It can be seen from the above chart, that the popular favourite Thera/Santorini only has a score of 15 making 30% while Antarctica has a score of 3 making 6%, the Azores and Canary Islands have a score of 8 making 16% while Bolivia/America has a score of 49 making 98%

Where data is not available or improbable, boxes have been left blank but could be amended if verifiable data were produced.

Background
A discussion recently took place on Atlantis Rising as to whether certain Atlantis theories should be included on the Wikipedia Atlantis Locations page based upon whether the authors of such theories were "notable" or not notable" and being "notable" for example, meant presenting a paper to one of the Atlantis Conferences in Greece, but "not notable" included someone who was a well known and published author. Surely in an Atlantis Location Hypothesis page such as Wikipedia, all the major Atlantis proposed locations should be presented and it is notable that at one time on the Wikipedia Atlantis main page Atlantis in Bolivia was not only deleted, but subsequently banned by one of their editors

If a location has been aired at the Atlantis Conference, that does not necessarily give it any more merit than one which has not been aired at the conference, it merely shows that the originator of the particular theory has been able to afford the Conference fees and go there. In fact it is quite expensive for any individual to attend the conference, not only do they have to pay their own air fare and hotel bills, they also have to pay hefty fees for presenting a paper to the conference, for example the fee for presenting a paper to the 2011 Santorini conference if paid after 29 Feb 2011, is 390 euros per paper, so add to that the cost of hotels plus a flight from Europe, or maybe from New York, or Mexico or even New Zealand if someone lived in New Zealand then it can be seen that there are financial considerations on why a person may not attend.

Therefore there is no valid reason to say, for example (as noted on the Atlantis Rising page) "Mexico Matlock - no reliable source not notable" then delete the entry from Wikipedia when this person has a webpage which is accessible to all. Neither is it valid to delete again for example "Cuba Collins - no reliable source not notable" saying that Collins theory is not notable when there is both a published book and a website.

Any theory which is presented should give the name of the originator/history of persons proposing the theory, name of any relevant books/documentaries and address of relevant website.

The Milos/Athens Atlantis conferences may or may not be considered "scientific" but since the so called "scientific community" takes no interest in the subject of Atlantis apart from ridiculing it or denying any possibility of an actual location for it, then at least the Atlantis Milos conference has provided a list of 24 points which it considered important in locating Atlantis.

The only logical way to rate any proposed theory on a merit scale would therefore be to publish the Conference list of 24 criteria and examine each of the various proposed locations and give them a rating with the number of points which corresponds to the Conference list.

The list itself is not exactly the best that could be defined but at least it would serve as a starting point, undoubtedly there would be debate as to whether certain criteria were met or not, but most of the points should be able to be verified in a clear manner using data available on the internet.

Taking Sarmast's entry on Wikipedia as an example, at the time this article was prepared, it is given quite a lot of page space, yet there is practically no verifiable correspondence between this proposed site and any of the list of points.

The list of 24 points recognised by the Atlantis Milos conference 2005, was first published on the Internet by someone who attended the Conference and from that list the author of this page prepared an analysis of some proposed sites plus additional points making 50 points alltogether, see an analysis of some proposed sites plus additional points

Apparantly the list was published in the Milos Conference 2005 handbook, but not everyone has the handbook and the only information published by the Conference organisers on the points appears to be The list on the Atlantis Conference which differs slighty in wording from that first published on the Internet, but here below is the list from the Conference webpage.

