What do you think?
Rate this book
Atlantis: Fact or Fiction?
Essays on the literary, mythological, historical and geological possibilities of the actual existence of Atlantis
210 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 1978
1 person is currently reading
36 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
May 19, 2024
A COLLECTION OF SCHOLARLY ESSAYS ON VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE LEGENDS
Editor Edwin S. Ramage wrote in the Preface to this 1978 book, “This collection of essays developed out of a panel discussion… sponsored by the Department of Classical Studies at Indiana University in April 1975. All the contributors participated on the panel with the exception of Herbert E. Wright Jr., whose essay has been added to round out the present collection… the simple fact that there has been and continues to be so much speculation about Atlantis shows clearly that even the better-reasoned approaches have not provided a satisfactory solution… This suggests that the whole Atlantic issue needs reconsideration and reevaluation from new perspectives and that perhaps those who are specialists in the various disciplines of which Atlantic is a part should be given a chance to provide these new perspectives. The essays which follow are meant to serve as a beginning to such evaluation.”
In the opening essay by Edwin Ramage, he says of Plato’s account, “although the evidence is sparse, archaeology has shown that that Athens which Plato describes could not have existed in 9500 B.C. or thereabouts. At that time Greece was in the late Paleolithic period and man was still living in caves or rock shelters… Settlement weas not to begin for another 3,000 years… No amount of rationalizing can produce Plato’s well-governed, well-structured, and well-protected state in this early period… What Plato seems to be doing … is putting some of his theorizing of ‘The Republic’ on a more practical level by giving an example of how it might work in practice.” (Pg. 19-20)
He continues, “Apparently Plato’s story of Atlantis did not make the impression on the ancients that it has made on us. There are no treatises, long or short, on Atlantic. It is true that they may have existed, but if they did, they have vanished without a trace. For the most part we are dependent on random references in ancient writers, and it is perfectly clear that these are not always reliable.” (Pg. 22) He summarizes, “It should be noticed that most of the ancient writers who mention Atlantis have Plato’s account in mind, and still others describe Atlantis in terms that are suspiciously close to what Plato says. In fact, everything points to Plato’s Timaeus and Critias as being the only independent sources for the Atlantis story known to the ancients.” (Pg. 27)
He outlines, “Any division is arbitrary, but writing on Atlantis really falls into two periods---before and after 1882---for in this year Ignatius Donnelly published his ‘Atlantis: The Antediluvian World, a book which had a strong influence on the Atlantis literature that followed.” (Pg. 29) He adds, “At the same time, the skeptics have not been as outspoken as the believers. Except for Martin in the last century and de Camp in more recent times, no one has attacked the Atlantis story in any detail. The classical scholars mentioned by John Luce just brush Atlantis aside. In fact, Jowett can barely bring himself to mention it. This attitude is extremely common among the experts.” (Pg. 41)
He concludes, “[A] rather common mistake that the Atlantists make is to explain one unknown by using or creating another… [a] recent example of this is the connection often made between Atlantis and the Maya. There are many questions about Mayan origins and development that remain unanswered. The less that is known about both sides, the easier it is to hypothesize…the driving desire to explain Atlantis at all costs has also been responsible for a great deal of out-and-out rationalizing and wile theorizing without any evidence at all… This proliferation of writing on the subject shows that no one has yet offered a satisfactory solution to the problem---if, that is, there is a problem at all.” (Pg. 44-45)
In his essay, John V. Luce explains, “I do not interpret the quest for Atlantis as the quest for the location of a lost island. The search for Atlantis in this sense has generated an immense literature, much of it very unscholarly. For me the quest for Atlantis is a problem in source criticism. Did Plato use any sources for the composition of his tale of Atlantis? If so, what were they and did they have any historical content irrespective of what Plato may have made of them?” (Pg. 51)
