David Miano had already published a two-part video in July 2019 that opposes the hypothesis that the Richat structure in north-west Africa was Plato's Atlantis. He has now taken up the topic of Atlantis again in a very fundamental way and explained his opinion in detail in a one-hour video. Here, we will discuss this video in detail.
David Miano is a very good and very thorough scientist who is almost always right and also almost always makes very wise decisions when weighing arguments. His videos are a goldmine of correct and important insights. I always like to refer to his videos.
On the subject of Atlantis, however, David Miano has failed. The reason is that the contemporary science on the subject is in a poor state and David Miano therefore had to build his reasoning on a poor foundation. (A brief discussion of some of the serious errors of current scholarship can be found in my book "Kritische Geschichte ..." on the authors Alan Cameron, Pierre Vidal-Naquet and Harold Tarrant pp. 210-239. Currently German only).
The moment at which David Miano's analysis derails and fails is at 11:27. Up to this point, David Miano has correctly explained that Socrates does not demand a genuinely historical account from the other participants in the dialogue, but proposes a fictional account that contains a higher and inner truth due to the competence of the other dialogue participants, but is not really historically true.
David Miano does something that many Atlantis sceptics do: they omit a crucial turning point in the plot of the dialogue! For at this point Critias suggests, against (!) Socrates' wishes, that he has something better (!) to offer than a mere invention: a genuinely historical story that comes close to what is desired.
Instead, David Miano presents the story of Critias as a fulfilment of the wish for a fiction. It is added a little later that this story is not supposed to be fiction (13:16 ff.), but the way David Miano presents it, the statement that it is not fiction only rings hollow: the clear turn in the plot has been ignored, giving the completely false impression that the story of Critias is directly corresponding to Socrates' wish for a fiction. You cannot do it that way.
Moreover, David Miano introduces the Atlantis story at this point (11:27) with the terribly flawed translation by Robert Gregg Bury: "Listen then, Socrates, to a tale which, though passing strange, is yet wholly true". – But it is not a "tale", but a logos. This word may only be translated as "tale" in exceptional cases if the context makes it completely clear that it is to be understood in this way. But that is not the case. On the contrary. The dialogue even explicitly sets this logos as the opposite of mythos. – And Critias does not say that the story is "wholly true", but "true in every respect". A big difference! This phrase refers to both the higher and the historical truth, both at the same time, as Proclus later correctly recognised.
The second central error of David Miano is that he did not recognise that the tradition from Egypt, which is presented as historically true, is not identical with the story that Critias then produces on the basis of this tradition. The "true in every respect" refers to the tradition from Egypt. David Miano has correctly recognised that the institutions of primeval Athens from the Egyptian tradition are not (!) identical with the ideal state, but only "closely resemble" it (13:03; 13:09). A very important observation.
This is the reason why Critias later announces that he will transplant the ideal state into the historical tradition in order to give an exposition with the 100% ideal state, as David Miano has correctly observed (27:44 ff.). David Miano is mistaken, however, when he concludes: "In other words, I am going to make it real by making it about a real city." It is the other way round. The ideal state is inserted into a real tradition that already comes close to the ideal state. Critias makes the assumption that the almost ideal state was really the ideal state. It is true that "the wording suggests a certain amount of fabrication", oh yes, but in a different way than David Miano thinks. And we are talking about primeval Athens, not about Atlantis.
It is therefore also quite wrong when David Miano says that a "most straightforward reading" and a "view ... that it takes the dialogue's characters at their word" would mean assuming a completely historical truth (29:04 ff.) – But there is simply no "straightforward reading", neither purely fictional nor purely historical, and that is also the reason why Atlantis has preoccupied us for 2500 years.
David Miano takes the 9000 years of Atlantis literally throughout and does not interpret them in the way they need to be interpreted. He comes to the subject three times and each time fails to do what needs to be done (14:43, 26:53, 30:45).