1. Atlantis was located on an island.
2.The Metropolis of Atlantis had a most distinct geomorphology composed of alternating concentric rings of land and water.
3.On a low hill about 50 stades inland within the capital city itself, an inner citadel was erected to protect the original home of Cleito and Poseidon.
4. Atlantis had hot and cold-water springs, with mineral deposits.
5. Atlantis had red, white and black rocks.
6.Atlantis was located outside the Pillars of Hercules.
7. Atlantis was larger than Libya and Asia combined.
8.Atlantis sheltered a wealthy population with literate, building, mining, metallurgical and navigational skills.
9. The main region of Atlantis lay on a coastal plain, measuring 2.000 x 3.000 stades, surrounded by mountains which rose precipitously high above sea level.
10. The coastal plain of Atlantis faced south and was sheltered from the northern winds.
11. The Atlantes had created a checker-board pattern of canals for irrigation.
12. Atlantis had mineral resources and a rich spectrum of wild and domesticated flora and fauna, including elephants.
13. Atlantis had a high population density, enough to support a large army composed of 1.200.000 men, 10.000 chariots and 1.200 ships.
14. Within the Straits of Gibraltar, Atlantis controlled Libya up to the borders of Egypt and Europe as far as Tyrrhenia (i.e. Italy).
15. The religion of Atlantis involved the sacrifice of bulls.
16. The kings of Atlantis assembled alternatively every 5th and 6th year to consult on matters of mutual interest and it is during those assemblies that they sacrificed bulls.
17. The Metropolis of Atlantis was destroyed by a devastating physical destruction of unprecedented proportions.
18.Earthquakes and floods of extraordinary violence were the precursors of Atlantis' destruction.
19. The Metropolis of Atlantis was swallowed by the sea and vanished under the water, following the occurrence of earthquakes and floods.
20. At the time of its destruction, Atlantis was at war with Athens.
21. Atlantis should have been reachable from Athens by sea.
22. After the destruction of Atlantis, the passage of ships was blocked by shallows due to mud just below the surface, the remains of the sunken island.
23. The Metropolis of Atlantis was destroyed 9000 years before the 6th century BC.
24. No physically or geologically impossible processes were involved in the formation and destruction of the Metropolis of Atlantis, but could not have been responsible for the destruction of a landmass the size of a continent. Also, no physically or geologically impossible processes were involved in the formation of hot water springs and in the formation of red, white and black rocks.

Some of the points as defined are clear enough, but some points are difficult to understand, or badly thought out, or maybe badly translated into English. They have the advantage of being arrived at by a group of people in a conference but the disadvantage that there is no opportunity for public discussion or refinement and also that some of the proposed points would not be provable for any location in the world making it impossible for any location to achieve 100% of the points.

As to the points, for example, number 1, "Atlantis was located on an island", is Spain an island, answer, no, is Morocco an island, answer no, is Mexico an island - obviously Mexico itself is not an island but it is located on an island, America, so the answer is yes and it also satisfies point 7 being "larger than Libya and Asia combined." Plato said that Atlantis was an island, was larger than Libya and Asia together and was located in the Atlantic Ocean opposite or in front of the Pillars of Hercules. Some people (not at the Conference) have argued that the word "island" was not used originally and that nesos meaning "peninsula" was intended, in which case since "peninsula" is sometimes defined as "almost an island" it might in fact better represent the case of South America, almost an island attached to its twin counterpart North America by a narrow isthmus. However all the currently available modern translations use the word "island" so it must presumably be a land mass which appears like an island and is as large as Libya and Asia combined or comparable to Asia and Libya combined and located opposite the Strait of Gibraltar, bearing in mind that Plato at the beginning is describing a land mass as large as Libya and Asia combined but at other times is describing a small volcanic island enclosed within concentric circles.

Some common sense is needed in defining or interpreting the points, for example point 21, "Atlantis should have been reachable from Athens by sea" Plato doesn't actually say that, or rather he puts it the other way around that a fleet sailed from Atlantis to Athens, however, obviously Tibet is not reachable from Athens by sea, but, is Malaysia reachable by sea from Athens, answer yes of course it is, but in practical terms the answer is no, is Antarctica reachable by sea from Athens, answer similarly no and it was under ice at the date Plato gave, is Mexico reachable by sea from Athens, answer yes, boats setting off from the Pillars of Hercules would be taken by the circular Atlantic currents to America and the Spanish conquistadors were able routinely to reach Mexico or America and return (with their treasure fleets stuffed with gold and booty - including gold from Peru and silver from the silver mines at Potosi in Bolivia).

Some important points are not represented in the Milos/Athens list such as the actual metals particularly the presence of large quantities of gold in Atlantis and tin in Atlantis - these are important points because tin is a comparativley rare metal to be found in sufficient quantities to plate a city wall. And in Atlantis an entire wall surrounding one of the circular zones was plated in tin. There must also have been large supplies of copper since the outer ring wall was plated in bronze (an alloy of copper and tin) or brass (an alloy of copper and zinc) according to some translations, both alloys involving mostly copper. So copper should really be on the list as well. The middle circle was coated in tin, orichalcum for the inner circle with a wall of gold around the central sacred precinct. All of these metals are found in the mountains surrounding the rectangular plain in Bolivia and just what quantities are found there - well the wealth of gold which was removed and shipped to Spain is legendary, as is the silver from Potosi and the tin from Huanuni and Catavi. Copper is reflected in the very name of the country itself since "Antis" means "copper" in the Aymara language, there are numerous copper mines throughout the territory but those at Chuquicamata are located on the south-west corner of the rectangular plain, today in Chile although when Bolivia was founded in 1825 it would have been in lower Peru on the edge of the Bolivian border at the rio Loa and Bolivia at that time included a section of the Pacific coastline. According to the Wikipedia article, "it has by far the largest total production of approximately 29 million tonnes of copper to the end of 2007.... There are several versions of the meaning of Chuquicama... another theory is that it means 'Pico de Oro' or 'Peak of Gold'... After the War of the Pacific when Chile annexed large areas of both Peru and Bolivia north of its old border, including Chuquicamata there was then a great influx of miners into the area drawn in by 'Red Gold Fever' (La Fiebre del Oro Rojo)." Red Gold? Sounds like Orichalcum!!!

