• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Atlantis Thread

Looking for the "real Atlantis" is no more sensible than searching for fossils of cyclopes or the hydra, or sending a mission to find the tripod factories on mars

Well, that's put a right dampener on my plans.

Not really, of course - Mars is still on the "red" list...
 
Last edited:
Hi Sharon and many thanks for your reply.

I would argue that the report I posted about the Azorean cart-ruts, which closely resemble Neolithic or Bronze Age features on Malta, is far from "tabloid-style stuff".

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Cart-Ruts_of_Terceira_Island_Azores_Portugal

Other archaeological similarities with Malta, include Azorean hypogea, although these have yet to be fully explored and analysed and I look forward to further news on them.

Of course "a grain of truth is very different from the story being true as told", but that obvious truism should not close people's minds to the exciting possibilities behind that grain of truth.

The Trojan wars were long thought to have been myths - until the burnt, shattered remains of Troy (aka Hisarlik or Wilusa) were found and the embellishments and anachronisms in Homer's account, don't invalidate the hard historical evidence. As a schoolboy, I enjoyed reading the wartime exploits of Sven Hassell. Full of dramatic exaggerations and heroic hyperbole - but based on real events and locations.

According to Wikipedia, Plato gave the dimensions of Atlantis as "three thousand stadia [about 555 km; 345 mi] by two thousand stadia [about 370 km; 230 mi]." This infers an oblong shape, which is not vastly different to the extent of the main Azores islands today, which stretch for around 370 miles.
If Plato made up the whole shebang, then at least some of his inventions about the geographical location, approximate size and shape, mountainous features and catastrophic (volcanic) destruction, seem to be uncannily accurate.

The Portuguese have documented a great many historical volcanic and seismic events, which have changed the islands' topography. What occurred during Neolithic and the Bronze Age is obviously only speculation, unless solid archaeological and geological evidence is discovered. Some evidence for pre-Portuguese occupation does exist and I would not dismiss the idea that, despite the fictional embellishments, something resembling Plato's Atlantis just might have been exactly where he said it was.
I don't agree that you can compare the Trojan Wars to Atlantis. The former has multiple and varied traditions than Atlantis, which has just one - Plato.

I still see this as a fictional tale that uses "anomalies" as a way to promote an agenda. Sorry, I'm not going to be convinced by these articles. I don't subscribe to that agenda. They still are one-offs - the idea of Atlantis as a genuine lost continent does not form a coherent whole story in terms of geology, archaeology, and history.

The idea of Atlantis is completely hollow not just to me, but to most knowledgeable scientists. I'm going to go with the odds and consider it a bogus story and not invest my time and belief in it. If I'm wrong, oh well, won't be the first or last time.
 
I don't agree that you can compare the Trojan Wars to Atlantis. The former has multiple and varied traditions than Atlantis, which has just one - Plato.

I still see this as a fictional tale that uses "anomalies" as a way to promote an agenda. Sorry, I'm not going to be convinced by these articles. I don't subscribe to that agenda. They still are one-offs - the idea of Atlantis as a genuine lost continent does not form a coherent whole story in terms of geology, archaeology, and history.

The idea of Atlantis is completely hollow not just to me, but to most knowledgeable scientists. I'm going to go with the odds and consider it a bogus story and not invest my time and belief in it. If I'm wrong, oh well, won't be the first or last time.
That's the trouble with Science... prove that it's right, until it's proven to be wrong!
 
Hi Sharon and thanks again for taking the time to reply - I am enjoying this discussion!

"I don't agree that you can compare the Trojan Wars to Atlantis. "

OK, well that was merely the first example that came to mind of an event once regarded as mythical but now corroborated by archaeological evidence.
How about the legendary abode of lord Krishna in the Mahabharata - Dvārakā?
It was only in the 60s that underwater excavations in the sea off the coast of modern Dwarka, discovered an extensive Bronze-age city-state beneath the waves. A solid example of myth becoming reality, although they haven't found any of the vimana flying machines yet (joke).

But back to Atlantis; "Atlantis, which has just one [source] - Plato."
Plato is certainly the primary source of the Atlantis legend, albeit arguably not the sole source.
I know how you hold pseudoscience in contempt, Sharon, so please go easy on me for having a bit of a dabble and speculation here ...

A quick Google turns up an account, shortly after Plato's time, by the historian Theopompus of Chios, who wrote of a land far to the West of the great ocean, he called Meropis. Corroborating evidence, or merely a pale copy or even parody of Plato? I know what scientists will say, but I'll keep an open mind for now.

Then there is the epic poem actually entitled Atlantis by Hellanicus of Lesbos. Unfortunately the papyri on which it was found are fragmentary and badly damaged and it appears to be a largely allegorical account about the abode of the gods in the far West. Still interesting though, especially as it predates Plato's account by a century or so.

Throughout ancient Greek literature, the Garden of the Hesperides, features strongly. This idyllic, Eden-like utopia, was an abode of the gods (notably Atlas himself) and has been tentatively located, either on land, near the Atlas mountains or, once again, somewhere out in the Atlantic.

Now, to stick ones toe a little deeper into the murky waters of real pseudoscience, there are the legends of the Aztec people.
Forced to leave their mythical homeland of Aztlan, described alternatively as 7 caves, 7 fissures in the Earth or 7 islands, they fled to Mesoamerica.
Look! See the pic of them below in their boats in one of their codices:

Finally, just worth commentating that, in the Nahuatl language, Aztlan apparently means the place or land of whiteness, and the prefix Atl means water.
So Aztlan, Atl, Atlas, Atlantic, Atlantis. Coincidence or something more (he asked knowingly)?

Please don't think badly of me for indulging a little conjecture here. This is the Fortean forum after all, and there's surely room for some fun and speculation, along with the hard science!
 

Attachments

  • aztec.JPG
    aztec.JPG
    85.9 KB · Views: 17
I don't agree that you can compare the Trojan Wars to Atlantis. The former has multiple and varied traditions than Atlantis, which has just one - Plato.

I still see this as a fictional tale that uses "anomalies" as a way to promote an agenda. Sorry, I'm not going to be convinced by these articles. I don't subscribe to that agenda. They still are one-offs - the idea of Atlantis as a genuine lost continent does not form a coherent whole story in terms of geology, archaeology, and history.

The idea of Atlantis is completely hollow not just to me, but to most knowledgeable scientists. I'm going to go with the odds and consider it a bogus story and not invest my time and belief in it. If I'm wrong, oh well, won't be the first or last time.
This webpage seems to depict (the above) same drawing - with explanation of what it depicts.
https://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/kids/aztec-transport
 
Hi Sharon and thanks again for taking the time to reply - I am enjoying this discussion!

"I don't agree that you can compare the Trojan Wars to Atlantis. "

OK, well that was merely the first example that came to mind of an event once regarded as mythical but now corroborated by archaeological evidence.
How about the legendary abode of lord Krishna in the Mahabharata - Dvārakā?
It was only in the 60s that underwater excavations in the sea off the coast of modern Dwarka, discovered an extensive Bronze-age city-state beneath the waves. A solid example of myth becoming reality, although they haven't found any of the vimana flying machines yet (joke).

But back to Atlantis; "Atlantis, which has just one [source] - Plato."
Plato is certainly the primary source of the Atlantis legend, albeit arguably not the sole source.
I know how you hold pseudoscience in contempt, Sharon, so please go easy on me for having a bit of a dabble and speculation here ...

A quick Google turns up an account, shortly after Plato's time, by the historian Theopompus of Chios, who wrote of a land far to the West of the great ocean, he called Meropis. Corroborating evidence, or merely a pale copy or even parody of Plato? I know what scientists will say, but I'll keep an open mind for now.

Then there is the epic poem actually entitled Atlantis by Hellanicus of Lesbos. Unfortunately the papyri on which it was found are fragmentary and badly damaged and it appears to be a largely allegorical account about the abode of the gods in the far West. Still interesting though, especially as it predates Plato's account by a century or so.

Throughout ancient Greek literature, the Garden of the Hesperides, features strongly. This idyllic, Eden-like utopia, was an abode of the gods (notably Atlas himself) and has been tentatively located, either on land, near the Atlas mountains or, once again, somewhere out in the Atlantic.

