Summary
This article examines what is often called the Richat Structure Atlantis theory: the idea that Plato’s Atlantis corresponds to the Eye of the Sahara in Mauritania.
The central proposal is that the organisation of the Atlantean capital may be explained through the natural geology, habitat, and hydrology of the Richat Structure during the African Humid Period. A palaeolake within the basin may have hosted a large floating peat island, while the famous concentric canals described by Plato may have formed naturally from groundwater springs aligned with the structure’s concentric geology.
Beyond this physical model, the article also explores the full extent of Plato’s account, including textual interpretation of the city’s layout, the chronology of the Atlantean war to the extinctual flood, the viability of the fertile plain, and the possible extent of the Atlantean empire.
Introduction
Taken together, these elements suggest that Plato’s account may preserve evidence for a prehistoric cultural centre that emerged in North West Africa.
Genetic evidence has shown that early farming populations from the Levant expanded widely during the early Holocene. These groups mixed with indigenous populations in North Africa and Europe, contributing substantially to the ancestry of modern populations. Today, ancestry derived from these near eastern farmers forms a significant component of the genomes of both North Africans and Europeans.
These populations are known to have migrated westwards into North Africa during this period, but the full extent of their movement across the Sahara during the African Humid Period remains unknown.
This article explores the possibility that Atlantis relates to the city and later regional influence of a group of early farming peoples from the Levant, possibly related to the Natufian or early Neolithic populations of the Fertile Crescent. These peoples may have migrated deep into North West Africa during the African Humid Period in around 7500 BC.
Plato’s detailed geographical description allows these ideas to be examined in a systematic way.
Information from Plato.
The only descriptive account of Atlantis comes to us from Plato. Plato describes the account as originating from a shared relative of himself and Critias seven generations back, the famous statesman Solon. Plato describes Solon receiving the story in note form from Egypt during a visit, with the intention of setting it into an epic poem.
This is the only in-depth account we receive of Atlantis, nonetheless other classical era sources succeeding Plato weigh in on the topic, all of which corroborate the validity of Plato’s account with some providing snippets of additional information. These sources are:
- Crantor of Soli ~400BC – provides the name of the temple and priest Solon visited
- Poseidonius (Cicero’s teacher) ~200BC – states Atlantis was also called Poseidonis
- Strabo ~0AD – validates the account
- Pliny ~0AD – validates the account
- Diodorus Siculus ~0AD – provides a detailed account of the colonisation of Atlantis by the Amazons
- Claudius Aelianus ~200AD – provides a description of the royal Atlantean dress sourced from accounts from peoples of ‘Okeanos’
- Arobius, Ammianus Marcellinus, Syrianus ~400AD – validates the account
- Proclus ~400AD – validates the account
Plato’s account includes a description of:
- A war
- Atlantis the island city
- Atlantis the island country
- Atlantis the empire of kingdoms
- the demise of the city
The use of the same term, ‘Atlantis’, to describe city, country and empire has been the cause of confusion and the text requires the use of context to understand which term Plato is referring to at points. Nonetheless, the account is precise and can be even be broadly codified into the following descriptive statements:
[Notes: Rather than sea/lake and ocean I have left the original Greek words ‘thalassa’ and ‘pontos’. Sizes are translated using 185m = 1 Stadion]
War description:
- 9000 years before Solon/Plato
- Between “all those who dwelt within the Pillars of Hercules (the Mediterranean) and those who dwelt beyond the Pillars of Hercules”
Country description:
- Island (nesos is also used for areas that require arrival by water even if constrained by geographic features beyond water)
- Larger extent than Libya and Asia (Minor)
- At/outside the Strait of Gibraltar (“pro the Pillars of Heracles”)
- Islands are placed between Atlantis and America (“from Atlantis you could sail to other islands and from these to the continent beyond which surrounds the true pontos”)
- Country was lofty and precipitous on the side of the thalassa.
- Described as the “Land under the sun”
- Mountains to the north of the plain “celebrated for number, size, and beauty,”
- Mountains descend towards the thalassa.
- Climate allowed for two harvests per year.
- Elephants were present in great number.
- Gold and red ‘orichalcum’ (copper alloy) were abundant.
City description:
- The inner citadel comprised of three canalized rings of water surrounded by inner city wall, this is followed by a large ring of inhabited land, all dimensioned. The complete diameter comes to 127 stadia (or 23.5km).
- Bridges connected zones leaving room for a trireme.
- The citadel was surrounded by a habitable zone of 50 stadia (9.25km) distance all around, busy with merchants of different languages day and night.
- This habitable zone was surrounded by wall coated in bronze itself surrounded by the Thalassa.
- There is another wall between the two walls coated in tin.
- The city was built with white, black, and red stone quarried from its bedrock.
- The center of the citadel contained a temple and hot and cold springs.
- The city contained a race track with horses.
Fertile plain:
- Towards the thalassa, the middle of the land
- Around the city is a large, flat, fertile plain of an oblong shape, with dimensions 555 x 370km.
- The plain extended from the thalassa to the centre of the island.
- This whole region lies on the south side of the island (north side isn’t mentioned but from this description we can assume it should be at least the same size again)
- The plain contained a circular ditch, 1,850km long, receiving streams from the mountains “winding round the plain” before “touching the city at various points was let off into the thalassa”.
- The plain contained a circular ditch, 1,850km long, receiving streams from the mountains “winding round the plain” before “touching the city at various points was let off into the thalassa”.
- 1.85×1.85km areas allotted out to families. Total would be ~60,000.
Empire description:
- Founded by a race born of Poseidon and Cleito
- First kings called Atlas
- These kingdoms extend through ‘Gades’ (Cadiz) up to Tyrrhenia and Egypt
- Atlantis’s race was eventually diluted by mortal admixture and corrupted
Demise:
- Ended in a day and a night due to being covered by and sinking into an thalassa.
- This consequent mud prevented passage for boats sailing from Atlantis to the ocean from this time thereafter. ([Critias 108e]“an impassable barrier of mud to voyagers sailing from hence”)
As can be seen, even condensed into thirty three key descriptive statements there is a lot to understand but it’s important to assess a theory against the full extent of information we are provided with.
Chapter 1: The War
Chronology
This is quite a textual chapter but it’s essential to the narrative.