Quote "In the first place they dug out of the earth whatever was to be found there, mineral as well as metal, and that which is only a name and was something more than a name then, orichalc, was dug out of the earth in many parts of the island, and except gold was the most precious of metals" - , "The entire circuit of the wall... which encompassed the citadel, flashed with the red light of orichalcum. Jowett

R.G. Bury, writing in 1929 not knowing how to translate orichalcum thought that it might be a form of mountain copper, saying "they covered all the circumference of the wall which encompassed the acropolis itself [116c] with orichalcum which sparkled like fire." and adding notes, "mountain copper" a "sparkling metal hard to identify" and translates "Metals to begin with, both the hard kind and the fusible kind, which are extracted by mining, and also that kind which is now known only by name but was more then a name then, there being mines of it in many parts of the island, - I mean 'orichalcum' which was the most precious of the metals then known, except gold."

Desmond Lee translating in the pre-Internet days of 1971 did not believe either in Atlantis or in orichalcum which he called "a completely unknown and imaginery metal" but he does translate it as being "in those days the most valuable metal except gold."

There is no need to discredit orichalcum as being an imaginery metal when such a metal does in fact exist, an alloy of copper and gold is found in the Andes, when the copper is dissolved from the surface it resembles pure gold and is initially indistinguishable from gold, making it naturally the second most valuable metal after gold.

The temples were also hung in sheets of gold, silver and orichalcum with pinnacles of silver and they had numerous statues in gold of their ancestors.

An abundance of natural deposits of these named metals is therefore an important distinction for the site of Atlantis.

Other items on the list such as 20 "At the time of its destruction, Atlantis was at war with Athens" can not really be proven for any location, except maybe for Troy, but Troy has no comparison to the description of Atlantis except as being part of the Confederation of Atlantis.

Plato was not an historian, he was not writing an historical account of a place he had actually visited. He was writing a philosophical story which was meant to show how good a theoretical Athens ruled by philosopher kings would be in time of war and uses as the basis of his story a geographic description of a previously unidentified region combined with certain details of its government and supposed military armaments. It might therefore be advantageous to concentrate initially on the geographic aspects of his story than to be too preoccupied with the military details.

Another major consideration is how would you recognise Atlantis if you found it? There are many ancient cities which have sunk into the sea, but that does not make them Atlantis. One thing is certain, a city sunk by earthquakes would NOT look like it does in the movies, with sunken versions of the ruined Acropolis sitting otherwise intact on the floor of the sea with dolphins swimming between the pillars. The effect of earthquakes is to reduce most cities to piles of rubble, or even to swallow up the rubble beneath the ground, but one feature of Atlantis which in particular distinguishes it from other cities was the system of circular bands of sea and land which surrounded the central island. A definitive list of the key features of the Atlantis description is also a major asset.

Allowances should also be made for Plato's statement that Greek names were used throughout to make it more acceptable to his readership and the story probably originally referred to something beyond his knowledge or personal experience. As an example, according to Plato's account there were 120,000 hoplites in the army of Atlantis. We know the hoplite was a Greek soldier from a period later than that compatible with the disappearance of Atlantis, so there could not have been hoplites in the army of Atlantis but his Greek readership knew what a hoplite was, so he was using names which were familiar to them. Another example, Plato refers to the sacrifice of bulls which were supposedly roaming around the Temple in Atlantis. People often leap on the mention of bulls to say it must have been Crete or Spain, but if you had women and children in the temple precincts, would you really allow a large and dangerous animal like a bull to roam around freely?

this illustration of the Assyrian palace of Sargon shows pet deer roaming around.