Was Malta the Real Atlantis?

The theory that Atlantis can be identified as the island of Malta is not especially popular, but it is better developed than some other theories. For one thing, it places Atlantis well within striking distance of ancient Greece, which is notable in view of the fact that Atlantis was said to have fought a war against Greece. What is the evidence that supposedly links Plato’s legendary civilisation to Malta?

An Overview of Malta 

Firstly, what and where is Malta? The term Malta is actually the name for an archipelago, a group of three main islands. The largest of these is also named Malta. The second largest is Gozo, and the third, which is by far the smallest, is Comino. 

The archipelago of Malta is located south of the foot of Italy. As such, it is situated near the very middle of the Mediterranean. One of the reasons why Malta has proven itself so interesting to those researching the legend of Atlantis is the fact that it has some of the oldest man-made structures in the world. 

Since Atlantis was supposed to have been a very old civilisation, these ancient remains make it tempting to connect the archipelago with Atlantis. Additionally, the very fact that it is an archipelago has given rise to the idea that it was originally a single island, parts of which have now sunk into the sea. This would dovetail well with the story of Atlantis disappearing into the sea.

Arguments that Malta Was the Real Atlantis 

The argument that Malta was the real Atlantis is a fairly comprehensive one, taking into consideration a variety of literary and scientific evidence. Let us start with the arguments that Malta fits the description of Atlantis’ location.

Geographical Arguments

Plato wrote about Atlantis in two dialogues, the Timaeus and the Critias, both written in c. 360 BCE. In these source texts, we read that Atlantis was located in the Atlantic Sea (usually translated as ‘Atlantic Ocean’) and was in front of the Pillars of Heracles. Identifying these two geographical markers goes a long way to establishing where Atlantis really was. 

The Atlantic Ocean

According to proponents of this theory, there are a number of ancient writers who used the term ‘Atlantic Ocean’ or ‘Atlantic Sea’ to refer to the Mediterranean. One of these is the Roman writer Seneca, who referred to the Atlantic Sea being connected to the Nile River. 

Another ancient writer used in support of this claim is Cicero. He described the territory of the Romans as being surrounded by “that sea which you on the earth call the Atlantic, the Great Sea, or the Ocean.” 

These facts being so, this would mean that an island in the Mediterranean could be described as being in the Atlantic Sea, which is how Plato describes Atlantis. This would accommodate the suggestion of Malta. 

Pillars of Heracles

Another key geographical marker is the fact that Atlantis was ‘in front of the Pillars of Heracles’. According to this theory, the Pillars of Heracles can be identified with Lesser Syrtis, also known as the Gulf of Gabes.

Supposedly, the third-century BCE writer Apollonius provided this identification in his Argonautica, the story of the voyage of Jason and the Argonauts. According to proponents of this theory, he referred to Syrtis and placed the Pillars of Heracles there. Some researchers have also argued that Herodotus placed the Pillars of Heracles at this location.

According to this theory, ‘inside the Pillars of Heracles’ refers to the Gulf of Gabes. Thus, Malta is indeed outside the Pillars of Heracles, or ‘in front of’ them.

The Land-Bound Sea 

Plato describes how Atlantis was the way to other islands, and from these you could reach the opposite continent which surrounded the ‘true sea’. Notice his description:

“For this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent.” 

This theory proposes that the sea within the Straits, or Pillars, of Heracles is the Gulf of Gabes, which is indeed small like a harbour. The ‘true sea’, which is contrasted with it, refers to the Western Mediterranean. The surrounding continent refers to western Europe and western Africa together.

The ‘other islands’ which one would reach on the way to the opposite continent are islands such as the Pelagie Islands, as well as Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica.

Larger Than Libya and Asia

There is another important geographical issue that needs addressing. One of Plato’s statements seems, on the surface, to preclude the possibility that it was inside the Mediterranean Sea. Notice the following description:

“The island was larger than Libya and Asia put together.”

Needless to say, Malta is not larger than Libya and Asia combined. In fact, no landmass that large could possibly fit inside the Mediterranean Sea. To address this problem, proponents of this theory argue that there has been a slight corruption in the transmission of this story.

The Greek word for ‘larger’ is ‘meizon’, while the word for ‘between’ is ‘meson’. They are visually similar and pronounced almost identically. With this in mind, it has been suggested that someone along the line of transmission between Solon and Plato misheard this word. 