The following must be explained: The ancient Greeks mistakenly believed that Egypt was 10,000 years old and older. Therefore, the 9,000 years of Atlantis must be interpreted against the background of this error. Since the legendary first Pharaoh Menes did not live 11,000+ years before Plato, as was believed at the time, but must be dated to around 3000 BC, the age of 9000 years must also be interpreted accordingly. This means that the 9000 years must be "shrunk" by analogy. – A date of 9000 years was not a date "before all time" for Plato, but a date in the middle of Egyptian history. This still applies even if Plato had invented the Atlantis story from A to Z.
Nobody can cheat their way around this realisation. Some scientists have understood this, one of the first being Alfred E. Taylor. But unfortunately there are only a few. Most still use the 9000 years as a fictional signal. As if Plato had referred to the Stone Age. But it is not that simple.
It is therefore not sufficient for David Miano to say that there was no Athens around 9600 BC (30:45). That is true, of course, but you cannot stop there. The above interpretation should necessarily have followed on from this. (Apart from the question of whether the Egyptian tradition really refers to Athens and not to Mycenae, which was the leading centre of Greece in earlier times).
Recognising the historical-critical interpretation of the 9000 years of Atlantis is also of central importance for combating pseudoscience. This is because pseudoscience takes the 9000 years of Atlantis literally and fantasises about a developed culture in the Stone Age. If the correct interpretation of the 9000 years were propagated more, 90% of pseudoscience would be deflated. Graham Hancock would be left empty-handed.
However, the question of the reality of Atlantis would then be posed quite differently than before. It would no longer be so easy to dismiss Atlantis as pure nonsense. Sometimes you get the feeling that certain scientists deliberately confirm pseudoscientists in their false interpretation of the 9000 years of Atlantis in order to make it easy for themselves.
Note that a historical-critical interpretation of the 9000 years is not a "dividing by ten". It is a comparison of error and reality.
There is no shame in not having understood Plato properly. I have been studying Plato for over 20 years now and have realised that I have had to throw misconceptions overboard time and again. This is quite normal and happens to everyone who spends more time studying Plato.
One of David Miano's central errors is that he considers Plato's ideal state to be an "invention" (31:12) and a "utopia" (14:56) that has utopian qualities (23:05). But this is wrong. For Plato, the ideal state is not an invention, but a deduction. A deduction from the principles of reality itself. This is why Plato also writes in the Republic that the ideal state has existed in the past, that it may exist right now in a distant land, and that it will exist again in the future (Republic VI 499cd). Therefore, it need not seem strange when Plato speaks of a historical tradition that comes close to the ideal state. Plato really believed this.
David Miano has correctly observed that there are connections between the cosmology of Timaeus and Plato's Atlantis story (19:08, 19:43). But this is practically the opposite of a fiction signal. Plato is concerned with reality. Plato deduced the ideal state from this reality. What sounds utopian and fantastic to us was an absolutely achievable ideal for Plato. Including the physical beauty of the inhabitants of the ideal state. It was only in his last work that Plato began to rethink.
It is also wrong for Plato to think that poetry was at odds with truthfulness. On the contrary. For Plato, true poets must write true poetry. And, if possible, completely true, not just true in a higher sense. So when Timaeus is called a "poet" or the Muses are invoked, this is not a sign of fiction, as David Miano believes (25:24 ff.). As David Miano has correctly observed, the mother of the muses, Mnemosyne, the memory, is also invoked: It is a clear reality signal, that is, the opposite of a fiction signal.
When mentioning the fact that the Athenian traditions say that Athens arose much later than Plato's 9000 years (30:53) and also later when discussing the history of reception (see below), it becomes clear that David Miano has not understood that Plato assumes a cyclical catastrophism: the Athens of 9000 years ago has long since perished in a catastrophe, while the Athens of his own time is of course much younger. This is how Plato imagined it. It is important to understand this so as not to draw false conclusions.
Although Plato's Atlantis story is explicitly presented as a logos as opposed to a mythos, which is based on a written (!) tradition from Egypt, David Miano repeatedly fails to treat the Atlantis story as a vague myth. For example, he places the Atlantis story in a row with some stories in Plato's works that are clearly labelled as mythos (38:16). Even the category title of the video is "Myths of Ancient History".
