Atlantis, Carli and Bailly, and a short discussion about 'demonstration' in cultural astronomy

TL;DR

This paper examines 18th-century European debates on Atlantis's location, highlighting methodological issues in cultural astronomy and discussing psychological limits in interpreting myth and evidence.

Contribution

It analyzes historical arguments about Atlantis, illustrating ongoing challenges in demonstrating evidence within cultural astronomy and archaeoastronomy.

Findings

Bailly proposed Arctic Atlantis, Carli supported Atlantic location

Debates reveal persistent methodological issues in cultural astronomy

Discussion of psychological limits in interpreting myth and evidence

Abstract

Some European scholars in the second half of 18th century discussed the myth of Atlantis taking into account the studies of the evolution of the Earth and of the beginning and diffusion of civilization, in particular the beginning of astronomy. Atlantis was considered the cradle of the civilization, and while J.S. Bailly proposed that it was located in the Arctic and tried to convince Voltaire about his idea, G.R. Carli maintained the classical position in the Atlantic Ocean. Bailly's arguments and their criticism by Carli are of some interest, since they remind of the general problems that still plague cultural astronomy and archaeoastronomy. I will mention briefly the methodological problem of demonstration and evidence in these fields, and finally I will suggest a possible psychological limit when dealing with these topics.