A detailed description of two people who are looking for Atlantis: one, a geologist with a realistic methodology; the other, a pseudoscientist who seems only interested in the limelight.

During a few months in 2003, I found myself caught up in a sometimes-bitter discussion on the Internet in regards to the possible discovery of Atlantis. This discussion began in a forum thread at SciForums.com with someone posting "some archaeological news." The originator of the thread carefully avoided mentioning the word "Atlantis" and, instead, referred to it as the "unnamed city" and other similar monikers.

Well, I like being a little more straightforward, so I didn't have that compulsion to avoid the name of the city. In fact, I began the thread quite skeptical of the "news," which was of the "research" of one Georgeos Diaz-Montexano (a.k.a. Jorge Diaz).

Before I go further, let me point out that my opinion of Atlantis at that point was that it was a myth that popular culture and New Agers cling to like UFOs, BigFoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and psychic energy. In short, I thought then that it was just bunk. Now, I think that Atlantis was very likely a Neolithic or Bronze Age society that existed in a area now submerged by the rise in sea levels at around 11,000 years ago. I don't believe that Atlanteans were an advanced society, but rather one that you would expect for the period. I don't think that there was a sudden "sinking" of a continent, but rather a slow rise in sea level that forced the residents to move to Spain or Morocco. I think it's unlikely that they even referred to themselves as living in "Atlantis," and that this moniker came from Plato.

The Anti-Georgeos Society

But the reason that I believe this new information about Atlantis is one of the reasons I became caught up in the "conspiracy against Georgeos" and became a founder of the "Anti-Georgeos Society!" This was the term used for three members who questioned GD-M's claims.

Let me pick up from the SciForums thread: this discussion began with the title, which it still has, of Some Archaeologic News in a forum for "Human Sciences" such as anthropology and archaeology. The information that was presented for discussion was based on the "research" of Georgeos Diaz-Montexano (GD-M) and had some inconsistencies. First, GD-M made claims of finding some spectacular artifacts and features of an ancient, Bronze-age civilization, which included "smelting factories," "roads," "columns," "chimneys," and a "striker pin" among others. The problem with these claims is that they didn't offer any idea of the context of the finds or provenience of the artifacts. Some random pictures were shown of divers holding artifacts or pointing to underwater features but, curiously, none of the divers had the characteristic tablets for taking notes or making sketches that you expect from those conducting sub-aqueous archaeology. Nor were any grids being delineated by string, PVC pipe, or metal rods as you would expect from serious researchers collecting data for provenience records.

But it was possible that these photos were taken on a separate dive without the research gear or were taken during moments in which the gear was in use elsewhere. As unlikely as that seems, it was possible. But the explanations of how GD-M determined that these features and artifacts full-filled the functions he described were not forthcoming. Many of the links to information that GD-M was willing to release came from his own websites and on the Atlantis Rising website. I was reluctant to post my questions there, initially, as I try to avoid the pseudoscience and New Age websites, but I was hooked, thanks in part to a member of both forums that seemed to stay as impartial as she could. I was also encouraged to respond to some of the negative remarks that arose in regards to another, legitimate researcher.

Enter Jacques Collina-Girard.

Jacques Collina-Girard made headlines with his hypothesis about Atlantis and recent contract with National Geographic that will provide him with the opportunity to test it. Jacques believes that the submerged shoal of Spartel (or Majuan, depending on which side of the Strait of Gibralter you get your maps from) was once above sea level about 11,000 years ago and is the source of Plato's account of Atlantis.

I learned of Jacques Collina-Girard (JC-G) at about the point I was researching GD-M's credentials. In searches for "Atlantis" at the National Geographic website, JC-G's information kept coming up. At first, I dismissed it as another New Age claim and continued my search for information on GD-M. Almost nothing can be found to support that GD-M is qualified to excavate or even identify an archaeological site. His claimed credentials pointed only to membership in several societies, neither of which train or instruct in archaeology and one of which was "founded" by Georgeos himself. I suspect he's one of the few members!