But this is inadmissible, because Plato explicitly writes that the Atlantis story is not a mythos. (Quite apart from the question of whether a mythos in Plato's sense is a myth as we understand it today).
It also becomes clear in the treatment of Diodorus Siculus at the end of the video that David Miano regards the Atlantis story as a vague myth and wants to treat it like a myth (50:54 ff.). But this is completely wrong. Even if Plato had invented everything, it would still not be a myth.
David Miano does not make a big argument out of this, but he repeatedly addresses the thesis that Critias may not be reflecting the opinion of Socrates or Plato, but is perhaps to be regarded as a moron and that his account could therefore be false and nonsensical (14:37, 29:47). As in other dialogues, the dialogue participants have differing opinions, says David Miano (2:17).
However, this is a completely false interpretation that has unfortunately infected parts of current scholarship. Unlike in other dialogues, in the Timaeus-Critias all dialogue participants are regarded as fully-fledged philosophers. Their word counts. And it is accepted by all other dialogue participants. This was the traditional opinion in science for a long time, and this opinion is still shared by many researchers today.
Incidentally, those scientists who consider Critias to be a moron believe that it is the tyrant Critias. But David Miano has correctly recognised that it is not the tyrant, see below.
Contemporary science does not believe in a historical tradition and therefore searches everywhere in ancient texts for possible models from which Plato could have put together the Atlantis story. In the process, science gets lost in a thousand details, and in the end there is no longer any recognisable meaning behind this 1000-piece puzzle. It is like denying the existence of New York and instead looking for templates in all European capitals from which an "invented" description of New York is put together.
Such a puzzle game is possible, but it opens up more questions than it answers. Why would Plato have played such a crazy puzzle game, with many pieces that make no sense at all? It simply does not fulfil the rule of Occam's razor: that simple explanations are to be preferred. For many puzzle pieces there is no explanation at all. Scholars take refuge in the "explanation" that Plato was overwhelmed by the desire to fabricate.
David Miano also tries his hand at this puzzle game and mentions sinking islands, punishments from the gods, impassable mud, the flood of Deucalion, the Titan Atlas, the work of Hellanicus, the peninsula of Atalante, the sinking of Helice, and much more. But David Miano actually realises himself that the puzzle game is not working: With the Titan Atlas, David Miano rightly recognises that the king of Atlantis is not the Titan at all (34:59). With Helike, he sees an analogy in the sinking in one night, but Atlantis did not sink in one night, but in one day and one night (50:04).
For David Miano, the Atlantis story is a very ordinary morality tale: the Atlanteans first become rich and decadent, then morally corrupt, and then the gods punish Atlantis. However, this does not add up in the end.
Firstly, David Miano consistently fails to mention why the kings of Atlantis become decadent (e.g. 22:53). It is not their wealth. Rather, it is the dwindling of the divine element in their blood through intermingling with mortals from generation to generation. – And David Miano is also wrong when he says that only the warriors of primeval Athens perished, perhaps with Atlantis, but not primeval Athens itself (18:05). Firstly, it says that these warriors perished "with/at you" (par' hymin), i.e. not with/at Atlantis; secondly, the overwhelming majority of interpreters have always interpreted the demise of the warriors as pars pro toto: primeval Athens naturally also perished with the warriors, and only uneducated shepherds survived, in line with Plato's cyclical catastrophism.
Of course, it is true that the Atlantis story wants to convey certain lessons, but it is certainly not an ordinary morality tale. Wilhelm Brandenburg worked out this point most clearly in 1951.
It happens again and again that Atlantis sceptics flatly deny the question of possible similarities in Egyptian history, leaving the time of the Sea Peoples completely unmentioned. It is perfectly permissible to reject an analogy between the Sea Peoples and Atlantis, but not even mentioning this point is not allowed. The analogy is too good for that.
David Miano unfortunately only mentions the temple of Edfu as a possible analogy (31:58 ff.), but here David Miano is absolutely right: The temple of Edfu is not a good analogy.
