Frank Joseph

The only reason I give this encyclopedia 4 stars instead of 5, is because the author includes so many references to Lemuria and Mu. These two Islands were the PACIFIC counterpart to Atlantis --they were not the same. While they shared many of the same aspects, meriting an entry for lemuria and mu, they are not one and the same as Atlantis-- which, for me, means other entries should not be included if they relate to lemuria or mu but NOT Atlantis.

I was confused reading through several entries until I realized this: Lemuria and Mu are the same (an island country in the pacific with similar mythology to Atlantis), Atlantis a wholly separate entity.… (plus d'informations)

How did I ever get sucked into buying this book? It's been on my shelves unread for quite a while so can't recall where I bought it, but I've always been interested in ancient civilisations and unusual ruins etc....and I had read Plato's stories about Atlantis. But even Plato recited it as myth if my memory serves me correctly. When I started reading a few entries in this book I started to get the distinct feeling that the author had accepted legends of Atlantis as factual but had gone a bit further than having an island just west of Gibraltar that was Atlantis. In fact, he seems to think of it as the source of all sorts of cities and structures and manages to weave just about any set of old stones into his encyclopaedia as more proof of Atlantis.
It's not so much that it's impossible that there was a city that was engulfed by the sea...as the seas rose. In fact, we know that this has occured in the Black Sea and we know that Crete had a city that was destroyed by earthquake. But to claim that this is linked in with the natural rock formations in the Caribbean as a "road" built by Atlanteans...and pyramids all over the world were either constructed by Atlanteans or refugees from Atlantis seems to me to be totally far fetched.
Basically, it is a huge collection of material that I would not like to rely on for any of the proposed interpretations. He appears to have no Archeological qualifications (apart from having travelled a lot) ...he does not appear to have the support of qualified archeologists. But more to the point, All the known civilisations developed alongside agriculture...and usually extensive agriculture; normally requiring land and water from rivers. And also often requiring labour from slaves who were brought in from subjugated tribes nearby. I think it is pretty unlikely that a whole civilisation would have developed on a remote island without these sort of resources to draw on.
OK there are lots of stories about mankind being wiped out by floods ....and, if you live beside rivers and use them for watering your crops, then floods are going to be a fact of life. And yes, if you have your city alongside the sea and you are in an earthquake zone, then you are likely to cop tsunamis every now and then. But even if there was an Atlantis, I think it's drawing a very long bow to claim direct links with just about every ancient ruin or city in the world.
There are also obvious factual errors. The Lady of Elche sculpture from Spain is not terracotta but Limestone and was a funerary urn. The Bimini "roads" are not the work of men but natural rock formations. (And somewhere I recall seeing that similar rock formations ...I think off Japan were natural formations not the work of refugee Atlanteans). Isla de mujeres...."Island of women" as I recall, was not named after statues of women found there but because the Pirates of the Caribbean, used to leave their women there whilst they went raiding....and a rather nice place for them to be left from my experience of the place. Anyway, I've wasted more than enough time writing this review. It is, in my opinion, not worth reading. I give it half a star because I can't give it less. ....And there are some interesting photos.… (plus d'informations)