The Problem of the Origin of the Oceans and the Question of Atlantis

L. A. Pukhlyakov

(Presented by Professor A. G. Sivov)

Many authors attempt to solve the problem of the origin of the oceans from the standpoint of Atlantologists, whose ideas are based on the assumption that in the past, in the central part of the Atlantic Ocean, there existed a gigantic continent, Atlantis. This continent, in their opinion, quite recently, literally before the eyes of mankind, sank below sea level. In particular, two books by N. F. Zhirov have recently appeared on this question, differing considerably from one another in content but bearing the same title, Atlantis [12, 13], as well as a book by L. Zaidler with the same title [14], and others. The second book by N. F. Zhirov makes a particular claim to scientific substantiation.

As for scholars who seek to solve the problem of the origin of the oceans from other positions—for example, from the standpoint of the hypothesis of continental drift—they regard the data on Atlantis as unserious and pay no attention to them. For example, T. F. Gaskell, in the book Beneath the Bottoms of the Oceans, devotes only a few lines to the problem of Atlantis [7, p. 243]. More or less consistently, only R. Wokop [36] has so far spoken against the Atlantologists, but he criticized their works only in general terms. Taking advantage of this, Atlantologists continue to extract “proofs” of their conception from the most improbable inferences.

For example, N. F. Zhirov, apparently proceeding from the fact that the name of the fatherland of the nymph Calypso, daughter of Atlas, was pronounced in ancient Greek as “Atlantis,” asserts that the island of Ogygia that belonged to her is in fact the Atlantis described by Plato [12, p. 34]. And since there is no such island in the Atlantic Ocean at the present time, it means that it sank beneath the waters of this ocean.

Here it should first of all be noted that the name of the island of Atlantis in ancient Greek sounded as “Atlantis”; hence, with the fatherland of the nymph Calypso it had very little in common. Further, the island of Atlantis is a large island, near which there are many smaller islands [24, p. 58]. The island of Ogygia is a small islet to which Odysseus came after a shipwreck in the Strait of Messina (between Scylla and Charybdis). Consequently, they cannot possibly be identified.

But let us go to an extreme and assume that by Scylla and Charybdis Homer meant not Sicily and Calabria, but the shores of the Strait of Gibraltar. In that case, could Odysseus have entered the Atlantic Ocean? No, because the surface current in the Strait of Gibraltar na-

directed eastward. Thus, we have no grounds whatsoever for assuming that the island of Ogygia was located in the Atlantic Ocean. Incidentally, authors who are not concerned with the problem of Atlantis identify the island of Ogygia with the island of Gozo (the Maltese archipelago) [16], and one cannot but agree with them. Indeed, if one takes into account that Odysseus sailed from the Strait of Messina to the island of Ogygia on the wreckage of his ship and was on the way for nine days, then the distance between them can hardly exceed 500 km. The distance between this strait and the island of Gozo is approximately 250 km. Thus, the evidence considered for the submergence of Atlantis proves to have been built on sand.

As evidence for the submergence of Atlantis, facts are also adduced which have no relation whatever to the question at hand. For example, the fact that the height of the Pyramid of Cheops reached 148 m, that is, was approximately a billion times smaller than the distance from the Sun to the Earth. The total number of pyramids in Egypt amounts to several tens; therefore the fact that one of them (the highest) had precisely such a height means nothing. In the opinion of Atlantologists, on the contrary, it means a great deal. First, it means that the ancient Egyptians knew what the distance between the Sun and the Earth was; and second, that they could have obtained this information only from the Atlanteans, since the Egyptians themselves, in the opinion of Atlantologists, could not have carried out such determinations [14, pp. 199–211].

In analyzing these arguments, the first question that arises is why the ancient Egyptians did not express their knowledge of the universe in some way more accessible to people—for example, in the form of an inscription on the walls of some temple or on papyrus. That would be both cheaper and more accessible to descendants. And besides, let an ordinary mortal try to guess what the height of this pyramid expresses, and, having guessed what it expresses, try to guess the height of which pyramid expresses this distance. One gets the impression that the ancient Egyptians in fact did not know what the distance from the Earth to the Sun was, and received no information on this question either from the Atlanteans or from other peoples. And all the more, it does not follow from this that one of these peoples disappeared from the face of the Earth as the result of some catastrophe.

Let us consider the third “proof” of the submergence of Atlantis. It consists in the fact that the unit of length among the ancient Egyptians was equal to 635.66 mm [14, p. 202], which is ten million times smaller than the radius of the Earth. In the opinion of Atlantologists, this means, first, that the ancient Egyptians knew the length of the Earth’s radius; second, that they could not have determined it without the help of the Atlanteans; and third, that they could have obtained these data only from the Atlanteans.

With regard to this “proof” of the submergence of Atlantis, it must first of all be noted that the first documentarily recorded determination of the length of the Earth’s radius was carried out precisely in Egypt by Eratosthenes (276–194 B.C.), on the basis of the fact that in the city of Syene (Aswan) once a year the Sun is visible from the bottom of any well—that is, that it is located on the Northern Tropic—and that on that day in the city of Alexandria, where Eratosthenes worked, the Sun’s zenith distance at noon reaches 7°.2. It is further known that the possibility of using this method had been set forth already by Aristotle (384–322 B.C.), who wrote that some stars visible in Egypt are not visible in Greece, from which he concluded that the Earth is not only spherical but also comparatively small. Thus, this determination of the dimensions of the Earth was clearly made without the participation of the Atlanteans. As for earlier determinations, of which the ancients supposedly knew...

the Egyptians, then to judge them by a unit of length that once existed would be risky. Ancient peoples had a great multitude of units of length, and the fact that one of them was ten million times smaller than the length of the earth’s radius proves nothing. Thus this “proof” of the submergence of Atlantis also cannot be recognized as substantive proof.

Let us consider one more “proof” of the submergence of Atlantis. During the Spanish conquest of Mexico, a great many ancient manuscripts were discovered. One of them, which later received the name “Codex Troano,” has survived to our day. In 1866 one of the Atlantologists, Brasseur de Bourbourg, without basing his conclusions on anything, suggested that this manuscript contained a description of a flood. His contemporaries did not agree with him; however, one of his followers, Auguste Plongeon, in 1900 published the following “translation” of the manuscript:

“6 years Kan, on the eleventh day Muluc of the month Zac, terrible earthquakes began, which continued without interruption until the thirteenth day Chuen. The country of the marshy hills, the country of Mu, fell victim to them. Twice rising up, it disappeared in the course of a single night. As a result of the continuous action of underwater volcanoes, the continent repeatedly rose and disappeared. In the end the land gave way, and ten countries, torn apart, were destroyed. They perished together with a population numbering 64 million people, 8,060 years before the writing of this book” [14, pp. 111–112].

In this “translation,” what first of all catches the eye is the author’s “erudition.” In fact, in order to settle 64 million people, a territory approximately equal to a quarter of Africa or all of Australia is needed. One may ask how this ancient Mexican observer could have surveyed such a territory in one night. Obviously, something is wrong here. Even more astonishing in this “translation” are the underwater volcanoes, about which the ancient Mexicans knew nothing and therefore could not have had such a term in their vocabulary.