Because David Miano trusts the contemporary science, he has a completely wrong picture of the reception history of Plato's Atlantis. David Miano believes that in the beginning nobody thought Atlantis was real, and only later in Roman times did some people start to think Atlantis was real (40:09). In truth, it was exactly the opposite, as I was able to show in my book "Kritische Geschichte ..." published in 2016.
David Miano's assumption that nobody thought Atlantis was real until Proclus is also wrong (43:36). In addition to the authors David Miano mentions, there is a list of other authors who treat Atlantis as a real place, which David Miano does not mention (presumably David Miano does not even know these authors, because they can only be found in footnotes of the scientific literature on Atlantis, well hidden from the public eye):
The following authors not mentioned by David Miano do not make an explicit statement about Plato's Atlantis, but what they do say suggests very, very strongly that they believed Atlantis to be real. For example, these authors accept Plato's cyclical catastrophism and speak of knowledge about the past that Solon brought with him from Egypt, but do not explicitly mention Atlantis.
The first Atlantis sceptic known by name did not appear until 500 years after Plato: It was Numenius of Apameia, around 150 AD. This was at the same time as the literary form of the Greek novel with its literary devices came into being. Ever since then, the Atlantis story has been read like a novel, which is wrong. Because when Plato wrote the Atlantis story, this literary form with its typical literary devices did not yet exist.
And then there was the stubborn Christian fundamentalist Cosmas Indicopleustes (around 550 AD), who believed in a flat earth. In his opinion, it was completely wrong that all those disgustingly godless Greeks believed in the existence of Atlantis (Plato, Aristotle, Proclus are mentioned by name). However, Cosmas is unable to name any Atlantis sceptics to support his Atlantis scepticism. Apparently he did not know any Atlantis-sceptical authors. After all, there were not many of them. The majority of ancient authors with an opinion considered Atlantis to be more or less real.
David Miano is still following a misconception that demonstrably only came into the world at the beginning of the 19th century: Namely, that a passage in Strabo was a quotation from Aristotle that was directed against the existence of Atlantis. This error was clarified in 2010 with my book "Aristotle and Atlantis" (2012 translated to English). Since then, some scholars have rethought and suspect Eratosthenes, for example, to be the author of the quote. Or they simply tacitly drop the claim that Aristotle was the author of the quotation. Others try to support their thesis with untenable arguments.
It is about this Strabo passage, the alleged quote from Aristotle is underlined:
"On the other hand, he [Poseidonius] correctly sets down in his work the fact that the earth sometimes rises and undergoes settling processes, and undergoes changes that result from earthquakes and the other similar agencies ... And on this point he does well to cite the statement of Plato that it is possible that the story about the island of Atlantis is not a fiction. Concerning Atlantis Plato relates that Solon, after having made inquiry of the Egyptian priests, reported that Atlantis did once exist, but disappeared – an island no smaller in size than a continent; and Poseidonius thinks that it is better to put the matter in that way than to say of Atlantis: 'Its inventor caused it to disappear, just as did the Poet the wall of the Achaeans.' "
(Strabo 2.3.6; translation by Horace Leonard Jones)
The statement about the invention of the wall of the Achaeans (not about Atlantis) is a well-known commentary by Aristotle on Homer. But the use of Aristotle's statement to draw a comparison with the invention of Atlantis is made by .... an unknown Atlantis sceptic. For the person making this comparison is not named in the Strabo passage. There is nothing to suggest that the unknown person using a well-known word of Aristotle is Aristotle. It could be any educated person of the time!
In fact, there are many arguments against the unknown person being Aristotle. Strabo actually always mentions Aristotle's name when he quotes his opinion, both in agreement and disagreement. But not here. – In addition, Theophrastus, Aristotle's disciple and direct successor, made a statement in favour of the existence of Atlantis. – Aristotle is otherwise silent on Atlantis, but there are many statements in his works that confirm partial aspects of the Atlantis story. This is why Aristotle was quoted by Proclus, for example, to make it plausible that the Atlantis story could be a real story. – Incidentally, Proclus calls the Atlantis sceptics tines, i.e. "certain people": one would hardly speak of Aristotle in this way. – But none of these arguments are mentioned by David Miano.