He adds, “if it can be established that a volcanic eruption did indeed wreck the fabric of Minoan culture, we shall at least have to concede that Plato’s theory of periodic cataclysms is not without some justification… Though at advocate of the Minoan hypothesis, I would never claim that it explains all the details of the legend of Alantis. It does, however, provide a basis in history for Frutiger’s two essential traits: the power of a ‘western’ island thalassocracy, and the sudden ‘disappearance’ of the island through natural causes. That is its main strength.” (Pg. 70-71)
S. Casey Fredericks states, “it is my suggestion that we abandon the theoretical framework of Euhemerism altogether in evaluating Plato’s two accounts of the inundation of Atlantis; the story may be viewed more appropriately and more precisely as an echo of earlier myths. This is perhaps the most important point at which a CONTEMPORARY mythological analysis of Atlantis will depart from all earlier modes of interpretation… we should begin to interpret myths in the context of other myths, not using supposed events in history as an explanation.” (Pg. 85)
He concludes, “A ‘Copernican Revolution’ in Atlantis studies is long overdue; it is time for the modern imagination to recognize that Atlantic never existed, either in time or in space, and to realize that the actual location of Atlantis all along has been the world of the mind and its most fascinating imaginative product, myth. This universe of the imagination remains the only landscape where exploration, perhaps even further discovery, awaits Atantists of the future.” (PG. 99)
J. Rufus Fears argues, “in the absence of any evidence from Egyptian sources, the silence of Thucydides, Herodotus, Isocrates, and Aelius Aristides seems conclusive. Plato’s story does not reflect a historical tradition derived from Egypt or Solo or from anywhere or anyone else. It is a poetic invention of Plato.” (Pg. 109)
Dorothy B. Vitaliano points out, “The similarities in flora and fauna cited by Donnelly date from a much later time---for instance, the finding of the hairy mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, Irish elk, muskox, reindeer, and the like in ‘postglacial’ deposits in both Europe and North America. However, what was considered to be ‘postglacial’ in Donnelly’s time included much that is not considered to be Pleistocene… Before that, animals and eventually man had several opportunities, beginning as long as eight million years ago, to migrate between Eurasia and north American across what is now Bering Strait; for it was dry land at the times when glaciation was at a maximum… There is no need to invoke an Atlantic landmass to explain their presence in Pleistocene deposits on both sides of the ocean. Nor is an intervening landmass necessary to explain similarities in lant species---not when seeds or sprouts could so easily have been carried by driftwood or migrating birds at any time.” (Pg. 140-141)
She concludes, “there seems little support on the geological side to attribute the submergence of Atlantis 11,600 years ago to a rise of sea level related to glacial events… Surges of individual ice lobes are a somewhat different matter, but their effect on global sea level is negligible because the volumes of ice are relatively small and because melting is not immediate.” (Pg. 174)
This book will be of great interest to those seeking a critical and scholarly discussion of Atlantis.
Editor Edwin S. Ramage wrote in the Preface to this 1978 book, “This collection of essays developed out of a panel discussion… sponsored by the Department of Classical Studies at Indiana University in April 1975. All the contributors participated on the panel with the exception of Herbert E. Wright Jr., whose essay has been added to round out the present collection… the simple fact that there has been and continues to be so much speculation about Atlantis shows clearly that even the better-reasoned approaches have not provided a satisfactory solution… This suggests that the whole Atlantic issue needs reconsideration and reevaluation from new perspectives and that perhaps those who are specialists in the various disciplines of which Atlantic is a part should be given a chance to provide these new perspectives. The essays which follow are meant to serve as a beginning to such evaluation.”