I had long assumed that the sinking of Atlantis was said to date to 9600 BC. This is very commonly asserted because it’s the only date we receive and because there is an alignment with this date to Meltwater Pulse-1B when sea levels rose, which seems like a convenient flooding means but this is not what the text says.
This 9600 BC date is the date of the war between “all those beyond the Pillars of Hercules” and those “within the Pillars of Hercules” and this is a separate event said to have happened in a time before, even, the creation the full Atlantean empire and also before the subsequent flooding event.
Let’s go through why.
These are the crucial parts of text mentioning the war and the timings:
Timaeus
[25b] Λιβύης μὲν ἦρχον μέχρι πρὸς Αἴγυπτον, τῆς δὲ Εὐρώπης μέχρι Τυρρηνίας. αὕτη δὴ πᾶσα συναθροισθεῖσα εἰς ἓν ἡ δύναμις τόν τε παρ’ ὑμῖν καὶ τὸν παρ’ ἡμῖν καὶ τὸν ἐντὸς τοῦ στόματος πάντα τόπον μιᾷ ποτὲ ἐπεχείρησεν ὁρμῇ δουλοῦσθαι. τότε οὖν ὑμῶν, ὦ Σόλων, τῆς πόλεως ἡ δύναμις εἰς ἅπαντας ἀνθρώπους διαφανὴς ἀρετῇ τε καὶ ῥώμῃ ἐγένετο: πάντων γὰρ προστᾶσα εὐψυχίᾳ καὶ τέχναις ὅσαι κατὰ πόλεμον,
[25c] τὰ μὲν τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἡγουμένη, τὰ δ’ αὐτὴ μονωθεῖσα ἐξ ἀνάγκης τῶν ἄλλων ἀποστάντων, ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐσχάτους ἀφικομένη κινδύνους, κρατήσασα μὲν τῶν ἐπιόντων τρόπαιον ἔστησεν, τοὺς δὲ μήπω δεδουλωμένους διεκώλυσεν δουλωθῆναι, τοὺς δ’ ἄλλους, ὅσοι κατοικοῦμεν ἐντὸς ὅρων Ἡρακλείων, ἀφθόνως ἅπαντας ἠλευθέρωσεν. ὑστέρῳ δὲ χρόνῳ σεισμῶν ἐξαισίων καὶ κατακλυσμῶν γενομένων, μιᾶς
[25b]“They ruled over Libya as far as Egypt, and over Europe as far as Tyrrhenia.
And this entire power, gathered together into one, once attempted in a single assault to enslave both your land and ours, and all the region within the mouth (of the sea).
Then, O Solon, the power of your city became manifest to all mankind in excellence and strength: for it surpassed all others in courage and in the arts of war…”
[25c]“Leading the Greeks on the one side, but later standing alone through necessity when the others had withdrawn, and having come to the utmost dangers, she [Athens] defeated the invaders and set up a trophy of victory. She prevented those who had not yet been enslaved from becoming enslaved, and she freely liberated all the rest of us who dwell within the boundaries of the Pillars of Heracles.
But afterwards, at a later time, when extraordinary earthquakes and floods occurred, in a single…” […day and a night all the Athenian warriors were swallowed by the earth and the Island of Atlantis likewise disappeared into the sea]
Critias:
[108e] πάντων δὴ πρῶτον μνησθῶμεν ὅτι τὸ κεφάλαιον ἦν ἐνακισχίλια ἔτη, ἀφ’ οὗ γεγονὼς ἐμηνύθη πόλεμος τοῖς θ’ ὑπὲρ Ἡρακλείας στήλας ἔξω κατοικοῦσιν καὶ τοῖς ἐντὸς πᾶσιν: ὃν δεῖ νῦν διαπεραίνειν. τῶν μὲν οὖν ἥδε ἡ πόλις ἄρξασα καὶ πάντα τὸν πόλεμον διαπολεμήσασα ἐλέγετο, τῶν δ’ οἱ τῆς Ἀτλαντίδος νήσου βασιλῆς, ἣν δὴ Λιβύης καὶ ̓Ασίας μείζω νῆσον οὖσαν ἔφαμεν εἶναί ποτε, νῦν δὲ ὑπὸ σεισμῶν δῦσαν ἄπορον πηλὸν τοῖς ἐνθένδε ἐκπλέουσιν
[109a] ἐπὶ τὸ πᾶν πέλαγος, ὥστε μηκέτι πορεύεσθαι, κωλυτὴν παρασχεῖν. τὰ μὲν δὴ πολλὰ ἔθνη βάρβαρα, καὶ ὅσα Ἑλλήνων ἦν γένη τότε, καθ’ ἕκαστα ἡ τοῦ λόγου διέξοδος οἷον ἀνειλλομένη τὸ προστυχὸν ἑκασταχοῦ δηλώσει: τὸ δὲ Ἀθηναίων τε τῶν τότε καὶ τῶν ἐναντίων, οἷς διεπολέμησαν, ἀνάγκη κατ’ ἀρχὰς διελθεῖν πρῶτα, τήν τε δύναμιν ἑκατέρων καὶ τὰς πολιτείας. αὐτῶν δὲ τούτων τὰ τῇδε ἔμπροσθεν προτιμητέον εἰπεῖν.
[108e] First of all we must recall the main point: that nine thousand years had passed since the war is said to have occurred between those dwelling outside the Pillars of Heracles and all those living within them.
This war must now be described.
“It was said that this city—Athens—took the lead of the one side and fought through the entire war; while the leaders of the other side were the kings of the island of Atlantis, which we said was once an island greater than Libya and Asia together.
But now this island, having sunk because of earthquakes, has become an impassable mass of mud for those sailing out from here,
[109a] preventing passage to the whole pelagos, so that it is no longer possible to travel there.
The many barbarian peoples, and whatever tribes of Greeks existed at that time, will each be revealed in the course of the story as the narrative unfolds wherever they happen to arise.
But it is necessary first to describe from the beginning the Athenians of that time and their opponents against whom they fought—both the power of each side and their political systems.
And among these matters we must first give priority to describing those that concern our own people here.”
Analysis
Firstly, on timings, we’re informed in the Timaeus passages that the floods happened at a later time than the war.
ὑστέρῳ δὲ χρόνῳ
“But afterwards, at a later time..”
and within the Critias the war continues to be treated as an event that happened in the past with the sinking later.
νῦν δὲ
“But now..”
From this we can see there is a time interval of some unknown length between these events.
Returning to this time interval in a moment.
