Atlantis and the Biblical Flood: The evidence at last? by Philip Runggaldier

Atlantis and the Biblical Flood: The evidence at last?
by Philip Runggaldier
Pages: 258
Date: January 6 2016
Publisher: Matador
Series: N/A

Review
Rating: 3.0 out of 5.0
Read: January 28 to February 3 2016

*I received this book from NetGalley in return for a fair review.*

My first book by this author.

I am not always very good at reviewing nonfiction, so let me see what I can do.

There are many theories presented in this book. Before I get to that, I would like to mention two things:

1) I’m not exactly sure if the author had, at some point, planned on writing a memoir or something like that. And somehow that got intermixed with this book. Or, to put that differently – I do not know why I am learning specific things, like the author had a job, but then put in the paperwork to leave that job. Then he fell down on some ice – important point noted by the author -> teenagers laughed at him. Then he sold his house, lived in his parent’s house, and while there visited many libraries. Then he bought a house. Then he completely ‘redid’ the house. At one point I joked with myself that the author must be single and/or someone who never dates since nothing like that has been mentioned. The author then mentioned that type of thing. He then sells that house he had and moved to another. Um . . . why am I getting all of this information?

2) There are some interesting theories here. It might have been/probably would have been ‘better’ if things had been done in certain stages. As in: here is evidence of a really large lake; here is evidence that something like a center of civilization was located somewhere in Britain; here is evidence that places it on the Celtic plane; here is evidence of why early human settlement of Britain is patch and or not present from roughly 24,000 to 15,000 years ago. The end. Now let people absorb this information. Accept or reject. Because the next bunch of theories are the kind you want some greater foundation for and are directly related to these other, supposedly less controversial theories. Then mention things like how all of this might be the story behind the biblical flood; how this center of civilization might be related to that fabled city called Atlantis (especially since so much of the evidence mentions something like ‘assuming scientists accept the Llyn Llion theory, then the rest flows from that.

Right. Okay then.

Theories:

I. Lake Llyn Llion
A. Based on evidence, including what can be seen on survey maps of the Irish Sea and surrounding bodies of water; evidence on land; and other evidence – at some point in time, the Irish Sea (that body of water between Scotland/Wales/England and Ireland) got closed off during the ice age. A lake formed. Because the water had trouble exiting, this lake moved higher than the current sea levels. Because of the warmer water brushing up against the ice sheets, the ice sheets melted, expanding the lake, raising the lake, and turning the lake into a fresh water lake.

B. There is evidence in the regional folk stories/myths/legends to support the idea of this lake. (Most of this kind flew over my head, unfortunately)

C. As mentioned, there is evidence from the ground itself (the way it has been cut, etc.), that this lake was there.

D. As the Oxford Reference defines Llyn Llion:
“Fabulous ‘Lake of the Waves’ in early Welsh tradition, the overflowing of which caused the flood from which Dwyfan and Dwyfach escaped only in a ship built by Nefyd Naf Neifion. Also the home of the water-monster Afanc, Llyn Llion may possibly be associated with the actual Bala Lake.”

II. Megaflood
A. At roughly some point around 15,000 to 14,500 years ago Lake Llyn Llion, the lake inhabiting roughly where the Irish Sea currently resides, had a series of floods. Evidence of these floods can be found on the land. Eventually the block of ice blocking the southern border of the lake broke free letting the lake flow freely. Flooding the Celtic plain. Completely covering it and, for the most part, hiding it beneath the sea.

B. There is evidence on the land, sea floor, and myths/legends/stories of the peoples of the area that suggest this occurred.

C. The people of the time would naturally live in the best areas – at the time this would be the Celtic plain. Filled with wooly mammoths, wooly rhinos, giant deer, and other big game.

D. The flood destroyed most evidence of early human inhabitation when it covered the Celtic Plain.

II. Biblical Flood
A. This flood (the emptying of Llyn Llion), which, remember, took place around 15,000 to 14,500 years ago, is one of the largest that have occurred with direct impact on humans. Literally, the world as they knew it was covered (as in, the Celtic plain was covered by water).

B. Myths/legends/stories from the people of the area recount a flood involving this Llyn Llion Lake. At least one such story I’ve already indirectly mentioned when I quoted the Oxford Reference – ‘the flood from which Dwyfan and Dwyfach escaped only in a ship built by Nefyd Naf Neifion’, or as mentioned in this book here, two guys in a boat with some animals escaped the flood. Current theory places this story as an offshoot of the one in the bible. The author of this book notes that it is more likely that this early flood, that took place around 15,000 years ago, is actually the inspiration for this Dwyfan & Dwyfach story, and itself is the inspiration for the flood found in the bible.

