Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Proclus

Atlantis hoaxes

7 posts in this topic

Recently, I discovered an anti-hoaxing document from 1833. The German philologist August Boeckh wrote in Latin about a forgery scandal from 1828, when a certain Marquis de Fortia d'Urban and a certain Giorgio Grognet presented forged findings in order to provide a "proof" for the claim that Malta was Atlantis. Funny reading, enjoy! The Latin, French, etc., sources are given by Web link, if you can (and want to) read them.

http://www.atlantis-...-malta-hoax.htm

I hope you like this contribution to the forum! (I found a lot of threads about Atlantis theories but none about hoaxes, so I opened a new thread for this. Other anti-hoax infos can be added, here, too!)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question of Eumalus of Cyrene provoked a new dispute in Atlantis research:

On January 1st, 2014, Anton Mifsud published a response to the article about the Atlantis Malta hoax.

See both texts here:

It's a hoax (Boeckh, Franke):

http://www.atlantis-scout.de/atlantis-malta-hoax.htm

No, it's not a hoax (Mifsud):

http://atlantipedia.ie/samples/document-010114b/

And what do YOU think?

Stay informed with the Atlantis Newsletter:

http://www.atlantis-scout.de/atlantis_newsletter.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short summary:

Eumalus of Cyrene allegedly copied parts of the lost work of Aristippus: "History of Libya".

Allegedly, this "History of Libya" contained important information about Atlantis. (Aristippus lived in the times of Plato.)

So, the question is: Do we have another trustworthy first-hand source about Atlantis - or do we not?

(I personally find this more interesting than Nazis or GoogleMaps ...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that no trace of Aristippus' "History of Libya" exists, I'd say we do not.

Harte

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that no trace of Aristippus' "History of Libya" exists, I'd say we do not.

Well, that's the claim of some Atlantis searchers who favour Malta as the place of Atlantis:

That the manuscript of a certain Eumalus (who copied Aristippus) was discovered in the 19th century.

And that its contents are known and point to Malta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eumalos never existed. The forged manuscript could though predate the early 19th century. It has some similarities with Annio da Viterbo's Antiquities. My guess is that it dates between 1500 - 1700. The direct mention of Ogyges ("Ogyge") in relation to Atlantis is earlier traceable to George Syncellus (late 8th century) and a Pseudo-Aristotle treatise. The forger was probably using such sources as reference tools, but then just invented stories or fabricated details (of Ogyges for example he says: "...of the island Atlantis was not submerged. This summit of Mount Atlas has preserved the name of Ogyge from that of its last king").

I've also read Anton Mifsud's Malta: Echoes of Atlantis. The book is pseudo-history since it rejects source criticism (standard historical method) and presents nothing but confirmation bias throughout (cherry-picking, e.g. X says this place was so and so, but omits Y or Z that says otherwise). Non-surprisingly the only supporters of Mifsud are Graham Hancock's followers. Hancock's name is even slopped on the back of the book.

Lastly, Mifsud says -

In conclusion, insofar as the ancient text of Eumalos is concerned, there is no evidence at all that it was a forgery

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Basically Mifsud has no evidence, so he's trying to shift the burden of proof. The fact remains that there is no mention of Eumalos in any known classical source (not even late antiquity) and that no modern historian or classicist considers the manuscript genuine.

Frank's article is a good exposure of the forgery. However the negative is that we give cranks like Mifsud and Hancock publicity by talking about this (o well...)

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum Mr. Smith.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.