There is an odd discrepancy in the accounts regarding the territory of Egypt.
In the Timaeus we’re told that Atlantis ruled Parts of Europe as far as Italy and Egypt, and in the same breath, we’re then told that this power attempted to enslave Greece and Egypt and all the land within the Mediterranean basin.
This makes some sense on it’s own; if they had a strong foothold in the West Mediterranean already they might have wanted to take the rest, the mention of simultaneously having Egypt and attempting to capture Egypt could maybe be glossed over.
However, in the Critias we’re given a contrasting account, we’re told the war was between those who dwell outside the Pillars of Hercules and all those who dwell within the Pillars of Heracles.
“a war is said to have occurred between those dwelling outside the Pillars of Heracles and all those living within them.”
From other parts of the text we know that Plato is referring to the Strait of Gibraltar as the Pillars of Hercules, so all those who dwelt within them must include all of the Mediterranean basin. This is completely different to the previous passage which gives the impression that Atlantis was at the height of it’s power when attacking; already controlling territory up to Italy and Egypt but here we’re told that they’re not even within the Mediterranean and the war was actually between everyone within the Mediterranean, on one side, and those from outside the Mediterranean on the other side.
I think Plato himself doesn’t fully know the sequence of events and therefore is attempting to piece together what he has been told into a coherent narrative, and therefore had assumed Atlantis developed somewhat before a war broke out. However, I think it’s telling that in the Critias narrative where he writes “a war is said to have occurred between..” this is phrased as if he has had to just pass on what he has been told, in the phrasing it has been told, even though he doesn’t fully understand what he it writing.
In re-reading the Timaes passage we can see that actually the extent of the empire at the time of the war is not stated, these are two separate facts are pushed together into a sentence:
- a war happened between the Kings of Atlantis and Athens
- Atlantis once had an extent up to Italy and Egypt
Plato doesn’t claim that both these events happened at the same time presumably because he didn’t know, instead I think he put them together in a sentence because these are the two pieces of information he has.
Plato also tells us that the Atlantean power sets off from the Atlantikos Pelagos.
[Timaeus 24e] ἔξωθεν ὁρμηθεῖσαν ἐκ τοῦ Ἀτλαντικοῦ πελάγους.
“This power came forth out of the Atlantikos Pelagos,”
If it is true that the war was between people inside vs outside the Mediterranean, then here, this could be an instance where Plato has made an assumption, because it would not make sense for a new force entering the Mediterranean from the west to travel to the far east side to attack Greece and Egypt. Why wouldn’t they have first attacked, conquered and settled Spain and France and Italy?
Similarly, I think Plato made an assumption when stating the combatants were the “Kings of Atlantis” because it doesn’t quite make sense for them to be the kings before they had their Mediterranean kingdom.
There is a bombshell conclusion we’re reaching here. This fabled war that happened in 9600 BC just so happens to coincide with the same 9600 BC date that Anatolian Neolithic Farmers (ANFs) are found to have migrated from the Fertile Crescent into the Levant establishing settlements on the east Mediterranean coast there, we know this from the farming evidence we discover in that region at this time.
It makes a lot of sense to conclude that this arrival of ANFs and their displacement of the indigenous Hunter Gatherers (HGs) would have sparked conflict and war, and that this is the great pivotal war that is remembered.
Why would they be remembered as Atlanteans?
Perhaps these ANFs were remembered as being the Atlanteans because it was this group that did eventually found Atlantis. After giving up on displacing the HGs in Greece they perhaps redirected to settle Egypt and North Africa and as the African Humid Period ramped up they may have moved down into the new fertile regions, founded Atlantis and then from here have built their kingdom, colonising Spain, France and Italy.
Other interesting details from the text
A quirk of the account is that Plato states that he’ll tell us about various primitive people of this time but simply never gets back around to it.
“The many barbarian peoples, and whatever tribes of Greeks existed at that time”
However, this does at least suggest a time before farming takes hold corroborating the 9600 BC date.
Another important detail is that both Greece and Atlantis were flooded by the same rain event. I was ignorant of this fact before but whatever caused this massive climatic rain event affected both Atlantis down in Mauritania as well as up into Europe.
Plato tells us that this flooding of Greece happened when it was ruled by “people sprung from the earth”, aka Hunter Gatherers (HGs).
It is Greece that is said to have been so badly flooded that much of the mud was scourged from the land rendering it less favourable to the local people, the HGs, after this they left for better pastures leaving only scattered peoples in the mountains with little memory of their past. This event is also said to have taken place before the flood of Deucalion (the Black Sea Deluge, separate article) so before 5600 BC.
This is shown in the extracts below:
[Critias 109d] τὸ γὰρ περιλειπόμενον ἀεὶ γένος, ὥσπερ καὶ πρόσθεν ἐρρήθη, κατελείπετο ὄρειον καὶ ἀγράμματον, τῶν ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ δυναστῶν τὰ ὀνόματα ἀκηκοὸς μόνον καὶ βραχέα πρὸς αὐτοῖς τῶν ἔργων. τὰ μὲν οὖν ὀνόματα τοῖς ἐκγόνοις ἐτίθεντο
[Critias 109d] “For the race that remained, as was said before, was always left living in the mountains and without writing, hearing only the names of the rulers who had once been in the land, and knowing little besides of their deeds.”
[Critias 112a] τότε οὐχ ὡς τὰ νῦν ἔχει. νῦν μὲν γὰρ μία γενομένη νὺξ ὑγρὰ διαφερόντως γῆς αὐτὴν ψιλὴν περιτήξασα πεποίηκε, σεισμῶν ἅμα καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἐπὶ Δευκαλίωνος φθορᾶς τρίτου πρότερον ὕδατος ἐξαισίου γενομένου: τὸ δὲ πρὶν ἐν ἑτέρῳ χρόνῳ μέγεθος μὲν ἦν πρὸς τὸν Ἠριδανὸν καὶ τὸν Ἰλισὸν ἀποβεβηκυῖα καὶ περιειληφυῖα ἐντὸς τὴν Πύκνα καὶ τὸν Λυκαβηττὸν ὅρον ἐκ τοῦ καταντικρὺ τῆς Πυκνὸς ἔχουσα, γεώδης δ’ ἦν πᾶσα καὶ πλὴν ὀλίγον ἐπίπεδος ἄνωθεν.
