Almost every theory on Atlantis is absolutely ridiculous. Most serious researchers simply dismiss it, but have never actually studied it in depth. I have and have concluded that it is in Morocco. I am here posting my paper.

Atlantis in Morocco:

Where is Atlantis? The question has baffled us all, and many have theories about it. However, most theories are based more on the whims and fantasies of their authors -not on critical scholarly work. Most historians say, "Atlantis never existed", but people don't really understand what they mean by that. You see, due to the work of such charlatans as Ignatius Donnelly and Edgar Cayce, Atlantis has become the realm of the lunatic fringe, those who wish to fulfill their own fantastic version of history. There are, then, two Atlantises.

#1: A lost civilization of the Ice Age, with incredible, though rather occult, technology, that was on a continent sunken entirely by some cataclysm, and whose survivors spread across the world, spreading the story of Atlantis, and starting all civilizations.

#2: The Atlantis written about by Plato, a semi-advanced civilization destroyed by a flood, who told this myth to the Egyptians, who gave it to Plato.

The first Atlantis did not exist -this is what historians say did not. The other Atlantis may have existed -we have the word of Plato, and, moreover, the term "Atlantis" appears not only in the writings of Plato, but in those of other writers. It was part of a wider tradition. Viewed within that context, we may begin to find it.

We can locate Atlantis using only the text of Plato, who wrote about it in the dialogues Timaeus and Critias. He provided plenty of clues to its location, clues which may lead us to the location of the continent. Before, continuing, I adivse that the reader read the two dialogues on Atlantis, the Timaeus and the Critias, so as to know of the material at hand. According to most English translations, Atlantis had the following characteristics:

1. It was in front of the Pillars of Heracles (the Straits of Gibraltar).

2. It was an island in the Atlantic greater in size than Libya (North Africa) and Asia (Middle East).

3. It sank 9000 years before Solon, ie 9600 BC, and became an impassable shoal of mud.

Clearly, the location of Atlantis is in the Atlantic, where it was sunken -this is obvious at first glance. Many have concluded that the islands of the Atlantic are the mountaintops of Atlantis. But, when we research the matter, there are huge problems. For one thing, there was no civilization when Atlantis sunk -humans were in the grip of the Ice Age, mainly primitive hunter-gatherers. But more damning is that there is no sunken island-continent in the Atlantic. How do we know this? Besides sonar and sounding of the Atlantic, some would argue that we don't know what was there. However, we have a gander. Plate tectonics, the process of the moving of the Earth's crust, shows that there was at no time a sunken landmass in the Atlantic. Some argue that plate tectonics is not a valid theory -absolutely ridiculous, as the evidence for plate tectonics is overwhelming, while that against it entirely underwhelming. Disproving plate tectonics is like attempting to disprove gravity -entirely idiotic.

So, others argue that the Mid-Atlantic ridge is the remains of Atlantis, that it was once above water. The Mid-Atlantic ridge is an underwater mountain chain, and may seem like the logical location for Atlantis, until we take some factors into account. Besides the fact that the Ridge was never above water, in order for it to have been, it would have to be a convergent plate boundary -while it is divergent. The Ridge is made up of a series of mountains that create giant chasms -it would not be a single landmass unless the entire Atlantic Ocean was dry, something that has not happened in millions of years. These island, even if above water, would be entirely uninhabitable. Atlantis was, then, not a large sunken landmass in the Atlantic.

What about a small one? That is impractical. Plato describes a land with mountains, huge plains, rivers, and so on, a huge land -something that an island could not possess.

Was Plato lying then? That is what most have concluded. But let's look at the story again. This is the key passage that gives us the location of Atlantis:

For these histories tell of a mighty power which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end. This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together...

The phrase "in front of the straits" has been variously translated as "beyond the straits" "opposite the straits", and so on, giving Atlantis "researchers" creative license to place Atlantis wherever they damn please, including Indonesia, Antarctica, the Americas, and Finland. Others argue that when Plato said "Atlantic Ocean", he meant the "world ocean" that encompassed all the oceans -so Atlantis could be anywhere. Still more say that the Egyptian priests had no idea what they were talking about, and Atlantis may have been in the Mediterranean.

But without assuming that any parties involved in the translation were idiots or pathological liars, let us reexamine the text in the original Greek. In the original, it states that Atlantis was "before" Gibraltar -"before" being the ancient way of saying "near" or "at the foot of". If Atlantis was "near Gibraltar" than their are only a variety of places to look, including Spain, Morocco, and the Canary Islands. The rest of the places "near Gibraltar" are not in the Atlantic, or are nonexistent landmasses. This is vastly important, as Atlantis was near Gibraltar, and was thus in Spain, Morocco or the Canaries.

Still, none of these locations are "larger than Libya and Asia", so again, we face a problem. However, we have to realize how ancients measured size -they didn't have satellites or detailed information, so they figured that it was the distance in a sailing ship. While "Libya" (North Africa within the Straits) and "Asia" (the Middle East) had, to the ancients, a sailing distance of 150 days or so, Europe and Africa outside the Pillars had a distance vastly larger. This would have given rise to the term "a landmass greater than Libya and Asia". This shows that Atlantis could be in Spain or Morocco, but not in the Canaries -which were known as islands, and were definitely not larger than Libya and Asia.