Jacques, on the other hand, still kept popping up. So I started reading his stuff. I even ended up emailing JC-G after noting that GD-M appeared to be bitterly put off by his work and perhaps even jealous. Jealousy was a likely emotion, as GD-M and his "secretary," who was posting information and answering questions on GD-M's behalf, consistently pointed out similarities in their "theories," made wild accusations about legal actions, and actually resorted to ad hominem remarks and comments about JC-G.

Jacques, in his emails to me, was completely the opposite of GD-M. His work, he told me, was based on the discovery a few years ago that the late Quarternary shorelines in the Mediterranean were above sea level. This led him to wonder about the legend of Atlantis and the fact that Plato (the source of the legend) claimed that Atlantis sat beyond the Strait of Gibralter (which he referred to as the Pillars of Hercules). After looking at geologic data, JC-G noted that several shallow shoals were present off of Cadiz, which would have been above sea level approximately 11,000 years ago. This timeframe is consistent with the period that Plato gives. Moreover, the legend of Atlantis is consistent with other legends that began as oral tradition, such as the Flood myths of the Black Sea region.

Jacques indicated that he was aware of Georgeos and perhaps even corresponded with him, but he was also dismissive of Georgeos. Apparently, he considered GD-M a little over the top, but didn't seem overly worried about him.

National Georgeos-Graphic

Interestingly enough, Georgeos also claims to have a contract with National Geographic, but after being questioned about it by myself and a couple other members of the Atlantis Rising discussion board, Georgeos now claims that the contract is with Camino Media. As it turns out, they are, indeed, interested in putting together an expedition to film an exploration of the area and, according to an email that another member received, are looking at who might constitute an appropriate scientific team. This indicates that Georgeos' team is either non-existent or inappropriate.

It was also telling that during one of the discussions that Georgeos had on the Atlantis Rising discussion board, he provided links to several photographs, many aerial, which were allegedly of the Cadiz area and possible sites of excavation for the archaeological remains of Atlantis. Many of the features he described were questionable, and one notable example was a circular feature that was clearly the result of crop irrigation. This and GD-M's failure to use the terminology expected of someone conducting archaeology seemed odd. I asked questions. A lot of them.

All in all, my questions, along with those of at least two other members of the Atlantis Rising discussion forums, prompted some very harsh responses from Maria, Georgeos' "secretary." She consistently referred to us as liars, deceivers, haters, envious, and mentirosos, which is Spanish for slanderer. "Super Anthropologist" she reserved for me, however! Apparently, she read the thread in the SciForums where I mentioned that I was a student of anthropology and archaeology.

A Case Study: pseudoscience versus science.

Overall, the whole Georgeos Diaz-Montexano versus Jacques Collina-Girard argument appears to be a good case study of pseudoscience versus science.

JC-G presents a classic scientific approach by offering a hypothesis supported by previous research and clearly documents his proposed methods to test his hypothesis. It seems very likely that JC-G is right in his hypothesis and whether the region in question is actually Atlantis or not may be secondary to the significance of a possible land bridge for human migration in the region. Artifacts he might find could provide valuable clues to migration and trade patterns for Africa and Europe.

GD-M, however, is marred by all the classic signs of pseudoscience. Pigliucci (2001) provides us with a list from John Casti's Paradigms Lost and Georgeos easily meets these five of the eleven total:

These and other markers exist that pokes holes in Georgeos Diaz-Montexano's so-called theories. His desire to find fame and glory are reminiscent of Graham Hancock and Robert Bauvel and his ignorance of established methodology and basic understandings of scientific method and reporting is similar to the fictions of Van Daniken. Georgeos would have us all believe that he is a renowned linguist, archaeologist and explorer. This may all be true, but unfortunately, there is no evidence to support it.

References:

Pigliucci, M., 2001. Science vs. Pseudoscience : Where is the Difference ? Found online at : http://www.rationallyspeaking.org

Atlantis Rising Discussion Forum, 2003. We needed the opinion Wise people Erick, Cfeagans and Riven on these Photos. Found online at: http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000759.html

Atlantis Rising Discussion Forum, 2003. For the detractors, envious and enemy of Georgeos Diaz >:-( [sic]. Found online at: http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000754.html