The Last Atlantis Book You'll Ever Have to Read: The Atlantis-Mexico-India-Connection [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

(a) As in his previous works, Matlock relies repeatedly upon isolated & unsystematic superficial similarities of vocabulary items (and at times even of very short affixes or single phonemes) in attempting to establish etymologies which would demonstrate his diffusionist claims about ancient links between the languages & cultures of India (and other Old World areas) and the Americas. But it was demonstrated over a century ago that such methods are wholly unreliable, and in the last decade the relevant statistical arguments have been developed in detail. Matlock's methods are now rightly confined to the amateur fringe.

(b) He is not even consistent here, offering rival etymologies for, eg, <coatl>, without acknowledging that it cannot be that BOTH etymologies are correct.

(c) His claims on these fronts contradict: (i) many standard (and often KNOWN) etymologies (eg, those of English <saint>, the ending <-an> as in <American>, the Greek word <autokhthon> [which is <auto-> + <khthon>, contrary to his analysis], the name of the Mexican city Vera Cruz, etc), most of which he which he seems not to have checked even with a view to disputing them; and (ii) vast amounts of well-established information about the relationships between languages. His central claim that Sanskrit is the 'father of most world-class languages' (whatever 'world-class' means here) is clearly refuted by vast bodies of evidence.

(d) He ignores the structural aspects of the languages which he compares, which are crucial in this context.

(e) His linguistic terminology is popular and non-standard, with no indication that this is a concession to non-specialist readers (and no reference to more accurate discussion elsewhere).

(f) He makes many claims about poorly-documented periods of early history without presenting any references or worthwhile evidence.

(g) He treats mediaeval and ancient texts - including even Plato's fable of Atlantis itself and indeed Hindu myths and legends - as if they were clearly historically reliable.

(h) He glibly identifies items mentioned in such sources with known entities (eg, 'Plato said that Atlantis lay just beyond a group of smaller islands which are our present day Antilles or West Indies.').

(i) He often misinterprets technical sources, eg, the recent discussions of problems in Mayan history which he quotes. These are dramatic enough for Mayanists and other Mesoamericanists but involve specific issues and relatively late dates, not diffusionist theories about the ultimate origins of Mesoamerican cultures.

(j) He cites other fringe claims rejected by most experts (eg, claims about accurate world maps on Phoenician coins; Lal's ideas about language relationships) as if they were accepted as valid.

(k) He often treats very old & theoretically outdated sources such as Pococke as if they were reliable.

(l) He makes some false statements, eg, that the Americas are larger than Africa and Asia combined, that Plutarch wrote in the year 2 CE, etc.

In addition, the book is loosely and incoherently written. Overall, it cannot be taken seriously.