In the opening essay by Edwin Ramage, he says of Plato’s account, “although the evidence is sparse, archaeology has shown that that Athens which Plato describes could not have existed in 9500 B.C. or thereabouts. At that time Greece was in the late Paleolithic period and man was still living in caves or rock shelters… Settlement weas not to begin for another 3,000 years… No amount of rationalizing can produce Plato’s well-governed, well-structured, and well-protected state in this early period… What Plato seems to be doing … is putting some of his theorizing of ‘The Republic’ on a more practical level by giving an example of how it might work in practice.” (Pg. 19-20)
He continues, “Apparently Plato’s story of Atlantis did not make the impression on the ancients that it has made on us. There are no treatises, long or short, on Atlantic. It is true that they may have existed, but if they did, they have vanished without a trace. For the most part we are dependent on random references in ancient writers, and it is perfectly clear that these are not always reliable.” (Pg. 22) He summarizes, “It should be noticed that most of the ancient writers who mention Atlantis have Plato’s account in mind, and still others describe Atlantis in terms that are suspiciously close to what Plato says. In fact, everything points to Plato’s Timaeus and Critias as being the only independent sources for the Atlantis story known to the ancients.” (Pg. 27)
He outlines, “Any division is arbitrary, but writing on Atlantis really falls into two periods---before and after 1882---for in this year Ignatius Donnelly published his ‘Atlantis: The Antediluvian World, a book which had a strong influence on the Atlantis literature that followed.” (Pg. 29) He adds, “At the same time, the skeptics have not been as outspoken as the believers. Except for Martin in the last century and de Camp in more recent times, no one has attacked the Atlantis story in any detail. The classical scholars mentioned by John Luce just brush Atlantis aside. In fact, Jowett can barely bring himself to mention it. This attitude is extremely common among the experts.” (Pg. 41)
He concludes, “[A] rather common mistake that the Atlantists make is to explain one unknown by using or creating another… [a] recent example of this is the connection often made between Atlantis and the Maya. There are many questions about Mayan origins and development that remain unanswered. The less that is known about both sides, the easier it is to hypothesize…the driving desire to explain Atlantis at all costs has also been responsible for a great deal of out-and-out rationalizing and wile theorizing without any evidence at all… This proliferation of writing on the subject shows that no one has yet offered a satisfactory solution to the problem---if, that is, there is a problem at all.” (Pg. 44-45)
In his essay, John V. Luce explains, “I do not interpret the quest for Atlantis as the quest for the location of a lost island. The search for Atlantis in this sense has generated an immense literature, much of it very unscholarly. For me the quest for Atlantis is a problem in source criticism. Did Plato use any sources for the composition of his tale of Atlantis? If so, what were they and did they have any historical content irrespective of what Plato may have made of them?” (Pg. 51)
He adds, “if it can be established that a volcanic eruption did indeed wreck the fabric of Minoan culture, we shall at least have to concede that Plato’s theory of periodic cataclysms is not without some justification… Though at advocate of the Minoan hypothesis, I would never claim that it explains all the details of the legend of Alantis. It does, however, provide a basis in history for Frutiger’s two essential traits: the power of a ‘western’ island thalassocracy, and the sudden ‘disappearance’ of the island through natural causes. That is its main strength.” (Pg. 70-71)
S. Casey Fredericks states, “it is my suggestion that we abandon the theoretical framework of Euhemerism altogether in evaluating Plato’s two accounts of the inundation of Atlantis; the story may be viewed more appropriately and more precisely as an echo of earlier myths. This is perhaps the most important point at which a CONTEMPORARY mythological analysis of Atlantis will depart from all earlier modes of interpretation… we should begin to interpret myths in the context of other myths, not using supposed events in history as an explanation.” (Pg. 85)
He concludes, “A ‘Copernican Revolution’ in Atlantis studies is long overdue; it is time for the modern imagination to recognize that Atlantic never existed, either in time or in space, and to realize that the actual location of Atlantis all along has been the world of the mind and its most fascinating imaginative product, myth. This universe of the imagination remains the only landscape where exploration, perhaps even further discovery, awaits Atantists of the future.” (PG. 99)
J. Rufus Fears argues, “in the absence of any evidence from Egyptian sources, the silence of Thucydides, Herodotus, Isocrates, and Aelius Aristides seems conclusive. Plato’s story does not reflect a historical tradition derived from Egypt or Solo or from anywhere or anyone else. It is a poetic invention of Plato.” (Pg. 109)
Dorothy B. Vitaliano points out, “The similarities in flora and fauna cited by Donnelly date from a much later time---for instance, the finding of the hairy mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, Irish elk, muskox, reindeer, and the like in ‘postglacial’ deposits in both Europe and North America. However, what was considered to be ‘postglacial’ in Donnelly’s time included much that is not considered to be Pleistocene… Before that, animals and eventually man had several opportunities, beginning as long as eight million years ago, to migrate between Eurasia and north American across what is now Bering Strait; for it was dry land at the times when glaciation was at a maximum… There is no need to invoke an Atlantic landmass to explain their presence in Pleistocene deposits on both sides of the ocean. Nor is an intervening landmass necessary to explain similarities in lant species---not when seeds or sprouts could so easily have been carried by driftwood or migrating birds at any time.” (Pg. 140-141)
She concludes, “there seems little support on the geological side to attribute the submergence of Atlantis 11,600 years ago to a rise of sea level related to glacial events… Surges of individual ice lobes are a somewhat different matter, but their effect on global sea level is negligible because the volumes of ice are relatively small and because melting is not immediate.” (Pg. 174)
This book will be of great interest to those seeking a critical and scholarly discussion of Atlantis.