Modern Atlantologists have taken an interesting position with respect to the “Codex Troano.” One of them, L. Zaydler, proposes determining the age of this manuscript by the radiocarbon method—that is, neither more nor less than destroying its original and leaving only Plongeon’s “translation” for discussion. Fortunately, scholars did not follow this path. The “Codex Troano” was turned over for translation to an electronic computer and turned out to be a simple calendar.

Many Atlantologists, including N. F. Zhirov [13, pp. 372–373], assert that the ancient Egyptians received the legend of Atlantis from the so-called Sea Peoples, who twice attempted to conquer Egypt. The first of their attempts dates to the reign of Pharaoh Merneptah (1251–1231 B.C.), and the second to the eighth year of the reign of Pharaoh Ramesses III (1204–1173 B.C.), that is, to 1196 B.C. These peoples, according to N. F. Zhirov, supposedly acquired expansionist aspirations as a result of the submergence of their island beneath the water level, and they supposedly arrived in Egypt from beyond the Strait of Gibraltar. Zhirov accompanies his exposition of this concept with the assertion that in the inscriptions on the walls of an ancient Egyptian temple in present-day Medinet Habu, which are set forth in the book by V. Edgerton and J. Wilson [39], it is supposedly said that the country of the Sea Peoples was engulfed in flames and shaken by earthquakes.

Here it must first of all be noted that various natural disasters befalling one people or another—such as earthquakes, floods, and the like—usually disrupt these peoples’ plans of conquest.

or states, so that this conclusion of N. F. Zhirov cannot be regarded as logical.

N. F. Zhirov’s second assertion is likewise at odds with logic. Namely, if earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or fires occur in some country, this does not mean that that country is submerged several kilometers below sea level. Science knows of hundreds and thousands of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and fires, but it is not known that they were accompanied by such gigantic subsidences of land. The subsidences of land known to science, which sometimes accompany earthquakes, are usually limited to an amplitude of several meters. For example, the submergence of a land area at the mouth of the Selenga during a strong earthquake in this region at the end of 1861 was limited to an amplitude of about 7 m [18]. But the main point is not this; it is that in the entire book by V. Edgerton and J. Wilson [39], to which N. F. Zhirov refers, earthquakes are nowhere mentioned.

The situation with the flame is similar. True, it is mentioned several times in the inscriptions on the walls of the temple at Medinet Habu. But it turns out that it was prepared by the pharaoh on the route of the movement of the Sea Peoples when they approached Egypt and, consequently, had no relation to the homeland of the Sea Peoples.

Finally, there is one more important circumstance. Analysis of the inscriptions on the walls of the temple at Medinet Habu shows that the Sea Peoples did not come from beyond the Strait of Gibraltar. As an example let us consider one of these inscriptions, which forms part of slab 46: “As for the other states, they formed a military alliance on their distant scattered islands. Not a single country—the Hittites, Kode, Carchemish, Yeret, and Yeres—could withstand them. They set up their camp near Amor, and that country became as though it had never been born. They were coming at a time when a flame had been prepared before them, and they were going straight toward Egypt. Their federation included Peleset, Takari, Shekelesh, Denyen (Daniuna), and Weshesh—united countries. They laid their hands on these countries as far as the very Round Land. Their hearts were full of hope: ‘Our plans will come to pass’” [39, p. 53]. (The translation has been made taking into account the notes by V. Edgerton and J. Wilson on p. 53 of their book.)

Most of the geographical names cited in this inscription are deciphered without particular difficulty. Thus, according to V. I. Avdiev [1, pp. 209, 297], A. Varshavsky [2, pp. 39–63], and others, the city of Carchemish was situated on the Euphrates River at about 37° N lat. The Hittites occupied the southeastern coast of Asia Minor and a considerable part of present-day Syria. The capital of their state—the city of Hattushash (or Hattusas)—was located on the Halys River (modern Kızıl Irmak), near the modern village of Bogazköy. The country of Peleset, according to V. I. Avdiev [1, p. 334], is Palestine. The country of Yeret, according to V. Edgerton and J. Wilson [39, note on p. 53], was located in the southeastern part of Asia Minor (Fig. 1); the country of Yeres was Cyprus.

The terms “Scattered Islands” and “Round Land” remained undeciphered for a long time. V. Edgerton and J. Wilson regarded them as common adjectives. In recent works concerning the problem of Atlantis [31, p. 240; 32, pp. 120–121], they have been deciphered as proper names. In particular, it is shown in them that the “Scattered,” or “Dispersed,” Islands are the Sporades in the Aegean Sea, while the “Round Land” is the Cyclades, or Cyklady, situated in their immediate vicinity. In fact, the word “Sporades,” translated from ancient Greek, means scattered, or dis-

Fig. 1. Territories mentioned in the inscriptions on the walls of the ancient Egyptian temple at modern Medinet Habu in the description of the Sea Peoples. The Sporades (Southern and Northern)—the “scattered” or “dispersed” islands of the ancient Egyptian inscriptions—are outlined with a simple dotted line; the Cyclades (“Round Land” of the ancient Egyptian inscriptions) are outlined with a dotted line; territories conquered by the Sea Peoples during their movement toward Egypt are shaded with oblique hatching.

scattered, and the word “Cyclades” means round. In accordance with this interpretation of the given terms is the fact that the lands conquered by the Sea Peoples shortly before the battle with the troops of Pharaoh Ramesses III stretch in a narrow strip from the Southern Sporades all the way to Egypt, first along the northern and then along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea (Fig. 1). But if these peoples had arrived from beyond the Strait of Gibraltar, then neither the land of the Hittites, nor Karkhemish, nor the land of Peleset would have had to be conquered by them on their way to Egypt. After all, Napoleon, during his military expedition to Egypt (1798–1801), did not land on the southern coast of Turkey. Why, then, should the Sea Peoples have acted otherwise? Or perhaps the Sea Peoples had no intention at all of conquering Egypt? No, their ultimate goal was precisely the conquest of Egypt, for not only their land forces but also their fleet were moving toward Egypt, and the latter was destroyed at the mouth of the Nile [39, p. 41].

Apparently, it was the Southern Sporades that were the homeland of the Sea Peoples. As is known, this archipelago includes several large islands: Rhodes (area 1404 km²), Samos (area about 500 km²), Kos (area 267 km²), Karpathos (area about 200 km²), Ikaria (approximately the same size as Karpathos), Kalymnos (about 150 km²), and a large number of small ones. The total land area in the Southern Sporades is approximately 3.5 thousand km²; the present-day population (1960) is 180 thousand people. At the time described, there could have lived there

30–50 thousand people. Thus, the states located on these islands could field an army of up to 10 thousand men, and for that time this was a rather impressive force.

The Northern Sporades are situated to the northeast of Euboea (Fig. 1). The largest of them is Skyros (area 208 km²). The total land area in this archipelago is 540 km²; the present population is about 15 thousand people.

The Cyclades are a group of islands in the southwestern part of the Aegean Sea. They include Naxos (area 415 km²), Andros (area about 400 km²), Tinos (area 201 km²), Paros (area 196 km²), Melos (area 158 km²), Santorini, or Thera (area 69 km²), and others. The total land area in this group of islands is 2649 km²; the present population (1951) is 126 thousand people. According to the translation given above of one of the inscriptions on the walls of the temple at Medinet Habu, the Cyclades were not part of the federation of the Sea Peoples. It is possible that in the course of translation, first into ancient Egyptian, then into English, and finally into Russian, an error was made, and instead of the meaning “including the Round Islands,” the text came to contain the expression “excluding the Round Islands.” However, this does not change the essence of the matter. Under either of these interpretations, the homeland of the Sea Peoples turns out to have been the islands in the Aegean Sea, and not in the Atlantic Ocean.

There is one more fact that compels agreement with the concept set forth. Namely, on the island of Crete a disk of fired clay has been found on which, among other things, figures of people are depicted wearing the same kind of headgear as the headgear of the warriors of the Sea Peoples in the Egyptian inscriptions. Moreover, J. Pendlebury [22, p. 191] dates the appearance of this disk to 1600 B.C. Thus, these peoples lived in the region of the Aegean Sea at least 400 years before their invasion of Egypt.

Incidentally, on the question of the homeland of the Sea Peoples, similar views are held also by scholars who are not interested in the problem of Atlantis and who proceed from entirely different data. Thus, in the opinion of S. Ya. Lur’e [20, p. 68], the allies of the Sea Peoples who attacked Egypt during the reign of Pharaoh Merneptah, the Achaeans, were Achaeans; and their ally in the time of Pharaoh Ramesses III, the Danauna, were Danaans—that is, in both cases Greeks.

In conclusion on this question it should be added that neither N. F. Zhirov in his rather voluminous works [12, 13], nor other Atlantologists provide any substantiation for their opinion that the homeland of the Sea Peoples was located beyond the Strait of Gibraltar. They say this only because they are convinced of the identity of the Atlanteans and the Sea Peoples, while Atlantis, in their opinion, could have been located only beyond the Strait of Gibraltar. Here it is necessary to note that there are no grounds for such an identification. First of all, the Sea Peoples lived on islands whose sizes, in general, differed little from one another (see above). The island of Atlantis, however, is an island that differs considerably in size from the other islands lying near it. It is so large that it is even contrasted with continents [24, p. 58]. In addition (and this is the main point), the Sea Peoples fought against Egypt not once but twice (see above). The Atlanteans, however, merely made certain conquests far from Egypt and created the threat of a military attack on that country. Moreover, this threat was eliminated not by the Egyptians themselves, but by the Hellenes, that is, the ancient Greeks [24, pp. 58–59].

As yet another proof of the existence of Atlantis in the Atlantic Ocean and of its submergence below the level of the waters of that ocean, N. F. Zhirov [12, 13] and his like-minded colleagues cite the warming of

climate in Europe, which began 11.5 thousand years ago. The reasoning is approximately as follows. In the past Atlantis barred the Gulf Stream’s path to the north, and therefore the climate of Europe was warmer than at present. Then Atlantis (no longer an island, but a continent) sank below the water level, and the Gulf Stream rushed toward the northern shores of Europe.

This hypothesis is, on the whole, logical, but it does not answer the following question. Why did the warming in question manifest itself even in places that are tens of thousands of kilometers from the Atlantic Ocean—for example, in New Zealand? In fact, until recently no less than one-third of the South Island here was covered by ice, whereas now glaciers occupy no more than 0.7% of its territory [38, pp. 9–10, 61–62]. But this is not all. K. S. Pigot and B. D. Arry [42, pp. 1199–1200], studying the deposits of the Caribbean Sea, came to the conclusion that a certain lowering of temperature in the Pleistocene also took place in this region, that is, precisely where the Gulf Stream originates. And this means that the cause of the cooling of the climate here could have been anything, but not the appearance, in the path of this current, of some barrier at a distance of several thousand kilometers from its sources.

A more satisfactory explanation of this phenomenon is obtained if one assumes that, as a result of a certain increase in the rate of the Earth’s rotation about 11 thousand years ago, its equatorial radius lengthened and that, owing to this, a fissure of comparatively small width and colossal length formed on the floor of the Atlantic Ocean. The magma that emerged on the floor of this fissure must have intensely heated the water in contact with it; this water, being heated, must have risen to the surface and acquired a tendency to move in the direction of the pole, with a deflection to the right due to the Earth’s rotation (Baer’s law). Consistent with this is the fact that, as one approaches the axial part of the Atlantic Ocean, the heat flux reaches \(3.37 \cdot 10^{-6}\) cal/cm\(^2\)·s, whereas its average value through the oceanic crust barely reaches \(1.0 \cdot 10^{-6}\) cal/cm\(^2\)·s [41].

There is an opinion according to which the movement of the waters of the Gulf Stream is caused by winds [34]. But, first of all, in the region over which the Gulf Stream extends the winds are not constant. The question arises: how can winds blowing now in one direction, now in another, cause the displacement of a layer of water 700–800 meters thick and 110–120 km wide (such is the magnitude of the Gulf Stream) in a single direction? To answer this question, one turns to the trade-wind hypothesis, according to which the Gulf Stream is a continuation of the North Equatorial Current of the Atlantic Ocean. The reasoning here is approximately as follows. The North Equatorial Current, caused by the trade winds, divides into two branches. One of them enters the Caribbean Sea and leaves it through the Florida Strait, already under the name of the Florida Current, and then passes into the Gulf Stream. The second, under the name of the Antilles Current, goes north of the Antilles Islands and here merges with the Gulf Stream.

It should, however, be noted that the velocities of the current in the North Equatorial and Antilles currents lie within the range of 1.0–2.0 km/h. As for the Gulf Stream, here the velocity of the current over thousands of kilometers reaches 6 km/h and only north of Cape Hatteras decreases to 3–4 km/h. But perhaps the cause of the movement of the Gulf Stream waters lies in the Florida Current? It turns out that it also cannot be regarded as the source of motion of the Gulf Stream waters, for the discharge of the Gulf Stream-

is equal to 82 million m³/sec, while the discharge of the Florida Current in the section between Florida and Cuba is only 25 million m³/sec [34, pp. 86–89].

The trade-wind hypothesis, moreover, ignores the existence of the cold Labrador Current, which carries its waters from north to south along the eastern coasts of Canada and the United States at a speed of 1–2 km/hour and, of course, gives them to the Gulf Stream.

Obviously, the source of the motion of the Gulf Stream’s waters lies in the zone where it has the greatest power, that is, between the eastern coast of the United States and Europe. Another thing is also obvious: the motion of the waters in it is caused not by winds, but precisely by the bottom heating of them at the expense of the Earth’s internal heat.

In accordance with the hypothesis set forth is the following fact, noted by W. Libby [19]. Complete mixing of the waters of the Atlantic Ocean takes place in 750–1000 years, and of the Pacific in 1500–2000 years. But if in the motion of the waters of the first of them only those forces took part which manifest themselves in relation to the waters of the second as well (chiefly wind), then the period of complete mixing of their waters would be the same.

A few words about the time of the catastrophe proposed by Atlantologists. Referring to Plato, they assert that it occurred 9 thousand years before Solon’s visit to Egypt. And since it is customary to consider that Solon visited Egypt between 593 and 584 B.C., the time elapsed since the catastrophe they suppose proves to be equal to 11.5 thousand years. This coincides well with the date of the beginning of climatic warming in Europe and, in the opinion of N. F. Zhirov [12, pp. 91–92], is additional proof of the existence and submergence of Atlantis.

One could agree with this argument of N. F. Zhirov if the date “9 thousand years before Solon’s visit to Egypt” were substantiated in accordance with modern ideas on the history of Egypt. But the whole point is that it is based on an assumption according to which, by the time Plato’s dialogues were composed, the history of Egypt numbered 8 thousand years. Meanwhile, according to modern views, by that time it numbered only about 3 thousand years. Let us quote the corresponding passage from the Timaeus:

“Without any envy I shall tell this to you out of regard for you and respect for your state, but above all out of reverence for the goddess who, having received as her lot both your and our states, brought them up and educated them, first yours a whole thousand years earlier... But here, according to the sacred books, our (Egyptian) state order numbers 8000 years. Consequently, I have to give you information about the institutions of citizens who lived exactly 9000 years before our time” [24, pp. 55–56].

The impression arises that the ancient Egyptian priest whose words were recorded in the Timaeus had only the vaguest idea of the past of his own country; therefore the fact that some date he named happened to coincide with some other date does not deserve attention.

Many researchers have searched for Atlantis on the floor of the Atlantic Ocean. Especially thoroughly investigated was an underwater flat summit (guyot) with a depth of about 750 m on the Galicia Bank, off the northwestern extremity of Spain. “However, excellent photographs of the ocean floor at this place reveal no traces of human activity, and in the samples taken there are neither building stone nor fragments of ancient clay vessels... (And in general) to this day not a single oceanographic expedition, when taking samples from the bottom ...”

the ocean was unable to discover any traces of a “sunken civilization” [7, p. 243].

Thus, on the one hand, the most varied arguments are adduced as proof of the existence of Atlantis in the Atlantic Ocean and of its sudden submergence beneath the waters of that ocean. On checking them, however, it turns out that not one of them proves anything. Moreover, many of them are conjectures, and even fabrications. On the other hand, we do not see a single fact that would confirm this point of view. In this connection it becomes necessary to examine the primary sources on this question—the dialogues of Plato, Timaeus and Critias—and to establish how accurately the Atlantologists have understood what is written in them.

In the first of these dialogues, Timaeus, the story of Atlantis begins with the statement that everything said below was heard by the narrator (Critias) from his grandfather, also Critias, and he from Solon, who in turn had heard it from an Egyptian priest [24, pp. 49–50]. From such a preface it follows that nothing remained of what the priest said in these dialogues, and therefore no serious conclusions can be drawn from them. However, further analysis of the dialogues shows that this preface was written only in order to produce a greater impression on the reader, and that the direct listener of the ancient Egyptian priest was Plato himself. In any case, Timaeus is an almost verbatim record of the priest’s conversation with the person who recorded that conversation. The information about Atlantis in Critias has the character of a record made a long time after the conversation. Finally, it is known that Plato (427–347 B.C.) traveled to Egypt and, in the city of Sais, held conversations with a priest named Patenēit. On the other hand, in Timaeus there is mention of the king (pharaoh) Amasis, who ruled Egypt from 569 to 525 B.C.; hence Solon (640–559 B.C.), who visited Egypt between 593 and 584 B.C., could not have heard of this pharaoh. Thus, let us assume that the information about Atlantis in Timaeus is a more or less accurate record of the conversation of an ancient Egyptian priest with a Hellene.

What, then, was this conversation? First of all, both speak from memory, as is indicated by the phrase: “We shall converse at greater length and in order some other time, at leisure, taking the written records in hand” [24, p. 57]. The Hellene (it was shown above that this was Plato himself) began to speak of the universal flood; to this his interlocutor (the ancient Egyptian priest named Patenēit) observed that, because the Hellenes lacked ancient chronicles, they know only “of one flood on earth, whereas before this [flood] there were many of them” [24, p. 55]. It is not difficult to see that what is at issue here is not the submergence of an island, but floods of such a kind after which dry land again becomes dry land. Further, in the course of the story Patenēit also touches on the island of Atlantis, describes its position, characterizes the people who inhabited it, who by that time had made great conquests and created the threat of a military attack on Egypt. Finally, he comes to the main point—he tells of the destruction by floods of the entire Greek army, which shortly before this had won a victory over the Atlanteans. “But afterwards, when terrible earthquakes and floods (deluges) occurred, in one unfortunate day and in one fatal night all your numerous warrior people vanished from the face of the earth” [24, p. 59].

It is not difficult to see that this quotation corresponds most of all to the description of tsunamis.

As is known, a tsunami¹ is a series of gigantic waves, moving one after another, that arise during earthquakes. The sea

at first seems to recede from the shore, and then rushes upon it, flooding the coastal area to a height sometimes of as much as several tens of meters. Incidentally, this phenomenon is by no means as harmless as the Atlantologists imagine it to be. Thus, during the Lisbon earthquake of 1755, which was accompanied by several tsunami waves up to 20 m high, about 60 thousand people perished [33, p. 25]. During the Messina earthquake of 1908, three tsunami waves up to 7.6 m high were thrown onto the shore, bringing incalculable disasters to Sicily and southern Italy [33, pp. 64–65]. Tsunamis are also known from the descriptions of ancient authors. Thus, according to Herodotus [5, VIII, 126–129], during the retreat of the Persians from Greece in 479 B.C., they decided to seize the city of Potidaea and began to besiege it. For three months the city defended itself steadfastly. Then a strong and prolonged marine ebb occurred; the seabed near the city was exposed, and the Persians decided to approach by dry land the poorly defended part of it. They had already gone almost half the way when a strong marine flood began. Most of the besiegers perished; the rest retreated. In the opinion of the Potidaeans, Poseidon punished the Persians, to whose temple they had given offense.

Something similar, apparently, also happened on Atlantis. On the basis of the text of the Timaeus, it appears as follows. Some aggressive army landed on the island and carried out a number of successful operations against its inhabitants. But one day, having returned to its camp on the seashore, this army was overtaken there by an earthquake, which was accompanied by several tsunami waves, and perished completely. The Atlanteans at that time were situated somewhere far from the shore and therefore did not suffer from the tsunamis. About this event they composed the tradition which later fell into the hands of the Egyptians.

And now let us see whether an Egyptian priest could have ended his account of Atlantis to a Greek with words about the destruction of his ancestors. Apparently not, for that would have been an insult to him, and he in fact added to his story a supplement clearly unconnected with the rest of the text: “And the island of Atlantis likewise disappeared, having sunk into the sea” [24, p. 385]. In the Egyptian text of the tradition about Atlantis this phrase evidently did not exist; otherwise, when beginning his story, Patenait would have said that the subject would be not floods, but how Atlantis sank into the sea.

The other primary source on this question, Plato’s dialogue Critias, is in direct contradiction to the Timaeus, although the account of Atlantis in it begins with a brief statement of what had already been said in the Timaeus. First of all, here the narrator promises to tell not of floods, but of how the island of Atlantis “disappeared into the depths of the sea” [25, p. 5]. Then follows a description of the island of Atlantis. The Critias ends with the wrath of Zeus against the impious Atlanteans—that is, with something like a “theoretical justification” of the catastrophe; the catastrophe itself is not there.

One gets the impression that, having heard of the sinking of the island of Atlantis, Plato decided to write about it a poem, similar to the Iliad or the Odyssey, in order to become famous as a poet, of which there are certain hints in the Timaeus [24, p. 50]. To this end he began persuading the venerable sage to take the written monuments into his hands and read them. The latter finally agreed and began to read and translate what he read into Greek. Plato, for his part, began to write down what was read and to supply the text with his own commentaries. But the reading went on, and there was still no description of the catastrophe. Plato began to ask Patenait to skip part of the text and read to him only the description of the catastrophe. Patenait agreed again and began to look for the necessary passage, while Plato in the meantime began preparing a “theoretical justification” of the catastrophe (he began to describe the wrath

star). At last the needed place was found. But what is this?! According to the tradition, only the Greek army perished from floods and earthquakes, while the state of the Atlanteans became still more powerful than it had been. This contradicted the entire meaning of the dialogue, and Plato ceased work on it.

Of course, other suppositions can also be constructed on this question. But suppositions are suppositions, and texts are texts. In the texts available to us there is no clear formulation about the submergence of Atlantis, and it is precisely on this basis that it was said above that in the Egyptian text of the tradition this was not mentioned.

In accord with what has been set forth is the fact that the tradition of Atlantis was preserved and fell into the hands of the Egyptians; for if this island had actually sunk below the water level, then it is unlikely that any of the eyewitnesses of this catastrophe could have survived, and hence the Egyptians could not have learned anything about it. Indeed, let us recall what gigantic whirlpools arise when ships sink. What sort of whirlpool, then, must there be if an entire island suddenly drops below the water level?

Seeking to prove the contrary—that is, that the sinking of Atlantis below the water level actually did take place—and not knowing how to substantiate the possibility that several eyewitnesses of the event could have remained alive, certain Atlantologists, in particular N. F. Zhirov, assert that the sinking was multiple. Namely, the first sinking occurred 9 thousand years before Solon’s visit to Egypt. At that time some of the inhabitants of Atlantis were saved and, having settled on another island, preserved the tradition of this event in oral form for eight thousand years. Shortly before the invasion of Egypt by the Sea Peoples, according to N. F. Zhirov, the second sinking of Atlantis occurred. At that time the Sea Peoples, deprived of living space, embarked on ships and, crossing the Mediterranean Sea, made an attempt to conquer Egypt. From them, according to N. F. Zhirov, the Egyptians received the tradition of Atlantis. “The last remnants of Atlantis in the extreme south of the North Atlantic,” according to N. F. Zhirov, perished still later, around 525 B.C. [13, p. 373], that is, already after the compilation of the Egyptian text of the tradition.

It was shown above that the Sea Peoples came not from beyond the Strait of Gibraltar, but from the Sporades archipelago in the Aegean Sea, and that there are no grounds for identifying them with the Atlanteans. But here it is necessary to draw attention not to this fact, but to the fact that even N. F. Zhirov cannot deny the existence of Atlantis at the moment when the Egyptian text of the tradition about it was compiled. True, he adds the reservation that it was not all of Atlantis, but a part of it (“the last remnants”). But however small this part may have been, its existence rules out the correctness of the phrase “And the island of Atlantis disappeared, sinking into the sea.” And this once again brings us to the former conclusion, namely to the conclusion that on Atlantis there was an earthquake, which was accompanied by several tsunami waves.

Thus, Atlantis did not sink below the water level. Hence, it must exist to the present time. Where, then, in that case is it located? In the Timaeus it is said on this question that this island was located “in the Atlantic Sea,” “in front of that mouth which, as you [Hellenes] say, bears the name of the Pillars of Heracles” [24, p. 58]. And here a new discussion began: how are the terms “Atlantic Sea” and “the mouth called the Pillars of Heracles” to be understood?

In the opinion of Atlantologists, the Atlantic Sea is precisely and only the Atlantic Ocean. To prove this, some of them, for example L. Zaidler [14, p. 31], assert that Herodotus understood this term in exactly this way. And it turns out that here they again

are resorting to forgery, for Herodotus regarded the modern Atlantic Ocean as part of the Ocean and applied no special name to it. In particular, in the Melpomene he says literally the following on this question: “The Greeks place Geryon beyond the Mediterranean Sea, namely on the island of Erytheia, which lies near Gadeira beyond the Pillars of Heracles on the Ocean” [4, IV, 8]. One may ask where the Atlantic Sea is here.

Among the ancient Greeks the term “Atlantic Sea” was used only by Plato, and only in the Timaeus, where he more or less verbatim reproduced the speech of Patenezith, from whose words he recorded the tradition of Atlantis, and he did not use it where he narrated the story in his own words. For example, in the Critias he calls this sea “the sea beyond (the Pillars of Heracles).”

Obviously, for the ancient Greeks the term “Atlantic Sea” expressed nothing. Nor did Patenezith invest it with any geographical meaning, for, as follows from the text of the Critias, he simply translated from Egyptian into ancient Greek a word that meant “the strongest.” Such was the name of one of the kings of Atlantis, and in his honor both the island itself and the sea surrounding it were named. This king, the son of Poseidon of the Atlantes and his wife Cleito [25, p. 15], had nothing in common with the ne’er-do-well of ancient Greek mythology, the son of Iapetus and brother of Prometheus. Thus, the Atlantic Sea of the Timaeus is something like “Our” Sea of the Atlantes, and there are no grounds for identifying it with any object that has a similar Greek name or, still less, a modern one. But, on the other hand, since neither in the Timaeus nor in the Critias is the word “Ocean” anywhere associated with the location of Atlantis, one may assert that this island was situated anywhere at all, but not in the Atlantic Ocean.

The matter is somewhat more complicated with the term “Pillars of Hercules” (or “Pillars of Heracles”). By this term the ancient Greeks usually understood the Strait of Gibraltar, but none of them ever called this strait the mouth of anything. Meanwhile, in the Timaeus this word is constantly associated with the words “Pillars of Hercules.” Moreover, twice this word (“mouth”) is used in the same sense without the words “Pillars of Hercules.” One gets the impression that Patenezith, from whose words Plato recorded the tradition of Atlantis, understood by the Pillars of Hercules not the Strait of Gibraltar, but the mouth of some river—most probably one of the mouths of the Nile.

In accordance with this is the fact that in the Timaeus the Greeks are contrasted with people living on this side of the Pillars of Hercules (the Egyptians), that is, they are regarded as a people whose homeland lies beyond them. “Then, Solon, your state, before all mankind, showed the greatness of its valor and power... On the one hand, it gained victory over the invading barbarians and set up trophies; on the other, it prevented the enslavement of those who had not yet been conquered, and those who, like us, dwelt on this side of the Pillars of Hercules, it magnanimously made free” [24, p. 59]. But could Greece have been located beyond (relative to Egypt) the Strait of Gibraltar? Of course not. Consequently, by the term “Pillars of Hercules” Patenezith understood not the Strait of Gibraltar, but precisely one of the mouths of the Nile.

The problem of the Pillars of Hercules of the Timaeus was solved by A. S. Norov [21-a], who came to the conclusion that this term should be understood as the western mouth of the Nile. A. N. Karnozhitskii [15] agrees with him. In fact, already in the time of Herodotus, that is, approximately half a century before Plato’s visit to Egypt, near this mouth, which was then ca-

was called Canopic, there stood a temple of Heracles (in Greek pronunciation, Herakles), which served as a refuge for fugitive slaves [4, II, 113]. Somewhat later, as follows from Strabo’s Geography [35, book I, ch. 1, para. 4], there was already here an entire city of Heraclea (in Greek pronunciation the name of this city sounded the same as the name of Heracles himself—Herakles), and the mouth itself came to bear a double name. The Egyptians called it Canopic, and the Greeks Heracleian (in the translation of O. V. Kudryavtsev and others—Heracleotic). Diodorus Siculus (80–29 B.C.), in the first book of his Historical Library, in describing the mouths of the Nile, uses the following terminology: “The Nile in Egypt, dividing into different streams, forms the Delta, so named from its shape. Its sides are formed by the outermost rivers of the branch; and the base is the sea into which the Nile flows. For it enters it by seven mouths, of which the first to the east is called the Pelusiac, the second the Tanitic, the third in order the Mendesian, the fourth the Phatnitic, the fifth the Sebennytic, the sixth the Bolbitine, the seventh the Canopic, and by some is called the Heracleian” [8, pp. 51–52].

This is precisely how Patenēit should have named this mouth if he wanted Plato, who did not know the Egyptian language, to understand him. Thus we have grounds to suppose that the phrase cited above about the location of Atlantis, before Plato wrote it down, sounded approximately as follows: “Opposite the mouth which you, Hellenes, call in your way the Heracleian (Heraclean).” Plato, however, still failed to understand his interlocutor, since he had heard something about the Pillars of Heracles and had heard nothing about the Heraclean mouth, and he obtained a mouth that was called the Pillars of Heracles.

In the opinion of N. F. Zhirov [12, pp. 27–28], such an interpretation of the term “Pillars of Hercules” is “speculative,” based on tendentiously selected factual material and contradicting Plato’s completely precise indication. In this connection he refers to that passage of the Critias from which it follows that the Pillars of Hercules were located near Gadeira (Gades)—the region of modern Cádiz. But the question arises: why did N. F. Zhirov not quote this passage literally, but confine himself merely to a general statement? Because it lacks elementary logic, and this reveals the given expression as an obvious addition to the original text of the tradition. Let us quote it: “And after him, to the twin born thereafter, who received as his allotment the very outer part of the island from the Pillars of Hercules to the present country of Gadeira,* there was a name which in Greek would be Eumelus, and in the local dialect Gadeirus (shepherd of red herds), which name he also gave to this country” [25, pp. 15–16].

Here, in fact, the term “Pillars of Hercules” means not the western mouth of the Nile, but precisely the Strait of Gibraltar. But, first, both the region of modern Cádiz and the areas of land adjacent to the Strait of Gibraltar are constituent parts of the mainland, separated from one another at best by 90 km and in fact adjoining one another. Atlantis, however, is an island which must be at least five hundred kilometers distant from them. And now it turns out that one part of this island is located between the named parts of the mainland. Strange. No less strange is the fact that the king’s name was received not by the country over which he ruled, but by the one that lay nearby, more precisely opposite his possessions across the sea. Evidently, in writing this passage Plato failed to understand something, confused something, and added something of his own.

If one is to object to identifying the Pillars of Hercules with the western mouth of the Nile, then N. F. Zhirov should have addressed not this passage of the Critias, but the one where it is said that the Greeks lived on this side

toward the Pillars of Heracles [25, p. 5]. Here, at least, there are none of the absurdities discussed in the quotation from Gadeiro. But, as noted above, the Critias gives Plato’s opinion on this question. What interests us, however, is not the opinion of Plato or of another great thinker, but that of Patenit, from whose words Plato recorded the tradition of Atlantis. And he, as was shown above, by the “Pillars of Heracles” understood precisely the western mouth of the Nile, or, more exactly, called this mouth the Heraclean (Heracleian) one.

Further, in the Timaeus it is said that from Atlantis “it was easy for seafarers to cross over to the other islands, and from these islands to the opposite continent” [24, p. 58]. This means that on the other side of Atlantis there were many islands of smaller size. But is there, opposite the western mouth of the Nile, a large island that would satisfy these requirements? It turns out that there is. This is the island of Crete. It lies precisely opposite the western mouth of the Nile (Fig. 1), at a distance of about 500 km from it, and to the north of this island there are many smaller islands, which in antiquity were used by seafarers to find the route from Greece to Egypt and back [40].

In the second dialogue concerning the question under consideration, the Critias, it is said that Atlantis was “very high and steep on the side of the sea; nevertheless the plain around the city, encircling the city and itself in turn surrounded all around by mountains descending right down to the sea, was smooth and flat” [23, p. 515]. But the island of Crete has precisely such a surface. A mountain range runs along it, with only two large breaks; moreover, on the southern side (on the side where there are no islands between Crete and the continent—“on the side of the sea”) the mountains come right up to the shore and drop steeply to the sea. The northern side of the island is comparatively level; however, several spurs of the main range cross it in the meridional direction, which corresponds to a plain encircled by mountains.

Further, in the Timaeus it is noted that on the “island of Atlantis there once existed a great and formidable confederation of kings, whose power extended over the whole island, as well as over many other islands and countries of the continent” [24, p. 58]. The former might of the Cretan state—in particular, its dominion over continental Greece—is spoken of by many legends and myths of ancient Greece, as well as by historians. For example, Thucydides (465–399 B.C.) notes that the king of Crete “Minos was the first... to acquire a fleet, gained control over the greater part of the sea, which is now called the Hellenic (Aegean), achieved dominion over the Cycladic islands, and was the first to settle most of them with colonies, driving out the Carians and appointing his own sons as rulers” [37, p. 5].

At the end of the nineteenth century A. Evans began excavations on Crete, which led to the discovery there of the Palace of Knossos—the residence of the Cretan kings. Further research showed that the Cretan state arose about 4.5 thousand years ago and existed for approximately 1.5 thousand years. J. Pendlebury [22] distinguishes three periods in its history: Early Minoan (approximately from 2500 to 2200 B.C.), Middle Minoan (2200–1580 B.C.), and Late Minoan (1580–1100 B.C.). The excavations revealed a number of new data from which it follows that Plato’s Atlantis is precisely the Cretan state of 1580–1450 B.C.

For example, in the Critias it is repeated twice that the capital of Atlantis was situated around a hill on which, according to tradition, there had once lived the chief god (also the god of the sea) of the Atlanteans—Poseidon of the Critias—and his wife Cleito, and still earlier Cleito’s parents, “the first” people on earth.

Evans and Leucippus [23, pp. 508–509, 512]. The Knossos palace was built on a low hill that rises above the surrounding plain. At the top of this hill a substantial Neolithic settlement was discovered, in which primitive man had lived no less than 12 thousand years ago [40]. According to J. Pendlebury [22, p. 51], the cultural layer of this settlement extends far beyond the limits of the part of the palace that has been studied and in places reaches a depth of up to 7 m.

Further, in the Critias it is said that for his wife Poseidon “brought up to the surface from beneath the earth two springs, one of which flowed with warm water and the other with cold” [25, p. 15]. Subsequently, on the basis of these springs the kings of Atlantis created baths for themselves and their subjects [25, pp. 21–22]. On Crete, south of the Knossos palace, in a shallow gorge, there was discovered “a small dwelling house with a beautiful pavilion, ... and with a bath for washing the feet. In the adjoining room there turned out to be remains of bathing tubs, while charred wood shows that both cold and hot water were available here. Right outside there is an attractive arbor with a spring, with a niche in the depth for a lamp and projections for offerings. The two steps leading down to the water have already been quite worn away” [22, p. 202].

That Atlantis was the Cretan state in the period preceding its conquest by Theseus was proved by K. T. Frost [40] as early as 1913, that is, more than half a century ago. In the time that has passed since then, new proofs of the idea he expressed have appeared. One of them is as follows.

According to the Timaeus, on the island of Atlantis there existed a mighty union of several kings (see above). According to the Critias, there were ten kings, and all of them were subordinate to the most powerful of them, Atlas [25, pp. 15–16]. In the myths and legends of ancient Greece only one Cretan king, Minos, is mentioned. This contradicted K. T. Frost’s conception identifying Atlantis with Crete. And only recently, as a result of excavations on Crete, in addition to the Knossos palace, three more royal palaces were discovered: the first at Phaistos, the second at Mallia, and the third at Kato Zakro near the city of Sitia [21, p. 25].

One of the domestic animals on Atlantis was the bull (buffalo). A certain number of bulls grazed freely in Poseidon’s sacred grove. The Critias describes the ceremonial catching of bulls, which were then sacrificed to the chief deity (Poseidon). A special feature of this catching was that it was done without weapons, with the aid only of sticks and rope nooses [25, pp. 25–26]. Of the Cretan king Minos, Diodorus Siculus in the fourth book of his Historical Library says that he “formerly had the custom of solemnly sacrificing to Poseidon the finest bull from the whole herd” [9, bk. IV, p. 124].

On the walls of the Knossos palace there are very often depicted the so-called “games” with a bull, during which a man at one moment seizes a furious bull by the horns [2, pp. 87–88], at another leaps over the bull’s back [22, pp. 192, 235], and so on. In one of the rooms of the Knossos palace there were found charred remains of bulls that had been sacrificed [22, p. 174 ff.]. But that is not all: on gold cups found near the present-day village of Vaphio (near Sparta), which had been brought there from Crete, scenes are depicted that reproduce exactly the description in the Critias of catching bulls without weapons. On one of them, in particular, it is visible how one hunter has caught the hind leg of a walking bull with a noose, while a bull running alongside has knocked a second hunter off his feet and lifted a third hunter on its horns [20, pp. 54, 61].

The catching of bulls without weapons described, according to the Critias, was carried out—

…by the kings of the individual regions of Atlantis, before beginning to judge one another once every five or six years. The settlement of disputes among them by force of arms was forbidden [25, pp. 26–27]. In this connection it is of interest first of all to note that many myths and legends of ancient Greece speak of the extraordinary judicial and legislative wisdom of the Cretan king Minos, while Homer in the Odyssey [6, Book XIX, lines 177–179] asserts that every nine years this king conversed with great Zeus.

Further, it is natural to suppose that the custom of catching bulls without weapons originally had the character of duels between the kings of separate regions over wrongs inflicted on one another. But sooner or later they must have conceived the idea of sending slaves in their stead to perform this dangerous task. In this connection it is interesting to note that, according to the ancient Greek myth of Theseus, Attica once paid Crete a quite unusual tribute—seven youths and seven maidens were sent every nine years to that island to be eaten by the Minotaur, a monster with the head of a bull and the body of a man.

In K. Keram’s opinion [17, p. 77], they were sent not to be eaten by a bull-man, but to catch bulls without weapons, during which many of them perished. Incidentally, in setting forth this tradition, Plutarch makes the reservation that only writers most eager to please the tragedians speak of these youths and maidens being eaten by the Minotaur, “but according to Philochorus, the Cretans reject this tradition and say that… Minos held gymnastic contests” [26, XVI, p. 11].

And one more detail. Just before his departure to do battle with the Minotaur, Theseus freed Attica precisely from the Cretan bull (from the bull that Heracles allegedly brought from Crete and that was a great evil for the farmers). Moreover, he did not kill it on the spot, as logic would require, but instead captured it alive, brought it to Athens, and sacrificed it to Apollo Delphinius [26, XIV, p. 11], that is, he did approximately the same thing that, according to the Critias, the kings of Atlantis did with the bulls from Poseidon’s grove. Let us add to what has been said that the word “Minotaur,” translated from ancient Greek, means “bull of Minos,” and we are once again convinced that in the original text of the myth of Theseus the matter was precisely the catching of a bull, associated with great danger to life.

According to the myth of Heracles, one of his labors (the sixth) also consisted in catching the Cretan bull, which was intended as a sacrifice to Poseidon. Moreover, he went to catch it on the island of Crete not on his own initiative, but by order of King Eurystheus, as punishment for killing his own children [9, Book IV, pp. 19–25].

The material cited shows that the catching of bulls without weapons, followed by their sacrifice to Poseidon, did in fact take place on Crete, and that it was performed at approximately the same intervals as on Atlantis—once every several years. Thus, we once again arrive at the conclusion that Plato’s Atlantis is the Cretan state, whose power at one time extended over many islands and regions of the mainland.

As additional proof of this proposition one may cite the fact that the genealogy of the king of the kings of Atlantis—Atlas—has a great similarity to the genealogy of the Cretan king Minos. Namely, the father of Atlas was the chief god (and sea god) of the Atlanteans—Poseidon “Critias”; his mother was Cleito, daughter of the “first” man on earth Evenor and his wife Leucippe [25, pp. 14–16]. The father of the king of the Minoans, Minos, was the chief god of either the Minoans or the Achaeans, Zeus; his mother was Europa, daughter of the Sidonian king Agenor [9, Book V, p. 224].

In light of the foregoing, one more fact is of interest. According to

According to J. Pendlebury [22, pp. 196—202], around 1580 B.C. a catastrophic earthquake occurred on Crete, and after it guard posts on the roads and military fortifications began to be built throughout the island, although life proceeded peacefully. The impression arises that shortly before the earthquake some serious attack on the island had taken place, which, however, did not end in its conquest. This makes it possible to suppose that precisely at the time of this earthquake the sea swallowed up some aggressive army that was attempting to conquer the island, and that it is precisely this earthquake that is meant in the Timaeus.

The major eruption of the Santorin volcano on the island of Santorin, or Thera (Phera), which is about 100 km from Crete, also belongs to this same time (the middle of the second millennium B.C.). Some researchers, for example Spyridon Marinatos, maintain that there were two eruptions: one in 1520 and the second in 1450 B.C., and that both were accompanied by several tsunami waves. S. Marinatos connects the destruction of the Minoan civilization with the second of these eruptions [21, pp. 25—28]. According to J. Pendlebury (see above), there was only one earthquake, and it occurred in 1580 B.C. He dates the end of the domination of the Cretan state to 1450 B.C. and connects it with the great fire in the palace at Knossos, which, in his opinion, was the consequence of the invasion of Theseus [22, pp. 247—251]. The latter point of view seems more plausible.

It is necessary to dwell somewhat more fully on the size of Atlantis. The point is that, according to the Timaeus, Atlantis was larger than Libya and Asia taken together, which clearly does not correspond to the dimensions of Crete. Here, however, it is necessary to recall that the Timaeus is a record of an oral conversation (see above), and therefore the data of the Critias, which differ considerably from the data of the Timaeus, should be regarded as more precise.

Thus, in one passage of the Critias it is said that the plain on which the capital of Atlantis was located was 3 thousand stadia long (about 550 km) and 2 thousand stadia wide (about 370 km) [23, p. 515]. In another passage the dimensions of Atlantis are still more modest. Namely, in describing the hill on which Cleito and Poseidon once lived, it is said that it was situated at the center of the island and was 50 stadia (about 9 km) from the sea [23, p. 508]. The latter figure is repeated in the description of the activity of the kings of Atlantis [23, p. 511]. Thus, the width of Atlantis is reduced to 18 km. And if we now recall that the greatest width of Crete is 57 km, its length 250 km, and that throughout both dialogues Atlantis is called only an island (and this characterizes its dimensions better than any figures to which one may refer within the limits of both dialogues), then the impression arises that Atlantis corresponds to Crete to a much greater degree and to the continent that, in the opinion of Atlantologists, was located on the site of the northern part of the Atlantic Ocean to a much lesser degree.

In conclusion on this question it should be noted that in the formation of seas and oceans the principal role belongs not to vertical movements of the Earth’s crust, but to horizontal ones. Thus, it is considered proven that the Atlantic Ocean was formed as a result of the fact that the two Americas at one time broke away from the Old World and moved westward [3, 10, 11, 27, 30, 32]. The Mediterranean Sea [29], the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea, and some other basins have an analogous nature. The Pacific Ocean was formed differently [27, 28, 30, 32], but it does not seem possible to raise the question of it within the limits of the present article. A not inconsiderable role in the formation of seas and oceans belongs to changes in the amount of free water on Earth [27, 30,

32, pp. 72–76, 239–241]. However, all these processes ended in the remote past, so there are no grounds for speaking of serious changes in the outlines of the existing continents after the appearance of man.

REFERENCES

1. V. I. Avdiev. History of the Ancient East. OGIZ, 1948.

2. A. Varshavsky. Cities Reveal Secrets. Znanie Publishing House, 1967.

3. A. Wegener. The Origin of Continents and Oceans (trans. from German). Vostok Publishing House, Berlin, 1923.

4. Herodotus. History in Nine Books (trans. from Greek), vol. I, preface, books I–IV. Moscow, 1885.

5. Herodotus. History in Nine Books (trans. from Greek), vol. II, books V–IX. Moscow, 1886.

6. Homer. Odyssey (trans. from Greek by V. Veresaev). State Publishing House of Fiction, Moscow, 1953.

7. J. F. Gaskell. Beneath the Depths of the Oceans (trans. from English). IL, 1963.

8. The Historical Library of Diodorus Siculus, part I, books I–III (trans. from Greek by Ivan Alekseev). St. Petersburg, 1774.

9. The Historical Library of Diodorus Siculus, part II, books IV, V (trans. from Greek by Ivan Alekseev). St. Petersburg, 1774.

10. P. M. Du Bois. Paleomagnetism and Continental Drift (trans. from English). In: Paleomagnetism. IL, 1962.

11. A. du Toit. Our Wandering Continents (trans. from English). In: Problems of Continental Drift. IL, 1963.

12. N. F. Zhirov. Atlantis. Geografgiz, 1957.

13. N. F. Zhirov. Atlantis. Mysl Publishing House, 1964.

14. L. Zaidler. Atlantis (trans. from Polish). Mir Publishing House, 1966.

15. A. N. Karnitsky. Atlantis. Nauchnoe obozrenie, vol. 4, No. 2, 1897.

16. V. Kassis, K. Perevoshchikov. On Malta. Novoe vremya, No. 14, 1964.

17. K. Keram. Gods, Graves, and Scholars (trans. from German). IL, 1963.

18. O. K. Leontiev, N. A. Aibulatov. New data on Proval Bay. Priroda, No. 6, 1956.

19. W. F. Libby. Radiocarbon—atomic clocks. In: Science and Humanity. Znanie Publishing House, 1962.

20. S. Ya. Lurie. Tablets That Have Spoken. Detgiz, 1960.

21. V. Mazokhin. What the sunken island told. Nauka i zhizn, No. 10, 1970.

21-a. A. S. Norov. Studies on Atlantis. Scientific Notes of the Second Department of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. Book 1. St. Petersburg, 1854.

1. J. Pendlebury. The Archaeology of Crete (trans. from English). IL, 1950.

2. Plato. Works, vol. VI (trans. from Greek by Prof. V. N. Karpov). Moscow, 1879.

3. Plato. Timaeus (trans. from Greek by G. V. Malevansky). Kiev, 1883.

4. Plato. Critias (trans. from Greek by G. V. Malevansky). Kiev, 1883.

5. Plutarch. Theseus. Parallel Lives in three volumes, vol. I. USSR Academy of Sciences Publishing House, 1961.

6. L. A. Pukhlyakov. On the question of the origin of mountains and oceans (hypothesis of an increase in the rate of rotation of the Earth). Izv. TPI, vol. 120, 1961 (1962).

7. L. A. Pukhlyakov. On the question of the origin of the Pacific Ocean. Izv. TPI, vol. 127, issue 2, 1965.

8. L. A. Pukhlyakov. Did a westward drift of the Pyrenean Peninsula relative to Europe occur? Izv. AN SSSR, geological series, No. 8, 1966.

9. L. A. Pukhlyakov. A new hypothesis on the origin of mountains and oceans. Interuniversity Scientific Conference. Materials of the geography section. Omsk, 1967.

10. L. A. Pukhlyakov. The hypothesis of continental subsidences and the legend of Atlantis. Izv. TPI, vol. 165, 1969.

11. L. A. Pukhlyakov. A Review of Geotectonic Hypotheses. Tomsk University Publishing House, 1970.

12. P. Russo. Earthquakes (trans. from French). Progress Publishing House, 1966.

13. G. Stommel. The Gulf Stream (trans. from English). IL, 1963.

14. Strabo. Geography in 17 Books (trans. from Greek). Nauka Publishing House, 1964.

15. R. Wauchope. Lost Continents and the Secrets of Vanished Tribes (trans. from English). Mir Publishing House, 1966.

16. Thucydides. History, vol. I (trans. from Greek). Moscow, 1915.

1. N. K. Shulman. Nature of New Zealand. Geography, 1955.

2. W. F. Edgerton, J. Wilson. Historical records of Ramses III. The texts in Medinet Habu. Vol. I and II. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois, 1936.

3. K. T. Frost. The “Critias” and Minoan Crete. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. XXXIII, p. 1, 1913.

4. R. Gerard, M. Langseth and M. Ewing. Thermal gradient measurement in the Water and Bottom Sediment of the Western Atlantic. Journ. Geoph. Res., vol. 67, No. 2, 1962.

5. C. S. Piggot and W. D. Urry. Times relations in ocean sediments. Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 53, No. 8, 1942.

1. tsunami ↩