David Miano tries to save the erroneous assertion with a strange argument. He says that the statements about the Achaean wall and Atlantis simply belong together, and "single authorship for the sentence seems to be the most obvious way to take it." (48:42) Of course, this is not really an argument. Especially since David Miano himself points to the passage in Strabo where Aristotle's statement about the wall of the Achaeans is mentioned together with Aristotle's authorship – but here the statement about the wall of the Achaeans stands alone (!), and not together with a statement about Atlantis. – David Miano also fails to mention the fact that the opinion that this is a quotation from Aristotle goes back to an error at the beginning of the 19th century.
This part of the video is also where David Miano deviates particularly often and particularly clearly from the transcript of the video he provided: he was clearly unsure of himself. Especially as he says "seems" and "I think" several times. – I can only advise everyone to pick up my book "Aristotle and Atlantis" and see for yourself.
Incidentally, Aristotle also mentions the mud in front of the Pillars of Heracles, which the sinking of Atlantis is said to have left behind, but without mentioning Atlantis. David Miano sees this mud as a signal of fiction (33:44, 23:36). Because of course this mud does not exist. – But for the people back then, this mud was real. This mud is not an invention of Plato. – Moreover, Aristotle mentions this mud in a book about all kinds of geological phenomena such as earthquakes, floods, etc. One might have expected Aristotle to give a reason for the existence of this mud in such a book. But it does not happen. In this way, every reader of Aristotle had to automatically think of the only reason for the existence of this mud that exists in all ancient literature: And that is Atlantis. For no one gives any other reason for the existence of this mud. Aristotle must have wanted it that way, otherwise he would have given an alternative reason for this mud. Although this is not proof, it is one of many strong indications that Aristotle also believed in the reality of Atlantis, or at least sympathised with its existence, as we see later with Posidonius, who closely followed Aristotle in his geological considerations.
David Miano notes that the Attic historians and orators who treat the history of Athens in detail do not speak of Atlantis (38:41, 39:30). But: these historians and orators all referred to the Athens that emerged – in Plato's sense – after the last catastrophic flood. It is possible that they rejected Plato's theory of cyclical catastrophism. But it is also possible that they did not mention it simply because they were only writing about their own era. Silence here does not necessarily mean rejection.
David Miano himself mentions in Diodorus Siculus that Diodorus criticised various historians for not including various myths in their works (56:12). Atlantis was of course not a myth for Plato and his followers, but from the point of view of these historians was it perhaps too mythical to be included?
One could also give the opposite example: The grammarian and writer Apollodorus of Athens (ca. 180-120 BC) listed all the fantasy stories known to him in one of his works (Strabo VII 299 or 7.3.6). And indeed, all known fantasy lands are mentioned, e.g. the Meropis of Theopompus or the island of Panchaia of Euhemerus and many others. But one story is missing from the list: Atlantis. Apparently, Apollodorus of Athens considered the Atlantis story to be more or less real. Otherwise it would certainly not have been missing from this list.
On Crantor, David Miano unfortunately follows an error by Alan Cameron, who mistranslated a passage in Proclus and based the entire thesis of an article in The Classical Quarterly on this error (the article is rubbish from A to Z and should never have got through peer review). In the meantime, several scholars have discovered and named Alan Cameron's error. It is about this passage in my own translation (side note: the translation David Miano uses is questionable):
"Some say that the story [logos] about everything connected with the Atlantines would be pure history [historia psile], as (e.g.) Plato's first commentator Crantor. This [Crantor] now says, that he [Plato] was mocked by the contemporaries, since he was not the creator of (his) constitution, but (only) the transcriber of (the constitution) of the Egyptians. He [Plato] cared so much about this (countering) word of the mockers, that he [Plato] traced back the story [historia] about the Athenians and Atlantines to the Egyptians, that the Athenians once lived according to this constitution. The priests of the Egyptians [prophetai] attest this, says he [Crantor!], by saying that this is written on still existing stelai."
(Proclus In Timaeum 24A f. or I 1,75 f.; translation Thorwald C. Franke)
David Miano believes that the "he" at the end would not refer to Crantor, but that the grammar would show that it refers to Plato. But that is wrong. The opposite is the case. The grammar clearly shows that this "he" refers to Crantor. It is a change of tense from indirect speech in the Aorist (Plato) back to direct speech in the present tense (Crantor). Several scholars have now also expressed this view (with varying arguments):
With Crantor we have an ancient author who claims, independently of Plato, that the Atlantis story goes back to Egypt. Of course, we do not know whether this is true. Who knows what Crantor saw in Egypt. But Crantor's statement is clear. And the Timaeus commentary by Crantor had a great impact on all later Platonists.
Posidonius is the only ancient author whom David Miano has correctly assessed (43:54). Posidonius did not know whether Atlantis was real, but he obviously favoured the possibility of the reality of Atlantis over doubt. This is expressed in the Strabo passage mentioned above.
Strabo simply agrees with Posidonius' opinion, see the Strabo passage above ("he does well to cite ..."). Nevertheless, David Miano says of him that he "leaned towards skepticism" (48:53). This is extremely strange, because one cannot say of Posidonius that he "leaned towards skepticism", as David Miano has correctly recognised. So not of Strabo either.
My research has shown that scholars are divided on this issue. Those who interpret Strabo as a sceptic want to recognise irony. But that is highly questionable. By implying irony, you can show everything and nothing. In particular, if you are peddling the prejudice that Atlantis can only be an invention, you are tempted to interpret everything that does not fit into the scheme as irony. That is dangerous!
David Miano says that Plutarch only considers Solon's stay in Egypt to be true, but makes no statement as to whether the Atlantis story is true (1:01:22). This is wrong. Plutarch explicitly states that he considers the Atlantis story to be a mixture of reality and fiction. Plutarch thus essentially believes in a tradition from Egypt and also in a real Atlantis, which was, however, more or less embellished by Plato.
David Miano claims that Diodorus Siculus "is clearly drawing from Plato" (52:25). But this is wrong. Firstly, Diodorus does not draw his "knowledge" of "Atlantioi" (as Diodorus calls them) from Plato, but from Dionysius Scytobrachion. Secondly, this "knowledge" consists entirely of elements of classical myths, such as the Titan Atlas, the Hesperides, the Amazons, etc., while not a single typical element of the Atlantis story appears. Diodorus' "Atlantioi" are most likely based on Herodotus' "Atlantes", as they settle in the same region in north-west Africa. Diodorus is clearly not referring to Plato's Atlantis.
David Miano has also misrepresented the opinion of Proclus. David Miano says that Proclus believed "that the story is neither pure myth nor literal history" (43:24). In truth, it was quite different: Proclus believed that the story is both symbolic-allegorical and historical: both at the same time! Or "true in every respect", as Plato said of the tradition from Egypt. Incidentally, this is the prevailing opinion in science about Proclus' opinion.
David Miano claims that there is a part of Plato's dialogue "The Republic" that shows the ideal state in action. This part of the Republic was only added to the Republic after the writing of the Timaeus-Critias. (7:49, 8:00). I have never heard of this. And I have read a lot. I do not believe it. In the Republic everything is only described theoretically.
A passage from the Repubic is given incorrectly and poorly translated (10:07):
Socrates: In the "constructions of stories" which we were talking about just now, since we do not know the truth about the ancient events, we liken the story to the truth as much as possible, in this way making it useful. (Rep. 381c1-d3)
It is of course 382cd, not 381cd. The translation with "constructions of stories" is completely wrong. The original reads "mythologiais", i.e. "mythical speeches". – However, the interpretation that David Miano gives of this passage is basically correct. One could also point out that the attempt to come as close as possible to the truth is exactly what science does. It is therefore in no way a matter of arbitrary invention out of thin air. Anyone who would read the passage in this way would not have understood Plato.
