LEGENDS:

Atlantis and Its Offspring,
the Aryans

by Roger Rawlings

Afterword by Peter Staudenmaier

Many occultists, including Rudolf Steiner, have expressed a belief in Atlantis. Indeed, some have said that the “Aryan” race originated there or later arose from the descendants of the “Atlanteans.” Here is Steiner’s position: “The ancestors of the Atlanteans lived in a region [i.e., Lemuria] which has disappeared ... After they had passed through various stages of development the greatest part of them declined. These became stunted men, whose descendants still inhabit certain parts of the earth today as so-called savage tribes. Only a small part of Lemurian humanity was capable of further development. From this part the Atlanteans were formed. Later, something similar took place. The greatest part of the Atlantean population declined, and from a small portion are descended the so-called Aryans who comprise present-day civilized humanity ... [T]he Lemurians, Atlanteans, and Aryans are root races of mankind.” [1]

True to form, Steiner tried to take some of the sting out of this doctrine, referring to “so-called Aryans.” But his belief in, and exaltation of, the “Aryans” is clear. We also see here the germ of Steiner’s derogation of “inferior races” [2]: They arose from the “stunted” men of Lemuria and the “declined” population of Atlantis. Note that in the quotation, above, Steiner omits the phrase “so-called” in his second reference to the Aryans, and note that he explicitly identifies Aryans as the sole representatives of “present-day civilized humanity.”

After the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis in the name of the Aryan “master race,” it is hard to extend even a presumption of plausibility to the concept of Aryanism. But let’s not dismiss it out of hand. Instead, we should examine relevant scholarship. Peter Staudenmaier reports the following: “[T]he notion of an Aryan race was invented by European thinkers who began by tracing linguistic connections among different Indo-European languages, an entirely legitimate enterprise, and then conflated these linguistic theories with emerging anthropological, biological, and spiritual theories about race and ethnicity, an obviously illegitimate move. The essential confusion at the heart of the Aryan myth is that peoples whose languages share linguistic similarities must be racially similar as well ... Already in the mid-19th century ... anthropologists pointed out the fallacy of collapsing language into race and vice versa. And later in the 1800s even Friedrich Max Mueller, whose work was one of the major sources for the ideologists of Aryanism, emphatically criticized the conflation of linguistics and race that is the core of the Aryan myth (the same is true for T.H. Huxley and many others).” [3]

The most important point, for our present discussion, concerns the mutually reinforcing errors that can derive from failing to grasp distinctions between linguistics, racial theory, and history. As Staudenmaier points out, historical fallacies — such as the Aryan myth as well as the Atlantis myth — readily arise from linguistic confusions. Also of interest: There once actually was a prehistoric race that we now identify as Aryans. They lived in what is now Iran and Northern India. These “Aryans” have no connection with the later Middle European so-called Aryans. Note that the Germanic peoples (usually considered prime examples of the Aryan race) arose in a completely different region, far away: “The German-speaking peoples ... are extremely heterogeneous in their ethnic origins ... The German people appear to have originated on the coastal region of the Baltic Sea and in the Baltic islands in the Bronze and early Iron ages. From about 500 BC they began to move southward, crushing and absorbing the existing Celtic kingdoms; from 58 BC they clashed with Rome along the line of the Rhine and Danube rivers.” [4]

In sum, the modern Eurocentric “Aryan race” — whether the Fascist or Anthroposophical variety — is a fantasy: “During the 19th century there arose a notion — propagated most assiduously by the Comte de Gobineau and later by his disciple Houston Stewart Chamberlain — of an “Aryan race.” Members of the so-called race spoke Indo-European languages, were credited with all of the progress that benefited humanity, and were purported to be superior to “Semites,” “yellows,” and “blacks.” Believers in Aryanism came to regard the Nordic and Germanic peoples as the purest members of the “race.” This notion, which had been repudiated by anthropologists by the second quarter of the 20th century, was seized upon by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis and was made the basis of the German government policy of exterminating Jews, Roma (Gypsies), and other “non-Aryans.” [5]

