so large a scale? If they were so technologically advanced, how could the primitive peoples of prehistoric Greece have defeated them so handily?

Furthermore, if one accepts this notion, then there are other apparent, inherent contradictions. The "refugee" Atlantean survivors apparently totally abandoned their "advanced" technology, leaving not a trace of it behind — so apparently, they simply blended in with the neolithic cultures among whom they took refuge. Yet, thousands of years & many generations later, they were able to inspire, direct & execute the construction of pyramids. Huh? This makes no sense at all!

Some New Agers have come up with even newer and more fanciful twists on the Atlantis tale. They say that Atlantis was not a human civilization, but one of alien visitors. Inspired by the likes of Erich von Däniken, Immanuel Velikovsky, & Zecharia Sitchin, they claim that Atlantis was either an alien colony on Earth, or perhaps, a human culture to whom the aliens had given a great deal of knowledge. These fables are so ridiculous as not to merit any further comment.

Lastly, many New Age speculations claim that Atlantis was itself a successor civilization — just as ours is the successor to theirs — which was in the Pacific Ocean, in a land named Mu or Lemuria (depending upon whom you ask). Some say that it was Mu or Lemuria which was either peopled or inspired by alien visitors, and that Atlantis was a human civilization which survived it. Again, we are delving here into the depths of ridiculousness, and need not proceed any further.

The point is that this latest wave of fluff-and-nonsense about Atlantis has little or no basis in the passages from Plato — in spite of the fact that the Plato passages are cited as "proof" that Atlantis existed — and are pure, unadulterated fantasy.

“The Truth At The Heart of Every Myth”

The Bottom Line

The only realistic explanation for this passage, as far as we can tell at the moment, is that it refers to the Minoan civilization of the Aegean Sea. Anything else is just wild speculation based on erroneous assumptions. Period.

Sources of Information on Atlantis Theories

• Atlantis: Fact, Fiction or Exaggeration? (a well-presented exploration of the topic)
• Atlantis: The Lost Continent Finally Found (take note of many of the leaps of logic and erroneous suppositions here to see why so many theories about Atlantis are wrong)
• Lost Continent of Atlantis (a good summary & explanation of the Thera/Santorini theory)
• The Skeptic's Dictionary Entry on Atlantis (another site detailing the errors in many Atlantis theories)