Talk:Location hypotheses of Atlantis

For old discussion, see Archive 1 (up to 5/08)

Antarctica edits

Lovecraft wrote novels, and has no place in this article. Perhaps a page on Atlantis in fiction, or does that already exist?

Similarly, unless there's a citation, mention of the 60s and 70s popularity of Atlantis in Antarctica is directly contradicted by the article itself. Many books with this theory have come out in the 90s and 2000s.

TrooperDave

COI edit war

I'm tempted just to let them go to it, but I'm not sure it is good for Wikipedia to have two authors of Atlantis stuff continually changing each others edits. Doug Weller (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt

This article is nothing but a list of random fringe theories. We're giving undue weight to unscientific speculation. Let's take the section Location hypotheses of Atlanti#British Isles. Comet impact? When? Where? I might not know every comet impact, but one that would that much damage would be familiar to us. The draining of the glacial Lake Agassiz water levels worldwide by one meter, and that's the estimate of precisely one scientist. Moreover, it happened 13,000 years ago, long before civilization was extant in Europe. Much of the British Isles were under ice during the Devensian glaciation. And I'm looking just at one section. If the editors are going to create a hypothesis about Atlantis, how about giving weight to reasonable speculation, not unscientific woo. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Any scientifically-based speculation on this subject is going to start from the majority opinion among classical scholars that Plato made up the Atlantis story. There are a handful of people who believe that Plato might have been drawing on oral traditions about prehistoric civilizations destroyed by natural catastophes (e.g., the eruption of Thera, but this is a minority position. Everyone who claims to have found the true location of Atlantis is fringe. I think there's some value in listing the notable attempts to find Atlantis, since it's such a huge subject in pop culture, but that necessarily means that almost all of this article will be devoted to fringe material. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article is a compilation of fringe theories. However, the subject is most certainly notable and the massive amount of external references generated by people for hundreds of years meets the requirements of WP:FRINGE for inclusion in wikipedia. The article should be considered as a whole, not just as independent pieces. As to whether a given sub-section has enough references and notability could be open for debate. I would propose that any subsection with at least 2 independent, credible citations could be included, so long as it is presented in the right tone.

Finally, don't get hung up on mistaking scientifically accurate with notable. A significant portion of 'human knowledge' involves the study and pursuit of fringe subsjects. Even if the 'theory' is widely recognized as inaccurate, it may often still be interesting to many Wikipedia readers and deserves inclusion, thus the reason for the WP:FRINGE guidline. Wikipedia is not the place to attempt to prove (or disprove for that matter) a fringe theory. Therefore, I would not recommend spending effort here attacking individual theories. Dspark76 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, just to set a base for comparison, I think this article is in much better condition than some similar articles such as Formal studies of Bigfoot or List_of_major_UFO_sightings.

Corrections about the several errors

1- "...Plato's description of a palace where water was plentiful, collected from the surrounding hills and of a multilevel acropolis sitting on a great, flattened, terraced hilltop, is a good match with the digs at Knossus and Akrotiri..."

This is false! Plato never said that the Acropolis of Atlantis was multilevel nor on terraced hilltop!

2- Plato also never mentioned "volcanic eruption" in Atlantis history.

3- Plato never said also that "the external walls of the palace were said to shine like silver", this is a mere falsification of the Plato's texts!.

4- Plato never said taht the "rocks white, black, and red were extracted from the hills and used to construct a great island city", this is false also! Plato only said that were used in the construction of the some edifices, but no precise more...

5- Also is false! that "unearthed frescos from the island have depicted Santorini with a configuration that can be interpreted in this way", ie, as a series of concentric circles of land surrounded by water, each connected to the sea by a deep canal, like metropolis of Atlantis.

6- Is false! also that "the Egyptians used the Kepchu (or Kftjw) name for to denominate to Atlantis". It is not possible to use a mere speculation as if it was a verified fact.

7- The Kftyw argument is very little demonstrative, no significate nothing. No exist relation with the narration of Atlantis nor with none of the Atlantean names.

Mr Dspark76 could be show the palaeographical evidences, ie, the Greek texts from Critias with these affirmations.

Kind regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Georgeos Diaz-Montexano,
Thank you for your efforts to improve the accuracy to the cited references for the Santorini section. I'd like to respond to some of your questions:

1) I am not the editor who orginally entered this text. So please do link any 'affirmations' to me. However, I do believe that these affirmations were made by the reference cited.

2) I believe that the concentric circle fresco is shown here:

Fresco found at Akrotiri

3) I don't see in the july 2 text (prior to your edits) that an assertion between plato and a volcano was made. The former second bullet did not mention Plato. I think you may have misread this text.

