Project

Dating Atlantis: How Manetho Helps Address the Critias 108e Problem

Goal: Working on the hypothesis that Plato relied on an Egyptian king list when he wrote Timaeus and Critias, the objective is to use data analysis of Manetho's king list to explore its relationship with the Conventional Egyptian Chronology (high), and use the results to adjust Plato's timeframe for Atlantis, regardless of whether the tale has any basis in fact.

Analysis suggests that the story originates from 4,900 +/- 250 BCE which coincides with the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand.

Date: 29 August 2016

Updates
0 new
15
Recommendations
0 new
0
Followers
0 new
0
Reads
1 new
329

Project log

Stelios Pavlou
added a research item
In Critias (c. 360 BCE) Plato claims that Solon first heard the story of Atlantis on his visit to Egypt during the reign of King Amasis (Ahmose II of Dynasty 26). Critias 108e states that Atlantis existed 9000 years before Solon's time placing it in around 9600 BCE. No known archaeology supports this date. This transdisciplinary article explores evidence that Plato was aware of Ancient Egyptian king lists, which differ markedly from Ancient Greek archon lists, and that a misunderstanding led to an incorrect date being recorded. Using data analysis of Manetho's king list (c. 332 BCE), a likely solution to the dating error of Solon's visit with Amasis is provided, Plato's date for the founding of Egyptian culture aligns with the predynastic Badarian culture, and geological, archaeological, and archaeogenetic evidence along with textual analysis plausibly points to a myth heavily distorted by Plato and which originates c. 4,900 BCE +/-250 likely in Old Europe.
Stelios Pavlou
added an update
After a very long road to publication I’m excited that this paper is final going to see the light of day and will be published in Archaeomythology in the second half of 2021.
 
Stelios Pavlou
added an update
I seem to have stumbled into a black hole this past 2 years where journal editors have either not responded to a single email and I have had to withdraw the paper after 9 months, or in the case of one prestigious journal, not hearing anything for well over a year, and when inquiring receiving a terse, half a page rejection that was so riddled with errors that it was clear the editor had hastily speed-read the paper but had not understood it at all.
The vast, VAST majority of researchers I interact with are erudite, thoughtful, generous people. I just seem to have gotten unlucky. Onward!
 
Stelios Pavlou
added an update
evidence points to large scale warfare during period in question
 
Stelios Pavlou
added an update
Subject was too tangential for Histos but very nice comments on depth of knowledge and originality of ideas.
 
Stelios Pavlou
added an update
Now information has been included which adds a new supporting perspective to the paper.
 
Stelios Pavlou
added an update
Paper was submitted to Shima Journal. Quality was deemed good, but a little out of scope for journal. Disappointing, but will submit elsewhere.
Notes follow:
a) the factual accuracy of the material
The review of the chronologies and calendars used is detailed and convincing
b) the strength of arguments and/or analyses
As above- the main strength of the paper is that it argues convincingly for a different chronology of Plato’s account of Atlantis.
c) its originality
The paper offers an original analysis of the dates in Plato’s account
d) whether it engages with relevant literature in the field
yes e) its interest to a cross-disciplinary island studies readership (i.e. is it intelligible and interesting to non-topic specialists ?)
The collated referees' reports identify The link to Island or Maritime Studies is very tenuous and the paper is not that interesting from those perspectives until the very end, when the conclusion suggests that the date for Atlantis could be some 5000 years later, making it archaeologically a potentially viable option. Even then, the relevance to island studies is not explored any further and the paper does not engage sufficiently with relevant issues raised in Shima, especially volume 10.2 on submergence and geomythology. Not recommended for publication in Shima on the above grounds since the paper focuses mostly on historiographic issues and although it is well written and persuasive it would be better placed in a different journal.
 
Stelios Pavlou
added an update
This paper has now been submitted to a journal. It has passed the intial editor review and has been forwarded on to peer review.
 
Stelios Pavlou
added an update
A first draft of my paper is now completed. I am still working on some more in depth statistical analysis.
Please note, the references/bibliography are still being compiled and formatted.
 
Stelios Pavlou
added a project goal
Working on the hypothesis that Plato relied on an Egyptian king list when he wrote Timaeus and Critias, the objective is to use data analysis of Manetho's king list to explore its relationship with the Conventional Egyptian Chronology (high), and use the results to adjust Plato's timeframe for Atlantis, regardless of whether the tale has any basis in fact.
Analysis suggests that the story originates from 4,900 +/- 250 BCE which coincides with the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand.