A research by Dhani Irwanto, 19 September 2025
Plato’s descriptions of Atlantis, when read through compass-oriented logic, yield three alternative spatial models based on the placement of the sea-mouth relative to the Inner Sea and the plain: an East-Mouth Model, a South-Mouth Model, and a West-Mouth Model. Each preserves the pilotage sequence from the Outer Sea through the mouth and into the capital’s ringed harbors, while differing in how they align with the surrounding mountains, island fields, and the opposite continent. These models provide a structural framework for testing Atlantis’ geography against paleogeographic and archaeological evidence.
1. Introduction
Plato’s dialogues Timaeus and Critias offer more than myth and allegory; they contain a densely structured spatial narrative. By reading this narrative in relation to compass orientation—north, south, east, west—one can recover three plausible models for where the “sea-mouth” lies in relation to the Inner Sea, the level plain, the capital, and the continent’s mountain boundary. These models do not fix Atlantis to any modern map, but instead refine the internal geometry of Plato’s description. They serve as structural hypotheses: consistent with the narrative order, navigational cues, and spatial constraints implied in the text.
2. The Maritime Gate and the Pilotage Sequence
In Plato’s account, there is a carefully ordered approach route: one begins in the Outer Sea, passes through a sea-mouth (the “Pillars of Heracles”), enters the Inner Sea, then proceeds via a straight canal, and finally approaches the ringed harbor waters of the capital. Along this route, Plato distinguishes five domains of salty water (thalassa) that are not interchangeable. These are:
- Ringed Harbor Waters — the concentric rings of water and land immediately surrounding the city-port.
- Inner Sea — the enclosed or partially enclosed basin reached once one passes through the mouth.
- Outer Sea — the body of water immediately external to the mouth, which is said to be “faced by other islands.”
- Ocean 1 — the margin of ocean adjacent to the continental side of Atlantis, especially the ocean facing the mountain boundary.
- Ocean 2 — the “true ocean,” the ocean beyond the Outer Sea that also contains the opposite continent mentioned in Plato.
These domains are not just semantic; in the narrative they shape what a navigator would see and traverse. The Outer Sea is not the same as Ocean 1; Ocean 1 borders the mountainous side of the continent. Furthermore, the pilotage or approach sequence—from Outer Sea → Sea-Mouth → Inner Sea → Straight Canal → Ringed Harbor Waters—is explicit in multiple places in Timaeus and Critias.
3. Compass-Oriented Reading of Plato’s Text
When one attends to the compass directions implicit in Plato’s spatial descriptions, several constraints emerge. For example, the level plain is described as being open to the sea on its south, and protected by mountains to the north. The canals within the plain discharge toward the capital, generally flowing southward (as the seaward face is to the south). The capital-port with its ringed basins is accessed from the Inner Sea. Altogether, these imply that the Inner Sea lies to the south of the plain, or at least that the plain drains south.
From these constraints, one sees that the location of the sea-mouth cannot logically lie to the north of the Inner Sea (because that side is mountainous). The mouth must instead lie on one of the remaining three compass azimuths: east, south, or west. Each orientation produces a coherent spatial model consistent with the narrative’s hydrology, topography, and navigational cues.
4. The Three Models
4.1 East-Mouth Model
In the East-Mouth Model, the sea-mouth is placed on the eastern side of the Inner Sea. The Outer Sea, containing “other islands,” lies to the east; the Inner Sea borders the south side of the plain. The capital is accessed from the north coast of the Inner Sea (or, depending on flooding/sea level, as an island within or adjacent to the southern edge). Ocean 1 (the ocean facing the mountainous continental margin) and Ocean 2 (the true ocean with the opposite continent) are positioned toward the east or southeast. This model allows Ocean 1 and Ocean 2 either to be separate sectors or to represent different viewing azimuths of what is essentially one oceanic body. One of its virtues is that it preserves the full set of narrative constraints without contradiction, including the plain’s openness to the south, canal discharge southward, and facing islands on the mouth-side Outer Sea. See Figure 1(a).
4.2 South-Mouth Model
The South-Mouth Model places the sea-mouth directly to the south of the Inner Sea. In this layout, the Outer Sea opens southward, and vessels would traverse more or less straight south from the plain (or from the city’s canal system) into the mouth. The capital would likely occupy a site at the southern edge of the plain, or as an island near that edge, with its ringed harbor basins organized to receive sea access from the south. Ocean 2 is immediately adjacent beyond the Outer Sea; the continental mountain margin (Ocean 1) lies to the north as before. This model makes the approach direction very direct—plain → city → mouth → open ocean—but may strain some of Plato’s clues about “other islands” and opposite continent adjacency depending on how the coastline is envisaged. See Figure 1(b).
4.3 West-Mouth Model
In the West-Mouth Model, the sea-mouth lies to the west of the Inner Sea. The Outer Sea, again with other islands, is to the west. The plain still lies north of the Inner Sea, mountains to the north protect the plain, and canals discharge toward the capital from north to south. Ocean 1 remains the ocean-facing continental boundary (north side), while Ocean 2 is the broader oceanic realm beyond the Outer Sea, containing the opposite continent. Similar to the East-Mouth scenario, Ocean 1 and Ocean 2 could represent different faces of the same ocean, viewed from different azimuths. Importantly, Plato does not assign a compass direction to the island fields; they simply lie in the Outer Sea faced by the mouth. Accordingly, the West-Mouth arrangement neither presumes nor requires that islands ‘follow’ the mouth’s orientation; island fields may occupy any sector contiguous with the mouth-side Outer Sea while the pilotage sequence remains faithful to the text. See Figure 1(c).
(a) East-Mouth Model
(b) South-Mouth Model
(c) West-Mouth Model
Figure 1. Three alternative compass-oriented spatial models without fixing a modern map.
(a) East-Mouth Model, (b) South-Mouth Model, (c) West-Mouth Model.
1. Boundless continent. 2. Towering mountain. 3. Other islands. 4. Opposite continent. 5. Ocean 1. 6. Ocean 2. 7. Outer sea. 8. Inner sea. 9. Capital-port city with ringed salt-water. 10. Sea mouth. 11. Access canal. 12. Level plain open at south with waterways. 13. North side protection of plain (mountains). → Pilotage sequence.
Source: author’s compass-oriented reading.
5. Comparison and Implications
When comparing the three models, several implications become salient:
- Fit with “other islands” and opposite continent: The East-Mouth Model tends to align better with settings where island fields are located to the east of the Inner Sea and the opposite continent is accessible or adjacent in that sector. The South-Mouth Model makes access more direct but may require “other islands” to be quite polarised or clustered south, potentially problematic depending on geography. The West-Mouth model often shifts the islands to regions that may or may not match known island-fields in candidate locations.
- Hydrological coherence: All models maintain southward canal discharge and the open, southern seaward aspect of the plain, but their geometry of water bodies and mountain margins differ. For example, the East-Mouth scenario more easily allows a mountain arc northward, enclosing the plain, with the mouth facing an island-rich ocean. If the mountain frame and continental boundary are strong, this model seems preferable.
- Navigational pilotage cues: The narrative implies thresholds or “gates” (the mouth), vistas of islands, and islands opposite the mouth. Pilotage logic suggests that the mouth should allow a recognizable approach from the open ocean, followed by calmer inner waters. The East-Mouth model often gives more gradual approach regions and more potential for island-fields flanking the mouth than a pure South-Mouth position.
- Paleogeographic/environmental constraints: Once one imposes constraints such as tropical climate belts, Holocene sea level, continental shelf exposures, shoaling/reef growth, mountain locations, etc., some models will perform more strongly. In our earlier reconstruction (see Decoding Plato’s Atlantis¹) the East-Mouth model turned out to preserve more constraints when we narrowed options.
6. Conclusion
By keeping Platonic cues—plain open south, mountain protection north, canal discharge direction, sea-mouth threshold, Inner Sea basin, Outer Sea with islands, and the presence of an opposite continent—as nonnegotiable, one arrives at three compass-oriented models for the sea-mouth: east, south, or west. Among these, with additional constraints, one model often emerges as more coherent—but all three deserve consideration in any reconstruction.
These models give us a framework: they are not location conclusions, but structural possibilities. When combined with environmental filtering (climate, sea level, paleotopography) and archaeological/bathymetric evidence, one model will tend to outperform the others. In our applied work, particularly within the Java Sea and southern Sundaland region, the East-Mouth model appears to achieve the highest consilience of constraints.
Endnotes
- Decoding Plato’s Atlantis: A Consilience-Based Reconstruction of the Lost Capital, Atlantis Java Sea, 7 September 2025.
https://atlantisjavasea.com/2025/09/07/decoding-platos-atlantis-a-consilience-based-reconstruction-of-the-lost-capital/ - Inside the “Mouth”: Rereading Plato’s Pillars of Heracles as a Navigational Gate, Atlantis Java Sea, 28 August 2025.
https://atlantisjavasea.com/2025/08/28/inside-the-mouth-rereading-platos-pillars-of-heracles-as-a-navigational-gate/
No comments:
Post a Comment