This would mean that Atlantis was originally described as being ‘between Libya and Asia’. Malta is indeed between those two landmasses, so this suggestion would accommodate the theory.

The Civilisation on Malta 

With the geography of the matter out of the way, what about the actual civilisation of Atlantis? Is there any evidence for any notable civilisation on Malta that could be compared to what Plato described? Given that Atlantis was supposed to have been a powerful civilisation which functioned as an international centre of trade, a few isolated remains will not suffice.

Revising the Chronology of Atlantis 

Like perhaps most other theories, this theory does not accept the timeframe given by Plato at face value. In his account, the Egyptian priest speaking to Solon in c. 590 BCE states that the events he is describing occurred 9000 years in the past. That would put them in c. 11,600 BCE.

Various details from Plato’s account, such as the descriptions of metalworking, require that the account takes place no earlier than the Bronze Age. Many researchers accept this. However, the issue of where the figure of 9000 years comes from has a bearing on when exactly to place Atlantis.

Proponents of this theory argue that there has been some confusion between ‘ninety’ centuries (that is, 9000 years) and ‘nineteen’ centuries (that is, 1900 years). This would mean that the original story placed the events 1900 years before Solon’s time, or about 2500 BCE.

Temples

One phase of Maltese history is called the Tarxien phase. This is named after the temple complex found at Tarxien, a town on the island. This phase is generally dated from about 3150 to 2500 BCE. Therefore, if the war between Atlantis and Greece occurred in c. 2500 BCE, then the civilisation described by Plato would logically be that of the Tarxien phase if Atlantis was Malta. 

Plato describes the fact that the men of Atlantis built a glorious temple dedicated to Poseidon in the centre of the island. It is described as being very large and impressive. 

There are various temples on Malta which date to the Tarxien phase, but the Tarxien temple complex is the most prominent one and thus the most likely to be identifiable as the Temple of Poseidon. 

Interestingly, Plato describes how the Atlanteans would sacrifice bulls in the Temple of Poseidon. At the Tarxien temple complex, one of the wall reliefs depicts two bulls. Other evidence supports the idea that bulls were actually sacrificed here at this temple complex.

Cart Ruts

In Plato’s description of Atlantis, he refers to numerous canals on the island. He says that they were used to transport goods from one place to another. Plato wrote:

“By them they brought down the wood from the mountains to the city, and conveyed the fruits of the earth in ships, cutting transverse passages from one canal into another, and to the city.”

Proponents of the Malta theory have argued that these canals correspond to the numerous cart ruts on Malta. They are all over the island. A great deal of mystery surrounds them, since no one knows what they are, how they were made, or when.

They look like tracks that have been carved into the rock. One suggestion is that they were formed by carts that took the same route again and again, literally eroding the rock surface over time. It is thought by many that they may have been used for the transport of goods. In this way, they are reminiscent of the canals described by Plato.

The Destruction of Atlantis

How does Malta fit the fact that Atlantis was supposed to have suffered a terrible destruction? There are three main aspects of this argument. The first is from accepted evidence of a dramatic change in c. 2500 BCE. The second is based on a reading of Plato’s account. The third is based on more speculative evidence regarding the island originally being larger in the past.

Archaeological Evidence of a Collapse 

As we saw earlier, the Tarxien phase is believed to have continued until c. 2500 BCE. At that date, archaeologists place a sudden end to the Tarxien phase. In other words, this was the end of the temple building culture that had inhabited the island until that time.

At that time, the archaeological evidence indicates that the culture on Malta sudden changed. The temples were abandoned and quickly fell into ruin. The island appears to have become largely depopulated. One scholar wrote of the pottery sequence on the island being completely broken at that point.

Some historians suggest that a famine hit the population in 2500 BCE. There is no obvious solution to the problem. However, it is tempting to associate this sudden end to the Tarxien culture with the end of Atlantis. As described by Plato, the Atlanteans were defeated in war with the Greeks, and then the island suffered a terrible destruction.

A Skeleton of an Island

Furthermore, a passage in Plato’s Critias has been interpreted as supporting the idea that the Maltese archipelago is a remnant of Atlantis. In one passage, Plato described the following:

“The consequence is, that in comparison of what then was, there are remaining only the bones of the wasted body, as they may be called, as in the case of small islands, all the richer and softer parts of the soil having fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the land being left.”

