Timaeus and Critias Reloaded

I hope that this isn't for real. Atlantis' value is as a mythical icon of an idyllic past and a utopian state, not as an archaeological site.

The archaeologist who is claiming it's legitimate is pointing out that the ruins sync with Plato's descriptions, saying that if this isn't the real thing, it's "the world's greatest coincidence." It's probably not as great a coincidence as he thinks. The acropolis of any city-state of the time would tend to fit a certain pattern.

Furthermore, bringing up Plato could actually undermine the argument that this site is Atlantis, rather than enforce it. First of all, Plato places Atlantis in "the western sea," but the Mediterranean off of Cyprus is about as far East as the Greeks conceived of. Also, Plato was no stranger to imagining utopian communities, so if he's the authoritative source on Atlantis, its very existence is more likely fiction than fact, especially since a society as advanced as Atlantis supposedly was would contain more solid historical records.

What's funny is that at the end of the article, it's kind of snuck in that the expedition was partially funded by the Cypriot Tourist Organization, making the archaeologist's enthusiasm suspect. I don't think there should be a rush to lay claim that this site is the legendary city. If Atlantis becomes something tangible, what's the fun in that?