So, which is it? Spain or Morocco? These are the only locations that actually fit Plato's description -the only two locations near the Straits of Gibraltar, in the Atlantic, and that could have been seen as larger than Libya and Asia.

But, wait! These are not islands! Hmmm....

What did the ancients think of as an island? In the time that the Egyptians gave the story to the Greeks, the Greeks used the word "nesos", which referred to a body of land near water, such as a peninsula, coast-land, river delta, or island. When Plato read the story, the meaning of the word "nesos" had changed to mean "island" only. Plato then assumed it was an island -but it originally might have not been. It might have been a "coastland". Did the coastland sink then? No... when Plato says the "island" of Atlantis sank, he must have meant only the inland island that contained the city, and not the whole land, as we know lands that large don't sink. The evidence for the "nesos" being used as to mean "land near water" is evident everywhere in texts that predate the sixth century BC. The most famous example is the Peloponessus, which is in Greek "Pelop Nesos" or "Pelop's Island". However, "Pelop's Island" is in fact a peninsula, not an island!

Spain or Morocco. Which is it then? Plato describes a lush land, and gives over 50 minor geographic details. At first look, lush does not seem to fit Morocco, which Hollywood has characterized as a barren desert.

But far from being a barren desert, Morocco has a climate similar to that of Southern California. Using ancient writings and scientific evidence, researchers have concluded that the entire Sahara Desert was lush before 2500 BC, and that Morocco, due to the isolation of the Atlas Mts., remained extremely lush until 800 AD, where it suffered a period of desertification.

So, we cannot exclude Morocco due to our percieved view of it, as it was a different place long ago. We cannot excuse Spain for so small a reason as "it had no elephants" either, even though Plato describes elephants. We must use the bigger geographic clues that Plato offers. The most prominent of these is that Plato states that the extremity of the land of Atlantis was facing Gades (modern Cadiz in S. Spain). This rules out the posssibility of Atlantis being in Spain, as how could its extremity be facing Gades if its extremity is Gades? Morocco, on the other hand, has its extremity near the modern city of Tangiers, facing Gades exactly like Plato describes. Therefore, Atlantis, according to Plato, was in Morocco.

But does Morocco match the numerous minor geographic clues Plato describes? In a word, perfectly. Here is a listing and examination of each clue.

OTHER ISLANDS

Plato writes that Atlantis was the way to other islands on the open sea from which you might pass to a continent that surrounds the ocean -presumably America. Morocco is very close to the Canaries, which Columbus used on his voyage to arrive in America, the Canaries having a current that takes you there.

PLAIN

Plato says that Atlantis had a plain 2000 by 3000 stadia, approximately 400 by 600 km, near its centre facing towards the sea. This is about the size of the central plain of Morocco which faces toward the sea, and is very fertile, having been even more so in ancient times.

ATLAS

Plato writes that Morocco had a King Atlas -not to be confused with the Titan Atlas, who resided in the Atlas Mts. of Morocco. Interestingly, Greek legend tells of a King Atlas in Mauretania (Morocco), a great astronomer and navigator, who was so wise that he was said to know everything there is to know about the stars. He was later deified as a Titan said to hold up the world on his shoulder, and gave his named to the Atlas Mts. Fascinating that we have a king in Morocco with the same name as the king of Atlantis!

WOOD

Plato writes that Atlantis had wood, and that the wood was transported from the mountains -a perfect description of the mountains of Morocco, especially the Pays Zaer Zaine.

ELEPHANTS

Plato writes Atlantis had a great number of elephants -elephants have been found in great number in Morocco in ancient times. Hannibal actually got his elephants from Morocco.

BIODIVERSITY

Plato writes of great biodiversity in Atlantis -Morocco being a very biologically diverse country, this can be seen to fit it.

RESOURCES

Atlantis according to Plato had great resources -an exact description is given by Plato as is given by Strabo in regards to Morocco, all evidencing that in ancient times, Morocco was an abundant land.

RED, BLACK, AND WHITE STONES

Like in Atlantis, Morocco had stones of red, white, and black, and has roofs that were, as Plato said, "carved out of the native rock".

IVORY

Like Atlantis, Morocco had ivory.

GOLD

Like Atlantis, Morocco had gold -the Spanish called it the "Gold Coast".

SILVER

Again, Morocco had silver like Atlantis.

TREES OF GREAT HEIGHT

Like Atlantis, Morocco has trees of great height.

LOFTY NEAR SEA

Atlantis was lofty near the sea, like Morocco -an interesting theory holds that Atlantis had sand dunes near its coast, much like those of Morocco.

MOUNTAINS

Plato speaks of mountains of great height surrounding the plain -the huge Atlas Mts. surround the main plain of Morocco.

CLIMATE

Atlantis had a rainy winter and dry summer -like Morocco.