Malta, as we have already noted, is an archipelago composed of three islands. If these were originally one large island, then what remains could indeed be viewed as ‘the mere skeleton of the land’. In this sense, Malta arguably matches Plato’s description of post-destruction Atlantis.

Originally a Bigger Island 

Now, we reach the crucial part of the argument. Is there really any evidence that Malta was originally one large island?

The islands of Malta, Gozo and Comino are on what is called the Malta plateau. This is a raised platform of land which is part of a former land bridge between North Africa and Sicily. 

If sea levels were lower, or the Malta plateau had been higher up in the past, then this would indeed be one large island. It would not only take in the current three main islands, but would also reveal quite a bit of extra land surrounding the present coastlines.

Objections to This Theory 

What are the main objections to this theory? In short, objections can be found to every single one of the supposed pieces of evidence used by proponents of this theory. To start with, let us consider the issue of geography.

The Atlantic Sea, not the Mediterranean Sea

One issue is that the pieces of evidence used to argue that the Mediterranean Sea was known by some writers as the Atlantic Sea simply do not say that. 

For example, it is true that Seneca referred to the Nile River being connected to the Atlantic Sea. However, he described the Atlantic Sea as flowing into the Nile River, not the other way around. While he was wrong about the Atlantic contributing to the Nile, the point is that he definitely did not call the Mediterranean the Atlantic. 

Cicero, meanwhile, referred to the Atlantic Sea as surrounding the territory of the Romans. Was he talking about Italy? No. He specifically described the Roman territory in question as being short from north to south and long from east to west.

Writing in the first century BCE, he was clearly talking about the Roman territory that stretched all across the Mediterranean. When he referred to the Atlantic Sea as surrounding this, he clearly meant that it surrounded, outside, the land which made up the Mediterranean coasts.

Confusion with the Pillars of Heracles

The argument concerning the Pillars of Heracles is very confused and full of flaws.

Take, for example, the claim that Apollonius in his Argonautica placed the Pillars of Heracles at Syrtis. He does mention Syrtis, but he does not ever connect that location with the Pillars of Heracles. This supposed piece of evidence appears to have been completely invented.

False Claims about Herodotus

What about the argument that Herodotus placed the pillars in that region? This argument is based on the fact that he refers to a sand belt that went from Thebes in the south of Egypt all the way to the Pillars of Heracles. After naming some of the tribes that lived in that sand belt, he supposedly stated the following:

“Thus far I am able to give you the names of the tribes who inhabit the sand belt, but beyond this point my knowledge fails. I can affirm, however; that the belt continues to the Pillars of Heracles and beyond.”

Supposedly, Herodotus’ tribal descriptions only go as far as Carthage (more or less at Syrtis). The fact that Herodotus, in this passage, affirms that his knowledge fails ‘beyond this point’ but that he can affirm that the belt continues until the Pillars of Heracles has been interpreted as meaning that the last tribe mentioned lived at the pillars.

What Herodotus Really Meant 

In reality, this passage does not mean that at all. It is clear that the second sentence is a contrast to the first. Herodotus does not know the names of any tribes beyond those he has just mentioned. However, he can confirm that the sand belt itself continues (obviously meaning past the territory of the last tribe he has just mentioned) to the Pillars of Heracles. 

Therefore, the Pillars of Heracles are explicitly beyond the last tribe just mentioned. Thus, even if the final tribe that he mentioned only lived at Carthage or Syrtis, this would not show that the Pillars of Heracles were in that region. In fact, it would prove the opposite, showing that the pillars were even further west.

What Herodotus Really Said

Another big problem with this argument is that this is not even what Herodotus really said. A more reliable translation says the following: 

“I know and can tell the names overall the peoples that dwell on the ridge as far as the Atlantes, but no farther than that. But this I know, that the ridge reaches as far as the Pillars of Heracles and beyond them.”

The tribe mentioned in the passage immediately before this line are, indeed, called the Atlantes by Herodotus. He explains in that previous passage that they received their name by virtue of living in the vicinity of Mount Atlas. 

