The question of whether Atlantis truly existed has been a topic of debate for centuries,
and one that continues to be explored. And Graham Hancock is one of those who presents
arguments concerning the existence of Atlantis, and these have captured the attention of many
people, yet they remain largely rejected by academics. And in this video I will use mythological
information, along with a a dab of archaeological and geological information as well, to explore
Hancock's arguments and analyse why academia has largely refused to accept them. And if
this sound interesting then grab yourself a cup of tea, and welcome to Crecganford.
Hancock's arguments for the existence of Atlantis stem from Plato's writings, which dates back
to 360 BCE. According to Plato, Atlantis was a great and powerful civilization, containing
advanced knowledge and capable of world exploration. Despite its prosperity, the civilization was
marred by corruption and hubris, resulting in a cataclysmic flood that submerged the
island. Hancock's primary point is that this is a true story, not just a philosophical
point as current academia suggests. To support this, Hancock ignores any explanation of how
a catastrophic flood could happen due to a society’s corruption. And he does not support
the argument that the Atlantis myth is an attempt to philosophically demonstrate that
Greece was superior to Egypt in previous times, which is a commonly held belief in the academic
community. Rather that Plato’s writings put a date on the cataclysmic submerging of
Atlantis as occurring 9,000 years ago, prior to the time of Solon. And his view is that
Solon, a Greek lawmaker, is reported to have visited Egypt around 580 to 590 BCE, which
Hancock states as "historical record." Solon was said to have visited the Temple of Cisecinser,
located in the Nile Delta, and the priests there informed Solon of a story inscribed
on the walls, which was 9,000 years old at the time, and this story was the Atlantis
myth. Thus, this global cataclysm happened approximately 11,600 BCE, coinciding with
what Hancock point’s out as, Melt Water Pulse 1B, an event that resulted in a substantial
increase in sea levels, supporting the theory of Atlantis being submerged underwater, was
part of this cataclysm. And it is this his argument really centres on, either Plato is
a lucky guesser, or it must be true. And so let’s counter this by showing how Hancock
is not putting all the relevant information in-front of his audience, and this may be
due to ignorance of this information, as Hancock repeatedly calls himself a journalist and
not a scientist. So let me do some journalistic investigation on his behalf. Yes, Plato provides
the earliest surviving reference to Atlantis, suggesting that this was an advanced civilization.
However, this civilization left no material evidence of its existence anywhere else in
the world, despite having the ability to sail around the world. Hancock’s use of words
also suggests that there may have been other references to Atlantis, previous to Plato,
that are now lost, such as on the stone temple wall. This is seemingly unlikely since many
ancient societies have left tangible traces of their presence, but Atlantis hasn’t.
Plato describes a flood and cataclysm that destroy Atlantis; however, the flood myth
is a ubiquitous one, thus if one were to depict a civilization that is no longer in existence,
this is the most likely way to do so within a myth. The mention of Solon's visit to Egypt
can be called into question too, as the veracity of the account is uncertain. Herodotus, who
is Hancock’s reference as to “historical record” writes in 430BCE, that Solon went
on a ten-year journey traveling the world, in which he purportedly visited Egypt, and
this is mentioned in Histories, Chapter 30, verses 29 and 30. Though he does not speak
of Atlantis at all, or much else about Egypt, Herodotus does take the time to mention other
matters of less grandeur about Solon’s visit, which seems strange if he is writing an “historical
record”. Then we see Plato, writing in 360BCE, and he is the first to mention any details
of Solon's visit to Egypt and the hearsay which of Atlantis, and this is over 200 years
after Solon’s visit. And this raises the issue that the only source for the information
on Atlantis is from Plato himself, and so is no more evidence of its existence as is
in the same way that one might cite the Bible as proof of the existence of God. The information
we have suggests that Solon existed, however, there is no proof that he was informed of
the existence of Atlantis during that visit to Egypt, but then, 70 years later, Plato
writes a story claiming that Solon had been told about Atlantis in Egypt. The question
then arises: who told Plato this information? Because it wasn’t Herodotus, as he had already
passed away. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest a line of information could have
been passed from Solon to Herodotus. And so it is therefore possible that Plato drew his
idea from Herodotus and embellished it with his own imagination. We must also consider
the 9,000-year-old story inscribed on a temple wall, which was erected thousands of years
after the fall of Atlantis. Well regards that, who was keeping track of the years and from
where did they draw the information before the building of the temple? Unfortunately,
there is no reliable evidence of accurate record-keeping spanning such a lengthy period
of time, from so far back in time. Then we have the island of Atlantis, named after the
Greek mythological figure “Atlas”, with the name literally translating to “daughter
of Atlas”. Now this is especially interesting considering the supposedly ancient origin
of the land, as it suggests that people there had adopted the Greek language to give it
a Greek-centric name, long before Greece existed. Which seems very odd for an advanced civilization
with no tangible record of existence to do this. Now please remember I am looking at
this primarily from a mythological record perspective, I haven’t touched on archaeology
or alike, but will mention two key points. It has been estimated that approximately 11,600
years ago, Melt Water Pulse 1B occurred, but this is at its outermost margins of possibility,
it was more probable to have occurred around 11,300 years ago given current scientific
data. Furthermore, research suggests that the rise in sea levels occurred at a rate
ranging from 5mm to 50mm per year, so up to 2 inches per year, therefore, we can be concluded
that the rise in sea levels that was accelerated during this period, yet individuals could
have avoided it by gradually migrating over a period of years. Hancock’s other contention,
that academia is averse to change and unwilling to take heed of his views, again, is unfounded.
Archaeology, for instance, has undergone radical transformation over the last decade, yet his
theories remain largely rejected. And there is a great YouTuber, Stefan Milo, whose done
a couple of videos on this, and I’ll try and link them below in the description. And
this is likely due to the fact that many scientists have more important matters to attend to,
rather than considering the opinions of a journalist who appears to be prone to cherry
picking the information he uses when creating his work, or it may even be more appropriate
to say, his myths. I mean he rarely brings archaeologists on his trails, and when he
does there is evidence that their words have been edited out of context to help support
his work. And there is a reference to an example of this from his current Netflix series in
the video’s description. At the end of the day, Hancock currently identifies as a journalist,
perhaps in an attempt to deflect accusations of pseudo-scientist or pseudo-archaeologist
topics he discussed on his most recent interviews, and probably his most popular appearance which
was on the Joe Rogan podcast where he mentions this. But as an academic, this is almost
sufficient evidence in itself to categorize his views, especially when presented in the
manner he has, as entertainment, and some have gone so far as to call it conspiracy
theory. However, this is no laughing matter, as his claims discredit the legacies of ancient
cultural traditions, it is an act of disrespect that is further exacerbated by the fact that
his assertions are misleading. And I sincerely hope his intentions are not malicious in nature,
and just academic ignorance, because that would be profoundly disheartening. But to
me, the fact that many academics don’t challenge him is down to the fact that they have much
better things to be doing, such as supporting this channel much like my patreons. And so
I want to thank them, and thank you for watching, so please stay safe, and stay well. And I
hope you watch my next video, which is a mythology 101 to help rebuff claims of some academics
that say studying mythology and its origins has no value. So I’ll see you soon. And
this was Crecganford.