4) I do not understand why, if you think so many of these statements are false that you have reverted to the June 24th longer list of bullets. On July 2, I restored the abridged list (about 5 bullets). The abridged list resulted from some former discussion (see above: Crete and Santorini). The problem with all the bullets from the older version was that it seemed to rely too heavily (and give too much weight) on one reference and did not take a wider view of the different sources working on this 'theory'. From your above comments, you also seem to take issue with this source, yet you still restored the longer list. Was this intentional?

5) Kepchu (or Kftjw): I agree that this should not be asserted as fact. I think the prior section was worded poorly. However, we need to remember that wikipedia is not the correct forum for attempting to prove or disprove a theory. Wikipedia is intended to be a tertiary source (see Wikipedia:FRINGE#Sourcing_and_attribution). We should avoid statements that attempt to argue for or against a point, but simply state the two sides (with references).

6) I don't think the way this section is stated now achieves these goals. It could be interpreted that the recent reverts between the short list July 2 and March 2008 and the recent edits by me, yourself and 214.42.16.203 represent either 2 or 3 reverts. I would like to work together to come to some sort of consensus before making any further edits so that we don't trip into Wikipedia:3_revert_rule.

I would very much appreciate your comments and further discussion toward this end.

Best regards, Dspark76 (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You need a source for the concentric sources thing I think. Either of you ever read Atlantis Destroyed by Rodney Castleden? Doug Weller (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller,

how about this reference? I wish I could find the oringinal McCoy source...

http://www.decadevolcano.net/santorini/atlantis.htm

"1. Plato tells about a circular island with concentric structures. Santorini today does have an impressive concentric geographic setting and had it also before the Minoan eruption. This has come out as a result of detailed geologic studies during the past 20 years, see the chapter of the reconstruction of the ring-shaped pre-Minoan island [1] with a central shield. Furthermore Heiken and McCoy (1990) indicated that the famous picture in the West House from the Akrotiri excavations most likely represents a relatively naturalistic portrait of Thera. It shows an inhabited and flowering island landscape and the departing Therean fleet, and actually some concentric water-land ring structures are visible, too. "

Dspark76 (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• • ... and, no I havent read Atlantis Destroyed (other than about 10 pages worth before google books preview cut me off). Do you have it? It looks like it could be a useful reference... Thanks, Dspark76 (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed it on Amazon US and UK, it is a brilliant book. Doug Weller (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• • See this from Castleden (who says Thera never had concentric circles). [2] He thinks the bit about three concentric circles is a morph from fortifications at Syracuse. Doug Weller (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for providing the link to the relevant Althantis Destroy section. I think page 150 is the relevent page. My interpretation is that Althantis Destroyed was probably based on the 1984 McCoy construction of the pre-eruption shape of Santorini. However, several 1988 - 2000 studies have concluded that there was actually a ring shape with island center. See: [[3]] for more details. Dspark76 (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• OK, since its been about a week without further discussion, I'm going to restore to abridged list and attempt to include the suggested improvements above... Dspark76 (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• I'm still attempting to clean up the (mis)quoted plato terms. A good reference for Plato's text is here: [4] pages 89-99. However, to avoid original research, I'm trying to tied plato's text to the various referenced sources. This might take a bit of work and may require re-working some of the paragraphs. I'll mark them with the tags for now and fix them as I can. If anyone wants to chime in, please feel free... Thanks, Dspark76 (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For consideration:

"Poseidon fell in love with her and had intercourse with her, and breaking the ground, inclosed the hill in which she dwelt all round, making alternate zones of sea and land larger and smaller, encircling one another; there were two of land and three of water, which he turned as with a lathe, each having its circumference equidistant every way from the centre, so that no man could get to the island, for ships and voyages were not as yet. He himself, being a god, found no difficulty in making special arrangements for the centre island, bringing up two springs of water from beneath the earth, one of warm water and the other of cold, and making every variety of food to spring up abundantly from the soil." [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Some of their buildings were simple, but in others they put together different stones, varying the colour to please the eye, and to be a natural source of delight. The entire circuit of the wall, which went round the outermost zone, they covered with a coating of brass, and the circuit of the next wall they coated with tin, and the third, which encompassed the citadel, flashed with the red light of orichalcum". [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(Spoken by Critias) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Pharos, Egypt Theory

This hypothesis has been publicly debated, but not published. It is based on Danaus being married to Atlanteia. Danaus is a descendent of IO, the Pharian Ceres, and was hence located in Pharos, aka modern day Alexandria. The theory explores the Geneologies of the Pleiades(daughters of Atlas), Ancient Sources(like Aeschylus, Hellanicus, Herodotus which pre-date Plato), Bathymetry, etc... and concludes that the place with the big harbor and unstable land, later became the home of a famous lighthouse. 66.151.47.194 (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but as you probably know, it would need to be published, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but still anybody responded my questions, and the erros and falsifications about Plato's words, still continued.