[Critias 112a] “First, the Acropolis of Athens was not as it is now.
For now a single night of extraordinary rain washed away the soil and left it bare, accompanied by earthquakes and an extraordinary flood occurring before the destruction in the time of Deucalion.
But formerly, in another age, its size extended as far as the rivers Eridanus River and Ilissus River, enclosing within it the hill of Pnyx, and having as its boundary Mount Lycabettus opposite the Pnyx.
The whole area was composed of earth and was level on top, except for a small portion.“
The abandonment of Greece would have created a vacuum finally allowing the ANFs to move in, as farming can be sustained on less naturally verdant land. We see evidence of ANFs moving into this area in 6700 BC. This then perhaps is a good proxy for the time shortly after the major flooding event that made the land less verdant happened, this being the same date as sinking of Atlantis, just prior to 6700 BC.
This is not in contradiction to Plato, as stated before, the only date we receive is the date of the prior war in 9600 BC before the arriving farmers from Mesopotamia even had a foothold in the Mediterranean.
Chapter 2: The City
Mapping Plato’s measurements of the city using the typically agreed conversion of 1 Greek Stadion to 185m results in the following diagram:

As can be seen, there is an inner citadel, an acropolis (ἀκρόπολις), this includes one of the most memorable features of the city the three ringed canals or harbours, this is surrounded by a wall (plated in orichalcum (copper alloy)) itself surrounded by a massive habitable zone spanning 9.25km from the inner citadel, this zone contains a wall (plated in tin) and is surrounded by a wall (plated in brass). This final wall is meets at a thalassa (θάλασσα), a term which is explained in the next section. A channel connects the thalassa to the third harbour/ringed canal through the habitable zone.
Already this configuration is contentions. The three walls shown in the habitable zone outside the inner city are most commonly shown inside the inner city. This error is due to a couple of textual misinterpretations and assumptions, understanding why involves a deep, nerdy dive into the text which we’ll do in a following section but first it’s important to understand what is meant by thalassa.
Pelagos, pontos, thalassa
Ancient Greek terms for sea include pelagos, pontos, thalassa and oceanos, Plato uses pelagos, pontos and thalassa in his account. The lists below name which bodies of water each of these terms were used for by Ancient Greek writers.

The headings denote a commonality to each water body list. Pelagos implies coastal water, pontos an expansive or uncertain body of water and thalassa a saline and enclosed body of water. It is important to note that thalassa was also a term used for salty lakes such as Lake Van, the Sea of Galilee and Lake Mareotis.
In Plato’s account there is only one mention of pontos, three mentions of pelagos, and the rest of the mentions are to thalassa. Below are instances from Timeus and Critias that stand out for including seas other than the thalassa connecting to the city:
ἔξωθεν ὁρμηθεῖσαν ἐκ τοῦ Ἀτλαντικοῦ πελάγους. τότε γὰρ πορεύσιμον ἦν τὸ ἐκεῖ πέλαγος·
“This power came forth out of the Atlantikos Pelagos, for in those days the Atlantikos Pelagos was navigable..”
An unknown coastal sea is termed: Atlantikos Pelagos
[Timaeus 24e-25a] ἐξ ἧς ἐπιβατὸν ἐπὶ τὰς ἄλλας νήσους τοῖς τότε ἐγίγνετο πορευομένοις, ἐκ δὲ τῶν νήσων ἐπὶ τὴν καταντικρὺ πᾶσαν ἤπειρον τὴν περὶ τὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκεῖνον πόντον.
“..From it [Atlantis], passage was possible for those travelling at that time to the other islands, and from the islands to the entire continent lying opposite, which surrounds that true pontos.”
The Atlantic Ocean is termed: true pontos
[Timaeus 25a] τάδε μὲν γάρ, ὅσα ἐντὸς τοῦ στόματος οὗ λέγομεν, φαίνεται λιμὴν στενόν τινα ἔχων εἴσπλουν
“.. For these regions here—everything within the strait of which we speak—appear like a harbour having a somewhat narrow entrance”
The Mediterranean Sea isn’t actually termed with a sea here, although commonly in other work the Mediterranean is referred to as a thalassa. The comparison of the Mediterranean to a harbour supports the true pontos being a reference to the Atlantic Ocean.
[Timaeus 25a] ἐκεῖνο δὲ πέλαγος ὄντως ἥ τε περιέχουσα αὐτὸ γῆ παντελῶς ἀληθῶς ὀρθότατ’ ἂν λέγοιτο ἤπειρος.
“..but that expanse there is truly a pelagos, and the land that surrounds it could most rightly and accurately be called a continent in the fullest sense.”
Here, confusingly, Plato refers back to the pontos as now instead a ‘pelagos’, conflating pontos and pelagos. To my reading this implies that the boundary between the coastal pelagos sea and true pontos Atlantic Ocean is undefined and that the pelagos is interchangeable with pontos possibly because it continues out indefinitely.
τῷ μὲν πρεσβυτάτῳ καὶ βασιλεῖ τοῦτο οὗ δὴ καὶ πᾶσα ἡ νῆσος τό τε πέλαγος ἔσχεν ἐπωνυμίαν, Ἀτλαντικὸν λεχθέν, ὅτι τοὔνομ’ ἦν τῷ πρώτῳ βασιλεύσαντι
“But all names were given to him who was the eldest and king of this place, and the whole island, and the pelagos, were called Atlantic, because it was the same as the first king.”
The pelagos is named Atlantic (meaning ‘of Atlas’) after Atlas, the first king.
ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς χαλεπῆς ἐπελθούσης, τό τε παρ’ ὑμῖν μάχιμον πᾶν ἁθρόον ἔδυ κατὰ γῆς, ἥ τε Ἀτλαντὶς νῆσος ὡσαύτως κατὰ τῆς θαλάττης δῦσα ἠφανίσθη: διὸ καὶ νῦν ἄπορον καὶ ἀδιερεύνητον γέγονεν τοὐκεῖ πέλαγος, πηλοῦ κάρτα βραχέος ἐμποδὼν ὄντος, ὃν ἡ νῆσος ἱζομένη παρέσχετο.
“After a single terrible day and night had come upon them, all your warriors sank together into the earth, and the island of Atlantis likewise sank beneath the thalassa and vanished. For this reason that pelagos is even now impassable and unexplorable, because very shallow mud obstructs it — mud which the island, as it settled, supplied.”
