Customer Reviews

Atlantis: The Antediluvian World

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is the book that started it all, written a century ago by a man as strange and dynamic as his story. Every fantastical image of a sunken paradise, or heated dispute about it's existence and location, all started with these pages.

The origin of all Atlantis-hype, this book similarly starts with the origin of the concept itself. Donnely includes a translation of Plato's story that all Atlantean research goes back too. This was the most interesting part of the book, just hearing the first account all discussion and contemplation aside. It is also the most integral part of the book, since out of it comes all of Donnely's extrapolation.

The basic point of the rest of the book is to try to show that 1) Atlantis could have existed and disappeared geologically ages ago, and then furthermore 2) to explain Atlantis's affect on the rest of human history. Here, his attempts are the most interesting, and, often, the most ridiculous. Generally speaking though, he does state his case scientifically, and in most cases, rather believably.

The only glaring faults are his mistranslation of the original Plato, placing Atlantis most likely in the wrong area, and how sometimes he takes some rather huge leaps to justify his points. But hey, he wrote it 100 years ago and still manages to produce an intriguing study into the Atlantean question, without the aids of more advanced technologies.

Either way, it's a very interesting book, and whether you believe in Atlantis or not, I'm sure it will give you a lot to think about, which was indeed Donnely's purpose in the first place. I recommend it to any inquisitive mind.

When Eccleisiasticus said "Of the making of many books there is no end" he might have have been speaking about "Atlanteology"! And this would not include all the accounts by "Psychics", "Masters", and other colourful authors. Donnelly's book was first published in 1882, and has rarely been equalled for careful scholarship, meticulous research and honesty. The author marshalls enough facts and collects sufficient evidence to convince the most sceptical of his propositions. Those who have read more contemporary works on Atlantis will find this book a breath of fresh air. Those new to this study will find all the answers they seek and more within it's remarkable pages. If you want to know about Atlantis this is probably the best all-round source there is.

Ignatius Donnelly's groundbreaking work suffers only from his
mis-reading of Plato as to the site of Atlantis. Donnelly's
translation of the Greek led to his placement of Atlantis as
"opposed to the Pillars of Hercules (Straits of Gibraltar)"
rather than "across" from the straits as related in Sir
Desmond Lee's definitive translation (Desmond Lee was knighted in 1961
for his work in translating Plato). Thus Donnelly, unfortunately to be
followed by scores of others, posited Atlantis as a sunken island in
the Atlantic (geologically unsustainable), rather than as an
island-continent across the Atlantic (the Americas)whose civilization
was destroyed but whose "bare-bones" still appear (Caribbean
islands). Probably, he failed to grasp the scope of Plato's knowledge
which described three distinct seas: The Mediterranean which Plato
described as "only a harbor, having a narrow entrance," the
named sea (the Atlantic), and that other that "is the real sea
(the Pacific), with a surrounding land that may most truy called
continent (Asia)." In fact, the North Atlantic 11,500 years ago
could not have supported a climate such as that found in Plato's
description of lush Atlantis. With the geological knowledge available
at his time, Donnelly can hardly be faulted for mis-placing Atlantis,
but we should not continue to repeat this key error.

Whether or not you think there was an Atlantis, this work should be read on account of the breath of insight which typifies some (not all) 19th century scholars. Professors today are often incapable of such writing because their feild of study is too narrow. This was written before Atlantis became associated with flaky new-age belief systems. It is packed with exerpts from hard to find texts from the ancient world. The analysis is graceful and intriguing, and it is hard to set the book down.

I read this book expecting something a little more mystical but came away convinced of the theory that Atlantis isn't lost at all, just changed. Recent findings of a lost civilization's walls buried beneath volcanic lava in New Zealand give even more concrete evidence to this theory; it might just be real! You'll never look at the story of Noah's ark the same way again. I recommend it for a fresh perspective on the Lost Continent. Very plausable.

This is the ultimate book on Atlantis. Well written (though hard to understand at times due to the 19th century grammar), well researched, and very informative. Required reading for anyone interesting in Atlantis. ...

Being a latinamerican reader as well as a student of the 19th egyptian dinasty, I have been delighted with Mr. Donnelly's treatment of the correlations between the native american and egyptian archeologies. This work becomes a magnificent base for the study of the hyperborean 1196 B.C. invasion, a theme of my deepest interest.I am of course interested in the other books in your Atlantis series. I highly recommend this book to the Amazon friends as an excellent historical review.Thanks !