Now, to stick ones toe a little deeper into the murky waters of real pseudoscience, there are the legends of the Aztec people.
Forced to leave their mythical homeland of Aztlan, described alternatively as 7 caves, 7 fissures in the Earth or 7 islands, they fled to Mesoamerica.
Look! See the pic of them below in their boats in one of their codices:

Finally, just worth commentating that, in the Nahuatl language, Aztlan apparently means the place or land of whiteness, and the prefix Atl means water.
So Aztlan, Atl, Atlas, Atlantic, Atlantis. Coincidence or something more (he asked knowingly)?

Please don't think badly of me for indulging a little conjecture here. This is the Fortean forum after all, and there's surely room for some fun and speculation, along with the hard science!
Sure. But I'm not ready to throw away the extensive progress of geological and archaeological research over the past few centuries in lieu of ancient texts and legends regarding human origins and society. I just don't find that a useful process. I'll stick to facts rather than conjecture.

It's certainly fun to entertain ideas but the problem is that people regularly accept fiction as reality and act upon that. I think that's dangerous. In the broad view of today's global society, we see what happens when anyone can claim authority without having credentials and gain a public platform. Unfortunately, fringe ideas are right up there in popularity with legit ones, sometimes they surpass established knowledge in acceptance. You can't move society forward with a bad habit like that. It may be harmless to believe in Atlantis, but soft thinking moves across subjects and gets applied to more important matters.
 
"we see what happens when anyone can claim authority without having credentials"

That's a fair comment Sharon and, whilst I did consider archaeology for a degree, I ended up doing modern languages, mainly because I did a little research into how few people can actually make a living out of being a "bonekicker" (and having a French girlfriend sort of swung it as well). At least studying mod langs gave me a grounding in the origins of European languages and you'll often find me commenting on Proto-Indo-European whenever it crops up on this forum.
My interest in all things archaeological however remains huge and Atlantis along with other flooded civilisations is quite a passion of mine.
So, whilst I don't have your admirable scientific sobriety and discipline, I hope that my passion for the subject may excuse some unscientific conjecture that I may indulge in from time to time.
Just as an aside, how do you, as a genuine scientist, feel, when a myth such as Troy or Dvārakā is confirmed as historical fact thanks to archaeological evidence?
 
"we see what happens when anyone can claim authority without having credentials"

That's a fair comment Sharon and, whilst I did consider archaeology for a degree, I ended up doing modern languages, mainly because I did a little research into how few people can actually make a living out of being a "bonekicker" (and having a French girlfriend sort of swung it as well). At least studying mod langs gave me a grounding in the origins of European languages and you'll often find me commenting on Proto-Indo-European whenever it crops up on this forum.
My interest in all things archaeological however remains huge and Atlantis along with other flooded civilisations is quite a passion of mine.
So, whilst I don't have your admirable scientific sobriety and discipline, I hope that my passion for the subject may excuse some unscientific conjecture that I may indulge in from time to time.
Just as an aside, how do you, as a genuine scientist, feel, when a myth such as Troy or Dvārakā is confirmed as historical fact thanks to archaeological evidence?
Well, I have very little interest in archaeology for the most part. But I'd point to geomythology [link to paper by D. Vitaliano - lyell collection.org], a subject I greatly enjoy. There are several examples of "myths" or folklore that, at their core, are an interpretation of genuine geologic events. I love to examine those (see spookygeology.com) - my current favorite being the geological connections that created the phenomenon of the Delphic Oracle. But, I don't give one whit of credence to made-up stuff from Velikovsky, flat earthers, or Creationists because those ideas are far outside any scientific standards. They are fiction.
 
...when a myth such as Troy or Dvārakā is confirmed as historical fact thanks to archaeological evidence?
It is wrong to say that "the myth has been confirmed" in either case. I know more about Troy than Dvārakā, but the principles will be broadly similar.

First, some differences of perspective:
  • Events are whatever actually happened — although we may never know the facts for sure.
  • History is what we have good reason to believe happened.
  • Legends are stories that contain large elements of what happened, but mixed up, exaggerated, and distorted to fulfil cultural needs.
  • Myths go beyond legend and contain aspects such as the supernatural, the gods. There is usually an element of morality or wisdom woven into them.
  • For completeness, Fiction is stories made up for entertainment, which may or may not include historical facts.

What has been confirmed in the case of Troy is the existence of a city from about the right time, in about the right place. It can be inferred that there were probably some events that formed the initial basis for the later legend and myth. No more than that.

The myth of Troy, like any myth, is made up of a huge number of elements. Before you can "confirm" the myth, you have to decide which parts of the myth are fundamental. How many of those details can you manage without before there is no legend left and we only have dry historical facts?

Was the war fought over the seduction and abduction of Helen? Which countries were involved? How many ships sailed? Who were the key leaders and warriors? Was it a 10 year campaign? Did Achilles sulk in his tent? Did Patroclus die in Achilles' armour? Were there funerary games for Patroclus? Did Briseis exist and what part did she play? Did Achilles fight and kill Hector and then dishonour his body? Did King Priam go anonymously into the Achaean camp to beg for the return of Hector's body? Was there a tearful reconciliation? And what of the wooden horse — which is never mentioned by Homer in the Iliad, but is mentioned by Virgil in the Aeneid centuries later?

How many of these key aspects, and others, of the Trojan myth can be dispensed with before it is no longer the Trojan myth?

Incidentally, I recommend the Iliad (in translation — I can't read Greek) as a very good read and extremely atmospheric. Whatever your beliefs about Homer as an historical individual, it was clearly written by someone who understood what it is to fight with spears.

However, when you read the Iliad, it is immediately obvious that large chunks of it are just a great story and it is no more an historical account of a war than High Plains Drifter is a true account of the old west.

The same could be asked of any myth or legend, hero, or prophet. Historical proof of the existence of X does not constitute proof of all the important characteristics, events and deeds traditionally associated with X.

We may find an historical "Robin Hood" in a parish record somewhere, but if he did not wear Lincoln green, live with Maid Marion, show unparalleled skill with a longbow, fight the Sheriff of Nottingham at every opportunity, and steal from the rich to give to the poor, then he was not the Robin Hood of myth. He was just a bloke called Robin Hood from about the right time and place.
 
Last edited:
"Before you can "confirm" the myth, you have to decide which parts of the myth are fundamental. How many of those details can you manage without before there is no legend left and we only have dry historical facts?
...We may find an historical "Robin Hood" in a parish record somewhere, but if he did not wear Lincoln green, live with Maid Marion, show unparalleled skill with a longbow, fight the Sheriff of Nottingham at every opportunity, and steal from the rich to give to the poor, then he was not the Robin Hood of myth. He was just a bloke called Robin Hood from about the right time and place."


All interesting points. I would argue though that that the absence of one or more items from your mythical checklist doesn't invalidate proof of the entire myth/legend.

One example that springs to mind was the discovery, a few years ago, of an unusual skeleton under a car park in Leicester. The marked curvature of the spine (and the location of the find) immediately prompted speculation that these were the remains of Richard III. And yet there was no evidence for the legendary withered arm, nor for any deformity of the hips or legs which could have accounted for his famous shuffling limp, as described by some of Richard's contemporaries.
The DNA analysis, when compared with Richard's living descendants, however, proved conclusively that it was him.
So, some elements of the myth were wrong and the hard evidence can be used to correct them.
 
Last edited:
Review of new series.

Review of "Hunting Atlantis" S01E01​

In its first episode, "Mystery of the Golden King," Discovery's "Hunting Atlantis" proves itself an incompetent imitation of television.​


... The series follows the fabulous European vacation of screenwriter and sci-fi novelist Stel Pavlou and volcanologist Jess Phoenix, neither of whom have any relevant expertise in Classics and therefore approach Atlantis as a historical problem of Copper Age culture rather than a question of Plato’s Classical Greek philosophy. Pavlou operates Atlantipedia, the online encyclopedia of Atlantis speculation. Phoenix is best known as a failed congressional candidate and cable TV talking head.

The story of Atlantis originates in two dialogues of Plato, the Timaeus and the Critias, both of which were meant to explore philosophical ideas. Atlantis appears in no records prior to this, and no ancient writer offered any additional evidence to testify to the reality of Atlantis. The story as we have it is a creation of Plato’s imagination, but that has not stopped many from trying to prove that Plato modeled the story on something real. Because the story of Atlantis as written cannot be literally true—Athens did not exist in 9,600 BCE alongside Atlantis, for example—every believer in the Atlantis story has to pick and choose which parts of Plato to accept and which to reject, inevitably meaning that they are hunting something that is not the Atlantis of Plato. At best, they hope to find his inspiration. At worst, they imagine that they have outdone Plato by alone discovering a truth hidden in the text, some secret reality that the words would only support if the world recognized their genius.

