Atlantis-Scout          Contents Overview         

Valueless Argumentations devaluate partially valuable Basic Theses

Review of Sergio Frau: Le Colonne d'Ercole

Thorwald C. Franke © 2009
Translated March 2014

Note to the English translation: This review is based on Sergio Frau's original Italian book but discusses its German translation, too.
Therefore this review is fully valid for English readers, too, although comments on the German translation are of minor interest for English readers.

With his 2002 published work „Le Colonne d'Ercole“ (German: „Atlantika“, 2008) the known Italian journalist Sergio Frau established a hypothesis about Atlantis which received international attention. According to this hypothesis Plato's Atlantis is identical with the island Sardinia. Fairness compels us to discuss first this hypothesis' contents. After this, we are allowed to focus critically on other aspects.

In the following we cite Sergio Frau's book with "It" for the original Italian edition, and with "Ge" for the German edition. If a passage in the original edition does not exist in the German translation, then we write "Ge ---".


Did Eratosthenes move the "Pillars of Hercules"?

In the center of Sergio Frau's Atlantis hypothesis there is the idea that the "Pillars of Hercules" once were placed at Sicily and only later were localized at Gibraltar. This basic idea which has long been known has to be fully supported. Yet, Sergio Frau claims that this re-localization had been undertaken only late by the Alexandrian geographer Eratosthenes (died 194 BC).

But this conflicts with irrevocable objections: At this time the western Mediterranean was known for long. The Greeks colonized it as early as 800 BC. In Herodotus' (450 BC) and many others' works we find many geographical details about it. It is reasonable to assume that the phrase "Pillars of Hercules" which marks the end of the world did not move to the "end" of the world many centuries after the geographical horizon widened, but it is reasonable to assume that this re-localization happened near in time to this widening of the horizon.

Moreover it is hard to assume that a single scholar could re-localize just by a scratch of his pen such a remarkable and known name like the "Pillars of Hercules". This only could happen in case of a much later reception, if for example after centuries only the works of this one scholar survived. But this is definitively not the case, here.

The problem becomes more palpable if we consider the circumnavigation of Africa commissioned by the Egyptians, reported by Herodotus (Herodotus IV 42). According to Herodotus, it happend clockwise so that the seafarers re-entered into the Mediterranean passing the "Pillars of Hercules". By this, only the "Straits of Gibraltar" could be meant since there is no talk of a second straits through which the seafarers passed. So, the Straits of Gibraltar were well-known, then, and already at this time the Straits of Gibraltar were called with the name "Pillars of Hercules".

"Pillars of Hercules" = "Iron curtain" of the Carthaginians?

In order to date his localization of the "Pillars of Hercules" Frau puts forward another argument: That the Carthaginians had installed at Sicily a kind of "iron curtain". He completely misses that this "iron curtain" cut off the western Mediterranean only late, when geographical knowledge about it already existed for a long time. The Carthaginians surely prevented to gain knowledge about the assumed mud in the Atlantic, about the British Tin islands and about northern Europe, but concerning the western Mediterranean there was no geographical knowledge left which had to be hidden.

Elsewhere Sergio Frau writes that the battle of Alalia in 540 BC was the time since when the western Mediterranean was closed for the Greeks (It 257 / Ge 232). This is a point in time long after the start of the Greek colonization and even after Solon who allegedly handed down the Atlantis account. Frau expresses the opinion that only the removal of this "iron curtain" at the end of the Second Punic War (201 BC) finally led to the re-localization of the "Pillars of Hercules" (It 268 / Ge ---).

The age of the concept "Pillars of Hercules"?

Sergio Frau did not miss to notice that Homer does not use the phrase "Pillars of Hercules" (It 60 / Ge 57). Yet, he does not use this as a starting point to ask the question, whether it makes sense, then, to search for this phrase in connection with the tradition of the Atlantis account, since this phrase possibly is not as old as Atlantis? Sergio Frau also misses the problem that the phrase "Pillars of Hercules" surely was not part of the original Egyptian Atlantis account, so it was inserted into the Atlantis tradition earliest at Solon's time.

Straits which are no straits?

In particular Sergio Frau identifies the "Straits of Sicily" (160 km broad) between Africa and Sicily with the "Pillars of Hercules". These straits may not be confused with the "Straits of Messina" (3 km broad) between Sicily and the Italian mainland. In contrast to the "Straits of Sicily" which have – as already said – a breadth of stately 160 km at its most narrow passage between Africa and Sicily, the "Straits of Messina" and the straits of Gibraltar with a breadth of 14 km indeed form sea straits which are visible and can be experienced as such by seafarers.

Sergio Frau discusses that the "Straits of Sicily" were much narrower several thousand years ago, and were indeed a sea straits before the Mediterranean rose by several hundred meters (It 23 ff. / Ge 24 ff.). It shall not be discussed in more depth that Sergio Frau relies on rather doubtful theories, here. The immense time gap of several thousand years until the Sea Peoples wars around 1200 BC which such a tradition would have to bridge is ignored by Frau.

Even worse: Frau places the rise of the sea level near in time to the historical known antiquity which is totally wrong. This is alluded by the statement that pillars in the Ionian civilization had a meaning of separation – yet thousands of years ago there were no Ionians (It 70 / Ge 68). According to Frau Diodorus reports of a tradition according to which the "Straits of Sicily" were narrower and shallower (It 76 / Ge 75). Please note that the German translation is wrong and even imputes a statement to Sergio Frau that this would have been the case in Diodorus' times. In an other passage Frau talks of a rise of the sea level by 15 meters since 1000 BC (It 56 / Ge 53). On the one hand side, this is absurdly much, on the other hand side it is absurdly few, if we consider by what size the sea level has to change in order to make the "Straits of Sicily" a real sea straits.

Straits of Sicily or Straits of Messina?

Sergio Frau totally avoids the question why he identifies the all too broad "Straits of Sicily" (160 km) with the "Pillars of Hercules", and not the narrow "Straits of Messina" (only 3 km). At the same time, he did not miss to notice that ancient authors often write about the Straits of Messina (e.g. It 273 f. / Ge ---).

As an evidence for his theses Sergio Frau also talks about supporters of the opinion that the "Pillars of Hercules" once had been at the "Straits of Messina" (It 213 f. / Dt. ---). Even Scylla the beast known of Homer's Odyssee which traditionally was clearly located at the "Straits of Messina" serves Frau as an evidence for the "Straits of Sicily" (It 261 / Ge 236). Again, the ancient myth of the pillar of Briareus which Frau localizes at the "Straits of Messina" (It 260 f. / Ge 235 f.) points to the "Straits of Messina". Frau himself says that the myth of the pillar of Briareus is very old and does not belong to the classical time but to the time of Homer – thus, Frau contradicts himself in the question when the "Pillars of Hercules" were re-localized. Also when pointing to the Aeolian islands and Ischia (It 279 / Ge ---) Sergio Frau does not realize that these point rather to the "Straits of Messina" than to the "Straits of Sicily".

Despite this, Frau considers the Atlantis account to be a very clear report even there where there is talk of a "narrow entrance" (It 258 / Ge 234) – yet this cannot be found at the "Straits of Sicily" in historically known times, but only at the "Straits of Messina".

Geographical reconstructions

As a central starting point of his argumentation, Sergio Frau chooses a statement by Dicaearchus. According to Dicaearchus the distance from Cape Maleas to the end of the Adriatic Sea (without giving any number for this distance) is longer than the distance to the "Pillars of Hercules", given as 10000 stadia. Polybius later corrects this to 22500 stadia (e.g. It 85 / Ge 83 or It 270 / Ge ---). Since Dicaearchus gives the distance from Sicily to the "Pillars of Hercules" with 3000 stadia, there is a vast remainder of 7000 stadia which in truth must of course be smaller (It 272 f. / Ge ---).

Sergio Frau insists on the authority of Dicaearchus (It 273 / Ge ---) and tries by wild calculations to decipher any sense in the numbers handed down to us from antiquity. He does not reach any palpable result: "Niente di definitivo, certo ..." (It 282 ff. / Ge ---). It is legitimate to search for a sense behind such nonsense numbers, yet if you cannot find any reasonable sense, then it is an open question, or it is a mistake and an error, which is well-known from ancient geography. But you cannot take this as evidence for a re-localization of the Pillars of Hercules.

Time and again Sergio Frau points to the fact that ancient texts report that beyond the "Pillars of Hercules" you still have to sail for a certain distance to the West, before you have to turn southwards around the African continent. By this, Frau concludes that the "Pillars of Hercules" cannot be the Straits of Gibraltar, but e.g. the "Straits of Sicily". Because from there you have to sail a very long distance to the West before turning round the African continent to the South (z.B. It 163 ff. / Ge 156 f., It 219 ff. / Ge 201 ff.).

Yet Frau ignores totally that Africa beyond the Straits of Gibraltar, or more precise: beyond of Ceuta and the rock of Gibraltar, indeed extends for more than another 60 km to the West before the turning point towards the South is reached. Additionally, none of the ancient authors told that beyond the "Pillars of Hercules" there was another sea straits before you have to turn to the South: This we could expect if Frau would be right. It is similar with Frau's interpretation of Herodotus who provides a list of Libyan peoples living to the west of the "Pillars of Hercules" (It 158 / Ge 150). Frau consequently acts and talks as if Africa had to turn sharply towards the South directly to the west of Gibraltar, which of course is not the case.

A similar argument is put forward by Sergio Frau for the region to the east of the "Pillars of Hercules". Aristotle allegedly said that after the passage of the sea straits from west to east "to the right" you first reach the Syrtes. Sergio Frau now tries to make a problem of the Greek word for "first" - "proton": That it would mean "in front of", "as first" or "immediately". Since you do not "immediately" reach the Syrtes after the passage of the straits of Gibraltar but only after a longer distance, the phrase "Pillars of Hercules" could point only to the "Straits of Sicily" (It 288 f. / Ge ---).

Yet this argument is wrong, since you cannot translate the word "proton" in this way. It is the same mistake in translation which was included into the translation of the Atlantis story by Jürgen Spanuth. Spanuth is cited by Frau in a different context. – Promptly, Sergio Frau himself provides two passages from Aristotle which disprove him (It 289 / Ge ---): "To the left" after the passage of the "Pillars of Hercules" from west to east there were the seas of Sicily and Sardinia, and Libya extended to the "Pillars of Hercules" – very clear statements which Frau immediately wants to relativize as "later additions" (It 290 / Ge ---). Generally, Sergio Frau tries to devaluate Aristotle as a source, because he had changing geographical opinions – at least according to Sergio Frau (It 291 / Ge ---).

Sergio Frau's attempt to take the work "Ora Maritima" by Avienus from the 4th century AD – with a relation to Ptolemy (ca. 175 AD) – as evidence for his theses has to be considered as a failure. Both lived at times when the "Pillars of Hercules" already were situated at the Straits of Gibraltar for a long time.


Sergio Frau rightfully recognizes that in ancient myths about foreign countries often old orientation systems are hidden (It 238 f. / Ge 217 f.). But who searches for historical truth in myths will easily find himself skating on thin ice if he has no good reasons. Thus, Sergio Frau identifies king Atlas of Atlantis without further ado with the titan Atlas known from Greek mythology (It 40 / Ge 38). It seems that he does not know the weighty objections against this identification.

Frau is more lucky with his discussion of the myth of Briareus (It 260 ff. / Ge 235 ff.). Here, it seems indeed possible to find a geographical localization, namely mount Etna on Sicily. Yet in many questions Sergio Frau just has gone helplessly astray, be it the Hesperides, Heracles, the Argonauts, the Amazones, the Cherubim, or whatever. It is not worth to review all the hypotheses based on these myths, since they are completely up in the air.

Linguistic comparisons

Also with linguistic comparisons you quickly find yourself skating on thin ice. Sergio Frau relies e.g. on the etymologist Semerano who believes that he can derive many ancient names from the Akkadian-Sumerian language. (It 108 / Ge 103 ff.). According to Sergio Frau, suddenly everything fit into his picture: Italy derived from Atalu, Elba from Aithalia, the Aegean from Okeanos, Hera-cles allegedly means ditch-dam, Iberia "Beyond the water", etc. – These comparisons are so much up in the air and contradict much more obvious and known etymologies that no further comment is needed.

Anagrams seem to work with more credibility (It 228 ff. / Ge 207 ff.): Melqart and Heracles allegedly correspond to the same word if twisting the order of characters. The goddess Anat could point to Athena. Astarte to Tartessus. Yet also for such comparisons there are narrow limits which were not observed by Sergio Frau.

Atlantis itself

For the interpretation of the Atlantis account and Atlantis itself Sergio Frau unfortunately has not to offer much news. The age-old stereotypes are disappointing. Like many others Sergio Frau opines without further explanations that the 9000 years of Atlantis have to be interpreted as months. And so many others have already been poking in myths, like he does. This list could be extended at will.

Sergio Frau even cannot offer a city of Atlantis, since it allegedly sank somewhere to the south of Sardinia. There is almost no interpretation of the details of the Atlantis account in a cultural context. Like many Atlantis searchers Sergio Frau rather concentrates on geographical, geological and mythological aspects. Sergio Frau avoids the question why not the whole island sank into the sea as do many other Atlantis researchers.

Sergio Frau's style

Sergio Frau's style is totally journalistic and essayistic. Sergio Frau stirs a theme up, adds commotion, asks provoking questions, goes into rapture, plays with wild ideas and makes endless words about something which could be said in a single sentence. Thus, often the overview gets lost, even for Sergio Frau himself as it seems. The endless repetitions and the many unnecessary, partly even aggressive words and phrases heavily increase the difficulty to read this.

Sometimes Frau talks in subjunctive, sometimes he makes the words of others to speak for him, then again he inserts sequences of a fictional dialogue or presents his theses in form of leading questions. Thus, it is difficult to nail down Sergio Frau to a certain statement. It enables Sergio Frau in case of criticism to retreat to the flimsy excuse that he never stated anything but only asked questions, cited others or played with ideas – just to present the same erroneous statements on the next event, until the next criticism occurs.

Sergio Frau shuffles together another and yet another source or citation, and lines them up endlessly, if necessary, as long as it supports his theses. He is less interested to systemize the material than obviously to "swamp" the reader in a mass of material. The word "proof" is used inflationary.

A culmination of Sergio Frau's style is the beginning of chapter XXII. This chapter is important for Sergio Frau's theses since he unfolds his detailed argument concerning Dicaearchus and Polybius, here. Yet, Sergio Frau starts the chapter with: "A hint: Who trusts me or who feels bored can skip this section." And promptly did the German translators take this as an invitation not to translate this important chapter into German ...!

The German translation

When reviewing the German translation you do not know whether to praise or to blame it. On the one hand side the translators did a great job to attenuate and to objectify Sergio Frau's enthusiastic style. The numerous emotional outbursts and effusions at begin and end of each chapter often were simply omitted completely. Many chapters were not translated at all and some chapters have been merged to summary chapters in order to reduce the torrent of Frau's words. Some passages read quite comfortably in German, while they are a staccato furioso in Italian. Yes, much work was invested, this has to be recognized.

On the other hand side, the translators thus created a work which only with limits goes back to Sergio Frau. On several issues they – surely unintentionally – impute statements to Sergio Frau which are not exactly contained in the original. Cf. e.g. the statement about Diodorus, see above (It 76 / Ge 75). Furthermore, they took over the division in chapters insufficiently, which makes it very difficult to find orientation between original and translation. The problem of omitting chapter XXII despite its importance has already been mentioned, it is by the way not the only missing chapter. Another mistake in translation is the confusion of "East" and "South" at two places (It 220 f./ Ge 202). Here, the translators again let themselves deceive by Sergio Frau's furious argumentation – have the translators to be blamed for this, or Sergio Frau?

The handling of sources and proofs

Sergio Frau's handling of sources and proofs is a chapter in itself. Sergio Frau often provides skew interpretations of source texts, sometimes omitting important details, he doubts correct translations which contradict him, or makes undocumented or absurd claims about ancient authors, and all this in a staccatao furioso. Some examples in the following.

In one case Sergio Frau supposes that a word of Aristotle which does not fit into his concept may be a later inserted forgery (It 278 f. / Ge ---). Or he is carping at the translation of the Greek "Atlantiko te kai Okeano"; whether the "te kai" may not mean "and" but "or" (It 288 / Ge ---). As if you could conclude, then, that there would be talk of two seas, what of course you even cannot do if accepting the proposal. In one case Sergio Frau simply dismisses a word of Polybius which does not fit into his concept (It 271 / Ge ---). Or he presents a series of contradictions of which he says himself that they would disprove him, yet to relativize them by every trick in the book, afterwards (It 289 ff. / Ge ---).

Pallottino's article "Atlantide" is one of the sources cited erroneously by Sergio Frau. For example, Frau says that Pallottino talks of an island in the west (It 404 / Ge 256). Yet Frau omits that Pallottino talks of Sicily, not of Sardinia. In an other passage Frau suggests by the neighbourhood of statements in the text, that Pallottino allegedly had seen the initial cause for the movement of the Sea Peoples in a natural disaster (It 394 / Ge 270). Yet this suggestive effect is stronger in the German edition than in the Italian edition. In the Italian edition the quote from Pallottino follows the discussion of a natural disaster, too, yet only at the begin of a new chapter. In the German edition both statements follow each other in the same chapter. But since even the translators have fallen for this suggestion, we are allowed to assume, that also the normal reader of the original edition falls to this suggestion.

Let us note that Pallottino interpreted the natural disaster totally differently than Frau. For Pallottino, the sinking o the island is fiction which came into being when no one knew any more of which island the tradition was talking of. Pallottino did not believe that Atlantis existed as a real place, yet for him it existed only as a conglomerate of several historical traditions which went back to very different places. Thus, none of these places deserves to be called Atlantis.

Sergio Frau imputes to Eratosthenes that he had a compulsive sense of order, that he rejected myths by principle, or that he put the laws of geometry over the statements of traditions (It 297 ff. / Ge ---). At least the last cannot seriously be a reproach because who wants to call into question the laws of mathematics? And when Frau accuses Eratosthenes to have corrected his predecessors, then we have to wonder, because Sergio Frau himself presented such corrections affirmatively only a few pages before – yet corrections by Strabo (It 295 / Ge ---). Again it is contradictory, when Sergio Frau accuses Eratosthenes that details were not important to him, that he was interested only in the big picture, that this allegedly was the reason why he moved the "Pillars of Hercules" lightheartedly (It 302 / Ge ---). Yet the "Pillars of Hercules" are not just any insignificant detail but one of the cornerstones of the big picture – in which Eratosthenes was interested according to Frau's own words.

Sergio Frau demonstrates that he is definitely aware how ancient geography came into being: From traders' sailing logbooks who muddled their way through from place to place without any modern understanding of maps (e.g. It 118 / Ge 110 f.). Yet unfortunately he does not show any understanding that these circumstances initially led to big mistakes, distortions and contradictions in the geographies of the time, which were only improved, pieced together and corrected step by step in the course of centuries. He lacks also the appropriate awareness for the forgery of ancient maps, e.g. by Carthage, although he is definitely aware of the fact itself (It 135 f. / Ge 129). If Sergio Frau had considered this all, would he then put so much weight on Dicaearchus' description?

On practically all issues Sergio Frau is not the first who had the ideas which establish his book. Unfortunately, he sometimes misses to provide the names of his predecessors.

No academic value

Yet, does Sergio Frau's work have any value for the academic discussion? Didn't Sergio Frau do much work and did he not gather an enormous number of sources and hints? And haven't at least the questions he asks any value, or the public attention which he has risen for these questions?

It is irrelevant how much work Sergio Frau invested into his book – it was in any case not enough. Sergio Frau made his thoughts from the point of view of a wanted result. An open search for a correct interpretation of Plato's Atlantis dialogues did not happen, here.

Furthermore, Sergio Frau lacks deeper insight in interdependencies and context of ancient times and civilizations about which he talks. Because of insufficient concepts he time and again makes mistakes since he is not capable to assess and distinguish what is plausible and what not. In one passage he e.g. talks of three wells which are situated at three totally different ends of the Mediterranean region and were built between the 14th and the 4th century BC – and all three wells are interpreted as evidence of a protosardic civilization (It 548 / Ge 411).

Sergio Frau's central problem is that he cannot assess his own limits. He starts with the correct insight that academia has left many themes carelessly and asks a series of legitimate questions. So far he proceeds with good cause and is right in some issues. But then Sergio Frau exceeds his limits. While believing to know the answers to his questions, Frau builds further theses and questions on them. Thus, Sergio Frau gets entangled ever more deeper in his multi-story building of mistakes. Sergio Frau produces an inextricable network of errors, misunderstandings and misinformation which no human being can disentangle again in a lifetime. This is a symptom of pseudoscience.

Sergio Frau simply exaggerated his arguments excessively and has gone too far. It does not help to repeat his defensive statement that he only asks questions and does not insist to be right. Sergio Frau does essentially more than only asking questions, and as somebody who does not insist to be right he seems to be very convinced of his own arguments. Sergio Frau mentally stays still on the side of journalism: Journalists report lightheartedly and strikingly – and at the same time he tries to stay on the side of those who produce about which is reported! The attempt to unite these two worlds failed.

Therefore, it is unfortunately not true that at least the public attention stirred up by Sergio Frau has a value. Because with his argumentations Sergio Frau precipitates the audience in confusion instead of supporting the clarification of historical questions. The phenomenon definitely exists that erroneous Atlantis hypotheses have a value by leading on the right track or providing correct insight in many partial questions. Eberhard Zangger's Troy hypothesis was of this type. True science keeps its value even beyond its falsification. Yet this is not the case with Sergio Frau. The accusations which illegitimately were directed to Zangger, are unfortunately legitimate in case of Frau.

It's crazy: Sergio Frau could nevertheless be partially right!

It is totally crazy but Sergio Frau could nevertheless be right with some of his theses, although he fully failed in his argumentations from an academic point of view. The reason is that Sergio Frau got it right in some questions by chance or by intuition, without himself knowing the academically correct argumentation. Some of Frau's Theses could definitely make sense if supported by other arguments and reasons and under a different perspective than Frau's.

The "Pillars of Hercules" (better: the known western end of the world; addendum March 2014) could indeed once have been situated at Sicily! But several hundreds of years before the times of Eratosthenes and of Solon and so of course long before the Carthaginian blockade. And not at the overbroad "Straits of Sicily" which does not deserve the name of a "straits", but at the narrower "Straits of Messina".

Tartessus which has not been found until today could indeed have been in Sardinia instead of Spain! If Herodotus – and this is the correction of Frau's argumentation – relied on a source which goes back to a time before the widening of the geographical horizon, and which was interpreted by Herodotus erroneously within the new geographical reference system, then Tartessus could indeed have been situated on Sardinia.

The Sardinians could indeed have taken part in the Sea Peoples war. This is widely discussed in professional science. Thus, the Sardinians could indeed have belonged to the "Atlanteans".

Even a localization of the city of Atlantis on or at Sardinia should not be excluded a priori, here – although there are reasons why this is rather unlikely.

Unfortunately, this increases the academic worthlessness of Sergio Frau's book even more, since by supporting valuable theses with valueless arguments Sergio Frau devaluates these theses. They become discredited as pseudoscience.

Disappointing reactions

The reactions to Sergio Frau's book are disappointing. Everywhere Sergio Frau's hypothesis is welcomed benevolently by scientific journalists. Even several academicians have made too friendly comments about Frau's book and avoided the necessary clarity in criticism. Symposia, conferences and exhibitions took and take place: E.g. the UNESCO made a symposion and an exhibition about Frau's theses in 2005 in Paris. In 2006 a symposion and an exhibition about Frau's theses took place at the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei in Rome.

Critical academicians on the contrary were not able to formulate a factual criticism which went into detail, as this review has tried it. An appeal by Sardinian archaeologists published in 2004 rejects Frau's theses in a striking and sweeping manner, instead of taking the trouble to distinguish right and wrong, and to give comprehensible reasons why Frau failed in particular details. This appeal trailed away mostly unheard. Sergio Frau's reactions to this appeal were not very constructive, too.


We have seen several partially very interesting theses. We have seen how these interesting theses were all based on totally unacceptable argumentations and thus became damaged. We have seen scientific journalists and academicians who are swimming with the current of sympathy. We have seen critical academicians who were not able to formulate very legitimate criticism in a factual and differentiated manner. We have seen nothing new.

Cited works

Frau (2002/2008): Sergio Frau, Le Colonne d'Ercole – Un'Inchiesta, published by Nur Neon Srl, Rome 2002. German edition: Atlantika – Eine detektivische Untersuchung des antiken Mittelmeerraumes, published by Parthas, Berlin 2008.

Pallottino (1952): Massimo Pallottino, Atlantide, in: Archeologia Classica No. 4/1952, pp. 229-240.

Zangger (1992): Eberhard Zangger, The Flood from Heaven – Deciphering the Atlantis Legend, Sidgwick & Jackson, London 1992.

Web sites (State of Sep 2nd, 2009)

Homepage of Sergio Frau's Atlantis hypothesis:

Homepage of Sergio Frau's Atlantis hypothesis:
Criticism of Frau's hypothesis and his answers.

Homepage of the Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria IIPP:
Appello agli studiosi di scienze dell’antichità del mondo mediterraneo, 2004
and exchange of letters with Sergio Frau.

Circolo culturale sardo "Logudoro" under the patronage of
the Federazione delle Associazioni Sarde in Italia FASI and the Region of Sardinia:
Book presentation and debate at the University of Pavia to an academic audience.
Pavia, October 2003.

Università degli Studi „Suor Orsola Benincasa“, Naples:
Roundtable talk with five classicists about Frau's theses.
Naples, 2003.

Exhibition and symposium: Atlantikà: Sardinia, Island of Myth.
Paris, April 2005.

Academia Nazionale dei Lincei:
Mostra – Convegno sul tema: Cosa c'era dietro le prime Colonne d'Ercole?
Rome, October 2006.

Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali:
Atlantikà – Ciclo di conferenze e incontri.
Turin, 2006/2007.
and        Contents Overview
COPYRIGHT © Mar 2014 Thorwald C. Franke
Legal Notice!