III. Atlantis
A. Evidence strongly suggests that there was a high level culture which lived in the British Isles at roughly the time of the Irish Sea Lake. This was the Creswellian culture. This culture had some highly advanced stone tools, spears, and other items distinctly their own, which show up in northern Europe. Somewhere around the time of this megaflood, that culture somewhat collapsed. The stone tools took a nosedive in quality, and other indications of this cultural collapse. The reason for this collapse was not known. The author believes it is directly tied to this megaflood that occurred. (For my own sake I looked up the Creswellian culture on Wikipedia. Which may or may not be correct – it dates the Creswellian culture to 13,000-11,800 BP. I have no idea what BP means. I’ve heard of B.C. And B.C.E. (Before Christ; Before the Common Era). I have no idea what BP means. Does it correspond to the normal dating system? Or is it some brand new thing inserted to fuck with me? Assuming 13,000-11,800 corresponds to 13,000-11,800 years ago, then the culture does not match up with the flood (there’s kind of a 1,500 year gap there between the latest point the flood could have occurred and the start of the culture (not the end). Note – 13,000 years ago is not the same thing as 13,000 B.C.; 13,000 years ago would actually be 11,000 B.C.).

B. The author locates a spot on this Celtic Plain which he feels corresponds to a possible large scale village/town/city.

C. A scoring system is put forth by the author to judge his own possible placement of Atlantis, and the location currently put forth as the best most likely (if it is real) location of Atlantis (Crete or another Minoan island). – The scoring system takes the statements of Plato and digs out the ones that can be said to, as closely as possible, be statements that could be checked. As in ‘there is a canal’. And either doesn’t use, or puts less weight to those statements which are much harder to use, as in ‘there was this pretty mountain’.

D. The author then offers the reader a chance to score the Minoan theory and the Celtic Plain theory as the location of Atlantis, based on statements dug up from, mostly, Plato’s story of Atlantis (plus 1 from some other, 1 from both that other guy and Plato, and maybe 1 more from some third person).

E. The author notes something like how he attempts to both to . ... I forget how it was worded. The point, though, was that he attempted to give greater weight to the Minoan connections to Atlantis, and less to his own theory. Or something like that.

F. He comes to the conclusion that the Minoan one falls into a percentage zone wherein it might be Atlantis, but then again, Atlantis might be an invention of Plato.

G. He then says his own theory does not prove Atlantis exists. But that there is a good chance that it might be on this Celtic Plain. The evidence, when examined, can and should move points forward and backward. I’ve one specific problem with this point system – at times it seemed to be over scoring his own theory – at least in the sense wherein he says something like ‘assuming my theory is accepted by scientists (there’s this lake, it exposed a body of land (the Celtic Plain), ice age people are more likely to live there; etc), then I give this amount of points.’ This is why I started my review by noting that the author should have laid the groundwork for – ‘hey guys? I think there was a lake here – this is the evidence I came up with; and I think I have a reason for why evidence of early humans is missing during a period of time in the British Isles, here is my reasoning. Here is my reasoning as to why a certain level of civilization existed in the British Isles, based on this evidence. So, what do you think guys?’ And then, and only then, point out certain things like ‘thanks for believing that this lake/flood/civilization might actually have occurred, roughly around the dates I’ve given; what do you think about this next set of theories? Matching up local legends/myths/stories to the biblical flood, you know, now that you agree that a flood likely occurred here; what do you think of something like a city/or at least large encampment in this general region of the Celtic Plain?’ etc.) Especially since so much of his scoring says ‘assuming this theory (of a lake, of a plain, of flooding, of my interpretation of those thingies detectable on the ocean floor) is accepted, then . . .’

IV. Jewish People
A. I do not even know why he tosses this one in there, because it isn’t fully developed. It’s just ‘guys, neat, guys, look at this neat thing I noticed – you know that menorah? It kind of looks like how I’ve drawn the rivers, etc. for my version of a city on the Celtic Plain that I’ve called Atlantis. What do you guys thing; neat, right?’

Overall
This was an interesting read. For the most part. There were some points where I, metaphorically speaking, fell asleep. And other parts where I was quite interested in what was being discussed.

It was interesting. But some things were over my head, some things were confusing for their inclusion (not limited to the personal information spread throughout the book), and the like. I’d recommend the book more to people interested in early peoples of the British Isles than those interested in Atlantis. The Atlantis stuff was interesting, I suppose, just not sure if people interested in Atlantis would want to read all this other stuff.

Oh, and one passing thought. There were several occasions when the author made connections based on words, and language. For all I know, this stuff could have been brilliant detective work on the author’s part. It kind of read, though, like someone 2,000 to 3,000 years in the future spotting Plato’s story of Atlantis, spotting an old map, seeing ‘Atlanta’ and going ‘whoooaaa, I bet that’s actually Atlantis!’

February 3 2016