Hunting Atlantis revolves around Pavlou’s speculation that Plato was wrong about the date of Atlantis’s destruction. Instead of occurring in 9600 BCE as Plato states, he believes it happened around 4900 BCE because he assumes that Plato relied on an Egyptian king list to date the fall of Atlantis. Therefore, the error came in translating the king list into calendar years because some of the kings ruled concurrently and others’ reigns were listed incorrectly. ...

https://jasoncolavito.substack.com/p/review-of-hunting-atlantis-s01e01
 
As I see it, there are two fundamental questions here. One is 'did Atlantis exist in the first place?' and if the answer to that question is yes, then where was it?

Those who tend to believe that it did exist (and I am among them) have an uphill battle to fight because there is little if any, physical evidence to support their belief. Personally, I am open-minded on Atlantis. I am also aware that the burden of proof is on us.

The primary source of information on Atlantis is Plato. My understanding, from both this thread and elsewhere, is that there are other ancient sources that also mention it as well.

Those that hold the opposite view tell us that the story is a political allegory, likely a fantasy invented by Plato as a lesson for his pupils. I hope I have stated your position correctly.

Did it exist? My own hunch is that it did. However, I am also intellectually honest enough to admit that that is all it is: a hunch, that, so far is unsupported by hard evidence. Further, some of the speculations on the location, while entertaining, are hardly helpful and tend to make those who are skeptics lump the legitimate believers with the lunatic fringe.

Thoughts?
 
They still are one-offs - the idea of Atlantis as a genuine lost continent does not form a coherent whole story in terms of geology, archaeology, and history.
Is Atlantis ever described as a 'lost continent' by Egyptian priests, Solon or Plato? It does seem a little disingenuous to describe it as such, when it should be fairly clear that losing a continent would leave some pretty easily identifiable evidence a mere few thousand years later. I can believe in a lost civilisation much easier than a lost continent. Only a minor point perhaps, but I do feel that the whole idea of what we are looking for is tailored by its description, if you get my drift.
 
Is Atlantis ever described as a 'lost continent' by Egyptian priests, Solon or Plato? It does seem a little disingenuous to describe it as such, when it should be fairly clear that losing a continent would leave some pretty easily identifiable evidence a mere few thousand years later. I can believe in a lost civilisation much easier than a lost continent. Only a minor point perhaps, but I do feel that the whole idea of what we are looking for is tailored by its description, if you get my drift.

Far too small to be a continent.
As already discussed, Plato described Atlantis as an island consisting mostly of mountains in the northern portions and along the shore and encompassing a great plain in an oblong shape in the south with a width of three thousand stadia (about 555 km; 345 miles).
That's not dissimilar to the size of the Azores archipelago - especially given that the islands were likely one integral land mass 10,000 years ago.
 
Is Atlantis ever described as a 'lost continent' by Egyptian priests, Solon or Plato? It does seem a little disingenuous to describe it as such, when it should be fairly clear that losing a continent would leave some pretty easily identifiable evidence a mere few thousand years later. I can believe in a lost civilisation much easier than a lost continent. Only a minor point perhaps, but I do feel that the whole idea of what we are looking for is tailored by its description, if you get my drift.
A fair point. But looking at the Plato account from Spence, The History of Atlantis, he says that "it may with fullest truth and fitness be named a continent". And eventually the island continent sank.
 
A fair point. But looking at the Plato account from Spence, The History of Atlantis, he says that "it may with fullest truth and fitness be named a continent". And eventually the island continent sank.
Which again is a fair point. But I think that we have to be aware that such descriptions might not mean what we think they mean. Was there a classical meaning of 'continent'? The Egyptian priests apparently described Atlantis as being equal in size to Libya and Asia (presumably Asia minor) combined. We don't really know if they meant in size or riches, or regional power. I could even wonder about the word 'sank', to be honest. Beneath the waves? Or down the regional power rankings? Okay, I'm being a bit daft there maybe, but my point remains....we have to make sure that what we are looking for is what is described in the context of its time. NOT what we think it is.
 
