|The Atlantis We Look For|
|The Circle of Evolution|
|Old Maps and Writings|
|Can Lands Sink and Rise?|
|Old Texts - Just Stories?|
|The Underwater Search|
|Mysteries on Shore|
|The Current Search|
|Location Theories I|
|Location Theories II|
|Location Theories III|
|Is it Mesopotamia?|
|Mysteries of Ancient Civilizations: Solved|
Last Update: February 26,
©1997 - 2007Andreea Haktanir
The search for Atlantis in Antarctica started probably as a result of the interpretation of Athanasius Kircher's map and the old position of Antarctica, thousands of years ago.
Antarctica was discovered for the first time, according to our records, by Captain James Cook, in 1773-1774. But could Atlantis have been found or has its existence been acknowledged before that? Professor Charles Hapgood, of Keene College, was the first one to propose such a theory. Antarctica supposedly became an ice mass 300,000 years ago. However, Hapgood states that the pollen spectra found in the Ross Sea and dating from 4000 BC, shows that Antarctica was covered in ice much later than initially thought.
The next wave of supporters emerged after the Flem-ath's book, "When the sky fell", was published in 1995.
Plato says that Atlantis was the size of Libya and Asia together. It is now thought that in those times, Libya meant North Africa, while Asia was the Middle East. If one adds up the sizes of the two regions, one obtains the size of Antarctica without its ice cap. However, since 11,000 BC the sea levels rose, covering the shores of the continent.
The theory is nice, however, for some of us, it is not convincing enough. If you do want to find out more on it though, visit Flem-ath's web site.
Indeed, there might be relics under the ice and at the moment, it is impossible to dig for them. But, on such a vast continent, nothing was found on shore either (or near the shore). If we accept that Atlantis is Antarctica indeed, then we must get rid of most of the descriptions Plato provides. The island obviously didn't sink, it just moved. Or, if you wish, it didn't move during the ice-age, but long before, and while it was still where it is now, it was inhabited by Atlanteans. As I said, you can believe what you want, somehow though, for me it just doesn't sound right.
How did it become almost common belief among scientists the fact that Santorini is Atlantis? I'll give you everything you need to know, "pro and contra", even though, with all due respect, I don't support this theory either. I'll try to start with the beginning, and work on it.
Picture on the left: aerial view of Santorini Island, found in the Aegean Sea, between Greece, Turkey, and Egypt. Courtesy of NASA.
In 1628, a powerful volcanic eruption hit nowadays Santorini Island. It was so powerful, that blocks of rock were hurled around, stones were moved on the nearby island, Crete, and the whole area was covered in ashes.
In 1894, an expedition led by Sir Arthur Evans discovered on the island of Crete, near the Kephala site, a bronze age palace. The place was the Knossos site and the palace was that of King Minos. The civilization that inhabited the area until the volcanic eruption of 1400 BC was the Minoans. The Minoans were advanced in art and architectural design. Their paitings show the close relationship they had with nature, on one hand, and the realistic views (e.g.. fights), on the other hand. They religion implied sacrificing bulls, and Plato mentions this when talking about Atlantis.
In the 1930s, the Greek archeologist, Marinatos Spiridon, was investigating Crete, when he realized that some ruins had been moved by 200 feet. After some consideration, he came to the conclusion that maybe a powerful volcanic eruption might have moved the stones, so he started looking in the direction of Santorini.
Indeed, the calamity was so strong back then that the waters of the sea turned black and the ash reached until Crete. Most probably, all the neighbors were able to witness the event, and the tidal waves hit hard the neighboring shores.
Impressive ruins were found on Thera, but no human bodies. It is believed that maybe the disaster started with small eruptions and earthquakes, which motivated the inhabitants to escape to the nearby countries. The northern Egypt witnessed Minoan influence while in Israel, very similar art (including bulls), belonging to the Sea People (Philistines), was found.
Minoans were having the monopoly of the Aegean and Mediterranean Sea. Their vessels were developed and they were fearful warriors. It is a good moment now to remember Dr. Schliemann's account about the vase with the Phoenician inscription: "From the King of Kronos of Atlantis". That would make sense maybe, if we think that their country was about where Syria is now and they ruled the seas. They might have found the vase on Santorini maybe.
It is known that Egyptians were extremely precise about history. If Solon, or Plato, heard the story from them, then we know that a catastrophe happened indeed. As Galanopoulos and Bacon suggest in 1969, maybe the "9000" years that passed since the event might have been actually 900 years. If we add to these 900 years another 600 years (300 BC, when Plato lived, plus another 300 for when Solon lived), then we get 1500BC, around the time of the volcanic eruption on Santorini.
Even though the calamity was of such an extraordinary ampleness, no records mention it. So could it be Plato's, thus Solon's account the one that talks about it? Helike and Vesuvius were less powerful, however, they've been mentioned.
If the theory proves true and Atlantis turns out to be indeed Thera, then why would Plato and the Phoenicians refer to it as "Atlantis"? It is known that even back then the Mount Atlas was found in Morroco, a bit far from Thera. And why would they talk about the Pillars of Hercules? If he is so exact about the time when the eruption took place (well, cutting a 'zero' from his 9000 years, but still in the '900' area), about the bull in the religious rituals, about the perfection of the civilization and their monopoly over the sea, then why would he invent locations like the 'pillars of Hercules' and the fact that behind it lay the big ocean and the real continent? For once, Santorini's location is in a small sea, with only lands surrounding it, as for the pillars, they are too far away to be even taken into consideration.
Some might say that it's a problem of interpretation, but then I'd find Piri Reis's and Kircher's maps useless.
Another thing that bothers me in this theory is the '9000' being changed to '900'. Given the fact that most ancient civilizations mention floods and calamities that happened during the last ice age (which is 9000 BC), I think it's unfair to 'relocate' a disaster to fit the Santorini theory. It's actually the same as denying all the other writings, or, for that matter, changing all the other texts' story date to 1500 BC. It wasn't in 1500 BC when the floods took over land, but it was during the last period of the ice age.
Even if Santorini fits so close Plato's description, I still don't support this theory. There are many other areas that are being researched, similar in a way or another to Plato's 'Dialogues', trying to ignore one or two pieces of information to give the authentic look of Plato's Atlantis found in another place. Why would Santorini be any different?