Thus, the “Aryans” championed by Steiner, Hitler, and others, are a myth. But what about their place of origin? Steiner traces the Aryans back to Atlantis (not Iran and northern India, nor the Baltic region). Let’s turn our attention, then, to the fabulous lost continent, which presumably played a key role in the ascent of civilized humanity. Dr. C. Scott Littleton, chairperson of the Department of Anthropology at Occidental College provides the following summary of recent scholarship on Atlantis. “Atlantis was a legendary continent that many people believe sank into the Atlantic Ocean thousands of years ago. The first mention of Atlantis appeared during the 300's B.C. in CRITIAS and TIMAEUS, two works by the Greek philosopher Plato. According to Plato, a brilliant civilization once existed on Atlantis. But its people became corrupt and greedy, and so the gods punished them. During one day and night, great explosions shook Atlantis, and the continent sank into the sea.” [6]

Dr. Littleton goes on to say that, over the centuries, there have been various theories about the location, importance, and even future of Atlantis. “Some people have claimed that Atlantis was the basis of all later civilizations. A few have even predicted that the continent will someday rise from the sea.” [7] In recent times, numerous expeditions searched for the ruins of Atlantis, but always without success. The most likely inspiration for Plato’s legend, according to Dr. Littleton, was the volcanic destruction of the small island Thira, which was situated in the Aegean, north of Crete. Volcanic eruptions demolished Thira in about 1470 B.C., and the effects were felt on Crete. Minoan civilization, which had held sway on both islands, was essentially wiped out. [8]

Note the discrepancies between the occult belief in Atlantis and Dr. Littlelon’s analysis. Myth: a continent. Probable truth: a small island (smaller than Crete). Myth: sunk in the Atlantic. Probable truth: sunk in the Aegean. Etc. Most critically, note that despite the repeated efforts to find Atlantis, no expedition has done so — even though the presumed location of the lost continent should have made discovery fairly easy. Here is what the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA has to say about the location: “ATLANTIS, also spelled Atalantis, or Atlantica, a legendary island in the Atlantic Ocean, lying west of the Straits of Gibraltar. The principal sources for the legend are two of Plato's dialogues, TIMAEUS and CRITIAS. In the former, Plato describes how Egyptian priests, in conversation with the Athenian lawgiver Solon, described Atlantis as an island larger than Asia Minor and Libya combined, and situated just beyond the Pillars of Hercules (the Straits of Gibraltar).” [9]

The BRITANNICA goes on to say that, according to legend, the people of Atlantis established an empire in and around the Mediterranean, but thereafter they became corrupted and (presumably as a punishment by the gods) their island sank into the sea due to earthquakes. The BRITANNICA agrees with Dr. Littleton that various attempts have been made to find or identify Atlantis — including strange speculations that it may have been Scandinavia or the Canary Islands — but that the most likely origin of the legend was the destruction of Thira (or Thera, as the The BRITANNICA spells it). Once again, consider the discrepancies between legend and scholarship. Myth: “larger than Asia Minor and Libya combined.” Probable truth: small island. Myth: sunk in the Atlantic. Probable truth: sunk in the Aegean. The destruction of the small island occurred around 3,500 years ago, much more recently than the fictional destruction of Atlantis as described by Steiner and others. (Plato himself dated the destruction at about 11,000 years ago.) Importantly, Atlantis was supposed to be “situated just beyond the Pillars of Hercules (the Straits of Gibraltar)” — i.e., quite close to Europe and thus presumably easy to find.

The failure to find Atlantis does not prove that the fabulous lost continent never existed. But the absence of evidence that Atlantis did exist raises the question why anyone would believe the myth. There’s no evidence to support the belief. In DISCARDED SCIENCE, John Grant explores the fallacious history of Atlantis and other mythical lost worlds: “Is there any truth in such tales, or are they total fantasies? Atlantis could have been Crete, Thule could have been the Orkney Islands, or Iceland, or ... [sic: ellipses by Grant] Yes, just possibly, some of the lost lands could really have existed. But somewhere amongst all the legends there ought to be just one about a land which was not heavenly, and whose inhabitants were not in some way supermen. Where, in short, are the sewers of Atlantis?” [10] Sarcasm is not scientifically or logically compelling, but Grant’s point is still useful. Anything is possible, just possibly some lost lands did exist, perhaps, possibly ... But where is the evidence substantiating the legends? Absent evidence, we have no proof, no reason to believe. To be charitable, we might suspend judgment. But to be strict, we must demand proof.

In THE SKEPTIC’S DICTIONARY, Robert Todd Carroll returns to the principal author of the Atlantis myth, Plato. “Plato was not describing a real place ... The purpose of Atlantis [for Plato] is to express a moral message ... The fact that nobody in Greece for 9,000 years had mentioned a battle between Athens and Atlantis should serve as a clue ... [Greeks] would have understood that he was not giving them a historical account of a real city ... Finally, if the Atlanteans were such technological geniuses who shared their wisdom with the world, why did Plato depict them as arrogant warmongers?” [11] Carroll’s argument is not entirely consistent with Grant’s. In any event, citing authorities is not, in itself, conclusive. Experts can be wrong. Still, Atlantis-doubters do raise interesting issues.

In sum, the onus is on those who want to find truth in the Aryan and/or Atlantis myths. Give us proof. Compel us to agree. Until you do, we have no reason to think that there ever was an Atlantis, or that Aryans arose there. Until you compel us to think otherwise, we are justified in concluding that the cradle of the legendary Aryan race was itself almost certainly nothing but a legend.

[1] Rudolf Steiner, COSMIC MEMORY (Blauvelt NY: Garber Communications, 1990), pp. 45-46.

[2] “In human beings of this type [i.e., highly evolved], both the life body and the physical body had portions that remained untouched by the Luciferic influence. [But] in the case of the lower types of human beings, the life body was too unprotected to be able to withstand the Luciferic influence.” Rudolf Steiner, AN OUTLINE OF OCCULT SCIENCE (Kessinger Publishing, 1998: 1922 edition), AN OUTLINE OF ESOTERIC SCIENCE, pp. 238-239.

“Lucifer and Ahriman ... fought against [the] harmonious tendency of development in the evolution of humanity, and they managed to change the whole process so that various developments were shifted and displaced. While there should have been basically only one form of human being ... Lucifer and Ahriman preserved [earlier human types] ... even into the time after the Atlantean flood. Thus, forms that should have disappeared remained. Instead of racial diversities developing consecutively, older racial forms remained unchanged and newer ones began to evolve at the same time. Instead of the intended consecutive development of races, there was a coexistence of races. That is how it came about that physically different races inhabited the earth and are still there in our time although evolution should really have proceeded [unimpeded].” Rudolf Steiner, THE UNIVERSAL HUMAN: The Evolution of Individuality (Anthroposophic Press, 1990), p. 75.

[3] Peter Staudenmaier, “The Aryan Myth,” Mar 21, 2007 08:25 PST, http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/.

[4] "Germany." ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA. 2007. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 15 May 2007  <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-58003>. See also THE TIMES CONCISE ATLAS OF WORLD HISTORY (London: Times Books Ltd., 1982), pp. 6 & 52. Tracing the migrations of prehistoric peoples is complex, but a consensus theory is that from their origins in Africa, Homo sapiens branched out east and west. The prehistoric Aryans would have arisen from the branch that headed east, toward the Mideast and Asia, while the Germanic people derived from those who went west, into Europe.

[5] "Aryan." ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA. 2007. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 15 May 2007  <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9009750>.

[6] C. Scott Littleton, Ph.D., Professor and Chair, Department of Anthropology, Occidental College; author, THE NEW COMPARATIVE MYTHOLOGY AND FROM SCYTHIA TO CAMELOT — cited in the WORLD BOOK MULTIMEDIA ENCYCLOPEDIA, Mac OS X Edition, Version 6.0.2, 2001.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Atlantis." ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA. 2007. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 17 Apr. 2007  <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9010107>.

[10] John Grant, DISCARDED SCIENCE: Ideas That Seemed Good at the Time ... (AAPPL Artists’ and Photographers’ Press Ltd., 2006), pp. 103-104.

[11] Robert Todd Carroll, THE SKEPTIC’S DICTIONARY (John Wiley & Sons, 2003), pp. 39-41.

AFTERWORD

Peter Staudenmaier

The widespread notion that the Aryan myth first became racist under the Nazis is false. That this notion persists among a wide range of contemporary Anthroposophists suggests a lack of basic knowledge about the history of racist thought.

The very idea of an "Aryan race" was nonsensical from the beginning. It is based on a conflation of linguistics and biology, and does not refer to anything in the real world. Moreover, the concept of an "Aryan race," in the form which it typically took within European culture in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, was patently racist. It posited a superior Aryan stock who colonized the ancient world and founded the great civilizations of antiquity. This is how Rudolf Steiner used the term. While the confusion between philology and ethnology was common in the pre-Darwinian era, it had been thoroughly criticized and dismantled by a variety of scholars by Steiner's day.

That Aryan supremacism was not a Nazi innovation has been a mainstay of research on the topic for decades, including those works whose analysis of racial ideology is closely circumscribed. Hannah Arendt's seminal essay on "Race-Thinking Before Racism" (chapter 6 in THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM, 1951) begins with the following remarks: "If race-thinking were a German invention, as it has been sometimes asserted, then ‘German thinking’ (whatever that may be) was victorious in many parts of the spiritual world long before the Nazis started their ill-fated attempt at world conquest." The prominent archeologist J.P. Mallory begins his epilogue on the Aryan myth as follows: "We cannot examine the legacy of the Indo-Europeans without first dispelling the spectre of the 'Aryan Myth'. The world is all too familiar with how the concept of racial supremacy was implemented by the National Socialists in Germany, and we would be quite mistaken to imagine that this grotesque obsession with the Indo-Europeans or, as they were then more popularly known, the Aryans, was merely the creation of a handful of Nazi fanatics." (Mallory, IN SEARCH OF THE INDO-EUROPEANS, 1989.) Indeed the notion of an "Aryan race" was hardly specific to German thought; the British made extensive use of the concept during their colonial administration of India, and a number of the most influential theorists of Aryan supremacy were French.

The best comprehensive account of this phenomenon remains Leon Poliakov's 1971 book THE ARYAN MYTH. Poliakov writes in his Introduction: "In its various forms, the Aryan theory nearly always involved a value-judgement in favor of the Aryans, and the ideologists of the Third Reich did no more than stress this bias out of all proportion." While it was at least hypothetically possible for non-racists to use the term "Aryan race" without supremacist meaning (Moses Hess comes to mind as a potential example), within continental European thought the racist interpretation of the term had become predominant, indeed virtually exclusive, many years before the rise of Nazism.

Poliakov's pioneering work can now be supplemented by a range of other valuable scholarly treatments, including the following:

Stefan Arvidsson, ARYAN IDOLS: INDO-EUROPEAN MYTHOLOGY AS IDEOLOGY AND SCIENCE (Chicago 2006)

Thomas Trautmann, ed., THE ARYAN DEBATE (Oxford 2005)

Maurice Olender, THE LANGUAGES OF PARADISE: RACE, RELIGION, AND PHILOLOGY IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY (Cambridge 1992)

Thomas Trautmann, THE ARYANS AND BRITISH INDIA (Berkeley 1997)

Tony Ballantyne, ORIENTALISM AND RACE: ARYANISM IN THE BRITISH EMPIRE (New York 2002)

Stefan Arvidsson, “Aryan Mythology As Science and Ideology”, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, vol. 67 no. 2 (1999), 327-354

Joan Leopold, “British Applications of the Aryan Theory of Race to India, 1850-1870”, English Historical Review 89 (1974), 578-603

Peter van der Veer, “Aryan Origins” in van der Veer, IMPERIAL ENCOUNTERS: RELIGION AND MODERNITY IN INDIA AND BRITAIN (Princeton 2001), 134-157

Colin Kidd, “The Aryan Moment: Racialising Religion in the Nineteenth Century” in Kidd, THE FORGING OF RACES: RACE AND SCRIPTURE IN THE PROTESTANT ATLANTIC WORLD, 1600-2000 (Cambridge 2006), 168-202

Bruce Lincoln, THEORIZING MYTH: NARRATIVE, IDEOLOGY, AND SCHOLARSHIP (Chicago 1999)

[Note: The Afterword, above, is adapted from an essay Staudenmaier posted at
http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1715726619
Reprinted here by permission of the author. -- RR]