Corrections about the several errors:

1- "...Plato's description of a palace where water was plentiful, collected from the surrounding hills and of a multilevel acropolis sitting on a great, flattened, terraced hilltop, is a good match with the digs at Knossus and Akrotiri..."

This is false! Plato never said that the Acropolis of Atlantis was multilevel nor on terraced hilltop!

2- Plato also never mencioned "volcanic eruption" in Atlantis history.

3- Plato never said also that "the external walls of the palace were said to shine like silver", this is a mere falsification of the Plato's texts!.

4- Plato never said that the "rocks white, black, and red were extracted from the hills and used to construct a great island city", this is false also! Plato only said that were used in the construction of the some edifices, but no precise more...

5- Also is false! that "unearthed frescos from the island have depicted Santorini with a configuration that can be interpreted in this way", ie, as a series of concentric circles of land surrounded by water, each connected to the sea by a deep canal, like metropolis of Atlantis.

6- Is false! also that "the Egyptians used the Kepchu (or Kftjw) name for to denominate to Atlantis". It is not possible to use a mere speculation as if it was a verified fact.

7- The Kftyw argument is very little demonstrative, no significate nothing. No exist relation with the narration of Atlantis nor with none of the Atlantean names.

Mr Dspark76 could show here - for all - palaeographical evidence, ie the texts of Greek Critias and Timaeus with these statements?

Wikipedia can not promote the lies and falsification of historical sources. No matter what the prestige of an author of modern times, if his statements or conclusions are based on lies and forgery of ancient texts and the historical sources.

Wikipedia can not support these fakes and these fallacies. If you want these falsifications of Plato's words continue to exist in Wikipedia (because this theory is the most like you), at least you are obliged to explain - along with every one of these fakes - that these assertions and conclusions do not correspond to the real Plato's words we know in texts written in Greek and Latin, the Timaeus and Critias.

I appreciate the effort, but the reality is that you have not replied to each of my questions, and you still have not shown nor even a single evidence or proof that in Plato's dialogues (Timaeus and Critias) there are words or phrases, for hold (with real scientific rigor) these claims these authors which you insist on keeping us in this Wikipedia article.

Kind regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Ok I reviewed Montexanos points about THERA and I concluded that he is right about it. There is no such a thing about (point 1) multilevel or anything like that. This is a speculation. Also if there was a volcano(point 2) Plato would have mentioned it. Maybe there was but its source must have been not within the island otherwise he would have mentioned it. He said in one night and day of misfortune the island disappeared into the depths of the Sea. So the island itself is submerged. This is the proof that Thera is not ATLANTIS. Furthermore, Plato knew Thera very well, as did the Egyptian priest, why would he go into all that trouble to describe the location when he would have said, ‘where Thera is’. So Montexano is right on these points; they’re all speculations. There is nothing in the writings of Plato that resembles Thera. As for the concentric point; most calderas are round concentric things. I have read Plato in English as well as Greek version and there is no mention of the KEFTIU and Atlantis relationship. So too conclude there are few major conflicts with this theory.

1) Thera did not totally submerged

2) Its people did not disappear, as they populated the later Greek areas.

3) Thera was well known by Plato as well as by the Egyptian priest.

4) Is not near or has any relationship to/with Pillars of Hercules (any possible pillars).

5) Atlanteans weren’t Greeks, while the Minoans are the predecessors of modern Greeks.

6) Thera was destroyed around 1600 B.C While Atlantis existed at least 9,000 years prior to Solon.

I can go on for ever. Would be easier to point out that there is actually not serious evidence that shows that Atlantis was in Santorini. --Xellas (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried to post Coordinates for Mount Sipylus and was edited into oblivion. While I don't necessarily believe that any of these locations is more likely than any other, it would be cool to have the all coordinates that correspond to the proposed locations for a little Google Earth amusement, Eh?

• • Try these co-ordinates: - 56° 6'14.74"N, 22°18'22.42"W --Dharma-815 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I looked at that area in a Java based Sea Level tool. ( http://merkel.zoneo.net/Topo/Applet/ ) A rough estimate would indicate a need for the sea level to fall below 1400 meters. The lowest Sea level in Human time scales is said to be only 200 meters below the current. I will accept this as a possible area that has "Sunk" due to the geologic instability in that area but a conventional ice-age melt scenario is not likely... Nifty geometry in that area though, will have to take a better look in Virtual Ocean... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Mid-Atlantic Ridge Theory

I have copied this last section from the Discussion on the main Atlantis page, since I think it's more relevant here. I am the original author of the second paragraph below as well. I didn't know if it would be worth researching a bit more to add in as a possible location in the Atlantic Ocean. Behold

Quoted by an unknown author:

"did it conatined atlantis?

i know i theory wich asserts that the flood of noath had coverd the island wich was the mid-atlantic ridge above water.

http://geology.wr.usgs.gov/parks/pltec/noaaMidAtlanticRidgeL.jpg"

I'm going to assume this is a legitimate question, but I can't tell if the grammar is intentionally or unintentionally wrong. Graham Hancock's book from 2003-ish, called "Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization," goes into a lot of detail on the inundations after the most recent meltings of the ice age polar ice sheets (around 18,000 YA, 16,000 YA, and 11,000 YA), and at the time of those inundations, the Mid Atlantic Ridge was above water. He further speculated, based on the shapes of the land that would have been above ground, that portions of the Ridge match Plato's description of Atlantis. Furthermore, when the 11,000 YA inundations happened, though it would not have been "overnight," the sea waters would have risen anywhere from 60 to 100 meters (190 to 330 feet) in the course of a few years, and would have definitely given the "Atlanteans" a lot of concern over the future of their continent. Hancock's theories are often posited as "pseudoscience" and "pseudoarchaeology," but there is a lot of research to say that those theories may have some merit after all. All this to say, of course, that there's no way of knowing for sure right now, but recent science does seem to indicate that as of 11,000 YA, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge was above water. --Brandon (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It does? Malaise made claims about that quite some time ago, but who agrees with them now? Do you know how deep the mid-Atlantic ridge is? You'd need some good sources for this. dougweller (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean the entire ridge, obviously, but the tallest peaks are above water even today (Iceland, the Azores, Gough Island, others I can't remember). This would have more to do with just the tallest sections of the ridge than the entire ridge itself, and I apologize if I implied otherwise. Anyway, it's still just theory (as is all of this article), so I have no qualms one way or the other with whether or not it is included. --Brandon (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at [7] which although Usenet and a bit old is interesting about the Azores. There's also the Atlantis Massif of course. Minor problems about lack of evidence for any ships that could have sailed there of course. I always think the fact that there was no city of Athens as that time is the real killer though -- but I digress and I criticise others for using this as a forum, so I'll shut up. dougweller (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Shallow marine coastal deposits dating to the last interglacial, Eemian, have been found along the coast of Santa Maria Island (Azores). These deposits lie about 2 to 4 meters above current sea level. Thus, the sea level during the last interglacial was very close to modern and there has been a complete absence of any significant subsidence of this island during the last 114,000 - 130,000 years. If anything, there has been ongoing uplift of this island. For example, Santa Maria Island has extensive interglacial wave cut platforms at 5-10 meters, 15-40 meters, 50-70 meters, 80-120 meters and 140-160 meters above modern sea level. Thus, Santa Maria Island has actually risen relative to modern sea level by at least 160 m during the Pleistocene. Similar Pleistocene (interglacial) wave cut platforms has been described and dated for Flores Island. Some publications that discuss this are:

Avila, S. P., P. Madeira, N. Mendes, A. Rebelo, A. Medeiros, C. Gomes, F. Garcia-Talavera, C. M. da Silva, M. Cachao, C. Hillaire-Marcel, and A. M. de Frias Martins, 2008, Mass extinctions in the Azores during the last glaciation: fact or myth? Journal of Biogeography. v. 35, p. 1123–1129.

Serralheiro, A., and Madeira, J., 1999, Stratigraphy and geochronology of Santa Maria Island, Azores. in pp. 357-376, Livro de Homenagem ao Prof. Carlos Romariz, Departamento de Geologia da, Faculdade de Ciencias da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisborn, Portugal.

Zbyszewski, G., and F. O. da V. Ferreira, 1962, Etude geologique de l'le de Santa Maria (Acores) Comunicacoes dos Servicos Geologicos de Portugal. v. 46, p. 209-245.

Notice that some of these papers date to 1999 and 1962, which means that proponents of the Azores and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge being Atlantis have been ignoring contradictory data and interpretations for decades. Malaise's ideas have been completely discredited by observations made and data collected since he published his ideas.Paul H. (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Atlantic section

Hi, I miss South-Morocco within the Atlanic Ocean section of the article. I guess it is important for the completeness. e.g. the Souss-Massa hypothesis: http://www.asalas.org Truemate (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I moved the Bahama Bank and Cuba subsections to the Atlantic Ocean section--last I heard, they were both in the Atlantic. If you are sure they have drifted elsewhere while I wasn't looking, please provide citations ;-) Freederick (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

About Xellas Editings

I made some very important and constructive changes but someone (ClueBot) try to undo my work. Also I did delete most of Sarmast info as it was to detailed. His entire essay was taking so much space. It should not be more than a passage per theory. Everyone deserves his place on Wiki not just certain names. Also the introduction it was referring to Spain as Atlantis. It was misleading. Please explain why do you think that's a vandalism (to ClueBot).--Xellas (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I separated Malta From Sicily. They're two different theories. Although they're close to each other I do not see any connections between them.--Xellas (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the introduction and gave a detailed info on how the story got to us, through Solon, Dropides, Critas Plato....--Xellas (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Cluebot is a 'bot', software that detects certain types of edits, in this case the deletion of a large amount of text. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I kind of suspected that. thanks D.--Xellas (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone with IP: 98.248.33.198 is playing around. can someone identify this person? --Xellas (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not playing around, it's restoring massive amounts of sourced material. My identity is irrelevant, and attempting to ID me is a violation of WP guidelines. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course is rrelevant. you don't just undo things? where did you see massive amounts? I have the right to edit anything that is in violation of WP. Why don't you use your ID? Also undoing things for no reasons is a violation of WP!!! So go through my changes and tell me if something is wrong with them, otherwise move on...--Xellas (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Xellas, there have been around 5 different users undoing your removal of sourced content. That means that there's no consensus for the removal of that content. When you don't have consensus, you need to stop edit warring. The other thing is that anonymous editors (IPs) are allowed (with the exception of sockpuppeting) to edit and don't have to reveal their identity.

You have both violated the three revert rule policy yesterday. Please, continue discussing your points instead of edit warring and asking editors to reveal their identity.

98.248.33.198, you too... please abide by the 3RR policy. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's funny but none commented on it till they blocked me and that's not fair. This is supposed to be debatable before you disregard someone's contribution. There was not a single comment on it. Why was so hard for them to tell me the reasons. Just stating 3RR doesn't explain anything. That means that these so called moderators are not worth of their position. They insulted me in a way. I am open for debate. If I see that my info is not either referenced or correct I would be happy to obey the rules. Anyway I would like to contribute to the subject and I will start with small things. In case someone doesn't like the changes they can say so not just undo them without explanations. And also the person that was doing the UNDOING was blocked before me.. What does that tell you?

P.S. I still believe I didn't commit a 3RR, rather the moderators had a conflict of interest. They should be more open minded rather than just.... anyway --Xellas (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ABOUT Sarmast long paragraph.

I believe it should be brought down to a few sentences. It’s not fair to others. The passages are to long and to detailed, his entire work is in there. If someone needs to know more about him or his work a link should be provided. --Xellas (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not that the passage about Sarmast's idea is too long. The problem is that more detail needs to be added to the descriptions and discussion of the other proposed locations of Atlantis. Your way of simplifying and shortening the discussion about Sarmast's ideas curiously has the effect of removing any criticism of his ideas. I have to wonder if that your actual intent in making these changes was remove (censor) any discussion and sources that either disputes, contradicts, or refutes Sarmast's claims using the excuse that the passages are "too long and too detailed" and, thus, not being "fair to others." Your manner of shortening the section about Sarmast's ideas is extremely biased against and unfair to, whether intended to or not, the presentation of any opposing points of view to those advocated by Robert Sarmast.Paul H. (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, paul, with all do respect...this is WIKIPEDIA, not his personal site. You have more than two pages (11x8 standart) of detaileds of his work. that's consider too long for WP. Imagine if we add as much as you added in there for eaqch of the 1,000 theories out there? Who's gona read all that "garbage"? So now tell me is it fair? And to be fair, it has nothing to do with Atlantis...?! --Xellas (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

About Malta Section

I noticed that Malta (Although I am not a big fan!) has been reduced to only a paragraph and the names of the Atlantologists been erased. I remember it used to be better. There are well known archeologists and serious researchers in Malta that are looking for Atlantis. I believe they deserve to be mentioned although they're referenced (?)

I found the old version and combined with the new version. I think it looks nice, although there is room for improvement. I also inserted an Image from one of those theories. As I mentioned I don’t agree with the hypothesis, nevertheless I believe it deserves to be shown. I will explain that the image is just a speculation by Malta theorists. --Xellas (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)