Based on where the Atlas Mountains really are, virtually all modern maps designed to represent what Herodotus described show the Atlantes much further west than Syrtis. Therefore, there is absolutely no way that Herodotus’ description can be interpreted to mean that the Pillars of Heracles were at Syrtis.

Outside Versus Inside the Pillars of Heracles

Another issue is that Plato’s account of Atlantis does not accommodate Malta’s position relative to Lesser Syrtis even if the Pillars of Heracles could be placed there. It is true that Plato’s account describes Atlantis as being ‘in front of’, or ‘before’, the Pillars of Heracles, which does not necessarily mean that it was west of those pillars, as commonly assumed. 

However, the Critias contains the direct statement that the war involving Atlantis was a war ‘between those inside the Pillars of Heracles and those outside’. The following sentence explains that Atlantis was on one side while Athens was on the other.

When it comes to this Maltese theory, both Malta and Greece are on the same side of the hypothetical pillars at Lesser Syrtis. Therefore, this is not compatible with Plato’s account.

Confusion with the Harbour-Like Sea and the Land-Bound Sea

Let us return to the following description of Plato’s:

“For this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent.”

Recall that according to this theory, the sea within the Pillars, or Straits, of Heracles is the Gulf of Gabes. ‘That other’ sea, which Plato describes as being surrounded by ‘a boundless continent’, is the western Mediterranean. Both of these identifications are impossible.

Not a Strait

Regarding the harbour-like sea, Plato specifically refers to the ‘Straits of Heracles’ and explicitly says that the sea has a ‘narrow entrance’. This does not, by any stretch of the imagination, match the Gulf of Gabes, which has about as wide an entrance as a harbour could realistically have while still being a harbour.

Not Surrounded by a Boundless Continent

What about the idea that the Western Mediterranean is the ‘true sea’ in contrast to the Gulf of Gabes, and that it is surrounded by a ‘boundless continent’? This does not work, because the land which surrounds the Western Mediterranean is not a single landmass.

Instead, that sea is bounded to the north and the south by Europe and Africa respectively. While they do form one continuous landmass together with Asia, they could not be described as ‘surrounding’ only the western half of the Mediterranean. In terms of just that sea, they do not form one surrounding continent. Rather, they form two opposite continents.

Meson Instead of Meizon?

The suggestion that Atlantis was originally described as being ‘between’ Libya and Asia rather than ‘bigger than’ them is an attractive one. The Greek words are incredibly similar, being ‘meson’ and ‘mezion’ respectively. Yet, this is not without its problems. 

For one thing, this description appears both in Timaeus and in Critias. This means that if a corruption occurred, it either occurred in both texts independently or it occurred early in the transmission of the original tale, before Plato’s time. Of course, this latter suggestion is perfectly reasonable. 

However, an additional difficulty is the fact that the Critias specifically adds the Greek words for ‘put together’. This does not make any sense in the context of the word ‘between’, but it does make sense in the context of ‘bigger than’.

This, again, could be explained if the corruption from ‘meson’ to ‘mezion’ happened early in the transmission of the tale. Then, someone at one point along the line of transmission, including Plato himself, could have added the words ‘put together’ for the simple reason that it sounded good with the rest of the line. 

While this is a perfectly possible suggestion, we see that this argument is not as simple as it first appears.

Major Chronological Issues

Another major issue with this theory is the chronology. Recall that this theory argues that there was a corruption from ‘nineteen’ to ‘ninety’ centuries. While this does not seem too unreasonable in English, it is unclear what basis this would have in Ancient Greek or Egyptian.

Regardless of the potential plausibility of it, certain details in Plato’s account directly preclude this possibility. In Timaeus, the Egyptian priest who tells the story to Solon explains that the reason the Greeks were unaware of Atlantis is because they lost their literacy at some point after the events had taken place. Subsequently, over the generations, the Greeks had forgotten all trace of the events by the time they learned to write again.

The entire point of this statement depends on the fact that the events in involving Atlantis occurred while the Greeks could write, or at least not very long at all before they could. 

The archaeological evidence is clear that the Greeks developed their first writing system, Linear B, in the middle of the second millennium BCE, approximately 1500 BCE. As the Egyptian priest said, the Greeks really did lose their ability to write during a time of great trouble (the Bronze Age Collapse), before learning to write again when they adopted the Phoenician alphabet in the ninth century BCE. 

Thus, the events involving Atlantis cannot have occurred any earlier than about 1500 BCE. The idea that they occurred as early as c. 2500 BCE flies in the face of the explanation given by the Egyptian priest.

The Deficiency in the Bull-Sacrifice Evidence

While there is evidence of the sacrifice of bulls in the grand temples of the Tarxien phase on Malta, this only matches Plato’s description of the Atlantean religion very superficially. The fact of the matter is that bulls were sacrificed by numerous cultures across the Mediterranean.

Thus, while the evidence from Malta matches the Atlantean religion in some basic ways, there is no evidence for any specific connections. For example, the bulls were supposed to have been sacrificed over a special pillar with a sacred inscription on it. Furthermore, the bulls were used in bull-fighting games prior to the sacrifices. There does not appear to be any evidence of these things at the Maltese temples.

The temple itself at which these things were said to have occurred was dedicated to Poseidon and his lover. Again, there is no evidence for this at the Tarxien temples.

The False Canals

What about the numerous cart ruts which were apparently used for transportation on Malta, which arguably match the canals used for transportation on Atlantis?

One very obvious problem with this argument is that cart ruts are not canals. Even if we imagine that there were some kind of translation issue that led to passages for carts being rendered as ‘canals’, this still would not solve the problem. Plato explicitly says that the things transported in the canals were transported by ships.

In another line, he refers to “the water which the land supplied by introducing streams from the canals.” In yet another line, he describes the canals as being 100 feet in width. Therefore, there is absolutely no question that he was describing actual canals, not cart ruts.

Furthermore, Plato explains that these canals traversed the great plain on Atlantis, not the island in general. This does not match the cart ruts. 

An additional problem is that no one knows when the cart ruts were made, so there is no guarantee at all that they were even there in ancient Bronze Age Malta.

No Match with Atlantis’ Destruction

What about the argument that the Tarxien culture suddenly ended in c. 2500 BCE and that the island experienced a major depopulation? As far as archaeologists can tell, this is accurate. However, can we really relate this to the defeat at the hands of the Greeks and the destruction that Atlantis was said to have undergone?

One major issue is that the Greeks as a civilisation did not emerge until c. 1600 BCE. There is certainly no evidence that they fought a war against Malta as early as 2500 BCE. By the time they were in a position to do that, the Tarxien culture had long since disappeared. 

The argument that Malta today matches Plato’s description of Atlantis now being ‘the skeleton of the land’ that remains after much of it sank into the sea fails for one key point: Plato was not referring to Atlantis in that passage. Rather, he was talking about Greece.

Modern scientific research has found that the Maltese archipelago definitely was one large island in the distant past. However, scientists estimate that it was like this some 20,000 years ago during the Pleistocene Era. It is believed that the sea level rose fairly gradually, as it did all over the Mediterranean in the period since then. 

So while Malta may well have much of its original land area covered by the sea, there is no evidence that this is due to a dramatic inundation that wiped out the Tarxien culture.

Conclusion 

In conclusion, the theory that Malta was the real Atlantis is a theory that, on the surface, appears to have been well developed and supported by a variety of evidence. However, it simply does not match what Plato wrote about Atlantis. 

The supposed geographical matches are not consistent with what Plato really described. Even if we place the Pillars of Heracles at Lesser Syrtis, for which there is no evidence, this does not accommodate the description of a war between those inside and those outside the pillars.

The evidence regarding the Tarxien civilisation is only superficially compatible with what Plato wrote, with no evidence of any specific connection. It also existed long before the Greek civilisation emerged. Although the Tarxien culture did suddenly disappear, there is no evidence that this was connected to any supposed dramatic inundation.

Sources

Mifsud, Anton; Mifsud, Simon; Sultana, Chris Agius; Savona-Ventura, Charles, Malta: Echoes of Plato’s Island, 2000

Chambry, D. and Trump, David, Malta, 1978

https://atlantipedia.ie/samples/malta-echoes-of-platos-island-2/

https://atlantipedia.ie/samples/malta/

https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/is-malta-really-part-of-atlantis.35351

https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/Malta-s-submerged-landscape.451898

https://atlantipedia.ie/samples/gabes-gulf-of/

https://atlantipedia.ie/samples/pillars-of-herakles-revised/