Reference to the city sinking into a thalassa and thus a palagos becoming impassable
translations from ChatGPT
What can we say from this? Firstly, Plato refers to open Atlantic Ocean only as an unnamed ‘true pontos’ (expansive body of water). It is clear Pontos is used to refer to the Atlantic Ocean in this passage given the description of the thalassa Mediterranean Sea as “only a certain narrow harbour” in comparison. There’s also a description of what sounds like America as the continent beyond.
Plato’s use of the name Atlantikos Pelagos must refer to a coastal sea within this Atlantic Pontos, as Pelagos are always coastal.
Interestingly, prior to Plato, Herodotus referred to the Ocean of the Atlantic as the ‘Atlantis Thalassa’ using the same Ancient Greek word that Plato uses for Atlantis, Ἀτλαντὶς. In the context of Herodotus, when paired with thalassa, Atlantis means ‘of Atlas’. Whereas Atlantikos is inferred to mean ‘of the Atlantic’.
Plato’s use of pelagos rather than thalassa indicates a regional, coastal sea rather than the full pontos/thalassa of the Atlantic Ocean. The context of this passage is to say the Atlantean fleet came forth from this sea and that this sea was once navigable. Had Plato meant the sea were separated by the open ocean the fleet would have needed to navigate through this pontos as well and therefore the pontos should have been described as once navigable as well, not just the pelagos. To me this is suggestive that there is a direct connection between the Atlantikos Pelagos and the Pillars of Hercules (Straits of Gibraltar).
The rest of the references are made to the body of water immediately around the city of Atlantis as opposed to the country, these are all termed as a thalassa. This is a reference to an enclosed body of salty water, and because the Atlantic is termed differently as pontos this thalassa must be outside the Atlantic, as thalassas do not occur within other seas and oceans such as pelagos and pontos can. Most relevantly to the Richat, they are also, on occasion, salty or brackish lakes.
Walls of the city
If you search for diagrams of Atlantis you’ll find that there’s a lack of consistency with exactly how the walls are placed, most often three walls are shown inside the inner city, in front or behind zones of water, with an additional outer wall surrounding the full city.


This is an error and partially the result of another translational error, the placement of the acropolis. In this section we examine Plato’s placement and description of the walls and the acropolis.


Left: Conventional organisation of Atlantis, placing walls between inner rings with a separate outer wall
Right: Corrected organisation of Atlantis with the three walls outside the central rings
The acropolis initially crops up right at the beginning of the Critias during which Plato is describing the founding, origin story that the Atlanteans had towards the creation of their city. Poseidon falls in love with the earth born woman Clieto and makes love with her, where he finds her living on a small hill in the centre of the island, the hill is described as being 50 stadia from the thalassa and as being turned into an acropolis by Poseidon when he carved the signature rings around this hill. This detail of the original hill being 50 stadia from the thalassa is the first indication of where the the position of the acropolis is, as later on in the text we’re told that the outer zone of water of the inner city is also 50 stadia from the thalassa, therefore immediately is would appear that the outer habour of water marks the edge of this original hill acropolis.
We then pass through a lot of description before encountering a mention of the walls or acropolis again. Plato has just finished describing the sizes of the zones of land and water before making this statement:
[Critias 116a] ἡ δὲ νῆσος, ἐν ᾗ τὰ βασίλεια ἦν, πέντε σταδίων τὴν διάμετρον εἶχεν. ταύτην δὴ κύκλῳ καὶ τοὺς τροχοὺς καὶ τὴν γέφυραν πλεθριαίαν τὸ πλάτος οὖσαν ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν λιθίνῳ περιεβάλλοντο τείχει, πύργους καὶ πύλας ἐπὶ τῶν γεφυρῶν κατὰ τὰς τῆς θαλάττης διαβάσεις ἑκασταχόσε ἐπιστήσαντες.
[Critias 116a] “the island, in which the royal palace was, had a diameter of five stadia. This, then, and the rings, and the bridge (being a plethrum in width), they surrounded on both sides with stone wall(s), placing towers and gates upon the bridges at each of the passages of the sea.”
Importantly, sometime nouns in Ancient Greek can be either plural or singular so it reads as “a stone wall” or “stone walls”. This is where confusions have arisen, as all current translations translate the passage to the singular “a stone wall”.
However, the nouns for bridge and towers are specified as either plural or singular, and the terms for bridges are very illuminating. Firstly, Plato describes the central island and surrounding rings, and a singular γέφυραν (bridge), as being surrounded by wall(s). This is important as had the wall(s) and gate towers and bridge been within these rings it should instead be correct to state bridges as plural, unless the only bridge tower within the ringed inner city was the bridge tower of the very last wall.
Next we hear what the island, rings and single bridge are surrounded by; Plato says they are surrounded by γεφύρας (bridges) and πύργους (towers) specified as plural. Towers, ok, there would have been towers on either side of each opening so this information is not useful but multiple bridges wouldn’t make sense for a water channel passing through a single wall. Therefore this implies that we’re talking about multiple walls in general here. But we’ll return to this in a moment.
The passage also describes the wall(s) as “surrounding/enclosing” the rings. To me, this suggests the wall(s) are outside of the third ringed zone of water, but in fairness this is not definitive by this statement alone as it would still be possible for the walls to be between as well as around the zones. However, the following passage clarifies that they are indeed around the zones.
Plato now sets out to describe the walls in detail, stating:
[Critias 116b-c]καὶ τοῦ μὲν περὶ τὸν ἐξωτάτω τροχὸν τείχους χαλκῷ περιελάμβανον πάντα τὸν περίδρομον, οἷον ἀλοιφῇ προσχρώμενοι, τοῦ δʼ ἐντὸς καττιτέρῳ περιέτηκον, τὸν δὲ περὶ αὐτὴν τὴν ἀκρόπολιν ὀρειχάλκῳ μαρμαρυγὰς ἔχοντι πυρώδεις.
[Critias 116b-c] “And of the wall around the outermost ring they covered the whole circuit with bronze, as if applying an ointment; and the inner one they plated with tin; and the one around the acropolis itself with orichalcum having fiery gleams.”
Here, Plato is telling us that there are three different walls, with the inner wall enclosing the acropolis.
Plato follows a logic to his description; having first described an overview of the organisation of walls and their locations and gate towers collectively Plato then sets out to describe the specifics.