February 17, 2022
Author gas lights an author who spent years of research into Atlantis, Who even became a senator to access Restricted libraries to obtain as much evidence as possible.
Then lies by saying there is no research to allow the possibility of a sunken continents when 30 years earlier in the 1940’s evidence was found of continental chunks of land masses in the Atlantic.
Not only that, Atlantis was a large island, not a continent so the point is irrelevant.
Not only that, since then the continent of Zealandia was discovered.
This book was taken as gospel for a long time and the author either deliberately or incompetently Mislead the public for 50 years and should be ashamed of them selves for setting science back half a century.
Read this only to learn how not to write a book.
Then lies by saying there is no research to allow the possibility of a sunken continents when 30 years earlier in the 1940’s evidence was found of continental chunks of land masses in the Atlantic.
Not only that, Atlantis was a large island, not a continent so the point is irrelevant.
Not only that, since then the continent of Zealandia was discovered.
This book was taken as gospel for a long time and the author either deliberately or incompetently Mislead the public for 50 years and should be ashamed of them selves for setting science back half a century.
Read this only to learn how not to write a book.
August 21, 2016
Atlantis is one of those stories that seems to perpetually captivate the imagination. From movies made by Disney to books that attempt to find support for civilization actually existing, say the word Atlantis and all manner of ideas come to mind. But did Atlantis really exist in some for or fashion or was it merely the imagination of Plato? Can any valid support, specifically historical or geological, be presented that proves such a place existed? In the interesting book Atlantis: Fact or Fiction edited by Edwin Ramage, six scholars contribute their perspective from the approach of literature, mythological studies, history, and geology.
The overarching belief by the contributors to this book is Atlantis is nothing more than the imagination of Plato. Little if any proof can be discovered in their estimation to support Atlantis as being real. Despite the efforts of authors such as Ignatius Donnelly and others to carry on the fascination with Atlantis, the contributors to this particular work reject outright Atlantis as being real. If anything, it is nothing more than an attempt by Plato to describe the state of affairs in his lifetime.
I have long found the idea of Atlantis to be fascinating. Could Atlantis have been a place that existed for instance before the Noahic flood? Given the catastrophic events described by Plato that led to the demise of this supposedly advanced civilization, could there be some method to connect the global deluge described in Scripture with the destruction of Atlantis? I went into reading this book hoping such an approach would be alluded to with some level of series thought given to that idea. While the biblical flood narrative was mentioned by contributor S. Casey Fredericks, it was in the context of Noah’s flood being just another in a long line of ancient flood legends. In fact, Fredericks clearly states his belief that the story of Atlantis as told by Plato is rooted in same foundation as all the other mythological flood stories in the various Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) cultures. The biblical account is simply just another ANE story or perhaps a legend.
Ultimately, it seems clear, at least from the perspective of the various scholars who contributed to this book, that the story of Atlantis belongs squarely in the realm of myth. I found it interesting; however, that the basis for that belief to some degree is founded on the rejection of a global catastrophe as being valid. One contributor in particular discussed the lack of geological evidence for the destruction of Atlantis. She referenced the slow and methodical movement of continents with another contributor noting the millions of years of the geologic scale. The millions of years statement of course is in keeping with the theory of evolution which rejects any sort of perspective taken from a source such as the Bible and more specifically, the notion of a global catastrophic flood as being a major factor for consideration.
