Average Reviews:
(More customer reviews)This is a tough review to write....
The problem with Atlantis is, it attracts fringe theorists. There can be a perfectly good piece of evidence on the table, but what's going to come up in discussion is magical floating rocks, psychic powers, and ancient astronaut theory. Any archaeological facts most worthy of realistic discussion are lost in the chaos.
This book is a perfect example of what's interesting and what's wrong in Atlantology.
Frank Joseph presents a dazzling buffet of Atlantis and Mu information, and indeed there are a lot of compelling tidbits in here. (Categorically denying the probable existence of a historical location by that name is silly if indeed histories on three or four different continents reference seafarers from Atzlan, Patulan, Etelenty, etc.)
But Joseph commits the unforgivable sin of stating his deductions as conclusive fact right alongside archaeological evidence, with nary a transitional phrase to separate them. (An early affront: "The Etruscans were themselves nothing more than late Atlanteans who colonized western Italy, so their surviving material culture offers us a glimpse of Atlantis at its cultural height.") While some of these conclusions might well be worthy, it is unacceptable to state them without leading the reader through the process.
Even more irritating is the utter lack of citation. I expected a book alleging to be a serious treatise of Atlantis to be covered in footnotes, identifying where archaeological fact could be referenced, history confirmed, etc. But there are no footnotes, no citations, only two pages of bibliography without a way to select the desired source. The text is peppered with the infuriating use of, "clearly," "obviously," and worst, "self-evident." As a result, this book is utterly useless for citation itself.
Even without footnotes, my grasp of world history is better than the average American's, which is how I was able to nod approvingly and then protest vigorously as I read. Joseph makes convincing arguments for some of his theories, but others are obviously flawed when considered in the light of known history (he cites several Old Testament events as concurrent or even identical with Atlantean history, without taking into account the appropriate historical dates of those events).
But then, dates are a weak point throughout the text. Joseph presents a case that the early date Plato attributed to Atlantis' demise, a sticking point for many researchers, can be explained by Plato's quoting a history which used lunar years (Egypt's account of the disaster) in his society which used solar years (Greece). This is a wonderful start, but Joseph fails to then lead us through the math to arrive at his corrected date of 1198 BC for the literal fall of Atlantis. On some points he fixes precise dates; on others he is unclear or even contradicts himself.
BAD BITS
A typical leap of logic: Sodom and Gomorrah are situated, according to Biblical and classical sources, on the Plain of Jordan and were destroyed some time prior to 1500 BC. (Dates are very inexact.)
My info: The two Hebrew terms describing the Plain of Jordan are "kikkar" (round, usually for coin or bread loaf; circular district) and "kullahh mashgeh" (completely irrigated, well-watered).
Joseph: "... the original name of Sodom was Si-da-Mu, while Gomorrah -- I-ma-ar -- is based on the root 'gh m r', which means to 'be deep, or 'copious (water).' These indications suggest that the lost cities of Sodom and Gomorrah ... may be biblical allegories, respectively, for the vanished Pacific and Atlantic civilizations of Mu and Atlantis."
Joseph not only conveniently ignores the many classical sources that specifically locate the cities in question, but also that the "copious water" nomenclature might be attributed to the thorough irrigation mentioned in both the place names and the Biblical account -- the entire reason Lot chose to live there was its verdant plain!
(Whether "I-ma-ar" refers to Gomorrah or Emar is still debated. It's apparent that Joseph didn't look too far into the linguistic background of Sodom and Gomorrah, though, or he would have seized upon the "round" attribute to support his Atlantis theory, as he relates nearly every classical or neolithic circular monument to Atlantis' obsession with concentric rings.)
To be fair, this example is taken from a final chapter overviewing other "lost civilizations" and probably doesn't represent the best of Joseph's efforts, but it does illustrate the critical reading required here.
GOOD BITS
There are some really thought-provoking pieces of archaeological information in the text. Without citations, however, I am reluctant to repeat them, and I haven't the time to independently look up each of them. The first unattributed fact I entered into Google -- the alleged 1960 discovery of hundreds of ancient elephant bones a few hundred kilometers off Portugal, right where Plato reported Atlantis and its elephantine fauna -- produced many other references to this discovery (some substituting mammoth or mastodon) but no original report.
This kind of scholarship isn't scholarship, and it just makes interested folk look bad. I blame not only Joseph but the whole online community. As a person who works in a relatively recent and constantly-updating scientific field, I say: C'mon, guys, show a little respect for your topic and your readers!
EDITING
I was still in the first chapter when I commented to my husband, "I wish this guy were a better writer." I referred primarily to the lack of citation and additionally to some basic editing errors.
Here's one of the worst offenders, from a chapter on Atlantean/Mu influence on South American culture:
"The capital, Chan-Chan, lies just north of Trujillo, and was founded, according to Chimu historians, by Taycana-mu. [skip one sentence] Tayacana-mu founded the city of Chan-Chan. The so-called 'Palace of the Governor' at Chan-Chan -- the city founded by Tayacana-mu -- features a wall...." (p. 145)
Why, yes, we GET that Chan-Chan was founded by Tayacana-mu. Or Taycana-mu; the spelling variation above is original.
CONCLUSION
This is a great read for tantalizing views of Atlantis and Mu, and it's very titillating. It cannot be taken seriously until proper citations are added; I refuse to do the author's research for him.
Click Here to see more reviews about: Atlantis and Other Lost Worlds: New Evidence of Ancient Secrets
Get 15% OFF
0 comments:
Post a Comment