In spite of its rejection by the academic establishment, this book remains a masterpiece of its genre, and has had a much bigger impact than is generally realised. There seems little doubt, for example, that Immanuel Velikovsky was greatly influenced by Donnelly, and it is a certainty that the recent revival of catastrophism traces much of its inspiration back to him, though most of the modern neo-catastrophists would probably deny it.
Leaving aside Donnelly's enormous contribution of collating catastrophe legends from many lands and cultures, Atlantis, the Antediluvian World also provided an exhaustive overview of cultural parallels between the Old World and the New. These, Donnelly demonstrated, go well beyond the usual and clichéd examples of pyramid-building and mummification, and extend to incredible details of life and custom on both sides of the Atlantic.
Donnelly's big mistake was his uncritical acceptance of the date provided by Plato for Atlantis' destruction (about 9500 BC) and his equally uncritical acceptance of the academic establishment's dates for the Pleistocene extinctions and the rise of the first civilizations. The critics were quick to point out, of course, that in the epoch mentioned by Plato (9500 BC) no civilization of any kind existed, far less the opulent Bronze Age culture described in the Timaeus and Critias. If such a civilization existed, they said, where are its remains? Donnelly argued that the culture of Atlantis must have been the prototype of all subsequent civilizations, and held that it was emigrants from the lost island who established the great cultures of the Old World and the New. This, he insisted, explained the striking parallels observed between the civilizations of the Old World and the New. Here again, however, chronology got in the way. According to conventional historians, the civilizations of the New World, with their pyramids, human sacrifice, and dragon-worship, were much younger than the ancient civilizations of the Old World, which also had pyramids, human sacrifice and dragon-worship. By the time the peoples of the Americas had begun to build pyramids, practice mummification, etc, the peoples of the Middle East had long abandoned these things. This was an objection Donnelly could not answer; and it is an objection that has remained unanswered to this day. It is an objection that cannot in fact be answered unless the chronology is challenged. But who would dare do that?
Well, Immanuel Velikovsky challenged the chronology very effectively in the 1950s, and the assault he launched on ancient dates and dating-systems was never effectively refuted by the academic establishment. If the Old World civilizations are not as old as is commonly believed, and if they are in fact the same age as the civilizations of the New World, then the parallels observed by Donnelly become very pertinent indeed. If, furthermore, the Atlantis civilization was not a prehistoric culture of the tenth millennium BC, but a culture of the Early Bronze Age, as the description of Plato implies, then we might be justified in accepting the whole story as having a factual basis.
We know that during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Ages the entire earth was afflicted by a series of powerful seismic disturbances, involving cataclysmic earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. This "vast eruptive age" as Percy Fawcett called it, left its mark throughout the Mediterranean and western Europe. Sunken Neolithic villages and forests are still regularly located around the coasts of the British Isles and Denmark, as well as much further afield. In volcanically active regions, such as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the disturbances must have been incomparably more severe; and this has been confirmed by the discovery of sunken beaches and shorelines (often hundreds of metres down) off the coasts of the Azores.
The evidence, as I have shown in various places, suggests that Atlantis was an Early Bronze Age culture centred on a main island in the Azores (about the size of Ireland) and an archipelago of smaller islands straddling the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. These acted as stepping stones between the Old World and the New; and it was by means of these that the tobacco and cocaine, found in many Egyptian mummies, reached the Old World. Near the end of the Early Bronze Age, during the last of the great cosmic disturbances, the mid-Atlantic islands were sunk and the transatlantic connection severed. Yet the peoples on either side of the ocean remembered the lost islands and retained traditions and customs so strikingly similar that they could not have developed in such a way coincidentally.

Being a student of Atlantis I felt I should read this book since it's considered a classic on the subject.

The theories about Atlantis range from the ordinary and mundane to the fantastic.

Donnelly is definitely on the conventional, mundane side of that range. He views Atlantis as just an earlier culture that reached advanced stages of religion, government, and basic technological advances which we have now far surpassed.

I am much further towards the new age, super race side of the range.

I will give Donnelly credit for being well read on many subjects.

However if you're looking for imaginative interpretations of the mythological legends surrounding Atlantis forget this book. Donnelly's interpretation of Hercules capturing the cattle of Geryon was that Hercules was a cattle rustler and he killed some guy and ran off with his cows.

I find it puzzling that people quote Plato's account of Atlantis so often but then disbelieve everything Plato says.

Donnelly calls the Greeks a 'degenerate race' and their mythology 'barbarian recollections'.

Rather mythology uses metaphors to explain metaphysical concepts that are real.

I skipped a few parts of the book based on the Editor's notes about Donnelly's information being worthless and inaccurate.

Jeff Marzano

Fulcanelli: Master Alchemist: Le Mystere des Cathedrales, Esoteric Intrepretation of the Hermetic Symbols of The Great Work (Le Mystere Des Cathedrales ... of the Hermetic Symbols of Great Work)

The Mystery of the Crystal Skulls: Unlocking the Secrets of the Past, Present, and Future

The Giza Power Plant : Technologies of Ancient Egypt

Edgar Cayce's Atlantis and Lemuria: The Lost Civilizations in the Light of Modern Discoveries

Gods of Eden: Egypt's Lost Legacy and the Genesis of Civilization

The Giza Death Star

Secrets of the Ancient World: Exploring the Insights of America's Most Well-Documented Psychic, Edgar Cayce

The Atlantis Dialogue: Plato's Original Story of the Lost City, Continent, Empire, Civilization

Initiation

Initiation in the Great Pyramid (Astara's Library of Mystical Classics)

This is a quite a unique book that combines history, religion, mythology, fact and speculation. Judging from the writing, I believe the author is not a Christian. Yet he uses many references from the Bible to develop his thesis that Atlantis did indeed exist. I find it interesting that the Bible is referred to today as a book of fairy tales, and yet authors will quote from it to substantiate their writing.
The book is interesting, but so little is known about this period and no one knows for certain what really took place. As I said the author combines many resources which can leave the reader bewildered. For me there wasn't anything that really "grabbed my attention" as far as learning something new.
Atlantis is a difficult subject to research, but I do know that Jesus said that as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man. And what does the Bible say about those days? Fallen angels engaging in relations with women and giants being in the land. Remember the movie City of Angels? I specifically remember the scene of angels observing the interaction between Nicholas Cage and Meg Ryan. Those angels weren't dressed in white; they were wearing black! My own thought is look for more frequent "u.f.o. sightings", knowledge increasing, and signs in the heavens and the earth indicating the time is at hand.
History repeats itself. Atlantis will soon be returning...if it hasn't already!