It would be interesting to read what a creation scientist might have to say about the geological factors that might have an impact on the validity of the Atlantean myth. In the end, the story of Atlantis might be just that, a fun story told by Plato that has no verifiable historical roots. The contributors to Atlantis: Fact or Fiction definitely sit on the side of Atlantis being fiction. The evidence they presented is compelling and thus I would consider this a worthwhile read if you are interested in the veracity of Plato’s story of Atlantis. If nothing else, it will provide you with some food for thought and it might, as it has done for me, drive you to study this topic a bit further to see if there is a possibility of connection the global catastrophe of Noah’s flood to something such as the destruction of Atlantis. It may be just rabbit hole, but sometimes rabbit holes are a fun journey to take.
Outside of the rejection of the biblical account of Noah’s flood as mere myth and the embracing of evolution’s millions of years mantra to discussion matters of geology, I found this book to be quite interesting. It does not fully solve for me the mystery of Atlantis nor do the arguments presented create a full doubt in my mind of the existence of Atlantis, but after reading this book, I definitely am more informed of the various pro and con arguments, and I realize even more the need to support the biblical account of something like Noah’s flood as being actual history even when engaging what may prove to be the story of Atlantis being just a story/myth.
The overarching belief by the contributors to this book is Atlantis is nothing more than the imagination of Plato. Little if any proof can be discovered in their estimation to support Atlantis as being real. Despite the efforts of authors such as Ignatius Donnelly and others to carry on the fascination with Atlantis, the contributors to this particular work reject outright Atlantis as being real. If anything, it is nothing more than an attempt by Plato to describe the state of affairs in his lifetime.
I have long found the idea of Atlantis to be fascinating. Could Atlantis have been a place that existed for instance before the Noahic flood? Given the catastrophic events described by Plato that led to the demise of this supposedly advanced civilization, could there be some method to connect the global deluge described in Scripture with the destruction of Atlantis? I went into reading this book hoping such an approach would be alluded to with some level of series thought given to that idea. While the biblical flood narrative was mentioned by contributor S. Casey Fredericks, it was in the context of Noah’s flood being just another in a long line of ancient flood legends. In fact, Fredericks clearly states his belief that the story of Atlantis as told by Plato is rooted in same foundation as all the other mythological flood stories in the various Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) cultures. The biblical account is simply just another ANE story or perhaps a legend.
Ultimately, it seems clear, at least from the perspective of the various scholars who contributed to this book, that the story of Atlantis belongs squarely in the realm of myth. I found it interesting; however, that the basis for that belief to some degree is founded on the rejection of a global catastrophe as being valid. One contributor in particular discussed the lack of geological evidence for the destruction of Atlantis. She referenced the slow and methodical movement of continents with another contributor noting the millions of years of the geologic scale. The millions of years statement of course is in keeping with the theory of evolution which rejects any sort of perspective taken from a source such as the Bible and more specifically, the notion of a global catastrophic flood as being a major factor for consideration.
It would be interesting to read what a creation scientist might have to say about the geological factors that might have an impact on the validity of the Atlantean myth. In the end, the story of Atlantis might be just that, a fun story told by Plato that has no verifiable historical roots. The contributors to Atlantis: Fact or Fiction definitely sit on the side of Atlantis being fiction. The evidence they presented is compelling and thus I would consider this a worthwhile read if you are interested in the veracity of Plato’s story of Atlantis. If nothing else, it will provide you with some food for thought and it might, as it has done for me, drive you to study this topic a bit further to see if there is a possibility of connection the global catastrophe of Noah’s flood to something such as the destruction of Atlantis. It may be just rabbit hole, but sometimes rabbit holes are a fun journey to take.
Outside of the rejection of the biblical account of Noah’s flood as mere myth and the embracing of evolution’s millions of years mantra to discussion matters of geology, I found this book to be quite interesting. It does not fully solve for me the mystery of Atlantis nor do the arguments presented create a full doubt in my mind of the existence of Atlantis, but after reading this book, I definitely am more informed of the various pro and con arguments, and I realize even more the need to support the biblical account of something like Noah’s flood as being actual history even when engaging what may prove to be the story of Atlantis being just a story/myth.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews