Atlantis the Greeks and Egyptian Pyramids

I would like to add another theory to the growing list of others about the lost city of Atlantis. The story comes to us from Plato, who was a Greek philosopher and mathematician living in Athens at the time of his writings. The story about Atlantis appears in two of his later works, written around 360 B.C. Plato claims he heard the account from a relative, who heard it from an Athenian named Solon, who heard the story from priests on a visit to Egypt around 550 B.C. The Egyptian priests got the story from their ancient hieroglyphics carved in stone, and claimed the catastrophe took place about 10,000 years earlier.

This is not a solid trail of information, which lends credence to skeptic's opinions that the story is pure fiction. Unfortunately Plato was a philosopher, who did not write about fanciful stories. Why would a philosopher write about rumors when he was documenting historical events? Plato believed that Atlantis really existed when he wrote of it. The trouble with Plato's version of Atlantis, besides being the only one that still exists, is that he used Grecian terminology and language. His writings were written with Grecian readers in mind, adapting the story with words, references and even landmarks that Greeks could relate to.

Plato wrote that Atlantis was outside the Pillars of Hercules. Most scholars believe Plato is referring to the Straits of Gibraltar. Some think that the Pillars of Hercules is in the Aegean Sea near Crete. There are other sometimes more outlandish theories of course, but these two general locations is where most believe Atlantis lies, based on Plato's writings. Did Plato even mean the Straits of Gibraltar when he wrote about the Pillars of Hercules? Scholars just assume that is what he meant. When you start to think about it, why would the priests of Egypt take so much interest in locations hundreds of miles away? Interested enough to create ancient tablets thousands of years earlier? Crete is relatively closer to Egypt than the Straits. But even so, why would the Egyptians use a word like Atlantis, an obviously Greek name, for they city they spoke of?

The important thing to remember in all of this is that the story originally came from Egypt. So let us put things into perspective. Look at a map of the area. These ancient empires rarely had contact with each other before the time of Solon or Plato. Remember, it would almost be another three hundred years before Julius Caesar meets Cleopatra. Another thing to remember is that the ancient Sumerians were contemporaries of both the Egyptians and Grecians. The three civilizations all began around the same time period according to science. In fact, it is generally thought that the Sumerians are the oldest of the three. Another interesting fact is that Egypt and Sumner were relatively close to each other.

Getting back to Egypt being the originator of the Atlantis story. If the story comes to us from Egypt, then the only logical location of Atlantis would be closer to where the story originated This makes much better sense. It would not be somewhere hundreds of miles away by sea. This idea of Atlantis' location is from the viewpoint of Grecian scholars and historians, basing it all on the writings of a Grecian philosopher. This is somewhat understandable since there are no known Egyptian tablets mentioning the story left in existence. It is just troubling that these scholars do not even consider the Egyptian's possible side of the story. Their theories on Atlantis' location are all based on Plato's version and his perspective.

In an earlier article (A Layman's Theories on Scientific Theories: see link below), I wrote a theory about the pyramids of Egypt that at the time was used as an example. What I proposed was that the Great Pyramids of Giza was actually a buried ancient city, and that all we were looking at were capstones of the highest buildings. Taking this idea one step further brings me to an extension of that theory, which may also lead us to the location of 'Atlantis'. After all, Atlantis was reputed to be a city that sunk into the sea. A city buried in sand would resemble a sunken city to ancient eyes.

Since the account came from Egypt to begin with, we can assume that Atlantis is closer to their empire. Geographically speaking, the Great Pyramids of Giza are fairly close to the Nile. The Nile is a waterway, something described in Plato's descriptions of Atlantis. Now consider this. Historians believe that the area where the pyramids now stand was once a land of vegetation and water. They think some natural calamity changed the climate and left the area a barren desert. But what would happen if a catastrophic event like a flood occurred in the Egyptian region, similar to other ancient legends told elsewhere? Consider if the sea were to suddenly crash inland caused by an extremely large earthquake, or other natural catastrophe in the small Mediterranean Sea. What would happen?

