Beyond the 24 points of the Atlantis Conference
The 50 points test

Atlantis 50 points test
Atlantis 50 points test

I propose that the original list provided by the Atlantis Conderence remain as they were as "the Milos Test" against which sites can be rated, and a further, refined list with clarifications "the 50 points test" is prepared and used as the defining test of Atlantis locations. This would incorporate elements from the Milos list plus additional elements making a total of 50 of the principal characteristics which a proposed site of Atlantis might be expected such as the following:

the 50 points test

1. The Metropolis of Atlantis should have been located on an island or where an island used to be and where parts of it may still exist.

2. Atlantis was located outside the Pillars of Hercules.

3. Atlantis was Larger than Libya and Asia combined

4 The Acropolis was located on a low hill about 50 stades inland from the sea.

5. The Metropolis of Atlantis had a most distinct geomorphology composed of alternating concentric rings of land and water.
Quote "There were two rings of land and three of water, which he turned as with a lathe, each having its circumference equidistant every way from the centre," Jowett

6. Atlantis had hot and cold-water springs

7. Atlantis had cisterns and hot and cold baths for the kings
"Also they made cisterns, some open to the heavens, others roofed over, to be used in winter as warm baths."

8. Atlantis had Gold deposits

9. Atlantis had Silver deposits

10. Atlantis had Tin deposits
  - a comparitavely rare metal, found in Bolivia, Cornwall, Andalusia and Malasia

11. Mineral deposits included orichalcum.
"the second most valuable metal after gold, it could be polished and "sparkled like fire" - probably an alloy of gold and copper but any proposed site must include an appropriate natural alloy which could be classified as the second most valuable metal etc.

12. Atlantis had Enormous wealth
The land had an enormous natural wealth of gold beyond that which most states possess. Quote "they had such an amount of wealth as was never before possessed by kings and potentates, and is not likely ever to be seen again". Crete was a rich civilisation, but the implication here is that it was something much more than for example, the wealth of Crete.

13. Palaces were hung in gold sheets
  - Palaces were hung in sheets of gold, silver and orichalcum.

14. They made gold statues of their ancestors.
Quote "In the temple they placed statues of gold: And around the temple on the outside were placed statues of gold of all the descendants of the ten kings and of their wives"

15. there were red, black and white rocks.

16. Atlantis sheltered a wealthy population with literate, building, mining, metallurgical and navigational skills.

17. The main region of Atlantis lay on a coastal plain, that is, with the sea on one side.

18. The plain measured 2,000 x 3,000 stades.
The Greek stade was just over 600 feet or about 185 metres. As the story was translated into Greek and Plato says Greek names were thereafter used, the original may have been in other units, possibilites for consideration might be furlongs of 660ft = 400 Sumerian cubits, half furlongs of 330ft = 200 Sumerian cubits, quarter furlongs of 165ft = 100 Sumerian cubits or Egyptian Khet of 172ft = 100 Egyptian cubits. The end result should be in the ration of 3,000 x 2,000 of whichever units are proposed.

19. The plain was surrounded by mountains

20. The mountains rose sheer out of the sea to a great height.

21. the Region was high above sea level
Quote "To begin with, the region as a whole was said to be high above the level of the sea, from which it rose precipitously; the city was surrounded by a uniformly flat plain, which was in turn enclosed by mountains which came right down to the sea. " Lee
"the whole region rose sheer out of the sea to a great height," Bury
"The whole country was said by him to be very lofty and precipitous on the side of the sea, but the country immediately about and surrounding the city was a level plain, itself surrounded by mountains which descended towards the sea;" Jowett

22. the plain was 2000 stades at its widest point
Of these measurements, the plain was orientated so that it measured 2,000 stades across its centre at the widest point i.e. measuring 2,000 stades across from the region of the sea.
(Quote: The plain extending in one direction three thousand stadia, but across the centre inland it was two thousand stadia Jowett - measuring three thousand stades in length and at its mid-point two thousand stades in breadth from the coast. Lee)

23. the plain was rectangular in shape
Quote "and of an oblong shape, It was for the most part rectangular and oblong, Jowett
- and was as a whole rectangular in shape, This plain was rectangular in shape, It was originally a quadrangle, rectilinear for the most part, and elongated; Bury
- It was naturally a long, regular rectangle; Lee

24. the plain was smooth and even with a level surface

25. the plain was in the centre of the island mid-way along it's longest side
translation of Sir Desmond Lee, footnote, "That is, midway along its greatest length."

26. the Central island was 5 stades diameter
  - The island in which the palace was situated had a diameter of five stadia (the central island within the concentric rings) and the island plus rings complex measured 27 stades in diameter.
That would make it about 2.7 nautical miles in diameter (4.96km) using Greek stades or 0.73 nautical miles (1.4km) if using the Sumerian stade of 100 cubits. The Richat Structure in Mauretania by comparison is about 30 nautical miles or 50km in diameter, way outside any feasible possiblity for an ancient city.

27. the island was enclosed in wall of stone - "the island and the circles were enclosed in a wall of stone."

28. Atlantis was the way to other islands

29. these islands led to an opposite continent
  - Beyond the islands reachable from Atlantis, there existed an "opposite" continent.
Quote "And from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean;"

30. the mountains surrounding the plain contained lakes and villages
Quote "The surrounding mountains were celebrated for their number and size and beauty, far beyond any which still exist, having in them also many wealthy villages of country folk, and rivers, and lakes, and meadows supplying food enough for every animal, wild or tame, and much wood of various sorts, abundant for each and every kind of work".

31 the first inhabitants were born in pairs
Quote "He also begat and brought up five pairs of twin male children"

32. there were two harvests per year
Quote "Twice in the year they gathered the fruits of the earth - in winter having the benefit of the rains of heaven, and in summer the water which the land supplied by introducing streams from the canals."

33. Boats were used locally
Quote "It was in this way that they conveyed to the city the timber from the mountains and transported also on boats the seasons' products, by cutting transverse passages from one channel to the next and also to the city."

34. Atlantis had a rich spectrum of wild and domesticated flora and fauna

35 including Elephants
Quote "Moreover, there were a great number of elephants in the island".
Note, the American mastodon is a species of elephant.

36. Atlantis had a high population density, enough to support a large army composed of 1,200,000 men, 10,000 chariots and 1200 ships.

37. Within the Straits of Gibraltar, Atlantis controlled Libya up to the borders of Egypt and Europe as far as Tyrrhenia (i.e. Italy).

38. The religion of Atlantis involved the sacrifice of bulls or animals.

39. The Metropolis of Atlantis was destroyed by a devastating physical destruction of unprecedented proportions.

40. Earthquakes and floods of extraordinary violence were the precursors of Atlantis' destruction.

41. The Metropolis of Atlantis was swallowed by the sea and vanished under the water, following the occurrence of earthquakes and floods.

42. Athens was reachable by sea from Atlantis

43 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.

44. The Metropolis of Atlantis was destroyed between about 9000 years bc to 1200 bc
Since archaeology says there was no Athens nor Egypt in 9,600BC for Atlantis to be at war with, it is clear there is an error in the timeline in the way that Plato has described it, so the possible range of dates is between 9,600BC to 1200BC, not for example millions of years ago when the continents separated. It also rules out Antarctica which has been under ice for 200,000 years.

45. No physically or geologically impossible processes were involved in the formation and destruction of the Metropolis of Atlantis

46 , these processes could not have destroyed a landmass the size of a continent, ie. a landmass the size of a continent could not be destroyed in a small space of time therefore the site must not be a "sunken continent".

47. The Metropolis of Atlantis was destroyed by a devastating physical destruction of unprecedented proportions.

48. 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.

49 This part of Atlantis faced south and was sheltered from the northern winds.
Quote "This part of the island looked towards the south, and was sheltered from the north"

50 Associations with the words "Atlas" or "atl" or "antis"

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?

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

or would you rather have tame and docile pets such as llamas instead? So the animals which were sacrificed were probably llamas, since this is common practice in the Andes as was drinking a mixture of the llama's blood from golden goblets in ancient rituals and even today offerings are thrown into the sacred fire as offerings to the gods…

llama sacrifice inti raimi
Above, llama sacrifice in Andean rituals and pouring a libation from golden goblets

“When therefore, after slaying the bull in the accustomed manner, they had burnt its limbs, they filled a bowl of wine and cast in a clot of blood for each of them; the rest of the victim they put in the fire, after having purified the column all round. Then they drew from the bowl in golden cups and pouring a libation on the fire, they swore that they would judge according to the laws on the pillar,”

So people claim there were no bulls in South America so it could not have been Atlantis. But there is a ceremony of animal sacrifice which is traditional in the Andes. It has been for thousands of years and it continues to this very day. It is the sacrifice of llamas and we can safely say, that no word for "llama" existed in either the ancient Egyptian language or in the ancient Greek language, so the word "bull" was substituted instead. So how can a point be awarded on the 24 points list when a ceremony exists in the exact manner as described by Plato, but when the name of the animal has been translated as "bull" because no word for "llama" existed in the ancient Greek language?

susa bull drinking    susa bull capital    susa bull beaker
The bull was also a symbol of the Persian Empire - could this have influenced Plato's choice of words?
above, left, Susa bull 3100-2900BC, centre, Persian bulls capital, right Susa bulls beaker 11-12th century BC,
see also page tracking down the army and navy of Atlantis

Some of the Milos 24 points are not very clear such as No 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." Mario Dantas posting on Atlantis Rising says "What the hack does that mean? what is an impossible process? How can you know the impossible when you don't know what possible is? It is obvious that tectonic processes were left out of the equation..." Then goes on to say "My (mis)understanding of the 24th criteria is that whatever destroyed Atlantis Metropolis, could not have destroyed a landmass of continental size."

Docyabut replies "That seems to be more clearer. It was said the kings ruled over the island and parts of the continent, so the whole continent could not have sunk."

And Mario counters with "I should have been more clear: Physical and Geological processes were involved in the demise of the Metropolis of Atlantis, and could have been responsible for the disappearance of a landmass the size of a continent." which means the opposite

Brig chips in "The way that was written was misleading. Personally I take no stand on the matter one way or the other. However if Atlantis was on a landmass in the Atlantic and the city of Atlantis sank or was overflooded and as there is no landmass there anymore, we must surmise the land went down with the city." Which is fundamentally correct, except that modern geology says there is no sunken continental sized landmass in the Atlantic Ocean. For that reason, we look for other explantions. What I think was meant is "No physically or geologically impossible processes were involved in the formation and destruction of the Metropolis of Atlantis," means Atlantis with the concentric rings of land and sea was originally formed as a result of natural processes such as vulcanism or erosion and was similarly destroyed by natural processes such as earthquakes, while "but could not have been responsible for the destruction of a landmass the size of a continent" means that although the island capital of Atlantis could have sunk as the result of natural processes, it would be impossible for a continental sized landmass to have sunk with it, then "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." means what it says, the hot and cold springs have to be natural features and the red, white and black rocks must be formed naturally, not for example, painted rocks.

When someone makes a specific claim about Atlantis, for example having located the rectangular plain which is an important part of the description, again that can be analysed using modern technology to see if what is claimed is in fact true. Some comparisons of the size of the plain have been made which disprove the claims made for most sites.

The points themselves could probably be refined or expanded or improved upon through further discussion and analysis and this seems the only way to take any Atlantis Research to a higher level otherwise conferences such as Milos and Athens will go around in circles for ever with continuing presentations of irrelevant site proposals which only serve to confuse and discredit any serious attempts to resolve the mystery of the geographic origin of Plato's story.

In the end, the only way forward is to adhere to an agreed set of distinctive points which should be found in any proposed site for Atlantis and which can be verified, and points must be awarded according to merit and not prejudice and revised as new information becomes available. Unfortunately, although Wikipedia is a useful and oft quoted font of information for most subjects, as far as Atlantis is concerned it does not appear so far to offer an unbiased platform with certain editors taking off certain proposed sites according to their own prejudices and beliefs rather than actual evidence.

It remains very popular amongst present day archaeologists and historians to either totally deny the existence of any place that might correspond to the location of Atlantis as described by Plato, or to vaguely state that Plato's tale might loosely have been based upon Thera/Santorini and Crete. But the island of Thera bears little resemblance to the actual description Plato gave, especially when we consider that Plato said that Atlantis was in the Atlantic Ocean, opposite the Pillars of Herculas and was as large as Libya and Asia combined. in other words, his Atlantis is based upon a description of America.

So far, the only proposed site which comes anywhere close to matching most of Plato's points is the Altiplano in Bolivia, South America as in the previously drafted page Plato's Statements Comparison of 50 Points

Anyone proposing alternative sites is invited to take the revised list of 50 points test above to see how they compare...

See also Plain Comparison

J.M. Allen
page drafted 17 Dec 2010
www.atlantisbolivia.org

sailing to atlantis
atlantisbolivia.org