​​Towers of Atlantis: Evidence not Fantasy


Expanding upon some of the themes discussed in Paul Dunbavin's new book:

Leading to further articles and external links.



The First Dynasty – the Origins of the Egyptian State

Plato’s narratives tell of a story brought back from Egypt that the submergence of an island in the Atlantic was contemporary with the earliest period of the Egyptian state. Egypt as a unified state begins with the First Dynasty and a king variously called: Menes, Min, Horus-Aha or Narmer. Perhaps these are all names of the same king; perhaps not. Egyptian king lists date his reign to 3110 BC, give-or-take about 150 years for all the various uncertainties. So this is the correct era to look for corresponding evidence of a catastrophe in the Atlantic.


Scholars of Greek will not look beyond the immediate zone of the Aegean for the inspiration behind Plato’s story; they dismiss the story as a Greek ‘myth’ and prefer to ignore the internal evidence that Solon brought the story back from Egypt. They will not concede that the origin is really Egyptian. They seized upon the discovery of the ruins of Thera on the island of Santorini in the 1960s as the inspiration for Plato’s ‘fiction’ – neglecting the obvious fact that this volcanic eruption was around 1500 years later than the unification of Egypt.


Neither will the Egyptologists tarnish their reputation by taking ownership of Solon’s Atlantis story. They hide behind the fabulous date given by the Egyptian priest as 8,000 years before their own time. Yet this too is explainable. The basis of the king lists accepted by all Egyptologists also describes a 25,000-year-long mythological period before the First Dynasty; when the Nile was ruled variously by ‘spirits of the dead’, the reigns of the gods and by the sun god himself. The priests of Sais also knew this long chronology and therefore gave to Solon an exaggerated estimate of era.


Egyptologists also know that the First Dynasty of Egypt was the period when the religion of the goddess Neit was at its strongest. Egyptian queens all took a title associated with Neit, just as the kings would take a Horus name. The temple of Neit was founded around this time and the customs of the early dynasties were revived in the twenty-sixth or ‘Saite’ Dynasty – just in time for Solon to visit the temple. This is one reason why we should admit that the history given to Solon could indeed have been preserved in Neit’s temple since the First Dynasty.


This remote era, five thousand years ago is also contemporary with the Megalithic cultures of Western Europe and Malta. Once you accept this as the correct era to seek confirmation of a catastrophic event then the coincidences with other forms of evidence are there to be found.




When is a myth not a myth? Answer: when it is degraded history

How often do you hear people say: ‘it’s a myth’ when they want to dismiss something as untrue? What is the difference between a myth and a legend – something else that we are expected to dismiss as untrue?


What happens when a fact of history loses its connection to a calendar date? Most of Egyptian ‘history’ is like that. Whether the events in a reign are considered history depend on the accuracy of the king list, which comes down to eminent opinion. Where we have no such tenuous connection it becomes legend. The predynastic period of Egypt is therefore legendary. For Atlantic Europe, Britain and Ireland everything before Julius Caesar is considered legendary. At what point should we call these events mythical rather than legendary? Usually this would be when the stories become associated with gods and demi-gods – mortal kings deified after death; but Caesar and Augustus were deified after death, so why are they not ‘mythical’?


Is Atlantis a ‘myth’? It was presented to Solon as part of Egyptian history. Even if an event has fallen off the chronology then the history is still out-there – it’s just that we no longer know its place. Legends are degraded history; myths are degraded legends. It is unfortunate that the word myth or mythical has that second meaning as something that is untrue. This gives archaeologists and other mainstream academics an excuse not to investigate them properly and to dismiss anyone who does.


The author’s approach is to respect all myths and legends as potential sources of history. There may be ‘mythological fossils’ within the legends that can be extracted and separately analysed with science or compared to other legends and physical evidence. He does not speculate; he analyses the detail within the stories as sources of evidence.




Why did Sonchis of Saïs think that Atlantis was 8,000 years before his own era?

We know that the Egyptians maintained king lists at their temples because Egyptologists find fragments of them in their ruins. Unfortunately, we do not have the king lists from the temple of Neit at Saïs!


Perhaps a clue may be found in the sources of Manetho, whose list of dynasties is the basis of all that we now accept as Egyptian history. According to some versions of Manetho’s Aegyptiaca the dynasties of kings were preceded by a period of divine rulers. Firstly the era of the gods: Hephaestus, Helios, Sosis, Cronus, Osiris, Typhon and Horus totaling 13,900 years. This was followed by an era of demi-gods from Memphis and Thinis adding-up to 5,212 years and then by ‘Spirits of the Dead’ for 5,813 years. We have no more detail about these latter, or why they were considered different from the demigods. After these spirits, began the First Dynasty of kings, agreed by the Egyptologists as c.3100 BC.


Therefore we may assume that Sonchis knew something similar to this long chronology. If we add the 5813 years of the ‘spirits to the dead’ to the dynasties of real kings then we come closer to the 8,000 years that the Saite priest gave for the era of Atlantis; implying that the destruction took place at the end of it. This corresponds to the first known writing and a history of any kind cannot have been recorded any earlier than that.


Incidentally, this is a good example of a ’mythological fossil’ that can be separately analysed and compared with other evidence. Plato had no need to supply a precise date for a mere fiction; he could simply have said ‘a long, long time ago, in a (country) far, far away…”.




Pole Tides and Pole Shifts

Central to he author’s theory is that the submergence described by the Egyptians to Solon accurately describes a pole tide and a permanent pole shift. You can’t have one without the other. This is not pseudo-science but standard geophysics that anyone can research. It is generally to be found in geophysical papers linked to discussion of the tiny modern Chandler Wobble, typically measured at about 0.5 cm in the world’s oceans. Internet searches for ‘pole tide’ will usually lead to research papers with quite dense mathematics. A good entry point would be:






However if you search instead on ‘pole shift’ a quite different set of offerings will come out, most of which will lead you to pseudo-science based on Biblical references, Edgar Cayce, Velikovsky, Hapgood and others. Let’s not go there! Some of the earlier Victorian discussion of pole shifts is more useful – but to find those you will have to read a lot of real paper books in good old-fashioned libraries.


The difference is really just a matter of amplitude. Geophysical discussion typically deals with tiny motions measured in arc-seconds that occur today, whereas the same equations would apply for a 'catastrophic' motion measured in whole degrees.  The only difficulty is how the energy of the initial excitation could be applied without destroying the Earth; and without leaving very obvious evidence of the event in the physical record. It would be very difficult for a specialist geophysicist to discuss such 'speculative' possibilities without censure from their colleagues; and would it ever get past a referee into a recognized journal?

         ( March 2019)


Stonehenge Builders' DNA shows Aegean and Anatolian Origins:

Towers with Text.jpg