Obviously the land surrounding the sea would be flooded, mainly in the lower parts where people lived. If the legends about extremely large floods are true, the land could be underwater for a long period of time, possibly years before the water finally receded. Besides water, what else would the flooding bring? Washed in with the water would probably be sea life, plants and fish. More importantly a top layer of dirt and sand would also be mixed in with the water. If the flooding caused the region to be underwater for a period of time the sand would settle down to the ground. After the water slowly receded back to the sea, what would be left? Sand is heavier than water, and would naturally stay behind. Considering that the catastrophe in the Atlantis story may have had permanent impact on regional weather patterns, what may have been left was a low and now arid valley, filled in with sand.

What is more, the biblical flood occurred at approximately the same time. So there is another possible account of the Atlantis tragedy, as told by other survivors living elsewhere. Speaking of survivors, what about the Sumerians? Scholars and historians cannot agree why the Sumerian Empire ceased to exist. For the most part, they just simply vanished. Could the Sumerians have been wiped off the face of the planet with a large flood? Were they the civilization spoke of in the bible deserving this punishment? According to Plato Atlantis was an extremely large city, taking up huge areas of land, separated by waterways. Is it possible that ancient Egypt and Sumner were once parts of Atlantis?

This brings us back to the Great Pyramids. As I have proposed before, the pyramids could be merely capstones of much larger buildings. Lying under tons of sand, several hundred feet below could be the ancient city of Atlantis, or whatever Egyptian name it originally possessed. Pompeii was buried for thousands of years under volcanic ash, until it was rediscovered. Why not the area surrounding the pyramids? If the pyramids are indeed just capstones, the buildings must be very large and several stories below. The excavations currently been done in the area are literally scratching the surface.

Sounds far fetched? About as far fetched as Plato's version, using Grecian references to tell an Egyptian story, hundreds of years later. But Plato was not telling stories. He was reporting what he thought was fact, just like the Hebrew scribes who wrote about a great flood. Science can even confirm many of the historical references written in these ancient documents. By connecting these various ancient accounts, and using the timetable that science has established and accepted, the story becomes clear. All the Egyptian and Grecian scholars, the scientists and archeologists, and of course the theologians have to do is get together and compare notes.

There's only one way to prove me wrong about Atlantis being somewhere below the pyramids, dig and find out. Unfortunately that presents us with two very major problems. One is, just how deep can you dig into sand? Is it possible to dig hundreds of feet down? If the pyramids are indeed just capstones, the rest of the buildings could be several stories below. The deepest anyone has ever dug around the area is about ten to twenty feet, and probably never next to a pyramid. This is another thing to point out. Everybody is more interested in what is inside the pyramids, but nobody has ever thought of finding out how far down they actually go.

That brings us to the second major problem. The government of Egypt would never allow such a large-scale dig to take place near their treasured historical monuments. Sadly, this means there is no way to prove my theory wrong. So I will step up the ante and connect the pyramids and city of Atlantis to my theory on ancient astronauts. Underneath tons of barren sand could lay the fabled city of Atlantis. It could also be the city ancient Grecians spoke of in their mythology, where the gods resided. The city may also be the one referred to in the bible. The city of God, that was adjacent to the Garden of Eden. Finally, it may even be the city first founded by an advanced civilization attempting to colonize this planet, until something went completely wrong.

Yes, this may sound ludicrous to highly educated minds. Every scientist, scholar, historian, and archeologist will dismiss this without second thought. What is more, even though this theory further confirms their doctrine, theologians will probably call it all hogwash. Here is my challenge to them all. Prove me wrong. It should be easy to do. Just dig next to one of the Great Pyramids. Find the very bottom of one, and see how far down you have to go. See if you have to keep digging. If you find the bottom, then I am a nut. But just imagine what you may find if you have to keep digging further down. We might all be very surprised.