I have developed a new theory of Atlantis and since it is about early European civilization I thought some on this forum might find it interesting, or amusing, to read a short summary of it. I should start off by saying that I think that it is quite likely that Plato invented the story of Atlantis and I favor that theory marginally over the idea it may have really existed, nevertheless I think there are some plausible theories for a real Atlantis and I believe mine is one of those. I assume that there was an original story that the Greek politician Solon was told by the Egyptian priests of Sais, but that it got badly muddled as it was passed on by word of mouth. I argue that there are three obvious flaws in the story:
1) There was never any large island in front of the Straits of Gibraltar.
2) Large islands don’t sink beneath the waves.
3) The events couldn’t have taken place 9000 years before Solons time and was most likely set in the Copper, or Bronze Ages.
I contend that there are other errors in the story that are not so obvious. One of these is that the fabulous seaport was not even on the large island. Plato said that Atlantis was in front of the Straits of Gibraltar so I think that at least means there must have been an important settlement nearby, which I conjecture was the seaport. However, there is no large island near the straits so the seaport couldn’t have been on a large island. The most likely place for the seaport I think is southwest Spain, which fits the description of the surrounding terrain in Plato’s account reasonably well. This has also been suggested to be the location of Atlantis by many others, but the problem is that there is no large island in these alternative theories. The large island is important since this is where the empire of Atlantis is supposed to have begun and where the kings of Atlantis directed a war against the eastern Mediterranean civilizations. Southwest Spain has a history of being struck by tsunami’s so I assume it was the seaport that was destroyed, which is the origin of the story that Atlantis was destroyed. The large island is where it always was, the nearest large island to the Straits of Gibraltar. So my theory is that mainland Britain was the large island of Atlantis. I conjecture that the apparent myth of the sea god Poseidon falling for a mortal woman who lived in a small mountain on a large island in the Atlantic is about a real person who led an expedition from the settlement in southwest Spain northwards to open trade relations around 2400 BC. They went in sewn-plank boats a new technology that they had learnt from the eastern Mediterranean civilizations. I theorize the leader was the son of a king and his arrival in Britain was the beginning of the Bell Beaker culture in Britain. I suggest that he went to Avebury and married the chieftain’s daughter who lived on Silbury mound and had two twin sons. He couldn’t stay in Britain for the rest of his life though. He had to go back to southwest Spain to report to his father. He turned Silbury mound into an island fortress to keep his wife safe while he was away. So this is I theorize how the empire gets started. It’s a merging of two dynasties, the most prominent Late Neolithic tribe in Britain with a Bell Beaker dynasty in southwest Spain. This merged dynasty needed to gain control over the territories between them, and this was the impetus for the forming of the empire. The prince became a very powerful king and married his sons to chieftain’s daughters throughout the British Isles. He sent his second son to rule over the seaport when his father died. When he himself died he became deified because he was such a powerful ruler, and known as the sea god because he came from across the sea. The Greeks confused the Atlantean sea god with their own god of the sea Poseidon, which I contend is the reason for much of the errors in the Atlantis story.
This Bell Beaker dynasty starts to expand into the western Mediterranean and bumps heads with the eastern Mediterranean civilizations that have established colonies in the central Mediterranean and trading partners in the western Mediterranean. The Bell Beaker dynasty ends up sending a large army to attack Greece. This army is defeated and the Greeks then send there own army westwards freeing those subjugated by the Atlanteans. Eventually they besiege the seaport only to suffer the same fate as the Atlanteans when it is struck by a high energy event, possibly a tsunami. There is evidence of a high energy event in southwest Spain between 2500-2000 BC. In this same time frame there existed formidable fortresses in Iberia, such as Zambujal, Los Millares and La Bastida. So there are signs of warfare.
My main reservations with the theory, other than it is extremely imaginative, is that it is difficult to see how such large errors could have been made to have muddled the original story so badly and I find it hard to believe that with the limited means of travel in those times that the Bell beakers could have maintained such a widespread empire. Nevertheless, the revised story I suggest does still contain many elements of Plato’s story, more so than any other theory of a real Atlantis I believe, and which fits within our current knowledge of science and archaeology.
I have written a short ebook, but I do not wish to infringe any forum rules on spamming. If you want a free copy prior to the end of the year, please pm me. I would be interested in any comments on this theory, particularly on whether you think there could have been a Bell Beaker empire, or any information you might have on genetics, which might have some bearing on the theory. I will try and do my best to defend what I know is a rather far-fetched sounding theory.
-Mel Nicholls
1) There was never any large island in front of the Straits of Gibraltar.
2) Large islands don’t sink beneath the waves.
3) The events couldn’t have taken place 9000 years before Solons time and was most likely set in the Copper, or Bronze Ages.
I contend that there are other errors in the story that are not so obvious. One of these is that the fabulous seaport was not even on the large island. Plato said that Atlantis was in front of the Straits of Gibraltar so I think that at least means there must have been an important settlement nearby, which I conjecture was the seaport. However, there is no large island near the straits so the seaport couldn’t have been on a large island. The most likely place for the seaport I think is southwest Spain, which fits the description of the surrounding terrain in Plato’s account reasonably well. This has also been suggested to be the location of Atlantis by many others, but the problem is that there is no large island in these alternative theories. The large island is important since this is where the empire of Atlantis is supposed to have begun and where the kings of Atlantis directed a war against the eastern Mediterranean civilizations. Southwest Spain has a history of being struck by tsunami’s so I assume it was the seaport that was destroyed, which is the origin of the story that Atlantis was destroyed. The large island is where it always was, the nearest large island to the Straits of Gibraltar. So my theory is that mainland Britain was the large island of Atlantis. I conjecture that the apparent myth of the sea god Poseidon falling for a mortal woman who lived in a small mountain on a large island in the Atlantic is about a real person who led an expedition from the settlement in southwest Spain northwards to open trade relations around 2400 BC. They went in sewn-plank boats a new technology that they had learnt from the eastern Mediterranean civilizations. I theorize the leader was the son of a king and his arrival in Britain was the beginning of the Bell Beaker culture in Britain. I suggest that he went to Avebury and married the chieftain’s daughter who lived on Silbury mound and had two twin sons. He couldn’t stay in Britain for the rest of his life though. He had to go back to southwest Spain to report to his father. He turned Silbury mound into an island fortress to keep his wife safe while he was away. So this is I theorize how the empire gets started. It’s a merging of two dynasties, the most prominent Late Neolithic tribe in Britain with a Bell Beaker dynasty in southwest Spain. This merged dynasty needed to gain control over the territories between them, and this was the impetus for the forming of the empire. The prince became a very powerful king and married his sons to chieftain’s daughters throughout the British Isles. He sent his second son to rule over the seaport when his father died. When he himself died he became deified because he was such a powerful ruler, and known as the sea god because he came from across the sea. The Greeks confused the Atlantean sea god with their own god of the sea Poseidon, which I contend is the reason for much of the errors in the Atlantis story.
This Bell Beaker dynasty starts to expand into the western Mediterranean and bumps heads with the eastern Mediterranean civilizations that have established colonies in the central Mediterranean and trading partners in the western Mediterranean. The Bell Beaker dynasty ends up sending a large army to attack Greece. This army is defeated and the Greeks then send there own army westwards freeing those subjugated by the Atlanteans. Eventually they besiege the seaport only to suffer the same fate as the Atlanteans when it is struck by a high energy event, possibly a tsunami. There is evidence of a high energy event in southwest Spain between 2500-2000 BC. In this same time frame there existed formidable fortresses in Iberia, such as Zambujal, Los Millares and La Bastida. So there are signs of warfare.
My main reservations with the theory, other than it is extremely imaginative, is that it is difficult to see how such large errors could have been made to have muddled the original story so badly and I find it hard to believe that with the limited means of travel in those times that the Bell beakers could have maintained such a widespread empire. Nevertheless, the revised story I suggest does still contain many elements of Plato’s story, more so than any other theory of a real Atlantis I believe, and which fits within our current knowledge of science and archaeology.
I have written a short ebook, but I do not wish to infringe any forum rules on spamming. If you want a free copy prior to the end of the year, please pm me. I would be interested in any comments on this theory, particularly on whether you think there could have been a Bell Beaker empire, or any information you might have on genetics, which might have some bearing on the theory. I will try and do my best to defend what I know is a rather far-fetched sounding theory.
-Mel Nicholls