BULLS

Atlantis had bulls, and a bull cult. In Morocco, evidence of a bull cult going back 5000 years has been uncovered, and there are many bulls.

METALS

Plato speaks of tin, brass, bronze, oricalchum (mountain copper), and copper for which the Atlanteans either had or traded -all of these are found in Morocco, and also in greater quantity in Spain.

All of the geographic clues to Plato's Atlantis fit Morocco. It is logically the site of Plato's Atlantis.

As per the timeframe of Atlantis, it is not during the Ice Age! This is what Plato writes about it:

Plato, Crit.: In the first place the Acropolis was not as now. For the fact is that a single night of excessive rain washed away the earth and laid bare the rock; at the same time there were earthquakes, and then occurred the extraordinary inundation, which was the third before the great destruction of Deucalion. But in primitive times the hill of the Acropolis extended to the Eridanus and Ilissus, and included the Pnyx on one side, and the Lycabettus as a boundary on the opposite side to the Pnyx, and was all well covered with soil, and level at the top, except in one or two places.

Plato, Tim.: On one occasion, wishing to draw them on to speak of antiquity, he began to tell about the most ancient things in our part of the world-about Phoroneus, who is called "the first man," and about Niobe; and after the Deluge, of the survival of Deucalion and Pyrrha; and he traced the genealogy of their descendants, and reckoning up the dates, tried to compute how many years ago the events of which he was speaking happened. Thereupon one of the priests, who was of a very great age, said: O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you. Solon in return asked him what he meant. I mean to say, he replied, that in mind you are all young; there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition, nor any science which is hoary with age.

On the first one:

1. When Atlantis invaded Athens, it is logical to conclude that the Athenian Acropolis was as Plato described it -and thus, Atlantis invaded Athens before the Acropolis was destroyed, and it was destroyed in the third flood before Deucalion.

2. Deucalion is dated to 1529 BCE -the only flood we have before Deucalion is that of Ogyges, c.1800 BCE. Whether that of Ogyges was the first, second, or third flood before Deucalion is irrelevant. Atlantis must have sunk prior to 1529 BCE.

On the second one:

1. The Egyptian priests say that they know of things that the Greeks did not record, for the Greeks only recorded things that paled in comparison of age. The earliest reliable date we have for Greek mythology is 1582 BCE, though some traditions go back to 2100 BCE. In any case, we should work only on what is certain.

2. It is illogical to me that the Egyptians would say that Solon was a fool for remembering events as recent as 1529 BCE, and then tell him a story of a time after that. I think it is before.

Plato, Laws II: ...and you will find that their [the Egyptians] works of art are painted or moulded in the same forms which they had ten thousand years ago;-this is literally true and no exaggeration-their ancient paintings and sculptures are not a whit better or worse than the work of to-day, but are made with just the same skill.

Clearly, Plato had his information wrong about the Egyptians. Everyone did -the Egyptians must've made an error in their time-keeping.

This is what happens according to Plato's account.

Quote:
She founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours, of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old. As touching your citizens of nine thousand years ago...

Let me begin by observing first of all, that nine thousand was the sum of years which had elapsed since the war which was said to have taken place between those who dwelt outside the Pillars of Heracles and all who dwelt within them; this war I am going to describe...

In the days of old the gods had the whole earth distributed among them by allotment... Hephaestus and Athene, who were brother and sister, and sprang from the same father, having a common nature, and being united also in the love of philosophy and art, both obtained as their common portion this land... And Poseidon, receiving for his lot the island of Atlantis, begat children by a mortal woman, and settled them in a part of the island, which I will describe.

And when the rest fell off from her, being compelled to stand alone, after having undergone the very extremity of danger, she defeated and triumphed over the invaders, and preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated, and generously liberated all the rest of us who dwell within the pillars. But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.


9600 BCE: Atlantis is founded; Athens is founded. Athens and Atlantis flourish and fight. Athens and Atlantis are destroyed.

All these things could not happen the same year. We should completely discount the "9000 years" and simply replace it with "at a date before 1529 BCE", because the Egyptians simply recorded things in a manner foreign to us. For example, they said that their first king ruled over them c.36,000 BC.

So, what happened at this date -were the cities founded, did they fight, or were they destroyed? Logically, the one that happened first would be that they were founded.

Atlantis was founded at a date "before 1529 BCE", and at "a later time", it fought and was flooded.

Quote:
This I infer because Solon said that the priests in their narrative of that war mentioned most of the names which are recorded prior to the time of Theseus, such as Cecrops, and Erechtheus, and Erichthonius, and Erysichthon, and the names of the women in like manner.


The earliest participant in the war with Atlantis was Cecrops (r. 1556-1506) and the last Erechtheus (r.1397-1347). Therefore, Atlantis sank after 1347, but before the time of Theseus (r.1234-1204), as Plato affirms.

Atlantis sank 1347-1234 BC.

Taking these things into account, Atlantis was a semi-advanced empire in Morocco 1347-1234 -it should not be sought in any under guise. If it existed it must have been in Morocco, and it must have invaded the Mediterranean 1580-1350 BC, being destroyed after 1350, but before 1230.