Which again is a fair point. But I think that we have to be aware that such descriptions might not mean what we think they mean. Was there a classical meaning of 'continent'? The Egyptian priests apparently described Atlantis as being equal in size to Libya and Asia (presumably Asia minor) combined. We don't really know if they meant in size or riches, or regional power. I could even wonder about the word 'sank', to be honest. Beneath the waves? Or down the regional power rankings? Okay, I'm being a bit daft there maybe, but my point remains....we have to make sure that what we are looking for is what is described in the context of its time. NOT what we think it is.
In other words, we go by the original meaning.
 
Is Atlantis ever described as a 'lost continent' by Egyptian priests, Solon or Plato? ...
... Was there a classical meaning of 'continent'? ...

No, Atlantis was not described as a continent by Plato. Plato consistently described Atlantis as an island (sometimes as "great island") in both Critias and Timaeus - the only two works in which he mentioned Atlantis.

Plato does refer to "continent", but to the continent rather than a continent. Geographical knowledge in his time was severely limited, and it included no understanding that there were multiple very large land masses surrounded and separated by the oceans. The world was typically conceived in terms of bodies of water surrounded by land.

The continent was construed as a single giant land mass that surrounded and bounded any and all oceans just as Europe, the Levant, and northern Africa bounded the Mediterranean Sea.

The distinction between the island of Atlantis and the all-surrounding "continent" is evident in the primary passage addressing Atlantis from Timaeus:
Many great and wonderful deeds are recorded of your state in our histories. But one of them exceeds all the rest in greatness and valour. 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, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia. ... 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.
(Emphasis Added)
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1572/1572-h/1572-h.htm
 
No, Atlantis was not described as a continent by Plato. Plato consistently described Atlantis as an island (sometimes as "great island") in both Critias and Timaeus - the only two works in which he mentioned Atlantis.

Plato does refer to "continent", but to the continent rather than a continent. Geographical knowledge in his time was severely limited, and it included no understanding that there were multiple very large land masses surrounded and separated by the oceans. The world was typically conceived in terms of bodies of water surrounded by land.

The continent was construed as a single giant land mass that surrounded and bounded any and all oceans just as Europe, the Levant, and northern Africa bounded the Mediterranean Sea.

The distinction between the island of Atlantis and the all-surrounding "continent" is evident in the primary passage addressing Atlantis from Timaeus:

(Emphasis Added)
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1572/1572-h/1572-h.htm
So, according to the above text of Plato, does that mean that he describes Atlantis as sitting under a mud-flat?
 
So, according to the above text of Plato, does that mean that he describes Atlantis as sitting under a mud-flat?
Maybe, maybe not ... All he wrote was that there are shallows and a "shoal of mud" where the island once stood. This description is one of the reasons one or more sites in Spain near the Straits of Gibraltar have been suggested as locations for a historical Atlantis.
 
Another apparently ephemeral island that may or may not be related to the Atlantean legend is St. Brendan's (or Brendain) Isle.

Featuring on maps from the 16th to 18th centuries, it is depicted as being either north-west of fellow now-you-see-it-now-you-don't island (Hy) Brasil, mid-Atlantic, just west of the Canaries, or east of Newfoundland.

brendan.png

brendan2.png
brendan3.png

brendan4.png


https://blogs.loc.gov/maps/2021/04/searching-for-saint-brendans-island/
 
Another apparently ephemeral island that may or may not be related to the Atlantean legend is St. Brendan's (or Brendain) Isle.

Featuring on maps from the 16th to 18th centuries, it is depicted as being either north-west of fellow now-you-see-it-now-you-don't island (Hy) Brasil, mid-Atlantic, just west of the Canaries, or east of Newfoundland.

View attachment 50791
View attachment 50792View attachment 50793
View attachment 50794

https://blogs.loc.gov/maps/2021/04/searching-for-saint-brendans-island/
Interesting how the maps were dune up with mythological beasties. As well as island that were never there.
 
Bless my cotton socks; look how big Hirta (St Kilda) is in the first two maps.

(North Rona is often said to be just as spacious)
 
Bless my cotton socks; look how big Hirta (St Kilda) is in the first two maps.

(North Rona is often said to be just as spacious)

Islands coming and going, changing location and expanding or contracting were commonplace on early maps.

This 1669 Kircher map (North is down) has Atlantis covering half of the ocean (so I guess The Azores are just that pyramidal mountain in the middle).

atlantis.png
 
Back
Top