At one point, David Miano claims that the Greeks only knew the Atlantis story through myths (12:49). This is wrong. According to Plato, the Atlantis story was completely lost to the Greeks and all knowledge about it can only come from Egypt. – It is correct when David Miano says elsewhere that Plato hardly knew anything about the Minoan eruption on Thera (50:46). But that is the wrong question. After all, the Atlantis story supposedly came from Egypt. And Plato could have learnt something about it this way after all. Theoretically.
At one point David Miano misquotes Plato's Critias (there are quotation marks in the transcript and in the video David Miano indicates quotation marks with his fingers): The island, which was located at "a distant point in the Atlantic Ocean" (20:34). There is no such statement in Plato's Atlantis dialogues. The word "Okeanos" does not appear either. Plato speaks of "thalassa", i.e. the sea in general. And the island of Atlantis must of course – in Plato's eyes – have been located directly in front of the Strait of Gibraltar, because otherwise the mud that the sinking of the island produced could not have hindered the exit into the Atlantic Sea.
David Miano says that the kings of Atlantis met "every five or six years" (21:41). Really? "In every fifth and sixth year" means: every four or five years. This is also a very common mistake.
David Miano speaks of "walls made of precious metals" (22:20). This is not quite true, the walls were covered with metals.
On the question of the size of the island, David Miano says that it was clearly a continent, as the island was larger than Asia and Libya combined, which are themselves continents (24:48). That is true. However, this superficial view prevents valuable historical-critical questions from being asked:
Contrary to David Miano's opinion, it is by no means a contradiction to Critias' good memory in the Timaeus dialogue when Critias appeals to the goddess of memory for support in the Critias dialogue (26:08). The Timaeus dialogue also states that Critias first had to recall the story.
The Egyptian priests encountered by Herodotus are – partly – indeed not very credible (32:30). However, Solon apparently had a completely different access, as he was received as a state guest. (And Herodotus recognised the priestly tales as fairy tales).
Yes, the fictitious date of the dialogue may have been 421 BC (3:22).
Yes, the dialogue participant Critias was most likely not the tyrant Critias, but Critias the grandfather (4:01).
Yes, the Atlantis dialogues cannot be regarded as "stenographic records of real conversations" (5:30).
Yes, it is unclear how long after primeval Athens' victory over Atlantis the island of Atlantis sank (16:46).
Yes, the information on the troops of Atlantis could have been exaggerated by Plato (22:47). However, there are indeed such troop lists in Egyptian war reports. Herodotus' description of the troops of the Persian Empire is in no way inferior. So it is at least realistic.
Yes, the mention of gods does not make the Atlantis story an unreal story (30:25). However, it is also not entirely true that Plato did not believe in the traditional gods. Rather, Plato incorporated the traditional gods into his cosmology in Timaeus.
Yes, the flood of Atlantis was not a global flood. (34:13) An important insight against pseudoscientific misinterpretations!
Yes, what Herodotus writes about "Atlantes" has nothing to do with Plato's Atlantis (36:15). However, the same applies to the "Atlantioi" of Diodorus Siculus.
We have to thank David Miano:
Franke (2012): Thorwald C. Franke, Aristotle and Atlantis – What did the philosopher really think about Plato's island empire?, published by Books on Demand, Norderstedt 2016. German first edition was 2010.
Franke (2006/2016): Thorwald C. Franke, Mit Herodot auf den Spuren von Atlantis – Könnte Atlantis doch ein realer Ort gewesen sein?, 2nd improved edition, published by Books on Demand, Norderstedt 2016. First edition was 2006. (Currently available only in German)
Franke (2016/2021): Thorwald C. Franke, Kritische Geschichte der Meinungen und Hypothesen zu Platons Atlantis – von der Antike über das Mittelalter bis zur Moderne, 2. edition, 2 volumes, published by Books on Demand, Norderstedt 2021. First edition was 2016. (Currently available only in German)
Franke (2021): Thorwald C. Franke, Platonische Mythen – Was sie sind und was sie nicht sind – Von A wie Atlantis bis Z wie Zamolxis, published by Books on Demand, Norderstedt 2021. (Currently available only in German)