This justifies why it makes sense to interpret the first mention of “wall” as plural, not singular. Rather than singling out one wall for no apparent reason Plato is first describing them collectively in broad terms; made of stone, enclosing the city, each with a tower letting the channel to the thalassa pass through, before then describing the specific appearance of each. Ancient authors do this overview-then-specifics ordering frequently, this is important, as it helps us understand the logic of the description.
Also importantly, Plato hasn’t used the word acropolis since far earlier in the script to describe where Poseidon broke ground around Cleito, but this line assumes that we’re aware that there is an acropolis. It makes sense that the zones of land and water Plato had just finished describing are this acropolis.
Remaining on this passage, the conventional interpretation has been to assume the “outermost ring” is a reference to the outer zone of water of the inner city.
This is inconsistent with the references to the bands of water used previously, Plato instead always refers to them with διώρυξ (ditch) ζώνη (water) and/or θάλασσα (thalassa). Here, he uses τροχὸν alone, τροχὸν translates to wheel, circle, ring, course or circuit, it is a more general circular term and would be unconventional to how Plato has been referring to this zone of water, which makes it less likely that he is referring to the circuit of this zone of water here. The direct implication is that he’s referring to the outermost circuit of the city. We’ll return to this passage in a moment.
Next, Plato returns his focus to the inner city, the acropolis:
[Critias 117d] τὰ δὲ κατὰ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν βασίλεια ἐντὸς οὕτω κατεσκεύαστο.
[Critias 117d] “And the royal buildings at the acropolis inside were constructed thus.”
Having previously told us the sizes and positions of the ringed zones of water and land Plato now embarks on setting out the specifics, following the same overview-then-specifics ordering as with the walls. It’s important to note the language here, ἐντὸς literally meaning ‘within’, he is about to discuss the structures within the acropolis.
Plato then describes structures across all three inner ringed zones of land and water, these being:
- the central temple to Poseidon
- fountains
- altars
- bath houses (for both king and subjects)
- buildings about them
- suitable trees
- cisterns
- a stadium
- houses for body-guard
After this, to move on, Plato makes the following remark:
[Critias 117d] καὶ τὰ μὲν δὴ περὶ τὴν τῶν βασιλέων οἴκησιν οὕτω κατεσκεύαστο·
[Critias 117d] “And the arrangements concerning the royal palaces had thus been constructed”
Plato has just described, not only the temple on the central island, but structures across all three zones of land and water and to move on has now just labelled all of these as “royal palaces”.
These two beginning and end statements suggest that the acropolis encompasses all these structures and all zones of land and water, not only the very central island as has conventionally been assumed.
Let’s now return to Plato’s description of the walls, remember he states:
“and the [wall] around the acropolis itself with orichalcum having fiery gleams.”
If the acropolis includes all three zones of land and water this last, inner wall of orichalcum is clearly defined as being around the whole inner city.
However, most interpreters tended to assume that acropolis refers to only the central island with the temple to Poseidon, because most common instances of acropolises were elevated and of a certain small size, but not all, and the literal translation of acropolis as ‘higher city’ has metaphorical rather than literal meaning, a ‘spiritually higher’ precinct; it does not necessitate a raised, hilltop, precinct. Equally, although they tended to be a certain small size, much smaller than the 5km wide inner city of Atlantis, their sizes were relative to their surrounding urban city, and there is no size limit on acropolises. Atlantis, as a whole, was far bigger than ancient cities, therefore there is a logic that the central acropolis should be proportionally larger to match. Additionally, acropolises were not used exclusively for temples but all manner of buildings within an inner city, with pedestrian habitation typically being outside this area. Atlantis matches this organisation, the much larger habitable zone lies outside of the three inner ringed zones of water. This takes us to our last wall description:
[Critias 117e] τῆς θαλάττης ᾔειν ἐν κύκλῳ τεῖχος, πεντήκοντα σταδίους τοῦ μεγίστου τροχοῦ τε καὶ λιμένος ἀπέχον πανταχῇ, καὶ συνέκλειεν εἰς ταὐτὸν πρὸς τὸ τῆς διώρυχος στόμα τὸ πρὸς θαλάττης. τοῦτο δὴ πᾶν συνῳκεῖτο μὲν ὑπὸ πολλῶν καὶ πυκνῶν οἰκήσεων, ὁ δὲ ἀνάπλους καὶ ὁ μέγιστος λιμὴν ἔγεμεν πλοίων καὶ ἐμπόρων ἀφικνουμένων πάντοθεν, φωνὴν καὶ θόρυβον παντοδαπὸν κτύπον τε μεθ’ ἡμέραν καὶ διὰ νυκτὸς ὑπὸ πλήθους παρεχομένων.
[Critias 117e] “From the thalassa there ran a wall in a circle, fifty stadia distant everywhere from the largest ring and harbour, and it met together at the mouth of the canal on the thalassa side. And all this area was inhabited by many and densely packed dwellings; and the inlet and the greatest harbour were filled with ships and merchants arriving from every direction, producing voices and all kinds of noise and din by day and through the night because of the multitude.”
In this last passage Plato describes the outer wall of the three walls mentioned earlier. The wall encloses the full habitable zone which is a distance of 50 stadia (9.25km) from the last ringed zone of water, all around.
With this information we know the position of the outer-wall and, from the previous description, we know that the walls begin by encompassing of the zones of water with the inner wall surrounding this acropolis. Therefore the only wall we don’t know the position of is the second wall, but we do know that it is between the outer and the inner walls.
—
As a side note I’ve heard it argued that these walls couldn’t be outside of the inner rings because they are plated with different metals and it would require far too much metal to coat such large walls.
If we place the walls inside the rings, their circumferences would still come to 6km, 18km and 31km. In no scenario would any of these walls have been able to be fully coated in metal. Rather, I propose that it’s the towered entrances on each wall that you pass through as you precess into the city that are coated in different metals.
Comparing Atlantis to the Richat Structure
Theories connecting the Richat Structure to Atlantis have circulated online for a long time however not many have correctly observed the description Plato provides for the city, as shown again in the diagram below, and therefore most theories myopically focus on only the iconic, memorable inner citadel rings of water and have resorted to stretching the inner citadel to make it fit the rock ridges of the Richat. Below is a diagram of the Richat with subterranean structures labelled (these will come in relevant later) to matching scale beside the diagram of Plato’s city.



As can be seen comparisons are striking. The three stone circular ridges of the Richat are correctly sized to be the, often forgotten, three walls of the city of Atlantis, the inner citadel aligning entirely within the innermost ring of the Richat. The basin of the structure with salt deposits, if filled with water, would become an enclosed body of brackish water, a thalassa. And this was the case in the past, the Richat existed as a lake for millennia during the African Humid Period (see Chapter 2).
A problem occurs though, if the structure was a lake how could the area within the walls have remained a habitable zone? And how could the citadel and ringed harbours have formed in the centre if this was below water level?
This leads to an incredible logical corollary; the entire city was constructed on a floating island/mat of peat. Please bear with me and don’t abandon this article midway, I describe exactly how this works and actually how common this phenomenon is, later on. For now, take my word for it.
Combining the Richat with Plato’s description of the city along with this central peat structure and following George Sarantitis’ observation of the canal route through a gap in the second ring, we arrive at the following organisation:

Morphology and Hydrology of the Richat Structure
Alone, the surface-level alignment of the three stone ridged rings of the Richat with the three walls of Atlantis already makes a very strong case for this site as Atlantis but such speculation invites further inquiry. Can we find alignments to Plato’s rings of water in the morphology of the structure as well?
To start, let’s explore the structure beneath the surface, the geological morphology of the Richat Structure, and what this may imply about its groundwater hydrology.
The Richat Structure was caused by a magmatic uplift that bulged the earth’s crust millions of years ago, causing the different layers of rock to arch upwards, even cracking layers closer to the surface. Erosion then revealed these different layers like a slice through an onion.
Below is a geological diagram of the structure from:
Abdeina, E. H., Bazin, S., Chazot, G., Bertrand, H., Le Gall, B., Youbi, N., Sabar, M. S., Bensalah, M. K., & Boumehdi, M. A. (2021). Geophysical modelling of the deep structure of the Richat magmatic intrusion (northern Mauritania): insights into its kinematics of emplacement. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 43(1–3), 347–362.
The green circles denote what were initially considered dykes (cracks due to magma intrusion) but have been more recently considered stone cills; simply where harder layers of rock meet the surface. The black lines indicate assumed karsts (cracks formed by chemical dissolution of the rock) locations.

The whole structure is referred to as a hydro-alkaline complex given that the blue zone within the central green circle is a breccia (debris rock type) with up to 4m of this cracked rock at the surface formed by hydrothermal activity at some distant point in the past. The alkaline reference (of hydro-alkaline complex) is given due to the slight alkalinity of the rock.
Satellite imagery of the structure shows the presence of large evaporative salt flats as a bluey-white sheen, these can be seen in the lower areas of the basin. The white area across the mountains on the north west side of the plateau is from another past lake, however in this case the white marking comes from a combination of diatomaceous earth and salt.
The salt flats indicate these must have been at least a largely endorheic lake, aka it must have held water without leaking, this is because these salt flats form when a large amount of slightly saline water evaporates away. If water could have simply leaked out through the many karsts in the structure than these salt flats wouldn’t have been able to form. The salt remains water would have been slightly brackish, consistent with the term thalassa.

The cracks (karsts) are important to the hydrology of the structure as they create the potential for connected groundwater routes forming a subterranean aquifer (this type of aquifer known as a fracture aquifer) as well as acting as conduits for this water to daylight into the lake. It could therefore be hypothesised that a network of karsts were charged with rainwater from the flat, higher elevation of the surrounding sedimentary stone plateau, (which is about 50km x 100km in area).
This diagram below shows this hypothesised flow direction of groundwater. The diagram is exaggerated in the vertical axis to illustrate the arrangement of geological layers.

The above diagram shows a colour difference between brown and grey rock, the sedimentary/sandstone outer layers are shown in brown and the igneous core rock is shown in grey. These are important.
As igneous rock is less permeable it could therefore more effectively act as an aquitard trapping deep groundwater and channelling it through its layer contact boundaries.


Areomagnetics Plan. (Abdeina et al., 2021, Fig. 4)
The above magnetics plan shows the changes in magmatism. The colourful subsurface rings indicate layer contact boundaries in the bedrock, boundaries where groundwater could have emerged.
The outer stone ridge ring has no corresponding subsurface contact boundary but the next two rings do. Both of these colourful boundaries in the magnetics plan could have acted as favourable conduits for groundwater as the different layers leave small gaps for water to permeate. The inner ring is a contact boundary between igneous rock whilst the larger outer ring is a contact boundary between more permeable rock.
Returning to the previous diagram again, deep groundwater may become trapped below the igneous layers and directed into this centre ring to daylight.
With this water being directed from deep underground it may also have become thermally warmed.
The inner cill ring is referred to as the central karst-collapse breccia, a geological term for a vertical ringed crack.
There is an alignment in the size of Plato’s third ring of water and this central karst-collapse breccia. The full mechanism of how springs could have resulting in a ring of water will be explored in a moment but first let’s observe this alignment in more detail and also look for alignments of spring water for the first and second of Plato’s rings of water.
The first 5km dimeter ring aligns with a different structure, it alignment the perimeter of the intrusive igneous core. This is a confirmed observed structure in the Richat; a past column spout of magma once emerged at the centre as a volcano to relieve pressure millions of years ago. The magma and volcano structure have since eroded away but the below ground vertical shaft remains as rock stratified in a vertical direction and, like the central karst-collapse breccia.
This is a simplistic diagram to explain what an intrusive igneous core is. This one has since been eroded almost flat almost there is still a small central hill.

Cracks would have formed along this past core following the vertical strata of the rock, and much like the vertical cracks within the layer contact boundaries these would have also acted as favourable conduits for groundwater. Springs emerging and flowing down off this central hill would therefore trickle into the position Plato provides for the first ring of water. Therefore, here we also find an alignment of spring water to the first ring, again assuming there was once groundwater emerging through these cracks.
The alignments to crack structures of these first two rings is clear and certain. The second (middle) ring’s alignment to springs is less observable. If this pattern of cracks matching Plato’s rings is correct it is worth using the data we have to test whether any third crack can be seen here. We’re looking for another layer contact boundary in the igneous layers of rock that meets the surface form another cill and water conduit for this intermediate ring. Like the first cill, the layer contact boundary would act as a preferential conduit for groundwater.
The diagrams below show both the topography and magnetics plans at the same scale to allow for observations between the two. When doing this we can see indications, albeit see subtle and non-definitive but nonetheless indications of this intermediate layer contact boundary.
I draw where I hypothesise an inner layer contact boundary ring could is hinted to be with the middle dashed lines on the image on the right. The other other dashed line being the known layer contact boundary of the central karst-collapse breccia and the grey circle in the centre being the hill of the intrusive igneous core.




Putting the hypothesis all together, the diagram below shows how we can assume groundwater would channel to each of these three zones to emerge as springs in the bedrock; the karst-collapse breccia vertical ring crack, the intermediate layer contact boundary ring and the intrusive igneous core.

Springs and Peat
It has now been shown how the topography of the Richat matches the three walls of Atlantis and how the subsurface cill structures align with Plato’s rings, and that springs might have emerged at these cill locations but I haven’t explained how springs could have caused the matching clear water zones to occur within a peat mat above, or why there should even be a surface of peat on this paleolake.
Why and how would peat accumulate here? And how would springs have created the signature ringed canals?
Peat
Peat is a term for the accumulation of half decayed or undecayed plant matter. It is most commonly found as an organic layer on the surface of lakes or marshes and can over time become incredibly deep. In fact, it can be one of the fastest forms of organic matter accumulation with some peat bogs able to exceed 2mm of gain per year.
The phenomenon is triggered when certain habitat conditions are met and then, to a degree, self perpetuates through feedback loops. The key is for there to be a discrepancy between the rate of new plant growth and the rate of decomposition; growth high, decomposition low.
Decomposition rates are naturally lowered when conditions are acidic, anoxic and/or cold, as all of these reduce bacteria grow. Once a peat bog has initiated, the backlog of slow decaying matter produces acid and uses up oxygen, these conditions exacerbate if water is stagnant. A surface mat of peat can then further reduce water’s ability to dissolve new oxygen from air contact. Thus, a shift into a peat dominated system is intensified.
The Effect of Spring Water on Peat
Spring water is often more oxygen depleted and can also be colder than rainwater. The colder temperature is due to evaporative loss of heat during the process of seeping into the earth and the loss of oxygen is due to the water’s oxidation of rocks whilst it’s flowing underground. Therefore, spring water can act as a catalyst for the formation of peat.
There is an example of this very phenomenon happening in a lake in Italy, Lake Posta Fibreno. The lake is broadly stagnant but receives cold spring water, this has resulted in the formation of a 4m deep, 30m wide floating peat island supporting a small woodland. The top 1m of the island formed in the last 50 years ago. Granted, this layer isn’t true, dense peat but rather a spongy mass of S. palustre moss, but still nonetheless demonstrates the speed of potential matter accumulation.

A Lake in and the Richat
Before moving on to its potential habitat for peat, we should first further establish the evidence we have that the Richat was indeed a lake. As I mentioned earlier on there are clear salt flats within the structure, to elaborate on this the salt is chemically and nutritionally distinct from seawater salt deposits, of which there are some in the Sahara from an ancient sea millions of years ago. The salt here shows clear signs of being an evaporative lake deposit.
Other evidence of water comes from the indentation of a water outlet channel on the south side. Lastly, many crustacean and mollusc shells have been found within the structure.
Spring Water in the Richat
I’ve stated my geological reasons for how spring water could have emerged at the centre of the structure. To recap the reasons for this; the many karsts and dykes apparent on the surface of the structure’s basin indicate the potential for a fracture aquifer below, charged with water from the massive, 50x100km surrounding raised carbonate/sandstone plateau.
Firsthand evidence of springs can also comes from Professor Michael Jébrak, a co-author of
Matton, G., Jébrak, M. & Lee, J.K.W. (2005). Resolving the Richat enigma: Doming and hydrothermal karstification above an alkaline complex. Geology, 33(8), pp.665–668.
who observed evidence of past alkaline springs near the side of the basin via evidence of zeolite deposits (this testimony is via personal communication, September 2025). This spring evidence is at a different location to the centre but it demonstrates water was seeping through the plateau and emerging as springs.
Theirs is also firsthand testimony of present day spring water being discovered when digging into the centre of the structure from the team involved in making the documentary Visting Atlantis.
Peat in the Richat
Would the conditions of this lake have favoured the production of peat? The basin’s fairly unique topology of concentric rock ridges means that water within these ridges would have been almost entirely contained and thus would have been stagnant. The water outside these ridges would instead receive rainwater streams down from the banks of the plateau.
This stagnant water fulfils one of the means for slowing decomposition, as stagnant water, with organic matter in it, becomes depleted in oxygen and increased in acidity. The spring water I hypothesise entering this zone may also have been oxygen depleted and potentially slightly colder than rainwater. There is also plenty of limital zones where the rocks meet the surface to act as substrates for peat to initially take hold. Together these factors would have made this central zone very susceptible to falling into a peat system, which as I’ve said before creates a self perpetuating cycle of increased acid and decreased oxygen.
The Mechanism
Finally, we can assume that the groundwater emerging at the first, outer cill layer contact boundary ring was not emerging from as deep underground as the subsequent inner rings, because each is stacked atop the next. If this groundwater wasn’t as deep it would be less likely to be geothermally warmed, water generally needs to be +~500m deep to receive geothermal heat. Therefore, it might be that cool springs emerged at this ring which would have aided the production of peat as described previously.
Water emerging at the following cill contact boundaries would have needed to past deeper underground, with more likelihood of picking up geothermal heat. If so, warm spring water would immediately rise to the surface and warm the immediate above area before the warmth can dissipate via evaporation. The slight increase in temperature would deter peat from forming in these areas, as discussed previously. This would increase decomposition flipping the balance of rate of decomposition to rate of new organic litter in favour of decomposition. Thus creating a formation on the surface of the peat matching the pattern of springs on the lake floor, this formation matching the formation described by Plato.
-
- the coastlines were very different, there were massive landmasses in the Atlantic
- Atlantis was a confederacy, they ruled from Egypt to Peru and from Greenland to South Africa
- Atlantis was the last breath of the story of Atlas – a space elevator, the “rainbow feathered serpent”. Richat even today is translated as “Feathered Mountain”.
LikeLike
-
Thanks for bringing up the Feathered Mountain name. I agree this is very interesting an I will be adding a section that discussing this in connection to what can be discerned about the Atlantean culture.
LikeLike
Leave a comment